CASE OF ABDULLA ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained at FAC .

In DATE the applicant was arrested , along with others , in the context of a large - scale counter - terrorism operation . It was alleged that he had conspired to construct and simultaneously explode improvised explosive devices ( “ IEDs ” ) on transatlantic passenger aircraft in flight , using suicide bombers .

A first trial of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , on charges of conspiracy to murder ( Count CARDINAL ) and conspiracy to endanger the safety of an aircraft ( Count CARDINAL ) began in ORG on DATE . The prosecution case in respect of the conspiracy to murder charge was that the means by which it was to be effected was by way of detonation of GPE on board aircraft in mid - flight .

After the close of the prosecution case , the indictment was amended to add a further count ( Count CARDINALA ) which alleged a conspiracy to murder but did not specify the means by which the murder would be carried out . The count was added at the request of the prosecution to cover the possibility that the jury was satisfied that a defendant had agreed to murder but was not aware of the means settled upon to bring the conspiracy to fruition . Count CARDINAL was amended to make clear that it was concerned with a conspiracy to murder specifically by way of detonation of GPE on aircraft mid - flight .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of Count CARDINALA but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on Count CARDINAL . The jury was also unable to reach verdicts on some or all counts in relation to CARDINAL other defendants . The eighth defendant was acquitted of all charges .

An exchange followed between judge and prosecuting counsel and the judge ordered the prosecution to indicate by DATE whether a retrial would be sought .

The announcement of the verdict was widely covered in the press and the media . The reports included references to material which was never put before the jury ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The media also attacked the jury ’s failure to return a guilty verdict on Count CARDINAL .

On DATE lawyers for one of the defendants wrote to the Attorney General seeking , inter alia , details of what steps had been taken to ensure the integrity of post - verdict / pre - retrial decision reporting and to prevent the reporting of inadmissible and prejudicial materials .

On DATE , ORG ( “ ORG ” ) announced its intention to seek a retrial of the applicant and the other defendants . Communicating this decision to the media , it added :

“ The ORG would like to remind media organisations of the need to take great care in reporting the events surrounding this alleged plot . These remain allegations only and , if retrials take place , the defendants have the right to a fair trial . It is extremely important that there should be responsible media reporting which does not prejudice the due process of law . ”

On DATE every national newspaper reported that the applicants were to face a retrial . General reporting about the case nevertheless continued until around DATE .

The Attorney General replied to the defendant ’s lawyers’ letter on CARDINAL DATE confirming that the observations had been noted and were receiving consideration .

The applicant subsequently applied for a stay of proceedings ( i.e. an order effectively terminating his prosecution in respect of Count CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL of the grounds for the application was that a fair trial was no longer possible as a result of alleged prejudicial publicity which had occurred following the conclusion of the first trial .

On DATE Mr Justice PERSON refused the request for a stay . He summarised the defence case as follows :

“ It is the defence case ... that the coverage was manipulated and orchestrated by ORG sources , either intelligence services , police anti - terrorist branches or government officials . It is asserted that there was a widespread press briefing exercise designed and intended to inform the media of non - evidential material for publication post - verdict , the effect of which was to vilify the defendants in the eyes of the public by supplying the media in confidence with significant undisclosed background material .

The ORG , it is said , failed to take any steps either to notify the court of the confidential press briefings , thus preventing appropriate orders from being made to prevent prejudicial publicity resulting from its own briefings .

This was , it is said , a deliberate attempt to manipulate the court ’s process on any retrial by seeking to ensure that the world at large was prejudiced against the defendants by an unprecedented volume of GPE ate - sourced media coverage ... ”

He considered it implicit in the submissions that the applicant ’s argument was that no retrial jury exposed to this volume of publicity could try the case as an unbiased , independent and impartial tribunal .

PERSON summarised the CARDINAL examples of inadmissible material which had been published by the press to which the defence had referred by way of illustrative examples . He stressed that this was “ by no means the totality of the information complained of ” .

The first example concerned disclosure of evidence not adduced at trial as to the applicant being in telephone contact with the leader of DATE failed bombings of the GPE transport system . The statement appeared in almost every national paper and on national media . It was attributed to different sources in different publications , including , inter alia , senior detectives , police , “ records show ” and counter - terrorism officials .

The second example concerned disclosure of evidence not adduced at trial as to deeper links between some of the applicants and others convicted of terrorist offences . This included evidence that the applicant had taken trips to GPE at the same time as those responsible for the explosions on the GPE transport system on DATE and the failed CARDINAL DATE bombing attempt and had been in regular telephone contact with the ringleader of the latter attack . The story was published in virtually every national newspaper and was broadcast on national media . It was attributed to , variously , detectives , intelligence officials , counterterrorism sources , investigators and trial officials .

The third example concerned disclosure of evidence not adduced at trial as to the defendants’ acquaintance and contact with a certain PERSON in GPE , who had allegedly put them in touch with ORG leadership . This had been published in almost every national newspaper and broadcast on national media . Some of the attributed sources included the NORP Interior Minister , NORP officials , intelligence services , internal GPE intelligence documents , security sources and named senior officials in GPE and GPE .

The fourth example concerned assertions which were not the subject of evidence or disclosure at trial that the plot might have been overseen by PERSON , the former head of ORG external operations , who had allegedly overseen the DATE GPE bombing plots . The information was carried by several newspapers and was attributed , inter alia , to the police , counter - terrorism officials , intelligence agencies and senior NORP and NORP officials .

The fifth example concerned assertions which were not the subject of evidence or disclosure at trial that the alleged plot was disrupted following interception of a text message encouraging the conspirators to act . There was also reference to telephone calls and text messages between the GPE and GPE and a specific incriminating text sent to the applicant . These were published in some national newspapers and broadcast on television , with the attributed source being a NORP Government source .

The sixth example concerned assertions which were not the subject of evidence or disclosure at trial that the telephones of unspecified defendants were being intercepted by the police and that interception had revealed that a dummy run was being planned . Several newspapers and media sources carried the story , with the source being variously named as the police , counter - terrorism police and the head of ORG .

The seventh example concerned assertions that ORG had pressed GPE into making arrests before all the legal evidence had been gathered . The information was reported in several newspapers and by several broadcasters . A terrestrial television channel carried the express statement that ORG authorities had reason to delay the effecting of arrests owing to known intelligence that the conspirators would perform additional incriminating acts in furtherance of the airline conspiracy . The source was said to be the head of ORG , GPE sources , senior NORP police and counter - terrorism sources , and the former shadow Minister for ORG in GPE .

PERSON set out the events immediately following the handing down of the verdicts and continued :

“ It is simply not possible in this judgment to recite each and every objectionable word published by the media ... Whilst it will be convenient to cite in due course some of the worst examples , I readily accept that the multiplicity and breadth of reporting must be considered in order to gauge the potential effect upon any juror who will have been exposed to these or any significant number of these many reports ... I have read everything to which my attention has been drawn . ”

He noted that there was an “ avalanche of objectionable material ” in prominent position in both broadsheet and tabloid newspapers . There was news coverage across all television and radio channels . There was , and continued to be at the time of PERSON ruling , vast Internet coverage which could be accessed with ease . The very essence of the large majority of the material asserted that all of the defendants were guilty of the conspiracy to blow up aircraft . PERSON categorised the offending material as follows :

“ ( i ) the defendants have strong links with several prominent ORG terrorists , including PERSON , CARDINAL bombers and CARDINAL bombers , of which the jury were not informed ; ( ii ) but for the premature arrest in GPE of PERSON , for which the NORP are to blame , more evidence would have become available to the prosecution ; ( iii ) the activities of the defendants were being monitored by phone taps and other forms of interception and a dummy run was anticipated which might be used to carry out a real attack ; ( iv ) the investigation had prevented unspeakable carnage and loss of countless lives ; ( v ) the jury were incompetent , the evidence was very strong and the jury ’s verdict was astonishing ; ( vi ) the trial judge mishandled the trial and in particular permitted a DATE break during the jury retirement , the jury returning for DATE at the commencement of their deliberations before then going on holiday . ”

