Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev

The applicants were domestic court judges . Proceedings were brought against them , resulting in their dismissal from the post of judge . The facts giving rise to their dismissals were established by ORG ( PERSON рада юстиції , hereinafter “ LOC ) . The HCJ ’s decisions were submitted to ORG or to the President of GPE ( depending on which of those authorities had appointed the applicants to the post of judge ) for the final decisions on their dismissals .

The applicants further unsuccessfully challenged their dismissals before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) or other courts .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had ignored the instructions given to him by the chairman and deputy chairman of his court . In addition , the applicant had unlawfully instituted criminal proceedings against the chairman of the court . The HCJ further noted that the applicant had disregarded the internal rules of the court , his professional competence had not improved and he had had communication difficulties with colleagues from the court . It rejected the applicant ’s contentions that the dismissal proposal had not been based on the real facts and that the chairman of the court had been biased against him and had interfered with the applicant ’s professional activity . The PERSON concluded that the applicant had not fairly and duly performed his duties and had to be dismissed .

On DATE ORG voted for the applicant ’s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .

The applicant challenged the DATE ’s decision concerning his dismissal before the courts .

On DATE the ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s claim as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

On DATE the applicant unsuccessfully applied to the court of appeal for a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged cassation appeals against that decision with the ORG . He was not informed about the outcome of the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the applicant challenged the parliamentary resolution of CARDINAL DATE before ORG .

On DATE the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the HCJ ’s decision .

On DATE the court decided to leave the applicant ’s claim without consideration on the merits .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to the President of GPE to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant , acting as a first - instance judge , had disregarded the rules governing territorial jurisdiction in a case concerning a labour dispute in a ORG company . It further found that he had violated the rules governing the interim measures in that case . Substantial damage to the ORG had been caused as a result of the interim measure ordered .

On DATE the President of GPE issued a decree dismissing the applicant from the post of judge on grounds of “ breach of oath ” .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the LOC ’s decision and the Presidential decree concerning his dismissal .

On DATE the ORG upheld the factual findings and legal assessments of the HCJ in the applicant ’s case and dismissed the claims as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It adopted CARDINAL decisions on making submissions to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had systematically made procedural mistakes when administering justice , had adopted decisions in breach of domestic law and had wrongly applied interim measures . The HCJ also considered that the applicant had incurred expenses which were manifestly incommensurate with his official income . The PERSON concluded that the facts of the case suggested that the applicant had dishonoured the judicial profession and cast doubt on his objectivity and impartiality . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the HCJ ’s decisions and the parliamentary resolution concerning his dismissal .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make a submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had adopted several unlawful and unsubstantiated decisions and had failed to follow procedural rules when administering justice . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG voted for the dismissal of the applicant and adopted a resolution to that effect .

The applicant instituted proceedings against ORG challenging his dismissal before the ORG . In his claim he also argued that the conclusions of the HCJ were unfounded and unlawful ; there had been violations in the proceedings before FAC . The HCJ joined the proceedings as a third party .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims as unsubstantiated . It found that the HCJ ’s conclusions were well - founded and that the decisions of the HCJ and ORG were lawful .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It adopted CARDINAL decisions on making submissions to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had adopted a number of unlawful and unsubstantiated decisions and that she had failed to follow procedural rules when administering justice . The HCJ considered that the applicant ’s procedural mistakes had dishonoured the judicial profession , cast doubt on her objectivity and impartiality , and suggested that she had to be dismissed . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging CARDINAL of the HCJ ’s decisions of CARDINAL DATE and the parliamentary resolution concerning her dismissal .

On DATE the ORG considered the case . It found that the HCJ ’s decision was lawful and substantiated . As to the other CARDINAL decisions taken on DATE by the HCJ , the ORG noted that the applicant had not challenged them . The ORG concluded that there were no grounds to examine the lawfulness of the HCJ ’s other decisions . The ORG further found that the applicant ’s right to participate in the plenary session of ORG had not been respected and declared the parliamentary resolution in respect of the applicant unlawful .

On DATE ORG once again voted for the dismissal of the applicant ( on the basis of the HCJ ’s decisions of CARDINAL DATE ) and adopted a resolution to that effect .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the second resolution of ORG .

On DATE the ORG rejected the claim as unsubstantiated . It found that the procedure for the applicant ’s dismissal in ORG and the resolution to that effect were lawful .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make submission to the President of GPE to have him dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had wrongly applied an interim measure in a case where ORG had been the defendant . It concluded that the violation had cast doubt on the applicant ’s objectivity and impartiality , and suggested that he had not duly performed his duties and had dishonoured the judicial profession .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed by decree of the President of GPE .

The applicant challenged his dismissal before the ORG .

On DATE the ORG found that the HCJ ’s decision was unlawful . It then noted that the applicant had not sought to have the presidential decree concerning his dismissal “ declared unlawful ” but had sought the “ quashing ” of that decree . However , such a measure was outside the competence of the ORG . In that regard the ORG referred to LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) considering that it was prevented by that provision from examining the case beyond the scope of the claims .

On DATE the Acting President of GPE reversed the Presidential decree of DATE concerning the applicant ’s dismissal , having regard to the ORG ’s decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant resumed his office of judge .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It adopted CARDINAL decisions on making submissions to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had violated procedural rules when administering justice and that he had interfered with the activities of the law - enforcement authorities when they carried out a search operation . Those violations had cast doubt on the applicant ’s objectivity and impartiality , and suggested that he had not performed his duties properly . The PERSON rejected the applicant ’s contentions challenging the dismissal proposal .

The applicant challenged the decisions of the HCJ and ORG concerning his dismissal before the ORG .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims as unsubstantiated . According to the applicant , on DATE the ORG delivered only the introductory and operative parts of the decision .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG dispatched a copy of the full text of the decision to the applicant . Allegedly , the applicant received that letter on DATE .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had adopted several unlawful and unfounded decisions , had wrongly applied an interim measure , and had committed procedural errors when administering justice . The HCJ considered that those violations had cast doubt on the applicant ’s objectivity , impartiality and independence ; they also suggested that she had ignored requirements of domestic law and had failed to perform her duties properly . The PERSON rejected objections raised by the applicant as unfounded .

The applicant challenged the DATE ’s decision before the ORG .

DATE . On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim as unsubstantiated .

On DATE a draft parliamentary resolution concerning the applicant ’s dismissal was not adopted by a majority vote in ORG .

On DATE ORG voted for the dismissal of the applicant and adopted a resolution to that effect .

On DATE the ORG rejected as unfounded the applicant ’s claim against the HCJ and ORG concerning her dismissal , noting in particular that the HCJ decision of CARDINAL DATE had been earlier reviewed by the ORG . The ORG further found no violations in the parliamentary procedure for the applicant ’s dismissal .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had participated , as a presiding judge , in the consideration of a case in which Judge PERSON , a relative of his , had been a third party . The consideration of that case had resulted in a wrong decision , which had been quashed by a higher court . The HCJ further noted that the applicant had concealed the fact that he and Judge PERSON were related . The HCJ considered that those facts had cast doubt on the applicant ’s objectivity and impartiality ; they suggested that he had dishonoured the judicial profession , neglected the ethical rules of judicial conduct , and failed to carry out his duties properly . The HCJ rejected objections raised by the applicant as unfounded .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the resolution of ORG and arguing that the conclusions of the HCJ were unfounded and unlawful .

On DATE the ORG considered the case . It noted that the applicant had not challenged the LOC ’s decision as such ; nor had he indicated the HCJ as a party to the proceedings . The ORG concluded that there were no grounds to examine the lawfulness of the DATE ’s decision in respect of the applicant . It further found that the applicant ’s right to participate in the parliamentary procedure had not been respected and declared the parliamentary resolution concerning the applicant unlawful .

On DATE ORG once again voted for the dismissal of the applicant ( on the basis of the HCJ ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE ) and adopted a resolution to that effect .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG , challenging the second resolution of ORG . He claimed that the conclusions of the HCJ were unfounded and unlawful , and that there had been violations in the proceedings before the HCJ . He requested that the HCJ be admitted to the case as a third party .

