Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE - on - PERSON , GPE . She is the sister of PERSON , who was born in DATE and was killed by police officers on DATE . He had been suffering from a mental disorder ( paranoid - type schizophrenia ) and at the material time had been living alone in the village of ORG , in the Lori Region of GPE .

The circumstances of NORP ’s fatal shooting , as established by the decision issued by the investigator on DATE following the end of the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , are as follows .

On DATE at TIME PERSON went to a local shop , where he took out a knife and , for no reason , stabbed GPE . , a shop assistant , in the arm , and PERSON , a customer entering the shop , in the cheek . He then went home .

NORP Some time later , after a telephone call made from ORG to the police station of the nearby town of LOC , QUANTITY police officers , PERSON , GPE , ORG and PERSON , arrived at GPE GPE ’s house . As they approached , PERSON was in the garden and , having seen the police officers , ran towards the house . The police officers started chasing him . As PERSON entered the house and was about to shut the door , police officer PERSON reached him and started to push the door open . At that moment PERSON stabbed PERSON in the arm and cheek with the knife , through the CARDINAL - open door , and managed to shut the door . PERSON was taken by car to hospital , while PERSON and ORG , who remained at the house , called LOC police station and reported the incident . Then they tried to persuade PERSON to come out , but the latter refused to do so , threatening to kill anybody who tried to approach the house and sharpening his knives in full view . They contacted CARDINAL of PERSON sisters , who lived in the same village , but she refused to come . Having received the call from PERSON and GPE , CARDINAL more police officers , including GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , GPE . , and GPE , led by Major PERSON , the chief of LOC police station , arrived at the house and surrounded it . The mayor of ORG , an ambulance and the fire brigade were also called . Another attempt was made to have PERSON relatives , who lived in the same village , come to the scene in order to persuade him to surrender , but they refused to come . Then for TIME the police officers tried to persuade PERSON NORP to surrender , but he continued to display the same threatening behaviour as earlier . In the meantime , the police officers contacted the head of ORG , who told them that it would only be possible to tranquillise PERSON only in hospital .

At TIME it was decided to neutralise and apprehend GPE NORP by spraying him with water from the hose of a fire engine . After the fire hose had been turned on , QUANTITY police officers , GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , GPE . and PERSON , upon an order from the chief of LOC police station , pushed open the door and entered the house . PERSON . , who was the first to enter , held a small wooden table in front of him as a shield against a knife attack . After the police officers entered , they saw that the way from the corridor into the room had been barricaded with furniture . The police officers decided on the spot to leave the house and the entire group went out . Having seen that the police officers were leaving , PERSON moved towards them with a knife in each hand , reached PERSON . by the door to the porch , and stabbed him in the head with CARDINAL of the knives . PERSON . immediately fell as a result of the stabbing . As he was lying on the ground , PERSON tried to stab him again , but at that moment another police officer , GPE . , who was guarding the entrance , fired a warning shot in the air from his automatic rifle and , seeing that PERSON NORP was still trying to stab PERSON . , shot at PERSON legs . At the same time , and independently of those actions , police officers GPE , PERSON and PERSON , seeing that PERSON . had fallen as a result of the assault and that PERSON was trying to stab him again , started to shoot with their pistols at GPE NORP ’s legs . GPE fired QUANTITY shots , while PERSON and PERSON fired CARDINAL shots each . As a result of the shooting , PERSON NORP was wounded , fell and died .

During the subsequent on - site inspection , CARDINAL knives were found in the porch , as well as a hand grenade and CARDINAL more knife in the corridor .

During an inspection of PERSON clothes , CARDINAL more knives and a medical lancet were discovered .

As a result of being assaulted by PERSON , civilians GPE . and PERSON and police officers GPE and GPE . received injuries that were of minor or medium severity , but not life - threatening .

The applicant contested these facts and alleged that in reality PERSON had not posed a threat to police officer PERSON . ’s life and that the police officers had simply executed him in retaliation for his having injured CARDINAL of their colleagues .

On DATE of the incident the PERSON regional prosecutor ’s office decided to institute criminal case no . DATE for attempted murder under Article CARDINAL , in conjunction with LAW ( ORG ) , on account of PERSON actions , namely his armed assaults on civilians and police officers .

On DATE an inspection of the crime scene was conducted and a report produced , which included sketch maps . The house had CARDINAL rooms , CARDINAL behind the other , divided by a wall , with a passageway on the right . All along the front of the house there was a porch , which measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY . There were windows onto the porch on the left , and the main entrance was on the right , in front of the abovementioned passageway . The house also had windows on the right side . The sketch map also noted the positions of PERSON and police officer PERSON . at the time of the incident . PERSON appears to have been on the porch just outside the main entrance and police officer PERSON . appears to have been next to him . Police officers GPE . and ORG were also on the porch to the left of the main entrance , while police officers GPE and PERSON were outside the porch in front of the main entrance .

On DATE an autopsy was conducted . According to the results , PERSON had received wounds from CARDINAL bullets , QUANTITY of which had hit him in his calves and thighs and his left forearm and CARDINAL of which had hit him in the chest . CARDINAL bullets had been shot at PERSON from behind . The direct cause of PERSON death had been severe internal bleeding resulting from a bullet wound to the chest , which had damaged the lower part of the heart and a lung . Death had occurred shortly after PERSON NORP being wounded .

On DATE An . A. , CARDINAL of PERSON CARDINAL sisters , was granted victim status in the instituted criminal proceedings . This decision indicated that , as a result of a crime , physical damage , namely death , had been inflicted on PERSON .

On DATE a ballistic examination of cartridge cases and bullets retrieved after the incident was conducted . It was established that they had come from police ammunition . The weapons that had been used were CARDINAL PERSON pistols and CARDINAL PERSON automatic rifle .

On DATE a forensic examination concluded that the CARDINAL knives and the medical lancet did not fall into the category of “ bladed weapons ” . All of the knives but CARDINAL were homemade .

On DATE a forensic examination report was released . According to the report , PERSON clothes had been damaged by CARDINAL bullets shot at close range .

On DATE a medical expert produced his opinion regarding PERSON mental health , according to which , PERSON had suffered from a mental disorder – paranoid schizophrenia , and had received treatment for his condition in various mental health institutions since DATE .

The investigator took statements from CARDINAL of the QUANTITY police officers involved in the arrest operation and the fatal shooting ( GPE , GPE . , GPE . , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and ORG ) . CARDINAL of the QUANTITY police officers who had fired shots , GPE , GPE . and PERSON , were questioned on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively , while PERSON . ( who had been injured in the incident ) and PERSON were questioned on DATE respectively . The police officers were asked to provide an account of the incident .

Police officer ORG account was as follows . PERSON was in the second ( rear ) room when the QUANTITY police officers entered the house . The door was barricaded with an armchair and a wardrobe . As they were entering , he proposed that PERSON come out of the room but he held the knife as if he wanted to throw it and kept threatening to stab him . Realising that it was not possible to remove him from the room and that he could harm someone , GPE told the other CARDINAL police officers that they should all go outside and find another way to neutralise GPE NORP . They left the house ; the last one to leave was PERSON . , who was holding a table to protect himself in case a knife was thrown . GPE went down from the porch and was already in the yard when those of his colleagues who had gathered there shouted “ He has come out and attacked . ” H.Gev . was holding a table , defending himself against PERSON . GPE ran towards them and saw PERSON stab PERSON . in the head , so he shot at GPE NORP ’s legs . PERSON NORP fell down and , while lying on the ground , he threw the same knife at GPE . Then he took out another knife and threw it at the police officers . A.S. fired again in his direction . Seyran NORP then took out a third knife , rolled over , while shouting , and tried to throw the knife in GPE ’s direction . FAC fired again and PERSON NORP dropped the knife . The police officers approached and handcuffed him .

Police officer PERSON . ’s account was as follows . After the CARDINAL police officers had entered the house , GPE NORP threatened them and told them to leave . They left DATE that is to say he noticed that the others had already gone out . Realising that he was alone , he tried to leave the house while holding the table . He had not yet reached the door when suddenly PERSON screamed and ran towards him with a knife in his hand . Seeing this , he tried to move faster towards the door . PERSON reached him and stabbed him with the knife in the head . This happened in the doorway . PERSON NORP managed to stab him because he ( that is to say PERSON NORP ) was taller , although he ( that is to say PERSON ) had managed to a certain extent to push PERSON back with the table . He fell down on the porch . As he was lying on his side , facing the door and bleeding , he saw PERSON trying to stab him a second time with the same knife , again in the head . PERSON was still standing at a distance of QUANTITY away while he ( that is to say PERSON ) continued to use the table to defend himself . After PERSON NORP had tried to stab him for a second time , he heard a number of shots , but could not remember how many . He saw that the shots had hit PERSON in the legs . PERSON fell down , with his legs lying next to his own . PERSON then took out another knife . PERSON NORP must have thrown the first knife either in his direction or in the direction of those who were behind him , but he could not tell how far away the knife had been thrown . PERSON subsequently wanted to get up and stab him again , but then he heard other shots . PERSON was screaming loudly , but while the shots were being fired the others dragged him away from GPE NORP and transported him to the hospital .

