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

Aleš Pejchal;András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE . She is currently detained in Forest - Berkendael Prison .

On DATE the applicant married PERSON , whom she divorced after the events to which the application relates . According to her explanations , since DATE PERSON had been living with Dr GPE , a man DATE his elder , who had taken him in following PERSON ’s arrival from GPE , providing him with a home and paying for his studies .

The applicant and her husband had CARDINAL children . In DATE , shortly after the birth of her first child , the applicant began suffering from depression and stopped working as a NORP and history teacher , only returning for DATE . Dr PERSON certified her unfit for work on account of depression and asthenia . Subsequently , her insurance company ’s medical adviser confirmed that she was unfit for work on account of depression . In DATE a report by a court - appointed psychiatrist , which was later endorsed by ORG , diagnosed her as suffering from “ recurrent endogenous anxiety and depression , with a slightly destabilised basic personality ” , rendering her PERCENT unfit for work . The expert concluded as follows :

“ ... social contact feeds a sense of persecution and interpretative paranoia . The patient is socially withdrawn and has a tendency to retreat into herself . When faced with anxiety - inducing situations , the patient regresses emotionally , retreats into herself and takes refuge in passive - receptive and hypochondriac behaviour . On account of her intrinsic sensitivity , her anxiety may be combined with reactive depression . To conclude , we are confronted with a fragile , sensitive and anxious personality , with feelings of abandonment and phobic and obsessional components , who is likely , in situations of anxiety , to regress emotionally , to withdraw into herself and to develop various manifestations of anxiety , persecution and depression . ”

NORP The applicant and PERSON lived in a house which had been bought in their name but paid for by PERSON The applicant ’s husband worked part - time as PERSON administrative assistant .

On DATE , on the recommendation of PERSON , who was her general practitioner , the applicant consulted a psychiatrist , GPE , who prescribed an antidepressant , sleeping tablets and anti - anxiety medication . PERSON , who had suggested that the applicant undergo psychiatric monitoring , saw her again on DATE , among other occasions , and wrote to PERSON recommending that he prescribe her a new antidepressant , as well as sleeping tablets and anti - anxiety medication . The applicant consulted PERSON once DATE and DATE . The latter noted that the applicant appeared to be “ always very tense and suffering from nervous exhaustion , constituting all the hallmarks of rumination ” and that she showed “ symptoms of social withdrawal and abnormal exhaustion during household tasks ” . In DATE the applicant reported to ORG that she felt isolated from her own family . From September CARDINAL she saw him every three weeks . In DATE D.V. successively prescribed the applicant CARDINAL types of sleeping tablets . On DATE she linked her exhaustion to the fact that she could not bear Dr PERSON ’s presence , and on that occasion GPE noted “ a feeling of dependence ” on GPE financially , “ a feeling of insecurity ” and “ a feeling towards that person [ PERSON ] which was CARDINAL of intrusion , of having an unwelcome person under her roof , and also a great deal of ambivalence ” .

Dr D.V. saw the applicant again on DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . On the last - mentioned date the applicant wrote him a letter , which read :

“ Doctor , I do n’t feel very well when I wake up , I have trouble getting out of bed and I have stomach cramps . I have to get up though because I have diarrhoea TIME . I have this big knot . The whole of my left arm is frozen . I feel so sad , deeply sad . I can no longer manage a coffee in TIME . I feel very weak and lacking energy . I am afraid all the time . I am afraid of myself . I am afraid of the future . When I walk down the street , I am afraid . I do n’t have the courage . I do n’t know where to find the courage and I am tired of it all . I do n’t want to believe in a better future . I am at a dead end . I have been to a shop . I went to see if they had a very sharp meat knife . I do n’t know how I am going to tell my husband all this , that I do n’t feel well and that I have always kept it hidden that I felt so bad about myself and in my head and that I was taking medication . Please do something for me . I am being crushed by a mass of bad feelings . I have never felt so vulnerable . I feel unwell during TIME . I often wake up and think . PERSON ... ”

NORP In DATE the applicant mentioned sharp knives to GPE on CARDINAL or CARDINAL occasions . GPE interpreted this as “ an impulse phobia ” . He saw her again on DATE , noting that the applicant remained “ extremely preoccupied as well , in the absence of her husband who [ had ] gone to GPE again , and [ found ] herself having to deal alone with her uneasy feelings towards [ GPE ] ” .

Early in the morning of CARDINAL DATE , DATE before the incident , the applicant went to PERSON practice and delivered a second letter which she had just written . The letter read as follows :

“ Dr [ ORG ] , you do n’t have much time . I have not felt well DATE . I ’m having dark thoughts . They are suicidal thoughts which are going to carry me away and I will take my children with me . It ’s a DATE struggle . My friend [ V.G. ] is supporting me . There is no solution to my problem . I feel walled up . I feel like a prisoner . I no longer have the strength . I do n’t think my husband will save me because whichever way you look at it , he is in a favourable position . He is coming home DATE TIME but I ca n’t tell him of all my pain and distress . The family situation can not be turned around . I have already had suicidal thoughts in the past . I imagine scenarios which are both true and realistic and I know I am capable . This is not a game . Sorry to take up your time ! PERSON ... ”

DATE , in the early afternoon , the applicant telephoned Dr ORG practice to check that her letter had actually been received .

The applicant ’s letters addressed to PERSON dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE were not included in the file on the criminal investigation . ORG indicated that they had not formed part of the applicant ’s medical records .

On DATE the applicant left a final letter , together with a bag of jewellery , in the letterbox of her friend and confidante PERSON The letter read as follows :

“ My dear friend [ ORG ] ,

I have cut off my phone and I am now starting to write this letter .

I hope you will not be shocked by what I ’m going to write .

You must show it to [ Dr D.V. ] who will be at Érasme [ hospital ] on DATE TIME at CARDINAL . He will be able to help you and explain what you explained to me so kindly when you came to my house . I do n’t have the courage to get things moving and I am completely frozen and paralysed with fear because there is no solution to my problem . You have always opened your door to me and my children and have been a ray of sunshine in our life , and I will thank you forever . I have decided to go a long way away with the children forever . DATE , you ’ll see , we ’ll meet again but I do n’t regret this final solution .

Please let my sister Mireille ... and my other sister PERSON ... know . Please forgive me . I beg my sisters to forgive me if I have hurt them . I can no longer bear this situation , because my husband is blind and deaf and despite that , he is happy in this situation .

[ GPE ] is a bastard who has ruined my life and robbed me of my privacy with my husband and children . I left the hell of my GPE home only to fall into another hell . ... ”

The applicant ended her letter by asking her friend to share her jewellery with her CARDINAL sisters . She also left a voicemail message on ORG ’s mobile phone – in a voice which the investigating officers later described as “ trembling ” and “ hesitant ” – telling V.G. that she had left a letter and a present in her letterbox and asking to be “ forgiven ” , before saying “ goodbye ” .

Afterwards , using CARDINAL knives which she had stolen from a department store , the applicant killed her CARDINAL children CARDINAL by CARDINAL before attempting suicide .

After writing the message “ call the police ” on a sheet of paper stuck to her front door , she telephoned the emergency services to say that she had killed her CARDINAL children and to report her suicide attempt . When the police , the ambulance crew and the medical services arrived at the scene , they found the applicant , who was injured , and the bodies of the CARDINAL children with their throats slit .

When the applicant was admitted to the intensive - care unit on DATE of the incident , the doctor treating her noted “ depressive , self - destructive thoughts against a background of psychotropic , anti - anxiety and antidepressant medication ” . During her initial police interview , the applicant had explained that she had acted in a fit of despair caused by her family ’s dependence on Dr GPE

On DATE an investigating judge at ORG charged the applicant with the intentional and premeditated homicide of her CARDINAL children . The applicant was also placed in pre - trial detention .