On DATE the ORG considered the case and rejected the claim as unsubstantiated . It noted that the applicant had not challenged the HCJ ’s decision as such and found that there were no grounds to review its findings . The ORG further found that the procedure for the applicant ’s dismissal in ORG and the resolution to that effect were lawful .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had wrongly applied domestic law in land and administrative cases and had not followed procedural rules when dealing with those cases . It concluded that those violations had cast doubt on the applicant ’s objectivity and impartiality ; they suggested that he had failed to carry out his duties properly and had dishonoured the judicial profession . Objections raised by the applicant were dismissed as unfounded .

On DATE ORG voted for the applicant ’s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .

On DATE the applicant applied to the ORG challenging the LOC ’s decision and the parliamentary resolution concerning his dismissal . He also claimed that he had missed the deadline for challenging the HCJ decision because of the serious illness of his child .

On DATE the ORG left the applicant ’s claim against the HCJ without consideration , finding that the applicant had missed the deadline for challenging the HCJ decision without a valid reason .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim against the parliamentary resolution as unsubstantiated . It noted in particular that the applicant had been informed of the plenary meeting of ORG and that his failure to appear did not give grounds for declaring the parliamentary resolution unlawful .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The HCJ found that the applicant had failed to follow procedural rules when administering justice in a corporate dispute and had adopted an unlawful decision in that case . It considered that those violations suggested that the applicant had dishonoured the judicial profession and had not acted diligently and impartially . Objections raised by the applicant were dismissed as unfounded .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the LOC ’s decision and the resolution of ORG .

DATE . On DATE the ORG found that the decision of the HCJ was lawful . As to the proceedings in ORG , the ORG found that the applicant ’s right to participate in the parliamentary procedure had not been respected and declared the parliamentary resolution in respect of the applicant unlawful .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the second resolution of ORG . At the applicant ’s request , the HCJ joined the case as a third party .

On DATE the ORG considered the case and rejected the claim as unfounded . It noted that the HCJ ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been earlier reviewed by the ORG . It then found that the procedure for the applicant ’s dismissal in ORG and the resolution to that effect were lawful .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had adopted several unlawful decisions and had committed procedural errors when administering justice . It considered that his errors had cast doubt on his objectivity , impartiality and independence , and suggested that he had not performed his duties properly .

On DATE the ORG dismissed a claim brought by the applicant concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the HCJ decision .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make a submission to ORG to have her dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had wrongly applied an interim measure in a corporate dispute by which she had groundlessly interfered with the economic activities of a company ; she had also failed to follow procedural rules when administering justice in that case . The HCJ found that those violations suggested that the applicant had not acted lawfully , impartially and independently . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .

DATE . On DATE ORG voted for the applicant ’s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .

The applicant challenged her dismissal before ORG , arguing that the LAW and ORG had acted unlawfully .

On DATE that court rejected the applicant ’s claim as unfounded .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant .

On DATE the ORG dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make a submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had on several occasions taken leave without obtaining the relevant approval from the court administration ; he had failed to appear in the office without valid reasons ; he had prevented his judicial assistant from performing his functions ; he had refused to take cases for consideration ; and he had not complied with the requirement to submit income - tax declarations . Having regard to those facts , the HCJ found that the applicant had neglected his professional duties , dishonoured the judicial profession and had to be dismissed .

On DATE ORG voted for the applicant ’s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .

DATE the applicant attempted to institute proceedings in the ORG challenging the LOC ’s decision . By several decisions the ORG refused to open proceedings , noting that the applicant had failed to prepare and submit his claim in accordance with the requirements of the ORG .

The applicant instituted proceedings before the ORG , challenging the parliamentary resolution on his dismissal .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make a submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had on several occasions taken leave without obtaining the relevant approval from the court administration ; he had failed to appear in the office without valid reason ; he had refused to take cases for consideration ; he had delayed the examination of criminal cases ; he had prevented his judicial assistant from performing his functions ; and he had not complied with the requirement to submit income - tax declarations . Having regard to those facts , the HCJ found that the applicant had neglected his professional duties , dishonoured the judicial profession and had to be dismissed .

DATE the applicant attempted to institute proceedings in the ORG , challenging the HCJ ’s decision . By several decisions the ORG refused to open proceedings , noting that the applicant had failed to prepare and submit his claim in accordance with the requirements of the ORG .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make a submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant had on several occasions taken leave without obtaining the relevant approval from the court administration ; he had failed to appear in the office without valid reason ; he had refused to take cases for consideration ; he had shown disrespect to the officers of the court registry ; and he had not complied with the requirement to submit income - tax declarations . Having regard to those facts , the HCJ found that the applicant had neglected his professional duties , dishonoured the judicial profession and had to be dismissed .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The HCJ found that the applicant had committed numerous procedural errors when reviewing , under newly discovered circumstances , a case involving local authorities . The HCJ considered that the errors had been committed intentionally ; they cast doubt on the applicant ’s objectivity and impartiality and called for his dismissal . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG , challenging the HCJ ’s decision .

On DATE a draft parliamentary resolution concerning the applicant ’s dismissal was not adopted by a majority vote .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim against the HCJ as unsubstantiated . According to the applicant , he received the full text of the decision DATE .

NORP The applicant instituted proceedings before the ORG , challenging the resolution of ORG .

On DATE the ORG considered the case and rejected the claim as unfounded . It noted that the HCJ ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been earlier reviewed by the ORG . It further found that the parliamentary procedure for the applicant ’s dismissal and the resolution to that effect were lawful .

On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have her dismissed from the post of judge for “ breach of oath ” . The PERSON noted that the applicant , as a member of a panel of judges , had participated in the consideration of a criminal case and the adoption of the judgment in that case . Subsequently , that judgment had been partly quashed by a higher court on the grounds that it was unsubstantiated and the sentence was too lenient . The HCJ considered that the first - instance court ’s judgment had had negative consequences : it had caused discontent in society , since the criminal case had been widely discussed in the media . The HCJ concluded that the applicant had disregarded the requirements of procedural law , had not acted diligently and impartially when considering the criminal case and had to be dismissed . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unfounded .

The applicant instituted proceedings before the ORG , challenging the HCJ ’s decision .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims as unsubstantiated . It noted , among other things , that the HCJ had repeatedly postponed the hearings due to the applicant ’s failure to appear and had properly informed the applicant of the hearings .


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

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)

Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At the time of the events she worked as a passport registration officer ( паспортист ) in CARDINAL of the municipal housing and public utilities’ offices ( PERSON ) in ORG .

On DATE a certain PERSON went to the passport registration office where the applicant worked to apply for a passport for her son , who had reached the age of DATE . As PERSON subsequently mentioned to the police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , she had already applied to the applicant in the past . According to PERSON , when she was waiting in the queue , she heard people saying that the applicant was known for taking bribes and that her “ usual rate ” was MONEY ( ORG ) . Given the considerable number of visitors , PERSON could not get an appointment DATE . She waited for the applicant in the corridor after work and explained the situation to her . The applicant allegedly told PERSON that it might be time - consuming to settle the matter , in particular because of the fact that PERSON ’s son had been born in GPE and his original birth certificate was not available . However , according to PERSON , the applicant agreed to help her to speed up the procedure with the higher authority , where she would need to pay CARDINAL to the official in charge .

According to the applicant ’s version of events , she did indeed have a late visitor in the corridor DATE , whom she advised to come back during TIME , with no further exchange taking place .

On DATE made a written statement to the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Police that the applicant had asked for a bribe of ORG CARDINAL to speed up the passport issuance procedure . PERSON confirmed that she was aware of the criminal liability for knowingly making a false report about a crime . According to the police records , the above statement was made at TIME However , as subsequently established ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that was an error and the actual time of the statement was QUANTITY

M. provided the police with a banknote of CARDINAL , CARDINAL banknotes of ORG and CARDINAL of CARDINAL . A detective officer put a special luminescent fluid on the banknotes and returned them to LOC That act took place in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses and was documented in a report . It is not known why it was decided to mark the additional banknotes , not only the ORG CARDINAL note .

