Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

The applicant was born in DATE . He lived in GPE and was the mayor of GPE DATE . He is currently detained in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE ( “ the correctional colony ” ) .

NORP In DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in custody pending criminal proceedings against him . He suffered from several illnesses , including a urinary condition , a rectal prolapse , hepatitis C , and type CARDINAL diabetes . He was confined to a wheelchair and had to use catheters and enemas to urinate and defecate .

On DATE he lodged an application with the ORG complaining that he was not receiving adequate medical assistance in detention . DATE the ORG indicated to ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG that he should be examined by medical experts .

On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment in the case , finding , inter alia , that there had been violations of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention on account of the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with adequate medical care or to comply with the interim measure indicated ( see PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Relying on LAW held that the authorities should admit the applicant , at that time detained in remand prison no . CARDINAL in PERSON - on - Don , to a specialised medical facility where he should remain under constant medical supervision and should be provided with adequate medical services corresponding to his needs ; alternatively , the authorities could place him in a specialised prison medical facility , if the facility could guarantee the requisite level of medical supervision and care . ( see PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

After DATE , the date of the ORG ’s judgment in the applicant ’s first case , he continued being detained in the remand prison pending the completion of his trial .

According to the information from the Government , in DATE the applicant ’s cell was re - equipped to take account of his needs as a wheelchair user . Handrails were installed near his bed and the toilet , and the furniture was put at a lower level in order to be accessible . Wheelchair ramps and a lift were installed in the detention facility . A room for personal - hygiene procedures needed by the applicant was located opposite his cell with all the necessary equipment .

In DATE he was examined by various doctors , such as a general practitioner , a neurologist , a surgeon , a urologist , and a proctologist . He underwent basic medical tests and received the treatment he had been prescribed . The prison doctors found his overall condition to be satisfactory .

The applicant ’s lawyers noticed , however , that his state of health had worsened . They solicited medical opinions on the treatment required .

On DATE Dr W. , a specialist in neurology , examined the applicant . He noted progressive muscular dystrophy , the development of leg convulsions , and urinary problems . An immediate admission to a specialised hospital for long - term treatment and urological surgery was recommended . The doctor said that further detention in prison would put the applicant ’s life at risk .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic expert , Dr N. , who confirmed the deterioration of his medical condition , and noted the development of bedsores . The doctor suggested that the applicant ’s state of health might warrant early release on medical grounds and stated that he needed constant medical care .

On DATE Dr N. assessed the quality of the medical care in the remand prison . He noted the absence of exercise therapy , physiotherapy , and massage , and was concerned that the prison premises were not sterile enough for hygienic procedures .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG of ORG found the applicant guilty of having organised an act of terrorism and an attempt to murder an investigator in his case . He was sentenced to life imprisonment in a high - security correctional colony . ORG of GPE upheld the conviction and sentence on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in the correctional colony .

He spent DATE of his detention in an ordinary cell in the quarantine wing . According to a letter from the chairman of ORG sent to the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE , the cell was not adapted to the needs of a wheelchair prisoner . The applicant depended on his fellow inmates , who assisted him in his DATE needs , including helping him to perform enemas on himself .

Every day the applicant was taken , handcuffed and blindfolded , to the prison yard for exercise .

On DATE he was examined by several prison doctors : a tuberculosis specialist , an infectious - diseases specialist , a dentist and a general practitioner . The latter recorded his illnesses , ordered blood and urine tests , and prescribed treatment , comprising of a special diet and drugs . He noted that the applicant needed regular catheterisation and enemas . Examinations by specialists in endocrinology , ophthalmology , gastroenterology , neurology , cardiology , urology , and surgery , and exercise therapy were recommended .

The applicant was regularly visited by the prison general practitioner in the quarantine wing and underwent blood and urine tests . The doctor was satisfied with his medical condition and the results of his treatment .

On DATE the applicant was moved to medical unit no . CARDINAL and placed in cell no . CARDINAL . He shared its space of QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL cellmate . The applicant was provided with a wide bed , a sink installed at a low level , and a medical couch , which he used during self - catheterisation procedures . Enemas were carried out in a separate room twice a week with the assistance of the medical unit staff . The custodial authorities continued handcuffing and blindfolding him while he was escorted to the yard .

On DATE he was examined by several doctors : a general practitioner , an endocrinologist , a neurologist , and a urologist from the civilian hospital in GPE . According to the medical records kept by the doctors , his medical condition was acute . No recommendations for inpatient treatment or urgent medical measures were made . The endocrinologist ordered tests of his thyroid - gland hormones , which were carried out on DATE . The neurologist prescribed exercise . The latter prescription was endorsed by a prison doctor on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was again examined by the endocrinologist , who noted , inter alia , the risk due to a low level of thyroid hormones . Another hormone test was prescribed for DATE .

The applicant was examined by a medical board to establish whether he was entitled to early release on medical grounds . The board concluded that his medical condition did not warrant it .

From DATE a commission of officials from ORG , ORG , the PERSON prosecutor ’s office , ORG in GPE and medical unit no . CARDINAL came to the applicant ’s detention facility and examined the quality of his medical care . The commission concluded that it was adequate .

On DATE the applicant was visited by an exercise - therapy specialist , who taught him exercises to support his health . It appears that this visit was a follow - up to previous visits by the specialist , in DATE and DATE . However , the medical record does not disclose particular details of the recommendations made on those CARDINAL previous occasions .

On DATE CARDINAL members of ORG ( Общественная наблюдательная комиссия PERSON области ) inspected the colony . It appears that by the time of the inspection the applicant had been moved to another cell . The inspectors noted in particular , that the cell was divided into CARDINAL sections by metal bars and housed CARDINAL inmates . The applicant ’s section measured QUANTITY m ; it had a bath , a medical couch , a sink , and a bedside table with television set . The toilet was not partitioned from the rest of the cell and the applicant could be observed by his cellmate while using it . The correctional colony lacked wheelchair ramps , so the applicant could not freely access the yard or meeting rooms . He complained that the necessary drugs had had to be supplied by his relatives , owing to a lack of funds , which were to be allocated in the near future . Medical supervision was carried out by the general practitioner as regular examinations by other specialists had not been considered necessary . Allegedly owing to the applicant not having received medical massages , the applicant ’s legs started convulsing . He was assisted by his cellmate , who helped him to get into bed . The applicant was not given a special diet .

On DATE and DATE , and DATE a special medical board of highly qualified civilian and prison doctors , and specialists in cardiology , endocrinology , neurology , and urology examined the applicant . They concluded that there was no need to admit the applicant to a specialist medical facility and that he could continue receiving treatment in the medical unit . The doctors were satisfied with the quality of medical care given to the applicant .

In the meantime the applicant ’s lawyer complained to the Ombudsman of GPE of the applicant ’s detention conditions and the poor quality of his medical treatment . The complaint was forwarded to the prosecutor ’s office for the supervision of detention facilities in GPE . Having carried out enquiries , on DATE the ORG replied as follows :

“ It has been established that on admission to [ the correctional colony the applicant ] was placed in [ a cell of the quarantine wing ] . It was designed for CARDINAL persons and measured QUANTITY . m , which satisfied the requirements of LAW ... [ The applicant ’s ] cellmate assisted him in his DATE needs , which included hygienic procedures and moving around the cell . Accordingly , [ the applicant ] was not restricted in his rights ...

The allegation that [ the applicant ] was not provided with special conditions [ needed in his situation ] is not true . His cell in the medical unit is furnished with a specially designed table , a bed and a sink , so he can easily access them and move freely about the cell .

[ The applicant ] is assisted by the medical unit staff members and inmates in his movements within the medical unit , in particular when entering / leaving buildings in a wheelchair , and in his DATE needs .

As called for by [ the applicant ’s ] disability and illnesses , he is examined by the prison doctors on a DATE basis , he receives medical treatment as prescribed to the relevant medical standards , and he is provided with dietary nutrition .

In DATE [ the custodial authorities ] provided him with a mattress [ to prevent ] bedsores .

[ The applicant ] urinates with the help of a catheter which he inserts CARDINAL times per day ( as recommended by [ a urologist ] ) . He defecates with the help of enemas performed DATE by medical staff from the medical unit . Detainees , who work in the medical unit , escort [ the applicant ] to a special room for that procedure and clean it afterwards .