Forensic medical reports produced DATE and DATE concluded that the CARDINAL homicides had been committed in a relatively short time TIME in each case – and that , in view of the speed at which the events had occurred , they were the result of a preconceived plan . In addition , toxicological analyses carried out on blood samples taken from the applicant confirmed that she had only been taking a combination of anti - anxiety medication and sleeping tablets , the plasma levels detected being described as subtherapeutic DATE in other words , very low .

The investigating judge ordered several psychological reports . CARDINAL psychologists examined the applicant and submitted their respective reports on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . They both concluded that the applicant was suffering from inner fragility requiring massive , rigid defences to preserve a perfect facade . She had developed a maternal omnipotence and a lack of psychological distance between the children and herself . Thus , by killing her children DATE love - objects in whom she had over - invested – the applicant was killing herself both as a person and as a mother .

A psychiatric assessment was also ordered by the investigating judge , who appointed a panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON The panel of experts examined the applicant and drew up a report dated DATE , in which they concluded :

“ We consider that [ the applicant ] was in a severe state of anxiety and depression which encouraged her to act as she did and profoundly impaired her judgment , without destroying it altogether .

The accused was not suffering at the time of the events , and is not currently suffering , from a mental disorder or a severe mental disturbance or defect making her incapable of controlling her actions . ”

In an order of DATE ORG ( chambre des mises en accusation ) of ORG , upholding an order made by the investigating judge on DATE , committed the applicant to stand trial in ORG for the following offence :

“ ... in Nivelles , on DATE ,

having knowingly , intentionally and with premeditation , killed the following persons :

- [ Y.M. ] , born on CARDINAL DATE ;

- [ GPE ] , born on CARDINAL DATE ;

- [ My . M. ] , born on DATE ;

- [ ORG . M. ] , born on DATE ;

- and [ Me . M. ] , born on DATE . ”

The indictment of DATE , drawn up by ORG , ran to CARDINAL pages and gave an account of the precise sequence of events , the steps taken and evidence obtained during the investigation , and the forensic medical reports ; a substantial part of it also focused on the applicant ’s personal history and family life and the motives and reasons that had prompted her to carry out the killings , particularly in the light of the expert assessments of her psychological and mental state .

The applicant ’s trial took place in ORG of the province of PERSON from DATE . At the start of the trial the indictment was read out by ORG representing the prosecution , and the nature of the offence forming the basis of the charge and any circumstances that might aggravate or mitigate the sentence were likewise indicated .

While giving testimony during the trial in ORG , PERSON mentioned the existence of the CARDINAL letters dated CARDINAL and DATE which the applicant had addressed to him . He produced them in court , thus disclosing them for the first time in the proceedings . In view of this new evidence , the President of ORG duly instructed the panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists , PERSON , PERSON , who had already been involved at the investigation stage and had already confirmed their findings orally before ORG , to produce a further report .

On DATE the panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists adopted a report in which they expressed a unanimous opinion . They began by noting by way of introduction :

“ [ The first question , concerning the applicant ’s ability to control her actions at the time of the events and at present ] is regularly the most difficult and controversial because of the ‘ all or nothing’ nature of the answer that has to be given regarding inability to control one ’s actions , so much so that some psychiatrists have for that reason declined to produce expert reports in criminal cases . A total loss of control over one ’s actions is absolutely clear only in certain cases , such as delusional psychosis ( ‘ dementia’ ) . In other cases , it is more debatable and the personal conviction of the experts will be influenced by the presence of certain indicators . Their conclusions , in concise form , must give precise answers to the questions set out in the instructions . These answers reflect the experts’ personal conviction after carrying out the various written procedures . They are only ever an informed opinion , and not an absolute scientific truth . ”

The experts went on to make the following findings in particular :

“ The letter of DATE ] suggests all the signs of melancholic major depression . ... These melancholic states are grounds for emergency hospital admission , or observation , where necessary . ... In the second letter , although in terms of content she unequivocally expresses her anxiety in relation to a suicide where ‘ I will take my children with me , because there is no longer any future’ , in terms of meaning she is clearly asking for help , apparently foreseeing her inability to control her future actions . ... These documents thus demonstrate beyond doubt that Ms PERSON no longer felt capable of controlling her actions ... it has always been clear that there was mental disturbance ... new evidence [ warrants ] the firm conviction that at the time of the events , PERSON was incapable of controlling her actions on account of a severe mental disturbance . ... PERSON developed a severe state of anxiety and depression ... [ and ] a transient dissociative state of depersonalisation , causing her to perform acts of extreme violence . Only operational thought remains ; reflective consciousness is momentarily lost . ... Currently ... she remains fragile and there is still a chance , particularly because mourning is impossible , that she will experience a further episode of mental disturbance making her incapable of controlling her actions : the possibility remains that she may attempt suicide ...


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

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano

The applicants are the son ( the first applicant ) , the daughter - in - law ( the second applicant ) and the wife ( the third applicant ) of DATE . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON , GPE . The first and the third applicants are also PERSON first heirs , according to the NORP civil law .

The third applicant and PERSON ran a printing house and a small spirit factory as a family business .

On DATE PERSON was charged with bribetaking and made an undertaking not to leave his residence . A truck and a television set belonging to him were seized . It appears that he then hired a defence lawyer .

On DATE the investigating authority decided to dismiss the charge against PERSON for lack of evidence , lifted the seizure and cancelled the undertaking . It appears that after the dismissal of the charge , PERSON advocate refused to work with him any longer .

In DATE PERSON and the third applicant sold the family business to a private person .

On DATE PERSON instituted proceedings seeking compensation for wrongful prosecution . In particular , he claimed reimbursement for legal and transport costs . He also claimed compensation for the loss of his family business , alleging that as a result of the prosecution he could not run it and had to sell it at a low price .

On DATE supplemented his claim , alleging that as a result of the prosecution the first and the second applicants had had to leave their jobs . The first and the second applicants also joined the proceedings as third parties having additional claims .

On DATE the ORG granted the claim in part , ordering reimbursement of legal costs and part of the transport costs . As for the rest of the claim , ORG dismissed it on the ground that there was no causal link between the sale of the business and PERSON Ghuyumchyan ’s prosecution or between the first and the second applicants’ leaving their jobs and the prosecution .

It appears that on DATE PERSON lodged a request with ORG , seeking to receive legal aid .

On DATE the Chairman of ORG informed him in a letter that LAW did not provide for legal aid for the type of proceedings in which he was involved .

On DATE lodged a complaint with ORG alleging that on DATE he had been beaten by the Head of the Lori Region of GPE . The outcome of this complaint is unclear .

On an unspecified date PERSON and the first applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment upholding the judgment of ORG in respect of the reimbursement of part of the travel costs as well as legal fees , but dismissing the rest of the claim .

On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG against the judgment of ORG .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG returned the appeal , informing him that it had not been admitted for examination as it had not been lodged by an advocate licensed to act before ORG , pursuant to LAW . The applicants alleged before the ORG that their family could not afford the services of such an advocate .

On DATE PERSON and also the first and the second applicants lodged an introductory letter with ORG in which they complained under LAW that PERSON had been denied access to ORG , under LAW ( c ) that PERSON ORG ’s defence lawyer had refused to represent him in the compensatory proceedings and that his request for legal aid had been rejected by ORG . They also complained under LAW No . CARDINAL that the domestic courts had failed to grant the compensatory claim in full .

