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

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Georgieva;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born on DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE , at TIME , FAC ( FAC uprava DATE , FAC postaja GPE ; hereinafter : the “ police ” ) received an anonymous call informing the police that a mass fight was planned in the vicinity of ORG in GPE ( NORP - tehnička škola u ORG ) . CARDINAL police officers were immediately sent to the scene .

When the police officers arrived at the scene there was no fighting going on but inside the school they found the applicant with an injury on his forehead . He was immediately taken to hospital and examined by a doctor . The applicant ’s medical record of DATE reads :

“ Diagnosis

ORG reg supraorbicularis lat dex

Medical history and status

Allegedly took part in fighting and sustained a cut of QUANTITY above the right brow bone . He did not lose consciousness , he recollects the event , he did not vomit . No neurological symptoms .

The wound was treated , no sign of fracture .

An antibiotic is recommended , bandage every third day in clinic .

Follow - up by a surgeon if necessary . ”

On DATE the applicant was interviewed by the police . He stated that he had been standing in front of the school together with his classmates and that all of a sudden he had been hit on the head with a rock , which had knocked him to the ground . His friends had helped him to stand up and carried him inside the school . He himself had not been involved in any fighting and had had no idea that something might happen .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u PERSON ; hereinafter : the “ ORG Attorney ’s Office ” ) against unknown perpetrators , under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) , alleging that on DATE he had been injured by a group of hooligans in front of his school . CARDINAL of them , who he could not identify , had thrown a rock at his head hitting him on the forehead . Blood had immediately started to run and CARDINAL of his friends had to carry him inside the school .

The applicant submitted the medical record of DATE and explained that his father had erased part of the text on the medical record which suggested that he had taken part in a fight because he had not wanted to have something untrue noted on the record .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG forwarded the applicant ’s criminal complaint to the police and requested a report on the matter .

NORP In the period between CARDINAL and DATE the police interviewed several people , including the doctor who had drafted the medical report of DATE . He considered that the applicant ’s injury should be classed as a minor bodily injury . The police also questioned PERSON and GPE , CARDINAL of the applicant ’s schoolmates , who confirmed his version of events .

The police also obtained a medical opinion of DATE recommending that the applicant undergo further neurological examination .

On DATE the police informed the ORG Attorney ’s Office of the results of their preliminary investigation . The relevant part of the police report reads :

“ ... a group of boys from GPE , headed by PERSON , in which GPE and GPE and several other unidentified individuals were involved , went to the front of ORG on DATE in order to take revenge [ for a previous fight between a student from ORG and PERSON ] . When the students from the school saw the group of boys from LOC they ran away or headed back into the school , while a group of students attempted to leave the schoolyard passing by the [ group of boys from GPE ] . At that point the boys from the FAC group started to throw rocks at them and CARDINAL rock hit PERSON on his head , causing him a minor bodily injury , namely a cut on his forehead . Then some students from PERSON , among whom was ORG , started to throw rocks back . During this clash CARDINAL rock hit GPE from the group of boys from GPE on his head , causing him a cut on his forehead , which was a minor bodily injury . ”

In connection with the attack , on DATE the applicant underwent another medical examination . The doctor found no damage to his brain but an inflammation of his sinuses and referred him for further treatment .

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s father was allowed to inspect the case file kept by ORG .

On DATE the applicant asked for information concerning his case from the police on the grounds that he wanted to lodge an application with the ORG .

On DATE he lodged a civil claim for damages with the State Attorney ’s Office on account of his physical and mental suffering caused by the attack . He pointed out that the police report had identified a number of individuals who had taken part in the attack and that a number of people had been interviewed . He further argued that he , and his father , had already orally requested that the police and ORG provide copies of the relevant documents from the case file but that their request had been denied . He therefore asked for copies of all the relevant reports on the grounds that he wished to lodge an application with the ORG .

The police replied on DATE and CARDINAL DATE informing the applicant that he should submit his request for information to ORG .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG informed the applicant that he could come and inspect the case file if he so wished . The State Attorney ’s ORG also pointed out that the police had not identified the persons who had injured him , which meant that the case was being treated as a criminal complaint against an unknown perpetrator , and that it has been all the time open to the applicant to lodge a criminal complaint against any individual he suspected of committing the offence .

On DATE the applicant asked the State Attorney ’s ORG to allow him to copy the relevant documents from the case file because he wanted to institute proceedings before the ORG , pointing out that by the letter of CARDINAL DATE he had only been allowed to inspect , and not copy , the case file .

By letters of DATE and DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG informed the applicant that he could come on DATE and CARDINAL DATE to inspect and copy the case file .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant lodged an application with the ORG . He did not go to the ORG Attorney ’s ORG to inspect the case file .

On DATE , at around CARDINAL.CARDINAL TIME , the police were informed that there was a fight in bar C. in GPE . CARDINAL police officers were immediately sent to the scene .

At the scene the police officers found several people , including the applicant and PERSON , with visible injuries .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who found that he had several cuts on his head and shoulder , which were characterised as minor bodily injuries .

The police also interviewed the applicant and several other people . The applicant stated that he had been drinking in bar C. with his friend PERSON At CARDINAL point a man had approached them and head - butted the applicant for no reason . After that , several other people had started to throw glasses and bottles at the applicant and , after he had fallen to the floor , to kick him . He managed to escape from the bar but then he realised that he had left his t - shirt , shoes and necklace behind in the bar . He had therefore returned to search for his things but was again attacked by the same group , who continued throwing bottles and glasses at him and , once he had fallen to the floor , to kick him . He managed to escape from the bar again and was then attended to by the police and other emergency services .

On DATE the police indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other people in ORG ( ORG ) on charges of breach of the public peace and order . There is no information on the outcome of these proceedings .

On DATE the applicant asked for information concerning his case from the police on the grounds that he wanted to lodge criminal complaints before the domestic authorities and an application with the ORG .

On DATE the applicant again asked the police to provide him with all relevant documents in their possession , arguing that the police had been trying to cover up the attack , which he claimed had been perpetrated by the group from the Mokošica neighbourhood .

On DATE the police replied , reiterating their previous advice that the case file had been forwarded to ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG against GPE , PERSON and GPE , alleging that they had attacked him and his friend PERSON in bar C. He pointed out that they were part of a group from the Mokošica neighbourhood and that he had already been attacked by individuals from the same group on DATE . However , there had been no response by the domestic authorities to this attack . Lastly , he stressed this was a group of “ skinheads ” which had been terrorising the whole city .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG invited the applicant for an interview and requested that the police provide all the information they had concerning the offence .

On DATE the police replied that they had instituted minor offences proceedings in ORG concerning the events in question .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG questioned the applicant and the record of his statement , together with the criminal complaint , was forwarded to the police on DATE with an order for further investigation into the matter .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG questioned GPE , who confirmed the applicant ’s version of events and described how he himself had also been attacked .

On CARDINAL DATE the police reported to ORG that they had questioned several people and were searching for other witnesses to the events .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s Office urged the police to speed up their work .

On DATE the police submitted a report to ORG .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG asked an investigating judge of ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) to conduct a judicial investigation concerning the applicant ’s complaints .

In the period CARDINAL and DATE the investigating judge questioned the applicant and several other individuals and commissioned a medical expert report concerning the applicant ’s injuries .

The medical expert submitted his report on DATE . The relevant part of the report reads :

“ The medical records indicate that PERSON sustained cuts on the area of his left brow and right shoulder , and abrasions on the right elbow .

Each of these injuries itself and all the injuries taken together represent a minor bodily injury . ... ”

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG rejected the applicant ’s criminal complaint against DATE on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed any offence against the applicant . The applicant was instructed that he could take over the criminal prosecution against ORG as subsidiary prosecutor .