On the subject of pre - verdict briefing , PERSON said :

“ ... [ I]t is common practice for there to be pre - verdict briefings in high profile cases . There are any number of matters in which the public have an interest . There is frequently a public debate concerning topics raised by the case . Instant reporting is demanded by the public at large . They are entitled to it . It is their right . Before there can be immediate post - verdict reporting , there must be pre - verdict briefing . ”

Turning to the first of the specific complaints made by the defence , the judge noted that prosecution counsel had conceded that there had been some “ significant disclosure of non - evidential material by the Executive ” but had “ vehemently objected ” to any suggestion that there had been secret briefings . The judge did not accept that secret Executive press briefings had taken place . He referred to material published in particular in GPE and concluded that there were a “ multiplicity of avenues ” through which journalists could have gained information other than through secret briefings . He explained :

“ ... I regard the submission that the Executive quite deliberately briefed the press during the trial with a view to disadvantaging the defendants in any retrial that might possibly take place as fanciful ... The plot alleged requires not only foresight of a retrial during the trial itself ; it requires foresight that the press will breach the embargoes that they have signed not to disclose such material until conclusion of the proceedings . ”

As to the second allegation , that the ORG “ perpetrated a gross manipulation and abuse of the court process by failing to restrain publicity resulting from its own briefings , the judge found again that there was absolutely no evidence that any individual had been party to such a plot . He described as a “ most extravagant allegation ” and rejected it “ with certainty ” .

On the third question whether the defendants could receive a fair trial , having regard to the publicity , the judge noted that the publicity was worldwide , often repeated and reported by every branch of the media , including the Internet and associated blogs . It had run in the main from DATE to DATE , and much of the reporting remained available on the Internet . He reviewed in some detail the major publications of CARDINAL DATE as well as a few of the worst other examples . As to the law on adverse publicity , the judge explained :

“ As to the legal principles relevant to a defendant receiving a fair trial , I have reminded myself of ORG [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] , and in the context of this case reminded myself that the only issue to be addressed is the right of a defendant to a fair trial and no assessment of the weight to be given to the public interest comes into the exercise . The fact that the allegations here are of the gravest nature is wholly irrelevant . The defendants must receive a fair trial , however grave the allegations and however far - reaching the consequences may be of staying this trial . ”

The judge considered a number of domestic judgments concerning the impact of prejudicial publicity before or during trial . He continued :

“ I have concluded that a fair trial is in this case possible for all defendants on this indictment and propose to ensure that each of them does receive a fair trial . In reaching that conclusion I have brought the experience of DATE in the criminal courts to this decision . I trust juries and have every confidence that they do indeed have regard to the directions given by judges .

I trust a jury in this building to decide whether they can be sure on the evidence presented to them that there was indeed a plan to blow up aircraft . I can not accept the proposition that an NORP jury may convict because of something they may remember having read DATE . I do believe that juries pay attention and act upon the directions we give them . I will give them at the outset of the trial a most careful direction tailored particularly to this case and I shall canvass the direction with counsel before I deliver it . If necessary , I will repeat it from time to time .

I have no fears that the jury will be influenced by those earlier press reports . They know that none of us can believe everything that we read in the press ...

I believe that sufficient time will have passed by DATE , DATE since the publicity ...

There have been other terrorist trials in the meantime occupying crime correspondents and their readers . I am sure that the facts will have receded and faded , as will any possible prejudice . ”

The judge further pointed out that all defendants had admitted conspiracy to commit public nuisance by making martyrdom videos and that the first CARDINAL defendants had admitted conspiring to cause explosions . These convictions would be put before the jury in the retrial and , the judge said , in the face of these admissions links to other terrorists , if remembered by jury members , became “ rather less significant ” . In any event , in his experience , the impact of pre - trial publicity and prejudicial media coverage was minimal even in high - profile cases . He cited examples of cases where offensive pre - trial publicity had taken place but the defendants had subsequently been acquitted . He concluded that he had absolutely no doubt that juries took their responsibilities most seriously and decided cases on the evidence presented to them in court . He fixed the retrial to commence on DATE .

The retrial of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , on Count CARDINAL and CARDINAL defendants on Count CARDINALA duly commenced on DATE but was twice aborted in the early stages . On DATE a further jury was selected and sworn . During jury selection that day , the judge directed the potential jury members as follows :

“ It is , of course , of critical importance that we are able to select a jury which is completely unbiased and a jury which is prepared to give its time to a very important case indeed . You will appreciate the gravity of the allegation , a plan to blow up a number of aircraft effectively simultaneously . It is a hugely important task , quite possibly the most important task required or asked of any of you ; hugely important public service . Of course not all of you will be in a position to serve and for those who do undertake the task , it will necessarily involve a degree of self - sacrifice . ”

He specifically asked them whether there was any reason arising from their beliefs , occupation or any other matter that might inhibit their ability to return an impartial verdict in this trial or whether they or any relative or close friend , held views of such strength that they might materially influence their consideration of the case .

On the matter of the adverse publicity prior to the retrial , he said the following :

“ Next : as a result of publicity given to this case and to these allegations , do any of you hold any pre - conceived views of guilt or innocence incompatible with an unbiased discharge of your duties as a juror ? No . Thank you .

Next : are you , or is any member of your immediate family or any close friend , or have you , or any member of your immediate family or any close friend , been employed by any media agency involved in the investigation and/or reporting of this case ? Come forward , sir . ”

He further asked the potential jury members questions concerning CARDINAL recent broadcasts which had discussed the case :

“ CARDINAL broadcasts . CARDINAL broadcast : did any of you watch this programme on ORG television , it was DATE , that is not DATE , not the DATE before that but the DATE before that , in other words DATE , at TIME , BBCCARDINAL , there was a programme broadcast called The Big Questions ? The host was PERSON and there were a panel of CARDINAL or CARDINAL experts , if I can call them that , CARDINAL of whom certainly was a rabbi , when there was a discussion which touched upon the plot to blow up airliners and terrorism and the facts giving rise to this case were to some extent touched upon . Did anybody , TIME , watch that programme ? Could you come forward , please , sir .

Then DATE today , TIME on a DATE TIME , Radio CARDINAL , there was broadcast a programme , The World Tonight , in which the alleged plot to blow up airliners was discussed . Did anybody listen to that radio programme on ORG ? No . DATE sorry , come forward , please . Thank you . I told you that this case started DATE and on all the major television programmes publicity was given to it . Did any of you , as a result of seeing that publicity , carry out any internet research ; in other words , have any of you carried out internet research in DATE into the alleged airline plot ? No . Thank you very much . ”

Finally , the jury having been selected , the judge directed the jury as follows :

“ Can I please give you some additional instructions ? There may now be a temptation , knowing that you are going to serve upon this case , to try to find out a little bit more about it and if any of you are addicts of the internet or the web , there may be a temptation to go on to it and read about it and see about it . Please do not do that . There was an element of inaccurate and unsatisfactory reporting at the time this matter first came to light . The allegations were not accurately reported in every instance and it is critically important that you decide the case upon the evidence that you hear in court and nowhere else . We tell jurors in all criminal cases not to carry out any research of their own . In a typical pub fight case we tell jurors not to go and have a look at the pub , not to turn themselves into sleuths because what is critical is you decide the case only upon what you hear in court . The defendants are entitled to know the basis and the exact basis upon which they are being tried . So , accordingly , please do not , either before the case starts DATE or indeed at any stage , carry out any internet research or indeed any research of any kind . I will also give you further instructions not to read any newspapers or listen to any television reports . The reason for that is sometimes they are inaccurate , sometimes they are speculative and they are always partial reporting . The only way you can hear and receive all the evidence is by being here in court , listening to it . That is where you receive the information .

