André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

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

NORP The applicant was a soldier in the NORP armed forces from DATE until DATE . On DATE of his service , he was formally instructed that , pursuant to the pertinent internal regulation of the armed forces , the consumption of drugs was prohibited both on duty and off duty and was subject to disciplinary sanctions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . From DATE until DATE , the applicant consumed cannabis in his spare time on several occasions .

After another soldier had informed the applicant ’s disciplinary superior ( PERSON ) about this , the latter confronted the applicant with the accusation on DATE . The applicant denied having consumed drugs and agreed to have a rapid drug test carried out that same day . As the test turned out to be positive , the applicant was questioned a second time . The disciplinary superior informed the applicant of his right to remain silent by virtue of LAW of LAW of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but did not tell him about the possibility of contacting a lawyer , as this right was not laid down in the said provision . The disciplinary superior also told the applicant that , if he chose not to remain silent , he was obliged to make true statements under LAW . The applicant then confessed to having consumed cannabis .

On DATE the disciplinary superior informed ORG , who launched preliminary criminal proceedings against the applicant . On DATE these proceedings were discontinued because the applicant ’s guilt was considered to be of a minor nature and because prosecution was not in the public interest .

On DATE the applicant ’s disciplinary superior informed the Prosecutor of the armed forces ( Wehrdisziplinaranwalt ) that he had referred the matter to ORG . On DATE , in an internal document , the Prosecutor of the armed forces ordered a preliminary investigation .

On DATE the applicant , of his own motion , went to see the deputy of the disciplinary superior . He again admitted to having consumed cannabis .

Following the applicant ’s second confession , his disciplinary superior advised him to see the PERSON ( “ person of confidence ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) so as to give him the opportunity to convince the latter to make a statement that was favourable to him . The disciplinary superior informed the applicant of his right to object to the PERSON being part of the proceedings . As the applicant did not object , the disciplinary superior also asked the PERSON to talk to the applicant . Shortly after , the applicant went to see the PERSON and told him about the background of his drug consumption .

On DATE , after the Prosecutor of the armed forces had asked the disciplinary superior to do so , the applicant was informed for the first time of his right to contact a lawyer . He was also asked whether he agreed to the PERSON being given access to the file . The applicant gave his consent without asking a lawyer for advice .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was formally questioned for the first time . He remained silent . DATE , the PERSON was questioned and gave evidence about the applicant ’s statements during their conversation , as the applicant had not objected to the PERSON being heard ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE disciplinary court proceedings against the applicant were opened . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the Prosecutor of the armed forces charged the applicant with the disciplinary offence of having breached his duties with intent by regularly consuming cannabis from DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of a disciplinary offence pursuant to LAW on ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It ordered that the applicant be banned from promotion for DATE and that his salary be cut by a twentieth ( i.e. MONEY ) for DATE . It considered the pecuniary fine to be necessary for educational reasons , as the applicant had no realistic prospect of promotion ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In the proceedings before ORG , the applicant remained silent . The court , therefore , based its findings on the result of the drug test and , mainly , on statements made by the applicant ’s disciplinary superior . Emphasising the difference between criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings , it considered that admitting these pieces of evidence did not violate the applicant ’s right to a fair trial . It pointed out that , when the applicant had first confessed his drug consumption to his disciplinary superior on DATE , after the latter had informed him about his right to remain silent , the proceedings were at the stage of a disciplinary investigation by a soldier ’s disciplinary superior ; the Prosecutor of the armed forces had not yet opened a preliminary investigation . It considered that a soldier only had to be informed of his right to contact a lawyer once the latter proceedings were opened . Hence , the evidence obtained from the applicant ’s first confession of CARDINAL DATE could be admitted ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the applicant ’s second confession of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could not be admitted as evidence because the prosecutor of the armed forces had ordered the initiation of a preliminary investigation prior to that date , which was why the applicant had to be informed of his right to contact a lawyer .

On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of ORG . It found that neither the applicant ’s first confession of DATE nor his second confession of DATE , nor the statements by his disciplinary superior , respectively the superior ’s deputy – to whom he had confessed on those occasions – could be admitted as evidence , because the applicant had not been informed of his right to contact a lawyer in advance . The court reasoned that such instruction , which was not required for minor disciplinary measures imposed by the disciplinary superior himself , was always required for evidence to be admitted in disciplinary court proceedings so as to ensure the fairness of the latter .

NORP However , the court considered that the finding that the applicant had consumed cannabis in his spare time , in breach of his duties as a soldier , could be based on CARDINAL pieces of evidence . First , the statement of a witness who had known about the applicant ’s drug consumption prior to the commencement of any proceedings . Second , the drug test to which the applicant had agreed after the initial questioning by his disciplinary superior on DATE . The court noted , however , that the examining physician had indicated that the positive result could also have been caused by passive smoking of cannabis and was not in itself sufficient to prove the applicant ’s cannabis consumption . Third , the statement of the PERSON about the conversation he had had with the applicant .

