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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani

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’ 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 :

“ Each of the accused is to pay the legal costs relating to them , including the fee to counsel appointed to them . ”

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 ’s and B ’s 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 ’s 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 :

“ 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 . ”

The court records of CARDINAL DATE and A ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 :

“ The interlocutory appeal does not concern the amount of the fee granted to the applicant ’s 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 . ”

Leave to appeal to ORG was refused by ORG on DATE .


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)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE Region ) .

On DATE , CARDINAL , the applicant ’s 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 ( оперативно-розыскная часть № CARDINAL криминальной милиции главного управления внутренних дел по Воронежской области ) ( hereafter , “ the police station ” ) .

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 “ give [ P. ] a fashionable haircut ” 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 “ in a bad way ” , 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 ( постановление о приводе ) was issued ordering P. ’s 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 “ provid[ing ] useful information ” , in line with section QUANTITY § 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 :

– 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 ;

– 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 ;

– T. had rushed to prevent him from jumping , but he was too late ;

– no police officer had struck PERSON or had forced him to confess to the offence . According to T. , PERSON had no physical injuries ;

– 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 :

– 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 ;

– 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 ;

– on entering ORG ’s 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 ;

– 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 :

– 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 ;

– 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 ;

– 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 ’s 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 :

– find witnesses who could confirm that PERSON had suicidal thoughts ;

– verify that the police officers who had taken PERSON to the police station had acted in accordance with the law ;

– consider whether the police officers who had not ensured the victim ’s 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 ’s ] 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 ’s 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 café 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 “ would harm himself ” .

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 , “ 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 ’s 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 “ had not been violent ” .

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 ’s report should also have been commissioned in order to determine her son ’s 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 ’s death .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the contested decision . In its reasoning , the court reiterated the arguments set out in the investigator ’s decision and considered that the investigation had been complete and thorough . In response to the applicant ’s arguments , the court expressed the opinion that a handwriting analysis was unnecessary , since the deceased ’s family had confirmed the handwriting ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ( “ ORG ” ) . During his admission , a doctor ’s 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 – , 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 ’s 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. ’s requests in respect of PERSON and Mr PERSON , the judge replied that the latter ’s 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 ’s 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. ’s 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 ’s 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 “ would harm himself ” .

The investigator questioned the deceased ’s 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 .


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)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev

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 über das Sozialkassenverfahren i m Baugewerbe , “ ORG ” ) . The ORG contained rules about contributions and entitlements in relation to both the ZVK and ORG of ORG ( Urlaubs- und PERSON , “ ORG ” ) , which jointly comprised ORG in the building industry which went by the common name “ PERSON - BAU ” .

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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s claims by ORG , thus preventing a distortion of competition .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company ’s complaint against the refusal to grant leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant company ’s constitutional complaint for adjudication without providing reasons ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro

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 Ö. Kılıç 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 .


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)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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 ’s 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 ( “ ORG ” ) . 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 “ JPL ” ) . The latter ’s 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 ’s 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 “ the prosecutor ” ) , PERSON , a crime inspector , and PERSON , a crime - scene technician , were also present .

According to the investigating judge ’s CARDINAL - page report of his inspection of the incident scene ( zapisnik o uviđaju ) , 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s experts involved , including the applicant ’s 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 “ might have been involved ” in the manufacturing process that TIME . Presuming that CARDINAL people had died , he anticipated that the cause of the explosion may have been “ an unwanted , unexpected and unknown chemical reaction which had ‘ broken out’ during the process ” .

The investigating judge instructed ( a ) the GPE police ’s 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 ( izveštaj o kriminalističko - tehničkom 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 služba ( 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 sprovođenje pojedinih istražnih 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’ 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 ’s 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’ 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’ 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 sprovođenje 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 ’s permanent specialist on explosives and blasts , ORG In her report of CARDINAL DATE , the specialist stated that most of the police experts’ 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 § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § § 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 ’s 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 ’s request of DATE , the investigating judge commissioned ORG ( Vojno - tehnička 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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’ 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 ( zapisničara ) 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’ 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’ 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 “ backlog ” 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 “ right to a trial within a reasonable time ” 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ( društvo sa ograničenom odgovornošću ) . Nevertheless , documents in the ORG ’s possession show that in DATE it was a well - established “ socially - owned ” holding company ( društveno preduzeće / 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 – “ LOC ” – no . CARDINAL , amendments published in ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , and ORG DATE “ ORG RS ” – 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 :

“ ( 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 . ”

“ 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 . ”

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 § 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 – “ ORG FRY ” – 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 ’s 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 “ subsidiary prosecutor ” , within DATE of the notification of the public prosecutor ’s 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 .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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 .


CASE OF IGOR PASCARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

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)

Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

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 ’s bus , which had been overtaking it in the other lane . The applicant had not had enough time to brake and had hit GPE ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 :

“ ... 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 ”

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 :

“ ... 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 . ”

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 ’s 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 ’s insurance company . However , it appears from the case file that the company suspended payment until the case has been finally determined by the ORG .


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

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 ( “ the respondent Government ” ) 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 ’s 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 ( “ OPGRF ” ) applied for the applicant ’s 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 ’s extradition to GPE inadmissible , but ORG challenged that decision before ORG .

On DATE ORG overturned the contested decision and held that the applicant ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s administrative appeal and upheld the decision of ORG .

The Minister ’s decision stated that there had been no substantive change in the applicant ’s situation which would justify departing from the previous decision on his earlier asylum claim .

On DATE the applicant challenged the Minister ’s 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 ’s appeal . However , the latter judgment was quashed by ORG on DATE , following the applicant ’s constitutional complaint .

After the quashing by ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , it became incumbent on the latter to determine anew the applicant ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s right to a fair hearing LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention .

The applicant ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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 ’s 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–CARDINAL of the ORG ’s 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 ’s decision reads as follows :

“ 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’ 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 . ”

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 ’s judgments in the cases of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , with further references ) .