The other danger is when you go back TIME you will say , ‘ I ’ve been selected for a jury’ and those with whom you live or those you meet TIME may say to you , ‘ I know all about that case . I have read about it in the newspapers.’ Please do not discuss the case with anybody . It will be quite wrong for anybody to tell you what they think about the case and it might affect your judgment in the long run . You have been selected to try a terrorist case , tell them , because that is what the allegation is here , one of terrorism , and leave it at that . There is no purpose at all in discussing the facts of the case with anybody and , indeed , it would be absolutely wrong and a contempt of court if you were to do so . I have explained the real reason for not doing so is the person you were discussing it with might be playing a part in deciding the case and you and only the CARDINAL of you must do that , nobody else must play any part in doing so . There are other instructions which I will give you DATE after the case has started , but for the time being that suffices . ”

NORP The trial commenced with the prosecution ’s opening speech on DATE . At the end of the first day , the trial judge gave the jury the following instructions :

“ I am obliged to give you certain instructions . Some of them you are familiar with because I said a few things to you DATE . I remind you , please , do not carry out any research of any kind into this case , either over the internet or in any other way at all . That includes not visiting any site referred to in the case . All your information must come to you in this court . Please ignore any newspaper reports , if there are any , into this case and please disregard any broadcast of any kind that you may hear . It is vital that you do not discuss the case with anybody for reasons which I gave you DATE . Other people will express views which might in due course affect your judgment . The decision must be the decision of the CARDINAL of you and nobody else . ”

The judge reminded the jury intermittently throughout the trial that they were not permitted to discuss the case with family or friends or to carry out Internet research . On DATE , DATE of the parties’ closing speeches , he said :

“ We have embarked now upon a new phase of this case and now is as good a time as any to remind you of what I said earlier in the case about avoiding information which may in some way touch upon terrorism or even this case . I remind you again , please : do not carry out any internet research . Do not read any books . Do , please , switch channels if a television programme comes on which is obviously about terrorism or some related topic . Please avoid all newspaper articles and the like which deal with terrorism . The reason for that is to allow you to approach the facts of this case and when you come to reach your several decisions with a clear mind , unaffected by anything outside of this case , anything originating outside this courtroom . You decide this case on the information that you have received within this court and nothing else . ”

Again during his summing - up , the trial judge reminded the jury that they should not discuss the case with anyone outside the jury . Once the jury had retired to consider its verdict , he reminded them at the close of DATE that they should not discuss the case outside the jury room .

On DATE the applicant was convicted on Count CARDINAL . Of the other CARDINAL defendants tried on Count CARDINAL , CARDINAL were convicted , CARDINAL were acquitted and the jury were unable to reach a verdict in respect of CARDINAL . Of the CARDINAL defendants tried on Count CARDINAL , CARDINAL was convicted and the jury were unable to reach a verdict in respect of the other CARDINAL .

The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE .

The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction . ORG granted leave on several grounds , including the question whether the retrial was fair having regard to the media publicity after the first trial .

On DATE the appeal against conviction was dismissed .

The court noted the high media interest in the first trial and the simultaneous reporting of the trial proceedings , including the verdicts . It observed that in the circumstances it was impossible to have imposed restrictions on the verdicts as no - one had applied to the trial judge to ask for this to be done before the verdicts were taken . Even if such an application had been made and granted , given the worldwide interest in the case ORG considered it difficult to see how publication of the verdicts could have been prevented in jurisdictions outside the trial court ’s jurisdiction .

Responding to the submission on behalf of the applicant that jurors at his retrial could no longer be relied upon to follow the trial judge ’s directions , the court said :

“ CARDINAL . To the extent that there remains the risk that , despite what jurors are told by a judge , an individual juror might look up matters on the internet , any attempt by an individual juror to use what was found to influence the views of the other jurors is , in our judgement , bound to fail . For what was found on the internet to have any influence on the verdict of a jury , it would require other members of the jury to disobey their oath . In our judgement , ... the trial process in this trial was capable of coping with the adverse publicity . There was , it must be emphasised , no evidence at all to suggest that any juror had sought information on the internet . ”

The Court of Appeal emphasised that allegations that the publicity and disclosure of certain facts by ORG authorities had been deliberate were not pursued on appeal . It noted that embargoed police or prosecution service briefings were commonplace in major trials and that no challenge was made to the propriety of the press briefings . It also reviewed the actions of the prosecution and the Attorney General . The court then turned to consider in detail the ruling of PERSON of DATE and expressed itself to be “ entirely satisfied ” that he had not only applied the correct principles but had come to a conclusion that was open to him , namely that a fair - minded observer would consider that a jury , properly directed , could fairly try the applicant . It explained :

“ ORG . Not only do we consider that conclusion open to him but we also consider that that conclusion was correct . We accept ... that trying the case elsewhere was not an option ; asking potential jurors about their knowledge of the case again was not an option . However , we do consider that , given the trial process and DATE that had elapsed before the second trial , the informed observer would be satisfied that a jury would consider fairly and impartially the evidence and would have no regard to the publicity to which we have referred . ”

The court added :

“ CARDINAL . We have also taken into account the fact that , unlike the decisions in GPE GPE and ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL [ see paragraphs CARDINAL below ] , this was not a case concerned with pre - trial publicity but with publicity following a conviction . The fact that it was a trial following a conviction on CARDINAL count in our view is an important factor that may be viewed as more significant than pre - trial publicity . However , looking at the matter overall , we consider that the trial process could ensure a fair trial and a fair - minded observer would think that as well . ”

On DATE ORG declined to certify that the applicant ’s case raised a point of law of public importance .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant asked the authorities to return to her some buildings and a plot of land owned by her father before nationalisation in DATE . In DATE the applicant wrote to the authorities to ask why the buildings and the land had been sold to other persons in DATE . The authorities replied in DATE that the applicant had given an incorrect address for the buildings when submitting her request for her property rights to be restored and the buildings in question had already been privatised .

On DATE , upon their own initiative , the authorities suggested to the applicant that she submit a request to be paid monetary compensation for the buildings , if she did not have any objections to such a form of restitution . On DATE the authorities indicated that the documents submitted by the applicant did not prove that her father had owned the buildings in question and asked her to provide additional documents or DATE if she did not have those documents in her possession – to ask the domestic courts to establish as a legal fact that her father had owned those buildings .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG , asking it to establish as a legal fact that before DATE nationalisation her father had owned the buildings and a plot of land . On DATE ORG stated that there was a dispute about the applicable law and left the applicant ’s claim unexamined . The court also suggested to the applicant that she submit her claim in accordance with the rules governing contentious proceedings ( as opposed to the rules applicable to the procedure for the establishment of a legal fact ) .

On DATE the ORG established as a legal fact that the applicant ’s father had owned the buildings before the DATE nationalisation .

On DATE the applicant indicated that she wanted to receive compensation in the form of securities . The authorities asked ORG ( a ORG enterprise ) to assess the value of the buildings , which was set on DATE at CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) . On DATE the authorities recommended that applicant ’s and her sister ’s property rights to their father ’s property be restored by paying them compensation in securities .

On DATE the authorities adopted a decision to restore the applicant ’s and her sister ’s property rights by paying them LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in total in securities .

On DATE , the applicant lodged a claim with ORG , requesting the annulment of the valuation of the buildings made by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the appointment of independent experts to assess the market value of the buildings because she considered that the value set for the buildings was too low . The applicant ’s claim contained deficiencies , which she failed to eliminate within the time - limit set by ORG ; accordingly , on DATE , the court decided to rule that the applicant ’s claim had not been lodged .

The applicant lodged a separate complaint , where she claimed that the authorities assessed the value of the buildings incorrectly , and complaining that the assessment of the value of the buildings had been made before the decision to restore her property rights had been taken . On DATE ORG held that ORG had made procedural mistakes and returned the case for fresh examination to ORG .

The applicant lodged a modified claim with ORG , complaining that the assessment of the value of the buildings had been made DATE before the decision to restore her property rights had been taken . On DATE ORG held that although there were no provisions in the domestic law indicating how soon after the assessment of value the decision to restore property rights had to be taken , in the present case the time between the assessment and the decision had not been excessively long . The court therefore dismissed the applicant ’s complaint .

The applicant appealed raising the same complaints as she did before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and on DATE ORG held that the assessment of value of the buildings had been based on several methods of calculation and in accordance with the provisions of the domestic law . It therefore dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , and on DATE ORG decided that the case had to be examined before the administrative rather than civil courts and referred the case for examination to ORG .