At TIME on DATE entered the applicant ’s office and emerged TIME , indicating to the investigator and the attesting witnesses that she had given the CARDINAL banknote to the applicant . As it was the end of the working day , the applicant locked her office and began to leave . However , the investigator stopped her and suggested she return to her office , which they did together in the presence of the CARDINAL attesting witnesses . The investigator asked the applicant whether she had received any money from PERSON She stated that she had and took the banknote from her purse . The police officer then checked the applicant ’s hands with a special device and found traces of the luminescent liquid . They were wiped off with cotton pads , which were then packed and sealed as material evidence . Such traces were also found on the banknote of ORG CARDINAL in the applicant ’s purse and on the purse itself . Lastly , several passports and other papers with various banknotes inserted , varying from CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ( equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) to ORG CARDINAL ( equal to about EUR CARDINAL ) , were found in the applicant ’s bag and were seized . The investigator drew up an inspection and seizure report . The serial number of the CARDINAL banknote seized from the applicant , as indicated in the report , differed by CARDINAL letter ( out of CARDINAL characters ) from the one noted in the report on marking the bill with the luminescent fluid drawn up DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The applicant wrote an explanation , stating that she had indeed taken MONEY from PERSON , which she had intended to pay to an unspecified official at the local passport registration authority with a view to speeding up the issuance of the passport for PERSON ’s son . The applicant also stated that she had voluntarily complied with the police ’s request to give them the banknote in question . She noted that she had studied the inspection and seizure report and that she agreed with its contents . Lastly , she stated that she had no complaints against the police and that she regretted her actions .

Also on DATE , following the police operation , the investigator collected “ explanations ” from PERSON and the attesting witnesses . PERSON supplemented her initial statement to the police with further factual details ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Both attesting witnesses described the police operation which they had observed , as summarised in paragraphs CARDINAL above .

On DATE , during her questioning by the investigator , the applicant changed her account of the events as follows . On DATE , when she had been about to leave work at TIME , PERSON had entered the office . She had brought some documents in order to get a passport for her son . The applicant had informed her that certain documents were missing . The applicant had also clarified that she would be working in a different office from DATE , DATE . While collecting her papers and belongings before leaving , the applicant had noticed that PERSON had thrown something on the table and had run out of the office . The applicant had seen that it was a USD CARDINAL banknote . She had taken it and had tried to get an explanation from PERSON However , she had already left . When the applicant had looked out into the corridor , she had only seen a man waiting there . It was GPE , one of the attesting witnesses . Given that different people would be working in the office on the following working day and because she knew her manager was away , the applicant had decided to keep the banknote in order to return it to M. later .

Furthermore , the applicant explained that her initial statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been made in a state of shock and had not been truthful . Allegedly , the investigator had dictated the statement to her .

On DATE a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of incitement to bribery .

On DATE PERSON gave written explanations to ORG with her account of the events , which was the same as before ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant expressed a wish to be represented by the lawyer Zh . and the latter was admitted to the proceedings . When questioned in her lawyer ’s presence on DATE , the applicant admitted that on DATE she had hinted to PERSON that the examination of her application was likely to take time and that the applicant would be prepared to speed up the procedure before the higher authority , which she had not intended to do in reality . However , she had seen PERSON putting a USD CARDINAL banknote on the table and had decided to take advantage of the situation given her own financial difficulties . She explained the difference between her latest account and her earlier submissions by shock and stress , and expressed remorse for what had happened .

On DATE , DATE , PERSON was also questioned . As indicated in the report of the questioning , she was registered as living in GPE .

On DATE an expert report established that the traces of luminescent liquid on the USD CARDINAL banknote and on the applicant ’s hands were the same .

On DATE fraud was added to the charges against the applicant , given that she had promised to PERSON to act as an intermediary in bribing a higher - level official , whereas in reality she had meant to keep the money for herself .

On DATE formal charges were brought against the applicant and her status changed from being a suspect to an accused .

On DATE the applicant changed her lawyer . When questioned that day in the presence of her new lawyer ( PERSON ) , she returned to the account of events she had given on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . She submitted that she had stated differently in the presence of her previous lawyer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because she had “ considered it useless to prove [ her ] case and feared that nobody would believe [ her ] ” .

On DATE the investigator returned the USD CARDINAL banknote to PERSON , who wrote a receipt in confirmation . She also undertook to keep the banknote until the end of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG approved the bill of indictment against the applicant . It contained the following list of persons to be summoned to court : the applicant , the victim ( PERSON ) and the CARDINAL attesting witnesses ( PERSON and GPE .

On DATE ORG dropped the charge of incitement to bribery . It also ruled to relieve the applicant of criminal liability in respect of the fraud charge and terminated proceedings on that point on the grounds that she was not a danger to society ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant appealed , seeking the termination of the criminal proceedings against her owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in her actions . She denied asking for or receiving any money from PERSON and maintained that the latter had simply thrown the banknote on her table . Overall , the applicant considered “ everything that had happened to [ her ] as a provocation on the part of the law - enforcement authorities ” . She also complained that she had not been able to cross - examine M.

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed the above decision . It held that the first - instance court had not been entitled to terminate the proceedings in the way it had done without the applicant ’s consent . The appellate court also noted that the applicant ’s argument about her inability to cross - examine M. had not been examined . The case was remitted to the same first - instance court for fresh examination by a different panel .

ORG adjourned hearings in the case several times owing to the absence of PERSON and the CARDINAL attesting witnesses . On DATE it decided that it was impossible to complete its judicial investigation in their absence and ordered the police to ensure their attendance .

The police found out that PERSON had sold her house in GPE on an unspecified date in DATE and had moved to GPE , with her new address being unknown . PERSON had moved to a different city in GPE , but eventually attended CARDINAL of the hearings . The other attesting witness , T. , was always away from home when visited by the police and his neighbours had not seen him for some time . Eventually , the police located him and on DATE he made a written statement that he would appear at a hearing scheduled for DATE ( with no further details available ) .

As stated in a note issued by a clerk of ORG on DATE , the hearing scheduled for DATE was postponed to DATE given the judges’ involvement in a different case . It is not known whether there was a hearing on DATE . It is an established fact , however , that T. did not attend any of the hearings .

In DATE the applicant enquired with the Kharkiv ORG as to whether PERSON ’s son was registered there . On DATE she received a reply that he had appeared before that office in DATE and DATE , and that the army conscription commission had found him unfit for military service in peacetime by a decision of DATE . The son had not changed the place of his military registration . The applicant brought the above information to the knowledge of the trial court dealing with her case .

On DATE ORG once again ordered the police to ensure the presence of PERSON and the CARDINAL attesting witnesses at the trial .

On DATE it decided to continue the examination of the case in the absence of PERSON as it appeared impossible to establish her whereabouts . In reaching that conclusion , the court referred to the fact that she was no longer registered as being resident in the ORG region and that the police had information that she had emigrated to GPE . By the same ruling , ORG ordered the prosecution authorities to ensure the mandatory presence of T.

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of fraud and incitement to bribery and sentenced her to a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( then equivalent to LAW ) . Although the applicant pleaded innocent , the court considered her guilt to be proved by the totality of the evidence . It relied on the statements of PERSON , the aggrieved party , made during the pretrial investigation , and those of the attesting witnesses , made by PERSON before the court and by T. during the pre - trial investigation . The court stated that it had “ no grounds for questioning the credibility of the aggrieved party and the witnesses whose statements [ were ] corroborated by other objective [ ... ] evidence ” . The trial court also relied on the inspection and seizure report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the forensic expert examination report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The verdict noted that the applicant had initially confessed to the offences , but had later retracted her confession for no apparent reason other than an attempt to escape liability . Her initial statement was considered , however , more plausible .

On DATE the applicant appealed and on DATE she submitted further “ written explanations to [ her ] appeal ” . She complained , in particular , that her conviction had been based mainly on the statements of PERSON , who had never appeared before the court and whom the applicant had never been able to cross - examine . She argued that the first - instance court had not shown due diligence in finding and summoning PERSON The applicant also complained that ORG had wrongly relied on her initial confession , which had been dictated to her by the police before the institution of criminal proceedings against her .