On DATE , ORG indicted GPE and PERSON in ORG ( PERSON ) on charges of violent behaviour . The relevant part of the indictment reads :

“ ... on DATE , at QUANTITY , in GPE , in bar C. , based on a previous agreement , for no particular reason and in order to act violently , together with other unidentified persons , PERSON approached PERSON , who was sitting at the bar , and head - butted and punched him several times on the head , after which M.T. , together with other unidentified persons , continued to punch [ PERSON ] all over his head and body , also throwing bottles and glasses at him , which made PERSON leave the bar in fear , and after he had returned for his things , PERSON approached him again and punched him several times on the head , while other unidentified persons also started to punch and kick [ PERSON ] , and , after PERSON fell to the floor , continued to hit him , which caused PERSON [ to suffer ] cuts on the area of his left brow and right shoulder , and abrasions on the right elbow , which are minor bodily injuries , and subjected him to helplessness and feelings of anguish and inferiority ... ”

On DATE the president of the trial panel of ORG to whom the case had been assigned asked the president of ORG to exempt him from the case on the grounds of his friendship with the applicant ’s father . The president of the court agreed to exempt him from the case on DATE .

On DATE ORG , in a separate set of proceedings , issued a penal order in respect of an individual , ORG , on charges of making death threats against the applicant with the aim of intimidating him to withdraw his criminal complaint . It would appear that these proceedings are still pending .

The first trial hearing before ORG , scheduled for DATE , was adjourned due to the absence of a defence lawyer .

Another hearing , scheduled for DATE , was also adjourned because the applicant wished to retain a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings .

A further hearing was held on DATE at which the trial court heard the applicant ’s evidence and questioned another witness . It also commissioned a medical expert report .

The medical expert submitted his report on DATE . He found that the applicant had sustained a number of cuts on his face around the left eye and right shoulder , as well as abrasions of the right arm . He found no other objectively identified injuries .

According to the available information no further procedural actions were taken and the proceedings are still pending before ORG .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .

Having been a judge since DATE and a member of ORG since DATE , on CARDINAL DATE he was appointed Vice - President for a DATE term by the President of the Republic , after being proposed for the post by the President of ORG .

The mandate of the President of ORG was prematurely terminated , upon the entry into force of LAW DATE , in reaction to his criticisms and publicly expressed views regarding proposed judicial reforms ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . GPE , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

In connection with these events , a proposal for the termination of the applicant ’s mandate as Vice - President was submitted to ORG on DATE , and was adopted on DATE in the form of LAW no . ORG of DATE on ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) ( see PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . Accordingly , as of DATE , the applicant was removed from his position as Vice - President , DATE and DATE before the scheduled expiry of his mandate . He remained in office as president of CARDINAL of the Civil Law division benches of the GPE ( the historical appellation by which ORG was renamed in DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court challenging the termination of his position . In its judgment no . CARDINAL . ( III . CARDINAL . ) ORG , adopted by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , ORG rejected the constitutional complaint . It held that the premature termination of the applicant ’s term of office as Vice - President had not violated LAW , since it had been sufficiently justified by the full - scale reorganisation of the judicial system and important changes made in respect of the tasks and competences of the President of the GPE . It noted that the GPE ’s tasks and competences had been broadened , in particular with regard to the supervision of the legality of municipal council regulations ( for the relevant parts of ORG judgment see PERSON , cited above , § DATE ) .

CARDINAL judges dissented and considered that the changes concerning the judicial system , the new GPE and the person of its president had not fundamentally affected the status of the Vice - President . The position of the Vice - President within the organisation of the supreme judicial instance had not changed . Under LAW LXVI of DATE on ORG , the Vice - President was already entitled to act in the stead of the President of ORG only with regard to managerial tasks at ORG , but not with regard to his or her functions as President of ORG ( see PERSON , cited above , § PERSON ) . The dissenting judges concluded that the premature termination of the applicant ’s term of office had not been sufficiently justified by the reorganisation of the judicial system ; and that it had weakened the guarantees in respect of the separation of powers , had been contrary to the prohibition on retroactive legislation , and had breached the principle of the rule of law and the right to a remedy .

On DATE , as a consequence of the lowering of the judges’ mandatory retirement age pursuant to section CARDINAL ( ha ) of Act no . CLXII of DATE on ORG ( “ the LAW ” ) ( see PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) , the President of the Republic released the applicant from his duties as a judge with effect from DATE .

NORP In its judgment no . CARDINAL . ( VII . CARDINAL ) AB of DATE , ORG declared unconstitutional and consequently annulled the provisions on the compulsory retirement age of judges ( see PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . On the basis of that judgment , ORG found , in a first - instance judgment of CARDINAL DATE , that the termination of the applicant ’s judicial service had been unlawful and reinstated him – without , however , ordering his reinstatement in his previous position as president of CARDINAL of the Civil Law division benches of the GPE .

Following ORG judgment of DATE , ORG adopted a modified scheme governing the reduction of judges’ compulsory retirement age and provided different options for those who had already been affected by the unconstitutional legislation ( see Act no . XX of DATE referred to in LANGUAGE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . The applicant opted not to be reinstated and received lump - sum compensation for the termination of post as a judge .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and was detained in GPE at the time he lodged his application .

On DATE ORG ordered an investigation against the applicant on charges of rape and indecent assault on a girl under DATE , with the aggravating circumstance that the perpetrator held a position of authority over her .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE under a NORP Arrest Warrant . The Government indicated that the applicant was presented with the NORP arrest warrant , which contained a statement in LANGUAGE of the facts and of the nature of the offences with which he was charged . The applicant submitted that he had been placed in “ detention pending extradition ” in a NORP prison , and that it did not transpire from the criminal file that the NORP arrest warrant had been served on him at that precise time .

On DATE the applicant was surrendered to the GPE authorities . At TIME he was officially served with the NORP arrest warrant on his arrival at GPE airport , and at TIME he was questioned at the police station in the presence of an interpreter . It transpires from the police report of CARDINAL DATE that “ [ the applicant ] initially refused to make any statement . With repeated reference to NORP legislation , he claimed his right to legal assistance . After having received the requisite explanations regarding the procedure to be followed in cases such as his , he agreed to take part in the questioning ” . The applicant was informed of the victim ’s statements and the suspicions against him , and was questioned on the facts . He stated his version of events and contested all the charges against him , denying any guilt . At the end of the interrogation he requested legal assistance for DATE interrogation before the investigating judge . At TIME he was transferred to FAC .

On TIME DATE he was questioned by the investigating judge in the presence of an interpreter . In that connection , the TIME of the interrogation read as follows : at TIME the investigating judge checked the identity of the applicant – who now held accused ( PERSON ) status – and informed him that a criminal investigation ( Untersuchungsverfahren ) had been initiated against him concerning the offences with which he had been charged . The applicant was then informed of his right to choose a defence lawyer from among the members of ORG or to obtain the assistance of an officially appointed lawyer . The applicant availed himself of that right , and was assigned Mr PERSON as his officially appointed lawyer . The applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer and an interpreter ; he made statements on the facts and confirmed his statements to the police . The interrogation ended at TIME

It transpires from the case file that the applicant , who had been remanded in custody , was released on DATE by ORG subject to his remaining in GPE , reporting regularly to the police and refraining from contacting his victim .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the criminal division of ORG sentenced the applicant to a DATE prison term accompanied by a DATE partial probation period . The judges reiterated the statements from the victim , the witnesses and the applicant during the judicial and police investigations and during the court hearing . They mentioned the fact that the applicant had constantly changed his “ version of events ” , and pointed out that according to a credibility analysis none of the evidence gathered had cast any legitimate doubts on the truthfulness of the victim ’s statements .

On DATE the criminal division of ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .

The judges observed that the applicant had contested the charges against him throughout the proceedings and that he was maintaining his objections before ORG . They held that the district court had provided a detailed and exhaustive list of the statements by the victim , the applicant and the various witnesses and experts questioned .