On DATE , during the hearing before ORG , the applicant asked for the examination of the case to be postponed that she might have time to eliminate deficiencies in her claim . She also claimed that she was not aware of the fact that she had to submit a request to renew the time - limit for lodging a complaint separately , and asked the court to provide her with an opportunity to do that . Her requests were granted and the examination of the case was postponed until DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged a modified claim in which , inter alia , she asked ORG to ( i ) annul the assessment of the value of the buildings made by ORG , ( ii ) to annul that part of the order of the authorities for her property rights to be restored in which the value of the buildings was indicated and ( iii ) to renew the time - limit for lodging a complaint . On DATE , during the hearing at ORG , the applicant asked for the appointment of an expert to determine the market value of the buildings . On DATE the court suspended the proceedings , appointed an expert and asked the expert ( i ) what the market value of the buildings had been on DATE and ( ii ) what the market value of the buildings had been DATE , i. e. when the expert had been appointed . In DATE the expert stated that on DATE the market value of the buildings had been LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and that the market value of the buildings at the time that the examination of the case had started had been LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Subsequently the court proceedings were resumed , and on DATE ORG held that the new assessment of value of the buildings was more accurate and decided to annul the assessment of value of DATE by ORG and that part of the decision of DATE to restore the applicant ’s property rights in which the value of the buildings was set at LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The applicant did not appeal and the decision became final on DATE .

On an unspecified date , the applicant lodged a claim with ORG , asking , inter alia , for the authorities to be obliged to urgently re - issue the annulled part of the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim .

On DATE ORG examined and then rejected a claim by the applicant seeking for GPE to be obliged to pay her LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for the buildings and to award her LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in damages . The court held that the assessment of value in itself did not give rise to any legal consequences for the applicant . The court concluded that the decision of the authorities of CARDINAL DATE was still in force and that the question of the amount of the compensation was a matter for the public authorities and that it was not within the court ’s power to give instructions to them .

The applicant appealed , but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal . The court held that the applicant ’s request had been for the value of the buildings to be set at what their value had been at the moment when the expert valuation had been carried out in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court also observed that the amendment of the decision of CARDINAL DATE to restore the applicant ’s property rights had not yet been adopted and it was not clear how the applicant ’s rights were being breached . The court also held that the applicant had repeatedly raised the issue of the assessment of the value of the buildings , which had already been resolved . The court upheld the conclusion of the court of first instance that public authorities’ functions did not fall within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The applicant requested that the proceedings be reopened . On DATE ORG refused her request .

In DATE the relevant authorities were informed that an additional assessment of the value of the buildings had to be made and then ORG asked ORG to urgently assess their value . As no response was received , in DATE ORG again asked ORG to assess the value of the buildings . The assessment was made on DATE and the value of the buildings was set at LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in total , of which the applicant ’s part was LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . This valuation was officially approved by the authorities on DATE , when they amended the annulled part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE to restore the applicant ’s and her sister ’s property rights .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request to be compensated in securities of a ORG - owned enterprise . On DATE the applicant was sent a document of acceptance in respect of CARDINAL units of securities , the nominal value of each unit being ORG ( QUANTITY ) . ORG asked the applicant to sign the document of acceptance and indicated that the nominal value of CARDINAL security was ORG ( QUANTITY ) but that the real value was LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . It meant that the real total value of the shares was LTL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , which was the applicant ’s part of the compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The transfer of the securities was finalised on DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked the authorities to set the value of the buildings at the value that they had as of DATE and to pay her additional compensation . In DATE the authorities replied that there were no grounds for re - examining and deciding on questions regarding the restoration of property rights to the applicant because the procedure had already been finalised .

The applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts , asking , inter alia , that the decision of the authorities of CARDINAL DATE by which the annulled part of the decision of DATE had been amended ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) be quashed . She also requested the annulment of the assessment of value of the buildings at LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) made by ORG on DATE . The applicant ’s claim had several deficiencies and she was asked several times to eliminate them . However , the applicant failed to do so in an acceptable manner and on CARDINAL DATE ORG declined to examine her claim . The court stated that the applicant had asked it to oblige the authorities to provide one of the original copies of the decision of DATE ; however , it observed that the applicant already had an original copy . It was suggested by the court that the applicant contest the order of CARDINAL DATE , because it was that document which had legal consequences for her . This , according to the information in the ORG ’s possession , she never did .


CASE OF GÜLER AND UĞUR v. TURKEY [Extracts]

Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and GPE respectively .

At the relevant time they were active members and regional leaders of the ORG for ORG ( Demokratik PERSON ( ORG ) ) , which was subsequently dissolved by ORG . The applicant Mr ORG , former mayor of the district of LOC ( Van ) , was at the relevant time the chairman of an association called ORG ( PERSON ve ORG – association for NORP culture , democracy and solidarity ) .

On DATE the applicants took part in a religious ceremony ( mevlût ) on the premises of the ORG in GPE ( GPE ) , in which they paid tribute to CARDINAL members of the ORG who had been killed by the security forces .

The participants read out passages from the Koran and said prayers , and showed a film about the lives of the deceased . The ORG ’s regional representative gave a short speech , which can be summarised as follows :

“ Our fears and worries continue . People are still being killed . In such a context , we would like this mevlût to be a moment of peace and fraternity . ”

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor ’s office received an anonymous letter of denunciation , together with a CD containing a recording of the ceremony in question . The writer , who said that he had been a participant himself but had subsequently regretted it , explained that the ceremony had been held in memory of “ the martyrs of the ORG ” .

Following an investigation by the public prosecutor ’s office , the applicant Mr PERSON was arrested and taken into police custody on DATE . He was released DATE .

Both applicants were committed to stand trial before ORG . In their defence they stated that they had taken part in the ceremony for the observance of their religious duties .

NORP In a judgment of DATE ORG , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG on the prevention of terrorism , sentenced the CARDINAL applicants to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

In its judgment , ORG observed , firstly , that the persons in whose memory the ceremony had been held were members of a terrorist organisation and that they had been killed by the security forces during an operation against that organisation . It also took the view that the choice of venue for DATE the LOC of a political party DATE , and the fact that the NORP flag had been spread over the tables and photos of members of the organisation had been displayed , contributed to raising serious doubts as to the actual reasons for the gathering that had been given by the applicants in their defence .

Further to an appeal on points of law by the applicants , their conviction was upheld by a final judgment of ORG on DATE . The applicants were imprisoned for the duration of their sentence .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and until his arrest lived in GPE , GPE .

In DATE he was convicted and sent to serve his sentence in a correctional colony .

NORP In DATE a further set of charges was brought against the applicant . To ensure his participation in the ensuing investigation he was transferred to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE ( “ the remand prison ” ) . On several occasions he was transported to a temporary detention unit at the LOC police station ( “ the temporary detention unit ” ) .

The applicant was detained in the remand prison during several periods DATE and DATE . At that time he was placed in cells ORG . ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

According to the applicant , for most of the period of his detention , DATE between DATE and CARDINAL DATE , he was detained alone in cell no . CARDINAL . The cell was in a poor sanitary condition and was infested with vermin . The toilet pan was not separated from the living area . The cell was poorly lit and the ventilation system did not function . Metal shutters on the windows blocked access to natural light and fresh air . The cell was not equipped with either a television set or a radio , and newspapers were not available . In the remaining period , until DATE , the applicant occupied cells nos . ORG and CARDINAL . The bedding in those cells was torn and dirty . The cells had no television set or refrigerator . The quality of food in the remand prison was poor . Throughout the entire period of his detention the applicant was allowed access to the exercise yard , which was dirty and dusty , for TIME a day .

During several periods DATE and DATE , amounting to DATE in total , the applicant was held in the temporary detention unit . This facility was overpopulated and inmates had no access to outdoor exercise .

NORP In DATE the applicant complained of toothache to a prison doctor and received painkillers .

