CASE OF GOREMÎCHIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention pending trial for DATE . He was charged with the offence of robbery , taking of hostages and blackmail while in GPE , in DATE and DATE . The applicant was residing at the material time in GPE , GPE .

On DATE , the applicant was arrested in GPE at the GPE request and placed in a NORP prison pending extradition to GPE .

On DATE the applicant was extradited to the NORP authorities . On DATE he was brought before a judge ( ORG ) , who ordered his detention on remand .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention on remand for DATE .

From then on , the applicant ’s detention was prolonged DATE . Each time , the reasons for his detention were that it was an exceptional case , that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed serious offences punishable by imprisonment , that the criminal case was complex and that if released the applicant could interfere with the investigation , influence the witnesses and victims , re - offend or abscond ( as he had earlier been declared a wanted person ) .

On DATE the applicant made a habeas corpus request , asking for his detention to be replaced with a preventive measure other than deprivation of liberty . The applicant ’s lawyer also raised a complaint about the impossibility to consult the applicant during the court hearings while not seated at the same desk next to him . He also complained about the denial by the court ’s registry of the applicant ’s request to receive copies of his case file . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s lawyer ’s claims and on DATE it prolonged the applicant ’s detention warrant for DATE , relying on exactly the same reasons as before .

NORP On DATE ORG , acting as a court of first instance , acquitted the applicant and ordered his release from detention . The court noted that its judgment could be challenged by an appeal on points of law within DATE .

On DATE ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . In the appeal ORG made reference to LAW . The applicant objected that the appeal had been lodged out of time . Nevertheless , on DATE ORG upheld it and reopened the proceedings . ORG did not refer to the applicant ’s objection that the appeal had been lodged out of time .

The proceedings ended on DATE , when ORG found the applicant guilty , but discontinued them on the ground of statutory time - limit .

The applicant was detained from DATE to DATE in ORG . He was placed in a remand facility situated in a basement . The total surface was of QUANTITY , with no bed , chair , toilet facilities or washstand . He slept for DATE on a concrete floor , using a bucket for his needs . In addition , the applicant had no DATE walks outside his cell .

DATE , the applicant was moved to cell no . CARDINAL of the same detention facility . He was detained with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY for DATE . The applicant was held in similar conditions of detention as described above . He also claims that he was fed only once per day with soup and a slice of bread . During DATE of detention he had access to the showers only once .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from that remand facility to prison no . CARDINAL ( PERSON ) . He was placed for DATE in cell no . CARDINAL with a total surface of QUANTITY . The applicant was detained with CARDINAL other inmates . In particular , the applicant describes his conditions of detention as follows : the cell was equipped with CARDINAL wooden beds , it was not heated , the quality of food was very poor , there was a lack of ventilation , worsened by the inmates’ smoking directly in the cell , and poor lighting .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY . He was detained there with CARDINAL other detainees . The cell was equipped with CARDINAL wooden beds .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from prison no . CARDINAL ( PERSON ) to prison no . CARDINAL ( GPE ) , where he was detained until the date of his acquittal by ORG on DATE . On the date of his arrival he was not fed . He was placed in cell no . CARDINAL with a total surface of QUANTITY . The applicant was detained with CARDINAL other inmates . The cell was equipped with CARDINAL beds and the detainees had to sleep in turns . The applicant described his conditions of detention as follows : toilet insufficiently separated from the cell , lack of a washstand , lack of water and ventilation , lack of adequate lighting , damp and cold cell .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG complaining about the poor conditions of detention . In a reply dated DATE , ORG informed the applicant that his complaint about the poor conditions of detention was well founded and that following a control carried out in Prison No . CARDINAL multiple breaches of the law had been discovered . The prison administration was asked to remove the shortcomings found . It does not appear that any change in the applicant ’s conditions of detention occurred after ORG involvement .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL with a total surface of QUANTITY . The applicant was detained along with CARDINAL other inmates and they had to sleep in turns as the cell was equipped with CARDINAL beds . The conditions of detention as described by the applicant were as follows : lack of bed linen , clothing and hygiene products , inadequate quality of food , lack of medical assistance . The applicant also contends that he was bitten by parasitic insects present in the cell .

The applicant complained to the domestic courts and the investigating authority about the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention . On DATE ORG acknowledged the existence of the inhuman conditions of detention in prison no . CARDINAL ( GPE ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the LOC police department in GPE Region instituted criminal proceedings in respect of a carjacking .

On DATE the applicant was arrested as a suspect in connection with the incident .

On DATE the investigating judge of the ORG remanded the applicant in pre - trial detention until DATE on the grounds that he was suspected of a serious crime , was unemployed , had no funds , did not live in the area and was not living at his official registered address . It was also considered that he might evade his procedural obligations and abscond to avoid investigation and trial .

On DATE the applicant was charged with the robbery of PERSON , committed together with ORG

On DATE the pre - trial investigation ended and the case against the applicant and PERSON was referred to LOC . The case was then transferred to ORG in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for further investigation and remanded the applicant in custody until DATE , noting that he had been suspected of a serious crime and might continue his criminal activities .

On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing in the case and extended the detention of the applicant and PERSON until DATE . It noted , without going into any detail or indication to which of the co - accused it referred , that “ other preventive measures will not ensure the appropriate behaviour of the accused ” during the trial .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , noting that he and PERSON had been charged with serious crimes , did not live in the area and were unemployed . It was also considered that they might influence witnesses and other participants in the proceedings or otherwise obstruct criminal proceedings , given that the trial had not yet started .

On DATE the applicant applied for release to ORG complaining about , among other things , his state of health .

On DATE ORG examined and rejected that application . The court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE on the same grounds as those given in its previous decision of CARDINAL DATE . As to his health problems , the court noted that he had been treated successfully for renal colic and was fit for trial .

On DATE ORG rejected a further application for release lodged on DATE and extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE on the same grounds as those given on the CARDINAL previous occasions , adding that he was aware of the punishment for the crime he had been charged with and thus might obstruct the criminal proceedings to avoid criminal liability .

On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE respectively , on the same grounds as those given in its decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged another application for release with ORG .