They pointed out that the applicant ’s lawyer had complained about the fact that after the applicant ’s extradition from GPE had had been heard by the police on his arrival in GPE without the benefit of legal assistance , which he had requested but been denied ; the judges therefore concluded as follows :

“ As regards the failure to provide for the assistance of a lawyer during the question by police , it transpires from police report ORG / JEUN/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL/COES of DATE that the accused had initially requested the assistance of a lawyer during the questioning which was to take place in the police station , but that after the applicable procedure had been explained to him he had agreed to give statements without the assistance of counsel . ”

In their analysis of the charges against the applicant , the judges noted , among other things , that the latter had not always been consistent in his statements . With particular regard to CARDINAL of the episodes in issue , they referred to the difference between the statements which he had made during the police questioning and his depositions during the first - instance and appeal hearings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . In particular , it declared ill - founded a submission under LAW , on the following grounds :

“ Whereas it transpires from the discussion of the submission that the [ applicant ] complains that ORG merely found a violation of the rights of the defence without drawing the requisite conclusions from that finding ;

Whereas , however , ORG held that ... [ see quotation in paragraph CARDINAL ] ;

That , in reaching such a decision the Appeal did not find a violation of the rights of the defence as alleged by the appellant but , on the contrary , concluded that there had been no violation of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the accused had recorded his agreement to making statements in the absence of counsel ;

It follows that the impugned judgment did not violate LAW , as alleged by the applicant ; ... ”

NORP The applicant left GPE for GPE ( at an unspecified date ) , and on DATE the prosecution issued a NORP arrest warrant for the purposes of executing DATE judgment .

On DATE , in response to a request from the NORP authorities ( ORG of ORG ) dated CARDINAL DATE , a representative of ORG provided those authorities with information on judicial procedures in GPE . As regards the hearing of DATE , the representative stated in particular that it had transpired from the police report that the applicant , whose statements had been translated by the interpreter , had neither been assisted by a lawyer or been offered legal assistance . As regards the interrogation of DATE , the representative explained that a lawyer officially appointed by the investigating judge had assisted the applicant during the interrogation and for the duration of the ensuing domestic proceedings . She added that anyone asking to consult his or her officially appointed or freely chosen lawyer , before an interrogation , was allowed to do so ; contrary to his assertions , the applicant ’s access to his lawyer before the interrogation of CARDINAL DATE had not been restricted .

On DATE the NORP court authorised the applicant ’s surrender to the GPE authorities in order to serve his sentence in GPE ; the applicant ’s appeal against that decision was dismissed on DATE . According to the case file , the applicant is currently incarcerated in FAC .


CASE OF PIVDENBUDTRANS, ZAT AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

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

Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At the material time the applicant was a managing director of a tour operator limited liability company , ORG .

On an unspecified date criminal investigations were opened against ORG and another limited liability company on suspicion of bankruptcy fraud . On DATE ORG ordered the search of the applicant ’s flat and vehicle , since there were grounds to believe that as the managing director of ORG , he kept certain company documents at home .

On DATE the applicant was heard as suspect on charges of bankruptcy fraud .

On DATE the Budapest VI / VII District Public Prosecutor ’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant , charging him with bankruptcy fraud .

The first hearing was held by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant . The judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE .


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

NORP The applicant company , ORG , was a NORP legal entity based in ORG , founded in DATE . It was initially represented before the ORG by its administrator , GPE From DATE , after the case was communicated to the Government , submissions in respect of the case were made by PERSON , a legal adviser practising in PERSON .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .

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

NORP The applicant company was authorised to operate as a jewellery pawnbrokers .

According to ORG , on DATE the applicant company had gold stock weighing QUANTITY .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) carried out an inspection of the activities of the applicant company and other companies sharing the same commercial space .

On DATE produced an inventory report of the applicant company ’s jewellery stock which had been on display for sale . The report was drawn up in the presence of a representative of the applicant company , who had stated that some of the jewellery had been sold at different prices depending on quality .

On DATE the ORG produced a contravention report fining the applicant company CARDINAL lei ( RON – approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) because on DATE it had displayed gold jewellery for sale without a licence to sell precious metals , alloys or stones . In addition , it ordered that the gold jewellery that had been on display for sale , which weighed QUANTITY and was worth RON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , be confiscated .

According to the contravention report , the ORG had cooperated with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) to produce it .

The representative of the applicant company who signed the contravention report objected to it on the grounds that the measure taken had been unjust .

The applicant company challenged the report of DATE in the domestic courts .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant company ’s action , set aside the report of DATE and ordered the return of the confiscated jewellery . It held that according to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) case - law , proceedings seeking to challenge contravention reports fall under the criminal head of LAW ( “ the Convention ” ) and therefore the domestic authorities had to comply with the procedural guarantees set out in that Article with regard to criminal proceedings , including the right to be presumed innocent . The court further held that the fine had been imposed on the applicant company under general legal provisions and had been intended as a punishment to deter it from reoffending . Consequently , the burden of proof with regard to the applicant company ’s guilt was on the ORG . However , the agency had not submitted any evidence which proved the applicant company ’s guilt .

The ORG lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG allowed that appeal , quashed the judgment of the lower court and upheld the report of DATE . It held that according to the documents available , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant company had only been authorised to hold precious metals . However , it had only obtained authorisation to sell them on DATE . Moreover , according to the inventory report signed by the applicant company ’s representative without any objection , the report had concerned the items which had been on display for sale . Also , according to the ORG ’s case - law , the contravention proceedings had to comply with the procedural requirements provided for under the criminal head of LAW , which concerned both the rebuttal of the right to be presumed innocent and a relative presumption of truth in favour of the contravention report drafted by a ORG authority following its own perception of the events . Consequently , the burden of proof would have been on the ORG authority which had drafted the contravention report and the report could have been set aside only if the ORG authority ’s representatives had not been present when the contravention had happened and it had failed to prove the statements made in the report . But the representatives of the said authority had been present when the contravention had been committed and the report had reflected their own perceptions . The report therefore had to be presumed to reflect the truth and the burden of proof had been reverted to the applicant company in order to rebut that presumption .

The court further held that in the inventory report the applicant company ’s representative had stated that some of the jewellery had been sold at different prices depending on quality . Furthermore , the contravention report had been signed by the applicant company ’s administrator , who had objected to it on the grounds that the measure taken had been unjust , but had not contested the fact that he had been selling jewellery . The contravention report had been lawful and had contained all the lawfully required information . Moreover , the contravention and inventory reports contained similar information about the quantity and value of the items mentioned in them and had been signed by both parties without any objection in this respect . Furthermore , these inconsistencies would not have rendered the contravention report null and void and the applicant company had not proven that it had incurred damage that could have been remedied solely by setting aside the report . Furthermore , absence from the contravention report of information that the fine could have been paid immediately or within TIME had not rendered the report unlawful .

Lastly , the court held that all of the reasons outlined above rendered the applicant company ’s argument that the contravention had not existed inadmissible , because it had never intended to sell the jewellery that it had been holding .

On DATE the applicant company signed a merger by acquisition ( fuziune prin absorbție ) with another company , namely ORG ORG Master Credit SRL . They agreed , inter alia , that the latter company would acquire the applicant company DATE and take over the applicant company ’s assets and liabilities . ORG was an associate of ORG ORG Master Credit SRL .

On DATE the applicant company was struck off ( radiată ) ORG following the merger .

On DATE PERSON submitted to the ORG a power of attorney signed by the former administrator of the applicant company authorising her to represent it .

NORP In DATE SC IFN Master Credit SRL changed its name to GPE Master Credit Stand - By ORG and then to ORG Stand - By ORG .

NORP In DATE , part of the observations on the admissibility and merits of the case were submitted by PERSON in a document headed “ SC Master Credit Stand - By NORP v. GPE ” . She did not submit within any of the time - limits allotted by ORG a power of attorney or any other document authorising her to represent ORG ORG Master Credit SRL , ORG - By ORG or PERSON Master C. Stand - By ORG . Furthermore , neither she nor the companies submitted within the relevant time - limits any documents signed directly by any of the companies themselves or by ORG expressly stating that they wished to continue the application .

“ Carrying out unauthorised operations with precious metals and stones is a contravention punishable by a fine of CARDINAL [ ORG CARDINAL ] to MONEY [ ORG CARDINAL ] and by confiscation of the goods subject to the contravention . ”

The relevant legal provisions concerning the amendments to the legal rules applicable in respect of legislation concerning contraventions are set out in the case of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL October DATE ) .

LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on commercial companies provided , inter alia , that following a merger the assets and debts of the acquired company were transferred to the acquiring company in accordance with the terms of the merger plan .

Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG ( former Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) provides that applicants shall keep the ORG informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application .


CASE OF SÜLEYMAN DEMİR AND HASAN DEMİR v. TURKEY

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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in Hakkari . The first applicant is the father of the second applicant .

GPE , a non - commissioned officer , telephoned the second applicant and asked him to tell his father , the first applicant , to go to FAC . At TIME on DATE the first applicant , accompanied by the second applicant , went to the gendarmerie station . On their arrival the second applicant waited at the entrance to the station and the first applicant was taken into Major PERSON ’s office , where he was subjected to ill - treatment by GPE and GPE who was also an officer at the same station . The CARDINAL officers accused the first applicant of providing support to the ORG ( ORG , an illegal armed organisation ) , and of making propaganda for a political party , the ORG ( ORG ) . Using box tape , officers GPE and GPE attached a hand grenade to the first applicant ’s face . An object was forcefully put into his nose and mouth , and he was threatened that his eyes would be gouged out . He was also repeatedly hit with an object on the left side of his face and on his chest . The ill - treatment and accusations continued for TIME with accompanying threats to kill him and his family members .

After his release the first applicant and his son returned to their home in their village and DATE the first applicant went to a hospital in the nearby town of GPE where he was examined and a report was drawn up setting out his injuries .

On DATE the first applicant went to ORG following the request of Major PERSON He was not , however , subjected to ill - treatment .

On DATE the first applicant filed a criminal complaint with the local prosecutor , alleging that he had been beaten and threatened at FAC .

Subsequently , criminal proceedings were brought against the officers GPE and GPE and those proceedings are still pending .

The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties .

According to a medical report issued at ORG at TIME on DATE , there was an ecchymosed swelling and CARDINAL blood - clotted small lacerations on the left side of the first applicant ’s face . The report also mentioned a restriction in the movement of his arms and chest pain . After his examination at the hospital the first applicant was transferred to the Hakkari ORG where he was examined once more and subsequently discharged .

On DATE the first applicant made a formal complaint to the PERSON prosecutor ’s office against the military officers GPE and GPE for having subjected him to ill - treatment , insults and intimidation . On DATE his statement was taken by the prosecutor .

Subsequently the applicant was referred to ORG PERSON branch for a medical examination . On DATE the ORG reported that the applicant had ecchymosed swelling on his left cheekbone and restriction and pain on the movement of his left arm and shoulder .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor decided that he did not have jurisdiction ratione loci to examine the complaint and referred the file to the PERSON prosecutor .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor decided that he also did not have the requisite jurisdiction , and referred the case file to the prosecutor ’s officer at ORG .

On DATE the Van military prosecutor and a military officer took statements from GPE and witness statements from a number of other military officers who worked at the same military station . In his statement GPE denied the charges against him . He also mentioned that the first applicant had been invited to the gendarmerie station to be warned not to threaten individuals in order to influence their votes in the forthcoming elections . All officers who testified as witnesses stated that they had not seen the alleged ill - treatment or any physical signs of it on the applicants . CARDINAL of the officers , ORG , also testified that PERSON had ordered him to leave his door slightly ajar during the meeting because he had thought that the first applicant might subsequently make false accusations against him .

On DATE the Van military prosecutor decided not to open an investigation into the first applicant ’s allegations . On DATE the first applicant lodged an objection against that decision .

On DATE a statement was taken from GPE by the military prosecutor . PERSON stated that he had invited the first applicant to the gendarmerie station and talked to him for TIME ; he had not subjected him to any ill - treatment .

Having examined the first applicant ’s objection , ORG decided on DATE that the witness statements of the military officers revealing the facts of the incident contained fundamental inconsistencies which cast doubt on their reliability . It therefore quashed the PERSON military prosecutor ’s decision and ordered that criminal proceedings be brought against the CARDINAL military officers .

NORP In accordance with that decision , on DATE criminal proceedings were instigated before ORG against GPE and GPE for the offence of wilful injury and intimidation by an agent of the ORG , contrary to sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the second applicant was heard as a witness before FAC , and stated the following :

“ ( ... ) on DATE of the incident we received a telephone call at our house . The caller asked me and my father to go to DATE before the evening . Then I found my father and at TIME we went to DATE ( ... ) there was a checkpoint on the road , we passed the checkpoint and after QUANTITY we arrived at the main entrance ( ... ) I stayed at the main entrance , they took my father in , he walked to DATE which was QUANTITY ahead . TIME they brought my father back , he was not able to walk [ unaided ] . I held him by his arms and took him to the checkpoint where I phoned PERSON [ who works as ] a village guard [ in our village ] . He came to the checkpoint with his car [ and ] we took my father to the village in [ his ] car . ( ... ) My father ’s state [ of health ] was not good ( ... ) so we put him in the car owned by GPE , [ who is ] the headman [ of our village ] . We passed through the road checkpoint again and went to ORG . ( ... ) When we were leaving , my father ’s face was covered with blood ; he was not able to walk without support . By the time we got to the checkpoint I had cleaned his face . ”

Taking the second applicant ’s statement into account , the court summoned and heard the village guard GPE and headman GPE as witnesses . PERSON stated the following :

“ ( ... ) The [ applicants ] were near the civilian parking area outside the entrance [ of the gendarmerie station ] . When I saw them , I went closer to them . There was blood on the face and mouth of PERSON . His shirt was covered with blood , and also there were bruises and swelling on his eyes , lips and face ; he looked like he had been beaten up . ”

GPE stated the following :

“ ( ... ) When I went to their house PERSON told me that he had been beaten up by the ORG brigade commander Major PERSON and that he had been feeling sick . ( ... ) However , I did not see any signs of battery and his clothes were normal . ”

On DATE a medical expert from ORG was summoned before ORG in order to determine whether the first applicant ’s injuries could have been caused as a result of illtreatment . Having examined the medical reports , the expert stated that it was not possible to establish the cause of the injuries .

On DATE ORG decided that it did not have jurisdiction ratione materiae to try the case , and forwarded the case file to ORG .

On DATE ORG approved the decision of lack of jurisdiction .

On DATE a criminal case was lodged before ORG against GPE and GPE for simple injury and intimidation .

On DATE ORG Instance decided that it did not have jurisdiction to try the case either and forwarded the case file to ORG . According to the information provided by the parties , the proceedings are still pending before ORG .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

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

The applicant was a journalist employed at ORG , a major NORP DATE newspaper . In DATE she was requested by the editorial board to write an article about PERSON .

PERSON is a NORP human rights activist primarily known for her activities in investigating crimes committed during the armed conflicts in the former GPE , including those crimes committed by NORP regular and irregular forces . She was also recognised as one of the most vocal advocates for full cooperation of the NORP and later NORP authorities with ORG for the former GPE ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) .

At the time relevant to this case , PERCENT of the NORP population considered the ORG to be a major security threat to GPE . PERCENT of the population was against cooperation with the ORG , which would include arrests and transfers of NORP suspects to this institution . In DATE , the ORG ’s assessment of GPE ’s cooperation with that court was that it was “ neither full nor proactive ” . The level of cooperation was further negatively influenced by the assassination of the NORP Prime Minister PERSON Đinđić in DATE , a major political figure open to full cooperation with the ORG . PERSON herself came under attack by a significant portion of the NORP political elite and general population . As a consequence , she was involved in several incidents .

The applicant ’s article on PERSON appeared in PERSON on DATE . The integral translation of the impugned article , titled “ The GPE Investigator ” , reads as follows :

“ ‘ Even my son blames me for protecting everybody but the Serbs’ , says the director of ORG .

PERSON , founder and Executive Director of ORG , GPE , and GPE and PERSON , a non - governmental organisation aimed at promoting human rights for minorities , DATE , again , defended herself ‘ from the NORP patriotism surge’ .

On the occasion of the International Day of the Disappeared commemoration , at the gathering of ORG of Missing and ORG in GPE and PERSON organised in the centre of GPE , following a short argument she slapped CARDINAL of the participants . After this incident the GPE police submitted a request for the initiation of prosecution proceedings against her , and ORG of the Missing lodged a lawsuit , demanding that she pay MONEY ( ORG ) for the insult to the families of those kidnapped and killed .