Police officer GPE . ’s account was as follows . PERSON hid behind the wardrobe with a knife in his hand and made death threats when the QUANTITY police officers tried to approach . At that time he was standing with his rifle next to the porch windows . Then he heard PERSON screaming and saw the others come out of the house and PERSON , with a knife in his hand , run towards and reach PERSON . ( who had been the last to leave ) and stab him in the head . PERSON . squatted and started bleeding . With the same knife PERSON tried to stab PERSON . , who was at that time lying on the ground , CARDINAL more time . He fired a warning shot in the air but seeing that PERSON was trying to stab PERSON . again he fired at PERSON left leg , with the aim of neutralising him . PERSON NORP did not fall after his shot but stumbled back with a knife in his hand . One of the police officers at that moment managed to drag PERSON . away from PERSON , who then threw a knife at them and took out another knife to throw again . PERSON was still standing . He heard a number of other shots but could not tell who had fired them , how many there had been and at which parts of GPE GPE ’s body the shots had been fired . He did not fire any other shots apart from the above - mentioned CARDINAL . Then the other police officers managed to approach and disarm PERSON GPE , who was already on the ground .

Police officer ORG ’s account was as follows . Police officer PERSON . was the first to enter the house , holding a table as a shield , since PERSON was holding a knife by its blade and was threatening to throw it . He and the others following PERSON . entered the first room . PERSON retreated into the second room and barricaded the door with an armchair , which prevented them from entering the second room . PERSON refused to give up and would not allow them to advance , threatening them with a knife . They were forced to leave the house . While they were still on the porch , he PERSON heard the others saying “ He ’s coming ” . He turned around and saw that PERSON , having left the house , in the doorway stabbed PERSON . in the head with a knife . PERSON . immediately started bleeding . He had tried to defend himself with a table , but PERSON had managed to stretch his hand over it and stab PERSON . , who had fallen down . As far as ORG could recall , PERSON then fell ; after falling he threw the knife at them . Then PERSON took out another knife and wanted to stab PERSON . again . At that moment PERSON heard shots but did not see who was firing . Then they managed to handcuff PERSON NORP .

Police officer PERSON ’s account was as follows . Once the fire engine had started working , they broke down the door and entered the house . PERSON . was the first to enter DATE or rather they all entered together , with a small table in front of them for protection . At that moment the fire engine was spraying water at PERSON , who had barricaded himself in with a wardrobe and moved the wardrobe to protect himself from the water . PERSON had also placed an armchair between the CARDINAL rooms , so that they could not enter the second room . They tried to persuade him to throw down the knife , but he continued to threaten them . As PERSON was not coming out and was refusing to calm down , PERSON received an order to leave the house in order that an alternative plan could be devised . As the QUANTITY police officers were leaving , PERSON unexpectedly ran towards them , screaming loudly . PERSON could not see whether PERSON had a knife since he ( that is to say PERSON ) was facing the main entrance . He heard somebody outside say “ Careful , he ’s about to strike ” . He then jumped out of the house and over the porch into the yard . Before rolling away , he heard two shots and saw PERSON . lying in the porch on his back , facing the main entrance . Seyran NORP was squatting with a knife in his hand and was trying to stab PERSON . , who had already been injured . Thinking that the shots fired earlier had not touched PERSON and that , if he did not shoot , PERSON GPE would strike again and kill PERSON . , he took out his weapon , took aim at PERSON legs and fired QUANTITY shots at them . While shooting , he heard other shots and saw PERSON fall next to PERSON . He then saw CARDINAL knives in PERSON hands .

The investigator posed CARDINAL questions to each of the police officers . GPE was asked ( a ) whether it would have been possible to neutralise PERSON without the use of firearms ( answer : negative ) and ( b ) how many firearms had been used for that purpose ( CARDINAL ) . PERSON . was asked how much time had elapsed between their entering the house and the stabbing ( TIME ) . H.Gri . was asked who had been beside him at the time of the shooting ( police officer GPE ) and how many knives PERSON had had ( CARDINAL ) . ORG and PERSON were asked whether they had received an order to shoot before they had entered the house ( both : negative ) . PERSON was also asked ( a ) who had been beside him at the time of the shooting ( he could not remember ) and ( b ) to provide further details of the shooting incident . PERSON . , GPE . , ORG and PERSON were also asked whether they had noticed a grenade in PERSON hands or whether he had made threats with a grenade ( all CARDINAL : negative ) .

DATE and DATE the investigator took statements from CARDINAL other police officers who had been present at the scene . Police officers PERSON . and PERSON , who had witnessed the shooting incident , were asked to provide accounts . Police officer PERSON submitted , inter alia , that neighbours and other villagers had been present and had watched the entire incident ; this was confirmed by PERSON . Police officer GPE submitted , inter alia , that there had been CARDINAL police officers at the scene . All the above - mentioned police officers submitted that the fire brigade and an ambulance had been called to the scene . PERSON further submitted that he had seen another police officer , PERSON , filming the incident but was not sure whether he had been filming during the shooting . ORG , when asked about the video , submitted that no material was available since he had been mistakenly filming without a tape in the camera , which he had discovered DATE .

On DATE an investigator of the PERSON regional prosecutor ’s office , decided to discontinue criminal case no . DATE in the light of the death of PERSON . By the same decision the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers GPE , PERSON , GPE and GPE . The wording of the decision first outlined the facts , as established by the investigation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , and concluded that the police officers had employed their service weapons in the light of the exigencies of the situation for the purpose of repelling a life - threatening attack on police officer PERSON . Thus , their actions had been lawful , as they had been undertaken in compliance with the requirements of sections CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On an unspecified date the applicant , together with An . A. and her CARDINAL other sisters , lodged a complaint with the PERSON regional prosecutor seeking to quash the part of the decision of DATE relating to the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers .

On DATE the PERSON regional prosecutor informed them by letter that there were no legal grounds for quashing the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL since it had been taken on the basis of an accurate

The applicant and her CARDINAL sisters then lodged a similar complaint with ORG of GPE .

On DATE ORG informed them that there were no grounds for quashing the decision of DATE since , following a thorough and objective investigation , the actions of the police officers had been determined to have been lawful .

On DATE An . A. lodged a complaint in her capacity as a victim with the ORG against the decision of DATE , seeking to have invalidated the part of the decision concerning the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for killing her brother . In particular , she complained that , despite the fact that her brother had been deliberately killed by the police officers , no separate criminal proceedings had been instituted and no criminal investigation had been conducted into the fact of his killing . She also complained that the police officers had opened fire on GPE NORP in a situation where there had been no threat to life or limb for any of them . As to the finding of a grenade in PERSON house , An . A stated that this could not serve as justification for the police officers’ actions , since it had been discovered only after the fatal incident had taken place , and her brother had never threatened the policemen that he would use it .

On DATE the ORG admitted the complaint for examination as having been lodged in compliance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE the ORG , relying on the facts , as established by the investigation , examined the complaint and decided to dismiss it , finding that the use of firearms by the police officers had been justified as they had opened fire to prevent , and protect themselves from , PERSON unlawful violent actions . It concluded that the police officers had acted in necessary defence , as provided for by LAW , and also in compliance with sections CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . ORG moreover held that there was no need to institute separate criminal proceedings concerning PERSON GPE ’s killing , since the investigation into that incident had been carried out within the framework of criminal proceedings instituted in relation to PERSON ’s unlawful actions . Separately , ORG found that the complaint against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings had been lodged outside the DATE time - limit prescribed by LAW ORG .

On DATE An . A. lodged an appeal against the decision of ORG raising the same arguments as those contained in her original court complaint . She also alleged that she had lodged her complaint in compliance with the procedural rules since neither of the applicable Articles of the ORG , namely LAW and CARDINAL ( as in force at the material time ) , had provided any time - limit for lodging a complaint .