The applicant did not refer in her appeal or in its supplement to her inability to examine ORG or to have him examined . At the same time , on DATE , she lodged a written application to the appellate court to summon T. given that he “ was an attesting witness ” and that he “ had made statements against [ the applicant ] ” .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . It considered that the applicant had initially made a confession of her own free will and that she had failed to give any convincing explanation about her subsequent change in position . Furthermore , the appellate court noted that the whereabouts of PERSON and T. could not be established . There were no reasons to question the veracity of the statements they had made during the pre - trial investigation . Nor were there any reasons to suspect any intention by them to falsely accuse the applicant . In sum , the appellate court did not discern any procedural flaws which warranted quashing the verdict .

The applicant appealed on points of law . She argued that the covert operation of DATE had been unlawful because it had not been duly authorised and had taken place in the absence of any criminal proceedings against her , even prior to the formal registration of PERSON ’s statement . The applicant also complained that her rights under LAW ( d ) of the LAW had been breached on account of her inability to cross - examine M. and T.

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law and upheld the lower courts’ decisions . Its general conclusion was that no violations of the law of criminal procedure had been established .

On DATE ORG opened a criminal case against the applicant for a failure to comply with the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant was placed under an undertaking not to leave her town of residence as a preventive measure pending trial .

In the absence of any formal charges against her , the preventive measure ceased to apply DATE , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , a fact of which the applicant was not aware . It is not known if there was any formal decision lifting the measure in question .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of the constituent elements of a crime in the applicant ’s actions . On DATE that decision was quashed and the case was returned for additional investigation . The case file does not contain any documents regarding the preventive measure then applicable to the applicant , if any .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant , who considered herself still bound by the undertaking not to leave her town of residence of CARDINAL DATE , requested leave to travel outside the ORG region from the investigator . On DATE the investigator sent her a letter stating that her request could not be granted because she had not provided any address or other details about the planned trip .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued again . However , DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant for lack of the constituent elements of a crime in her actions . It was concluded that she had not evaded paying the fine , but that it had been impossible for her to do so given her low income . By the same ruling , the preventive measure in respect of the applicant was lifted , without further details .

On DATE a new Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ the ORG ” ) entered into force . Instead of opening a criminal case , it provided for the initiation of an investigation by way of making an entry in ORG .

DATE . On DATE a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s failure to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was launched again and was registered in ORG . On an unspecified date the proceedings were discontinued . On DATE they were , however , resumed .

On DATE those proceedings were discontinued once again on the grounds that there were no constituent elements of a crime in the applicant ’s actions . The case file contains no information about any further developments .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim against ORG , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of her allegedly unlawful criminal prosecution from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . She enclosed copies of the CARDINAL rulings of those dates , by which the investigator had opened and had discontinued the criminal proceedings against her . The applicant also mentioned , in general terms , that she had been unlawfully placed under an undertaking not to leave her town , without further details .

The prosecutor submitted objections . He stated that on DATE the investigator dealing with the applicant ’s case had revoked the impugned preventive measure , given that no charges had been brought against her within DATE of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor also noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been reopened on DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) and remained pending .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim as unsubstantiated . As regards her undertaking not to leave the town , the court concluded that it had only been applicable from MONEY DATE .

The applicant appealed . She submitted , in particular , that “ the [ firstinstance ] court had not given any legal assessment to the fact that the criminal proceedings against [ her ] had been instituted on DATE and discontinued on CARDINAL DATE , and that all that time [ she ] had been under an undertaking not to abscond , which had been lifted by the ruling on the termination of the criminal proceedings of CARDINAL DATE , that being confirmed by [ the investigator ’s ] letter of CARDINAL DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant indicated in brackets the page number of the letter concerned in the case file . She further argued , in general terms , that the court had incorrectly interpreted Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that it had not calculated , as prescribed under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , an amount of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage to which she was entitled . The applicant did not enclose any documents with her appeal .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . It noted that the sole fact that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued did not imply that she had suffered non - pecuniary damage and she had failed to prove otherwise . The appellate court further observed that the applicant “ [ had ] not proved when exactly she had been placed under the undertaking not to leave the town as a preventive measure . Therefore , her submission that she had been restrained in her liberty of movement for DATE [ could ] not be taken into consideration ” .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , in which she indicated , in particular , that the applicability of the undertaking not to leave the town from DATE to CARDINAL DATE had been established by documents . She reiterated her earlier argument that no assessment had been given to the investigator ’s refusals of her requests for leave to travel outside the ORG region in DATE . This time the applicant enclosed a copy of the letter referred to .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers involved in the undercover operation of DATE . Her main argument was that PERSON ’s complaint had been registered only at TIME that day , which had been after the completion of the police operation and thus had undermined its lawfulness .

NORP The prosecution authorities refused to open a criminal case against the police on several occasions . It was established that PERSON ’s complaint had indeed been registered , by mistake , at TIME instead of TIME on DATE , for which the respective officer had been reprimanded . However , there was no indication of a criminal offence .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant ’s father owned a house with a yard and a garage in GPE .

Pursuant to a decision of the mayor issued on DATE , the property was expropriated for the purposes of constructing a residential building . The order , based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LOC and Urban Planning Act ( ORG за териториалното и селищно устройство – “ the ORG ” ) , provided that the applicant ’s father was to be compensated with a CARDINAL - room flat and a garage in a building which the municipality planned to construct .

In a supplementary decision of DATE , based on section CARDINAL of the PERSON , the mayor specified the exact location , size and other details in respect of the flat to be provided by way of compensation . As no mention was made of a garage , the applicant ’s father applied for judicial review of that decision . In a final judgment of DATE ORG found in his favour and referred the case back to the administrative authorities with instructions to specify the exact garage to be provided as compensation .

NORP In DATE the flat in question was constructed and handed over to the applicant ’s father .

After DATE the applicant ’s father filed numerous requests with the municipal authorities asking them to specify the exact garage to be given to him . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief architect of GPE informed him that no buildings with garages earmarked for the purpose of compensation were being constructed at the moment .

In DATE the applicant ’s father brought an action for damages under the ORG and ORG ( ORG за отговорността на държавата и общините за вреди ) for unlawful failure on the part of the GPE municipality to fulfill its obligations to build and provide him with a garage . The action was dismissed in a final judgment of DATE of ORG , on the grounds that no unlawful failure to act on the part of the authorities had been established .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant ’s father passed away . The applicant is his only heir .


Violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);Reopening of case (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant owned a flat in GPE situated on the third floor of a residential building , where he lived with his wife and CARDINAL children .

In DATE , DATE after he had bought the flat , the applicant ’s wife gave birth to their third child . The child was born with multiple physical and mental disabilities .

After the birth the child underwent a number of medical treatments and his condition was under the constant supervision of the competent social care services . In DATE an expert commission diagnosed him with incurable cerebral palsy , grave mental retardation and epilepsy . In DATE the social services declared the child PERCENT disabled .

In the meantime , in DATE , the applicant bought a house in GPE , and in DATE he sold his flat . According to the applicant , the reason for buying a house was the fact that the building in which his flat was situated had no lift and for that reason did not meet the needs of his disabled child and his family . In particular , it was very difficult to take his son out of the flat to see a doctor , or to take him for physiotherapy and to kindergarten or school , and to meet his other social needs .

On DATE , after he had bought the house in GPE , the applicant submitted a tax exemption request to the tax authorities . He relied on section PERSON ) of ORG , which provided for the possibility of tax exemption for a person who was buying a flat or a house in order to solve his or her housing needs , if he or she , or his or her family members , did not have another flat or house meeting their housing needs ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In his request the applicant argued that the flat which he owned did not meet the housing needs of his family since it was very difficult , and in fact becoming impossible , to take his disabled child out of the flat from the third floor without a lift , given that he was in a wheelchair . The applicant therefore submitted that he had bought the house in order to cater for his son ’s needs .

On DATE ORG ( ORG uprava , ORG ured GPE , GPE ) dismissed the applicant ’s request , giving the following reasons :

“ Section PERSON ) of ORG ... provides for tax exemption for citizens who are buying their first real property in order to meet their housing needs , under conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied , including the requirement that the taxpayer in question , or his or her family members , do not have another flat or a house meeting their housing needs . During the proceedings it was established that the taxpayer PERSON had owned a flat measuring QUANTITY , in GPE ... , which he had sold on DATE to ... Given that the surface of that real property , and in view of the number of the taxpayer ’s immediate family members ( CARDINAL ) , satisfied the housing needs of the taxpayer and his immediate family , within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of ORG , and given that it satisfied all housing needs in terms of hygiene and technical requirements as well as the basic infrastructure ( electricity , water and [ access to ] other public utilities ) , under LAW , the taxpayer does not meet the cumulative conditions provided under section PERSON ) of ORG . It was therefore decided as noted in the operative part [ of the decision ] . ”

ORG ordered the applicant to pay MONEY kunas ( HRK ; approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in tax .