Recently our media have also reported that this ‘ prominent advocate of human rights and democratic reform in ORG was awarded the DATE NORP and NORP Law Initiative Award ( CEELI ) from ORG on DATE during the ABA Annual Meeting luncheon in GPE . Former winners of this award were PERSON from GPE , PERSON from GPE , PERSON from GPE , GPE from GPE ...

It was also reported that at DATE the ORG magazine ORG published a list of CARDINAL individuals dubbed the NORP heroes , among which was PERSON , too .

The NORP campaigner for the truth on war crimes , a lonely voice of reason in GPE or the PERSON mercenary , the one who was named by all the banished NORP spies , has won many awards , including ORG , but none of them were awarded to her in GPE .

PERSON provokes stormy reactions wherever she appears . While the LOC lauds and praises her , in GPE she is spoken about with contempt and accused of anti - NORP politics . Most of all they blame her for never pursuing the crimes against NORP but exclusively dealing with those committed by NORP against other ethnicities .

Although she has been called a witch and a prostitute and is permanently under threat ( DATE she has also had to cancel her appearance at a local TV station owing to a bomb threat ) , she says : ‘ This is simply the part of this job . I do n’t think that they hate me , only my ORG .

Nevertheless , she once made a public complaint : ‘ Even my son has accused me of protecting everybody except the ORG Although later , she adds , she heard him defending her concern for the weak .

PERSON was born in DATE in Topola , to her father PERSON and mother PERSON . In DATE she went to study in GPE and upon her return she enrolled in ORG at ORG . She participated in the DATE student demonstrations . In DATE she started working in the GPE municipality of PERSON .

Afterwards she worked in the city trade union . During DATE she went to ORG to work as a technical secretary , but before long she left it after a conflict with PERSON . With a group of like - minded people she founded ORG at DATE .

DATE , on the invitation of PERSON , the ORG Director , she left for GPE . Upon discussion with top people at ORG , ORG took charge of its work in respect of the socalled NORP crimes against NORP in GPE , as well as violations and abuses of NORP and NORP minority rights in the FRY . That is how this organisation became the [ ORG ] ‘ ORG . Starting from DATE the ORG became involved in the GPE and PERSON issues .

During the ORG campaign she frequently travelled the GPE - Kosovo and GPE routes . Her email messages sent via the Internet to foreign friends and collaborators are the evidence of her time and work in GPE and PERSON .

With PERSON , ORG ( ‘ ORG ) director , she has a son PERSON , who lives in GPE and is involved in graphic animation . ”

On DATE PERSON started a private prosecution against the applicant . She claimed that the entire piece had been written with the intent of belittling her in the eyes of the public , to present her as a traitor to NORP interests and as a “ paid servant of foreign interests and a prostitute who sells herself for money ” . She further claimed that the points introduced in the article were maliciously misrepresented , and that the article contained untruths and blatant insults . She explicitly refused to lodge any civil compensation claim within these proceedings .

The applicant , in her defence , stated that she was not expressing her own opinion of PERSON , whom she did not intend to insult , and that she had written the entire article on the basis of the documentation of other magazines . She put the citations within quotation marks , but she omitted them when she was not literally citing but paraphrasing ( “ ono što nije stavila pod navodnike predstavljaju navode koji nisu citati , već ih je prepričavala iz GPE listova ” ) . She provided details as to what phrases were taken from which articles and magazines , including from which article and magazine she had taken the phrase that PERSON had been called a witch and a prostitute .

On DATE , after a remittal , ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE found that the applicant had committed a criminal offence of insult when having stated for PERSON “ although she has been called a witch and a prostitute ” and gave her a judicial warning . The court established that the impugned phrase had been indeed previously published in another article by another author in a different magazine . However , the applicant did not put it in quotation marks which meant that she agreed with it , thus expressing her opinion . The court concluded that there was therefore an intention to insult PERSON . In view of no aggravating circumstances and a number of mitigating ones ( the applicant had a clean record , was employed and of mature age ( u zrelom dobu ) ) , she was given a mere judicial warning ( sudska opomena ) , on the grounds of NORP CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . No prison sentence or fines were imposed .

On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant appealed . She reiterated that the impugned words were not her own opinion , but an opinion of another author . The fact that she wrote also on the negative attitudes towards the private prosecutor and her work could not and must not make her , the applicant , criminally liable . She also submitted that such an attitude towards the freedom of press could have long - reaching consequences .

On DATE the GPE ORG ( ORG ) upheld the first - instance decision endorsing the reasons given therein .

In separate proceedings , on DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay PERSON RSD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( around QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) in respect of costs and expenses . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .

The applicant submitted in her observations that she had been later discharged from ORG and that “ her conviction [ ... ] appear[ed ] to have been the cause [ thereof ] ” .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody . He was charged with , inter alia , murder , attempted murder , and illegal possession of firearms .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of battery and attempted murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal .

On DATE FAC ( “ the commission ” ) classified the applicant as a “ dangerous detainee ” . It considered that it was necessary to place him in a cell for dangerous detainees as he had been charged with murder committed with the use of firearms . The commission referred to the applicant ’s “ personal circumstances and serious lack of moral character ” . The applicant did not appeal against the decision .

DATE and DATE , the commission reviewed its decision DATE . In renewing its decision to classify the applicant as a “ dangerous detainee ” , the commission reiterated the same reasoning , which read as follows :

“ His characteristics , personal circumstances , serious lack of moral character and [ the fact of ] being charged with offences committed with the use of a firearm , pose a serious danger to society and to the security of the remand centre . ”

The reasoning given on DATE , DATE and DATE differed slightly in that gave a detailed description of the offences with which the applicant had been charged as the grounds for extending the regime . The commission referred to the offences of murder and CARDINAL attempts to commit murder with the use of a firearm .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , holding that the decision had been lawful .

On DATE the commission extended the application of the “ dangerous detainee ” regime to the applicant for the eleventh time . The reasoning given was the same as in the decisions of DATE .

On DATE the commission lifted the “ dangerous detainee ” regime in respect of the applicant . It considered that , on the basis of the relevant documentation and the assessment of the applicant ’s behaviour , he no longer posed a danger to society or to the security of the remand centre .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is of NORP origin .

At TIME on DATE a DATE boy was mugged and his mobile phone taken from him while he was walking along a road CARDINAL villages in southeastern GPE . The perpetrators of the mugging were not known to him .

The boy and his parents subsequently reported the incident to the local county police .

NORP In response , a police unit consisting of CARDINAL officers searched the area surrounding the crime scene with the boy and his father .

At TIME they spotted the applicant , who was then aged DATE , another minor and a third person , all of whom the boy identified as his assailants .

The applicant and his CARDINAL associates , both of whom were also of PERSON origin , were arrested . The parties dispute the circumstances of the arrest .

The Government relied on entries in the county police logbook for the relevant TIME and on a note on the record drawn up by the county police dated DATE indicating that the suspects had resisted arrest and attempted to flee . They had consequently had to be subdued , no injuries had been sustained , and the use of force by the arresting officers had been found lawful . That material referred to the measures of restraint used against the applicant and the other CARDINAL suspects as “ self - defence mechanisms for holding and grabbing ” . The applicant , for his part , denied that he had shown any resistance or that the police had used any measures of restraint .

The applicant and his companions were then taken to the county police station . According to the results of a breathalyser test carried out there , all CARDINAL detainees had consumed alcohol and the applicant was in a state of slight inebriation .

The CARDINAL suspects were kept at the police station and preliminarily questioned ( vyťažení ) by officers from the county police . As to the rooms in which they were kept , these were used as offices , were fitted out with the usual office equipment and were not furnished as detention cells .

The applicant ’s and the ORG ’s accounts in relation to further details vary as follows .

According to the applicant , during the probing , the officers subjected him to psychological pressure and physical violence with a view to obtaining his confession . In particular , he was slapped and punched in the head , was not allowed to sit or lie down or to rest during the entire length of his detention , and was not provided any food or drink .