As the applicant ’s suffering continued , on DATE an investigator asked the head of the remand prison to arrange for him to be examined by a dentist . A similar request was submitted by the head of the medical unit on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the custodial authorities transported the applicant to a civilian dentist , who diagnosed chronic pulpitis and periodontitis , and provided some treatment . The dental treatment was not completed . Urgent removal of the applicant ’s dental crowns and further treatment with a view to fitting a dental prosthesis were strongly advised . According to the dentist , delay in the treatment could lead to grave complications , such as the loss of the chewing function , osteomyelitis and sepsis .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was taken to a civilian clinic , where a dentist removed his lower dental bridge and CARDINAL of the problem teeth . The dentist was unable to complete the treatment as the applicant had to be transported back to the detention facility .

NORP In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against the prison authorities , seeking dental treatment as advised by the doctor treating him and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . ORG dismissed the claim on DATE , having found that the applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .

DATE and DATE a civilian dentist removed the dental crowns and bridges from CARDINAL of the applicant ’s teeth , extracted CARDINAL teeth , and treated and shaped the remaining teeth for the forthcoming dental restoration work . In a letter to the head of the remand prison dated DATE , the dentist stressed that it was crucial to ensure that the applicant was transported to the clinic in line with the fixed schedule , starting from DATE . Failure to do so would entail the necessity to start the treatment anew . The dentist also pointed out that the excessively long time the treatment had taken had already caused substantial suffering to the applicant and increased the risk of digestive problems .

Having not been taken to the dentist as recommended , the applicant submitted several requests for the dental treatment , stating that he had lost the ability to chew and in addition to severe teeth pain he started experiencing stomach pain . On DATE the authorities gave their approval for the applicant to be transported to the dentist .

According to written statements of the applicant ’s inmate dated DATE , the applicant had been tormented by unbearable pain and could not sleep normally for DATE . Owing to the constant pain and the lack of teeth the applicant had to refuse prison food for DATE .

In DATE the applicant was taken to a dentist who completed the dental restoration .

The applicant complained that throughout the entire period of his dental treatment , when he had been left practically toothless , no alternative soft food had been made available to him .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She worked as chief accountant in the finance department of ORG ( “ the ORG department ” ) from CARDINAL DATE until her dismissal on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant challenged the lawfulness of her dismissal . She also requested her reinstatement and salary arrears for the period of her enforced absence from work ( вынужденного прогула ) .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of PERSON ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered ORG of GPE to reinstate the applicant in the position she had held in the ORG department on DATE , and to pay her salary arrears in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) , corresponding to the period of her enforced absence from work , that is from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . As regards the applicant ’s reinstatement , the judgment was subject to immediate enforcement .

On DATE ORG issued an order to reinstate the applicant in her previous position . On DATE the ORG department issued the relevant order and the applicant returned to work . The salary arrears awarded by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE were paid to the applicant in DATE or DATE .

On DATE the applicant resigned . She subsequently alleged that she had written her resignation letter under pressure .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought a court action against the ORG department complaining of the delay in the execution of the judgment of DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged additional claims .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ( “ the Town Court ” ) rejected all the claims lodged by the applicant . ORG found it established that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been executed , the applicant had been reinstated to her position and the sum due under that judgment had been paid to her in DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for fresh examination . ORG indicated that the lower court had failed to establish whether the applicant had received the full amount of money due under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and whether she had the right to indexation .

NORP The applicant amended her claims on CARDINAL May , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . She indicated that she had received the sum of RUB CARDINAL under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , but complained that ORG had miscalculated her salary arrears because it had not taken the indexation into account . She also asked for salary arrears from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and for the period in which delivery of her work record had been delayed .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim in part . In particular , it stated as follows :

“ [ T]he court has established that in accordance with the judgment of ORG of Machachkala , PERSON received in DATE , together with her salary and holiday pay , RUB CARDINAL minus RUB CARDINAL of income tax and PERCENT deduction for pension fund in the amount of RUB CARDINAL = RUB CARDINAL . This is confirmed by the payment record for DATE and Mrs. PERSON ’s signature on this payment record certifying that this amount was paid to her . The claimant herself did not deny this fact before the court . ”

As regards the alleged miscalculation of the sum awarded by ORG , ORG noted that the judgment had become final and that the calculation made by ORG had been based on the calculations submitted by the applicant herself . As regards the delay in her reinstatement , ORG awarded the applicant salary arrears for the delay , together with indexation . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment in substance , but reduced the global amount due to the applicant . It was explained to the applicant that the claim concerning indexation of the sum awarded by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE should have been lodged with ORG which had delivered that judgment .

On DATE the judge of ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim concerning the payment of salary arrears and indexation , and invited her to lodge the claim with ORG , which had jurisdiction in view of the defendant ’s address .

On DATE ORG extended the timelimit for lodging an appeal against the decision of DATE with ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim concerning the payment of salary arrears for her enforced absence from work on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction , given that the defendant had moved and was now located within the jurisdiction of ORG of PERSON ( “ the NORP ORG ” ) .

On CARDINAL DATE the Vice - President of ORG of GPE lodged a supervisory - review appeal with the ORG of ORG asking for the quashing of the judgments of DATE and DATE . The ORG pointed out that the same shortcomings had already been identified by ORG in its decision of DATE . However , ORG , when considering the case for the second time , had failed to remedy them .

On DATE ORG , by way of supervisory review , quashed the judicial decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration . ORG also noted that its previous instructions had been ignored by ORG .

On DATE ORG forwarded the case to ORG , which had jurisdiction to examine the applicant ’s case in view of the defendant ’s new address .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim for salary arrears corresponding to the period of her enforced absence on the ground that this dispute had already been decided by a final judgment . ORG also noted that there was another case pending concerning similar claims after the quashing on DATE by ORG of ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE . ORG indicated that if the applicant disagreed with the judgment of DATE , she could only lodge an application for a supervisory review of that judgment ; her other claims , including that in respect of the non - enforcement of the aforementioned judgment , were to be considered in the course of the proceedings pending before ORG . Consequently , ORG discontinued the proceedings pending before ORG .

On DATE , following the request of its President , ORG quashed ORG order of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the ground that a domestic court which had accepted its jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction existing at the material time should decide the case on the merits , even if those rules had subsequently changed . The case was thus remitted to ORG for consideration on the merits .

On DATE the applicant amended her requests for the indexation of all the amounts claimed . On CARDINAL DATE she again amended her claim . Further amendments were submitted by the applicant on CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE . As regards the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant claimed that the salary arrears due under that judgment had not been paid to her until DATE , and had been paid without indexation , and that not all the sums had been taken into account in the calculation of the amount due to her .

On DATE ORG found for the applicant and awarded her different sums together with indexation , compensation for nonpecuniary damage , costs and expenses . As regards the judgment of DATE , the court noted that the payment of salary arrears had been executed with a delay of DATE .

As the defendant had missed the deadline for appealing , it was extended on DATE and the defendant appealed .

On DATE ORG rejected a number of the applicant ’s claims , reduced the amount awarded in respect of non - pecuniary damage , quashed ORG judgment and sent the case back for re - consideration .

On DATE the applicant again amended her claims . She appears to have submitted the same claims as those rejected by ORG on DATE . The applicant notably claimed that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had still not been enforced as regards the payment of salary arrears for her enforced absence from work from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the claims previously rejected by ORG .

In a second decision adopted on DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim in part . It refused her claim for salary arrears corresponding to the delay in execution of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that that sum had been sent to her in DATE but she had refused to collect it . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal . It quashed ORG judgment on the basis of the same shortcomings as those previously indicated by it . Noting that the proceedings had been pending since DATE , ORG decided , with the agreement of both parties , to examine the case as a first - instance court . ORG rejected the part of the applicant ’s appeal concerning her claims decided by the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG , noting that the defendant had not agreed to the modification of jurisdiction in favour of ORG , decided to forward the case to ORG for consideration as the first - instance court . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE by ORG on the grounds of a procedural irregularity ( absence of parties at the hearing ) and remitted the case to ORG for consideration anew .

On DATE ORG , after hearing the parties and following a request lodged by the defendant ’s representative , decided to forward the case to ORG for consideration as the first - instance court . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of ORG of DATE to remit the case to ORG .