The applicant appealed against the above decision to ORG ( PERSON , ORG služba za drugostupanjski upravni postupak ; hereafter , “ the Ministry ” ) , and on DATE the ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ Section PERSON ) of ORG , ORG . DATE ) provides for tax exemption for citizens who are buying their first real property in order to meet their housing needs . It further lays down conditions which the citizen must meet in order to demonstrate that he or she is buying his or her first real property in order to meet his or her housing needs . In this connection , CARDINAL of the conditions laid down under indent CARDINAL is that the citizen and the members of his or her immediate family must not have another real property ( flat or house ) meeting their housing needs ; and indent CARDINAL also provides that the citizen and the members of his or her immediate family must not own a flat , a holiday house , or property of a significant value ( other property of a significant value can include a piece of land where construction is allowed ) or a business premises where the citizen or his or her immediate family members do not exercise a registered [ business ] activity , whereby the value of the real property is similar to that of the real property ( flat or house ) which the citizen is purchasing .

Given the rationale of the cited provisions and the facts of the case as established beyond doubt during the proceedings , [ the Ministry ] considers that the first - instance authority was justified in rejecting the appellant ’s request for tax exemption ... The right to tax exemption exists if the citizen , or his or her immediate family members , at the time of purchase [ of the real property ] , do not own , or did not own , another real property meeting their housing needs or a flat , a holiday house or other real property of a significant value . As this is not the situation in the present case , given that the appellant , at the time of purchase [ of the house ] , owned a flat in GPE ... larger than the real property he was buying and in respect of which he sought tax exemption , it can not be said that by buying the house the appellant was purchasing his first real property in order to meet his housing needs . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG ( ORG upravni sud PERSON ) , arguing that in their decisions the lower bodies had ignored his specific family situation and , in particular , his child ’s disability and therefore the housing needs of his family . In the applicant ’s view , it was necessary to recognise that in his particular case the availability of a lift in the building was an infrastructural requirement on the same level as access to water and electricity in general . He also emphasised that the house was the first real property in respect of which he had sought a real property transfer tax exemption .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s administrative action as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower administrative bodies . The relevant part of the judgment reads :

“ Given that the surface area of the flat [ which the applicant owned ] satisfied the needs of CARDINAL members of the plaintiff ’s family ( provision CARDINAL ) and that the flat at issue was equipped with the basic infrastructure and hygiene and technical requirements , the defendant correctly concluded that the plaintiff , in the given case , did not meet the conditions for a tax exemption set out in section PERSON ) of ORG .

The arguments regarding the administrative action are ineffective in changing the decision in this administrative matter , and therefore the court considers that the impugned decision did not breach the law to the plaintiff ’s detriment . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) relying on LAW , contending , inter alia , that , given the specific accommodation needs of his family due to his child ’s disability , he had been discriminated against by unfair application of the relevant tax legislation . He argued , in particular , that the competent administrative authorities had failed to correct the factual inequality inherent in his particular situation with regard to the ordinary meaning of the term basic infrastructural requirements meeting the housing needs of his family .

On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasoning of the lower bodies , dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint as ill - founded on the grounds that there was no violation of his constitutional rights . In particular , having examined his complaints from the angle of the right to a fair trial , ORG held that no issue arose with regard to the other complaints relied upon by the applicant .

The decision of ORG was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

The Government provided a report by ORG and Youth ( ORG socijalne politike i ORG ) of DATE , according to which the applicant ’s child had been in receipt of DATE monetary allowances of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in the period DATE and DATE , and allowances of HRK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) from QUANTITY DATE . In addition , he had been involved in various therapeutic and social assistance activities , and for the period between CARDINAL June DATE and DATE the applicant ’s wife had been granted special status related to her child ’s disability and had received inter alia , DATE payments of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

According to the applicant , the DATE expenses relating to his son ’s special needs amounted to CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) . This included HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for physiotherapy , HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for speech therapy , HRK CARDINAL for a child neurologist , HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for drugs , HRK CARDINAL for a wheelchair ( with additional State support of HRK CARDINAL ) ; HRK CARDINAL for swimming therapy ; and HRK CARDINAL for DATE transport to the DATE - care centre for DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE at the time of the events .

The applicant was an independent journalist and worked as a reporter of the ORG newspaper in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) .

The applicant was the author of CARDINAL critical articles about the economic and political situation in the ORG published in the ORG newspaper in DATE and DATE . The articles , entitled “ Food has become considerably more expensive in GPE ( owing to PERSON “ care ” ) ” ( “ Naxçıvanda ərzaq xeyli bahalaşıb ( Vasif PERSON “ qayğısı ” sayəsində ) ” ) and “ Vasif Talibov rebuilds his native village ” ( “ Vasif GPE doğulduğu kəndi söküb yenidən tikdirir ” ) , related in particular to the activities of the Speaker of ORG , PERSON , who is also “ the supreme official of the FAC ” ( “ ORG ali vəzifəli şəxsi ” ) under LAW of DATE .

On DATE the applicant also met a reporter from ORG and helped him to prepare a report about the economic and political situation in GPE .

At TIME on DATE , when the applicant was in a café in the village of GPE in GPE , the head ( GPE ) of the district department of the ORG approached him . PERSON accused the applicant of publishing defamatory articles about the ORG , and ordered CARDINAL men in uniform to arrest him .

The applicant was taken to the LOC of the LAW in GPE by car . His mobile phone was taken away while he was being transported there . When they arrived at the MNS building PERSON told him to stop spreading misinformation about the ORG . He further ordered agents of the ORG to explain to the applicant “ the meaning of his activity as a reporter ” and left the room .

QUANTITY men then began to torture the applicant . They hit him repeatedly with truncheons , kicked him and punched him in the head . TIME , PERSON returned and asked the applicant whether he had “ grown wise ” . PERSON further ordered CARDINAL men to make the applicant “ understand his mistakes ” . The applicant was then subjected to further ill - treatment .

NORP The applicant was subsequently taken to the office of GPE who demanded that he become a member of the ruling political party ( ORG ) and to write defamatory articles about opposition leaders . The applicant refused to do so .

The applicant was released at TIME on DATE ; his mobile phone was returned to him . Before his release , PERSON told him that if he did not “ grow wise ” , he would be brought back to the ORG .

Following his release , the applicant immediately informed the ORG newspaper of his arrest . According to the applicant , his relatives also took photographs of the injuries on his body . However , he was unable to see a doctor immediately , because it was TIME .

The Government submitted that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was not arrested , detained or ill - treated , by agents of the MNS .

In TIME DATE , while the applicant was about to go and see a doctor , he was arrested by the police and taken to ORG .

The head of ORG , GPE , shouted at the applicant , demanding to know why he had informed the press of his arrest .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG , which sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention for obstructing the police . The applicant was not represented by a lawyer at the hearing . QUANTITY police officers testified against him . The applicant was not provided with a copy of the court decision .

At the request of the applicant , after the court hearing he was taken to ORG , where he was examined by a doctor who observed numerous bruises on his body . However , he was not provided with any medical record .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was approached by the police in the centre of the GPE , because he was using loud and abusive language in public . As the applicant did not comply with the police request to stop his unlawful action , an administrative offence report was drawn up and he was taken to the police station . It appears from the report that the applicant refused to sign it . The relevant part of the report of DATE provides as follows :

“ On DATE PERSON did not comply with the lawful request of the police , and continued to shout and use insulting language in the centre of the GPE . ”

On DATE the GPE ORG found the applicant guilty under LAW obstructing the police ) of LAW , and sentenced him to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention . It was specified in the decision that it could be appealed against within DATE of its receipt . The relevant part of the decision of DATE provides as follows :

“ Assessing the evidence at its disposal , the court concludes that the fact that PERSON [ the applicant ] committed the above - mentioned administrative offence is proved by his confession and the statements of witnesses heard in connection with the case .