On DATE ORG examined and rejected that application , extending the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It repeated its previous reasoning , adding that he was aware of the punishment for the crime he had been charged with and thus might obstruct the criminal proceedings to avoid criminal liability . It also added that he and his coaccused ORG had no strong social ties .

On DATE the applicant lodged another application for release , which was rejected on DATE . ORG repeated its previous reasoning , noting in addition as grounds for his detention that he was not studying .

On DATE ORG rejected that application and extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , giving reasons similar to those given on DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , repeating the reasoning given in its previous decisions .

On DATE the applicant and ORG were convicted by ORG of robbery and carjacking and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The court also decided to reduce the remainder of the prison sentence ( namely the part not covered by the pre - trial detention ) by CARDINAL under LAW .

On DATE the ORG in ORG allowed the applicant ’s application for early release .


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

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

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

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

The applicant is a singer and well - known person in the entertainment industry in GPE .

On DATE the applicant received a call on his personal mobile telephone from a journalist at the newspaper “ PERSON ” . The journalist informed the applicant that he was in possession of information regarding the fact that the applicant had fathered a child outside marriage . The information was to be published in a forthcoming issue of the newspaper .

The applicant did not consent to the publication , and on DATE obtained a court injunction prohibiting the newspaper from publishing the information .

Notwithstanding the injunction , on DATE the newspaper went ahead with the publication . The article was called “ NORP hides his son born outside marriage ” , and was printed on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the newspaper , with a large headline on the front page . The article included statements such as : “ PERSON reveals that a famous singer has not CARDINAL , but CARDINAL children ” ; “ ORG ’s secret DATE a child born outside marriage ” ; “ the boy does not know that his father is a famous singer ” ; “ before marrying PERSON , a singer [ the applicant ’s current wife ] , Ž. ORG had a short , yet passionate love affair with L. ” ; “ Žilvinas did not disappear from the woman ’s life ” ; “ passionate love affairs fade over time . Nevertheless , sometimes children who come into the world and are rejected by their fathers remain a reminder of such affairs . Such a shadow of the past caught up with the famous singer PERSON ” ; and “ there will be much gossip following the publication of information about LOC child born outside marriage ” . The names of the boy and his mother were changed in the article , which also pointed out the fact that the boy ’s mother was a dancer in a famous dance group in GPE .

In addition , on the second page of the same issue , an article entitled “ Hostages of love ” appeared , describing the applicant ’s private life as the journalists imagined it to be .

On DATE PERSON printed another article entitled “ PERSON in the arms of a new woman ” . The article stated that “ on DATE , while partying , PERSON was restless . Needless to say , there were plenty of young women at the party ” .

The applicant started court proceedings for breach of privacy and damage to his reputation . He claimed that the publications had caused him serious humiliation , as well as great distress to both him and his family . He also claimed that the newspaper had recorded his telephone conversation with the journalist without prior permission . The applicant requested that CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – MONEY ( ORG ) ) be awarded to him in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

The applicant also asked that the newspaper be fined LTL CARDINAL for having disregarded the court order prohibiting the publication ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG concluded that the newspaper had breached the applicant ’s right to privacy , which was protected under LAW . The court found that the applicant ’s wife and the child ’s mother had attempted to persuade the newspaper ’s chief editor and the journalist who had written the article not to publish it . The QUANTITY women had not been successful . On the contrary , the newspaper had blackmailed the child ’s mother to make her portray the applicant in a negative light , in return , promising not to disclose the identity of the child .

ORG held that the fact that the applicant ’s son had been conceived out of marriage was a matter relating to his private life , and , despite being a singer , the applicant did not come under the category of public figures . Moreover , even if the applicant could be considered a public figure , this would not give grounds to publish the information in question , given that there was no public interest in disclosing the fact that he had fathered the child . The publisher ’s and the journalist ’s argument that she had been aiming to disclose a story about how famous men did not raise or take care of their own children was devoid of substance . On the contrary , the court established that the child ’s mother had no claim against the applicant to the effect that he did not take care of the child . Quite the contrary , the child had a father whom he knew to be his father . The court agreed with the finding of the Inspector of ORG that the information in this particular case had been published in a sensational manner , with a large headline on the front page , thereby seeking to satisfy the readers’ curiosity , and denying the applicant ’s right to protection of his privacy , and also being in breach of journalistic ethics . The court emphasised that , according to the practice of ORG , the disclosure of information about a child being conceived out of wedlock was to be considered a violation of the right to a private life , even if that information concerned a public figure , because there was no public interest in making such information known .

In addition , the court found that the journalist had breached the applicant ’s privacy by recording a telephone conversation with him without his consent ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as well as by unlawfully observing or watching him , collecting information about him , and using that information in the article entitled “ PERSON in the arms of a new woman ” .

As to the sum to be awarded in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , ORG determined that the publication at issue had caused the applicant serious distress . Until then , only his wife and certain members of his family had known about what the publication had revealed . The court also attached importance to the fact that the newspaper had disregarded the court injunction and gone ahead with the publication of article , even though it had received that injunction in time to stop its publication . Moreover , the newspaper had had a large print run . Consequently , a large number of people had learnt about the relevant information .

NORP However , the court observed that , prior to the present litigation , the applicant had been rather open with the mass media , having disclosed private matters such as the fact that he was having another child [ with his wife ] and details about that child ’s birth . As a result , it was possible to conclude that up to the moment when the information at issue had become public , the applicant had not vigilantly protected his private life from the media , and had not considered his private life to have great value . For the court , that particular aspect of the case allowed it to lower the compensation award for non - pecuniary damage to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , an award to cover all the violations of privacy .

The court also ordered the newspaper to pay the applicant LTL CARDINAL in respect of legal costs . The applicant , in turn , was ordered to pay LTL MONEY , the newspaper ’s legal costs , on the basis that legal costs are reimbursed proportionately in relation to the claims granted ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG partly upheld the first instance court ’s decision . The court observed that , whilst the applicant was a singer and therefore had to be tolerant of media attention , he still retained the right to determine the boundaries of his private life , which no one had the right to cross without his consent . The information at issue had been made public without his consent . Moreover , that information was purely private and the publication thereof had had no connection to the applicant ’s professional activities . The court of first instance had been correct in finding that the aim of disclosing the information had been to cause a sensation , and not to inform society about matters of public interest . The publication had caused the applicant distress , and this was clearly proved by his wish to prevent public disclosure by obtaining a court injunction .