On DATE the applicant further amended her claims .

On DATE ORG decided to forward the case to ORG . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter to the same court for consideration anew . The reasons for the decision were the same than those indicated in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant amended her claim .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim in part and awarded her certain financial compensation for salary arrears , legal costs and non - pecuniary damage . Both the applicant and the defendant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case for consideration anew . ORG noted that it appeared from the materials of the case file that the salary arrears awarded by the decision of DATE had been paid to the applicant in DATE .

On DATE the proceedings were suspended because the applicant was ill . They were resumed on DATE .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings because the applicant failed to appear in court . It appears that this order became final .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

He was detained in the remand section of GPE prison from CARDINAL DATE to DATE .

For DATE he was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) with CARDINAL other inmates , with QUANTITY of personal space .

For CARDINAL days he was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . For CARDINAL days he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space and for DATE he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space . For CARDINAL one days he shared the cell with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space .

For QUANTITY days he was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . For DATE he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space and for DATE he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space . For DATE he shared the cell with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space .

The cells for CARDINAL detainees , where the applicant was held , were equipped with CARDINAL bunk beds with a total of CARDINAL sleeping places , CARDINAL large and CARDINAL small table , CARDINAL chairs and a set of cupboards for each of the detainees . Detainees could freely open or close windows in cells . On DATE the sixth bed was removed .

As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of GPE prison , material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions , see the judgment in PERSON and PERSON GPE , nos . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

As to the out - of - cell time in the remand section , the ORG found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night , save for DATE outdoor exercise , and TIME in a recreation room ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § MONEY ) . According to the information supplied by the Government in the present case , on CARDINAL DATE the time spent outdoors was extended to TIME and a half per day and in DATE the outside yard was covered by a roof . From DATE detainees could spend TIME per day out of their cells .

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


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

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

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

In her initial letter to ORG , the applicant stated that from an early age she had been subjected to repeated physical and psychological abuse by her family . Her parents , especially her mother , had been aggressive towards her both verbally and physically , had refused to allow her to go anywhere unsupervised and had taken her to a psychologist because she had not achieved the highest possible marks when she was in second grade . In addition , her GPE abuse had continued after they discovered that she had been attending DATE yoga classes organised by ORG into the Absolute ( Mişcarea pentru PERSON în Absolut – “ MISA ” ) .

According to some reports , including an ORG report of CARDINAL DATE ( AI Index EUR DATE ) , from DATE there had been several accounts of alleged police abuse of individuals who practised yoga and who were members of ORG . The reports noted that the authorities seemed to condone public intolerance of MISA as they perceived the leader of the organisation as an individual who urged his sympathisers to leave their way of life in order to pursue a communal life and to practice sexual perversion .

In DATE a large - scale negative press campaign and police operation targeted PERSON . The leader and some members of the organisation faced criminal investigation for the alleged sexual corruption of minors . PERSON ’s leader left the country for GPE . In DATE the NORP authorities refused an extradition request by the NORP authorities .

On DATE the applicant , who was of full legal age , was hospitalised in ORG . According to her , she was taken to the said hospital by her parents against her will after they had discovered that she was attending yoga classes .

The medical reports produced by the said hospital stated that it was the first time the patient had been admitted to FAC , and that she had been admitted at her mother ’s request because of anxious and negative behaviour , irritability , a tendency to cry easily and depression , which were a reaction to psychological trauma , in particular a conflict with her parents . She was diagnosed with reactive depression and anxiety . The applicant ’s condition had improved after group psychotherapy . She had been recommended medical treatment , psychotherapy and been advised to avoid psychotraumatic situations .

Her hospitalisation ended on DATE .

On DATE the applicant travelled to her hometown , GPE , accompanied by PERSON , her fiancé , in order to obtain a copy of her birth certificate , which she needed inter alia for her marriage to GPE

While she was in the building housing the register office ( Oficiul de Stare Civilă ) , her family appeared and surrounded her .

According to the applicant , her mother convinced her to go outside and talk to them before applying for her birth certificate . Once outside the building , her family became aggressive . After they pushed PERSON to the ground , they forced her into a vehicle and drove her to her grandparents’ house . Once there , her family took away her regular clothes and replaced them with old clothes and slippers . They also took away her money and identity papers . In addition , she was kept indoors continuously , supervised , threatened and psychologically pressured by them .

On DATE Dr F. , a general practitioner , referred the applicant to a psychiatric hospital with a diagnosis of schizo - paranoid behavioural disorder ( tulburare de comportament de tip schizoparanoidă ) . There is no evidence in the file if PERSON assessed the applicant prior to the drafting of the referral note , or on how the diagnosis was established .

On DATE the applicant ’s parents took her to ORG . According to the hospital ’s public webpage , it is located in a forest QUANTITY from the town of GPE and can be reached only by private car or minibus .

On DATE , the applicant ’s mother signed an informed consent form provided by the hospital on behalf of the applicant , acknowledging that she had read , understood and had time to consider all the information in the leaflet entitled “ Information on GPE ( GPE ) for patients and their families ” ( PERSON pentru pacienți si familii ) , that all her questions had been answered adequately and she had clarified any unknown words with the doctor or a member of the medical team , and that she was willing to accept the risks of the treatment .

The applicant ’s mother was admitted to the hospital together with the applicant and remained there for DATE of the latter ’s hospitalisation .

According to a clinical observation paper on the applicant produced by ORG , she had been hospitalised on the basis of PERSON referral and diagnosis . The diagnosis on DATE of hospitalisation had been “ evolving borderline [ disorder ] ” ( borderline ȋn evoluție ) . That diagnosis remained unchanged during her hospitalisation and on DATE of her discharge . During her hospitalisation the applicant was given psychotropic drug treatment which included GPE . Her condition and progress were regularly monitored . She repeatedly suffered from , inter alia , constipation , lack of insight , lack of communication and drowsiness . She also presented a risk of orthostatic hypertension , which was monitored . In addition , on DATE she “ mentioned discharge ” ( aminteşte despre externare ) .

On DATE ORG informed GPE that , inter alia , the applicant had been admitted to a specialised medical clinic for treatment and that the doctors had prohibited any contact with her during the full course of treatment .

On DATE the applicant signed a written statement to the effect that she refused to allow the disclosure of the information in her observation paper .

The applicant was discharged from hospital on DATE .

On DATE , following an enquiry by PERSON agreed that the applicant was fit to enrol at a university .

On DATE the management of ORG informed the Government that according to PERSON the applicant ’s hospitalisation had been voluntary . On account of the applicant ’s clinical condition , the informed consent form had been signed by the applicant ’s mother on her behalf . The applicant could have left the hospital at any time . The hospital was located in the middle of a forest but had no fence or guards . The applicant had had access to CARDINAL mobile phones and CARDINAL landline phones . She had not been guarded at any time during her hospitalisation because ORG was not designed for forced hospitalisation and was used only for voluntary hospitalisations . The informed consent form signed by the applicant ’s mother had amounted to an agreement to both hospitalisation and treatment because at that time , that is , on DATE , a standardised informed consent form had not been required . The hospital had applied the full procedure for non - voluntary hospitalisation as per the rules of enforcement contained in PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE on mental health and the protection of people with mental disorders ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) from DATE , when that legislation was enacted .

On DATE PERSON brought criminal proceedings against the applicant ’s parents and brother , for unlawful deprivation of liberty .

The preliminary criminal investigation was assigned to police officer PERSON

On DATE the applicant ’s father gave a statement to the police officer . He mentioned that the applicant had refused to join them in returning home . Nonetheless , disregarding her refusal , they had taken her to her GPE house and then had her hospitalised . They had taken those measures because they considered that it was their duty to help their daughter in view of the negative reports they had heard about PERSON .