The court qualifies the administrative offence committed by PERSON under LAW . Therefore , he must be found guilty under this article and must be punished . ”

The Government produced a receipt confirming that the applicant had received a copy of the court decision at TIME on DATE . The receipt was dated DATE and signed by the applicant .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to detention facility no . CARDINAL to serve his sentence .

During his detention the applicant was deprived of food and water . He was not provided with any bedding and was forced to spend TIME outside on a concrete walkway . The applicants’ hands were handcuffed at all times and due to the detention facility ’s proximity to LOC , he suffered badly from mosquito bites .

At TIME on DATE , the Minister of National Security of the ORG arrived at the detention facility with CARDINAL other men . They appeared to be drunk . The Minister insulted the applicant and then all of them beat him .

The Government submitted that there was no detention facility no . CARDINAL in the ORG and the applicant was detained in the temporary detention facility of ORG of the ORG .

The applicant was detained alone in a cell which was QUANTITY high , QUANTITY long , and QUANTITY wide . The cell was adequately lit and ventilated . The applicant was provided with a separate bed and bedding , as well as with other necessities . In support of their account of the conditions , the Government produced photographs of the detention facility in question and the cell in which the applicant was held .

The Government also produced a medical record dated DATE from the doctor on duty at the detention facility at the time . According to the medical record , at TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by the doctor and “ no pathology was revealed ” ( heç bir patalogiya aşkar edilmədi ) . The medical record of DATE provides as follows :

“ Examination by the doctor on duty :

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL PERSON accompanied by CARDINAL police officers came to the admission department for examination . During the examination of the citizen , no pathology was revealed . The blood pressure was CARDINAL/CARDINAL PERSON . Practically healthy ( praktiki sağlam ) . The doctor on duty : GPE ”

Following the applicant ’s administrative detention , various NORP and international human rights organisations asked the NORP authorities for the applicant ’s release . In particular , on CARDINAL DATE Reporters Without Borders submitted a request to the NORP authorities to stop the applicant ’s harassment because of his journalistic activities and to order his release . In respect of the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment by agents of the MNS on DATE , the request reads :

“ DATE before his arrest , PERSON was forced into a car by national security ministry agents and held DATE in a ministry building where , according to Reporters Without Borders’ sources , he was beaten because of his reports about gas and electricity problems in the region . ”

On DATE ORG also called upon the NORP authorities to stop the applicant ’s harassment because of his journalistic activities and to carry out a thorough investigation in this respect . The applicant ’s alleged illtreatment by agents of the MNS on DATE and his administrative detention were also covered by the NORP media .

On DATE the applicant was released from administrative detention . No official reason was given for his early release from detention .

According to the applicant , after his release from detention , he was treated in ORG , however all the medical institutions refused to give him an official medical certificate . The doctor who examined the applicant told him that his seventh rib was broken . In support of his claim , the applicant relied on a medical record dated DATE in which the doctor indicated that an X - ray examination of the applicant ’s seventh rib had been carried out , without providing further information . Although the name of the doctor appeared on the medical record , it was not signed or stamped and there was no information about the medical establishment in which the examination was carried out . The medical record of DATE provides as follows :

“ PERSON ; born in DATE in GPE ;

X - ray examination of the ribcage and the seventh left side rib in the back armpit ( sol yeddinci qabırğasının arxa qoltuqaltı ) . ”

Relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention , on DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG asking for the institution of a criminal investigation . He submitted the same factual information as what he submitted to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) i.e. that at TIME on DATE he had been arrested , at the request of the head ( MONEY ) of the district department of the MNS , in a café in the village of GPE in GPE by agents of the ORG , and had been taken to the LOC of the LAW in GPE . Once there PERSON demanded that he stop spreading misinformation about the ORG . He further ordered the agents of the ORG to explain to the applicant “ the meaning of his activity as a reporter ” and left the room . CARDINAL men then began to torture him . They hit him repeatedly with truncheons , kicked him and punched him in the head . TIME , PERSON returned and asked him whether he had “ grown wise ” . PERSON further ordered the CARDINAL men to make him “ understand his mistakes ” . He was then subjected to further ill - treatment and was only released at TIME on DATE . Before his release , PERSON told him that , if he did not “ grow wise ” , he would be brought back to the ORG .

The applicant sent his complaint by recorded delivery and it appears from the postal document submitted to the ORG that ORG received it on DATE .

The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaint .

On DATE the applicant lodged the same complaint with ORG , ORG and the ORG . The applicant produced postal documents confirming that the letters had been sent to the above - mentioned authorities .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that it had forwarded his complaint to ORG for examination .

On DATE the applicant re - submitted the same complaint to ORG by recorded delivery . The applicant produced a postal document confirming the receipt of his letter by ORG .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the applicant that it had forwarded his complaint to the Minister of ORG of the FAC for examination .

No action was taken in respect of the applicant ’s above - mentioned complaints .

NORP On DATE the applicant lodged an action with ORG in accordance with the procedure established by Articles CARDINAL of LAW concerning appeals against actions and decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities . Relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention , he reiterated his previous complaints and asked the court to declare unlawful the prosecuting authorities’ failure to examine his complaint .

The applicant did not receive any reply from ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , reiterating his previous complaints . He further complained that ORG had failed to examine his complaint concerning the prosecuting authorities’ inaction .

In the meantime , the applicant sent the same complaint to ORG , complaining that ORG had failed to examine his complaint . By a letter of DATE ORG forwarded the applicant ’s complaint to ORG for examination .

By a letter of DATE , ORG of the ORG informed the applicant that his complaint could not be examined by it because , as an appellate court , it examined appeals only against firstinstance courts’ decisions .

On DATE the applicant made representations to ORG , stating that ORG had failed to examine his complaint .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG forwarded the applicant ’s complaint to ORG , asking the court to examine the complaint and to take necessary measures . ORG further asked ORG to inform the applicant about the result of the examination .

On DATE the applicant applied again to ORG , arguing that , despite its letter of CARDINAL DATE sent to ORG , he had not been informed of any decision taken by ORG .

By a letter of DATE , ORG forwarded the applicant ’s complaint to ORG . ORG letter of DATE was identical in wording to its letter of CARDINAL DATE .

DATE . On DATE and on DATE the applicant sent further letters to ORG , reiterating his previous complaints .

The applicant did not receive any response from ORG .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Angelika Nußberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , ORG region , GPE .

On DATE at TIME the applicant ’s wife , while riding a bicycle , was hit by a car and died on the spot .

On DATE police examined the accident spot in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON and PERSON ( both inhabitants of GPE who arrived at the spot after the accident ) and the accident sketch map was drawn . The driver of the car , PERSON , was questioned . He testified that he had been temporarily blinded by the long - distance headlights of an approaching car . After that he saw a bicycle rider QUANTITY in front of his car . He did not brake and his car hit the bicycle . Similar testimonies were given by the car passenger , S. The driver also underwent a test for the blood alcohol and drugs level .

On DATE a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicant ’s wife ’s death had been caused by a basal skull fracture .

On DATE criminal proceedings into the accident were instituted by ORG ( GPE районний відділ PERSON внутрішніх справ України в Черкаській області ) for an alleged breach of traffic rules which caused a person ’s death ( Article CARDINAL paragraph QUANTITY of LAW ) . On DATE an investigation officer requested the head of ORG to order a search for the accident witnesses , if any .

On DATE the applicant was recognised as a victim in the above criminal proceedings .

On DATE a police officer informed the head of ORG that it was impossible to identify witnesses who could have seen the accident .

On DATE a reconstruction of events was carried out and a decision to perform an auto - technical forensic examination was adopted . The expert was requested to determine interposition of the car and the bicycle at the moment of collision , whether the driver had had a technical possibility to avoid the collision and whether the driver and the bicycle rider had breached the traffic rules .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim within the criminal proceedings .

On DATE an expert concluded that the applicant ’s wife had breached the traffic rules when riding a bicycle since there had been no lights and light reflectors on the bicycle and that the car driver had had no technical possibility of avoiding the accident .

On DATE the proceedings were terminated for absence of evidence of a crime .