The regional medical standard “ Procedures for simple medical procedures , desmurgy and immobilisation ” , approved by an Order of the Ministry of the Health Care and Social Development of Orenburg Region on DATE does not require catheterisation or enemas to be carried out in a sterile room . Sterile catheters and enemas tips are used by [ the applicant ] .

In breach of LAW no . DATE of DATE ) , [ the applicant ] was escorted for walks handcuffed and blindfolded until DATE .

Moreover , the inquiry , which had been performed earlier , revealed breaches of LAW of LAW on LAW and LAW , DATE , and CARDINAL of ORG of the Disabled in GPE ( Federal Law of DATE No . CARDINAL ) . [ In accordance with the aforementioned Regulation , the applicant ] should have been given the necessary devices ( a wheelchair for mobility , an indoor wheelchair , a gel pillow to prevent bedsores , nappies for adults , and urinals ) . However , the custodial authorities have not provided him with those items . [ Moreover , ] the detention facility did not take measures to provide the exercise and sport therapy [ for the applicant ] indicated in his rehabilitation programme .

In the light of the above , on DATE the prosecutor ’s office for supervision of detention facilities in GPE issued a formal order to the head of the correctional colony to rectify the identified shortcomings . The order has been ... complied with ...

There are no grounds for a further intervention by the prosecutor ... ”


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

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was interrogated as suspect of breach of duty and other offences .

In the ensuing criminal proceedings , after a remittal , ORG acquitted the applicant on DATE .

NORP On appeal , ORG upheld the acquittal on DATE .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence;Proved guilty according to law)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Síofra O’Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

On DATE the Munich II Public Prosecution Office charged the applicant with coercion to engage in sexual activity in CARDINAL cases and with sexual coercion in another CARDINAL cases .

On DATE the GPE ORG , after taking evidence at DATE of hearing , issued a decision limiting the prosecution to charges concerning CARDINAL incidents which had taken place DATE . The court provisionally discontinued the proceedings in respect of all the other offences the applicant had been charged with ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in view of the penalty the applicant could expect for the CARDINAL remaining incidents . The applicant was further informed that if he was convicted the court could take into account findings made in respect of the other incidents when setting his sentence .

In a judgment delivered on DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of coercion to engage in sexual activity , committed DATE , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

In its findings of fact , ORG stated that DATE and DATE the applicant had forced P. , aged DATE at the relevant time and suffering from a moderate mental disorder and an autistic and speech disorder , to satisfy him manually or orally on CARDINAL further occasions ( out of the CARDINAL offences the applicant had initially been charged with , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court had regard to P. ’s extensive description of different incidents , which happened either in the house the applicant and PERSON were both living in or in the applicant ’s car . P. had notably explained how the applicant had regularly , when his wife and son were absent , brought her into his apartment or in the basement boiler room , had undressed himself and had instructed her how to satisfy him , partly while playing pornographic films . The applicant had systematically threatened P. that she would have to return to a home for the disabled if she did not comply with his requests . From CARDINAL to DATE , when the applicant ’s wife and son were on holiday , the applicant had forced P. to satisfy him orally at least twice and to satisfy him manually on CARDINAL further occasions in their house or in the basement boiler room . The veracity of PERSON consistent statements was confirmed by further witnesses and CARDINAL psychological expert opinions on GPE credibility and ability to testify .

ORG explained that it had restricted the conviction to the CARDINAL events that had taken place DATE . It had discontinued the proceedings in respect of the CARDINAL further charges under LAW but was convinced that in CARDINAL cases there had been incidents comparable to the CARDINAL of which the applicant was formally convicted . It had simply been impossible to determine their exact time and place due to the victim ’s speech disorder .

In the impugned passages of the judgment , ORG found as follows :

“ The chamber is convinced on the basis of the credible statement by the injured party that in addition to the CARDINAL cases DATE and DATE on which judgment was passed , CARDINAL other comparable cases occurred . The injured party herself said that the applicant had coerced her to perform sexual acts from DATE . From DATE , the frequency of these incidents had increased and the applicant had demanded sexual gratification from her approximately DATE . Even if CARDINAL were to disregard DATE and DATE and DATE in favour of the applicant and also to presume that from DATE , such incidents occurred DATE there are CARDINAL cases . Following the deduction of a further safety margin the chamber assumes that there were CARDINAL more , comparable cases during the total period from DATE to DATE .

On the other hand , the chamber considers as an aggravating element that it is convinced that , in addition to the CARDINAL incidents in DATE which the accused has been convicted of , there have been CARDINAL comparable incidents since DATE . A conviction for those events was only made impossible by the victim ’s incapacity to substantiate them in terms of the time and the place where they happened in a manner making it possible to define them as procedural offences ( offences in the procedural sense ) . As it could no longer be determined with certainty in which cases the accused , by his threats , made the victim satisfy him orally or manually , the chamber will proceed on the basis that there were CARDINAL further cases of manual satisfaction . ”

( “ PERSON aufgrund der glaubhaften PERSON , dass es neben den vier abgeurteilten GPE i m Zeitraum DATE bis DATE zu QUANTITY , vergleichbaren PERSON . Die Geschädigte selbst gab an , PERSON habe sie bereits ab dem Jahr DATE zu sexuellen ORG genötigt . ORG CARDINAL sei die PERSON gestiegen PERSON habe ungefähr alle CARDINAL ½ ORG verlangt . PERSON wenn man zugunsten des Angeklagten die GPE DATE sowie den DATE unberücksichtigt lässt und zudem PERSON ausgeht , dass es ab dem Jahr DATE lediglich einmal i m Monat zu derartigen GPE , so ergeben sich PERSON . PERSON eines weiteren PERSON die PERSON CARDINAL weiteren , vergleichbaren NORP i m gesamten GPE von DATE bis DATE aus .

PERSON wertet die ORG , dass es nach PERSON Kammer neben den verurteilten vier Vorfällen i m DATE bereits ab DATE zu CARDINAL vergleichbaren Vorfällen gekommen war . PERSON scheiterte lediglich an der mangelnden PERSON , die NORP zeitlich und örtlich so zu konkretisieren , dass diese als prozessuale GPE abgrenzbar waren . PERSON aufklären ließ , in welchen NORP der Angeklagte die Geschädigte durch seine ORG zu einer oralen und in welchen zu einer manuellen ORG brachte , geht die Kammer insoweit von CARDINAL weiteren LOC manuellen ORG aus . ” )

In an appeal on points of law to ORG , the applicant complained that ORG had breached the presumption of innocence guaranteed by LAW by taking CARDINAL unproven incidents into account as an aggravating factor meriting a more severe sentence , despite the fact that the proceedings in relation to them had been discontinued under LAW .

The Federal Public Prosecutor General argued that ORG had been entitled to take account of the sexual offences committed previously by the applicant as an aggravating element as part of his previous history ( PERSON ) and thus as CARDINAL of the elements in setting his sentence under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In accordance with ORG case - law , ORG had made sufficient findings of fact establishing a minimum level of guilt in respect to those offences .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded , without giving specific reasons .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was served on the applicant ’s lawyer on CARDINAL DATE , ORG , without giving reasons , declined to consider a constitutional complaint by the applicant , in which he had again complained of a breach of the presumption of innocence ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

The applicant sued her former employer ( ORG of GPE , hereafter “ the Ministry ” ) .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ( “ the Town Court ” ) awarded the applicant DATE payments as compensation for damage to her health , with subsequent index - linked adjustment in accordance with changes in the statutory minimum DATE salary . The judgment came into force on DATE .

On DATE Federal Law No . CARDINAL was adopted , which , inter alia , amended the procedure for index - linking compensation awards for damage to health . According to the new law , such payments were to be adjusted in accordance with changes in the level of inflation . The minimum monthly salary no longer served as the basis for index - linking .

In DATE the Ministry applied the new method of indexlinking , and recalculated the DATE payments to be paid to the applicant . This resulted in a decrease in the actual DATE amount she received from MONEY ( RUB ) to RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , as established in DATE .

