Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and currently reside in GPE , GPE .

Originally coming through GPE , the applicants entered GPE via GPE and were intercepted and arrested by the border police on CARDINAL ( Mr PERSON ) and CARDINAL ( the other CARDINAL applicants ) DATE . They were transferred to the border station in GPE , GPE , since they could not prove either their identities or their legal residence in GPE .

On DATE the applicants were interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicants’ expulsion to GPE and a ban on entry to the territory of GPE for DATE , pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of Act no . II of DATE on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third Country Nationals ( the “ LAW ” ) . With regard to the requirement of non - refoulement , it was considered that there was no such obstacle to the expulsion .

The execution of the expulsion order was simultaneously suspended for a maximum period of DATE or until the expulsion became feasible , noting that “ the NORP party failed to reply before the expiry of the “ retention time ” ( visszatartási idő ) ” .

At the same time , that is , on DATE , the ORG detention was ordered by ORG until DATE under LAW ) of LAW , on the ground that “ [ they ] refused to leave the country , or for other substantiated reasons it can be assumed that [ they ] are delaying or preventing the enforcement of expulsion or transfer ” . In the findings of fact it was noted that the applicants were not in possession of any travel documents ; that they had crossed the border illegally via GPE ; that they said that their travel destination was [ Western ] LOC , GPE in particular ; and that they had not applied for asylum .

The applicants were first detained at FAC guarded accommodation ( őrzött szállás ) .

On DATE the applicants applied for asylum , claiming that they were persecuted in their home country by the terrorist organisation ORG .

On DATE the applicants were transferred to the guarded accommodation of ORG in GPE .

Preliminary asylum proceedings were put in place on DATE , and the immigration authorities were notified thereof . On DATE the applicants were interviewed by ORG ( hereinafter : “ asylum authority ” )

On DATE their case was admitted to the “ in - merit phase ” by a decision of the asylum authority , in view of the fact , among other things , that there existed no “ safe third country ” in their respect .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG had heard the applicants , assisted by a guardian ad litem and an interpreter , and had extended their detention until DATE . Relying on section CARDINAL ) b ) of LAW , it endorsed in essence the decision of DATE of ORG , saying that the applicants , in a state of illegal entry , were likely to frustrate their deportation .

On DATE and DATE the detention was extended again by summary decisions of ORG , referring to the immigration authority ’s renewed requests to have the applicants detained for the same reasons as before and stating that the circumstances had not changed . These latter decisions made no reference to the on - going asylum proceedings .

On DATE the same court again extended the applicants’ detention on the same basis , mentioning that their expulsion was suspended due to their pending asylum applications .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer requested their release , but in vain . ( The date as of which they obtained legal representation is not known . ) A subsequent request for judicial review of their detention under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of LAW was to no avail either .

On DATE ORG again prolonged the applicants’ detention , holding that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would hinder or delay the implementation of the expulsion order . Having heard the applicants , the court held as follows :

“ The expulsion order can not be considered unenforceable on the ground that the asylum procedure has not been concluded . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a first asylum application has suspensive effect on the enforcement of the expulsion order , although this does not mean that the expulsion order is not enforceable . Unenforceability refers to a permanent state and not to a temporary period such as the term of the asylum procedure .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW no . II of DATE ) , detention ordered under the immigration laws shall be terminated if ( a ) the expulsion or transfer has become viable ; ( b ) when it becomes evident that the expulsion or transfer can not be executed ; or ( c ) the detention has exceeded DATE .

None of the reasons for the termination [ of the detention ] listed in the above - cited paragraph exists . The expulsion or transfer is [ actually ] not viable because of the pending asylum application ; furthermore , there will be [ at last ] no reason preventing the execution of the expulsion or transfer if the foreign national [ eventually ] receives no protection in the asylum procedure , since the procedure has failed to prove that GPE is no safe third country , [ and GPE ] , according to the information provided by the immigration authority , is ready to re - admit the foreign national pursuant to ORG and ORG . Lastly , the time that has elapsed since the beginning of the detention is CARDINAL or DATE ...

On the basis of the information available to the court , the foreign national , according to his statement made during the first interview , intended to travel to LOC to find employment . He did not admit to this during the hearing but the court has no information which would support the foreign national ’s [ statement departing from the earlier one ] .

In view of this , it is reasonable to assume that the foreign national would delay or prevent the enforcement of the expulsion order . He is unwilling to comply with the expulsion order voluntarily , therefore it can be established that the expulsion order can not be enforced by way of applying sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW [ that is , seizure of travel document or designated residence ] .

The court has found that the conditions for the continuation of the detention lawfully ordered LAW no . II of DATE continue to be met . ”

After interviews on the merits of their applications on DATE , on DATE the applicants’ asylum applications were dismissed , but they were granted subsidiary protection ( “ oltalmazott ” ) under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act no . FAC of DATE ( the “ LAW ” ) . This decision was delivered and became final on DATE .

The applicants’ detention ended on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE ( GPE Real ) and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .

At the time of the facts the applicant was in prison on remand in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of a disciplinary offence by the disciplinary board of ORG and punished under LAW . The punishment was : CARDINAL weekends in isolation for having threatened prison officers ( Rule CARDINAL ( b ) ) ; DATE without group recreational activities for having disobeyed the orders given by prison officers in the fulfilment of their duties ( Rule CARDINAL ( b ) ) ; and DATE without group recreational activities for having damaged prison property ( Rule CARDINAL ( e ) ) .

The applicant appealed against the sanction before ORG post - sentencing judge no . CARDINAL ( Juzgado de Vigilancia Penitenciaria n.o CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the post - sentencing judge found partially in the applicant ’s favour and revoked the sanction imposed under Rule CARDINAL ( b ) .

On DATE a ORG agent in charge of judicial communications attempted unsuccessfully to serve the applicant in person with the post - sentencing judge ’s decision . The applicant had been transferred to a prison in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant was served in person with the post - sentencing judge ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . He signed an acknowledgment of receipt .

NORP The applicant lodged a reforma appeal with the same post - sentencing judge , who on DATE confirmed her previous decision . A copy of the decision on appeal was served on the applicant . He signed an acknowledgment of receipt .

The applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . He invoked LAW ( freedom of expression ) and CARDINAL ( right to be presumed innocent ) of the LAW .

By a communication of CARDINAL DATE ORG asked the post - sentencing judge to provide it with a copy of the applicant ’s case file .

On DATE the post - sentencing judge transferred the applicant ’s case file to ORG .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s amparo appeal inadmissible as devoid of any special constitutional significance . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked the post - sentencing judge for a copy of his case file for submission to ORG . He relied on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He did so from a prison in GPE ( Saragossa ) to which he had been transferred .

On DATE the applicant sent his first letter to the ORG giving notice of his intention to lodge an application under LAW .

On DATE ORG acknowledged receipt of the applicant ’s letter and invited him to submit a duly completed application form by DATE .

On DATE the post - sentencing judge refused the applicant ’s request for a copy of his case file on the grounds that his case “ was still pending before the Constitutional Court ” .

On DATE the applicant sent his application form to the ORG . He raised complaints under LAW and LAW . He enclosed a copy of ORG decision declaring his amparo appeal inadmissible . He further referred to the post - sentencing judge ’s decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE in field “ CARDINAL . Other decisions ” of the application form . However , he did not enclose a copy of those decisions .

On DATE the applicant sent a communication to the post - sentencing judge . He stated that ORG had delivered a decision in his case on DATE ; that he intended to initiate proceedings before ORG ; and that in order to do so he should be provided with a certified copy of his case file without delay and before the deadline of DATE .

On DATE the post - sentencing judge ’s registrar rejected the applicant ’s request , referring to the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and stating that ORG had the power to request the case file itself . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the ORG acknowledged receipt of the applicant ’s application form and invited him to send in all relevant domestic decisions by DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he had unsuccessfully requested a certified copy of his complete case file from the post - sentencing judge . He complained that the domestic authorities were hindering his right to a defence .

On DATE the applicant resubmitted his request for a copy of the whole case file to the post - sentencing judge . He referred to the ORG ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the post - sentencing judge rejected the applicant ’s request and refused to provide him with a copy of his case file . She informed the applicant that , for the purposes of subsequent applications before other courts , those courts could request the case files from the domestic courts directly . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the post - sentencing judge had refused to provide him with a copy of his case file .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in ORG .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of threatening to murder , hooliganism , robbery , rape and murder under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of the RSFSR ( the Russian NORP ) and sentenced to death .