The appellate court noted that , according to the guidelines of ORG , the circumstances of any particular situation had to be evaluated when assessing non - pecuniary damage . In the light of the facts of the case , ORG considered that the sum of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL which had been awarded was too low to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage the applicant had sustained . Given that there had actually been CARDINAL violations of privacy in the case – the disclosure of information regarding the applicant having a child outside marriage , which was the more serious breach , and information about his behaviour at a party – it was appropriate to make CARDINAL separate awards . On that basis , the appellate court awarded the applicant LTL CARDINAL for the first breach of privacy and LTL CARDINAL for the second . The court observed that there was no legal basis for a larger award , particularly given ORG guidelines that , when determining the sum to be awarded , it was necessary to take into account the economic situation of the country and the standard of living of its citizens . The newspaper was also ordered to cover the applicant ’s legal costs in respect of the part of the civil claim which had been allowed .

On the basis of LAW , ORG also imposed a fine of LTL CARDINAL on the newspaper , the maximum amount possible , for disregarding the court injunction forbidding it from going ahead with the publication of information breaching the applicant ’s right to a private life . ORG established that the newspaper had received the court injunction in time , but had failed to comply with it , thus grossly breaching the maxim that court rulings are imperative ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant and the newspaper both lodged appeals on points of law . On DATE ORG changed the decision of ORG in part . ORG had regard to the need to balance rights under LAW ( it relied on Editions PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIV , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . ORG agreed with the lower courts’ reasoning to the effect that the applicant ’s occupation did not automatically mean that he consented to the publication of all information about his private life . The information which had been disclosed was exclusively private ; there was no public interest in society learning of it . Consequently , the court found that the newspaper had overstepped the boundaries prescribed by LAW .

As to the question of non - pecuniary damage , ORG concurred with the lower courts that a mere finding of a violation of the applicant ’s right to privacy would not be sufficient compensation . However , ORG deemed it important to ensure the continuity of its earlier case - law and take into consideration past awards in analogous cases . Given the scarcity of case - law on breach of privacy matters , it was necessary to consider the non - pecuniary value ( neturtinė vertybė ) which had been breached . The more important the value ( for example , health or life ) , the more it was protected ( the ORG relied on its earlier ruling in case no . CARDINALKCARDINAL/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , the right to a private life had to be balanced with another constitutional value – the right to disseminate information . Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provided a list of criteria to be taken into account when assessing compensation , also providing for court discretion in this matter .

Continuing with its assessment , ORG noted that the newspaper ’s transgression had been deliberate , given that it had consciously chosen not to comply with the court injunction . However , the publication of the information had not carried grave or long - term consequences for the applicant , because his wife had known about his son who had been born outside marriage , and the applicant had discussed certain aspects of his private life with journalists on many occasions in the past , and was used to media attention . All this was relevant when assessing compensation for nonpecuniary damage . Moreover , the lower courts had not established that , by breaching the applicant ’s right to a private life , the newspaper had attempted to obtain economic gain , for example by printing more copies of the newspaper , and such a point was relevant when determining compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

In the light of the above , ORG concluded that the firstinstance court had properly examined all of the relevant circumstances , and taking into consideration , inter alia , the sums awarded as compensation in similar cases , had reasonably awarded the applicant LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL . That decision was to stay in force .

Lastly , ORG reviewed the issue of legal costs , in the light of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and lowered the costs of representation to be reimbursed to the newspaper , because they were higher than those recommended by ORG . Once all the sums in respect of both parties’ representation at the CARDINAL levels of court had been calculated , the applicant had to pay the newspaper LTL CARDINAL for legal costs and court fees . He therefore received LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) following the civil litigation .

In DATE the newspaper Private printed an article about the applicant ’s family life , where he and his wife PERSON were interviewed about their family . They stated that they were able to lean on each other at any time .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE reads :

“ A person ’s private life shall be inviolable ...

The law and the courts shall protect everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference in his private and family life , or from encroachment upon his honour and dignity . ”

DATE LAW provides that compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage suffered by a person must be established by law .

The relevant provisions of LAW read :

“ CARDINAL . A person ’s privacy shall be inviolable . Information regarding a person ’s private life may be made public only with his consent ...

NORP Unlawful invasion of a person ’s dwelling or other private LOC , including fenced private territory ; keeping the person ’s private life under observation ... ; intentional interception of the person ’s telephone communications , post or other private communications , as well as violation of the confidentiality of his personal notes and information ; publication of data relating to the state of his health , in violation of the procedure prescribed by law ; and other unlawful acts shall be deemed to violate the person ’s private life .

The creation of a file on another person ’s private life , in violation of the law , shall be prohibited . A person may not be denied access to the information contained in the file , except as otherwise provided for by law . Dissemination of the information collected on the person ’s private life shall be prohibited unless , taking into consideration the person ’s official post and his status in the society , dissemination of the said information is in line with a lawful and well - grounded public interest in being aware of that information .

NORP The public announcement of facts concerning a person ’s private life , however truthful they may be ; making private correspondence public , in violation of the procedure prescribed in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Article ; invasion of a person ’s dwelling without his consent , except as otherwise provided for by law ; keeping his private life under observation ; or gathering information about him in violation of the law ; and other unlawful acts infringing the right to privacy shall form the basis for bringing an action for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of those acts ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG - pecuniary damage shall be deemed to be a person ’s suffering , emotional experiences , inconvenience , mental shock , emotional depression , humiliation , damage to reputation , diminution of opportunities to associate with others , and so on , evaluated by a court in terms of money .

ORG - pecuniary damage shall be compensated for only in cases provided for by law . Non - pecuniary damage shall be compensated for in all cases where it has been sustained as a result of crime , health impairment or deprivation of life , as well as in other cases provided for by law . The courts , in evaluating the non - pecuniary damage , shall take into consideration the consequences of the damage sustained , the degree of fault on the part of the person who caused the damage , his financial status , the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the aggrieved person , and any other circumstances of importance to the case , as well as the criteria of good faith , justice and reasonableness . ”

On DATE ORG decided civil case no . DATE . The plaintiff had asked to be awarded LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , which he had suffered as a result of physical injury . He had been attacked by CARDINAL people and beaten , thereby suffering facial injuries and being rendered disabled . ORG held that health was one of the most important values , which was often not repairable or restorable . Health therefore merited particular protection . The court also took into account that the non - pecuniary damage in this case had been caused by a crime – the deliberate and brutal actions of the respondents . It was therefore fair to grant the civil claim in full .