On DATE ORG examined the merits of the appeal and dismissed it , upholding the findings of ORG concerning the lawfulness of the police ORG actions . It then also examined the question of the compliance of An . PERSON ’s court complaint with the procedural rules and found that it had not been lodged in compliance with LAW ORG .

On DATE An . A. lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of ORG , raising the same arguments regarding both the admissibility and the merits of her court complaint .

On DATE ORG declared the appeal admissible .

On DATE ORG examined the appeal . Turning to the question of compliance with domestic time - limits , it found that the appeal procedure pursued by An . A. was indeed governed by LAW , which at the material time had not prescribed any time - limits for contesting the prosecutor ’s refusal before the courts . However , the onemonth time - limit prescribed by LAW was applicable to her case . The appeal had only been lodged on DATE namely outside that DATE timelimit . Thus , both ORG and ORG had exceeded their temporal jurisdiction by examining the merits of An . A. ’s complaint . This in itself was sufficient grounds for rejecting the appeal ; however , ORG found it necessary – taking into account the fact that ( a ) both courts had examined the merits of the case and had reached findings on the merits , and ( b ) it was called upon to ensure uniform application of DATE to express a number of legal positions on the matter , which could provide guidance to lower courts in similar cases .

The Court of Cassation first examined the question of whether any criminal proceedings had been instituted and any investigation carried out into the killing of PERSON . Referring to Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , ORG concluded that it was impossible to answer that question unequivocally . In particular , a number of factors suggested that criminal case no . DATE had been instituted on account of the acts committed by PERSON rather than his killing . Firstly , the proceedings had been instituted only under LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , in conjunction with LAW ( namely in respect of attempted murder of CARDINAL or more persons ) and therefore could not legally be characterised as applying to his killing . Secondly , the wording of the decision to discontinue the proceedings also contained a refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers implicated in his shooting , which confirmed that no criminal proceedings had been instituted on account of that incident .

On the other hand , a number of factors suggested that the proceedings instituted had also been based on the fact that he had been killed , and an investigation had been carried out in that connection . Thus , the descriptive part of the wording of the decision to institute proceedings had mentioned the fact that Seyran NORP had been taken to hospital and had died . Furthermore , PERSON sister , An . A. , had been granted victim status in the criminal case by decision of the investigator , moreover , that decision had stated that PERSON had been deprived of his life “ as a result of a crime ” . Lastly , certain investigative measures taken in the course of the criminal proceedings had been aimed at obtaining evidence concerning the circumstances of GPE NORP ’s death , including the inspections of the crime scene , of GPE GPE ’s body and of his clothes , the autopsy , the forensic examination of his clothes and the interviews with the police officers who had shot at GPE NORP or witnessed the shootings . This suggested that some investigation into his death had nevertheless been carried out . Having reached this conclusion , ORG decided in any event to examine the question of whether the investigation had been adequate .

The Court of Cassation firstly noted that there had been no eyewitnesses to the shooting , other than the police officers . However , not all the police officers who had witnessed the shooting had been questioned . In particular , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL officers who had been present at the time of the shooting , namely GPE and GPE , had not been questioned . Thus , the investigating authority had failed to secure all the evidence relating to the incident . As regards those officers who had been questioned , GPE . had been questioned DATE , ORG DATE and PERSON DATE after the incident . No measures had been taken in the meantime to isolate them from each other . While there was no evidence to suggest that the police officers had colluded with each other , the fact that no steps had been taken to minimise such risk constituted a significant shortcoming in the investigation . Furthermore , no adequate assessment had been made of the direction of the bullets fired at GPE NORP . In particular , no reasonable explanation had been determined by the investigation for the fact that CARDINAL bullets had been fired at GPE NORP from behind .

On the basis of those findings , ORG concluded that the investigation into the killing of PERSON had not been adequate . Nevertheless , ORG decided to dismiss the appeal on points of law on the ground that neither the ORG nor ORG had had temporal competence to examine the complaint against the decision of DATE .

On an unspecified date PERSON sister , An . A. , died .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)

Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

NORP In disputes between the applicants and the domestic pension authorities , the firstinstance courts ruled in their favour , ordering increases of their pensions based on the rise in the average wages in the country since their retirement .

The defendant authorities appealed to ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) .

NORP Under domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , when an appeal arrived at ORG , a judge rapporteur of that court , if he or she believed that it complied with the necessary formal requirements , had to issue a ruling opening appeal proceedings ( “ the ruling ” ) and send it to the applicants together with a copy of the appeal .

The Government and the applicants disagree as to whether those documents were actually sent to the applicants ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On various dates set out in the Appendix , ORG quashed the judgments in the ORG favour , dismissing their claims for pension increases holding that the domestic law did not require the pensions to be increased in case of rise in the average wages in the country following retirement . In the fifth applicant ’s case ORG held a hearing in his presence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the other applicants’ cases the court sat in camera without summoning the parties .

In DATE ORG cases ORG decisions became effective immediately since no further appeal lay against them ( see the related legislative provisions in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . On DATE it upheld ORG decision , without commenting on the complaint she had presented that she had not been informed of the appeal proceedings .

According to the applicants , the domestic courts did not send them either ( i ) a copy of the GPE appeals or ( ii ) a copy of the rulings opening appeal proceedings in their cases . They therefore had no knowledge of the appeal proceedings prior to ORG decisions in their cases . They learned of those decisions later , notably after their pensions had been reduced based on ORG decisions .

According to the Government , the applicants were duly informed of the appeal proceedings .

It can be seen from the material before the ORG that :

On DATE ORG sent the fifth applicant a summons to attend a hearing on DATE . The delivery slip is in his domestic case file . At the hearing , which he attended , the court examined the pension authority ’s appeal in its absence and quashed the first - instance court ’s judgment .


No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a lawyer by profession .

On DATE while driving his car near PERSON , GPE , the applicant was stopped by a police officer alleging that he had dangerously overtaken another car and that he had inappropriate tyres on his car . The police officer drew up a report on the incident .

On DATE the applicant received a penalty notice ( obvezni prekršajni nalog ) dated DATE and issued by the Dubrovnik - Neretvanska Police Department ( FAC uprava DATE ; hereinafter : “ the police ” ) which stated that he had committed the minor offences of dangerously overtaking another car under LAW of FAC , and driving a car with inappropriate tyres under section CARDINAL of the same LAW , fining him with CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . The statement of facts , which was printed on a form , stated that the offence had been established by the personal observations of a police officer , who had submitted a report on it .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for judicial review , challenging the statement that he had committed the offences and asking to be heard in court . The summary minor - offence proceedings were opened in ORG ( PERSON ORG GPE ) .

ORG summoned the applicant for questioning on DATE and DATE . The applicant did not appear for questioning , excusing his absence on account of professional commitments . He asked to be questioned by ORG ( Prekršajni sud u ORG ) since he lived within its territorial jurisdiction .

On DATE ORG forwarded the entire case file to ORG and asked it to question the applicant , thereby also providing the applicant access to the case file .

On DATE a judge of ORG questioned the applicant . The applicant maintained his objection to the penalty notice , arguing that he had not overtaken a car at the time when he had been stopped by the police . He also contended that he had had factory tyres on his car and promised to submit a copy of the relevant documents to support that . He explained that he had no other evidence to put forward .

As the applicant failed to submit the documents concerning the tyres on his car within the relevant time - limit , on DATE ORG returned the case file to ORG .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the charges of dangerously overtaking another car and driving a car with inappropriate tyres . The applicant was cautioned , fined with HRK CARDINAL and ordered to pay HRK CARDINAL in court fees . When convicting the applicant ORG relied on the police officer ’s report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , holding that the applicant ’s defence had not cast any doubt on the findings of the report .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . He argued that he had never seen the police report on which the verdict was based and that he had had no opportunity to challenge the accusations contained in it . He also complained that ORG had relied solely on the report , without holding a hearing at which he could cross - examine the police officer who had drafted it .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . ORG held :

“ In his constitutional complaint , the appellant was unable to show that the [ ORG ] in the conduct of the proceedings or in the pronouncement of the judgment had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions . ORG therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue in respect of the complainant ’s constitutional rights . Thus , there is no constitutional law issue in the case for ORG to decide on . ... ”

NORP The decision of ORG was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ORG forwarded the judgment to ORG ( NORP uprava u ORG ) requesting that the fine be enforced . The enforcement proceedings are still pending .


CASE OF OOO IZDATELSKIY TSENTR KVARTIRNYY RYAD v. RUSSIA

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

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

At the material time the applicant company was the publisher of PERSON , a newspaper specialising in coverage of the housing market in the GPE area ( “ the newspaper ” ) .