On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal , having amended the legal qualification of the charge of murder under LAW of LAW of the RSFSR .

On DATE , by virtue of Presidential decree no . CARDINAL , the death penalty was replaced by DATE imprisonment .

In CARDINAL the domestic courts , at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction and on several occasions , brought the legal qualification of the crimes of which the applicant had been convicted into line with the newly enacted Criminal Code of GPE ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) and its subsequent amendment ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . On each occasion the final sentence – twenty years’ imprisonment DATE remained unaltered .

The last decision in this connection was taken by ORG of GPE on DATE .

On DATE new criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of murder .

Police officers allegedly intimidated the applicant and forced him to confess . The applicant alleged that he was subsequently forced to confirm a self - incriminating statement in the presence of legal - aid counsel .

The applicant did not complain about the alleged ill - treatment , because he considered such a remedy ineffective .

On DATE the applicant ’s custody was changed to detention on remand pending trial .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed and the case was sent to GPE ORG for trial .

According to the applicant , at the court hearing of DATE , while questioning witness PERSON and victims T. and P. , the trial judge P. three times read out an extract from the judgment of CARDINAL DATE relating to the applicant ’s previous conviction for murder .

According to the Government , the reading out of the DATE judgment against the applicant was done only once , on DATE , at the stage of the examination of the case file at the request of the prosecutor during the determination of the term of the applicant ’s sentence , and the defence raised no objections .

At the court hearings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant asked the court to obtain the attendance of an expert whom he wished to question . His requests were refused by the court .

On DATE and DATE the applicant sought the withdrawal of the judge , without success . In dismissing the applicant ’s request for the withdrawal of the trial judge on DATE the court indicated that the partial announcement of the applicant ’s unspent conviction of DATE did not constitute a predisposition of the court to deliver a finding of guilt , but served the purpose of full and comprehensive examination of the applicant ’s personality as he had earlier been convicted of an analogous crime – premeditated murder . In dismissing the applicant ’s challenge of DATE the court indicated that the applicant had failed to provide justification for his application for the withdrawal of the judge .

On DATE the GPE ORG convicted the applicant of threatening murder , bodily harm , murder , and destruction of property , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , taking into account that the applicant had not fully served the sentence handed down on DATE .

NORP The applicant appealed , claiming in particular that the court which convicted him had been biased and predisposed to deliver a finding of guilt . The applicant referred to the fact that while questioning witness PERSON and victims T. and P. the judge had read out extracts from his conviction of CARDINAL DATE , thus “ creating an atmosphere of guilt ” . He further indicated that he had challenged the judge in view of his attitude , although to no avail , and deplored the fact that the transcript of the trial omitted to mention the judge ’s reading out of the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . As regards the applicant ’s complaint relating to the alleged bias of the trial judge , ORG held as follows :

“ The [ applicant ’s ] arguments concerning bias on the part of the [ trial ] court DATE its predetermination to deliver a finding of guilt , the selective record of the course of the trial , and the violation of his rights by the reading out of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been addressed during the trial and had been reasonably dismissed as unsubstantiated . The transcript of the trial complies with LAW ... The [ applicant ’s ] conviction of CARDINAL DATE had not been expunged , therefore the reading out of the judgment [ in question ] can not be regarded as having breached [ his ] rights . ”


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

NORP The common feature of these CARDINAL applications is that they are brought by NORP nationals who complain that the children of women displaced from the north of GPE after DATE were not entitled to refugee cards ( and thus the benefits to which the holders of such cards were entitled ) , whereas the children of displaced men were entitled to such cards . The difference in treatment was removed in DATE , that is , after the introduction of the present applications : see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraph CARDINAL below .

The applicants are all either displaced women or the children of displaced women . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . The applications were lodged on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The applicants in application CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL are represented by PERSON . The applicants in application no . CARDINAL are separately represented by Mr ORG . Mr Loucaides and Mr Angelides both practise in GPE .

NORP The legislative provisions which , at the material time , granted refugee cards to the children of displaced men but not the children of displaced women were unsuccessfully challenged before ORG in GPE v. the GPE ( appeal no . CARDINAL ) : see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below . The final judgment of ORG in that case was given on DATE .

Following ORG judgment in GPE v. the ORG and PERSON , the applicants in application no . CARDINAL , brought their own challenge to the refugee card scheme , lodging that challenge with ORG on DATE . They too alleged that , in according preferential treatment to the children of displaced men over the children of displaced women , the scheme was discriminatory and contrary to LAW . That challenge was rejected by ORG at first instance on DATE and on appeal to the revisional jurisdiction of the court on DATE , in each case for the reasons the court had given in its GPE v. the Republic judgment .

A scheme of aid for displaced and other affected persons was introduced by ORG by decision no . CARDINAL of DATE . Under the scheme , displaced persons were entitled to refugee cards . The holders of such cards were ( and still are ) eligible for a range of benefits including housing assistance . For the purposes of the scheme the term “ displaced ” was determined by ORG as being any person whose permanent residence is in the occupied areas , or in an inaccessible area or in an area which was evacuated to meet the needs of ORG .

A circular on the implementation of the scheme was issued by ORG ( “ SCRDP ” ) on DATE . In relevant part it reads :

“ ( a ) When a displaced woman marries a non - displaced man , the husband and children can not be registered or considered as displaced persons ;

( b ) When a displaced man marries a non - displaced woman , the non - displaced wife will be registered on the refugee identity card of the husband . The children will be considered as refugees and will be registered on the refugee identity card of their father . ”

Although the scheme was progressively extended , it was not until the passage of ORG ) ( No . CARDINAL ) PERSON of DATE ( N. CARDINAL(I)/CARDINAL ) that children of displaced women became entitled to refugee cards on the same terms as the children of displaced men .

The DATE scheme was unsuccessfully challenged before ORG by PERSON : GPE v. the GPE ( appeal no . ORG ) . PERSON was the daughter of a displaced woman ; she was refused a refugee card on DATE . Before ORG she claimed , inter alia , that the decision was in violation of the principle of equality safeguarded by LAW and in breach of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW No CARDINAL . She claimed that the scheme also breached LAW .

That challenge was dismissed at first instance on DATE and on appeal by ORG ( revisional jurisdiction ) on DATE , the latter finding that it was unable to extend the application of the scheme to the children of displaced women when the legislature had not done so . Ms GPE lodged an application ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) with this ORG on DATE and the ORG gave judgment in her case on DATE .


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in NORP .

On DATE the body of PERSON , the applicants’ respective husband and father , was found on the right bank of the river PERSON in NORP . An on - site inspection was carried out immediately as well as an autopsy the following day which showed that the victim had been stabbed to death .

On DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG .

NORP The police interviewed PERSON , the victim ’s wife , on CARDINAL DATE . She told them that her husband had left her workplace at TIME on DATE to return home because a general emergency had been announced and their daughter , who was a minor , was there alone . However , after he left she had not seen him again .

In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .

On DATE the police interviewed PERSON and ORG , respectively the wife and daughter of the late PERSON . They said that prior to PERSON disappearance on DATE , NORP soldiers had carried out searches in their flat in DATE and on DATE . CARDINAL of the soldiers , ORG , had been known to them . They had subsequently learned that an individual named PERSON had also been implicated . A certain PERSON had also told them that he had asked PERSON about the killing of PERSON and that PERSON had shown PERSON a list of persons to be followed and a list of persons to be liquidated , and that PERSON had been on neither of those lists .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG issued a document concerning enquiries into the killings of civilians DATE . The document was addressed to GPE Attorney ’s Offices , which were required to examine all the information collected to date on the killings of civilians during that period and to concentrate their activities on identifying the perpetrators and gathering the relevant evidence in order to initiate criminal proceedings .

NORP On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG issued an instruction to the County State Attorney ’s Offices for implementation of LAW and LAW , in which it indicated that an inspection of their work had indicated CARDINAL main problems : possible partiality of the persons involved in the pending proceedings as regards the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators , and the problem of trials in absentia . The instruction advocated the impartial investigation of all war crimes , irrespective of the ethnicity of those involved , whether victims or perpetrators , and reiterated the duties of those working for the ORG Attorney in that respect .

On DATE an investigating judge at the ORG heard evidence from ORG and ORG , who repeated what they had said to the police .

The police interviewed PERSON , a relative of PERSON , on DATE but he had no knowledge of the latter ’s disappearance and killing .

On DATE the police interviewed GPE and on DATE they questioned T.P.