On DATE police officer PERSON recommended , on the basis of the available evidence , that the Bârlad prosecutor ’s office should not initiate criminal proceedings . The police officer had established that in DATE the applicant had left her GPE home and had started attending yoga classes organised by ORG . Subsequently , she had abandoned her studies and ceased to communicate with her family except for a few telephone conversations and a publicly televised argument . According to her parents , they had a family history of mental illness affecting consent . In this context , after discovering the applicant ’s visit to her home town they had tried to talk to her outside the register office , but PERSON opposed . After a skirmish , the applicant ’s mother had taken her to the family car in order to continue the discussion . PERSON had attempted to stop the car and had subsequently fallen to the ground . According to the staff members of the register office the applicant ’s parents had not acted against her will . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had lived with her maternal grandparents and had then been hospitalised in ORG . An attempt had been made to question the applicant while she was there , but this had not been possible because she had been administered psychotropic medication .

By a decision of DATE , the GPE prosecutor ’s office , in particular prosecutor GPE , relying on the facts established by police officer PERSON , decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant ’s parents and brother on the ground that no offence had been committed .

The applicant ’s fiancé challenged that decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor . He argued that the criminal investigation had been superficial because , inter alia , the authorities had failed to take a statement from the applicant , establish the type of medical treatment administered to her , and ascertain whether she had been taken away by her parents against her will .

By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , the GPE prosecutor ’s office , in particular the head prosecutor PERSON , dismissed PERSON ’s challenge as illfounded . It held that it had not been possible to take a statement from the applicant because she had been in a situation and state which prevented her from engaging in conversation as a result of psychotropic medication she had been administered , which had a negative psychopathological effect . Moreover , it would have been immoral to find that the applicant ’s parents had unlawfully deprived her of her freedom given that she had been unable to express her own will because she was constantly accompanied by ORG members and was not allowed to attend meetings alone . PERSON was DATE older than the applicant and he had not been able to prove that he was her fiancé . He had initially informed an employee at the mayor ’s office that he was the applicant ’s boyfriend , and had stated that he was her fiancé only after a telephone conversation with a third party , and only in order to justify his own interests in respect of the applicant . It had been natural for the applicant ’s parents to attempt to bring their daughter back home by any means necessary and to try to ensure her physical and emotional recovery , given that they had seen the press campaign concerning what happened to young women at the MISA premises . According to her parents , they had made considerable efforts to recover the applicant physically , while psychologically it had been clear that she was unable to express herself as long as LAW members accompanied her everywhere , including to family meetings . As to the medical treatment the applicant had been administered , the parties would have to ask the doctor who had treated her . The applicant ’s fiancé appealed against that decision before the domestic courts .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s fiancé ’s appeal . It held that he had refused to substantiate his action before the court . Moreover , there was no evidence in the file that the applicant ’s parents had unlawfully deprived her of her freedom .

There is no evidence in the case - file that the applicant ’s fiancé lodged any appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment .

On DATE the applicant was released from hospital and taken by her parents to her GPE house . According to the applicant , during her stay there she was kept under supervision and isolated from the outside world .

On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings against her parents , alleging , inter alia , that they had forcibly detained her and that she had been unable to leave the house . She urged the authorities to do everything necessary to help her leave , given that she was of age and wanted to live her own life .

By a decision of DATE , the GPE prosecutor ’s office , dismissed the applicant ’s complaint on the ground that her GPE actions did not disclose any elements of an offence . It noted that the applicant ’s parents had been worried because she was a ORG member , and that was why they had taken her to her grandmother ’s home and then to a psychiatric hospital . According to the applicant ’s statement following her questioning , she had not been forcibly detained by her parents but they had helped to get her admitted to a psychiatric hospital . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant challenged the above - mentioned decision before the domestic courts .

According to the applicant , on DATE , helped by friends and her fiancé , she managed to leave her GPE house . Afterwards she settled in GPE and on DATE she married PERSON

On DATE the applicant brought disciplinary proceedings before ORG against Dr I. in respect of her forced placement in ORG of ORG and the medical treatment that she had received there .

On DATE and DATE , PERSON , the applicant ’s private psychiatrist , issued CARDINAL medical certificates stating that she was psychologically healthy . The certificates noted that the applicant had been monitored by PERSON since DATE and that during that time she had not received any treatment and had shown no signs of a psychological condition .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The applicant challenged the decision before ORG ( PERSON a PERSON din GPE ) .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE , finding that PERSON had acted in breach of the rules of good medical practice , and gave him a warning ( avertisment ) . It held that according to the available evidence the applicant and her parents had been in a state of conflict and she had been opposed to her hospitalisation . Consequently , the doctor had been required to examine the patient ’s clinical situation and the circumstances she was facing . Regardless of his decision , the doctor had to protect the patient . If he had assessed the patient ’s clinical condition as amounting to an imminent risk for her or others , or if failure to hospitalise her would have aggravated her condition , non - voluntary hospitalisation would have been required even if the patient objected to her hospitalisation . However , there was no evidence that the relevant procedure had been initiated .

At the same time , only medical reasons could justify a decision to hospitalise . However , the observation sheet produced by the hospital mentioned as one of the reasons for hospitalisation – none of them of a psychotic intensity to suggest a psychotic development in the borderline disorder – that the patient had joined counter - cultural informal groups ( agregă ȋn grupuri informale disculturale ) . Moreover , the observation sheet did not contain a full psychological assessment . Consequently , the treatment with ORG had not been justified .

Furthermore , ORG arguments that the hospitalisation had not been forced because the patient could have left the hospital , and that PERSON had a professional duty to examine the patient and to prescribe adequate treatment , could not be taken into consideration . The doctor ’s conduct had to be in accordance with the law , which stated that the treatment had to be discussed with the patient and that the patient ’s consent had to be sought prior to treatment . The aforementioned conditions became less important only in the circumstances of forced hospitalisation . However , it did not appear that a forced hospitalisation procedure had been initiated in the applicant ’s case .

PERSON treatment was to be used exclusively in the advanced stages of schizophrenia or in cases of severe borderline personality disorder involving frequent relapses and self - harm , if no other medication proved to offer a satisfactory improvement in the patient ’s condition . The use of that medication in the applicant ’s case from the early stages of her treatment had been unusual . In some cases the medication could cause agranulacytosis ( a low white blood cells count which favours fevers and infections ) . Consequently , doctors who prescribed it were required to comply strictly with the necessary safety measures . However , in the applicant ’s case there was no evidence that the required DATE blood tests had been carried out .

Furthermore , the necessary tests for establishing whether she was suffering from a borderline personality disorder had not been conducted at all .

On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings for unlawful deprivation of liberty DATE and DATE , serious bodily harm , and cooperation with a view to committing an offence , against her family , police officer PERSON and Dr I. She argued that the culprits had cooperated in order to unlawfully deprive her of her liberty , to hospitalise her against her will and to damage her health as a result of the medical treatment she received in the hospital .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office questioned the applicant . She stated , inter alia , that on arrival at the hospital she had informed the nurse who had told her that she was being hospitalised that she opposed the measure . She had subsequently been taken to PERSON office , where she had had a short conversation with him and she had expressly informed him that she did not wish to remain in the hospital . The doctor had informed her that her general practitioner had referred her to the hospital , and he forced her to take medication , which had made her drowsy and numb . Afterwards she had been taken out of the doctor ’s office and one of the nurses had asked her to sign a document which she was unable to read owing to her situation . The nurse had not informed her of the document ’s content . Although she had signed the document automatically , she had only later been told that she had signed her hospitalisation papers .

The applicant further stated that during her hospitalisation she had been constantly supervised by her mother . In addition , she had received inappropriate medication and had constantly felt ill . In particular , she had suffered nausea , headaches , drowsiness , constipation , urinary incontinence , excess salivation , low immunity , loss of motor control and loss of insight . She had also gained QUANTITY and had developed anaemia as a result of suffering haemorrhages .

She also stated that during her hospitalisation she had informed police officer PERSON that she had been hospitalised against her will , and because he had refused to act on that information she had refused to grant him access to her medical file . In DATE the same police officer had visited her at her GPE house to question her after her fiancé had brought criminal proceedings against some of her family members . On that occasion the police officer had dictated the content of her statement and had omitted some of the facts presented by her .

On DATE , the applicant informed the PERSON prosecutor ’s office that she had joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party .