On DATE the newspaper published an article by PERSON entitled “ So sorry for the bird . The blue CARDINAL ” ( « А птичку жалко. PERSON – “ the article ” ) . The article described a conflict situation concerning a large commonhold association , ORG птица ) , which included CARDINAL blocks of flats in the south - west of GPE . PERSON suggested in the article that a number of residents of the ORG flats had been affected by the alleged misuse of common areas , in particular attics in the blocks of flats and that T. , the head of the commonhold association , had been behind the misuse . PERSON emphasised that PERSON was also the deputy head of a district council in GPE and that he had declined to comment on the article ’s contents prior to publication . The article asked ORG and the local government questions pertaining to the misuse of the common areas .

The relevant parts of the article read as follows :

“ Residents of CARDINAL blocks of flats in GPE keep sending letters to the courts , the prosecutor ’s office , the city administration and even President PERSON to complain about the head of the “ FAC commonhold association , ORG , [ w]ho has developed an indecently hasty business activity spitting in the face of the association ’s LAW and a number of regional and federal laws . ...

... But ORG has expressed his distrust in the commission elected by the general meeting and has appointed his own commission ... as a result T. has managed to retain his position ...

... In sum , even though ORG did not have the majority of the votes , he nonetheless managed to conclude the contract ...

... let ’s ask CARDINAL final question , which again pertains to T. : does a ORG official have the right to combine his official functions with a commercial business activity ? ”

On DATE T. lodged a defamation claim against the applicant company and PERSON with ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) . The plaintiff alleged that the statements contained in the article damaged his honour , dignity and business reputation . The court received the statement of claim on DATE .

On DATE ORG examined and partially allowed the claim , referring to LAW no . CARDINAL of ORG . It reasoned :

“ ... the impugned statement : “ ... who [ has ] developed an indecently hasty business activity spitting in the face of the commonhold association ’s LAW and a number of regional and federal laws ” should be retracted [ by the defendants ] ... as during the judicial examination of the case the defendants failed to prove that ORG ’s actions were unlawful .

The defendants , a third party and witnesses explained that an attic ... had been unlawfully rented out . The lease agreement had been unlawfully concluded by T. ...

However , no evidence has been provided [ by the defendants ] to the court to prove that the plaintiff ’s actions were unlawful or illegal or in violation of federal and regional law or the commonhold association ’s Charter .

Moreover , the issue of the lease of the attic ... was examined by ORG of GPE . By the decision of ORG of GPE of CARDINAL DATE actions of the ORG commonhold association headed by ORG were found to be in compliance with the law in force .

As to the statements : “ ... the commission was not elected , but appointed , which guaranteed the appointment of T. for a third term ... In sum , even though T. did not have the majority of the votes , he nonetheless managed to conclude the contract ... ” ... They are not to be retracted as they are not damaging to the honour and dignity of the plaintiff .

... as to the statement : “ let ’s ask CARDINAL final question , which again pertains to T. : does a ORG official have the right to combine his official functions with a commercial business activity ? ” It should not be retracted either as ... the author of the article [ PERSON ] is asking a rhetorical question ... ”

ORG ordered the applicant company “ to refute the statement [ published ] in the newspaper PERSON on DATE ... that T. developed activities as the head of the “ Bluebird ” commonhold association , violating the association ’s Charter as well as a whole range of laws of the capital area and federal law ” . It also awarded T. non - pecuniary damages : MONEY ( RUB – MONEY ) to be paid by the applicant company and RUB CARDINAL to be paid by PERSON

The applicant company and PERSON appealed against the judgment to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE it upheld the judgment of DATE in full , referring to LAW and to Resolution no . CARDINAL of ORG . It provided the following succinct reasoning :

“ The plaintiff has proven the fact that the contested statements were disseminated : he provided the court with an original issue of the newspaper of DATE ...

... the court [ of first instance ] rightly held that the defendants had failed to prove the veracity of the disseminated statement ... that [ the plaintiff ] had developed an indecently hasty business activity spitting in the face of the association ’s LAW and the law .

At the same time , the court [ justifiably ] referred to the judgment of ORG of GPE ... which found the actions of the commonhold association ... headed by T. to be in compliance with the law in force . ”

On DATE ORG rejected a request by the applicant company for supervisory review .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated by a bailiff as the judgment of DATE had been enforced in full .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

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

All applicants were employed by PERSON bakra PERSON , a copper mining company based in PERSON ( “ the debtor ” ) .

DATE they all instituted separate civil suits against the debtor , seeking pecuniary redress on various grounds .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him :

( a ) the salary arrears due DATE and DATE , plus statutory interest ;

( b ) the pension , disability , health and other insurance contributions due for the same period ; and

( c ) his legal costs .

On DATE the judgment became final .

Having only received payment of the amounts referred to under ( b ) above , on DATE the first applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .

On DATE the court accepted the first applicant ’s request and issued an enforcement order . On DATE the same court issued an additional order to the same effect .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed .

In DATE , following their resumption , the first applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him :

( c ) his legal costs .

On DATE the judgment became final .

Having only received payment of the amounts referred to under ( b ) above , on DATE the second applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .

On DATE the court accepted the second applicant ’s request and issued an enforcement order .

NORP In DATE , following their resumption , the second applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .

On DATE and DATE , the latter following a brief reopening of the proceedings , ORG ruled in favour of the third applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due DATE and DATE , plus statutory interest , as well as his legal costs .

By DATE these judgments became final .

On unspecified dates , the third applicant filed separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgments before ORG .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , the court accepted the third applicant ’s requests and issued the enforcement orders .

In DATE , following their resumption , the third applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the fourth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due DATE and DATE , plus statutory interest , as well as his legal costs .

By DATE this judgment became final .

On DATE the fourth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .

On DATE the court accepted the fourth applicant ’s request and issued the enforcement order .

In DATE , following their resumption , the fourth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the fifth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due DATE , plus statutory interest , as well as his legal costs .

By DATE this judgment became final .

On DATE the fifth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .

On DATE the court accepted the fifth applicant ’s request and issued the enforcement order .

In the course of DATE and DATE , the debtor covered a part of the fifth applicant ’s claims .

In DATE , following their resumption , the fifth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the sixth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him compensation for the non - pecuniary damage suffered due to a labour - related injury , plus statutory interest , and his legal costs .

By DATE this judgment became final .

On DATE the sixth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .

On DATE the court accepted the sixth applicant ’s request and issued the enforcement order .

In DATE , following their resumption , the sixth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .

None of the applicants ever filed an appeal with ORG , seeking compensation for any non - pecuniary damages suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings in question .

As of DATE , the debtor appeared to be a company predominantly comprised of ORG or socially owned capital and was still in the process of being restructured .


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The first applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The third applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The fourth applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . They are all NORP nationals and were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in GPE .

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

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

During DATE and DATE NORP para - military forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the so - called “ GPE of LOC ” ( PERSON autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter the “ LOC ” ) . The applicants’ father , PERSON , lived in PERSON , a village situated in the LOC . At the beginning of DATE the NORP authorities announced a campaign of military action with the aim of regaining control over the LOC . The action was codenamed “ Storm ” and lasted DATE . Before that action , the vast majority of the population of the LOC had fled GPE , initially for GPE , but later many of them went to live in GPE . Some returned to GPE after the war . The number of people who fled is estimated at CARDINAL .

On DATE the second applicant informed the Vojinić Police about the disappearance of her father in DATE . She alleged that she and her sister , ORG , had learned that ORG . , a neighbour of their late father , knew who had killed him .

On DATE the police interviewed ORG . , who said that the applicants’ father had been killed by a certain ORG during the military action “ Storm ” . Later on ORG had moved to GPE and had died there .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE , who said that he had heard that the applicants’ father had been found in the courtyard of his house but nobody knew how or by whom he had been killed .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE and ORG had no knowledge about the killing of the applicants’ father . ORG said that he had heard that the applicants’ father had been killed and buried in his courtyard and expressed the opinion that he had been killed by NORP para - military forces because his family was rich .