On DATE an investigating judge at the ORG heard evidence from ORG , a neighbour of the PERSON family . He said that DATE in DATE when ORG was being shelled , he and other tenants from the building had been in the basement when CARDINAL armed men dressed in military uniforms had entered . He had exited the basement with them and they had told him that someone had been shooting from the building . T.P. had shown them the flats where NORP lived . The CARDINAL men had entered the flat of the PERSON family while PERSON waited outside . They had not taken anyone from the flat . PERSON remembered that the men had been young .

On DATE the judge heard evidence from GPE , who said that a certain NORP , who had died in the meantime , had told him that he had learned that PERSON had been taken to ORG by the men who controlled the roads . He had been tortured and then taken to GPE . PERSON had the impression that NORP knew who had taken PERSON but he had not identified that person . Later he had seen a vehicle belonging to PERSON on the ORG agricultural estate . However , when he had attempted to find out who was driving the vehicle , a man wearing a camouflage uniform and a balaclava and armed with a PERSON had threatened to kill him .

On DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint against GPE , GPE and PERSON on charges of war crimes against the civilian population . This included the killing of the applicants’ relative . On the same day PERSON , Head of ORG in DATE and DATE , PERSON , police commander at the border territory of NORP and PERSON in DATE and DATE and Deputy of ORG , and PERSON , a member of the “ ORG of ORG , were arrested .

On an unspecified date the investigation was opened . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON died .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG lodged an indictment against V.M. and PERSON at ORG , alleging that they had been in command of the unit whose unknown members had committed a number of crimes against the civilian population DATE and DATE , including the killing of the applicants’ relative . They were charged with war crimes against the civilian population .

On DATE a first - instance judgment was delivered . PERSON was found guilty of war crimes against the civilian population in that , in his capacity as “ the commander of police forces in the broader area of NORP and PERSON ” and “ Deputy Head of the NORP Police ” , he had allowed the killings of persons of NORP origin and had failed to undertake adequate measures to prevent such killings . The relevant part of the judgment concerning the applicants’ relative reads :

“ in TIME of DATE at a checkpoint in GPE , some unknown members of the reserve police stopped a white vehicle , a ORG CARDINAL , which was being driven by PERSON , took the vehicle from him and kept it for themselves , and arrested PERSON and took him to an unknown location where they killed him , after which his body was found on DATE on the right bank of the river PERSON at the location called “ Rušetina ” in NORP , with several open wounds and contusions on his head and a wound caused by stabs and cuts in his chest . ”

V.M. was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . PERSON was acquitted of all charges .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction of V.M. and increased his sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On various dates the applicants brought separate civil actions against the ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of their close relative . The claims were dismissed on the grounds that they had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired .

Following the criminal conviction of PERSON , the applicants sought the reopening of these proceedings in ORG . Their request is now pending .


CASE OF GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA

Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

Both applicants were born in DATE and live in GPE .

The first applicant is the editor of a DATE newspaper , PERSON ( NORP вести ) , and the second applicant is a journalist and columnist there . It has a circulation of CARDINAL . The newspaper is published and distributed in LOC .

NORP In DATE during a campaign for elections to the national parliament , ORG , the newspaper published a number of satirical and parodic articles on the course of the campaign in LOC . They featured a NORP online cartoon character , a girl called PERSON , who was very popular at the time , going from GPE to GPE as an election observer .

An article in issue no . CARDINAL of the newspaper for CARDINAL DATE contained a pretend interview with PERSON , stating that on her arrival at FAC she had been attacked and injured by local prostitutes , who did not want outsiders competing with them and who had forced her to return to GPE . PERSON had had a particularly fierce fight with a certain PERSON , the director of an escort agency called Contact or Image ! ( агентство интимных услуг ORG или имидж ! ) . The article stated that ORG had refused to make any comments .

NORP In issue no . CARDINAL , dated DATE , in a column called “ PERSON ORG ” ( GPE зрения PERSON ) written by the second applicant , PERSON published a pretend interview with ORG . The article was headlined “ Candidates must be known from the inside ! ” ( PERSON нужно знать изнутри ! ) . The relevant part read as follows :

“ Nonetheless , we managed to get in touch with ORG , the director of the escort agency Contact or Image ! for an interview and photograph . ORG proved to be a dame with a touch of greed and was pulled by a free advert for her agency in our newspaper , although she warned us that she would not answer a single question about that ‘ PERSON .

‘ This ragtag bunch from GPE has no reason to be here because my agency Contact or Image can handle the elections DATE all my girls are professionals , and I myself am a lawyer and have extensive working experience as a prosecutor . Sporadically , during elections , I run the Contact or Image escort agency in coordination with superior organisations . There is no conflict here – the clientele is the same , and there is no need to spend money on protection on the side . Besides , this is a good opportunity for the Contact or Image escort agency to study its clients from the inside , which is particularly important when working with candidates to ORG . This is , so to say , a governmental order , which , I think , is also supported by the President . Especially as it ’s for extra income , and there ’s no such thing as too much money , even when one is at liberty,’ PERSON told our newspaper .

We asked this prostitute - werewolf to comment on the list of candidates to ORG for circuit no . CARDINAL ... ”

The article was followed by a list of candidates and ORG ’s comments on them , using slang words and expressions commonly used in the criminal underworld . Some candidates were described in more positive terms than others . To the left of the article was a picture of a female dressed in a MONEY banknote . The figure ’s left hand pointed in the direction of CARDINAL handwritten letters which were reproduced in small type . The face on the figure , which had long , flowing hair , was a photograph of the then prosecutor of LOC , Mr V.

On DATE Mr ORG , in a private prosecution , brought criminal proceedings against the applicants , under LAW of LAW , before the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL in LOC of GPE ( “ the Justice of the Peace ” ) . He alleged that the article headlined “ Candidates must be known from the inside ” and the picture published in issue no . CARDINAL of PERSON for DATE had been highly insulting , had aimed at damaging his honour and human dignity and had ascribed negative characteristics to his personality in an indecent , cynical and defamatory manner . He pointed out , in particular , that there was no doubt that the article had referred to him as it had stated that the character PERSON , “ was a lawyer herself and had extensive working experience as a prosecutor ” . Mr ORG further submitted that the article in question , and the comments in respect of the list of the candidates , had been written in slang words and expressions and had represented him as an immoral and corrupt “ prostitute - werewolf ” , thus clearly indicating the intention of the writers to humiliate and insult him . He also complained that the picture accompanying the article had been put together in an indecent manner , in breach of the established rules of behaviour and public morals .

By a judgment of DATE the Justice of the FAC convicted the applicants as charged . The court noted in particular :

“ In issue no . CARDINAL for DATE in the column headlined “ PERSON ORG ” the newspaper ORG published an article ‘ Candidates must be known from the ORG which was accompanied by a photographic collage showing a female body covered with a MONEY banknote . The photographic collage shows the face of the claimant , the prosecutor of DATE , [ Mr V. ] , portrayed with long hair . The article contains an interview with ‘ Vasilinka’ , the director of an escort agency and states that it was possible not only to get in touch with her , but also to obtain her photograph . The text of the article and the portrayal of the prosecutor of LOC , [ Mr V. ] , as an immoral and corrupt ‘ prostitute - werewolf’ in an indecent and insulting manner damage the claimant ’s honour and dignity .

The claimant ’s representative has highlighted the insulting nature of the information published in the newspaper ... pointing out that the claimant is a public figure and often takes part in TV programmes ; his photograph has been published on numerous occasions in the media , and [ Mr V. ’s ] face is therefore well known to people in LOC .

Having examined the photographic collage and the text of the article ... the use of the name ‘ prostitute - werewolf Vasilinka’ , the explanations of the claimant ’s lawyer , who has insisted that the character ’s name in the article and the surname of the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region have the same root , and that the article states that the character is a lawyer by profession and has extensive working experience as a prosecutor , the court concludes that [ the applicants ] undertook deliberate actions which were insulting to [ Mr V. ] , and which were committed publicly as [ the insult was disseminated ] in a newspaper , that is to say in the media .

... The applicants’ actions ... were intended to damage the honour and dignity and the professional reputation of the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region , [ Mr V. ] ... ”

The court found the applicants guilty of aggravated insult as it had been published in the media , and fined each of them MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE the ORG of Vladivistok ( “ the ORG ” ) delivered its decision in the appeal proceedings .