The applicant initiated CARDINAL sets of proceedings , claiming delay interest in respect of CARDINAL distinct periods . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( upheld on DATE ) the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE ( “ the Justice of the Peace ” ) ordered the Ministry to pay the applicant the interest in respect of certain delays in the DATE payments , in accordance with the judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the judge agreed with the applicant ’s calculation of the delay interest ( based on the index - linking of the DATE payments in accordance with the changes in the statutory minimum DATE salary ) . On DATE the court calculated the delay interest based on the amount of the DATE payments , as index - linked in line with the rate of inflation .

On DATE the Justice of the FAC refused the applicant ’s claim for the delay interest . On DATE ORG quashed the above decision and ordered ORG to pay the delay interest as calculated by the applicant . The court held that , in the absence of a relevant judicial decision , ORG had unlawfully changed the mode of index - linking ordered by the judgment of DATE .

NORP In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG requested clarification of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as regards the method of index - linking . On DATE ORG held that , as a result of changes in the relevant legislation , as of DATE the index - linking of the amounts in question was to be based on changes in the level of inflation . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG .

In a letter received on DATE the applicant informed the ORG that in DATE the ORG had stopped paying the DATE payments , owing to a lack of funds in the relevant budget .

According to the Government , the amount due to the applicant from DATE was paid to her in full on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG awarded her delay interest for late payment in respect of the delays in payment DATE . The judgment came into force on DATE , and was executed on DATE .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr B. Jablonka , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE ORG quashed a first - instance judgment convicting the applicant of an offence . In its judgment ORG convicted the applicant of fraud .

ORG also quashed a sentence which had been imposed in a different set of proceedings in DATE and which the applicant had then been serving . It imposed a consolidated DATE prison term and a fine on the applicant . The applicant attended the hearing and the judgment became final upon its delivery on DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant start serving his prison term immediately . On DATE the order was received by the prison where the applicant was detained .

ORG judgment was served on the applicant twice . A receipt signed by the applicant indicates that ORG served the judgment on him on DATE ; a second receipt indicates that ORG ( which dealt with the case at first instance ) served ORG judgment on the applicant on DATE . ORG also served the judgment on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .

On DATE a senior judicial officer at ORG issued a decision to take into account , for the purpose of serving the consolidated prison term imposed by ORG , the period in which the applicant had been remanded in custody from DATE to DATE as well as the period from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , when he had served a prison sentence imposed on him in a different set of criminal proceedings in DATE .

Following a complaint by the applicant , a judge rectified the above - mentioned decision on DATE . In particular , the judge noted that the applicant had started serving the sentence imposed by ORG on DATE . The period during which he had been serving a different sentence as from CARDINAL DATE and which was to be taken into account as regards the term of the consolidated sentence had therefore ended on DATE . ORG judge ’s decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment of DATE . The proceedings are pending .

On DATE the applicant posted a complaint to ORG . With reference to the criminal proceedings that had led to his conviction and detention , he alleged that his rights had been breached by the police , the prosecuting authorities and the courts , as well as by the administration of the prison where he had been detained .

NORP In particular , the applicant alleged that his rights under LAW had been breached , on a number of grounds , in the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction . ORG had delivered its final judgment no . CARDINAL To CARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE . The applicant stated that that judgment had been served on him through ORG on DATE .

NORP The applicant further alleged that LAW had been breached in that he had been detained without any legal grounds from DATE to DATE , because the order imposing the service of the prison sentence which ORG had issued on the former date had been delivered to the prison on the latter . The applicant claimed that he had lodged a complaint in that respect immediately after he had established that fact in the file .

Lastly , the applicant asked ORG to appoint a lawyer to assist him in the proceedings .

ORG rejected the complaint on DATE as having been lodged outside the statutory time - limit of DATE . With reference to the case file , it held that ORG judgment with reasons had been served on the applicant in prison on DATE . The time - limit had thus started to run on DATE and had expired on DATE . However , the applicant had posted his complaint on CARDINAL DATE , that is belatedly . That conclusion was also relevant in respect of the applicant ’s allegation that his rights had been breached before the above - mentioned judgment of ORG .

The Constitutional Court ’s decision stated that in those circumstances it was not necessary to decide on the applicant ’s request for the appointment of a lawyer . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provides that a complaint to ORG can be lodged within DATE from the date on which the decision in question has become final and binding , or on which a measure has been notified , or on which notice of other interference has been given . As regards measures and other interferences , this period commences when the plaintiff could have become aware of them .

ORG has held that in cases where a final decision in the context of criminal proceedings is to be served on the person concerned , the time - limit of DATE under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE starts to run on the date of its service on that person , regardless of the date of its service on his or her lawyer ( for example , decision file number PERSON . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , with further references ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a town in LOC ( CARDINAL of the CARDINAL constituent ORG Herzegovina ) .

The applicant declares himself as PERSON ( CARDINAL of the country ’s “ constituent peoples ” ) . He actively participates in the social and political life of the country . The applicant is a member of the ORG for GPE ( ORG ; “ the ORG ” ) and a founding member of ORG ( PERSON ) .

He has held several elected and appointed political positions in ORG . At the time of lodging his application to the ORG , the applicant was a member of ORG .

In DATE , as a candidate of ORG , the applicant submitted his candidacy for the DATE elections to the Presidency of GPE and GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ GPE izborna PERSON i ORG ” ; “ the ORG ” ) rejected his candidacy . It explained that the applicant could not be elected to the Presidency from the territory of ORG considering that he declared affiliation with ORG . Pursuant to Article V of the LAW and LAW CARDINAL the presidential candidate from that Entity must be a NORP .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for the reconsideration of that decision .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s further appeal . It held that the applicant ’s candidacy was in contravention of the LAW and LAW .

On DATE ORG and the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal relying on LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . On DATE ORG held that there had been no violation of that provision ( decision no . ORG DATE ) . The relevant part of the majority opinion reads as follows ( the translation has been provided by ORG ) :

“ ... Therefore , the provision of LAW , including LAW , should be viewed in the light of the discretionary right of the ORG to impose certain restrictions when it comes to the exercise of individual rights . The said restrictions are justified by the specific nature of the internal order of GPE that was agreed upon by ORG and whose ultimate goal was the establishment of peace and dialogue between the opposing parties given that the said provision was intentionally incorporated into the LAW so that the members of the Presidency come from amongst NORP , NORP and NORP .

There is no dispute that the provision of LAW , as well as the provision of LAW , have a restrictive character in that they restrict the rights of citizens , namely the candidacy of ORG and NORP from the territory of ORG and the NORP from the territory of ORG to stand for election as members of the Presidency of GPE .

However , the purpose of those provisions is to strengthen the position of the constituent peoples in order to ensure that the Presidency is composed of the representatives from these CARDINAL constituent peoples . Taking into account the current situation in GPE , the restriction imposed ... is justified at this moment since there is a reasonable justification for such reasoning .

Therefore , given the current situation in GPE and specific nature of its constitutional order as well as the current constitutional and statutory arrangements , the challenged decisions of ORG and ORG did not violate the appellants’ rights under LAW No . CARDINAL to ORG and Article CARDINAL of LAW since the above - mentioned decisions are not arbitrary and are based on law . It means that they serve a legitimate aim , that they are reasonably justified and that they do not place an excessive burden on the appellants given that the restrictions imposed on the appellants’ rights are proportionate to the objectives of the general community in terms of preservation of the established peace , continuation of dialogue , and consequently the creation of conditions for amending the above - mentioned provisions of LAW . ”

The relevant part of the concurring opinion of Judge PERSON reads as follows :

“ I agree that the special circumstances in which LAW was drafted and the needs of the time are capable of providing a rational and objective justification for treatment which would otherwise be discriminatory ... Like Judge PERSON in her separate dissenting opinions .... I regard the justification as being temporary rather than permanent , but I respectfully differ from Judge PERSON in thinking that the time has not yet arrived when the ORG will have completed its transition away from the special needs which dictated the unusual architecture of the ORG under LAW and LAW .

However , I have another reason for joining the majority of ORG in this case . Until the time ( if it ever arrives ) when LAW is amended to remove the differential treatment of potential candidates for the Presidency , it seems to me that LAW leaves the drafters of LAW , ORG and the courts no choice . It is not constitutionally permissible for a PERSON or the interpretation or implementation of a PERSON to be directly incompatible with the express and unambiguous requirements of LAW . Had the appellants succeeded in their appeal , it would have left LAW with no effect whatever . It would have been otiose , reduced to empty words . In my view , ORG , required by LAW to ‘ uphold this Constitution’ , can not properly make a decision which makes an important part of the LAW wholly ineffective . I accept that there different parts of LAW appear to have conflicting values and objectives , but constitutions are never entirely coherent . They are always shaped by , and are a compromise between , conflicting values and objectives . The task of ORG under Article VI is to give effect to LAW , with all its inconsistencies , and make it as effective as possible in all the circumstances .