On DATE PERSON died of a heart attack .

On DATE the applicants lodged their completed application with the ORG .


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE .

On DATE the applicant began to serve a DATE prison sentence . He was placed in FAC ( “ ZPH ” ) .

On DATE the applicant applied to a ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences and the head office of ORG requesting the suspension of his prison sentence on account of his state of health . He claimed that from DATE he had been hospitalised in GPE in GPE because he had suffered a stroke . He also had CARDINAL brain arteriovenous malformations , CARDINAL of which had been removed in DATE by means of gamma knife radiosurgery , and the DATE high - risk recovery period had not yet ended . He referred to his medical documents , which had established basal ganglia in the ventricular system with a risk of haemorrhage , increased by the stress of the prison conditions . He also claimed that in combination with the epileptic fits from which he suffered , his health issues could be life - threatening .

A medical report drawn up by ZPH on DATE confirmed the claims put forward by the applicant in his request and concluded :

“ [ The prisoner ] presents a permanent high risk to himself and the institution in which he is placed . The expert opinion is that DATE are needed for his brain condition to stabilise after the gamma knife surgery . We consider his request for a stay of his prison term medically justified . ”

On DATE a ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant ’s request . This decision was based entirely on an opinion given by PERSON , an expert in internal medicine and cardiology . PERSON concluded that the applicant was not suffering from any acute illness and that during his time in ZPH his chronic illness had not worsened . PERSON also stated that in the event of a sudden deterioration in the applicant ’s state of health , he could easily be transferred to an appropriate medical institution . Lastly , he asserted that the applicant ’s current medical problems could be appropriately treated at ZPH .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , in which he argued that since incarceration his medical condition had been deteriorating constantly , that the ZPH doctors had themselves recommended that his prison sentence be suspended on medical grounds , and that PERSON could not give a proper opinion on his health since he was not an expert in neurology .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG quashed the first - instance decision and instructed the first - instance court to order an expert opinion from a neurologist .

On DATE the same ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant ’s request . The decision was based mainly on the opinion given by PERSON , an expert in neurology . She concluded that the applicant had not been suffering from any acute illness , that his chronic illness had improved , that he had been receiving good medical care at ZPH , and that it had appropriate staff to meet the needs of the applicant as regards the medical care his condition required .

On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged appeals , in which he contested the qualifications of PERSON and the validity of her opinion . He argued that she had not answered the question whether ZPH had adequate staff and could otherwise properly treat his medical condition . He further argued that the judge responsible for the execution of sentences had not addressed the contradictions between the findings the ZPH doctors had expressed in their opinion of DATE and the reports of the medical experts commissioned by ORG . He also asserted that his medical condition could only be properly treated in a specialist medical institution .

Following a suggestion by ZPH that there was no need for the applicant ’s further hospitalisation , on DATE the head office of ORG ordered his transfer to ORG . On DATE he lodged an appeal , arguing that neither the staff nor equipment at ZPH was satisfactorily suited to carry out proper diagnostic examinations to accurately assess his medical condition . He asked for an urgent transfer to a suitable medical institution where a proper diagnostic examination could be carried out . The applicant ’s appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , endorsing its reasoning .

On DATE , at his request , the applicant was taken to the NORP of ORG in GPE so that neurological tests could be carried out . During his transfer in a police van he suffered an epileptic fit and lost consciousness . This was discovered only on arrival at the front entrance of the hospital when officers opened the back door of the van and found him lying on the floor . He spent TIME at the hospital and was then returned to FAC .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions concerning his request for the suspension of his prison sentence and the decision concerning his transfer to ORG . In addition to the complaints put forward in his previous requests and appeals , the applicant also complained that during his DATE at ZPH he had not had proper access to sanitary facilities and had been obliged to ask the guards to let him out of the room each time he needed the toilet , a request which they sometimes had not answered in time . Since there had been no lift at ZPH , in order to have access to fresh air he had had to climb the stairs to his cell on the second floor , which had been a risk to his health . He further reiterated that ZPH had no neurology department or even a neurologist , so his condition could not have been properly treated there . Even though specialists from the CARDINAL civil hospitals where he had been treated prior to his imprisonment had recommended that check - ups be carried out DATE , he had not been given them .

The applicant also complained about the conditions in FAC . He claimed that he had been placed in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates , and that a lack of fresh air in the cell had worsened his condition . There had been a squat toilet in the cell , which had not been completely private and a foul smell had emanated from it . Inmates had had to eat in their cells . There had been no lift , which had prevented him from accessing fresh air .

On DATE the applicant lodged another application for the suspension of his prison sentence on health grounds , reiterating his previous arguments . He also complained that since DATE he had not had any access to daylight and that any access to fresh air had been prevented by construction of a lift in ZPH .

On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant was taken to ORG in GPE . A report drawn up there on DATE indicates that there was no need for any urgent measures . It was also established that the applicant had had a high concentration of tramadol ( a painkiller ) and its metabolites , benzodiazepine ( a class of psychoactive drug ) and olanzapine ( an atypical antipsychotic drug ) .

NORP The applicant ’s constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE on the grounds that the contested judgment had not concerned the merits of his civil rights or obligations or a criminal charge against him , and as such was not amenable to constitutional review .

On DATE a ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant ’s request of DATE . The judge relied on previous expert opinions as well as on a further opinion of PERSON , an expert in neuropsychiatry who confirmed that the applicant had not been suffering from any acute illness , that his medical condition had not worsened , and that ZPH had the appropriate capacity for his treatment in all respects . ORG further relied on ZPH reports dated DATE stating that the applicant had not been following ORG orders , had not been taking measures aimed at his treatment and had been deliberately putting his health at risk . There was no comment on the applicant ’s complaints concerning lack of access to daylight and fresh air .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , reiterating his arguments concerning his health but made no mention of his previous complaints about lack of access to daylight and fresh air . This appeal was dismissed by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE .


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić

On DATE the applicants and the debtor ( ORG “ PERSON ) reached a court approved settlement before ORG , whereby the debtor undertook to pay the applicants specified amounts in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

NORP The settlement became final on the same date .

The debtor ultimately paid part of the amounts determined in the settlement .

On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings against the debtor .

On DATE the applicants submitted their respective claims based on the settlement .

In the course of the insolvency proceedings ORG acknowledged the ORG claims .

On DATE ORG terminated ( zaključio ) the insolvency proceedings against the debtor , but continued the proceedings against the debtor ’s estate . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

The proceedings are still pending .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ constitutional appeal on procedural grounds .

The court settlement in question remains partly unenforced to the present day .

It transpires from the case file that at the time the court settlement was concluded and became final ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) the debtor was a company predominantly comprised of NORP capital . The Government neither contested this nor provided any evidence to the contrary .


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

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were initially represented by their former Agent , PERSON , and subsequently by their current Agent , PERSON .

On DATE the applicant instituted private prosecution proceedings against ORG , claiming that he had falsely accused her of extortion and nuisance in a letter to some local authorities .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to submit some additional information , which she did on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to the criminal court to speed up the proceedings in view of the short limitation period in respect of defamation claims ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the criminal court responded that the proceedings would become statute - barred in DATE and that it would take all necessary measures to prevent that .

On DATE a hearing to attempt a friendly settlement was held . The defendant expressed his readiness to make an apology to the applicant , since he had had no intention of insulting her . The applicant did not accept his apology .

On DATE ORG found the defendant guilty of defamation . However , ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a retrial on DATE .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as statute - barred . ORG upheld that decision on DATE .