At the hearing the applicants had contested the guilty verdict . The second applicant had stated that the article in question had been written as a parody of various negative social phenomena , especially corruption during the elections and the role of the law - enforcement agencies . The first applicant stated that the article had been misinterpreted and that it had in fact concerned violations committed by law - enforcement agencies during the election campaign . She also argued that the picture had not been related to the article , nor had it depicted the prosecutor of LOC .

The appellate court found it established that “ [ the applicants had ] deliberately insulted ” Mr ORG when in issue no . CARDINAL of PERSON for DATE they had in the column called “ PERSON ORG ” published an article entitled “ Candidates must be known from the inside ! ” , accompanied by a photographic collage representing a female body with the face of the prosecutor of GPE , the body having been covered with a MONEY banknote . In the ORG opinion , “ the text of the article and the photographic collage [ were ] of an insulting nature , ascribe[d ] negative characteristics , expressed in an indecent manner , to Mr ORG ’s personality and damage[d ] the honour and dignity of PERSON ORG , the prosecutor of LOC , as a private individual and as an official ” .

The appellate court observed , in particular , that the article had involved an interview with the director of an escort agency , “ ORG ” , who “ sporadically , during elections , [ ran ] the escort agency Contact or Image in coordination with superior organisations ” , and that the article was followed by “ director PERSON ’s rating of the candidates ” , using slang words and expressions on her behalf . The photographic collage had illustrated the text about “ ORG ” , a “ prostitute - werewolf ” , who “ herself is a lawyer and has extensive working experience as a prosecutor ” . In ORG opinion , “ the said information [ was ] of an insulting nature , since it degrade[d ] Mr PERSON ’s honour and dignity ” . In reaching that conclusion , ORG “ [ took ] into account the fact that the prosecutor of LOC , Mr V. , [ was ] a public figure and his photograph [ had ] been published in the media on many occasions ... ”

With reference to its findings , the appellate court concluded that the applicants “ [ had taken ] deliberate actions which [ had been ] of an insulting nature in respect of PERSON ORG and were performed in public , as [ the impugned information ] was disseminated in the media ” . In the ORG opinion , although Mr ORG ’s surname had not been mentioned in the article , the image which had illustrated the article had used a photograph of him . It had therefore been clear that information “ of an insulting nature ” had related to Mr ORG observed that , “ by virtue of his office , Mr PERSON [ was ] a public figure and readers [ could ] therefore easily understand that the photographic collage [ showed ] Mr PERSON ; so that readers [ were ] not mistaken , the name of the character in the article , ‘ Vasilinka’ , [ had ] the same root as Mr PERSON ’s surname , and the character [ was ] a lawyer by profession and has extensive working experience as a prosecutor ” .

ORG further held as follows :

“ The court can not accept the GPE arguments that it has not been proven that [ Mr PERSON ] was insulted as , in the court ’s opinion , it is the text of the article and the photographic collage that are themselves insulting . Judging by its location on the page and its composition , the said photographic collage accompanies the article headlined “ Candidates must be known from the inside ” . Besides , the text itself refers to the fact that the photographic collage represents that very ‘ Vasilinka’ who is the character in the article . The article states ‘ nonetheless we managed to get in touch with the director of the escort agency Contact or Image , PERSON , for an interview and a photograph . ORG proved to be a dame with a touch of greed and was pulled by a free advert for her agency in our ORG .

... In the court ’s opinion , the offence took place in the form of public speech in the media , [ the applicants ] acted deliberately , the related words ‘ prostitute’ and ‘ werewolf’ indicate an intention to humiliate , dishonour and disgrace the subject of the article and photographic collage and , in a figurative sense , portray condemnable and distinctly negative characteristics , which are seen by the public as well as the person to whom they are addressed as insulting . In the court ’s opinion , representing the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region as an immoral and corrupt ‘ prostitute - werewolf’ is intended to ascribe distinctly negative characteristics to [ Mr ORG ’s ] personality in an indecent form . ”

The appellate court concluded that the first - instance judgment had been well - founded and dismissed the ORG appeal .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicants’ conviction at final instance , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts .

On DATE a bailiff issued a writ of execution in respect of the first applicant , ordering her to pay the fine and an execution fee of RUB CARDINAL .

On DATE the first applicant informed the bailiff that she was unable to pay the fine in CARDINAL amount owing to a lack of funds . She requested that she be authorised to pay by instalments DATE . It appears that her request was refused and the first applicant had to borrow a part of the fine from the bank . According to the first applicant , she was able to pay back the money she borrowed DATE .

The second applicant was also unable to pay the total amount of the fine and execution fee in CARDINAL amount . She paid in instalments by deductions from her wages until DATE .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A.M.J. Brands , a lawyer practising in LOC .

CARDINALsummarised as follows .

From DATE the applicant worked for a design and consultancy agency specialised in urban planning . At the relevant time , the owner of the agency was self - employed and was employing CARDINAL other persons , CARDINAL of them the applicant .

On DATE the applicant ’s employer ( hereafter : “ the employer ” ) requested ORG ( NORP Werknemersverzekeringen ) to authorise the termination of the applicant ’s employment contract . Such authorisation may be requested and granted under LAW ( PERSON DATE ; see below ) . The employer ’s request was based on altered business circumstances ( veranderde bedrijfeconomische omstandigheden ) .

On DATE the applicant submitted a statement of defence ( verweer ) to ORG , arguing that it appeared from that organisation ’s policy rules that a request for authorisation on the basis of altered business circumstances should be substantiated by relevant figures regarding the turnover , the costs and the results of the business per month for DATE , which figures the employer had failed to include in his request . He further argued that there was a chance that the agency would be awarded CARDINAL new projects and that there was a fair chance that any delay in ongoing projects had been caused by administrative proceedings instead of economic circumstances so that the decrease in available work would constitute normal business risk ( normale bedrijfsrisico ) .

On DATE the employer stated that the ongoing projects were nearly finished and that due to the economic crisis much work had disappeared over a short period of time , that he had submitted the figures over DATE and DATE , that the drop in available work did not concern a temporary lapse which could be considered normal business risk , and lastly , that his other employee , thanks to his qualifications , was able to carry out all business activities independently , unlike the applicant .

On DATE the applicant submitted a second statement of defence to ORG , arguing , inter alia , that the employer ’s statements concerning the agency ’s prospects had not been substantiated .

On DATE the applicant received both the acknowledgement of receipt of the second statement of defence and ORG decision authorising his employer to terminate his employment contract .

On DATE the applicant received a letter from his employer terminating his employment contract as of CARDINAL DATE .

Provisions of domestic legislation relevant to the case , and as applicable at the relevant time , are the following .

The Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body is a nondepartmental administrative body ( zelfstandig bestuursorgaan ) – i.e. an administrative body not subordinate to any particular Minister – under GPE law ( section CARDINAL of the Work and Income ( Implementation Structure ) Act ( Wet structuur uitvoeringsorganisatie werk en inkomen ) ) . It is responsible not only for implementing social - security legislation , but also for exercising the tasks imposed on it by section CARDINAL of ORG .

NORP The employer requires for the termination of the employment relationship prior authorisation of ORG .

NORP The employer does not require this authorisation :

a. if termination takes place without delay ( onverwijld ) for an urgent reason , under simultaneous notice of this reason to the employee ;

b. during DATE ;

c. if termination takes place as a result of bankruptcy of the employer or if a debt rescheduling scheme concerning natural persons is applied to him .

NORP By ministerial regulation ( ministeriële regeling ) rules are set out concerning the authorisation within the meaning of paragraph one .

NORP Before a decision regarding the giving of authorisation pursuant to paragraph one is taken , ORG will hear representatives of the appropriate employer and employee organisations except in cases provided for by ministerial regulation .

Our Minister [ of ORG ( Minister PERSON ) ] may provide ORG with indications concerning the power to give authorisation within the meaning of paragraph one . He does not enter into the decision - making in individual cases .

By ministerial regulation provisions can be made in case ORG does not properly fulfil its obligations that flow from this section .

By ministerial regulation certain employees or groups of employees can be conditionally or unconditionally dispensed or exempted from paragraph one .

No appeal to ORG ( College van Beroep voor het GPE ) lies against decisions of ORG regarding the giving of authorisation pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL . ”

Detailed rules for this procedure have been set out in LAW ) .

The authorisation of ORG constitutes a decision within the meaning of LAW ( Algemene wet bestuursrecht ) . This Act generally grants a right to a judicial examination of such decisions ; however , decisions made pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG are excluded from the possibility to appeal ( section CARDINAL:CARDINAL , paragraph one , in conjunction with FAC , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ) .