On DATE ORG ( прокуратура GPE району ORG області ) quashed this decision and remitted the case for additional investigation . A prosecutor instructed the head of the police investigation department in charge of the investigation to perform numerous additional investigation actions . It was noted , inter alia , that the questioning of P. and S. had been superficial , a number of details had not been clarified , the witnesses of the accident had not been properly sought , and the reconstruction of events had been conducted improperly . There were significant corrections on the accident sketch map and there was contradictory evidence in the case - file materials . It was also noted that “ the expert conclusion was based actually on the testimonies of P. and PERSON Consequently , another auto - technical forensic examination should be performed and an expert should be provided with objectively received data . It was also noted that an investigation officer should verify the facts and circumstances indicated by the applicant in his complaints .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant , in reply to his complaint to ORG , that the investigation had been indeed protracted and there were disciplinary proceedings against CARDINAL investigation police officers pending . The district prosecutor ordered to accelerate the proceedings .

In DATE P. and S. were again questioned and in DATE several other witnesses were questioned ( PERSON , PERSON and the persons who stopped at the spot after the accident ) . On DATE the reconstruction of events was conducted . It was established that after passing an on - coming car the bicycle had become visible to the car driver and at that moment the distance to the bicycle had been QUANTITY .

On DATE a decision was taken to conduct an auto - technical forensic examination . The expert was requested to give an opinion , inter alia , on how the driver should have acted in the circumstances and whether he had had a possibility of avoiding the collision . On DATE the expert concluded that P. had had no technical possibility of avoiding the collision . It was not safe to overtake the bicycle rider “ since the collision had happened when PERSON had been passing an on - coming car ” . An expert indicated that , according to the circumstances of the accident described by an investigation officer , there had been no breach of the traffic rules by the car driver which could have provoked the accident . The expert also separately noted that the reconstruction of events of CARDINAL DATE had been performed with a breach of procedure .

On DATE the proceedings were terminated for the absence of evidence of a crime .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG of GPE ( PERSON внутрішніх справ PERSON області ) informed the applicant , inter alia , that the investigation officer , PERSON , in charge of the case , had been disciplinarily sanctioned for protracting the proceedings .

On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed by ORG and the case was remitted for additional investigation . It was noted that more witnesses should be questioned , a police officer should be questioned about the corrections on the accident sketch map , a reconstruction of events should be conducted , if necessary , but with the assistance of a traffic specialist .

On DATE the proceedings were stayed since “ it was impossible to establish the guilt of the person who caused the collision with the applicant ’s wife ” . By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant , however , that a forensic automobile technical examination was pending in his case .

In DATE the case was transferred to another investigation officer . On DATE a decision similar to the CARDINAL of DATE was adopted .

On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed by ORG . It was noted , inter alia , that a number of witnesses had to be questioned , a reconstruction of events should be conducted and the police officers should be questioned about corrections on the accident sketch map .

On DATE , however , an investigation officer of ORG again terminated the proceedings for the absence of evidence of a crime .

On DATE this decision was quashed by ORG and the case was remitted for additional investigation . It was noted that the instructions of the prosecutor ’s office issued on DATE and DATE had to be complied with .

On DATE an auto - technical forensic examination was ordered .

On DATE an expert concluded that it was impossible to answer the questions about a possibility for P. of having avoided a collision and whether P. had breached the traffic rules that had resulted in a traffic accident . The expert noted that the reconstruction of events of CARDINAL DATE had been conducted with a breach of procedure therefore the obtained data could not be used for an expert conclusion . The expert , however , noted that the applicant ’s wife had breached the traffic rules since there had been no lights on her bicycle and that had caused the collision .

On DATE an investigation officer , referring to the above expert conclusion , terminated the proceedings in the case .

On DATE and DATE the applicant brought CARDINAL claims for damages against P. On DATE and DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims for procedural shortcomings . The applicant neither appealed against these decisions nor submitted new claims in compliance with procedural requirements .

On DATE the applicant took part in the local elections as a candidate for the position of the head of the village territorial community and came second with CARDINAL votes less . On DATE ORG invalidated the results of the elections . On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE and rejected the applicant ’s complaint that some of the voters had been prevented from voting . On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation as the decision of DATE was not subject to appeal .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE legally on a visa valid for DATE .

On DATE the applicant , who had been living in GPE since DATE , was taken into police custody while he was at GPE FAC . He made a statement to the airport police on DATE . According to the document containing his statement , the applicant was informed that he was suspected of lacking a valid identity document and of illegal entry into GPE . He was kept in detention at the airport police station for DATE .

On DATE the applicant was sent to PERSON Removal Centre . According to the applicant ’s account , the centre was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention , which resulted in hygiene problems . The building was infested with insects and the quality and quantity of the food was also fairly poor . Moreover , there was no provision for outdoor exercise .

On DATE the applicant applied for release to ORG . The court decided on DATE that it did not have jurisdiction as the applicant had not been detained within the scope of a criminal investigation . The court therefore ruled that any request had to be brought before the administrative courts .

On an unspecified date the applicant made an asylum claim to ORG and lodged an application for refugee status with ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in the province of GPE as an asylum - seeker and was released from ORG on DATE .

According to information provided by his representative on CARDINAL January DATE , a deportation order was issued in respect of the applicant on an unspecified date in DATE . He has been detained at ORG since DATE with a view to his expulsion . The domestic proceedings brought by the applicant against the deportation order and the applicant ’s application to the ORG for refugee status are still ongoing .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

The applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE in the following cells :

The parties disagreed on the design capacity of the cells and the actual number of inmates .

The first applicant , relying on CARDINAL hand - written statements from his co - detainees , submitted that Cell CARDINAL had contained CARDINAL - tier bunk beds with metal sheets welded to beds on the upper and lower levels to create additional sleeping places . Cell CARDINAL was used to accommodate TIME twenty prisoners . Cell CARDINAL contained CARDINAL - tier bunk beds and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners .

The Government submitted that the number of prisoners in the cells had not exceeded the occupancy limit . Cell CARDINAL had CARDINAL sleeping places , Cell CARDINAL four places and Cell CARDINAL two places . They submitted selected pages from the prison registration log . All of these pages , except CARDINAL dated DATE , indicate that Cell DATE was designed for CARDINAL persons and accommodated as many prisoners . The number “ CARDINAL ” appears to be written over a different number that was erased . The entry of DATE indicated that Cell CARDINAL was designed for QUANTITY persons and accommodated QUANTITY prisoners . Similarly , the entries in respect of Cell CARDINAL show traces of erasures and alterations . Its design capacity is listed as CARDINAL or CARDINAL places and the actual population is always CARDINAL prisoners .

The second applicant was born in DATE and has been serving his term of imprisonment in GPE , GPE .

DATE and DATE the second applicant was held in remand prison PERSON in GPE . According to him , the facility was overcrowded . In particular , Cell CARDINAL measuring CARDINAL sq . m accommodated up to CARDINAL inmates .

According to the Government , the second applicant was held in cells CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL . The actual number of inmates detained in the cells did not exceed their designed capacity . Each inmate had CARDINAL sq . m of personal space . Other conditions were satisfactory . The Government submitted selected pages from registration logs , some of which appears to contain erasures and alterations in the fields showing the number of inmates in Cell CARDINAL . On some pages the listed total number of inmates is CARDINAL less than the number produced by adding up the population of individual cells .


CASE OF VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

NORP The applicant company is a limited liability company based in GPE . It is the owner and publisher of the DATE news magazine ORG .

Until DATE LAW ) owned PERCENT of the shares of ORG . DATE until DATE a man called Mr. PERSON was in charge of the treasury department of the bank . In that capacity he was responsible for authorising foreign currency transactions . He was answerable only to the bank ’s executive board , which consisted of CARDINAL members . While Mr. PERSON was head of the treasury department , his father , who had been a regional government member responsible for finance until DATE , was also on the bank ’s supervisory board . The father had that position until DATE .

At DATE the bank ’s executive board informed ORG ( ORG , “ the FMA ” ) that the bank had financial difficulties . On DATE the executive board held a meeting with the executive board of the FMA and informed it that the bank had made a loss of MONEY in DATE . Mr PERSON , the chief executive of the bank , informed the FMA that the treasury department had gone over its internal transaction limit of MONEY ( ORG ) by ORG CARDINAL .