As regards the amounts awarded for non - pecuniary damage to redress breaches of privacy , the Government referred to a number of ORG decisions . In cases concerning the reputation of a legal entity , for example , the awards were between LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

The Government also referred to cases where protected values other than privacy had been at issue . In cases concerning injury to one ’s health , the awards for non - pecuniary damage were between LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL , depending on the severity of the injury . In cases concerning loss of life , compensation awards for non - pecuniary damage were between LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL to LTL CARDINAL . In cases where the right to liberty had been violated , the awards were between LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL to LTL CARDINAL .

In case no . ORG , decided on DATE , which concerned an injury at work , ORG held that , when evaluating the amount of non - pecuniary damage , it was important to consider the values being protected and their interrelationship ( turi būti atsižvelgta į ginamų vertybių specifiką ir jų tarpusavio santykį ) , because the right to life and the right to health were absolute rights , whereas the right to privacy and the right to dignity were relative or conditional rights ( santykinės teisės ) which could not be equally valued as regards damages . A worker who had fallen off a building platform and cracked his skull was thus awarded LTL CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of that injury .

On DATE ORG gave a ruling in civil case no . CARDINALKCARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning an accident at work following which the plaintiff in question had become handicapped . ORG noted that the worker was partly to blame for his injury , because he had not followed safety instructions at work . Accordingly , although the plaintiff had asked for LTL CARDINAL and the first - instance court had awarded him LTL CARDINAL , ORG considered that a sum of LTL CARDINAL would be sufficient to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage suffered .

On DATE ORG examined case no . CARDINALKCARDINAL/CARDINAL , which also concerned an accident at work . The plaintiff in that case was awarded LTL CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage suffered as a result of physical injury .

On DATE , in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG held that there had been a violation of the plaintiff ’s right to privacy and reputation , owing to a publication about his allegedly fraudulent manner of conducting business and his alleged debts to his business partners , and the printing of the plaintiff ’s photograph . For ORG , LTL CARDINAL was sufficient to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage sustained .

On DATE , in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG agreed that an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in a civil case was sufficient to compensate for the plaintiff ’s mental suffering , where a local television station had wrongfully accused the plaintiff of having committed a traffic violation .

On DATE ORG gave a ruling in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning a civil claim by a woman , PERSON , for breach of privacy in respect of an article in a DATE newspaper , PERSON , entitled “ A date with a lesbian ” ( “ Pasimatymas su lesbiete ” ) . The case concerned an article which had included CARDINAL photographs . PERSON was in CARDINAL of those photographs , which was in a large format . She had been photographed from the front , although her name had not been disclosed . The first - instance court considered that , “ taking into account society ’s negative opinion about people of non - traditional sexual orientation ” ( “ teismas , įvertinęs susidariusią neigiamą visuomenės nuomonę apie netradicinės seksualinės orientacijos žmones ” ) , the publication of PERSON ’s photograph in such a context could cause her to be evaluated oddly ( galėjo sukelti prieštaringų ieškovės vertinimų ) . The court also noted that the newspaper ’s financial situation was good , it had a large print throughout GPE . However , the newspaper had not apologised to the plaintiff or paid her damages , even though it had initially promised to do so . However , the sum claimed by the plaintiff , LTL CARDINAL , was clearly excessive . It was therefore reasonable to award her LTL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage . That sum was upheld by the appellate court , which underlined that the article “ A date with a lesbian ” was conflicting ( vertinamas prieštaringai ) in a homophobic society , and people whose photographs were linked to that article could therefore experience negative consequences , as indeed in GPE ’s case . She had had to explain herself to her parents , colleagues at work and friends from times of studies . The award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL would also not impede the DATE commercial activity of the defendant .

The newspaper lodged an appeal on points of law , arguing that the award for non - pecuniary damage was too high . ORG noted that it was important to adhere to the principle of non - discrimination , which meant that similar cases should be decided similarly , and which also meant that , in analogous situations , awards for non - pecuniary damage should be comparable . ORG also relied on its earlier case - law to the effect that courts should not only follow the criteria established in legal norms and court practice , but should also take into account the awards already granted in analogous cases .

ORG thus distinguished CARDINAL categories of cases .

Firstly , there were cases where a plaintiff ’s privacy had been breached on account of the arrangement of his or her nude photographs with offensive text and headlines ( ORG referred to the case of PERSON PERSON and PERSON ) , or where information regarding “ family secrets ” or health had been made public ( ORG referred to its ruling of DATE in the instant case of NORP ) , or where information about private life had been published together with photographs , which had amounted to a breach of the right to a private life . The awards in those cases were , respectively , LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL , LTL CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL .

As to the second category , ORG referred to some cases where the press had used plaintiffs’ private photographs without permission , or had accused them of crimes , where the non - pecuniary damage awards were LTL CARDINAL .

The third category concerned cases where photographs of plaintiffs who were well - known people in society had been published without their consent , and for the purpose of a newspaper gaining financial benefit from advertisement , where the awards for non - pecuniary damage were LTL CARDINAL .

ORG then held that , in the case of GPE , the award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL was too high , because it did not correspond to the abovementioned court practice . PERSON ’s photograph had been published only as an illustration of the article , and neither her personal data nor information about her private life had been made public . Moreover , the photograph had been taken at a public event when PERSON was posing ( viešame renginyje , ieškovei pozuojant ) . In the view of ORG , an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL would be fair and adequate in respect of the non - pecuniary damage sustained by PERSON in relation to the breach of her right to protection of her image , and to prevent the abuse of freedom of expression by the press .

On DATE ORG adopted a ruling in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which concerned ORG civil claim for defamation against a television channel , Tele-CARDINAL . In particular , PERSON , who is a singer , had complained that in DATE , during a television broadcast , a presenter had made statements about someone else allegedly being the father of PERSON ’s child , had made allegations about PERSON ’s actual sexual orientation , and , in the latter context , had also claimed that PERSON had been operated on in clinics in GPE DATE after “ he had sustained trauma to his anus from a blunt object ” .