CASE OF BOYADZHIEVA AND GLORIA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED EOOD v. BULGARIA

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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was registered in DATE and has its registered place of business in GPE .

At the time of the events in question the first applicant was registered as a sole trader . At that time the main commercial activity of the CARDINAL applicants was trade in medicaments .

NORP In DATE the first applicant sold medicaments to a company called PERSON , for which she was paid MONEY ( ORG ) , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) , in total .

DATE and DATE the second applicant also sold medicaments to PERSON , receiving a total of ORG ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) by way of payment .

In DATE other companies which were creditors of PERSON , including PERSON , applied for the commencement of insolvency proceedings against PERSON Their request was allowed in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG ( hereinafter “ the Regional Court ” ) , which declared company PERSON insolvent , opened insolvency proceedings and appointed a trustee . It noted that PERSON had ceased its payments to PERSON and other creditors in DATE , and held that the initial date of the company ’s insolvency was therefore DATE .

In DATE the trustee prepared the first list of ORG creditors , which included company E.

In DATE company E. brought proceedings against the first applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , seeking to have the payments PERSON had made to her during the so - called “ suspect period ” – the period between the initial date of insolvency as declared by ORG and the commencement of the insolvency proceedings ( the payments described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) − declared null and void and the sum received by her returned to the insolvency estate .

NORP The action was allowed in a judgment of ORG of DATE . Observing that it was undisputed that ORG had paid the first applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL during the “ suspect period ” , and without analysing the matter any further , it ordered her to pay back this sum to the insolvency estate , plus default interest .

That judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG ( hereinafter “ the Court of Appeal ” ) .

ORG judgment was enforceable and , at the request of PERSON ’s trustee , a bailiff opened enforcement proceedings against the first applicant for the sums due to the insolvency estate . In DATE the applicant settled that debt , which also included interest and costs and expenses related to the enforcement proceedings .

In the judicial proceedings against the first applicant , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to accept for examination an appeal on points of law lodged by her .

NORP In DATE company E. brought proceedings against the second applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , seeking to have the payments PERSON had made to it during the “ suspect period ” DATE and DATE ( payments described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) declared null and void and the sum received by the applicant returned to the insolvency estate .

The action was allowed in a judgment of DATE of ORG . While it acknowledged that the transactions between the second applicant and PERSON had not damaged the latter ’s interests , because PERSON had received equivalent goods in exchange for its payments to the applicant , ORG added that LAW “ did not take account ” of such considerations . It thus ordered the second applicant to pay back to the insolvency estate the sum of ORG , plus default interest .

Upon appeal by the second applicant , on DATE that judgment was upheld by ORG , which stated once again that section CARDINAL ) of LAW did not require any proof that the contested payment had damaged the interests of ORG remaining creditors ; such damage , as well as the knowledge about it , were to be considered “ presumed ” .

Since ORG judgment was enforceable , a bailiff opened enforcement proceedings against the second applicant for the sums owed by it to the insolvency estate . The second applicant settled that debt , which included interest and costs and expenses related to the enforcement proceedings , in DATE .

In the main judicial proceedings against the second applicant , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to accept for examination an appeal on points of law lodged by it .

In the insolvency proceedings against PERSON , the majority of its assets were distributed among its creditors between DATE and DATE . In CARDINAL decisions delivered in DATE the trustee in bankruptcy added the ORG to the list of creditors , with claims exceeding BGN CARDINAL . As the ORG was a privileged creditor , almost all payments from the insolvency estate after that were made to it , but a substantial proportion of the debts owed to it by PERSON nonetheless remained unpaid .

The applicants did not make use of the possibility afforded to them by section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to join the insolvency proceedings as creditors of CARDINAL other companies in a similar situation – they had also been obliged to return sums to the insolvency estate on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW did join the insolvency proceedings , but received no part of the sums owed to them .

The insolvency proceedings continued until DATE , when company PERSON was wound up .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a NORP national and has lived in GPE since DATE .

On TIME of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE received a call that a man had been robbed in the street by several young men in the neighbourhood close to the railway station . Several police cars were sent to the area in search of the suspected robbers .

NORP TIME , shortly before midnight , the applicant was walking to see his girlfriend who lived in the same neighbourhood . At that time he was DATE . He was approached by a police car in which there were CARDINAL officers PERSON , GPE and PERSON They asked the applicant to stop and take his hands out of his pockets . As the officers were getting out of the car , the applicant started running away from them . The officers informed other police patrols in the neighbourhood that they were chasing a young man who fitted the description of CARDINAL of the suspected robbers .

The applicant was apprehended by the police near a bus stop close to the railway station . CARDINAL police cars were present during his arrest :

( a ) the first police patrol , which comprised officers PERSON , ORG and GPE ;

( b ) the second police patrol , which comprised officers GPE , GPE and PERSON ;

( c ) officers of the operational division – driver PERSON and investigator GPE

The applicant was apprehended by PERSON , who subsequently handed him over to PERSON , GPE and PERSON He was handcuffed , put into a police car , and taken to the Panemunė police station , where a record of an administrative violation was drawn up , charging him with disobeying lawful orders of the police ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .

NORP The officers telephoned the applicant ’s mother NORP , and agreed that she would pick up the applicant from the railway station . Officers GPE , GPE and PERSON drove the applicant to the station and handed him over to his mother around TIME that same night .

Subsequently the applicant and his mother , on the one hand , and the police officers , on the other , presented different accounts surrounding the applicant ’s arrest .

NORP Immediately after the arrest , GPE , GPE and PERSON all submitted identically worded reports to their superior :

“ On DATE ... around TIME ... we noticed a suspicious young man who corresponded to the description of a youth who had recently fled from the police . After we addressed [ him ] , he stopped ; when we were getting out of the car to talk to him , he suddenly started to run . He did not respond to our order to stop ... Soon he was noticed ... close to the railway station ... and he was apprehended . Then he began kicking out , fell to the ground , and resisted being apprehended , so we warned him that physical coercion would be used . The young man ignored this and continued actively resisting and kicking out , so when detaining him we were forced to use physical coercion and restraining measures , namely a truncheon and handcuffs . The young man was arrested and taken to the Panemunė police station ... ”

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s mother NORP complained to ORG and ORG that her minor son had been beaten by police officers while being apprehended . She claimed that one of the officers had hit the applicant with a truncheon in the police car numerous times , and that afterwards his body had been covered in bruises and he had had difficulties walking .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a court medical expert . The report on the results of that examination , issued in DATE , found several contusions on the applicant ’s body – both shoulders and upper arms , his chest , both thighs and calves and the left knee . It determined that the contusions had been caused by a hard blunt object of cylindrical shape , from DATE or more blows ( aštuoniolika ar daugiau trauminių poveikių ) . The report also found a tear injury ( plėštinė žaizda ) on the applicant ’s left thumb caused by a hard blunt object , and bruised skin on his left wrist which could have resulted from handcuffing . It concluded that the injuries corresponded to negligible health impairment ( nežymus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) and that they could have occurred at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG drew up a record of an administrative violation against the applicant . He was accused of insulting police officers by using swear words and of disobeying their lawful orders , contrary to LAW .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing . Police officers PERSON , GPE and PERSON all testified that the applicant had run away from them and had not complied with their order to stop . They also stated that while being apprehended near the railway station the applicant had violently resisted , had been kicking out and shouting , and had thrown himself on the ground , as a result of which the police had had to use a truncheon and handcuffs against him .

In the hearing the applicant admitted having run away from the officers because he had been afraid that they would beat him . However , he denied that he had resisted being apprehended near the railway station . The applicant ’s lawyer also pointed out that a medical examination had detected CARDINAL blows from a hard blunt object on the applicant ’s body ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and argued that the police officers were lying in order to cover up the fact that they had beaten him .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty and fined him CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The court found no reason to doubt the credibility and impartiality of the police officers , and considered that their consistent testimonies proved that the applicant had violently resisted the police .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the lower court .

On DATE the Head of ORG instructed the officers of that department to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the applicant ’s allegations that he had been ill - treated by the police while being apprehended .

The inquiry was conducted by an investigator of ORG against ORG of ORG of ORG . As submitted by the Government , that division had been established for the specific purpose of investigating crimes allegedly committed by police officers .