For this reason , I would have dismissed this appeal as ill - founded even had I disagreed with the conclusion of the majority of ORG that there is an objective and rational justification for the difference of treatment . Whether justified or not , the difference is required by LAW . An international tribunal such as ORG might perhaps decide that the constitutional arrangements for electing members of the Presidency violate rights under LAW ( and nothing I write here should be taken to lend support to that suggestion under present conditions ) . Such a tribunal has no duty to uphold LAW . ORG has an express constitutional obligation to uphold the LAW , and in my opinion has no power to set aside parts of it , or make them ineffective , by relying on rights arising in an international instrument in preference to the express and unambiguous terms of the LAW itself . ”

The relevant part of the dissenting opinion of Judge PERSON , joined by Judge PERSON , reads as follows :

“ ... I respectfully differ from the conclusion that there is no violation of the appellant ’s rights guaranteed by LAW , its LAW because of an ‘ objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment’ .

... I consider the exclusion of the candidate Mr. PERSON on the ORG ’s candidate list for the Presidency of GPE and GPE inconsistent with LAW No . CARDINAL and with LAW which guarantees equal right to stand for election and to be elected without unreasonable restrictions . Contrary to the statements of the majority ( § CARDINAL ) , it seems to me that the current situation in GPE does not justify at this moment the differential treatment of the appellant ’s candidacy in relation to the candidacy of other candidates who are the NORP and are directly elected from the territory of ORG , nor it serves a legitimate aim , such as preservation of peace , continuation of dialogue or creation of conditions for amending the provisions of LAW and LAW . Although I think like judge PERSON in his separate concurring opinion under this decision that the State of ORG has not yet completed its transition , that it is still in a special situation requiring specific measures , I however consider that LAW architecture is evolving and has to adapt to the different stages of evolution in GPE The constitutional specificity of ORG consists of the multi - ethnic character of ORG and public institutions . The multi - ethnicity established by ORG has been precised by ORG in case U CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( Official Gazette of ORG , No . CARDINAL ) , stressing the equality of all constituent peoples in both entities and excluding in consequence the minority status of any constituent people in any entity .

The coherence of this decision implies a multi - ethnic composition of the Presidency without territorial interference since the CARDINAL constituent peoples are precisely equal in the whole State territory of ORG ... It is the particular combination of ethnic and territorial structures which leads to unjustified discriminations since the territorial interference in presidential elections result to an ethnic separation materialized by the exclusion of the right to stand for election for all NORP living in the GPE and for all NORP and LOC living in PERSON . This combination is inconsistent with ORG goal of a multi - ethnic ORG and with the principle of equality of constituent peoples in both entities which only justifies that the NORP living in GPE and that the Bosniacs and the NORP living in PERSON do not benefit of the status of a minority .

Therefore the only legitimate aim appropriated in the current situation in ORG consists of excluding the territorial criterion in presidential elections . Only such a solution could be a reasonable justification of differential treatment and would be consistent with the requirements of LAW No . CARDINAL that any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground and of LAW . In other terms , the differential treatment challenged by the appeal is not justified in an objective or in a proportionate manner .

I also differ from the opinion expressed by judge PERSON in his point CARDINAL . Indeed , ORG and its Additional Protocols have at least the same rank as LAW The Constitutional Court stated that LAW was adopted as FAC to FAC . It follows that there can not be a conflict and possibility of dispute between that LAW of ORG which form a legal unity . This implies that the ORG grants the same importance to FAC and its annexes and thus that in case of conflict of norms , the case may only be resolved through a method of systematic interpretation . Furthermore the provisions of Articles II.CARDINAL , GPE and LAW place the compliance with the human rights and LAW among the basic pillars of the constitutional order in GPE and GPE which have priority over any other law and can not be restricted even by a constitutional revision .

ORG in its role of upholding LAW has to take account of all these elements as well as of legal evolutions in order to guarantee concrete and effective rights . LAW V.CARDINAL has to be read in light of Articles II and X of the LAW and of LAW No . CARDINAL . ORG can not , of course , replace or modify the present LAW but it can request the ORG to harmonize the text with the requirements of ORG ’s international obligations . ”

On DATE the applicant again submitted his candidacy to the ORG . On DATE it was rejected for the same reasons as before .


CASE OF VENIAMIN TYMOSHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

At the material time the applicants were employed by the ORG “ ORG ” ( “ AeroSvit ” ) as aircraft cabin crew .

As confirmed , in particular , by TIME of the trade union ’s constituent assembly of DATE , all the applicants were members of the company ’s trade union . Mr PERSON was its chairman .

On DATE the National Mediation and Reconciliation Service ( “ the ORG ” ) registered a collective labour dispute between the employees and the management of ORG . The employees’ demands concerned , in particular , the following issues :

repairs to the aircraft electronic catering and air - conditioning equipment ;

enhancing the safety of on - flight technical processes ;

salary payments to be made DATE before a period of leave ;

full and timely salary payments twice per month ;

a PERCENT pay rise and recalculation of salaries for DATE and DATE ;

salary payment on the basis of the exchange rate of the GPE dollar and the NORP hryvnia as established by ORG , with salaries to be recalculated from DATE ;

recalculation of long - service bonuses ;

ensuring transportation of aircraft cabin crew to and from the airport ;

establishing a USD CARDINAL per diem allowance for all foreign flights ;

uniform cleaning and ironing to be at the employer ’s expense ;

allocation of PERCENT of the salary budget for cultural and sporting events ;

awarding employees a bonus of PERCENT from DATE profits ; and

inflation adjustment of salaries if payment was delayed , with effect from DATE .

On DATE and DATE the ORG deregistered some of the employees’ demands , noting that they had been resolved , with reference to decisions of the reconciliation commissions of DATE , DATE .

On DATE the ORG delivered its decision on the employees’ remaining demands , following a hearing in which representatives of both parties participated . It found most of the demands to be legitimate and directed the employer to comply with them .

In the absence of any compliance measures , ORG cabin crew , including the applicants , decided to embark on industrial action .

NORP On DATE the general meeting of ORG employees , seeking resolution of the labour dispute , announced a strike of CARDINAL aircraft cabin crew members . The strike was due to start on CARDINAL DATE and continue until the employees’ demands were fully met . The announcement specified that all foreign flights which began prior to the beginning of the strike would be completed . The meeting appointed a strike committee of QUANTITY persons ( including all of the applicants except PERSON PERSON , who , however , attended the meeting and voted in favour of the strike ) . The committee was vested with the following powers : to conduct negotiations on behalf of the employees with the company ’s management and ORG authorities ; to draw attention to the strike in the mass media ; to receive information from the company ’s management on compliance with the employees’ requirements ; to initiate and participate in a reconciliation commission ; to organise and conduct meetings and pickets in support of the demands put forward ; to sign agreements with the owner or an authorised representative on resolution of the labour dispute ; and to consult the ORG .

By DATE the strike committee had notified the following authorities about the decision to hold a strike : the employer , the ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , as well as a number of other institutions and organisations .

On DATE the management of ORG lodged a claim with ORG of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ) against the flight attendants’ trade union , seeking to have the strike declared unlawful .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the case . Another hearing was scheduled for TIME CARDINAL DATE .

The planned hearing did not take place for reasons unknown to the applicants . They later discovered that the judge had been on sick leave .

On DATE the management of ORG brought another claim , this time before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and against the strike committee , seeking to have the strike declared unlawful .

On DATE ORG , in written proceedings , issued an injunction prohibiting the strike committee from holding the strike pending adjudication of the employer ’s claim .

On DATE ORG ’s management handed over a copy of the injunction to the trade union ’s representatives .

On DATE the company ’s management withdrew its earlier claim from ORG .

On DATE the trade union challenged ORG injunction of CARDINAL DATE before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . It submitted , in particular , that the strike committee could not be a respondent in proceedings , since it was neither an individual nor a legal entity . Nor was it empowered to act in courts on behalf of the employees who had decided to go on strike .