On DATE , PERSON office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against PERSON on the ground that no offence had been committed , ordered that the criminal investigation be continued in respect of the applicant ’s family members , and referred the case to the ORG prosecutor ’s office . It noted that police officer PERSON had visited the applicant at the hospital in order to take a statement from her . While initially PERSON had denied PERSON access to the applicant because of her medical condition , in DATE he had agreed to allow him to speak to her . The prosecutor ’s office also noted that according to ORG the applicant had refused to provide a statement or to allow him to copy her medical observation papers , and had not informed him that she had been hospitalised against her will . Lastly , it noted that there was no evidence to suggest that police officer PERSON had been informed that the applicant had been deprived of her liberty when he questioned her at her GPE home in DATE . The applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the head prosecutor at the PERSON prosecutor ’s office allowed the applicant ’s challenge , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered that the investigation be reopened . The head prosecutor considered that the applicant and the defence witnesses indicated by her should be heard . In addition , the medical documents concerning the applicant ’s state of health , the reasons for her hospitalisation and her medical recovery were to be attached to the investigation file .

On DATE , PERSON office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against police officer PERSON , the applicant ’s family members or PERSON on the ground that no offence had been committed . It held that according to the medical report of DATE produced by ORG of ORG , the applicant had been suffering from a schizo - paranoid behavioural disorder which had required her hospitalisation in a specialised medical facility for treatment and medical supervision . Her family ’s actions had been caused by the applicant joining ORG , and they had only been attempting to provide her with the opportunity to continue her treatment . The applicant challenged that decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor .

By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , the head prosecutor of PERSON office dismissed the applicant ’s challenge and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts . She argued that after the investigation of the case had been reopened on CARDINAL DATE , the authorities had failed to gather any additional evidence , in particular to hear witnesses , to determine the circumstances of her confinement , and to examine the medical treatment she had received , which had affected her health .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the decision of the prosecutor ’s office . It held that no offence of cooperating in order to commit an unlawful act could have been committed given that it could not be concluded that the alleged perpetrators had met one another other than by chance , or that they had made detailed plans to commit an offence . In addition , the available evidence did not confirm the existence of an offence of serious bodily harm . There were no medical reports supporting the allegations of trauma , and the medical report of DATE produced by ORG of ORG had stated that the applicant was suffering from a schizoparanoid behavioural disorder which required her hospitalisation in a specialised medical facility for treatment and medical supervision . Lastly , the available evidence did not confirm the existence of an offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty either . On the basis of the witness statements , it could not be concluded that on DATE the applicant ’s family had acted against her will . The applicant had also failed to inform officer PERSON that her family had deprived her of her liberty either at the hospital or at her PERSON home . Consequently , given the absence of clear and concrete evidence of guilt , the alleged ORG right to the presumption of innocence could not be rebutted .

The court further dismissed the applicant ’s argument that after the re - opening of the criminal investigation no further evidence had been added to the file , on the grounds that she had been heard by the prosecutor ’s office and that she had not requested the hearing of witnesses or additional evidence . The applicant ’s argument that the authorities had failed to review the circumstances of her confinement and the medical treatment she had received was also dismissed on the ground that the medical documents attached to the file had stated her diagnosis and the doctor ’s recommendation of hospitalisation , treatment and medical supervision .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment .

By a final judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law on the ground that the available evidence did not clearly and unequivocally prove the guilt of the alleged perpetrators . The judgment was drafted on DATE and appears to have been made available to the applicant on DATE .

On DATE , following the referral of PERSON office of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG prosecutor ’s office decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant ’s family members , PERSON , and police officer PERSON , on the ground that no offences had been committed . It noted , inter alia , that the applicant had been committed to hospital with a diagnosis of paranoid behavioural disorder . Moreover , her condition required continuous outpatient medical care for an undetermined period of time . The applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor .

On DATE the head prosecutor of the ORG prosecutor ’s office declined to examine the applicant ’s challenge on the ground that the prosecutor who had delivered the decision of DATE was his wife , and he referred the case to PERSON office .

By a final decision of DATE , PERSON office dismissed the applicant ’s challenge on the ground that it had already examined the issues raised by it in its decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts . She argued that the authorities investigating her case had failed to gather all available evidence , or hear all parties to the proceedings , and that the decision of PERSON office had concerned a different person and different offences .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal , quashed the decision , ordered the ORG prosecutor ’s office to continue its investigation of the case , to gather the evidence requested by the parties and to question the parties , the staff members of the hospital , and the neighbours of the grandmother in whose house the applicant had been held . It held that the previous decisions by the prosecutor ’s offices had addressed the applicant ’s complaints in respect of only some of the parties concerned . In addition , the medical report of DATE had been contradicted by the conclusions of ORG decision . Further , according to the applicant ’s psychiatrist , from DATE the applicant had not received any treatment and had not shown any symptoms of illness .

The ORG prosecutor ’s office and the defendants appealed on points of law . The prosecutor ’s office argued that the statements that had been taken by PERSON office were relevant on account of the hierarchical relationship between the CARDINAL ORG offices , and therefore the re - questioning of the applicant and of the perpetrators had no longer been required . In addition , the applicant had failed to identify the witnesses she wished to have questioned . The questioning of all medical staff had no legal basis and the court had not identified which of the neighbours of the applicant ’s grandmother should have been questioned , or the scope of such questioning . Moreover , the applicant had failed to prove that any offences had actually been committed , had not submitted any medical report attesting to a bodily injury , and had herself acknowledged that she had signed the hospitalisation papers automatically , and that during her stay at her grandparents’ home she had had access to a visiting room ( vorbitor ) and thus had been able to communicate with others . Furthermore , according to ORG the hospitalisation of a patient was possible against his or her will . The same body had concluded that the applicant ’s hospitalisation had been voluntary . Lastly , the psychiatrist had been disciplined on account of the inappropriate treatment administered to the applicant and not because the applicant had not been suffering from of DATE .

By a final judgment of DATE , ORG declared ORG appeal on points of law inadmissible on procedural grounds , allowed the GPE appeal on points of law , quashed the judgment of the lower court , and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE . It held that thed during the sets of proceedings which had ended with the final decision of CARDINAL DATE and the final judgment of DATE , and that the applicant had not adduced any new information or evidence in order to justify the opening of criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts and persons .

On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings for abuse of office and aiding and abetting an offender against prosecutors ORG and GPE The applicant complained about the quality of the ORG investigations .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG decided , on the basis of the available evidence , not to initiate criminal proceedings against the CARDINAL prosecutors on the ground that no offence had been committed . It held that although insufficiently reasoned , the examination of the merits of the case by the GPE prosecutor ’s office had been accurate . In addition , it noted that those events which had taken place after DATE had not been known at the time and therefore had not been investigated . Consequently , it referred the case to the GPE prosecutor ’s office in order for it to investigate the applicant ’s parents for the alleged deprivation of the applicant ’s liberty in the period DATE and DATE . The applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor .

By a final decision of DATE , the head prosecutor of the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG dismissed the applicant ’s challenge as ill - founded . The applicant appealed against that decision before the domestic courts .

DATE . By a decision of DATE , the GPE prosecutor ’s office dismissed the applicant ’s action concerning the alleged deprivation of her liberty by her parents in the period DATE and DATE . It held that the applicant ’s complaint had already been dismissed in the final judgments of DATE and DATE in accordance with the relevant rules of criminal procedure , and in the absence of any new relevant information the criminal proceedings could not be reopened or reinitiated . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against that decision before the domestic courts .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE as ill - founded . It held that there was no evidence suggesting that the prosecutors had committed an offence , or that the decisions taken by them had been unlawful . The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment .

By a final judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal as time - barred .

The applicant submitted to ORG a large number of press articles , photographs and transcripts of television talk - shows concerning the conduct of the leader of PERSON , the criminal investigation against him , the applicant ’s conflict with her parents , and the measures and efforts undertaken by her parents to reconnect with her .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint that the actions of her parents and PERSON had amounted to discrimination on the basis of her beliefs . It held that the facts of the applicant ’s case did not indicate discrimination . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant challenged that decision before the domestic courts .