On DATE was questioned as a witness . The written record of the interview repeated almost identically the wording of his initial report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and added :

“ We found out that [ the applicant ] was a minor only at the police station ... Had we known that earlier , we would not have used physical coercion and restraining measures against him ... At the time of the arrest , there was blood on [ the applicant ’s ] hand . I do n’t know how he hurt it . He did n’t complain about anything , so we did n’t take him to a doctor ... We delivered [ the applicant ] to his mother ... She began scolding her son and even thanked us for bringing him to her . She complained to us that she had problems with her son because he was n’t obeying her and was skipping school . ”

On DATE the officer GPE was also questioned as a witness and the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of A.R.

On DATE the investigator examined the jacket the applicant had been wearing during his arrest and found stains on the lower back of the jacket which were “ possibly similar to old bloodstains ” ( galimai panašios į seno kraujo žymes ) .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness and stated :

“ On DATE , around midnight I was walking ... I saw a police car ... it stopped , then one of the officers told me , “ take your hands out of your pockets ” . I took my hands out of my pockets , then the officer got out of the car and walked towards me , then I started running away and the police car started chasing me ... I ended up near a bus stop close to the railway station and there I was arrested by the police . CARDINAL uniformed police officers got out of a car , CARDINAL of them ( the driver ) asked me why I was out of breath . I said that I was trying to catch the trolleybus . [ That officer ] said through the portable radio , “ we ’ve got CARDINAL ” . Then CARDINAL other officers in uniform arrived on foot ; CARDINAL of them had a shaved head . Soon another police car arrived in which there were CARDINAL uniformed officers . I knew CARDINAL of the officers , PERSON , because he was my classmate ’s father . The officers who had come on foot approached me and the one with the shaved head told me that I would “ pay for running away from them ” ( dabar aš gausiu , ORG bėgau CARDINAL jų ) , and with PERSON they swore at me ... Then PERSON handcuffed me behind my back and put me into a police car , in the back , and told me to sit there . Soon the officer with the shaved head got into the car and sat down in front of me . He took out a truncheon and began to hit me on various parts of the body . He hit me CARDINAL times on the legs , CARDINAL times on the arms , once on the back , once kicked me in the stomach , and once punched me in the face . I was made to lie down on the floor of the car and the officer with the shaved head told me to pray . I was praying and they were laughing at me . I also remember that on the way to the police station CARDINAL of the officers told me that I would take the blame for somebody else ’s robbery . I said nothing . There were CARDINAL officers in the car , CARDINAL of them was PERSON , the other was the one with the shaved head who was sitting next to me , and the third was QUANTITY tall ; this one had a large build and short dark hair ...

In the police station PERSON took me to another room where he told me that if I did n’t defend his daughter , next time it would be worse . I told him that I would defend his daughter so that nobody beat her . I gave them my mother ’s telephone number , and the officers called her and took me to her ... The officer with the shaved head handed me over to my mother and said “ I do n’t know how you will react but the officers have given him a little lesson to not run away from them the next time . ”

On DATE the investigator examined CARDINAL photographs of the applicant which had been taken by his mother on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . The investigator noted that injuries were visible on the applicant ’s forehead , arms and legs , upper chest and the left side of his back . Several of the photographs showed a shoe with stains similar to bloodstains .

On DATE was questioned again . The written record of the interview was almost identical to his previous statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , and added :

“ ... I arrived at the place where [ the applicant ] had been apprehended ... He was actively resisting : he was kicking out and had fallen on the ground . After being asked to calm down and get into a police car , he continued disobeying those lawful orders and resisted being apprehended , he started biting , so he was warned that physical coercion would be used against him . The young man ignored this and continued actively resisting and kicking , so we were forced to use physical coercion in order to arrest him , namely combat wrestling methods ( kovinių imtynių veiksmai ) and restraining measures , namely a truncheon and handcuffing him behind the back . While GPE and PERSON were arresting [ the applicant ] , I took out handcuffs and got ready to put them on him . As I remember , the truncheon was used by GPE in order to arrest [ the applicant ] ... [ The applicant ] was acting aggressively and unpredictably . He was put in the back of the police car ... PERSON was driving the car , I was sitting next to the driver , and PERSON was in the back with [ the applicant ] . We asked him why he had fled from the police . He said that he had been afraid . We asked why he had been afraid if he had n’t done anything , but he did n’t respond . In the car [ the applicant ] was calm ; no physical coercion or restraining measures were used against him there . We noticed that his finger was injured ( bleeding ) but he refused to be examined by doctors . He said that he had hurt his finger on the fence or in the bushes while running away from the police . His clothes were dirty and the jacket was torn . [ The applicant ] had dirtied his clothes and torn his jacket when running away from the police ...

In the police station , when [ the applicant ’s ] identity was established I realised that he was my daughter ’s classmate ... Then I said to him , “ God forbid something happens to my daughter ” . I also said , “ I will defend my daughter ” . I ca n’t remember my exact words , but I let it be known that he must not hurt my daughter . As far as I am aware , this young man is prone to doing such things . In the police station neither I nor other officers hit [ the applicant ] ... I did not use any swear words and did not humiliate him . I did n’t see the other officers acting inappropriately in respect of [ the applicant ] either . ”

The following day PERSON was questioned as a witness and the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , he stated that PERSON had not discussed any personal matters with the applicant and that it did not seem as though PERSON and the applicant knew one another .

On DATE officer PERSON was questioned as a witness . He confirmed that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been on duty together with officers GPE and GPE He further stated :

“ ... After we arrived near the railway station , I saw an arrested young man who was actively resisting arrest , purposely falling on the ground and kicking out at officers , so the officers warned him that if he did n’t calm down physical coercion and restraining measures would be used against him . The young man continued behaving in an aggressive manner and actively resisting arrest , so officers used physical coercion , after which the young man was handcuffed and put into a police car ... ”

On DATE the investigator submitted a report to the Head of ORG of ORG , suggesting that no pre - trial investigation should be opened . The investigator concluded that the use of physical force by the police officers had been a necessary and proportionate response to the applicant ’s violent resistance and aggressive behaviour .

On DATE the Head of ORG approved the investigator ’s conclusion and decided not to open a pre - trial investigation .

The applicant ’s mother appealed against that decision , asking for a pre - trial investigation to be opened and for it to be entrusted to an authority other than the police . On DATE ORG partly upheld the appeal . The prosecutor opened a pre - trial investigation , noting that the medical examination of the applicant had shown numerous injuries , so it was necessary to assess whether the use of force by the police officers had been within the limits provided in the law ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . However , the prosecutor refused to entrust the pretrial investigation to another authority , finding no reason to doubt the impartiality of the police investigator .

On DATE officer PERSON was questioned as a witness . He confirmed that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been on duty with officer GPE , and that following information that a young man had fled from the officers towards the railway station , they had driven there in the police car . PERSON further stated :

“ I drove the police car towards the said young man and asked him to come closer , which he did . He was breathing hard , and , I saw that CARDINAL of his hands was bleeding ... Soon afterwards CARDINAL officers arrived on QUANTITY and CARDINAL cars arrived ... In order to prevent the young man from fleeing , I held him by CARDINAL sleeve . When he saw the approaching officers , he began to squirm and tried to get away ... After he was handed over to the officers , I saw that he was actively resisting arrest with his legs and arms , he was squirming and he fell on the ground with full force , making it more difficult to arrest him . The officers , using force , took him to the police car ... I did n’t see the officers hit the young man or use any restraining measures such as handcuffs or a truncheon . As I remember , he was taken to the car by possibly CARDINAL officers , I do n’t remember exactly because around CARDINAL officers were present at the scene . Soon afterwards PERSON and I left and I did n’t see anything else . ”

ORG was questioned on DATE , and gave essentially the same statement as GPE

On DATE the applicant ’s mother submitted a request to ORG for the investigation to be transferred to the prosecutor ’s office on the grounds that the GPE police officers could not be considered impartial . She also asked for several investigative actions , such as interviews with her and with the applicant , and for the officers who had allegedly ill - treated the applicant to be identified .

The following day ORG dismissed the request for the investigation to be transferred to the prosecutor ’s office , finding no grounds to doubt the impartiality of the police investigator . However , the prosecutor instructed the investigator to carry out the actions requested by the applicant ’s mother .

It appears that the applicant ’s mother did not appeal against that decision .

On DATE officer ORG was questioned as a witness . He confirmed that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been on duty together with officers GPE and PERSON He stated that when they had arrived at the railway station the applicant had already been put into the police car . ORG stated that he did not see how the applicant was put into the car , nor did he see the officers using any coercive or restraining measures against him .