On DATE ORG dismissed the aforementioned appeal .

On DATE ORG found that the strike would be unlawful and banned it . The court relied on section CARDINAL of LAW , which prohibited strikes at transport enterprises if they affected passenger carriage . It noted that ORG was an important passenger carrier operating over CARDINAL international routes to CARDINAL counties . Furthermore , given that CARDINAL of the major tasks of the aircraft cabin crew was to ensure the safety of passengers , the court considered applicable section CARDINAL of ORG , which prohibited strikes if they were likely to endanger human life or health . It also made a general reference to LAW .

NORP The trade union appealed . It reiterated the arguments of its earlier appeal of CARDINAL DATE concerning the standing of the strike committee . It also argued that the first - instance court had wrongly applied LAW , when it should instead have applied ORG .

On DATE and DATE respectively ORG and ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG final ruling was served on the strike committee .


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively .

At the material time , the first applicant , PERSON , was the owner of a DATE newspaper , ORG . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , was the editor - in - chief of the newspaper .

On DATE an article entitled “ Friends , I surely have to watch [ it ] ” ( “ PERSON mutlaka izlemeliyim arkadaşlar ” ) written by PERSON was published on page CARDINAL of ORG CARDINALnd issue . It concerned a case that had caused a public outcry in GPE , namely that of FAC , a journalist who was beaten to death by the police whilst under arrest in DATE . Following the killing , ORG set up ORG in order to shed light on the murder of PERSON . On DATE the Commission published its report which contained , among other things , the names , the functions and the statements of numerous police officers , including ORG and ORG

The above - mentioned article read as follows :

“ This is what ORG said [ I surely have to watch [ it ] ] to colleagues who were making their final preparations to observe the funerals of PERSON and PERSON GPE – CARDINAL revolutionary detainees who had been killed in GPE DATE when he arrived at the newspaper office on DATE . This was an expression of his commitment and involvement in life with a great enthusiasm , which went beyond the mere love of his job .

The difference between doing this job [ journalism ] reluctantly and doing it wholeheartedly and flawlessly was apparent in his effort to report events fully , notwithstanding the hindrances created by the police at PERSON , where he went on DATE of the events .

Unlike his colleagues , he perceived pushing against the police barricade as the means to reach the news behind that barricade . What else was journalism for ?

The barricade that stands in front of the reality that the people of GPE need stands in front of the journalist sometimes officially , sometimes unofficially and sometimes in the form of a gang . However , when that barricade is broken down , a dark bottomless well filled with the danger of “ being eliminated ” − to use the expression of the official ORG − is waiting in front of you to swallow you up . In DATE , CARDINAL journalists have been swallowed up by this well . The important message behind this is that we need determination to go beyond the darkness and reach the light . Or , to put it a different way , it is not possible to reach the light from the darkness without eliminating the eliminators ( Ya da , başka bir deyişle , “ bertaraf ediciler ” , “ bertaraf ” edilmeden karanlıktan sürekli aydınlığa çıkmak da mümkün değil ) . Following ORG ’s death , the honest journalists of GPE , especially the young ones , thought that waiting to confront that reality was a hopeless prospect . Indeed , they thought that it was already too late . It was also like this for the country ’s working class who constantly encountered the police in their struggle to seek legal solutions . Moreover , ORG was CARDINAL of them . This consciousness became the driving force behind the transformation of every hearing of his trial − which was “ exiled ” , first to ORG then to GPE , with the aim of keeping it hidden from public view − into a demonstration .

We have learnt that the murderers will be tried , and we are duty - bound to ensure the effective continuation of such proceedings . This has been the only trial involving a journalist in which the murderers were punished notwithstanding the public authorities’ reluctance − which has taught us all that democracy is won not by waiting for it to appear from some place but by standing up for it . And above all , assuming that the protective ring around the former Director of ORG , ORG , who issued the collective detention order which ended with the death of ORG , and around Vice - Director PERSON , who executed this order , would remain in place forever would represent nothing but a lack of faith in all these struggles ( Metin’in ölümüyle sonuçlanan toplu gözaltı emrini veren dönemin GPE PERSON ile bu emri uygulayan yardımcısı K.B.’ın üzerindeki koruma halesinin sonsuza PERSON kalacağını düşünmek ise , herşeyden önce verilen onca mücadeleye PERSON inançsızlık olur ) . All those following the case of FAC will not stop coming after T. and B. , who were already guilty in people ’s minds ( PERSON davasının takipçisi olanlar , halkın vicdanında çoktan mahkum olan T. ve B.’ın peşini elbette bırakmayacaklar ) .

The fact that the eliminators dragged CARDINAL more name into their dark well after ORG , namely that of PERSON , has shown another reality . Absolute protection from this fate requires constant and persistent monitoring . Is not one of the reasons why we are entering DATE with unsolved journalist murders the fact that those who occupy the seat and write the column of ORG at PERSON , and those who occupy the seat and write the column of PERSON at ORG , and also the newspaper of the journalist PERSON , did not make it their business to reveal the murderers and all those responsible in the first place ?

Is there any solution other than coming after the “ eliminators ” , whilst “ surely watching ” , and removing them and their collaborators completely from our soil , in order to save ourselves from becoming a country in which gangs can behave as they please ? ”

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment with that court and charged the applicants with offences defined in LAW ( Law no . ORG ) , namely disclosing the identities of public officials who are involved in the fight against terrorism , thereby rendering such persons targets for terrorist organisations . In addition , he called for the application of LAW no . CARDINAL ) and LAW .

In a petition dated CARDINAL DATE the ORG lawyer argued in their defence submissions that the crime of disclosing the identities of public officials who are involved in the fight against terrorism is not committed merely by using the officials’ names in connection with a case in which they have been tried as accused . The ORG lawyer maintained that the persons were already known to the public due to their positions and that their names were already in the public domain . He further contended that the ORG trial before ORG was in contravention of Articles CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to heavy fines , of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the relevant time ) and GPE CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) respectively . In accordance with CARDINAL § CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL , the first - instance court also ordered the temporary closure of the newspaper for DATE . According to the brief reasons given by ORG , the following sentences from the article were sufficient to conclude that ORG and ORG had been rendered targets for terrorist organisations :

“ ... it is not possible to reach the light from the darkness without eliminating the eliminators ... And above all , supposing that the protective ring around the former Director of ORG , ORG , who issued the collective detention order which ended with the death of ORG , and around Vice - Director PERSON , who executed this order , would remain in place forever would represent nothing but a lack of faith in all these struggles . All those following the case of PERSON will not stop coming after T. and B. , who were already guilty in people ’s minds . ”

On DATE , the applicants lodged an appeal . They stated first of all that the article in question had been written on the fourth anniversary of the killing of journalist PERSON , who had been beaten to death by the police in DATE whilst in custody . The applicants argued that the purpose of the article had been to raise concern over the fact that some high - ranking officials had not been tried and that those accused in PERSON trial had still not been convicted , DATE after the death of PERSON . The applicants maintained in this respect that the CARDINAL officials concerned , namely ORG and ORG , were the ones who had given and executed the detention order which had resulted in ORG death . The applicants also pointed out that these CARDINAL officials had been the only ones in respect of whom the requests for authorisation to prosecute under PERSON no . DATE ( PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Public Officials ) had been rejected by the Interior Minister at the material time . The names of the CARDINAL officials had therefore been mentioned in the article because of their involvement in the abovementioned events and not because of their role in the fight against terrorism . The applicants further submitted that the names of the officials had already appeared in the public domain and that the officials , being the Director and the Vice - Director of ORG , were already known to the public and thus not in a position to complain about the disclosure of their identities .

As regards the content of the article , the applicants observed that the writer of the article had defended the rule of law and the notion of justice and had not incited people to violence or advocated terrorism . According to the applicants , the article constituted a critical assessment of ORG trial and of the impunity of some high - ranking officials , as well as the challenges journalists were facing .

The applicants emphasised that the sentence “ And above all , assuming that the protective ring around the former Director of ORG , ORG , who issued the collective detention order which ended with the death of ORG , and around Vice - Director PERSON , who executed this order , would remain in place forever , would represent nothing but a lack of faith in all these struggles ” had been a reference to the fact that no permission had been given under PERSON no . DATE to authorise the prosecution of the CARDINAL officials in question for their alleged criminal conduct in connection with the events surrounding ORG death .