On DATE the police interviewed the second applicant , who said that a certain PERSON had been staying with her father in PERSON during the military action “ NORP ” and that PERSON had told her that on DATE her father had gone to his ORG estate to feed their pigs . PERSON had heard him yelling : “ You thieves , why are you stealing ? ” , followed by CARDINAL gunshots . PERSON had run away after that and had no knowledge what had happened to the applicants’ father . TIME . had told the second applicant that the applicants’ father had been buried under a beech tree in his courtyard . Her father had had a valuable estate and kept MONEY in the house . The estate had been burned down after the military action “ Storm ” .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE . , PERSON and the first applicant . TIME . said that during the military action “ Storm ” she had not been in PERSON . When she had returned there together with a daughter of PERSON after the military action “ Storm ” , they had found that ORG estate had been burned down . PERSON confirmed the facts given in the interview with the second applicant . The first applicant said that he had heard from his sister , the third applicant , that their father had been killed and buried under a beech tree in his courtyard .

On DATE the ground under the beech tree in the courtyard of late ORG house was excavated but no body was found .

NORP On DATE the police again interviewed D.Se . , ORG . and PERSON repeated their previous statements .

On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG Attorney ’s ORG against unknown perpetrators for the criminal offence of a war crime against the civilian population in connection with the killing of their father PERSON However , since then no new information has been obtained .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran)

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

The applicant is an NORP national who was born on DATE in GPE and currently lives in GPE , GPE .

The applicant entered GPE illegally on DATE and applied for asylum DATE . He had CARDINAL hearings before ORG ( ORG für DATE hereafter “ the ORG ” ) .

The first hearing was a summary interview at ORG “ ORG and Procedure ” ( Empfangs- FAC ) in GPE on DATE . The applicant gave an account of the alleged events in GPE leading to his escape from his home country . This account was summarised by ORG interviewer in official TIME . At the beginning of this summary , the interviewer noted : “ For lack of staff , the facts - summarised under no . TIME - were not established in detail . ” ( “ GPE aus GPE auf eine vertiefte PERSON . CARDINAL verzichtet . ” ) . An interpreter was present during the hearing and the minutes were translated for the applicant prior to his signing .

During the hearing the applicant stated that , following serious ballotrigging after the NORP presidential elections on DATE , anti - regime demonstrations had started to take place . He had participated in almost all these demonstrations until DATE . He claimed that he and his friends had organised peaceful demonstrations DATE . As the demonstrations had been brutally oppressed by the NORP regime , he and his friends had documented the demonstrations and had circulated this documentation to people . He further claimed that during the last demonstration he had attended , at DATE , several of his friends had been arrested . He alleged that they had been tortured and that CARDINAL of them had probably mentioned his name to the NORP authorities and had told them about his participation in the demonstrations . Consequently , on DATE , a summons issued by ORG of ORG had been delivered to his residence , namely his GPE house in GPE , by a court courier . He had not been present at the time of delivery as he had been on a visit to his sister ’s house in GPE . The summons had ordered him to appear in court on CARDINAL DATE . Fearing that he might be arrested upon his appearance , he had not presented himself in court but had hidden at his sister ’s home and at the homes of various friends in GPE . As a result of his non - appearance before the court , agents of the secret service had come to his GPE house DATE ( CARDINAL DATE ) in order to arrest him . Because of his absence , his father had been arrested instead . The applicant had been left a message that he should report to the district police , otherwise his father would remain in detention . For fear of arrest and on his family ’s advice , he had fled the country without legal exit papers in DATE .

In order to support his account during the first hearing , the applicant submitted the allegedly original summons of ORG of ORG of CARDINAL DATE . He also submitted documentary material pertaining to the anti - regime demonstrations , which had allegedly been produced by him and his friends .

The second , more detailed hearing took place at ORG office in GPE DATE after the first hearing , on DATE . A member of the non - governmental ORG of ORG of GPE ( Hilfswerk der PERSON GPE ) was present as a neutral witness in order to guarantee the fairness of the hearing . He had the opportunity to add comments at the end of the minutes of the hearing in the event that he had witnessed any irregularities , but did not note down any such observations . Again , an interpreter was present during the hearing and the minutes were translated for the applicant prior to his signing .

NORP The applicant again gave an account of the alleged events in GPE leading up to his escape . With regard to the events on DATE when the summons had allegedly been delivered to his GPE house ( DATE ) , the applicant now described that members of the ORG security service had come to his GPE house in his absence in order to search for him . They had searched the house , opening chests of drawers and cupboards . As they had been unable to find him , they had issued the summons while at his GPE house and had left it behind . Confronted with the fact that he had not mentioned the house search of CARDINAL DATE during the first hearing , the applicant responded that he had in fact done so , that he had recounted the same facts during the first hearing and that it was not his fault that this fact had not been recorded in TIME first hearing .

Furthermore , asked about his hiding place prior to his escape from GPE , the applicant stated during the second interview that he had stayed at his sister ’s home the whole time . When confronted with his testimony from the first hearing , the applicant explained that he had been with friends as well and added that these people had been friends from work and not friends he knew from the demonstrations .

With regard to the aftermath of the last demonstration he had attended in DATE , the applicant stated during the second hearing that he did not know that the PERSON security forces were planning to arrest him . He again alleged that CARDINAL of the friends arrested during the demonstrations had told the security forces who had participated in these demonstrations . Asked when this friend who had given his name had been arrested , the applicant responded that he did not know and that it had not necessarily been this arrested friend directly who had given his name to the security forces . Arrests of that kind usually started a whole chain reaction : the arrested person would give some names , then these people would be arrested and questioned and give further names , and so on .

Questioned further during the second hearing about any special occurrences with regard to his last demonstration in DATE , the applicant stated that the demonstrations had all been rather similar . People had been arrested and agents of the government had beaten up people during the last demonstration just as during any other demonstration . Asked whether he knew the people who had been arrested , the applicant responded that he just knew these people from the street . They had not been people from his region . GPE was a big city and people had come from everywhere . Confronted with his testimony from the first interview , in which he had claimed that friends of his had been arrested , the applicant stated that the people demonstrating together were all friends in a way and that he had used the term “ friends ” in that sense when giving his account of the events during the demonstrations .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for asylum and ordered him to leave GPE by DATE . ORG reasoned that the applicant ’s statement of facts was not credible as his descriptions of the events in GPE had not been consistent during the QUANTITY hearings . The descriptions diverged considerably from each other with regard to decisive points of the applicant ’s story . During the first hearing , the applicant had neither mentioned the appearance of the PERSON security forces at his GPE house , nor had he mentioned the house search , nor the fact that it had been the ORG who had issued a summons directly at his GPE house on DATE , but had simply stated that a courier of the court had brought the summons . Furthermore , the accounts of the applicant ’s hiding prior to his escape from GPE diverged from each other , as the applicant had first stated that he had hidden at his sister ’s home and at friends’ homes , whereas he had claimed to have stayed exclusively at his sister ’s home during the second hearing . Finally , the applicant had only mentioned the arrest of his friends during his last demonstration only in the account he had given during the first hearing and not during the second interview . ORG took into consideration that the applicant had submitted some documentary material including the alleged summons of CARDINAL DATE , but was of the view that these documents could not dispel the doubts about the applicant ’s account . The documentary material gave only a general account of the demonstrations , but not specifically anything about the applicant ’s alleged participation , and a summons alone could not prove any public persecution .

On DATE the applicant , now represented by counsel , appealed against the decision of ORG to ORG ( ORG ) . He asked ORG to quash the decision of ORG , to grant him asylum , to find that the execution of the expulsion order would be an improper and unreasonable measure , and to grant him legal aid .

In his appeal the applicant claimed that upon the advice of his counsel he had phoned his family in GPE and had asked whether any further summons had been received . On that occasion he had learnt that he had again been summoned to appear before ORG of ORG on DATE . He had also learnt that ORG had convicted him in absentia on DATE because he had participated in demonstrations against the NORP regime and had criticised the regime in slogans . The court had sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and CARDINAL lashes . The applicant claimed to be in possession only of copies of the summons of CARDINAL DATE and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE because his family suspected state surveillance and feared that the mail would be checked if they tried to send him the originals by post . The applicant submitted the copies of the alleged new summons and of the alleged judgment to ORG . In his appeal , he also asked ORG and ORG whether the authenticity of the CARDINAL documents could be assessed by ORG in GPE if the originals were handed in or shown there .