On DATE officer PERSON was questioned as a witness ; the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of ORG

On DATE the applicant ’s mother NORP was questioned as a witness . She stated that TIME on DATE police officers had delivered the applicant to her near the railway station . She stated :

“ When [ the applicant ] got out of the police car , he was limping on one leg ... The officers explained to me that they had caught him ... and that he fitted the description of a robber . When my son approached me , I began scolding him , but the officer PERSON told me , “ do n’t scold him , we already gave him a good lesson about running away from the police ” ... PERSON asked me , “ is there a father or are you raising him alone ? ” , and then said , “ that ’s why they grow up like this ” . My son and I then left . Around QUANTITY a.m. that night , when we were eating in the trolleybus , my son undressed and I saw that his body was covered in bruises ... My son told me that CARDINAL of the officers ( the one with the shaven head ) had beaten him up . As I know now , that was GPE ” .

That DATE the applicant was granted victim status and further questioned . He stated that he had initially run away from the police officers because it was dark and he had been afraid that they would beat him up . However , when he reached the railway station he was no longer afraid because the area was well lit and there were other people nearby . The applicant added :

“ CARDINAL of the officers who had come on foot – the one with the shaved head , as I know now it was DATE swore at me in LANGUAGE , from which I understood that I would be beaten up for running away . Officer PERSON , who is my classmate ’s father , handcuffed me behind my back , put me in the back of a police car and closed the door . GPE came from the other side of the car , opened the door and sat down next to me ; he took out a truncheon and started hitting me on various parts of my body , except for the head . He hit me CARDINAL times . No other officers were in the car at that time . Then GPE got out of the car , talked to the officers and got back in the car , in the driver ’s seat . PERSON sat next to the driver and the third officer sat next to me ...

At the police station ... PERSON approached me and said , “ now I will show you ” . I asked , “ why , I do n’t bother your daughter , I do n’t even talk to her ” . PERSON led me behind a wall , put an electroshock device on the left side of my stomach and threatened to use it if I did n’t defend his daughter from my friends ; he also said that if he caught me CARDINAL more time , he would beat me even more . I agreed to defend his daughter ...

I want to add that I injured my left thumb while running away from the officers and it was bleeding ; that ’s why there were bloodstains on my jacket at the spot where my hands were handcuffed . The officers did not provide me with the first aid . All the blows were struck by CARDINAL officer , GPE I was beaten only in the police car ; nobody beat me at the police station ... I suffered physical injuries due to the beating . ”

The applicant denied having resisted the police officers or having sworn at them . He also said that he had fallen down while running towards the railway station but not while being apprehended .

In DATE a court medical expert carried out an additional examination of the applicant ’s medical file . The report on the results of that examination confirmed the findings of the previous medical report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also specified that the applicant ’s injuries were not likely to have been caused by falling down ( sužalojimų visuma griuvimui nebūdinga ) , nor by punching or kicking , but that they had most likely been caused by a hard blunt object of a cylindrical shape .

On DATE confrontations were arranged between the applicant and each of the officers GPE , GPE and PERSON separately . All the officers repeated their earlier statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) and the applicant denied them . PERSON confirmed that he had handcuffed the applicant . The officers stated that none of them had used any swear words or threats to the applicant . Meanwhile the applicant insisted that he had not resisted the officers and that he had not been warned about the possible use of restraining measures . He also denied falling to the ground while being apprehended near the railway station .

That DATE a confrontation was arranged between the applicant and PERSON The officer stated that when he had arrived at the railway station the applicant was already in handcuffs and he was squirming but not actively resisting . He could not remember which officers had put the applicant into the police car .

During a subsequent interview on DATE PERSON retracted the statement he had made in his first interview , in which he had said that he had seen the applicant actively resisting the officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON stated that he had been mistaken and that his statements made during the confrontation were the correct ones .

On DATE ORG discontinued the pre - trial investigation . The prosecutor held that physical force had been used against the applicant only to the extent that was strictly necessary to arrest him , and that the applicant ’s allegations that he had been beaten up in the police car with a truncheon had not been proven . ORG also considered that the officers GPE , GPE and PERSON could not have known at the time of the arrest that the applicant was a minor . The prosecutor concluded that the mere fact that the applicant had sustained injuries was insufficient to find that the police officers had acted unlawfully .

On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor ’s decision . The court concluded that there was no “ objective and indisputable evidence ” that the police officers had exceeded their legal powers . It also referred to the earlier court judgments which had found the applicant guilty of an administrative violation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , concluding that the officers had had the right to use physical coercion in response to the applicant ’s resistance . The court also considered that the pre - trial investigation had been thorough and comprehensive .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

Subsequently the applicant ’s mother requested the reopening of the investigation , but her request was dismissed on the grounds that there were no relevant new circumstances .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in the Tekirdağ F - type Prison .

According to the arrest report , signed by CARDINAL police officers , on DATE at TIME the applicant was stopped by police officers for an identity check . He resisted and opened fire , killing a police officer . The other police officers used force to neutralise and arrest him . Several fake identity cards were found in the applicant ’s bag .

At TIME the applicant was sent to ORG for a medical examination . The medical report indicated that there were superficial grazes on the applicant ’s back and bruises to the frontal region of his head , caused by blunt instrument trauma . It further specified that the abrasions on the applicant ’s wrists could have been caused by handcuffs . The report concluded that the injuries on the applicant ’s body were not life - threatening .

The applicant was then taken to ORG . According to the form explaining the rights of arrested persons , the applicant was reminded of his rights , including his right to have the assistance of a lawyer , to remain silent , and to inform his family members of his arrest . According to a report signed by CARDINAL police officers , the police tried to conduct a fingerprint examination in order to identify the applicant , but he resisted , shouted slogans , tried hitting his head on the machine and kicked the nearby furniture . The applicant alleged that he had been beaten at the police station .

The applicant was subsequently transferred to the anti - terrorism branch of ORG , where he was allegedly subjected to ill - treatment . According to the applicant , in the basement of ORG , his testicles were squeezed and he was beaten , subjected to hanging by his arms , hosed with cold water , exposed to cold air circulation and forced to lie in an ice - covered blanket .

According to a police report , on DATE at TIME the applicant was taken by CARDINAL police officers to GPE , where he had offered to show the officers a house used as a cell by the ORG ( NORP - Leninist Communist Party ) , an illegal organisation . It was reported that , as the applicant could not find the house , they returned to ORG on DATE at TIME This report was signed by CARDINAL police officers , but the applicant declined to sign it .

On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer at ORG in connection with the killing of a police officer and his alleged involvement in the ORG . The applicant exercised his right to remain silent .

On DATE , the applicant was taken to ORG . During his examination , the applicant complained that he had been ill - treated whilst in custody . He stated that he had been beaten , hung by his arms and hosed with cold water and alleged that ice cubes had been placed over his body . The medical examination revealed that the applicant had a haematoma under his left eyelid , a red - coloured bruise measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY and swellings in his occipital region , and purplecoloured bruises on his right eye and periorbital region . It was also noted that the applicant had several bruises on his left eyebrow , on the zygoma , on both sides of his mouth , between his eyebrows , on his left arm and both wrists , and also on his penis . The doctor noted that the bruises on the applicant ’s wrists could have been sustained as a result of the use of handcuffs . It was further noted that the applicant had complained about shortness of breath , headaches and pain in his ribs . The doctor requested consultations from the thoracic surgery , neurosurgery and internal medicine departments .

Later on DATE , the applicant was interrogated , in the presence of his lawyer , by both ORG and the investigating judge at ORG and exercised his right to remain silent . On the basis of the evidence in the case file , the judge ordered his detention on remand .

On DATE at CARDINAL a.m. the applicant was taken to the emergency department of ORG . In the hospital he was examined by several doctors , specifically from the neurosurgery , general surgery , thoracic surgery and radiology departments . The radiology examinations did not reveal any abnormality in the bones , lungs or heart . The general surgeon indicated that there was no need for surgery . Finally , the thoracic surgeon noted in his report that the applicant had no respiratory problems but that he had several bruises on his body , specifically on his back . He also stated that no fractured ribs had been observed . According to the information in the file , the applicant left the emergency department at TIME

Later on DATE the applicant was also taken to the emergency service of ORG as he had complained of a pain in his chest . Following consultation of doctors from general surgery , neurosurgery and radiology departments , a doctor from the emergency service issued a report concluding that the applicant ’s eighth and ninth ribs had been fractured and that he was suffering from post - traumatic injury . He was accordingly admitted to the emergency department for monitoring and observation .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG and alleged that he had been ill - treated in custody . In his petition , the applicant maintained that he had been beaten at ORG . He also maintained that following his transfer to the AntiTerrorism Branch of ORG , his testicles had been squeezed , he had been beaten , subjected to hanging by his arms , hosed with cold water , exposed to cold air circulation and forced to lie in an ice - covered blanket . The applicant further stated that he could identify the police officers who had ill - treated him if he met them face to face .