In the present case , although the alleged defamation had taken place in DATE , the domestic courts applied LAW because its provisions were more lenient for the defendant in respect of punishment . LAW provides that the time - limit for criminal prosecution for defamation expires DATE after the commission of the offence .

NORP Since DATE defamation has no longer been considered as a criminal offence ( OG RS no . CARDINAL ) .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , taken together , provide , inter alia , that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his reputation , personal integrity , liberty or of his other personal rights ( prava ličnosti ) is entitled to seek injunctive relief , sue for financial compensation and request other forms of redress “ which might be capable ” of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction .


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

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

NORP The applicant was represented by ORG , a lawyer practising in ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented , most recently , by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

After TIME on DATE the applicant went out onto the staircase landing in front of his flat to talk to an acquaintance of his , PERSON , a user of injection drugs . According to the applicant , they spoke about computer games . According to PERSON , the applicant asked him to inject him with a syringe which the latter provided . According to a subsequent forensic analysis , the syringe seized from PERSON contained an illegal drug , but the relevant amount was below the level needed for a prosecution .

NORP In the course of the subsequent investigation it emerged that the residents in the applicant ’s block of flats had for some time observed drug use on the staircase landings in the building . Having seen the applicant and PERSON on the landing , and suspecting them of drug use , GPE . – the grandson of a lady who lived CARDINAL floors above the applicant – contacted his friend D.T. , a police officer , and asked him to intervene .

While the applicant and PERSON were standing on the landing and , according to PERSON , while he was giving the applicant the injection , they were approached by D.T. , accompanied by GPE . and a certain I.L. D.T. explained that he had brought along the other people as potential witnesses .

According to all those involved in the incident other than the applicant , D.T. identified himself as a police officer and enquired what the applicant was doing . According to the applicant , D.T. did not identify himself . The applicant attempted to open the door to his flat and retreat .

According to the applicant , he was then hit on the head , kicked and punched , and those attacking him also attempted to put a syringe in his pocket . He cried for help . The attackers pushed him to the floor and continued to kick him .

According to all the other people involved in the incident , including PERSON , the applicant resisted D.T. when the latter tried to stop him from retreating into his flat . He started struggling with D.T. , but D.T. eventually overpowered him and pushed him to the ground face down . GPE helped D.T. hold the applicant down .

The applicant cried for help . D.T. called his colleague , officer GPE , for backup . ORG , a neighbour , subsequently stated that , after hearing cries for help , he went up CARDINAL floor from his flat and saw the applicant , whom he knew by sight , lying on the ground and being held down by CARDINAL people while struggling . A third person assisting with the arrest was holding PERSON , who was standing facing the wall . Other than that , nobody was moving . GPE saw GPE arrive and handcuff the applicant .

The applicant and PERSON were taken out of the building . PERSON , a neighbour , saw them on the ground floor and did not see any ill - treatment .

According to the applicant ’s submissions to the ORG , immediately before putting him in the car , the police officers hit him repeatedly . PERSON and another neighbour , PERSON . , saw no ill - treatment .

NORP The police officers took the applicant and PERSON to the GPE LOC police station in the same car , and took the applicant to the third floor without registering him at the front desk .

According to the applicant , in the car and at the police station the police continued to beat him . They also threatened to continue beating him and rape him once they were in CARDINAL of the offices at the station . The officers and all the other people present , including PERSON , denied these allegations .

It is undisputed that when the applicant was taken to the third floor of the station , and as D.T. was opening an office door , the applicant either kneed or headbutted him in the face , ran along the corridor to a window and jumped out , breaking the glass with a part of his body , either his head or shoulder . On DATE a forensic medical expert recorded that D.T. had a haematoma on his face , diagnosed him with concussion , and stated that the injuries were consistent with D.T. ’s account that he had been hit by the applicant .

The applicant was found lying on a lawn and was taken to hospital .

On DATE a forensic medical expert recorded that , based on the applicant ’s personal examination and hospital records , he had a wound on the crown of his head which had scabbed over , a wound on his right elbow which had scabbed over , redness in his waist area on the right and a circular bruise on his left wrist . He was diagnosed with a closed head trauma , concussion and several fractures . The expert concluded that , other than the wrist bruise , all of the injuries could be explained by the applicant ’s jump through the window and fall , and the bruise could be explained by the handcuffing .

On DATE , in connection with his conduct in the course of his arrest , the Kharkiv Moskovsky ORG convicted the applicant of the administrative offence of disobeying a police officer , and gave him a fine .

On DATE the applicant was recognised as a Category CARDINAL disabled person ( the least severe category of disability ) .

On DATE an inspection of the scene of the incident at the police station was conducted . A shattered window and shards of glass were discovered , spread over the ground and covering a wide area .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged a formal complaint regarding the alleged ill - treatment . On DATE an investigator of the ORG district prosecutor ’s office took a statement from her . The statement was mainly based on the applicant ’s account , which she had heard while visiting him in hospital .

On DATE the applicant told the investigator that he had been attacked by strangers on the landing of his building . He had hit back and struggled with them for TIME . They had pushed him to the ground and hit him . They had then hit him in the car on the way to the police station , stopping several times on the way to do so . When they had taken him to the third floor of the police station , somebody had threatened him with rape . He had not been able to bear it , had hit CARDINAL of the officers , and had jumped out of the window .

On DATE the applicant and D.T. underwent forensic medical examinations , in accordance with the investigator ’s instructions ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE above ) . Subsequently , the investigator took a number of statements from various witnesses ( see , in particular , paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the applicant .

On DATE a certain PERSON told the investigator that on TIME in question she had been collecting empty bottles near the applicant ’s building when she had seen , at a distance of QUANTITY , CARDINAL strangers take CARDINAL arrestees to a car . CARDINAL person , with his hands handcuffed behind his back , had been hit and kicked in the kidneys , neck and head for TIME while he screamed for help . Before putting him in the car one of the assailants had said , “ Do n’t forget to plant [ that thing on him ] ” ( “ Что б не забыли подложить ” ) . When she had called the applicant ’s mother DATE to tell her about the incident , she had learned that the person she had seen had been the applicant . ORG said that she was the applicant ’s mother ’s former classmate , and made other statements indicating that she knew the family well . Neither the applicant nor his mother mentioned in their initial statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) the events which , according to ORG , had happened in front of the police car .

On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings , for lack of corpus delicti in the police ORG actions . On DATE the ORG regional prosecutor ’s office overruled that decision , instituted criminal proceedings in relation to suspected abuse of power by the police officers , and entrusted the investigation to an investigator at the regional office . On DATE the police officers were questioned , and denied subjecting the applicant to any ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant was recognised as an aggrieved party in those proceedings , and was questioned in that capacity .

In the course of the subsequent criminal investigation , all the witnesses mentioned above and several others were repeatedly interviewed , and several formal confrontations between witnesses and on - site reconstructions were held , with the participation of the applicant and the police officers . In particular , on DATE the applicant was questioned about his personal history . He stated that he had previously participated in kickboxing and karate tournaments , and in DATE had been a karate champion in GPE . He also stated that in DATE he had changed his name from PERSON to PERSON , since this was a requirement for converts to ORG . He did not attend any church in particular , but felt closest to ORG .

The investigator also obtained the opinions of a number of experts . In particular , on DATE a psychologist concluded that the applicant ’s conduct might have been driven by such pronounced personality traits as an appetite for risk , a heightened sense of injustice , a strong will , and a tendency to become easily insulted . The expert noted that , according to the applicant , he had thought about jumping out of the car on the way to the police station . On DATE a panel of medical experts confirmed the findings of the examination of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and concluded that the applicant ’s injuries were inconsistent with his account of ill - treatment .