In the ORG ’s submission , there had been no ill - treatment , the CARDINAL suspects were kept in separate rooms and were checked on at fifteenminute intervals . The applicant was allowed to use the toilet , which was equipped with a washbasin with drinkable tap water .

The Public Prosecution Service ( “ the PPS ” ) was informed of the arrest and , at TIME the case file , along with the responsibility for the detention of the young men , was passed on to an investigator from the local district police .

Meanwhile or in parallel , the victim was examined by a doctor , his mother orally submitted a criminal complaint , and the crime scene was inspected .

In TIME of DATE the applicant and his CARDINAL co - detainees were charged with robbery and the investigator decided to place them in a facility for provisional detention . However , the decision was not implemented as no room was available in such a facility within a reasonable distance .

Subsequently , a legal - aid lawyer was appointed for the applicant and a copy of the document containing the charges was sent to , inter alia , the child protection services .

TIME on DATE the applicant was brought before the investigator , who interviewed him in the presence of his mother and the lawyer . No mention was made of any illtreatment .

At TIME the applicant was placed in a provisional detention cell as documented by a protocol , which cites him as submitting in response to a pre - printed question that had not been subjected to any violence . The relevant documentation further contains a hand - written note with the applicant ’s signature indicating that “ [ he ] ha[d ] received dinner ” . According to the Government , the cell was equipped with , inter alia , a washbasin and drinkable water from the tap .

At TIME the applicant and his co - detainees were released , and the police took them home .

When the applicant ’s mother appeared before the investigator on DATE she decided to avail herself of her right not to give evidence , making no mention of any ill - treatment .

On DATE , acting through the intermediary of his lawyer , the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the charge , arguing that he himself had not been involved in the mugging , which had been perpetrated by his minor associate alone and to which the latter had confessed . There was no mention of any ill - treatment .

On DATE the charge against the applicant was withdrawn .

In the applicant ’s submission , meanwhile , in DATE that followed his release , his mother presented herself at the county police station and contacted ORG by telephone to complain about the treatment to which her son had been subjected while detained . According to the applicant , her complaint was not registered and she was orally advised to submit it in written form .

According to the Government , however , the heads of the county police and the district police , who were the only persons entitled to receive complaints in matters such as those obtaining in the present case , did not receive any complaint from the applicant ’s mother . Similarly , there was no mention of a visit or any communication from her in the records of visits and telephone calls received by the county police or in the operational logbook of the district police .

On DATE the applicant and his associates lodged a written criminal complaint with ORG .

They directed it against the officers of the county police who had been on duty TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE , suggesting that the offence of abuse of authority of a public official could have been committed .

In particular , they submitted that , while in police custody , each of them separately had been pressured to confess on the pretext that the others had already confessed . The applicant also submitted that he had been subjected to slapping in the face and on the head until he had confessed . The persons inflicting that treatment had worn uniforms . Although the applicant did not know their identity , he would certainly recognise them . Another person had been present , not wearing a uniform , presumably a relative of the boy who had been robbed .

Throughout the entire time in police custody , the applicant had had to stand , without being allowed to sit or lie down , and he had not been given any food or water .

Moreover , in the applicant ’s submission , his legal guardians had not been notified of his custody , let alone been present .

The applicant submitted a medical report dated DATE . The doctor who issued the report observed that the applicant had “ allege[d ] that he had been beaten by police officers the day before ” and “ had received a slap on the right CARDINAL of a cheek ” . In reply to a printed question about whether the injury could have been sustained as alleged , the reply “ yes ” was given . The doctor further observed that there was no haematoma and that the cheek was sensitive and slightly swollen . He diagnosed “ a bruised cheek on the left ” and classified the injury as slight , with recovery time DATE .

NORP The criminal complaint was sent to the local ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) of ORG for examination . Subsequently , the part of the complaint concerning the failure to notify the applicant ’s legal guardians of his arrest and detention , to provide him with food and water during his detention , and to hear him immediately after his arrest was sent to the district police ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In examining the complaint concerning the alleged physical mistreatment , the ORG interviewed the applicant and his associates , as well as the investigator and CARDINAL officers under suspicion . In addition , it examined the case file concerning the investigation into the alleged robbery and other documentary material .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the complaint . In doing so it observed that the applicant had not raised any complaint of ill - treatment during his interview with the investigator on DATE , and held that this could not be explained by his proclaimed fear of the officers involved since , in that interview , the applicant had been assisted by his mother and lawyer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG observed that in his oral depositions , the applicant had claimed that he had been beaten at the county police station for TIME and that he had sustained bruises and a swollen cheek . However , those allegations of sustained beating and its consequences did not correspond to the findings in the doctor ’s report of DATE , which only attest to an allegation of having received a slap on the right cheek and to having a swollen cheek , but no haematoma .

The ORG also noted that in the investigation file concerning the alleged robbery there was no indication of any ill - treatment . It observed that the applicant ’s injury could have been inflicted in the course of his arrest , which he had resisted and which accordingly had had to be carried out forcefully .

In addition , the ORG observed that the police officers in question had not been involved in the investigation of the alleged robbery , but had merely been guarding the applicant . Consequently , they had had no reason to pressure him into confessing .

The applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE by lodging an interlocutory appeal with the PPS . He requested twice that a decision by the PPS to dismiss the appeal be reviewed .

The applicant argued in particular that he had not resisted his arrest and that , accordingly , no physical force had been used in the course of it . His injury could therefore not be explained as the ORG had done . He had not complained of the ill - treatment before the investigator because nobody had asked him about it and because he had been concerned about possible repercussions .

The applicant further argued that the fact that there was no mention of the ill - treatment in the investigation file was irrelevant . In fact , it was logical , because the officers involved would naturally not mention their misconduct and would deny it . That incongruity and contradiction of the arguments had not been examined .

According to the applicant , a “ racial motive was not excluded ” and the treatment to which he had been subjected had been contrary to LAW .

The interlocutory appeal and the requests for review were eventually dismissed by ORG ( “ the OPG ” ) , which communicated its decision to the applicant in a letter of CARDINAL DATE .

The ORG fully endorsed the findings of ORG , considering as crucial the fact that before the doctor on DATE the applicant had only alleged slapping , that the doctor ’s observations on the applicant ’s injury did not correspond to the applicant ’s subsequent allegation of sustained beating , and that the applicant had not raised any ill - treatment allegation with the investigator on DATE .

Without any explanation , the ORG also concluded that there was no indication of any racial motive behind the treatment complained of by the applicant .

As to the part of the applicant ’s criminal complaint concerning the alleged failure to notify his legal guardians of his arrest and detention , to provide him with food and water during his detention , and to hear him immediately after his arrest ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the district police informed the applicant in a letter of DATE , without any explanation at all , that “ in the investigation of the given matter , no error had been committed by the investigative organs ” .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint , under Article CARDINAL of the LAW , with ORG against the ORG and ORG of the PPS involved in his case .

He emphasised that at the time of his arrest he had been a minor , that he had been kept at the police station TIME without being able to sit or lie down , and without being given any food or water , and that he had been subjected to psychological pressure and physical violence with a view to forcing him to confess . He considered that such treatment had been in breach of his rights under LAW , as was the ensuing investigation into his complaints on account of its lack of efficiency and independence , as well as the authorities’ failure to act on their own initiative .

The applicant also alleged that the lack of a proper investigation had been aggravated by the lack of an effective remedy and discrimination , contrary to his rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On the last point , the applicant argued that there had been many known incidents of police violence against the GPE in the course of arrest and detention in GPE , and that his treatment by the police had been influenced by his PERSON origin .

On DATE ORG rejected the complaint as manifestly ill - founded . It observed that the applicant had no legal right to have a third person criminally prosecuted , that his right to lodge a criminal complaint merely implied that he had the right “ to have the complaint dealt with by a body authorised to do so ” , and that it had thus been dealt with . It further observed that the applicant had not complained of his alleged ill - treatment before the investigator on DATE or in his interlocutory appeal against the charge ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The fact that he had had those means of asserting his rights at his disposal excluded the jurisdiction of ORG . It concluded without further explanation that , in the circumstances , neither the proceedings before the PPS nor their decisions could have violated the applicant ’s rights as identified in his constitutional complaint .