In his appeal the applicant also argued that the deviations between his CARDINAL statements of the facts could be explained by the different nature of the CARDINAL hearings . The first hearing had been only a summary hearing and the applicant had been asked not to go into detail . It was therefore understandable that he had not described the house search of CARDINAL DATE until the second hearing . With regard to his hiding prior to his departure from GPE , his CARDINAL reports were correct and consistent . He had stayed at his sister ’s home but he had also met friends from work and spent time with them . With regard to the events during the last demonstration , he had in essence stated the same facts during the CARDINAL hearings , namely that he and his friends had documented the demonstration and had handed out leaflets , that many participants , including his friends , had been arrested , and that he believed that CARDINAL of the arrested persons had passed on his name to the NORP authorities . The applicant further argued that when assessing his CARDINAL statements , it had to be taken into consideration that DATE had elapsed between the CARDINAL hearings and that no one was able to describe events in exactly the same way after such a long time . Finally , the applicant claimed that the second hearing had not been fair , as the interviewer had constantly interrupted him and treated him as if he were lying .

On DATE ORG delivered an interim decision in which it declined the applicant ’s request for legal aid , reasoning that his application lacked any prospects of success . In its preliminary assessment of the case , ORG found that the applicant had not convincingly shown that he was persecuted by ORG . His statements of the facts as given during the CARDINAL hearings by ORG diverged from each other with regard to essential points and his story was therefore not credible . The summons of CARDINAL DATE and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had no probative value as the applicant had submitted only copies of these documents .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as manifestly ill - founded . In accordance with section CARDINAL and section CARDINALa of MONEY of DATE ( hereafter “ the LAW ” , see paragraphs CARDINALss . below ) , the case was decided by a single judge and the judgment contained only a summary reasoning . An oral hearing was not provided for in the rules of procedure . In accordance with section CARDINALa of LAW , ORG also abstained from the possibility of exchanging observations between the parties . ORG was hence not given an opportunity to comment on the submission of the copies of the alleged summons of CARDINAL DATE and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE or on the possibility of having the alleged original documents – which were allegedly in the possession of the applicant ’s family – checked by the NORP embassy in GPE .

ORG decided that the applicant had no right to asylum . It further stated that there was no reason not to execute the expulsion order as the applicant had not been able to prove that he had been subject to state persecution in GPE . His accounts of the events during the CARDINAL hearings diverged with regard to essential details and the applicant had not managed to explain these discrepancies to ORG satisfaction . The time that had passed between the CARDINAL hearings could not explain the contradictions , since the applicant had not been expected to describe the events in GPE in exactly the same way but rather in a consistent manner . Furthermore , contrary to the applicant ’s allegation , there was no indication that the second hearing had been unfair . The hearing had been attended by a member of ORG of GPE as a neutral witness . This person had not made any remarks about irregularities witnessed during the hearing , although he could have done so . TIME had been translated for the applicant and signed by him . He had therefore had the opportunity to correct any statement had he found that it had not been noted down correctly .

The court further found that it could not draw any conclusions from the submitted copy of the summons of CARDINAL DATE or the copy of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the applicant ’s favour , as copies had no probative value . The court did not mention the first summons of CARDINAL DATE , the authenticity of which had not been questioned in the decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a new expulsion order requiring the applicant to leave GPE before DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG and asked for Rule CARDINAL of ORG to be applied in order to stay the enforcement of his expulsion . He stated that he had participated in demonstrations against the NORP regime following the presidential elections of DATE up until DATE and that he had handed out leaflets on these occasions . He further alleged that the ORG security forces had searched his GPE house with the purpose of arresting him . Moreover , he claimed that he had been summoned twice to appear before ORG of ORG and that the same court had sentenced him in absentia on DATE to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , the payment of a fine , and CARDINAL lashes of the whip because of his participation in the demonstrations .

NORP In support of his claims the applicant attached to his application of CARDINAL DATE documentary material on the demonstrations in GPE , written in NORP , copies of the alleged summonses of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and a copy of the alleged judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he was now in possession of the original summons of CARDINAL DATE and of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as his sister ’s husband had finally dared to send the documents by special delivery in DATE . He also provided the ORG with LANGUAGE translations of the summons of CARDINAL DATE and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . A translation of the summons of CARDINAL DATE was not submitted . A translation was included in TIME of the applicant ’s second hearing , however , and this had been submitted to the ORG .

According to the translation of the summons of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was summoned to appear before the CARDINALth division of ORG of ORG on DATE at TIME , because of “ participation in demonstrations against the public safety and the system of GPE ” . The summons was signed by an “ investigating authority ” on DATE .

The translation of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG of ORG reads in its material part :

“ Charge : Undertakings and activities against the sacred order of ORG

Judgement

In the case of the accused Mr. PERSON , the court – due to the charge sheet of the CARDINALth division of the public prosecutor ’s office for the General and ORG of Teheran , due to the existing exhibits and his file , due to the credible report of the intelligence service and the clarification as well as the investigations of public prosecutor ’s office mentioned above , due to the testimonies of the persons under arrest as well as due to the especially useful information on file , moreover because of the punishable participation in illegal gatherings , because of the disturbance of the peace and the system of GPE , because of being a troublemaker and the writing of slogans , calling for resistance against the polity by distributing flyers and non - appearance before court despite being summoned , as well as due to the waiver of defence in court DATE comes to the conclusion that his guilt has been established .

For these reasons , in application of Art . CARDINAL of the NORP law , he is sentenced to DATE of imprisonment , CARDINAL strokes of the whip and to a fine of MONEY which is to be paid to the treasury .

An appeal against this judgment delivered in absentia is possible within DATE after disclosure . After this period of time , a request for reconsideration can be submitted to the competent courts of the province of GPE . ”

The translation also states that the judgment had been

“ disclosed on CARDINAL DATE ” .


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

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

The applicants complained of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties .


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

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

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

The applicant lived with her partner , a dual NORP - Ukrainian national , PERSON . , in ORG . On DATE their first child , PERSON , was born ; he was registered in GPE at the applicant ’s address and acquired NORP citizenship .

NORP Some time in DATE PERSON . left GPE for GPE . PERSON continued to live with his mother and attended a pre - school educational institution in GPE .

In DATE and DATE PERSON . visited the applicant and L. twice . In DATE the applicant gave birth to another child of the couple , T.

On DATE T. died in an accident . She fell from an open window of an apartment . L. , who had apparently witnessed the tragic incident , started receiving psychological help in the form of dolphin - assisted therapy .

On DATE the applicant allowed PERSON . to take their son for the first time to GPE for DATE . She signed a document authorising PERSON . to travel with NORP to GPE and GPE DATE and DATE . According to the applicant , PERSON was expected to return to ORG by DATE in order to start in DATE at a primary school in which he had been pre - enrolled .

On DATE , the applicant learned when talking on the telephone with her son that the latter would not be returning to GPE and would be staying in GPE . For DATE the applicant tried to persuade her former partner to allow their child to return to GPE , to no avail however . It appears that soon after PERSON . left for GPE , while PERSON stayed in GPE with his uncle , PERSON . ’s brother , and his grandfather . PERSON PERSON . travelled occasionally to GPE to see his son .

On DATE L. was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and began having outpatient treatment .

On DATE ORG of ORG ordered PERSON ’s return to GPE . The court ruled that PERSON ’s place of permanent residence should be that of the applicant .

PERSON . was not apparently informed of the institution of the above proceedings . He did not accordingly appeal against that decision .

NORP In DATE the applicant initiated child return proceedings under LAW via ORG of GPE . On DATE the latter contacted ORG of GPE and requested legal cooperation on the matter . On DATE ORG of GPE , acting as the central authority responsible for the obligations established by LAW , instituted proceedings on behalf of the applicant before ORG .

On DATE social workers went to see PERSON at the request of ORG . They visited him at his uncle ’s apartment , where he was living with his cousins . According to the report drawn up thereafter , PERSON was being looked after by his uncle , since his father was mainly based in GPE . The boy spoke NORP , although he had started attending a NORP school . PERSON ’s uncle told the social workers that PERSON ’s sister had died as a result of their mother ’s lack of attention ; hence it was dangerous for PERSON to live with his mother . The social workers also had a short conversation with PERSON during which he stated that he was happy with his uncle and cousins , and did not want to go back to GPE . In conclusion , the social workers noted that PERSON was living in appropriate living conditions , and that his basic needs were being met .

NORP In DATE the social workers set up and attended CARDINAL meetings between the applicant and her son . In the report drawn up thereafter they concluded the following :

“ On the basis of our intervention , which included visits , conversations with PERSON and observation of his behaviour , we consider his behaviour to be problematic . In particular , although PERSON wants to see his mother , and when seeing her expresses his love , warm feelings and happiness , he refuses subsequently to talk to her on the telephone . It should be underlined that when communicating with his mother he is following his father ’s prompting and is stressed . Given that PERSON is living in the family of his uncle and grandfather , he lacks relationship with his parents ( since neither of the parents lives with him ) . In order for a child to develop into a contented and healthy individual , and to have his interests protected , it is necessary for him to communicate with his parents . ”

In the same report the social workers noted that during one of the meetings they noticed that the boy , prompted by his father , had stopped hugging his mother . This happened twice , until CARDINAL of the social workers warned PERSON . to stop doing this .