On DATE the investigator decided not to bring charges against the individuals who had been involved in the incident ( D.T. , GPE , GPE . and ORG ) , for lack of corpus delicti in their actions , and on DATE the investigator decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings , finding that there were no sufficient grounds to bring any charges . The investigator concluded , in particular , that the applicant ’s account diverged from the accounts of all witnesses and the medical evidence , while the ORG accounts did not . As to ORG , her account contradicted the consistent statements of other disinterested parties , and she was the applicant ’s mother ’s former classmate .

On DATE the Kharkiv ORG overruled the decision of DATE and sent the case back for further investigation , stating in particular that the investigator had failed to take into account ORG ’s statements .

In the course of the subsequent investigation , the investigator repeatedly attempted to contact the applicant , without success , and then ordered the police to look for him . According to a police report of DATE , the applicant ’s parents and neighbours said that he had moved in with his girlfriend . Although he visited them from time to time , his parents maintained that he had not left an address . They promised to inform the applicant that the investigator was looking for him when they next saw him . The investigator ’s efforts to contact the applicant through his lawyers were equally unsuccessful .

On DATE the investigator again discontinued the criminal proceedings , coming to the same conclusions , particularly concerning ORG ’s statements . According to the Government , the applicant was notified of that decision on DATE by letter . According to the applicant , he learned of it on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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 .


CASE OF IATROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

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)

The applicants were all detained in ORG ( Τμήμα PERSON ) ; they were either in pre - trial detention or serving a prison sentence . Specifically , the first applicant was detained in ORG from DATE until DATE ; the second applicant was detained in ORG from DATE until DATE ; and the third applicant was detained in ORG from CARDINAL DATE until DATE .

The applicants alleged that ORG had been an entirely inappropriate place in which to spend long periods of detention , as they had done . The cells in which they had been held had measured QUANTITY . m and had been designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees . However , the number of detainees accommodated had varied from CARDINAL .

Cells had been insufficiently lit and ventilated , which , in addition to overcrowding and the filthiness of the LOC , had affected inmates’ health . The blankets that had been provided had never been washed . The applicants furthermore stressed that there had been insufficient heating and hot water and that they had never been provided with soap .

Detainees had been confined to their cells and had not been allowed to spend time outside , which had affected their psychological health . Recreational activities had not been offered and cells had not been equipped with televisions or radio .

The meals that had been provided to detainees had cost MONEY ( ORG ) per day and had not sufficed to cover their DATE dietary needs , either in terms of quantity or quality .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor , complaining of the conditions of their detention but received no reply .

The Government firstly argued that the applicants had complained in a general way , without providing specific references concerning the actual conditions of their detention .

As regards the LOC in which the applicants had been detained , the Government submitted that ORG had been comprised of CARDINAL cells on the ground floor which had measured CARDINAL sq . m each and had been designed to accommodate CARDINAL male detainees . There had been another CARDINAL cells which had accommodated female detainees . All cells had had in - cell sanitary facilities and had had sufficient light and received sufficient ventilation through large windows .

Cells had accommodated CARDINAL detainees . Most of the detainees had been held in the facility for very short periods of time , as ORG had been used when transferring detainees from one facility to another or to the court room . As a result , when the number of detainees had exceeded the number that the cells had been designed to accommodate , that had only remained the case until transfers had been completed . In any event , the space available for each inmate had never been CARDINAL sq . m.

An external contractor had cleaned the facilities DATE and had disinfected the detention areas once DATE . Hot water and heating had been available throughout the LOC and all sheets and blankets had been regularly cleaned and replaced in the event that they had become worn out .

Food had been provided to detainees by a private catering company and had been of good quality and quantity ; the ORG submitted examples of the various meals offered , arguing that these had covered all dietary needs and preferences .

The Government pointed out that the applicants had not referred to or adduced any evidence that they had not received any medical treatment that they had needed . On the contrary , according to the police station ’s records , the second applicant had been transferred to ORG on DATE for a medical check - up .


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

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Ercsi .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG against his former employer , claiming unlawful dismissal . On DATE the court found in his favour and obliged the respondent to the action to pay him a severance payment , outstanding wages , a lump sum in compensation , and default interest .

NORP On appeal , on DATE the ORG changed the judgment in part . In DATE the respondent filed a petition for review .

In an order of DATE ORG forwarded the respondent ’s petition to the applicant and informed him that , within DATE of receiving the order , he could file comments on the respondent ’s petition and/or request an oral hearing .

On DATE the applicant received the order , and on DATE he dispatched his comments on the petition for review . The document was received by ORG on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG , sitting as a review court , had given a judgment in which it had reversed the previous decisions and dismissed the applicant ’s action . The court stated that the applicant had not filed any comments on the petition for review .

The applicant complained and addressed his complaint of DATE to the President of ORG . The Head of ORG informed him that his comments on the petition for review had been belated .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Radom . He was initially represented before the ORG by his mother , and subsequently by PERSON ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

NORP The applicant ’s father , PERSON ( “ NORP ” ) , lived with the applicant ’s mother , PERSON

The applicant ’s father sold clothes at a local market . On DATE ORG convicted him in summary proceedings of the unauthorised use of a registered trademark . It fined him MONEY ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) , convertible to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment in case of default .

On DATE the court decided that ORG could pay the fine in CARDINAL DATE instalments , starting from DATE . According to the court ’s records , GPE paid PLN CARDINAL of his fine . A court bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings to recover the outstanding PLN CARDINAL , but to no avail .

On DATE ORG ordered that PERSON serve a term of CARDINAL days’ imprisonment in respect of the unpaid fine . It appears that ORG had been summoned to the hearing but did not appear .

PERSON was unsuccessfully summoned to surrender himself to a remand centre . On DATE ORG ordered that he be arrested and taken to the remand centre . On DATE at QUANTITY the police arrested PERSON outside his home . On DATE at QUANTITY he was taken to ORG to serve his fiveday sentence .

At the remand centre ORG refused a routine examination by a nurse . He was then examined by a doctor , who cleared his admission . Subsequently , GPE was placed in a transit cell no . CARDINAL . At TIME a prison guard , PERSON , noticed that PERSON was lying on the floor with his belt tied around his neck . The other end of the belt was tied to a chair . The guards , PERSON and PERSON , and later the nurse tried to resuscitate PERSON He was declared dead at TIME GPE was DATE at the time . A prosecutor and the police arrived at the scene later .

On DATE the Radom police opened an investigation under the heading of involuntary homicide ( LAW , hereinafter “ the LAW ) . The investigation was later taken over by ORG .

On an unspecified date a post - mortem was carried out . In his report , the forensic expert concluded that the direct cause of death had been hanging and that it could be assumed that it had been an act of suicide .

The prosecutor found no evidence pointing to the involvement of third parties in the incident . With regard to a possible failure to act by the prison guards , the prosecutor questioned PERSON , the guard who had been supervising PERSON at the relevant time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Having regard to the evidence , the prosecutor found that the prison guards responsible for GPE ’s safety had acted beyond reproach . The guards had not breached the applicable regulations by letting PERSON keep his belt . Furthermore , the prosecutor found no shortcomings in the prison guards’ reaction after seeing GPE lying on the ground . She concluded that the prison guards had not committed an offence .