Upon receiving the applicant ’s complaint , ORG initiated an investigation into his ill - treatment allegations . In this connection , the applicant gave a statement on DATE , and claimed in a detailed account that he had been ill - treated during his custody . The applicant further maintained that he would be able to identify the police officers who had ill - treated him .

NORP The public prosecutor interviewed CARDINAL police officers who had been on duty at the time of the applicant ’s arrest and during his custody at FAC and the Anti - Terrorism Branch of ORG . They all denied the accusations against them . The police officers who had arrested the applicant stated that they had used proportionate force to neutralise him .

At the request of the public prosecutor , on DATE the applicant was once again taken to ORG for a medical examination . As the gendarme officer refused to leave the consultation room , the doctor did not perform the examination . The gendarme officer issued a report stating that the doctor had not complied with LAW signed by ORG , Health and Interior , dated DATE ‒ according to which a gendarme officer is obliged to stay in the consultation room during the medical examination in a hospital of a person who has been remanded in connection with terrorismrelated crimes and the examination was then carried out in the absence of the gendarme officer . The doctor prepared a detailed report stating that there were several bruises on the front of his left arm which appeared to be self - inflicted . MONEY were also noticed on his abdomen . Healed scars were observed on both wrists . Bruises on the fingers and right knee were also noted .

The doctor further ordered certain medical tests but according to the information in the case file , the prison authorities did not allow the applicant to go to the hospital on the appointment dates and transferred him to PERSON .

On DATE ORG issued a medical report about the applicant based on the medical reports dated DATE and DATE issued by ORG . It was concluded that his injuries were not life - threatening and would heal with simple medical care . It was also noted that no fractured ribs had been observed . No reference was made to the medical report dated DATE issued by ORG .

In the course of the investigation , the public prosecutor also requested the video camera recordings taken during the applicant ’s periods in custody in FAC and ORG . ORG informed the public prosecutor ’s office that the camera recordings were only kept for DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor issued a non - prosecution decision . In his decision the prosecutor held that the injuries observed on the applicant ’s body had been sustained during the scuffle at the time of his arrest . The prosecutor also concluded that the force used to neutralise the applicant had been in compliance with LAW no . CARDINAL on the Duties and Powers of the Police .

On DATE the applicant filed an objection against the public prosecutor ’s decision . He repeated that he would be able to identify the police officers who had ill - treated him . On DATE ORG rejected the objection .

In the meantime , criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for killing a police officer . By a judgment delivered on DATE the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment . The case file contains no information regarding the current status of these proceedings .


CASE OF ESKERKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

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

The CARDINAL applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and are in detention in GPE .

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

The applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of murder .

On DATE a court ordered his pre - trial detention , which was further extended on several occasions , in particular on DATE and DATE . The applicant appealed against the extension orders on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The appeals were dismissed on DATE and on DATE .

The applicant has been detained in remand prison no . GPE in GPE since DATE , except for QUANTITY days in DATE when he was detained in remand prison no . CARDINAL in GPE ( hereinafter “ IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” and “ IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) . In IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL the applicant has QUANTITY ( sq.m ) of personal space , the cell is extremely hot in DATE and extremely damp in DATE , it lacks natural light and fresh air , while access to potable water and hot water is restricted . The applicant has not been provided with bedding and can have CARDINAL TIME shower a week . Daily physical exercise in the fresh air is limited to TIME . The applicant has not described the conditions of his detention in IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was transported between IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG of GPE in a prison van . Personal space in the van was limited and there was not enough fresh air ; the applicant had no access to a toilet and no food or drinking water was provided . Upon his arrival to the court building and before returning to the remand prison he was detained for TIME in a convoy cell where he disposed of around CARDINAL sq . m of personal space and had no access to natural light , fresh air , the toilet or drinking water .

The applicants were arrested on DATE on suspicion of murder .

On DATE a court ordered their pre - trial detention , which was further extended on several occasions , in particular on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Appeals filed by the applicants were dismissed on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

On DATE the applicants were transported from remand prison No . CARDINAL in GPE ( “ GPE ” ) to ORG and back in a prison van . The conditions of the applicants’ transfer to and from the court building were identical to those described by the applicant in case no . CARDINAL .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is and at the relevant time was a ORG judge .

ORG of GPE is the supreme governing body of the judiciary in GPE . It has CARDINAL members , including its President ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) ) . Under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) , as applicable at the relevant time , the President of ORG automatically held the office of the President of ORG . Of the remaining CARDINAL members , CARDINAL were elected by judges and CARDINAL were appointed by each ORG , the President of GPE , and the Government of GPE .

On DATE , sitting it the above mentioned composition , ORG decided under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Judges and LAW ( Law no . QUANTITY . , as amended – “ the LAW ” ) to suspend ( dočasné pozastavenie výkonu funkcie sudcu ) the applicant in the exercise of his function with immediate effect . This decision followed another decision of the ORG taken on DATE under LAW ) of the LAW to file disciplinary charges against the applicant .

The accusation was that the applicant had committed what was classified as a “ serious disciplinary offence ” by failing to comply with his duties , such as abstaining from behaviour which might cast doubt on the respectability of his judicial office , abiding by the principles of judicial ethics and enhancing the good reputation of the judiciary .

In particular , reference was made to the fact that the applicant ( i ) had filed a criminal complaint accusing the President of ORG of abuse of authority , and ( ii ) had publicly stated that the distribution of cases at ORG had been modified with a view to allowing its President to influence the outcome of proceedings .

In terms of a sanction , ORG proposed that the applicant ’s post as a judge be revoked .

Under section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the decision to suspend him entailed a PERCENT reduction in the applicant ’s salary for the duration of the disciplinary proceedings . The same provision prevented him from spending time at the workplace , with the exception of time which was necessary for asserting his rights in relation to the administration of human resources . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act , the suspension could last at DATE . The withheld part of the applicant ’s salary might or might not be restored to him , depending on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings ( section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW ) .

The applicant sought protection of his rights in relation to the decision to suspend him as a judge by way of what he termed an appeal ( rozklad ) to ORG of DATE , an administrative - law action of DATE , and a constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible . It noted that the applicant ’s applications before ORG and administrative tribunals were still pending and considered that , under the principle of subsidiarity , his constitutional complaint was accordingly premature .

As to the applicant ’s submission to ORG , its president responded to it in a letter of DATE informing the applicant that the law did not allow for decisions of the ORG to be challenged by means of appeals to the ORG and that its decisions were reviewable by administrative tribunals .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on the applicant ’s administrative - law action and on DATE ORG upheld that decision following an appeal lodged by the applicant .

The courts found that the decision to suspend the applicant had been of a preliminary nature , that it had not amounted to a determination of his rights with final effect , and that as such it had no bearing on his fundamental rights and freedoms . In such circumstances , the decision was excluded from judicial review under LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as applicable at the relevant time ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh complaint with ORG , alleging a breach of LAW on account of the ordinary courts’ decisions , as detailed above .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s complaint of CARDINAL DATE inadmissible as being manifestly illfounded . It held that ORG had given sound reasons for its decision , and its decision was not arbitrary or otherwise contrary to the applicant ’s right to a fair hearing .

According to a communication from the ORG dated CARDINAL DATE , submitted and relied on by the Government , the applicant had addressed various submissions to ORG , but had never requested it to lift his temporary suspension , pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( as applicable at the relevant time – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The disciplinary charges against the applicant fell to be determined by ORG , sitting as a disciplinary tribunal .

In accordance with a legislative amendment which took effect on CARDINAL DATE , the Minister of ORG became a party to pending disciplinary proceedings against judges which had been initiated by ORG .

On DATE the Minister of ORG withdrew the application to discipline the applicant .

On that ground ORG discontinued the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant challenged that decision by way of an appeal , only to withdraw it on CARDINAL DATE . The decision thus became final on DATE .

The part of the applicant ’s salary that was retained from him during the time of his suspension ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was restored to him in DATE .