They observed that , with the sentence “ ... it is not possible to reach the light from the darkness without eliminating the eliminators ” the writer of the article had highlighted the challenges faced by journalists in their struggle to seek justice . This being so , they argued that it was untenable to conclude that the writer had in any way suggested the physical elimination of the CARDINAL officials .

Lastly , they asserted that with the expression “ coming after ” the writer had obviously referred to the aftermath of PERSON trial which contributed significantly to the punishment of the accused police officers . According to the applicants , the writer had wished the cases against the CARDINAL officials to be followed up by the people of GPE with a view to bringing these officials to justice .

In their appeal application , the applicants requested that ORG hold a hearing .

They also complained about the application of Additional section QUANTITY no . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG rejected the request for a hearing and upheld the judgment .

The closure order for the newspaper was executed from DATE .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested . On an unspecified date he was charged with CARDINAL counts of pimping and pandering , extortion and illegal keeping of firearms . The court remanded him in custody .

On DATE he was committed for trial before ORG .

On DATE ORG extended his pre - trial detention ’s arrest , he was accused of a serious crime , did not live at his domicile , hence he could abscond , threaten witnesses and interfere with the investigation .

On DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention referring to the above grounds and stating that the victims of his crimes were minors . The court also took into account the applicant ’s character , his state of health and age .

The applicant ’s appeals against the detention orders were rejected .

On DATE ORG convicted him as charged .


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

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

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

In DATE the applicant married a NORP national ( A. ) in GPE . There were CARDINAL children from the marriage , born in DATE and DATE respectively .

The family lived together in GPE until DATE , when the applicant left the family home . On DATE an administrative decision was taken in GPE on the couple ’s separation .

On DATE the Vesterålen ORG ( tingrett ) issued an interim order that , until the resolution of the matter on the merits , the children should be the joint responsibility of both parents and should remain in the care of A. The court also determined the applicant ’s visiting rights and forbade both parents to remove the children from the NORP territory without the consent of the other parent .

Nevertheless , on DATE left GPE for GPE , taking the children with her .

On DATE the ORG ruled that the children be put under the exclusive parental responsibility and in the care of the applicant . It also determined the visiting rights of A. and issued an order that she should not remove the children from the territory of GPE . This judgment was upheld by ORG ( lagmannsrett ) on DATE following an appeal by ORG , and her request for leave to appeal on points of law was dismissed by ORG ( Høyesteretts kjæremålsutvalg ) on DATE .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in GPE against A. under LAW , seeking an order for the return of the children to their country of habitual residence ‒ GPE .

NORP The action was examined by the courts in CARDINAL rounds , CARDINAL of which were followed by enforcement proceedings . They are described below in turn .

The first examination resulted in the dismissal of the action by ORG súd ) on DATE and of the applicant ’s appeal ( odvolanie ) by ORG ( PERSON súd ) on DATE . These decisions became final and binding ( právoplatnosť ) .

The applicant subsequently petitioned ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) to exercise his discretionary power to challenge these decisions by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie ) on the applicant ’s behalf . However , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE he was informed that , under the applicable procedural rules , no such extraordinary appeals were available in family law matters .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had challenged the ordinary courts’ decisions by way of a complaint under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) .

Upon examining this complaint , on DATE , ORG ( PERSON súd ) found a violation of the applicant ’s rights under LAW fairness ) , but no separate issue under LAW .

As a result , it quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter to ORG for reexamination of the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE .

In consequence , on DATE ORG re - examined the appeal and decided to quash the decision of DATE and to remit the case to the first - instance court for reexamination .

In the second round of examination , an order for the return of the children was issued by ORG on DATE and , following an appeal by A. , it was upheld by ORG on DATE .

As the order thereby became final and binding , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant petitioned for enforcement .

NORP However , the return order was quashed by ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) on DATE , following an appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) by A. The matter was consequently remitted to ORG for a fresh examination and , on DATE , the enforcement proceedings were discontinued .

In the third round of examination , a new order for the return of the children was issued by ORG on DATE and , following an appeal by ORG , it was upheld by ORG on DATE .

The order thus became final and binding and , on DATE , the applicant petitioned for enforcement .

NORP However , the return order was again quashed by ORG , on DATE , following an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by the ORG on behalf of A.

Among other things , ORG observed that the courts were duty - bound to examine as carefully as possible the overall situation to which the children would return in the place of their habitual residence .

On the facts of the present case , the lower courts had based their assessment regarding the social situation of the applicant on reports drawn up by ORG responsible for implementing LAW . However , these reports dated back to DATE and DATE and , in the circumstances , they were outdated . For this reason and others , the matter was again remitted to ORG for a fresh examination and the enforcement proceedings were terminated .

The fourth and final round of examination resulted in the dismissal of the applicant ’s petition by ORG on DATE . This decision was appealed against by the applicant and the public prosecution service , who had previously joined the proceedings but later withdrew their appeal .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the appeal by the public prosecution service and declared the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible for being out of time .

On DATE ORG corrected its decision of CARDINAL DATE in so far as the applicant ’s appeal was concerned . In particular , having established an error in its previous calculation of the applicable statutory time - limit , ORG ruled that the applicant ’s appeal had in fact been lodged in good time and that the proceedings on it were to continue . A. then challenged this decision by means of an appeal on points of law , but her appeal was rejected by ORG on DATE as being inadmissible .

ORG heard the applicant ’s appeal on DATE and dismissed it on DATE .

In dismissing the petition and the appeal , the courts relied on ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and took into account the fact that the children wished to stay with NORP in GPE , that they had spent CARDINAL of their lives in GPE , and that they were integrated there . The courts concluded that it was therefore in the best interests of the children that they should not be returned to GPE .

The matter was settled by force of a final and binding decision on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant had turned to ORG with a fresh individual complaint . Directing it against ORG , ORG , and ORG , he alleged a violation of his rights under Articles CARDINAL ( fairness and length ) and CARDINAL of the LAW and their constitutional equivalents .

In particular , the applicant contended that the proceedings had been pending for DATE , and that in the given situation the excessive length thereof worked against him .

In addition , he argued that ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE violated his right to respect for his private life and , challenging in substance mainly ORG decision of DATE , he asserted that the proceedings had been unfair inter alia because the ORG had lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law on behalf of ORG , although such a remedy had been denied to the applicant on the grounds that it was not available as a matter of law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible .

At the time of ORG decision , the applicant ’s LAW petition was still pending before ORG on his appeal against the first - instance ruling of CARDINAL DATE in the fourth round of examination ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . above ) , after the second final and binding return order had been quashed by ORG on DATE following an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by the ORG on behalf of A. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

As regards the length of the proceedings , ORG observed that ORG and ORG had determined the matter on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . Therefore , at the time the constitutional complaint was introduced , these courts were no longer dealing with the case . Examination of the length of the proceedings before these courts could thus no longer aid their acceleration and , consequently , the applicant could not be deemed to have the requisite interest in having it examined . In addition , the length of the proceedings before ORG being relatively short , the remainder of the length - of - proceedings complaint was manifestly ill - founded .

In so far as the constitutional complaint concerned ORG decision of DATE , it had evidently been lodged outside the statutory DATE time - limit and , as the proceedings on the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE were still pending , any complaint in relation to their outcome was premature .

The decision was served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .


Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in FAC . She was represented before ORG , a lawyer practising in FAC .

The NORP Government ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE a prosecutor of ORG in ORG held a press conference and informed the public that company A. , of which the applicant owned MONEY of shares , had been issuing shortterm obligations without a necessary licence to run a bank - like operations .

On DATE the prosecutor charged the applicant with offences of running bank - like operations without licence and of issuing obligations without permission by ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with ORG . The applicant was accused of CARDINAL various offences connected with the running a company conducting banklike activities without necessary licences . Another bill of indictment , concerning further similar charges , was lodged with the same court on DATE . ORG examined the cases jointly .

By a judgment of DATE the applicant was acquitted of CARDINAL charges and convicted of CARDINAL other charges of fraud . She was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed her appeal .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG . On DATE ORG held a hearing and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , finding that it was manifestly illfounded . Having heard the parties , the court gave orally brief grounds for its decision .