The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


CASE OF VIKENTIJEVIK v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE V.D.M. , the applicant ’s late grandfather , together with other individuals , PERSON , GPE and GPE , members of ORG of company T. ( “ the company ” ) , were convicted of offences against the people and the ORG since they had put the company T. at the disposal of the enemy forces ( during the Second World War ) . They were all sentenced to a suspended prison term with forced labour . The court also ordered full confiscation of the company ’s property .

On DATE the then ORG confiscated the company ’s immovable property ( including residential apartments for workers ( работнички станови ) ) and various items of movable property , which were specified in detail in the decision ( “ the confiscation order ” ) . The total surface area of the confiscated buildings was QUANTITY . QUANTITY . m of land was also subject to confiscation . The confiscated property was to be transferred to the ORG . The confiscation order referred to V.D.M. , PERSON , GPE and GPE , as “ convicted shareholders ” who had actual possession ( фактичка сопственост ) of the company .

On DATE the company decided to restructure itself in accordance with ORG ( “ the Company Restructuring ( Business Losses ) Act ” ) .

On the basis of that decision and at the request of the applicant , who was seeking that the property be retained for restitution , on DATE the company entered into a contract ( “ the DATE contract ” ) with the ORG , represented by ORG , transferring to it the title to specific named buildings ( which did not include the residential apartments ) , the total surface area of which was QUANTITY m. It further transferred into the ORG ’s possession preference shares ( приоритетни акции ) , the value of which was MONEY ( DEM ) ( “ the shares ” ) .

Thereafter , on DATE ORG ( “ the first - instance court ” ) , on the applicant ’s request , overturned the DATE judgment in respect of his late grandfather concerning the confiscation of the company ’s property . This judgment became final on DATE .

In a judgment of DATE , which became final on DATE , the first - instance court declared the applicant heir to the right to claim restitution ( наследник на правото на денационализација ) in respect of the property of his late grandfather ( V.D.M. ) . Referring to the DATE judgment , the confiscation order and the judgment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL above ) , the inheritance order also concerned the applicant ’s right to claim “ restoration of possession and payment of compensation ” in respect of the company ’s immovable and movable property .

On DATE the applicant instituted restitution proceedings . The parties did not submit a copy of the restitution claim .

On DATE ORG , represented by CARDINAL officials , drew up a report concerning an on - site inspection carried out on DATE . According to the report , which was typed on a computer , V.D.M. , PERSON , GPE and ORG had been the company ’s shareholders . The land was in the company ’s possession . In DATE the land in question was divided into CARDINAL plots , which included buildings with a total surface area of QUANTITY . m. The entry in the new ORG indicated that the total surface area of the buildings constructed on the land was QUANTITY m. The report further stated that only some of the buildings specified in the confiscation order , including the residential apartments , were still on the land .

On DATE ORG of ORG accepted the applicant ’s restitution claim and decided CARDINAL ) to restore to his possession the buildings specified in the DATE contract ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the residential apartments and adjacent buildings ( QUANTITY . m ) , together with the land underneath , as well as the land described as a courtyard ( двор ) , a total surface area of QUANTITY . m ; CARDINAL ) to transfer into his possession the preference shares specified in the DATE contract as compensation for the movable property of the company ; and CARDINAL ) to transfer into his possession ORG - owned shares in company P. as compensation ( the equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) for land underneath ) for other objects ( CARDINAL sq . m ) . As stated in the order , ORG , assisted by an expert , had carried out an on - site inspection and established that the total surface area of all confiscated buildings at the time of confiscation , was QUANTITY m.

The restitution order indicates that the applicant ’s restitution claim , together with the complete case file , was communicated to ORG ( ORG ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , who submitted in reply that “ there was no statutory provision requiring him or her to comment on the matter ” ( не бил законски обврзан да се изјасни по барањето ) . As is evident from a letter of DATE from ORG included in the case file , the restitution order was served on ORG . No appeal having been submitted , the restitution order became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG rectified the restitution order under sub - heading CARDINAL ) , stating that the applicant would receive ORG - owned shares in company ORG ( “ the rectifying decision ” ) .

DATE and DATE , the ORG authorities CARDINAL ) transferred to the applicant title to the company ’s preference shares ( which represented PERCENT of the company ’s share capital ( основна главнина ) ) , and buildings specified in the DATE contract ( on the basis of CARDINAL separate contracts concluded between ORG and the applicant ) , and CARDINAL ) registered him as the owner of the buildings and the land . According to an extract from the land registry dated DATE , the applicant had title to QUANTITY . m. The applicant was recorded in the company ’s shareholder book ( акционерска книга ) , as well as in FAC PERSON за хартии од вредност ) , as a shareholder in company ORG and company ORG ( apparently instead of company ORG ) ORG requested that company T. allow the applicant to obtain actual possession ( владение ) of the immovable property .

On DATE an expert commission of ORG carried out an on - site inspection and established that the land in question could not be returned to the applicant , since it served the existing buildings ( company property and the residential apartments ) .

On DATE the applicant requested that ORG enforce the restitution order and asked that the company transfer the “ land and buildings ” into his actual possession . On DATE he repeated his request for enforcement . On DATE the ORG also recommended that ORG enforce the restitution order and transfer the land into the applicant ’s actual possession .

On DATE a Coordinating Commission in ORG , having been approached by a group of citizens residing in the apartments located on the land in question , noted that there had been “ certain irregularities ” in the restitution proceedings , and requested that ORG ( “ the Commission ” ) review the restitution order under LAW . On DATE the ORG found no grounds to rescind the restitution order within its powers of supervisory review ( укинување по право на надзор ) . It also stated that ORG should submit the case file to ORG , which had the authority to quash the restitution order of its own motion provided the statutory requirements had been met .

On DATE the Solicitor General requested , under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that the Commission declare the restitution order and the rectifying decision null and void ( барање за огласување ништовно ) . He submitted that the applicant had been awarded full restitution of the entire property of the company , despite the fact that , as specified in the confiscation order of DATE , the company had been jointly owned by several persons . Furthermore , the buildings restored to the applicant were not the same in terms of surface area and description as the buildings confiscated in DATE . The current value of the land now by far exceeded its value at the time of confiscation . Furthermore , the land had been developed in the meantime , and buildings with a total surface area of QUANTITY . m had been constructed . Lastly , he maintained that the preference shares transferred into the applicant ’s possession on the basis of the DATE contract represented over CARDINAL the value of the entire movable property of the company .

On DATE the Commission granted the request , quashed the restitution order and the rectifying decision , and remitted the case for re - examination . It ordered ORG and the Central Securities Depositary to amend their records accordingly . It held that ORG , in what was a manifest omission ( очигледен пропуст ) , had not appealed against the impugned decisions in the ordinary proceedings “ despite their apparent unlawfulness ” . Referring to the confiscation order of DATE , the ORG stated :

“ ... V.D.M. , PERSON , GPE and GPE were the former owners of the confiscated property of [ the company ] .

... it is not in doubt that [ the applicant ] is the heir only of ORG , thus of only a notional CARDINAL of the confiscated property ...

This is sufficient ( for the conclusion ) that the first - instance commission violated LAW at the expense of the ORG , and that it follows that the [ restitution order ] is invalid .

As is evident from the expert report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which was drawn up DATE before the restitution order , the confiscated property was not at all identical to the existing property , specifically the buildings confiscated in DATE , the total surface area of which was QUANTITY . m , were supporting objects , while the current buildings , with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m , are modern and solid constructions . Furthermore , the confiscated buildings no longer exist , but completely different buildings , which are CARDINAL times bigger , were constructed instead . That was confirmed in the report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Furthermore , the land ( QUANTITY . m ) could not be the subject of restitution and it could not be returned under LAW of LAW , since buildings ( QUANTITY m ) belonging to the company ORG had been constructed on that land . It is developed construction land with complete infrastructure , which serves the existing property ...