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation after establishing that the actions of the prison guards had not constituted a criminal offence .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to ORG that she had not been served with ORG decision to discontinue the investigation .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant ’s mother be served with a copy of the decision .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s mother was informed by ORG that she had been formally notified of the opening of the investigation into her partner ’s death on DATE . The letter said that the applicant ’s mother had twice been summoned to the Radom police headquarters for an interview , which she had not attended . Subsequently , a police officer had visited her flat but had not been allowed to enter . Further summonses sent to the applicant ’s mother had not been answered . On DATE the applicant ’s mother had gone to police headquarters and had insisted that she did not wish to be contacted in connection with ORG ’s death . Accordingly , the district prosecutor had served the decision to discontinue the investigation on ORG , GPE ’s adult son and the applicant ’s CARDINAL - brother .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother was served with the prosecutor ’s decision to discontinue the investigation . She lodged an appeal against that decision dated DATE . Her appeal was rejected as submitted out of time . On an unspecified date the applicant ’s mother requested the district prosecutor to grant her leave to appeal out of time . On DATE the prosecutor refused that request . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor ’s decision . No further appeal lay against this decision . In consequence , the decision to discontinue the investigation of DATE became final .

On DATE the applicant , represented by his mother , relying on LAW ( hereinafter , “ the ORG ” ) , requested that the ORG open de novo ( podjęcie na nowo ) the investigation into his father ’s death . He requested that the prosecutor obtain the file of the civil proceedings against ORG in which the courts had determined that there existed a causal link between the failures of the prison guards and his father ’s suicide ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He pointed out the discrepancy between the findings of the district prosecutor and the civil courts . The applicant ’s mother also produced proof of payment of all CARDINAL instalments of the fine imposed on GPE

The investigation was opened de novo on DATE .

On DATE the Radom - Wschód District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation into the alleged failure by the prison guards to fulfil their duties . The allegation was related to their failure to keep the applicant ’s father under constant surveillance and to seize his belt , which he had used to commit suicide ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor established that those acts did not constitute a criminal offence .

NORP The prosecutor also discontinued the investigation into alleged negligence by PERSON , a clerk at FAC who had incorrectly credited a payment of ORG MONEY by ORG to another debtor . The prosecutor established that prosecution of the impugned offence had become time - barred .

With regard to the facts , the prosecutor established that during PERSON ’s admission to the remand centre on DATE , the prison guard FAC had noticed that GPE had been anxious and tearful . PERSON had contested his imprisonment as unjust . Consequently , the guards S.S. and PERSON had decided to check with ORG as to whether the fine had been paid and were told that that was not the case . Next , PERSON was to be examined by a male nurse , PERSON The male nurse noticed that PERSON had been agitated and tearful and had declared that he would go on a hunger strike . Having regard to those circumstances , the male nurse had requested that GPE be taken to a medical room for examination by a doctor . At TIME PERSON had been taken to a medical room where he was to be examined by a doctor , ORG had been anxious , tearful and convinced that he had been wronged by the court and the police . PERSON had refused to be examined or take any medication . He had also declared that he would refuse any food and drink in protest at his imprisonment . PERSON had not revealed any suicidal thoughts . Doctor PERSON had agreed to ORG incarceration but had recommended that he be seen by a psychiatrist at DATE .

At TIME PERSON had been taken to transit cell no . CARDINAL where he was to wait for his prison underwear and hygiene products . At QUANTITY the prison guard GPE had seen through the peephole that GPE was lying on the floor . PERSON had entered the cell and noticed that a belt was tied around GPE ’s neck . He had taken the belt off GPE ’s neck and , together with another guard , PERSON , had begun resuscitation procedures . At TIME an emergency services doctor had declared PERSON dead .

The prosecutor also had regard to the findings of the forensic expert . The expert , having carried out a post - mortem , established the presence of a slight strangulation mark on ORG ’s neck and a number of injuries which had likely resulted from his hitting objects while in convulsion . The expert further established that the direct cause of death had been hanging . The result of his examination allowed it to be established that it had been a suicide .

NORP The prosecutor found no evidence pointing to the involvement of third parties in the impugned incident .

The prosecutor took a number of investigative measures aimed at determining whether the prison guards had failed to fulfil their duties . She interviewed the prison guard GPE He testified that certain objects , such as mobile telephones , penknives and screwdrivers , were taken from prisoners . However , the applicable regulations did not require that belts or laces should also be seized . The prosecutor analysed the applicable regulations and concluded that belts and laces were not regarded as dangerous objects .

With regard to alleged negligence on the part of the prison , the prosecutor established that the actions of the prison guards had not disclosed any failure to fulfil their duties . The prison guards had acted with appropriate diligence in supervising PERSON Not seizing ORG ’s belt in the process of his admission to the remand centre had been in compliance with the relevant regulations . There had been no grounds to suspect that ORG would make an attempt on his own life despite his strong emotional reaction to his incarceration . The doctor interviewing PERSON had not identified any suicidal tendencies . Furthermore , after seeing PERSON lying unconscious on the floor , the prison guards had reacted appropriately to the situation . In conclusion , the prosecutor found that the actions of the prison guards had not constituted any of the criminal offences prescribed in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision . She argued , inter alia , that the prison guards had failed in their duties by not seizing ORG ’s belt . That , in consequence , had led to his suicide and death .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the prosecutor ’s decision .

The court noted that the applicant ’s mother had sought to have the investigation continued and for charges to be brought against specific individuals , eventually leading to their trial and conviction . However , the evidence secured in the investigation had not provided any grounds to accept such a demand .

The court found that the prosecutor had correctly established the facts and had properly assessed the comprehensive evidence obtained in the case . It noted that the prosecutor had carried out a number of investigative measures aimed at determining if there had possibly been negligence on the part of the prison guards . However , no such negligence had been established .

The court found nothing untoward in the manner in which the prison guards had carried out their duties vis - à - vis the applicant ’s father . They had ensured , inter alia , that the applicant ’s father had been seen by a doctor . There had been no grounds to believe that the applicant ’s father would commit suicide , despite his strong emotional reaction to imprisonment . In accordance with the applicable regulations , the prison guards had not been required to seize the applicant ’s father ’s belt . Furthermore , they had attempted to resuscitate the applicant ’s father . In conclusion , the court accepted the prosecutor ’s finding that the actions of the prison guards had not amounted to any of the offences prescribed in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG . It noted that the findings of the civil court could not alter that conclusion and lead to attributing criminal responsibility to the prison guards . The court found that the applicant ’s mother had not indicated any relevant circumstances which could lead to the prosecutor ’s decision being overturned .

The court also accepted the prosecutor ’s decision to discontinue the investigation with regard to the court clerk .

On DATE the applicant brought a claim against ORG with ORG . His mother acted on his behalf since the applicant was a minor . He sought ORG ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation and a DATE allowance of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in connection with his father ’s death . The applicant argued that ORG was liable for his father ’s death on account of gross negligence by the prison guards who had failed to ensure his father ’s safety . In his view , the belt had been a dangerous object and should definitely have been seized by the prison guards .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It held that the prison guards had acted lawfully and in accordance with LAW and that therefore ORG could not be held liable . In addition , the court held that there had been no causal link between ORG ’s death and the actions of the prison guards .

ORG established that GPE had been agitated during his admission to the remand centre but considered that to be a standard reaction . The prison guards had checked with ORG and , despite PERSON ’s claims to the contrary , it had confirmed that CARDINAL instalment of ORG ’s fine had not been paid . During his medical examination , ORG had informed the doctor that he had left children at home unsupervised but he had not revealed any suicidal thoughts . The doctor had concluded that ORG could be admitted to the remand centre and that there was no need for an immediate psychiatric consultation . Having regard to the above , the court found that there was nothing in GPE ’s medical history or circumstances related to the offence which would have indicated that he needed to be put under particularly close supervision or that his belt should have been seized .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG partly allowed his claim . It found ORG liable under LAW and awarded the applicant LAW ( QUANTITY ) in compensation and a DATE allowance of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant ’s appeal .