ORG held that information about PERSON ’s fatherhood , his sexual orientation , and his unverified operation concerned his private life , notwithstanding PERSON being well - known because he was a singer . Moreover , disseminating such information had no public interest . On the contrary , having had regard to the manner in which the information had been presented , ORG held that the only aim in disseminating it had been to spread gossip to satisfy the curiosity of a certain category of television viewers . The fact that PERSON had communicated with the media before did not mean that he had lost his right to privacy . Having examined the case in the light of the ORG ’s case - law ( ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE , ECHR DATE ) , ORG held that there had been a breach of PERSON ’s right to privacy .

Although PERSON asked the courts to award him LTL CARDINAL to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage , ORG found that the lower courts had correctly applied Article CARDINAL of LAW , and had had a proper basis for their decision to award PERSON CARDINAL in compensation .

The Code of Civil Procedure states :

“ CARDINAL . A court decision , ruling or order which has come into force is obligatory ... [ in respect of all persons ] and must be executed ... ”

“ CARDINAL . A court orders the legal costs of the party to the proceedings in whose favour a court decision has been adopted to be paid by the other party to the proceedings ...

NORP If a civil claim is granted in part , the plaintiff ’s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is granted , and the defendant ’s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is rejected .

The rules set out in this LAW also apply to court fees ...

NORP If the appellate court or court of cassation , without referring the case for fresh examination , changes a lower court ’s decision or ruling , or adopts a new ruling , it accordingly changes the division of legal costs . If the appellate court or court of cassation does not change the division of legal costs , it is the court of first instance which has to resolve this question . ”

“ CARDINAL . If [ temporary protective measures ] are breached , the court may impose a fine of MONEY ... ”

At the relevant time , with regard to the collection and publication of information , the PERSON on the Provision of Information to the Public ( Visuomenės informavimo įstatymas ) read that , in order to avoid violating a person ’s rights and to protect his honour and dignity , it should be prohibited to film , photograph , or make audio or video - recordings of a person without his consent ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) . Journalists were also obliged not to make audio or video - recordings if the individual providing the information objected ( LAW ) ) . The Journalists’ and LAW read that journalists or publishers should not use the recordings for direct quotes if an individual objected to this ( LAW .

On DATE ORG of ORG adopted LAW , containing a LAW , the relevant parts of which read :

“ CARDINAL . There is an area in which the exercise of the right of freedom of information and freedom of expression may conflict with the right to privacy protected by LAW Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life , his home and his correspondence ... The exercise of the former right must not be allowed to destroy the existence of the latter .

The right to privacy consists essentially in the right to live one ’s own life with a minimum of interference . It concerns private , family and home life , physical and moral integrity , honour and reputation , avoidance of being placed in a false light , nonrevelation of irrelevant and embarrassing facts , unauthorised publication of private photographs , protection against misuse of private communications , protection from disclosure of information given or received by the individual confidentially . Those who , by their own actions , have encouraged indiscreet revelations about which they complain later on , can not avail themselves of the right to privacy .

A particular problem arises as regards the privacy of persons in public life . The phrase ‘ where public life begins , private life ends’ is inadequate to cover this situation . The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection , save where they may have an impact upon public events . The fact that an individual figures in the news does not deprive him of a right to a private life .

NORP In order to counter these dangers , national law should provide a right of action enforceable at law against persons responsible for such infringements of the right to privacy .

The right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media . National legislations should comprise provisions guaranteeing this protection . ”

The relevant passages of Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) of ORG of ORG on the right to privacy , adopted on DATE , read :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recalls the current affairs debate it held on the right to privacy during its DATE session , DATE after the accident which cost FAC GPE her life .

NORP On that occasion , some people called for the protection of privacy , and in particular that of public figures , to be reinforced at the NORP level by means of a convention , while others believed that privacy was sufficiently protected by national legislation and LAW , and that freedom of expression should not be jeopardised .

The right to privacy , guaranteed by LAW , has already been defined by the ORG in the declaration on mass communication media and human rights , contained within LAW ( DATE ) , as ‘ the right to live one ’s own life with a minimum of interference’ .

In view of the new communication technologies which make it possible to store and use personal data , the right to control one ’s own data should be added to this definition .

The ORG is aware that personal privacy is often invaded , even in countries with specific legislation to protect it , as people ’s private lives have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media . The victims are essentially public figures , since details of their private lives serve as a stimulus to sales . At the same time , public figures must recognise that the position they occupy in society – in many cases by choice – automatically entails increased pressure on their privacy .

Public figures are persons holding public office and/or using public resources and , more broadly speaking , all those who play a role in public life , whether in politics , the economy , the arts , the social sphere , sport or in any other domain .

It is often in the name of a CARDINAL - sided interpretation of the right to freedom of expression , which is guaranteed in LAW , that the media invade people ’s privacy , claiming that their readers are entitled to know everything about public figures .

Certain facts relating to the private lives of public figures , particularly politicians , may indeed be of interest to citizens , and it may therefore be legitimate for readers , who are also voters , to be informed of those facts .

It is therefore necessary to find a way of balancing the exercise of CARDINAL fundamental rights , both of which are guaranteed in LAW : the right to respect for one ’s private life and the right to freedom of expression .

The ORG reaffirms the importance of every person ’s right to privacy , and of the right to freedom of expression , as fundamental to a NORP society . These rights are neither absolute nor in any hierarchical order , since they are of equal value .

NORP However , the ORG points out that the right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media .


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

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

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

According to the applicant , on DATE she was at her flat with her CARDINAL daughters , her son ORG and his wife . At TIME CARDINAL men arrived at the flat to carry out a passport check . They introduced themselves as officers of ORG of the ORG . The men were armed , some were wearing camouflage uniforms and the rest were in civilian clothes . They spoke NORP , NORP and PERSON . They checked the passports of the applicant ’s family members and then announced that they were taking PERSON to the police station to complete the identity check . There were CARDINAL other men waiting outside the building . At the time , ORG was wearing black trousers and a black - and - white striped shirt with short sleeves . The applicant was not allowed to accompany him .