Lastly , the first - instance body wrongly applied sections DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW when it transferred into [ the applicant ’s ] sole possession the entire package of reserved preference shares of all CARDINAL former owners , actually their heirs , instead of only a notional DATE . As a result , the ORG sustained damages . Accordingly , [ the restitution order ] can not be enforced , as specified under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ... ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative - dispute claim ( тужба за управен спор ) with ORG , in which he argued that the restitution order and the rectifying decision had already been enforced . They had been rendered in proceedings in which ORG had failed to lodge an ordinary appeal , although entitled to do so . The quashing of the order had been based on alleged errors in the facts , which could not serve as a ground for the extraordinary remedy used in his case . Furthermore , ORG had not been entitled to intervene in the proceedings in order to protect the interests of third parties . The applicant argued that the Commission , by quashing the relevant decisions over DATE after they had been adopted , had violated the principle of legal certainty and irrevocability of final decisions . Lastly , he complained that the expert report of DATE , to which the Commission referred in the impugned decision , carried no stamp ; it had not been drawn up on the form in use at the time ; and ORG had not quoted it in the restitution order of DATE . That raised doubts about the reliability of that document .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It stated that section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW concerned both the factual ( фактичка ) and legal ( правна ) impossibility of enforcement . The restitution order and the rectifying decision were contrary to sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , and were accordingly legally unenforceable . The court further stated :

“ ... According to [ DATE judgment ] , the confiscation concerned the convicted shareholders ORG , PERSON and GPE , who were ( in addition to V.D.M. ) the owners of [ company T. ] . Having regard to LAW , [ the applicant ] applied as heir to the property of his legal predecessor , V.D.M. Consequently , he could inherit only ORG ’s share and not the entire property of [ the company ] .

Having regard to the transcript of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ... the court finds that there has been a violation of section QUANTITY of LAW , since it has not been established whether the value of the confiscated property has increased .

... there has been a violation of LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , since land which has been developed and built upon ( QUANTITY . m ) , as established on DATE by a commission , has been restored [ on the basis of the restitution order ] to the possession of the applicant .

On the basis of the material in the case file it has been established beyond any doubt that the property subject to restitution had previously been owned by CARDINAL persons , who were the shareholders . Consequently , there has been a violation of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , since the entire package of reserved preference shares for all CARDINAL former shareholders was transferred to [ the applicant ’s ] sole possession ...

... In the present case , the court underlines once more that there has been a violation of the imperative provisions of LAW , which made the enforcement of the final restitution order legally impossible , as specified under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

The court has examined [ the applicant ’s ] allegations that there was a violation of the fundamental principle of finality of decisions in administrative proceedings , as well as that the impugned decision contained no reasons that could fall within the ambit of section CARDINAL ( of LAW ) , but it considers them ill - founded . LAW provides for the extraordinary remedy of declaring a decision null and void ( section CARDINAL ) . [ The Commission ] is the competent body to decide , and the ( impugned ) decision clearly states that the decision was given under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . Furthermore , the decision contains adequate reasoning . ”

This judgment was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor found that there were no grounds to institute legality review proceedings ( постапка по барање за заштита на законитоста ) against ORG judgment .

On the basis of a request by ORG , on DATE an expert commission of ORG carried out an on - site inspection and found that construction of collective residential buildings had been planned under the town plan of DATE on the land in question . It further established that the part of the land on which roads , car parks and green space were planned could not be returned ( не може да биде предмет на реално враќање ) . Over QUANTITY . m of the land , the part on which construction of collective residential buildings was planned , could be restored .

On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings ( прекинува ) and instructed the applicant to institute , within DATE of service of that decision , separate civil proceedings in order to establish , as a preliminary question ( претходно прашање ) , the amount of the share of V.D.M. , his legal predecessor , in the company ’s property . In the reasoning , it noted that on DATE the applicant had submitted written evidence that ORG , PERSON and GPE were not shareholders in the company . It also observed that CARDINAL other requests for restitution of the company ’s property had been submitted for consideration DATE and DATE . The claimants in those cases had provided documents indicating that their predecessors had been shareholders , dividing between them the entire property of the company .

The Government stated that most of the restitution claims concerning the property at issue which had been submitted by third parties had been dismissed .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG , PERSON and GPE , whose whereabouts were unknown , in which he sought to have the first - instance court declare V.D.M. , his legal predecessor , the sole shareholder of the company . Those proceedings are still pending before the first - instance court .


CASE OF SULEJMANI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE , the applicant concluded a sales contract ( купопродажен договор ) with a Sh . A. , for the purchase of a concrete mixing and transport lorry ( “ the vehicle ” ) for the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in NORP denars ( ORG ) . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lent the vehicle to his company .

On DATE ORG temporarily seized the vehicle and its registration certificate ( сообраќајна дозвола ) from the applicant in order to examine the vehicle ’s chassis ( проверка на шасија ) . A record of temporarily seized objects ( потврда за привремено одземени предмети ) was issued .

On DATE the Struga Court of First Instance ( “ the first - instance court ” ) acquitted PERSON . A. of charges of forgery of a document ( “ фалсификување исправа “ ) concerning the vehicle ’s chassis number and rejected an indictment brought by a public prosecutor against a certain PERSON The court found that during the trial it had not been established that LOC . A. had altered the vehicle ’s chassis . In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court further advised the applicant , who had claimed compensation in the criminal proceedings , to pursue the claim by means of a separate civil action before the civil courts . On DATE the judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant requested that the first - instance court return the vehicle in his possession .

On DATE the first - instance court heard evidence from the applicant , who stated that he had bought the vehicle from Sh . A. for ORG CARDINAL . He further stated that he could not have been aware at the time that the chassis number of the vehicle had been forged .

On DATE the first - instance court , relying on LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ the LAW ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , found that there were no grounds for confiscation of the applicant ’s vehicle . The applicant had not known nor could he have known that the vehicle had been used to commit a crime . The court also ordered that the registration certificate be returned to the applicant .

Upon the public prosecutor ’s appeal , on DATE ORG ( “ the appellate court ” ) quashed that decision . Relying on Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the appellate court found that the vehicle ’s chassis had been forged and that the vehicle , in the interest of public safety , could not be declared roadworthy . It further referred to section CARDINAL-a ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW and instructed the first - instance court to assess whether the continued use of the vehicle would constitute a “ use of a forged document ” offence under the Code ( употреба на фалсификувана јавна исправа , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicant ’s application and ordered the confiscation ( се одземаат ) of the vehicle and its registration certificate . It referred to LAW and found that the vehicle ’s chassis number had been forged and that the vehicle could be used for committing an offence . For that reason and for the reasons of road safety , it was necessary to confiscate the vehicle and the registration certificate . It also referred to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and found that , irrespective of the fact that there had been no proceedings against the applicant and that he was not an offender , it was necessary to confiscate the vehicle for general safety reasons .

On DATE the applicant appealed arguing that the first - instance court had wrongly applied LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW and that he had not known that the vehicle had been used to commit a crime .

On DATE the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first - instance court ’s decision . The relevant part of the decision states as follows :

“ [ The arguments ] raised in the appeals , [ namely ] that the first - instance court had not established the decisive facts concerning [ the certitude ] that the [ applicant ] had not known that the vehicle ’s chassis had been forged , which was decisive , are groundless . Specifically , it is true that [ the applicant ] did not know that the vehicle ’s chassis had been forged , as a result of which [ he ] registered the vehicle as its last buyer , [ he was ] issued a driving licence and [ he ] paid a large amount . However , [ what is ] primary under LAW ] is that the objects which were intended to [ commit ] an offence or were used to commit an offence shall be confiscated notwithstanding that they are not in the ownership of the offender or that they are in the ownership of a third person , if general safety , public health or ethics require so ...

The fact that [ the applicant ] did not know that the vehicle ’s chassis had been forged does not signify that the conditions of LAW are met , but the first - instance court correctly found that the use of the vehicle with thus forged identification numbers would affect the safety of the road users in the ORG [ безбедноста на јавниот сообраќај ] , and therefore also the general safety [ интересите на општата безбедност ] . ”

It appears that the latter decision was served on the applicant on DATE .