The copy of the decision contained information that under LAW no written grounds for that decision shall be prepared .

NORP In DATE the applicant had a stroke ( udar niedokrwienny mózgu ) . Subsequently , she was diagnosed with chronic insufficiency of brain blood vessels ( przewlekła niewydolność naczyń mózgowych ) resulting in multiple brain strokes with successive left - side paresis ( udar mózgu z niedowładem lewostronnym ) , narrowing of carotid arteries ( zwężenie tętnic szyjnych ) as a result of arteriosclerosis ( miażdżyca ) , chronic pancreatitis ( przewlekłe zapalenie trzustki ) , degenerative vertebral alterations of the pectoral and lumbar part ( zmiany zwyrodnieniowe kręgosłupa w odcinku piersiowym i lędźwiowym ) , widening of abdominal aorta with mural thrombus ( poszerzenie aorty brzusznej ze skrzepliną przyścienną ) , hypertension and depressive disorders .

NORP Since DATE the applicant has been treated in hospital several times . For the last time before her detention she was hospitalised CARDINAL DATE . She was admitted to hospital because of severe abdominal pain . She was discharged with a recommendation to remain under the medical care of an internist , gastroenterologist , vascular surgeon and psychologist . She was also advised to follow a special diet and to regularly take medication .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision , attesting that the applicant was suffering from significant disability ( niepełnosprawność stopnia znacznego ) . This decision was granted for a period until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken to FAC no . CARDINAL in order to serve her sentence of imprisonment . She was detained in that establishment until DATE . On DATE she was transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL where she remained until DATE . On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL .

On DATE of her admission to prison , the applicant was examined by a prison doctor , a psychiatrist and a cardiologist . A prison doctor recommended a course of medication and a light diet . He also advised that the applicant be provided with a lower bed in a cell . Moreover , a cardiologist stated that the applicant did not need to be detained in a prison hospital .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist and subsequently on CARDINAL and DATE by an internist .

On CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant had further medical consultations . On DATE she had appointment with a psychiatrist and on DATE she was examined by a prison doctor . On DATE she was consulted by an internist , on CARDINAL DATE by a dermatologist and on DATE by a surgeon . On DATE she had blood tests and abdominal ultrasonography . On CARDINAL DATE she was again consulted by an internist .

On DATE a prison doctor certified that the applicant could be treated in prison .

On DATE she had consultation with a neurologist and on DATE with an internist . On DATE she underwent laboratory tests . She had further medical appointments on CARDINAL DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ( private consultation with a vascular surgeon ) ; CARDINAL and DATE ; DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL and DATE she had blood tests .

On DATE a prison doctor opined that the applicant might be treated in the conditions of detention . On DATE she underwent GPE ultrasonography of carotid and vertebral arteries . She had further medical consultations on DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE she underwent electroencephalography ( EEG ) .

On DATE she was consulted by a prison doctor . On CARDINAL DATE the prison doctor decided to maintain the same pharmacological treatment for the applicant .

On DATE the applicant had a computed tomography ( GPE ) of the head . On DATE she had neurological and on DATE gastrological consultations .

On DATE a prison doctor ascertained that the applicant may be treated in prison .

On DATE the applicant had blood tests . On DATE she was examined by a prison doctor . On DATE she underwent a computed tomography of her chest .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant had bacteriological tests . On DATE she underwent abdominal ultrasonography .

On DATE and DATE she was consulted by a pulmonologist and a prison doctor respectively .

On DATE a prison doctor , after conducting psychiatric and gastrological consultations ( on CARDINAL and DATE respectively ) , issued a medical certificate on the applicant ’s condition for the purposes of the judicial proceedings concerning the applicant ’s request for temporary release ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The certificate stated that the applicant could be treated in prison .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was taken for DATE observation in the hospital of FAC no . CARDINAL after having fainted in the court . She stayed under cardiological surveillance and had neurological consultation . Moreover , she had blood tests , electrocardiography ( ECG ) and GPE of the head . The ORG of the head indicated no fresh blood incidents in the central nervous system . After those examinations doctors concluded that the applicant could remain in prison and that there was no need for further hospitalisation . They noticed that the applicant exaggerated her condition .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was consulted by a psychiatrist and in internist respectively who recommend the continuation of the previous pharmacological treatment .

On DATE the applicant underwent abdominal GPE . On DATE she had blood tests . Those examinations indicated the presence of gallstones in bile duct . Having regard to those results , on CARDINAL DATE a prison doctor referred the applicant to a surgeon . The consultation took place on DATE . Subsequently , the applicant was consulted by an internist on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL and DATE .

Since the beginning of her detention the applicant has been receiving light diet .

The Government submitted that according to the information provided by the Director of ORG no . CARDINAL , the applicant was able to move around independently . She did not need help from third parties . She never reported to the prison authorities that she needed assistance in her basic DATE activities . She has been constantly receiving pharmacological treatment .

On DATE the applicant requested to be granted temporary release ( przerwa w karze ) . She referred to her numerous ailments and the need to have them treated properly which , in her submission , was impossible in prison , in particular in respect of her persistent neurological condition resulting from repeated strokes . In DATE the applicant repeated her request .

On DATE the ORG refused to allow the applicant ’s request . It was of the view that the grounds for allowing a temporary release , provided for by LAW , did not obtain in the case . On the basis of CARDINAL certificates issued by doctors working for the prison medical service , the court found that despite being of fragile state of health , the applicant had appropriate medical care in detention . In particular , she was consulted by various specialists and underwent necessary examinations . Both certificates stated that the applicant was fit for detention . The court stressed that the applicant remained under constant medical care . Importantly , the court noted that the applicant was not entirely interested in improving her state of health as on several occasions she had been disciplinary punished for storing medication and for refusing to take it in the presence of a nurse .

The applicant appealed . She argued , inter alia , that ORG had erred in the establishment of facts . In this respect , she contested the lower court ’s finding that the applicant was fit for detention despite her numerous ailments . She also complained about ORG reliance on the opinions of prison doctors and its refusal to admit expert opinions relevant for the applicant ’s condition .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed ORG decision and remitted the case . It concurred with the lower court that the applicant ’s state of health was under constant monitoring and that she had access to specialised treatment in detention . However , given the character of the applicant ’s ailments , her state of health needed to be also assessed by relevant specialists , in particular , a neurologist and a gastroenterologist . The medical opinions relied on by ORG did not contain this kind of assessment .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG refused to grant the applicant a temporary release . It was of the view that the applicant ’s condition could be treated in detention , having regard to a medical certificate of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It noted that the applicant received necessary medical care , including consultations by specialists . The applicant ’s medical documentation did not substantiate a conclusion that her continued detention would seriously endanger her life or health .

The applicant appealed . ORG dismissed her appeal on CARDINAL DATE . It shared the conclusions of the lower court as to the applicant ’s state of health and her being fit for detention . The appellate court stressed that it transpired from the medical opinion of DATE that the applicant had been examined not only by general practitioners but also by specialists in surgery , psychiatry , neurology and gastroenterology . The opinions of the specialists confirmed that the applicant could be treated in detention . ORG also noted that further examinations and consultations had been planned which indicated that the applicant received adequate medical care .

It appears that the applicant was released on an unspecified date in DATE .

NORP The provisions pertaining to medical care in detention facilities and general conditions of detention , and the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE ... ( extracts ) ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE . More recent developments are described in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Düren .

On DATE ORG issued a warrant for his arrest as there was a strong suspicion that he had been trafficking drugs . DATE he had been stopped with QUANTITY of heroin , which he had allegedly intended to sell . On CARDINAL previous occasions he had been stopped at the NORP border with CARDINAL and QUANTITY of heroin on him . The arrest warrant was based on the risk of him absconding as he could expect a considerable sentence for the offences in question , had no social ties , being unemployed and a drug addict , and had an unstable character . That same day he was detained on remand .

DATE and DATE the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention on remand was examined CARDINAL times by ORG .

In a judgment of DATE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of large - scale drug trafficking CARDINAL counts of smuggling drugs into GPE and trafficking ( dealt with as a single offence instead of CARDINAL separate offences ) and a third count of trafficking only and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . On DATE , in a separate decision , ORG ordered the continuation of the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . In substance he mainly referred to his previous submissions . On DATE he lodged an appeal against the judgment .