The men and ORG left in CARDINAL silver ORG cars . The applicant ’s neighbour , PERSON , witnessed their departure . The applicant was able to remember part of the registration number of CARDINAL of the cars , which appeared to have been registered in GPE .

On DATE the applicant saw several silver ORG cars parked at the premises of the operational search unit ( hereinafter “ the ORB-CARDINAL ” ) . She also saw a group of men in camouflage uniforms exit the building . Among them she identified CARDINAL of the men who had fetched her son . The men got into CARDINAL of the cars and left before the applicant was able to talk to them .

On DATE the applicant read on the internet that her son had been shot dead by ORG servicemen in the course of a counter - terrorist operation in a forest close to ORG , a village in GPE . According to the website , ORG had been a member of an illegal armed group and had been offering active armed resistance to the federal forces . It was claimed that a number of items including a PERSON machine gun and its ammunition , CARDINAL bullet shell , fragments of a spent grenade , a backpack containing clothes and the deceased ’s passport were found at the scene . Mr PERSON , the uncle of the deceased , identified ORG body in the morgue in GPE . The deceased was then dressed in a camouflage uniform .

On DATE medical forensic expert O. conducted a forensic examination of ORG body . He documented CARDINAL gunshot wounds which the deceased had sustained shortly before his death and considered them to be the cause of his death . He further noted CARDINAL bruises on the deceased ’s legs and arms , which the latter could have sustained shortly before his death . The camouflage uniform was removed , packed , sealed and admitted as evidence . The report made no mention of the presence of gunshot residue on the deceased ’s body .

On DATE the deceased ’s naked body wrapped in a cellophane bag was taken to the applicant ’s flat . The applicant , CARDINAL of her daughters , her son ’s wife and some other relatives saw multiple injuries on his body , including a gunshot wound to his chest , stab wounds , fractured bones , burns and bruises . His left arm was partially severed . The applicant ’s daughter took photographs of ORG body and injuries .

On DATE the applicant addressed a complaint to the LOC prosecutor ’s office in respect of her son ’s disappearance . In her statement she expressed doubts as to whether the persons who had taken ORG had been ORG agents and asked the prosecutor to open a criminal investigation into his disappearance . She also contacted the LOC department of the interior , alleging that her son had been abducted by unidentified ORG agents . On DATE she asked ORG of GPE and the GPE department of ORG to provide her with information about her son ’s detention . In response , the applicant was informed that her son had not been in the custody of the said authorities and that they had no information as to his whereabouts .

On CARDINAL and DATE an investigator at the prosecutor ’s office questioned the applicant and her CARDINAL daughters , PERSON and PERSON , about the events of DATE . They gave some information as to the registration number of CARDINAL of the vehicles used by the alleged abductors and claimed that they could identify the perpetrators .

On DATE a senior investigator , PERSON , of the district prosecutor ’s office refused to open a criminal investigation into ORG alleged abduction . In his decision the investigator summed up the statements provided by the applicant ’s family as regards the events of DATE . He further noted that he had not yet received any materials concerning the operation conducted by law - enforcement officers at the applicant ’s residence and concluded that there was no evidence to support her allegations .

On DATE the applicant provided a statement to the prosecutor ’s office of GPE , alleging that law - enforcement agents were implicated in her son ’s abduction , torture and unlawful killing . Referring to the traces of decomposition on his body , she considered that her son had been executed by the law - enforcement agents before DATE .

On DATE the head of the ORG district investigative division of the prosecutor ’s office of the GPE quashed the decision of DATE , noting that the inquiry conducted by the investigator was incomplete , and remitted the matter to him for further inquiry .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal investigation concerning an unidentified person on charges of attempted killing of ORG agents , unlawful possession of firearms and participation in an illegal armed group . The criminal case file was given number CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigator ordered a new forensic examination of ORG body .

On DATE O. conducted a new forensic examination of ORG body . He reproduced verbatim the summary of his findings in his previous report of CARDINAL DATE , according to which the deceased had been wearing a camouflage uniform at the time of the examination .

On DATE the investigator questioned forensic expert O. , who confirmed that he had observed a number of penetrating gunshot wounds on the deceased . He added that he had seen bruises on the deceased ’s arms and legs , which could have been caused by blows by , or collisions with , a blunt object . O. denied that the left arm of the deceased had been partially severed . Lastly , he concluded that the cause of death had been multiple gunshots which the deceased must have sustained QUANTITY prior to the examination of the body on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant again asked the prosecutor ’s office of GPE to open a criminal investigation into the abduction and unlawful killing of her son by law - enforcement agents .

On DATE the applicant was notified that her application had been added to criminal case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigator closed criminal case no . CARDINAL . Referring to the crime - scene examination report , forensic evidence ( examination of the bullet shell , the machine gun and its ammunition and the fragments of the spent grenade found at the crime scene , and the examination of the deceased ’s body ) and the statements made by the applicant and her family , the investigator concluded that sufficient evidence collected in the course of the criminal investigation indicated that ORG had attempted to kill a law - enforcement agent and the case should be closed in view of his death .

On DATE the head of the ORG district investigative division of the prosecutor ’s office of the GPE quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and re - opened the criminal investigation . In particular , he stated that the investigator had failed to verify the circumstances of ORG abduction ( the alleged perpetrators had not been questioned , the cars used by the persons who had abducted the deceased had not been identified , and ORG alleged involvement in a terrorist organisation had not been confirmed ) .

On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction of the deceased . The investigator concluded that ORG had been released by “ the persons who had abducted him ” and that he had been a member of an illegal armed group who “ had threatened the life of ORG agents ” on CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . According to her , her son had been kidnapped by ORG agents . He had then been tortured and killed by them . In order to disguise those crimes , the agents had taken her son ’s body to the forest and left it there together with a PERSON machine gun , alleging that he had been killed when attempting to assault them . When the applicant had received her son ’s body , it had already started to decompose and was covered with numerous injuries such as bruises , burns and cuts . His arm had been almost completely severed .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s allegations as unsubstantiated , upholding the investigator ’s findings of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .

According to the Government , in the course of the investigation into the activities of an illegal armed group , CARDINAL of the suspects testified that ORG had been a leading member of the group .