ORG noted that under LAW , the administration of a penal institution had a duty to ensure ORG ’s behaviour could not be considered as simple agitation . His behaviour had suggested a nervous breakdown caused by a feeling of injustice as ORG had been convinced that he had paid the fine in full . For example , the prison guard GPE had stated in his report that PERSON had displayed disturbing behaviour ( hitting the bed with his fist ) , had been tearful , anxious and agitated , and had declared that he would go on a hunger strike .

ORG found that since PERSON ’s behaviour had been very different from the norm and that a psychiatric consultation had been recommended for him , then the prison guards should have taken all the necessary steps to ensure his safety . They should have seized any object presenting a risk to his life or health , including his belt or , alternatively , should have put him under constant supervision . Such actions would have prevented ORG death . The court thus held that there was a causal link between the omissions of the prison guards and ORG death .

With regard to the claim for compensation , ORG noted that under LAW of LAW it could award an appropriate level of compensation to relatives of a deceased if their situation significantly deteriorated as a result of the person ’s death . A significant deterioration in a claimant ’s situation depended on the degree of adverse material and immaterial consequences resulting from the death of a relative . ORG found that the amount of compensation sought was grossly excessive and that the claimant ( the applicant ) had not established that his situation had deteriorated to such a degree . For the claimant , the death of his father when he was DATE had certainly been a particularly acute loss which had limited his prospects in life and had amounted to a loss of natural support . Having regard to those and other relevant factors , the court found that the appropriate level of compensation was PLN MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

NORP The amount of DATE allowance sought by the applicant was also inflated , the court found . The size should not be higher than the amount ORG would have contributed as a father . Having regard to GPE ’s financial situation prior to his death , the court found that a DATE allowance of PLN CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) was reasonable and commensurate with the applicant ’s justified needs .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , contesting the amounts of compensation and DATE allowance as too low . ORG also lodged a cassation appeal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG accepted the defendant ’s cassation appeal for examination and refused to admit that of the applicant .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment in part and remitted the case . It held that the lower court had failed to examine the defendant ’s plea that the claim was time - barred . However , it upheld ORG findings in respect of the prison PERSON failure to ensure the safety of the applicant ’s father ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

On DATE ORG gave a judgment awarding the same level of compensation and DATE allowance to the applicant and dismissing the remainder of the defendant ’s appeal . The court examined the defendant ’s plea based on the limitation period . To that end the court heard the applicant ’s mother . It established that in DATE the applicant ’s mother had found proof of payment of all CARDINAL instalments of the fine imposed on her partner made DATE and DATE . It further established that the prosecutor had refused to consider her a party to the investigation and to grant her access to the file . It had only been after the applicant ’s mother had complained to ORG that she had been served with the decision to discontinue the investigation on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , the DATE limitation period should start to run on DATE . As the claim had been brought on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the defendant ’s plea had to be dismissed .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW refers to the ORG ’s civil liability in the following way :

“ Everyone shall have the right to compensation for any harm done to him by any act of a public authority in breach of the law . ”

In a judgment ( no . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of DATE , ORG examined the compatibility of LAW with LAW . It held , inter alia , that :

“ In accordance with LAW , the sole basis for [ ORG civil ] liability is an unlawful act by a public authority , it is of no significance whether such an act was subjectively culpable ( subiektywnie zawinione ) . ...

Having regard to the conditions for [ State ] liability laid down in LAW previously analysed , there is no doubt that ‘ the personal culpability of a state official’ does not form part of the list of conditions necessary for liability on the part of the public authorities . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , as applicable from DATE , provides as follows :

“ ORG or [ , as the case may be , ] a local self - government entity or other legal person responsible for exercising public authority , shall be liable for any damage ( szkoda ) caused by an unlawful act or omission [ committed ] in connection with the exercise of public authority . ”

LAW provides as follows :

“ Anyone who unintentionally causes the death of another person shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads as follows :

“ A public official who , by overstepping his powers or not fulfilling his duties , acts to the detriment of public or private interests shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of DATE . ”


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

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

DATE and DATE that is , for DATE and DATE his action for division of matrimonial property and related issues was pending before the GPE XX / XXI / XXIII ORG , ORG and the GPE .

He complained of the excessive length of the proceedings .


CASE OF NUSRET KAYA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY [Extracts]

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively .

When their application was lodged the applicants were being held at the E - type prison of GPE .

During their previous detention in another prison – the H - type prison of GPE – they had applied to the sentence - execution judge of GPE seeking the lifting of the restrictions that the prison authorities imposed , according to them , by preventing them from using the NORP language in their telephone conversations .

On DATE , based on the case file , the sentence - execution judge of GPE dismissed their application . In his reasoning he began by stating that , while Article CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW protected the freedom of correspondence , those CARDINAL ORG also provided for limitations of such freedom on grounds such as national security and public order . He further mentioned that LAW no . DATE on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) provided that telephone conversations had to be conducted under the conditions and according to the principles laid down in the Rules on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures ( “ the Rules ” ) . He noted that the prison authorities had not yet received any reply to their request for it to be ascertained , under LAW ( p ) of the LAW , whether or not the individuals with whom the applicants wished to speak understood NORP . He pointed out in this connection that the question remained to be clarified and that the applicants’ action thus concerned the general practice of the prison authorities which , in his view , was not in breach of the law . He concluded that the prison authorities had acted in conformity with PERSON no . CARDINAL and Rule CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( p ) .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicants requested that this decision be set aside .

On DATE , based on the case file , ORG dismissed the applicants’ action to have the decision set aside , finding that the sentence - execution judge had not acted in breach of the procedure or of the law .

At the time when they lodged their applications , the applicants were being held at the F - type prison of Bolu .

While in that prison , they applied on DATE to the sentence - execution judge of Bolu seeking the lifting of the restrictions that , according to them , the prison authorities imposed by preventing them from using the NORP language in their telephone conversations .

On DATE , based on the case file , the sentence - execution judge of Bolu dismissed the application , finding that the practice of the prison authorities was in conformity with both the procedure and the law . In his decision , he noted that the rules on telephone conversations between convicted and remand prisoners and their relatives had been revoked on CARDINAL DATE . He indicated that those rules did not contain any provision about the handling of a request concerning a telephone conversation in a language other than NORP . He explained that PERSON no . CARDINAL had come into force and that Rule CARDINAL laid down new principles that had to be taken into account . He set out all the conditions provided for in Rule CARDINAL as regards the supervision of telephone conversations in prisons , particularly the principle that telephone conversations had to be conducted in NORP , with the exception of those cases in which the convicted prisoner and/or the person telephoned or telephoning did not understand that language . He pointed out that , in such cases , the Rules required the inmate to indicate on the telephone - call form that the other person did not understand NORP . He added that , when the prison authorities found it necessary , research would be carried out – at the inmate ’s expense – to verify the information given on the form , following which the inmate could be authorised to speak in NORP . He further stated that the inmate was required to begin a telephone conversation by stating his or her forename and surname , then to ask the other person to give his or her forename , surname and telephone number . In the judge ’s view , that obligation meant that , save in certain situations , telephone conversations had to be conducted in NORP .

On DATE Mr Yurtsever applied to have that decision set aside . He argued that his mother tongue was NORP and that it was therefore understandable for him to use that language to speak to his mother on the telephone . He also stated that this had been the case for DATE . Lastly , he complained about the fact that the cost of verifying the information was charged to the requesting inmate .