ORG did not allow the appeal of DATE relating to the applicant ’s detention and referred it to ORG , which dismissed it on DATE , finding that there continued to be a risk of the applicant absconding .

On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal against that decision . In substance , again , he referred to his previous submissions . He explicitly asked that the observations of ORG be sent to him so as to be able to comment on them .

On DATE the Düsseldorf Chief Public Prosecutor ’s Office ( Generalstaatsanwaltschaft – “ the prosecution authorities ” ) submitted written observations to ORG , requesting the dismissal of the applicant ’s appeal of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant ’s counsel received the observations from the prosecution authorities on CARDINAL DATE and submitted a reply to ORG on DATE .

Following a telephone enquiry to ORG , the applicant ’s counsel learned on DATE that on DATE it had already decided the applicant ’s appeal of CARDINAL DATE and dismissed it . The applicant had therefore not been able to reply to the observations of the prosecution authorities of CARDINAL DATE prior to the court taking its decision .

NORP That same day the applicant ’s counsel requested a subsequent hearing ( NORP des rechtlichen GPE ) under LAW .

On DATE ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE was served on the applicant .

On an unspecified date the prosecution authorities submitted written observations in relation to the applicant ’s request for a subsequent hearing .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request for a subsequent hearing as inadmissible , finding that the applicant ’s right to be heard had not been violated , that the prosecution authorities’ observations of CARDINAL DATE had not contained any facts unknown to him and there had therefore been no need to serve them on him . In so far as his submission of CARDINAL DATE was to be classified as an objection ( NORP ) , the court rejected it because its decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been based on incorrect factual or procedural considerations . Prior to the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the observations of the prosecution authorities relating to the request for a subsequent hearing had not been served on the applicant , who had thus had no opportunity to reply to them . ORG nevertheless quoted and endorsed those observations in its decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He alleged , in particular , that his right to be heard , as guaranteed by LAW ) , had been violated , because ORG had taken its decisions of CARDINAL and DATE without giving him the opportunity to reply to the observations of the prosecution authorities .

On DATE ORG declined to accept the applicant ’s constitutional complaint without providing reasons ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Its decision was served on him on DATE .


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

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

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

In DATE he married a NORP national and the couple settled in GPE . Their CARDINAL children , born in DATE and DATE , are both NORP nationals .

On DATE the mother travelled to GPE with the QUANTITY children and they have not returned to GPE since .

On DATE the applicant commenced proceedings in the NORP courts for the return of his children to GPE under LAW and LAW .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG and , following an appeal by the mother , ORG , ordered the return of the children to GPE as their country of habitual residence and issued several ancillary orders .

The return order became enforceable on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for judicial enforcement of the return order since the mother had not complied with it .

On DATE ORG attempted to have the mother comply voluntarily with the order . In response , she informed ORG that she had lodged a request with ORG for him to exercise his discretionary power to challenge the return order by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie ) .

On DATE ORG stayed the enforcement proceedings on the return order pending the outcome of the mother ’s request to ORG .

On DATE ORG resumed the enforcement proceedings after ORG had found that there were no reasons to lodge an extraordinary appeal on points of law .

On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and , following an appeal by the applicant , ORG , found that the return order was not enforceable . They based their conclusions on the following CARDINAL grounds .

Firstly , they concluded that there already existed a previous decision on provisional measures , which had been delivered by ORG on DATE . That decision had temporarily entrusted the children to the care of the mother and required the applicant to pay child maintenance in the meantime . Those interim custody rights were to be determined later by the competent courts in GPE .

Secondly , the return order had failed to specify that it was directed at the mother or to give a precise time frame for its implementation .

Given the fact that the mother had not been identified as the recipient and that the applicant had not been provisionally entrusted with the care of the children , the order could not be enforced .

Following the unsuccessful enforcement proceedings , the applicant applied to the same court which had delivered the return order , the Bratislava ORG . He referred to the shortcomings in the order as identified by the enforcement courts and asked the court to specify to whom the order had been directed and to provide a time frame for the return of the children . ORG concluded that the applicant ’s action was res iudicata and dismissed it on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant challenged the enforcement courts’ decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE by way of a complaint under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint admissible and on DATE it found on the merits that ORG had violated the applicant ’s rights , as specified below ( “ the first constitutional judgment ” ) .

NORP In particular , it found a violation of the applicant ’s rights under LAW ( family life ) , QUANTITY ( protection of parenthood and children , right to child care ) , and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( judicial protection ) of the LAW , and LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( fairness ) and Article CARDINAL ( family life ) of the Convention .

The Constitutional Court found that ORG decision had been taken on purely formal grounds and had been arbitrary and in contravention of LAW , the Brussels II bis regulation , LAW and LAW . That arbitrary decision had meant that the positive obligations guaranteed by LAW and the applicant ’s parental rights had been breached as well .

Consequently , the Constitutional Court quashed the contested decision , remitted the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision of DATE to ORG for reexamination and awarded him MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation for nonpecuniary damage . In addition , ORG awarded the applicant everything he had claimed in legal costs ( EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . It noted that he had made no claim for costs in respect of his observations in reply to those of the enforcement courts concerned by his complaint and concluded that no award was therefore possible in that regard .

The judgment was final and not amenable to appeal .

Following the first constitutional judgment , the enforcement proceedings resumed before ORG , which heard the case on DATE . It acknowledged that it was bound by ORG judgment . However , having regard to the considerable length of time that had elapsed , it deemed it necessary to assess afresh all the circumstances decisive for the enforcement of the return order , such as the children ’s whereabouts , their health and the possibility of their returning to GPE . It therefore quashed ORG decision under appeal and remitted the matter to it for re - examination .

On DATE ORG again declared enforcement of the order impermissible on the basis of newly obtained evidence . It relied on medical reports concerning the children ’s health , a psychological report referring to negative consequences for them if they were separated from the mother and an opinion from the court - appointed guardian ( the NORP office of employment , social affairs and family ) about the stable family environment they had while living with their mother . It also took into account the children ’s wish to stay with their mother and her new husband , their social ties in GPE , where they had been residing since DATE , and the applicant ’s lack of contact with them while in GPE . Relying on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the ORG ’s ORG judgment in the case of ORG and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) , it concluded that their return to GPE would go against their best interests .

Following an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision on DATE and it became final and binding on CARDINAL DATE .

In the meantime , the applicant on CARDINAL DATE lodged another constitutional complaint aimed at the enforcement proceedings held before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He alleged a violation of Articles CARDINAL ( length ) and CARDINAL ( family life ) of the LAW and their constitutional equivalents .

On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s rights under both of those LAW provisions ( “ the second constitutional judgment ” ) . When dealing with the applicant ’s length of proceedings complaint , ORG took into account that it was the first time the applicant had raised such a grievance . There had accordingly been no previous constitutional assessment of that matter to prevent it from assessing the impugned enforcement proceedings in their entirety , from when they had been initiated . Having regard to the sensitive nature of the matter and its importance for the applicant ’s enjoyment of his parental rights , ORG found that ORG had proceeded with the matter over a long time ( for DATE ) and inefficiently ( it had stayed the proceedings , delivered an arbitrary enforcement decision on the first occasion , and had taken lengthy procedural steps ) . Notably , the Constitutional Court emphasised that it was precisely the passage of time which had led ORG to dismiss enforcement of the return order . It also reproached ORG for the inadequate way it had dealt with the mother ’s procedural requests . It further stressed the particular nature of the enforcement of such return orders and pointed out that they required prompt and efficient decisionmaking that was in accordance with international standards .

Moreover , ORG found that there had been a violation of the applicant ’s right to respect for his family life as a consequence of the fact that throughout the enforcement proceedings , whose length had been in breach of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time , he had been unable to assert his parental rights before the competent courts .

ORG ordered ORG to reimburse the applicant ’s legal costs and to pay him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of nonpecuniary damage .

After the enforcement proceedings had been completed by a final and binding decision and before the second constitutional judgment had been issued , the applicant applied to ORG a third time on DATE . He relied on that occasion on DATE ( fairness and length ) in conjunction with LAW and DATE ( family life ) of the LAW and challenged the decisions of DATE and QUANTITY DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) on their merits . That complaint is still ongoing .