On DATE the criminal investigation into the circumstance of ORG death was re - opened . The investigator questioned CARDINAL military officers , NORP and PERSON , who had participated in the operation conducted by ORG forces on CARDINAL DATE . They submitted that in the course of the operation ORG had opened gunfire against their military unit and they had had to put an end to his attack and had shot back at him . He had died in the exchange of gunfire . The investigator also noted that he had been unable to determine whether the vehicles used by the alleged abductors had belonged to the ORG in view of the destruction of the relevant documentation .

On DATE the investigator closed the investigation into the events of DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted the digital photographs of ORG body taken by his sister to an independent expert centre .

On DATE forensic medical experts examined the photographs . They considered that some of them could not be examined in view of their poor quality . From the remainder of the photographs , the experts discerned CARDINAL wounds : a gunshot wound on the right side of the chest ; a deep wound on the left shoulder joint , probably resulting from a blow by a blunt solid object ; a surface wound on the left side of the chest ( the experts ruled out the possibility of its being a gunshot wound ) ; and a wound on the left side of the back , possibly caused by a hollow rectangular box - shaped object . In addition to the bruises documented in the official forensic report , the experts noted abrasions and bruises on the deceased ’s chest . Lastly , they concluded that all the injuries visible in the photographs of ORG must have been caused while he was still alive .

Referring to her account of the events of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs TIME ) , the applicant maintained that her son ORG had been abducted , detained , tortured and executed by ORG agents . The NORP authorities had falsely accused him of being a member of an illegal armed group in an attempt to cover up ORG agents’ unlawful actions .

The Government denied any involvement of its agents in ORG abduction . They argued that ORG had been a member of an illegal armed group and considered that the abduction had been staged by his co - conspirators . In their opinion , the applicant ’s allegations concerning her son ’s abduction , detention and torture lacked any evidentiary basis .

A number of principles have been developed in the ORG ’s case - law as regards cases where the ORG is faced with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree . As to the facts that are in dispute , the ORG refers to its jurisprudence requiring the standard of proof “ beyond reasonable doubt ” in its assessment of evidence ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ( extracts ) ) . Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . In this context , the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account ( see ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL–VIII ) .

The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . Nonetheless , where allegations are made under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , the ORG must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny ( see , mutatis mutandis , PERSON v. GPE , DATE , § CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ; and ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ) , even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place .

The ORG reiterates that it has noted the difficulties for applicants to obtain the necessary evidence in support of allegations in cases where the respondent Government are in possession of the relevant documentation and fail to submit it . Where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the ORG is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the lack of such documents , it is for the ORG to convince the ORG that the documents in question can not serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicant , or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred . The burden of proof is thus shifted to the ORG and if they fail in their arguments , issues will arise under LAW ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; and Akkum and Others v. GPE , no . TIME , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALII ) .

The ORG has previously found the NORP State authorities responsible for extra - judicial executions or disappearances of civilians in GPE in a number of cases , even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation ( see GPE and GPE , cited above ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , ECHR CARDINALXIII ( extracts ) ; Estamirov and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE ) . It has done so primarily on the basis of witness statements and other documents attesting to the presence of military or security personnel in the area concerned at the relevant time . It has relied on references to military vehicles and equipment , on witness accounts , on other information on security operations and on the undisputed effective control of the areas in question by the NORP military . On that basis , it has concluded that the areas in question were “ within the exclusive control of the authorities of the ORG ” in view of military or security operations being conducted there and the presence of servicemen ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

NORP However , on the basis of the account of the events given by the applicant in the present case , the ORG has little evidence on which to draw such conclusions .

The ORG observes that the documents submitted by the ORG provide no evidence of a security operation having taken place on DATE . As to the applicant ’s submissions , she and her relatives witnessed the abduction of ORG . In support of her argument that her son had been abducted by ORG agents , she argued that the men who had taken her son had been armed , spoke LANGUAGE , NORP and PERSON and that some of them had been wearing camouflage uniforms and had arrived in civilian PERSON cars .

The ORG is not convinced , however , that those details necessarily prove that the men were ORG servicemen . The applicant did not allege that the camouflage uniform some of the men had been wearing had borne any of the insignia characteristic of the uniform of ORG agents . It can not be ruled out that the uniform , as well as the firearms carried by the men , could have been obtained by them via various , possibly illegal , channels . Furthermore , there are no witness statements confirming that ORG was taken to any ORG agency after his abduction . In this connection , the ORG also takes into account the applicant ’s own statement to the prosecutor ’s office in which she expressed doubts as to the affiliation of the kidnappers with any ORG agency ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Accordingly , the information in the ORG ’s possession does not suffice to establish that ORG was kidnapped and held in detention by ORG agents . In such circumstances , the ORG can not attribute responsibility for the unlawful acts in the present case to the respondent ORG without additional evidence to that effect .

It has not , therefore , been established to the required standard of proof “ beyond reasonable doubt ” that ORG agents were implicated in the abduction and ensuing detention , if any , of ORG .


Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .

NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention . He also raised a complaint under LAW .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE . She divorced her husband , PERSON , in DATE . At the time of the events , she was living with her daughter , who was a minor , in a flat in GPE .

On DATE police officers arrested PERSON for an administrative offence at GPE ORG station . Following the arrest , the police officers found that a driving licence he had shown them did not bear all the requisite information and had a series number linked to another person in the police database .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against B. for document forgery committed in conspiracy with others . On DATE the police recorded telephone conversations between PERSON and the applicant which suggested that certain documents relating to his driving licence and his study in the driving school had been kept in her flat . The recorded conversations were later documented in a report on DATE .

On DATE an investigator with the PERSON - Zakhidna railway police department , who was dealing with the criminal case against PERSON , applied to ORG in GPE for search warrants for CARDINAL flats , including the CARDINAL belonging to the applicant , where , according to the investigator , PERSON permanently resided .

On DATE the ORG of GPE issued the search warrants . Only the investigator was present at the hearing . With regard to the applicant ’s flat , the court found that it was necessary to carry out a search of the flat where PERSON permanently resided and where the forged documents , as well as the means of and instruments for forging the documents , might be kept .