In DATE additionally underwent a psychological examination , which concluded that the boy was suffering from insufficient emotional relationship with his parents . It was noted that PERSON had a clearly positive attitude towards his father and the paternal family , while with respect to the mother his attitude was twofold : love and warm feelings on the one hand , and anxiety on the other . PERSON indicated to a psychologist that he wanted to live with his father and his father ’s family and wanted his mother to be with them too . In her conclusions about his emotional condition the psychologist noted that the boy ’s nervousness , aggression , distrust , and irritability , as well as low self - esteem , were caused by psychological trauma he had suffered in the past , as well as by his current complicated and barely comprehensible situation .

On DATE the ORG refused the applicant ’s request . The court concluded , having regard to the boy ’s age and other circumstances of the case , that his return to GPE would expose him to psychological risk . It stated in this connection that it would be inappropriate to order the boy ’s return to GPE , since the applicant had failed to show that she could create a stable environment for her son in which he could be protected from psychological risks related to the separation from his father . The court further noted the following :

“ The court considers that in the current case , having regard to a psychologist ’s report which categorically states that PERSON suffered a serious psychological injury , it is with high probability that if returned to GPE the child would be exposed to “ physical or psychological harm or otherwise PERSON ] in an intolerable situation ” ( LAW ) . ”

NORP The court dismissed the applicant ’s argument that her son was suffering from an adjustment disorder and lacked communication with his parents . It noted in this connection the following :

“ In view of a psychological examination the court particularly stresses the following – “ PERSON . has revealed ... high level of anxiety ... and fear of the future ” , “ twofold attitude towards his mother , which implies love and warm feelings as well as strong anxiety , ” according to the same report , it was established that [ he suffers from ] “ lack of emotional relationship with both parents ” and “ positive attitude towards his father and the paternal family ” especially towards the grandfather ( PERSON . ) .

The court further particularly underlines the fact that minor PERSON . expresses the wish to live with his father and the paternal family . At the same time , he wants his mother ( PERSON ) to stay with them ...

The court can not accept the argument of the requesting party that the child is having adaptation difficulties because of the separation from his mother and because he is being kept in GPE . The above opinion is not supported by any evidence and is not substantiated ... There is an attempt on the father ’s side to take every possible measure ... to treat [ the boy ’s ] psychological condition . ”

As to the risks related to the boy ’s return to GPE , the court stated :

“ Hence , the court considers that the return of PERSON . to GPE ( in view of his current condition ) would imply his return to an uncomfortable situation , which would result in his psychological stress and would place him at psychological risk , even if he returned to GPE with his father . Separation from his father and the paternal family and his return to GPE ( at this stage ) would cause mental deterioration of the child and from a psychological point of view would inevitably create a risk [ for the boy ] . ( The requesting party failed to prove the opposite ) . “

That decision was overturned on DATE by ORG , which ordered PERSON ’s return to GPE . The appeal court observed that PERSON had been born and had lived in GPE , so he had adapted to the situation in GPE . Further , according to the psychological and social welfare reports , the boy was suffering from adaptation difficulties and lacked sufficient communication with his parents . In this connection , the court stressed that PERSON had indeed suffered psychological trauma as a result of the accidental death of his sister ; but , according to the very same reports , he was also suffering because of the situation he was currently in . Hence , it was within the best interests of the child to be reunited with his mother . The court further noted :

“ The above - mentioned conclusions confirm that the current situation for [ the boy ] is complicated and hardly comprehensible . Accordingly , in view of the interests of PERSON . , since there is no obvious risk of a negative impact on his mental state if he were returned to his mother , it would be appropriate that he be returned to his parent ( the applicant PERSON ) and to his habitual place of residence . ”

As to the death of PERSON ’s sister , the appeal court noted that related criminal proceedings had been dropped , as it had been concluded that it had been a tragic accident . It further noted in connection with the psychological trauma the boy suffered as a result , that

“ ... already traumatised child should not be separated from his parents . This should be viewed as a decision taken in the interests of the child . As was noted in the appealed decision , PERSON before his arrival in GPE had been having dolphin - assisted rehabilitation treatment . At the same time , his stay with his mother can not be harmful to him , since she has been doing an internship at the psychiatric hospital ... ”

PERSON . appealed against this decision on points of law , alleging that the court of appeal had incorrectly interpreted LAW and the facts of the case . On DATE , without holding an oral hearing , ORG allowed the appeal on points of law , thus reversing the judgment of DATE . On a general note , in connection with the purpose of the initiated proceedings the court noted the following :

“ The subject matter of the pending application is the return to GPE of a child ( PERSON . ) wrongfully retained in GPE ... The cassation court pays attention to the analysis developed in the preamble of the Convention concerning its aims , according to which the interests of the child are of paramount importance when examining childcare - related issues . At the same time , the High Contracting Parties to the Convention undertook an obligation to provide international protection to children against any harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention . Accordingly , it implies that the procedures provided for by the ORG which aim at the speedy return of a wrongfully removed or retained child to his or her habitual place of residence serve the main purpose of protecting children ’s interests . In view of all the above - mentioned , the cassation court when considering the lawfulness of the request to end wrongful retention of a child considers it appropriate within the scope of the appeal on point of law to also examine the issue as to what extent the child ’s interests would be protected in the event of his return which together with other factors implies the creation of a safe environment for a child . The above analysis of the cassation court finds its basis in the exceptional clauses of the LAW which in individual cases allow the relevant bodies of the receiving state to refuse the return of a child ( LAW ) . ”

ORG further considered that the applicant had failed to show that the return of L. to the pre - abduction situation would be possible without damaging his interests . Notably , the court concluded :

“ The cassation court wholly shares the view of the appeal court , according to which L. is suffering from lack of relationship with his parents ; accordingly , in order for the child to develop into a contented and healthy individual and to have his interests protected it is necessary for him to communicate with his parents . However , as was noted above , when dealing with this type of case particular attention should be given to the consideration of exceptional circumstances ... The appellant alleges a violation of LAW b of LAW ( there is a serious risk that if returned the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or otherwise placed in an intolerable situation ) and considers that the impugned decision omits the primary reason for PERSON . ’s leaving GPE , namely the tragic death of PERSON . in DATE , which fact had a negative impact on the psychological condition of PERSON . ...

The cassation court notes the results of the available psychological examination , in which the psychologist along with other issues stressed the high level of traumatisation in PERSON . as a result of the death of his younger sister . At the same time , the psychologist considers the psychological features observed to be the boy ’s reaction to the psychological trauma which he had suffered and to the current barely comprehensible situation . It is noteworthy that even the court of appeal could not omit the fact that as a result of the death of PERSON . ( the sister of PERSON . ) the latter had suffered mental trauma and is as of DATE registered at a ... psychiatric institution .... However , the above - mentioned circumstances were not sufficient [ for the appeal court ] to refuse the return of the boy .

The cassation court considers that there is no evidence in the case file which would lead the court to believe that it would be possible to return the child to his pre - abduction environment without damaging his interests . In the opinion of the cassation court , the appellant validly substantiated , on the basis of relevant evidence , the risk factors which are inconsistent with the purposes of the ORG , while the respondent failed to show a higher purpose which could have been achieved by putting an end to the unlawful situation and [ she had also ] failed to demonstrate that in the event of the child being returned to GPE his interests and rights would not be even more violated . Accordingly , bearing in mind that the primary purpose of ORG is the protection of the interests of a child , the cassation court considers that the appellant has lodged a substantiated complaint . ”

To conclude , in reference to LAW b of LAW , ORG observed that the main purpose of LAW was the protection of the best interests of a child , and that accordingly , given the well - substantiated risks that PERSON was facing upon his return to GPE , the exception clause should have been invoked .

The case file indicates that PERSON . did not take part in the relevant court proceedings , as he was not in GPE at the material time . PERSON , according to the case file , is currently living with his uncle and grandfather in GPE .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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 property ‘ PERSON owned by the applicant ’s mother was taken over by the ORG pursuant to provisions of the Decree of ORG on the Agrarian Reform of DATE ( Dekret PKWN o przeprowadzeniu reformy rolnej ; the DATE Decree ) . No decision was delivered at this stage of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG ( Prezydium Warszawskiej Wojewódzkiej Rady Narodowej ) , acting on a motion of the applicant ’s mother to exclude her property from the operation of the agricultural reform , decided that the property fell within the scope of the reform .