On DATE Mr PERSON also applied to have the sentence - execution judge ’s decision set aside , arguing that to communicate , correspond and live in accordance with one ’s cultural identity was a fundamental right .

On DATE , on the basis of the case file , ORG dismissed the applicants’ action . It found that the prison authorities and the sentence - execution judge had not acted in breach of the procedure or of the law .

When he lodged his application , the applicant was being held at the F - type prison in Bolu .

While in that prison , on DATE , he complained to the sentence - execution judge of Bolu that he was obliged to use NORP when speaking to his relatives on the telephone and that the prison authorities refused to allow him to use the NORP language in those conversations .

On DATE , on the basis of the case file , the sentence - execution judge of Bolu rejected the application , finding that the practice of the prison authorities was in conformity with both the procedure and the law . In his decision , he noted that the rules on telephone conversations between convicted and remand prisoners and their relatives had been revoked on CARDINAL DATE . He indicated that those rules did not contain any provision about the handling of a request concerning a telephone conversation in a language other than NORP . He explained that PERSON no . CARDINAL had come into force and that Rule CARDINAL laid down new principles that had to be taken into account . He set out all the conditions provided for in that Rule as regards the supervision of telephone conversations in prisons , particularly the principle that telephone conversations had to be conducted in NORP , with the exception of those cases in which the convicted prisoner and/or the person telephoned or telephoning did not understand that language . He pointed out that , in such cases , the Rules required the inmate to indicate on the telephone - call form that the other person did not understand NORP . He added that , when the prison authorities found it necessary , research would be carried out – at the inmate ’s expense – to verify the information given on the form , following which the inmate could be authorised to speak in NORP . He further stated that the inmate was required to begin a telephone conversation by stating his or her forename and surname , then to ask the other person to give his or her forename , surname and telephone number . In the judge ’s view , that obligation meant that , save in certain situations , telephone conversations had to be conducted in NORP .

On DATE the applicant applied to have that decision set aside .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action , finding that the prison authorities and the sentence - execution judge had not acted in breach of the procedure or of the law .


No violation of Article 13+P1-1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

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 .

In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against her employer , a private company , C.G.H.T. ( “ the company ” ) , seeking the revocation of its decision of CARDINAL DATE to dismiss her , and claiming various salary entitlements .

On DATE ORG dismissed her action as illfounded . The applicant appealed .

In a final judgment of DATE ( “ the judgment ” ) , ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal . It ordered the company to revoke its dismissal decision and to pay the applicant pecuniary damages in the form of all her salary entitlements from CARDINAL DATE until the pronouncement of the final judgment , updated and index - linked . The domestic court also awarded the applicant the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG validated the judgment ( învestire cu formulă executorie ) , pursuant to LAW hereinafter “ the NORP ” ) , as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant instituted enforcement proceedings on DATE , requesting the bailiffs’ office M.S.R. & S.A.I. ( “ the bailiff ” ) to enforce the judgment .

On DATE the bailiff issued a notice of payment ( somație ) and served it on the company .

According to a report of CARDINAL DATE issued by the bailiff , the bailiff and the applicant ’s lawyer visited the company ’s LOC . As the company ’s legal representative was not present , the bailiff granted the company a further DATE in which to execute the final judgment of their own accord .

NORP However , the company refused to fulfil its obligations . Moreover , it lodged a complaint seeking to have the enforcement proceedings annulled , pursuant to LAW , as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . During those proceedings and at the company ’s request , on DATE ORG ordered the suspension of the enforcement proceedings until a final judgment was given ; the suspension was made subject to payment of a deposit of CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) , namely MONEY ( ORG ) .

NORP In response , on DATE the applicant brought urgent proceedings seeking to have the impugned suspension lifted . She argued that the matter was urgent because she needed to obtain the salary entitlements that would allow her to provide for herself and her infant .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request , holding that she had not proved the existence of any imminent damage , so as to justify the urgency of the request .

On DATE ORG allowed the company ’s complaint against the enforcement proceedings . The court held that the procedural requirements had not been thoroughly complied with in so far as the bailiff had failed to serve the company with a copy of the enforceable judgment .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the court ’s judgment . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as ungrounded . The first - instance judgment thus became final .

The company lodged another request seeking to obtain the annulment of the restriction order ( anularea măsurii de poprire ) issued by the bailiff in respect of its bank accounts . On DATE ORG allowed the request , in so far as the restriction order had been issued subsequent to the suspension of the enforcement proceedings ordered by the court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the meantime , on DATE , the bailiff issued another notice of payment . On DATE it was posted , together with the enforceable judgment , at the company ’s main entrance .

On DATE the bailiff received a letter from the applicant , in which she enquired whether the company had complied with the outstanding judgment . The bailiff replied in the negative on DATE .

In so far as this was the last exchange of information between the applicant and the bailiff concerning the impugned enforcement procedure , and in view of the obligations imposed by law on the creditor , who was required to play a constantly active role throughout the enforcement procedure , on CARDINAL DATE the bailiff issued an official report , noting that , under LAW as in force at the time , the procedure had become time - barred ( “ perimarea executării ” ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It is not clear whether that report was communicated to the applicant or not .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint before ORG seeking to obtain a court order for immediate enforcement of the judgment , pursuant to LAW as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s complaint and ordered the company to pay a coercive fine of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL per day until it fulfilled its obligations .

An appeal by the company against that decision was allowed on DATE by ORG . The court held that the coercive fine had the nature of a civil penalty aimed at securing the enforcement of a personal obligation which could not be otherwise executed , as provided for by Article CARDINAL . However , the payment of the company ’s debt could be enforced with the assistance of a bailiff ; therefore the applicant ’s complaint was ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant complained to the Minister of ORG about the outcome of the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The complaint was lodged under the provisions of PERSON no . ORG , defining the framework for judges’ disciplinary and criminal responsibility and the specific authorities empowered to initiate such proceedings .

On DATE the applicant ’s complaint was forwarded to ORG . On DATE ORG noted that the impugned proceedings had been terminated by a judgment that was final and therefore not subject to appeal .

In DATE the applicant complained to different State authorities that the company ’s representatives had failed to execute the judgment . She relied on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Labour Code and LAW no . CARDINAL regarding the resolution of labour disputes ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .

On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated against GPE , the company ’s administrator , for refusal to execute the judgment .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office at ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings against PERSON and fined him PERSON CARDINAL , namely approximately EUR CARDINAL . The prosecutor investigating the case found that PERSON ’s actions could not be classified as an offence .

A complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision was dismissed on DATE by the senior prosecutor at ORG .

On DATE both the applicant and PERSON appealed against the ORG decisions before ORG . The court dismissed both appeals on DATE . It held that the applicant ’s appeal had been lodged outside the time - limit . With regard to PERSON ’s appeal , it reiterated that even though he had not executed the judgment , his actions could not be classified as an offence and , therefore , the administrative fine had been fair .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed appeals on points of law lodged by the applicant and PERSON

On DATE the company ’s CARDINAL shareholders decided that the company should be liquidated ( dizolvare ) , in accordance with the provisions of Law no . CARDINAL on trading companies . At their request , ORG ( ORG ) decided on DATE to publish the ORG decision in ORG . The decision was published on DATE , in accordance with the provisions of Emergency Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL regulating the registration of specific acts in the companies register ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

It was noted in an accounting report drawn up on DATE that the company ’s only creditors were the CARDINAL shareholders .

On DATE CARDINAL of the shareholders asked ORG to strike the company off the register . The request was granted on DATE , and ORG decided that the decision would be published in ORG .

No appeal was lodged against the decisions taken by ORG in respect of the company .