DATE a number of DATE newspapers published reports on the investigation and mentioned Mr PERSON by name as responsible for the speculative transactions in question . Among those articles was one by newspaper ORG published on DATE ( see ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

On DATE the ORG filed criminal information ( PERSON ) about offences committed in relation to the business of ORG against the CARDINAL members of the executive board and PERSON , accusing them of embezzlement by investing money entrusted to the bank contrary to the instructions of the executive board . In substance , the ORG alleged that Mr PERSON had authorised highly speculative transactions with foreign currency derivatives ( swaps ) , disregarding instructions by the executive board .

In its issue of DATE , the applicant company published an article on the investigations into the heavy losses incurred by ORG . The front cover of ORG had the words : “ PERSON – PERSON ” ( “ Carinthian Hypo affair - How much did PERSON know ? ” ) .

The article , headlined “ Schwere GPE ” ( “ ORG ” ) , ran to CARDINAL pages . It reported on the enormous loss of ORG CARDINAL incurred by ORG in DATE , the question of who was responsible for the damage and whether there were failings in the bank ’s risk management . It accused the bank ’s executive board of failing to give information to the supervisory board , the bank ’s accountants and the ORG , and of trying instead to hush up the losses by manipulating the balance sheets for DATE , which meant that the full extent of the damage was only discovered by external accountants when examining the balance sheets for DATE . The accountants had then informed the FMA . Furthermore , the article featured an interview with Mr PERSON , confronting him with those accusations . Mr PERSON was quoted as accusing Mr PERSON of having disregarded internal guidelines in his foreign currency transactions .

The relevant passages of the article read as follows :

“ By the time the warning system was triggered the disaster had long since run its course . On DATE the risk management and control software programme in the head offices of ORG in GPE showed , in all the relevant departments of the bank , exactly the kind of figures which bring managers of credit institutions out in a cold sweat : staggering losses on investment operations . In the treasury division , which manages the bank ’s liquidity and for that purpose trades , among other things , in interest rates and currencies , there was a shortfall of MONEY . ‘ At that point we immediately called a ORG said CEO PERSON . However , as several similar operations were in progress simultaneously , it was impossible ‘ to close the floodgates at once’ . When that was eventually done , the losses stood at MONEY , several times higher than the self - imposed threshold of CARDINAL .

ORG manager PERSON , who was responsible for authorising the transactions , was immediately told to clear his desk . ( This son of the former ORG regional finance chief PERSON was not available for comment ) . However , the consequences of the orgy of speculation , which lasted DATE , continue to preoccupy the bank ’s management . And they are not the only ones : in particular , the manner in which PERSON and his colleagues dealt with the loss - making transactions has also come to the attention of the authorities in DATE . DATE the financial markets supervisory authority ( the FMA ) even saw fit to lodge a criminal complaint against the entire executive board . PERSON is the object of a preliminary enquiries [ FAC ] ( file no . CARDINAL St DATE ) before ORG on suspicion of embezzlement . The executive board faces charges of misrepresenting the end - of - DATE accounts , in other words , falsifying the balance sheets .

The transactions in question were all performed DATE and DATE . According to Hypo boss PERSON , DATE in breach of internal regulations – gambled , by means of so - called swaps , on the occurrence of a highly explosive combination of CARDINAL trends on the financial markets : on the one hand a fall in interest rates and on the other a rise in the dollar and the yen against the euro . DATE , on DATE , the perfect storm hit .

Lack of controls . Rapid rates of growth motivate not just the boss , but also the employees – including the now ex - treasury manager PERSON . According to inside sources , PERSON may have set the stakes so high precisely because he wanted to make his mark as a candidate for the vacant post of department manager . After all , high stakes mean correspondingly high profits if all goes according to plan . A marked surplus on his account would undoubtedly have boosted his chances of securing the post . ”

The article continued with an overview of the history of ORG , which had gone from being a regional bank to an international investment bank in the space of DATE . The article looked at previous business transactions which had resulted in risks and losses for the bank and the conduct of the executive board . Finally , the article examined the relationship between the bank ’s management and local politicians and asked how much Mr PERSON , the then regional governor of PERSON , knew of the losses , and when he had found out about them . It noted that the Land of PERSON owned PERCENT of the bank and that funds from the bank had financed a number of political projects in the region , in particular Mr PERSON ’s Future Fund ( GPE ) , designed to fund infrastructure and other large - scale projects .

On DATE Mr Rauscher brought proceedings against the applicant company for disclosing his identity in breach of section CARDINAL of LAW ( Mediengesetz ) . He submitted that he was not a public figure and that his position at the bank had not been such as to justify the disclosure of his name . He asserted that when authorising the transactions at issue he had acted in accordance with his instructions and with the approval of his superiors . The publication of his name had had negative repercussions on his professional advancement and had not been justified by any public interest .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON für PERSON ) dismissed Mr PERSON ’s action . It found that the following facts had been established : the article had provided a comprehensive report on the losses of ORG . At the time the article had been published , ORG had owned PERCENT of the bank . The claimant ’s father had been a regional government member responsible for finances and had also been on the bank ’s supervisory board until DATE . The claimant had been the head of the bank ’s treasury department since DATE . He had not been active in politics nor had he been in the public eye in connection with his professional activity . ORG noted that the task of a bank ’s treasury department was to carry out liquidity and finance planning for the bank . PERSON treasury department had been directly answerable to the executive board . The transactions which had subsequently led to such enormous losses had been carried out DATE and DATE and the claimant had been the main person in charge . On DATE the FMA had sent information to the GPE public prosecutor ’s office on CARDINAL members of the executive board , who were suspected of manipulating the bank ’s balance sheets , and on the claimant who was suspected of embezzlement for carrying out unauthorised foreign currency transactions . Following receipt of that information the public prosecutor ’s office had started preliminary enquiries . From DATE preliminary investigations ( Voruntersuchung ) had been conducted by ORG . Criminal proceedings against the claimant had been discontinued in DATE . After accusations against the claimant had been published in various media , his employment contract had been terminated . He had not been able to find a similar position in another bank .

ORG noted that section ORG ( CARDINAL ) of LAW required a weighing of the claimant ’s interest in the protection of his identity and the public interest in its disclosure . As a rule , adults who were suspected of having committed a crime were only protected against the disclosure of their identity if such disclosure disproportionately affected their professional advancement .

It observed that at the material time the Land of LOC owned PERCENT of ORG . That fact alone demonstrated an increased public interest as the taxpayer had a right to know who was responsible for the bank ’s losses . The applicant had been a senior employee at the bank , and had been suspected of embezzlement . Although the criminal proceedings had still been at an early stage , ORG , the competent controlling authority , had laid criminal information against the claimant . Moreover , the chief executive of the bank , Mr PERSON , had levelled of obtaining information outweighed the claimant ’s interest in not having his name disclosed .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) granted an appeal by the claimant , declared that the disclosure of his identity in the article had violated his rights and ordered the applicant company to pay him ORG MONEY in compensation and to reimburse his procedural costs .

ORG found that ORG conclusion had been wrong after it had weighed the conflicting interests at issue . It shared the view of ORG that there was a public interest in knowing who was responsible for ORG losses due to the fact that the Land owned PERCENT of the bank . However , the article should have confined itself to mentioning the head of the bank ’s treasury department without disclosing his name . The public interest in reporting on the criminal offences at issue had not in itself been sufficient to justify disclosing the claimant ’s identity . The fact that the claimant had been answerable to the executive board , although he had an important position in the bank , and that the criminal proceedings against him had been at an early stage , meant that the claimant ’s interest in protecting his identity outweighed the public interest in the disclosure of his name .

The applicant company lodged an application under LAW of LAW ( GPE ) with ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) . It submitted in particular that ORG judgment had violated LAW as there had been an overriding public interest in what it had reported , including the disclosure of PERSON identity .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company ’s application . It examined in detail the reasons given by ORG . Referring to the ORG ’s findings in “ ORG ” ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , ORG found that the appeal court had correctly weighed the conflicting interests of the claimant under LAW one hand and of the applicant company under LAW other , especially because of the early stage of the criminal proceedings against the claimant .

ORG judgment was served on the applicant company ’s counsel on DATE .