In DATE ORG quashed its decision ( orzeczenie ) of DATE and decided that the property did not fall within the scope of the decree . This new decision had not been signed or stamped and was later referred to as a ‘ draft GPE by the domestic courts and administrative authorities .

The applicant ’s mother sought restitution of her property until her death in DATE .

NORP Over DATE the property was divided into smaller plots . Some of the plots were acquired by private individuals and ORG , others remained the property of ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a motion to have the decision of CARDINAL DATE annulled .

On DATE the ORG ( ORG ) decided to refer the case to the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON i PERSON ) . He found , after examining the case file of the previous proceedings , that the latter authority was the competent authority to examine the applicant ’s motion .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG PERSON w GPE ) about the inactivity on the part of ORG .

On DATE the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development replied to the applicant ’s complaint . The Minister explained that on DATE the applicant had been requested to redefine his motion of CARDINAL DATE and to provide documents certifying that he was an heir of Ms. PERSON ’s property rights . He considered that this information was essential to proceed with the case . The Minister further informed the applicant that the time - limit to handle his case had been prolonged until DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s inactivity complaint . It appears that the applicant failed to request that written grounds for the judgment be prepared . He also did not appeal against this judgment .

On DATE the Minister of ORG declared the decision of DATE null and void ( stwierdził nieważność orzeczenia ) .

The applicant and ORG ( PERSON ) requested a re - examination of the case . The applicant argued that declaring the decision of DATE null and void resulted in him becoming an owner of the property in question . He thus considered that the decision should not have been declared null and void as regards the part of the property which had been acquired in good faith by private individuals . According to the applicant , the part of the decision relating to the private plots of land should have been declared as issued in breach of law ( wydana z naruszeniem prawa ) which would enable him to claim compensation from the ORG .

On DATE the Minister of ORG upheld his previous decision of DATE . The Minister argued that declaring the decision of CARDINAL DATE null and void had not automatically resulted in the applicant becoming the owner of the property GPE . In the Minister ’s view , a refusal to declare null and void the decision would have adversely affected the applicant ’s interests since only the annulment of the entire decision would enable the applicant to contest other decisions delivered as a result of the quashed decision .

The applicant challenged the above decision before ORG which on DATE gave judgment and dismissed the applicant ’s complaint .

The State Treasury represented , statio fisci , by ORG ( PERSON ) lodged a cassation appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) .

The proceedings are pending before ORG .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of administrative proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW and LAW , are set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .

On DATE of the Code of Administrative Proceedings and LAW were amended ( amendments entered into force on DATE ) .

Following the amendment to LAW to administrative proceedings may currently file a complaint not only about an authority ’s failure to handle the case within the time - limits referred to in Articles DATE and CARDINAL , but it may also complain about undue delay in the conduct of the proceedings ( przewlekłe prowadzenie postępowania ) .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on ORG , as amended on DATE , contains provisions allowing a party to administrative proceedings to lodge a complaint with an administrative court , alleging inactivity of the authority obliged to issue an administrative decision or undue delay in the conduct of the proceedings . Under section CARDINAL , if a complaint is well - founded , an administrative court shall oblige the authority concerned to issue a decision , or to perform a specific act , or to confirm , declare , or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law .

NORP The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are presented in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ORG DATE and NORP v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVIII , and its judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V.


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

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

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . On DATE he entered FAC to serve his sentence . He did not say anything about the conditions of his detention there .

On DATE he was transferred to FAC , a closed - type prison hostel .

On DATE the serving of his sentence of imprisonment was interrupted in order for him to take care of his elderly mother , who had undergone hip - replacement surgery in DATE . The interruption came to an end on DATE , and the applicant was again placed in FAC .

From DATE until DATE the applicant was placed in group no . DATE . According to him , the group was housed in several cabins with cement floors . The cells were heated with wooden and coal stoves . They were damp and had many of their windows broken and doors shattered . Each cell had between thirty and QUANTITY of floor space and housed DATE CARDINAL inmates – that is , provided QUANTITY per inmate DATE , and had CARDINAL sink and CARDINAL toilet with a shower . According to the Government , the cell measured CARDINAL forty square metres and housed TIME inmates .

The applicant further said that cold water was only available CARDINAL , and hot water was only available CARDINAL and TIME and TIME Hygienic and sanitary materials were not regularly provided . There was no canteen or dedicated eating space , and no cutlery . As a result of those conditions DATE mainly the cold and the humidity –he had developed arthritis of both knees .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to group no . CARDINAL . He was placed in a cell which he shared with CARDINAL other inmates . He also started working in the hostel ’s canteen and had his meals there . According to the Government , the applicant had to share a cell with CARDINAL inmates . The cell was heated with electricity and there were no water supply restrictions . The door and the windows were in good condition .

After the applicant ’s prison regime was changed to a more lenient one , on DATE he was placed in a cell outside the guarded area of the hostel . The Government submitted that his cell had its own sanitary facilities and that no water supply restrictions existed .

According to the applicant , material conditions in the cells in which he was placed after DATE were significantly better in terms of heating , lighting and hygiene , and were satisfactory . Food was also of good quality . Taking a shower , however , was only possible after TIME due to low water pressure .

Lastly , the applicant alleged that health care in custody was inadequate , with no qualified doctors but only a dentist working on site , and no provision of medicines at reduced prices , as available to people out of prison .


CASE OF OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant and her daughter drank water from taps in their apartment and shortly thereafter they felt unwell . On DATE the applicant ’s daughter , who was CARDINAL at the time , was admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of “ serious acute dysentery ” . The applicant was admitted to hospital with the same diagnosis on DATE . She was released from hospital on DATE , DATE than her daughter .

The applicant lodged a court action against the local utilities provider ( “ the provider ” ) , a ORG - owned company , claiming CARDINAL NORP lei ( “ MDL ” , MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) in compensation for the harm caused to her health and for the related inconveniences , including subsequent investigations and disinfection .

On DATE the GPE ORG found in her favour . It found that various sanitary , medical and technical reports had established that in the vicinity of the applicant ’s apartment block the sewage pipe was situated above the drinking water pipe and was leaking . The water pipe had cracked on DATE and sewage water had infiltrated the drinking water pipe . The court also established that the pipes had been used since DATE and that their expected lifespan was DATE . A total of CARDINAL people , all of whom had drunk water from taps connected to the same water pipe , had been admitted to hospital with the same diagnosis at approximately the same time as the applicant . Taking into consideration such elements as the amount of physical and mental suffering caused to the applicant and her daughter , the court awarded her MDL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the time ) .

The parties appealed . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal and partly accepted the provider ’s appeal . It reduced the award to MDL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) because it found exaggerated “ both the sum claimed by [ the applicant ] and that awarded to [ her ] ” .

The parties appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . It found that the lower court had taken into consideration the nature and seriousness of the mental suffering caused to the applicant , as well as the degree of guilt of the defendant . That judgment was final .


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

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

The applicant is a former employee of ORG , a media company which entailed a collective dismissal in DATE . The applicant was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE he brought an action against the company before ORG ( ação especial de impugnação do despedimento colectivo ) , seeking his reintegration and the payment of extra workload , ( domestic proceedings no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINALTTLSB - A ) .

On DATE his case was joint to others related to the same collective dismissal .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the court drawing its attention to the existence of a delay in the proceedings . The court replied on DATE saying that some parties in the proceedings still had to be summoned .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the labour court and the parties in the proceedings appointed experts to give technical assistance in the proceedings , as established by law .

On DATE the experts presented their report .

On DATE a preliminary hearing took place .

On DATE the applicant contested the expert ’s report . On DATE the court notified the experts and on CARDINAL DATE granted DATE for the submission of their observations .

On DATE the applicant was notified of the experts’ reply and submitted his observations on DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the labour court that he had reached an agreement with the company . On DATE the labour court endorsed the agreement .


Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

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

On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings requesting the division of a certain estate .

On DATE ORG suspended the said proceedings until conclusion of another civil case .

It would appear that the said civil proceedings are still pending .

On DATE ORG found a breach of the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and ordered the speeding up of the impugned proceedings . The court , additionally , declared that the applicant was entitled to the non - pecuniary damages sought , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL , LAW , below ) .

It seems that , the applicant contacted ORG on DATE and requested the payment of the compensation awarded , but apparently received no response .