On DATE the investigator decided to carry out the search of the applicant ’s flat . Upon their arrival , the investigator and the other police officers present found that the flat was locked and that nobody responded when they rang the bell . According to the statements of the police officers , as submitted to the investigative authorities , they had contacted the applicant to inform her about the search . According to the applicant , on DATE she and her daughter had left for their cottage outside the city ; she had had her mobile phone with her and had not been contacted by the police .

The police officers called a task force to open the door to the flat . Once the door had been opened , the investigator and QUANTITY police officers carried out the search , with CARDINAL attesting witnesses and a representative of the building maintenance organisation in attendance . In the course of the search the police officers seized items of property , which they listed in a report . The list included , among other things : floppy disks , compact discs , vehicle registration certificates , keys , a box containing cash , certificates issued in PERSON ’s name , a painting and an icon .

On DATE the applicant returned home and found the door to her flat damaged and sealed . With the investigator ’s permission , she entered the flat and found that it was in a state of disarray . She also found that some items of property not included in the list of seized items were missing : CARDINAL mobile phones , top - up cards for mobile phones , jewels and a bottle of whisky .

The applicant made a complaint to the law - enforcement authorities regarding the actions of the police officers carrying out the search . She claimed that requirements of domestic law had been breached in the course of the search and that some items of property had disappeared .

On DATE the GPE transport prosecutor ’s office commenced a criminal investigation with regard to the possible theft of the applicant ’s property .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status and her civil claim was admitted to the file . On DATE the investigation was suspended , as it was not possible to identify the possible perpetrators of the crime .

On DATE the GPE city prosecutor ’s office reversed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as regards the suspension of the proceedings , finding that the investigation had not been carried out comprehensively : the people participating in the search of the applicant ’s flat had not been questioned properly , the mobile phones and the top - up cards had not been found , and the investigative measures implemented had not been properly documented .

On DATE and DATE certain seized items , including the painting , the icon and the missing mobile phones , were returned to the applicant .

On DATE the transport prosecutor ’s office of GPE refused to investigate the possible neglect of official duties by the police officers as regards the failure to fully document the items seized . It considered that the mobile phones had not been included in the list of seized items owing to a technical mistake . The phones had been given back to the applicant and , consequently , she had sustained no damage . It was concluded in the end that there had been no objective evidence to suggest that the police officers had neglected their duties .

On DATE the GPE city prosecutor ’s office found that the investigation into the alleged theft had not been carried out thoroughly , and had been delayed . It requested the GPE city prosecutor ’s office to organise a proper investigation of the case .

On DATE an investigator with the GPE transport prosecutor ’s office terminated the investigation , stating that there had been no evidence to suggest that any item had been stolen from the applicant ’s flat during the search .

NORP The applicant challenged that decision in court .

On DATE the Holosiyivskyy ORG of Kyiv dismissed the applicant ’s complaint , considering that the investigator had taken the necessary measures and had lawfully closed the case .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance court ’s decision of DATE and the investigator ’s decision of DATE as unsubstantiated , and remitted the case for further investigation .

As of CARDINAL DATE the investigation was ongoing . No further information was provided to ORG .

On DATE the GPE transport prosecutor , having conducted a pre - investigation inquiry , refused to commence criminal proceedings in relation to the possible abuse of power or ultra vires actions by the police officers during the search of the applicant ’s flat . In his decision , the prosecutor referred to the statement of a police officer that the applicant had been contacted on her mobile phone and informed that the search would be carried out , and the door to the flat had only been broken down after her refusal to appear . The prosecutor also stated that the search had been carried out in accordance with established procedure ; it had been observed by CARDINAL attesting witnesses and the representative of the building maintenance organisation , as required by the domestic law .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of DATE in court .

On DATE the Holosiyivskyy ORG of GPE found that the decision of DATE was well - founded . The court stated that the prosecutor had adopted the decision after interviewing the police officers , CARDINAL attesting witnesses , and a representative of the building maintenance organisation who had been involved in the search , in addition to the applicant and her former husband . The court further stated that the prosecutor had examined the search warrant , search report and other relevant documents , and had come to the correct conclusions when refusing to open an investigation .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE , finding that the prosecutor had lawfully refused to open an investigation . The applicant ’s contentions were dismissed as groundless .

The applicant appealed on points of law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , noting that the impugned court decisions were not open to review .


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

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

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

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

At the relevant time the applicant , a career military officer ( a major ) , was the liaison person in charge of supervising and approving works being undertaken for the renovation and modernisation of his military base .

On DATE the military branch of ORG committed the applicant for trial on several counts of corruption concerning public tenders . ORG , a civilian , was also indicted by the prosecutor for bribing the applicant . The prosecutors in charge of the indictment were career officers : a colonel - magistrate and a captainmagistrate . ORG failed to appear in court throughout the proceedings . The summons had been sent to an address in GPE of which his counsel had informed the courts . However , according to information received by the courts from the authorities , ORG was living in GPE ( “ the GPE ” ) at that time .

ORG , sitting in a panel composed of CARDINAL colonel - magistrates , examined the case as a firstinstance court . It heard testimony from witnesses for the prosecution and allowed CARDINAL witnesses for the defence to be called . However , those CARDINAL witnesses failed to appear . The applicant gave statements before the court .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a suspended sentence of DATE and DATE .

The parties appealed . The applicant maintained his innocence and argued that the first - instance court had made an incorrect interpretation of the evidence in the file .

ORG , sitting in a panel composed of CARDINAL colonel - magistrates , gave judgment on DATE . In an extensively reasoned decision it dismissed the appeals and upheld the firstinstance judgment .

The parties appealed on points of law . The applicant reiterated the representations he had made in the appeal proceedings , and in addition argued that ORG should be summoned at his address in the GPE and questioned by the court , as his statements could have an influence on the applicant ’s situation .

In a final decision of DATE the criminal section of ORG and ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant , as it considered that the lower courts had correctly established the facts of the case and classified the crimes in law . It reiterated the arguments advanced by ORG concerning the claims raised by the applicant in his previous appeal . It also considered that the evidence in the file was sufficient to secure the applicant ’s conviction and that there were no doubts that could have been clarified by statements from ORG allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor ’s office and ordered that the applicant serve his sentence in detention .