The court found that he did not have a right to refuse to give testimony . The PERSON did not belong to the persons listed in either LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) who could refuse testimony on professional grounds . It was constant case - law of the domestic courts that this provision did not extend to employee representatives or staff council members , and there was no reason to treat the Vertrauensperson more favourably than those persons . A right to refuse testimony did not follow from LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) either , as the pertinent internal regulations of the armed forces authorised the PERSON to testify before ORG .

ORG further found that hearing the PERSON as a witness did not violate LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The fact that the applicant ’s disciplinary superior had advised him to contact the PERSON did not amount to “ deception ” within the meaning of LAW . When giving this advice , the disciplinary superior had not been aware of the fact that the PERSON might be heard as a witness in court proceedings against the applicant and had no intention of deceiving the applicant as to the lack of confidentiality of his statements to the PERSON . No pressure had been exerted on the applicant to confess his drug consumption to the PERSON . Referring to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court took into account that the role of the PERSON in disciplinary proceedings was a neutral one and not comparable to a defence lawyer acting on behalf of the accused soldier . The intention behind advising the applicant to talk to the PERSON was , thus , to give him the opportunity to convince the PERSON to make a statement that was favourable to him .

NORP Moreover , LAW did not prevent hearing the ORG as a witness . Noting that the provision obliged him to observe professional secrecy vis - à - vis third parties and that the NORP legislator , as a rule , distinguished between the obligation to observe secrecy and the right to refuse testimony , ORG observed that courts were not a third party within the meaning of that provision , which , in addition , did not contain a right to refuse testimony . The term “ Vertrauensperson ” could not lead to a different result . This formulation reflected the fact that he was elected by the soldiers , hence he had the confidence of the majority of voters , and was entrusted with the task of representing their interests . This did not imply that soldiers accused of wrongdoing could rely , without restriction , on the PERSON to remain silent in proceedings of which he was made part . Rather , LAW of ORG showed that the PERSON had an independent role in disciplinary court proceedings and his task was to provide the perspective of a fellow soldier , so as to allow for an informed exercise of discretion . The interests of the accused soldier were sufficiently protected by his right to object to the participation of the FAC in the disciplinary court proceedings prior to their opening . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG did not give the accused soldier the right to object , at a later stage , to the PERSON being heard with retroactive effect .

Furthermore , ORG found that admitting the statement of the ORG as evidence did not violate constitutional law . The applicant ’s right to protection of personality rights and his right to a fair trial had not been violated because , although advised to do so by his disciplinary superior , he had freely chosen to inform the PERSON about his drug consumption . He had also been aware that he was not legally obliged to talk to the FAC . Moreover , neither his disciplinary superior nor the PERSON had told the applicant that the ORG would treat the information as confidential . On the contrary , the applicant had repeatedly been asked whether he objected to the FAC being part of the disciplinary proceedings and had decided not to object . He could thus not rely on the content of his statements made to the PERSON remaining confidential .

NORP The court noted that , prior to making his statement to the PERSON , the applicant had already confessed his drug consumption to his disciplinary superior and the superior ’s deputy without having been instructed about his right to consult a lawyer . It acknowledged that the applicant may thus have decided to talk to the PERSON because he was under the impression that he could no longer undo his earlier selfincriminatory statements . The PERSON did not instruct him that none of his earlier confessions could be used as evidence against him ( so - called “ qualified instruction ” ) . However , the conversation the applicant had had with the PERSON could not be compared to a situation of questioning an accused , for its purpose was not to further the investigation of the matter . As the PERSON was , therefore , not obliged to instruct the applicant that he could be heard as a witness in the court proceedings , he was even less obliged to provide a qualified instruction to the applicant .

Finally , ORG found that admitting the statement of the ORG as evidence did not violate the applicant ’s right to a fair trial guaranteed by LAW , noting that it could be left open whether the disciplinary proceedings at issue fell under the criminal or under the civil limb of the provision . Noting that LAW did not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such , which was therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law , the question which had to be answered was whether the proceedings as a whole , including the way in which the evidence was obtained , were fair . Referring to , inter alia , the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE ) , it pointed out that the nature and degree of the compulsion , the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedures , and the use to which any material so obtained was put had to be assessed when examining whether a procedure had extinguished the very essence of the privilege against selfincrimination . The applicant had talked to the PERSON voluntarily , his confession had not been elicited through subterfuge and there were no elements of oppression or coercion . The court also noted that the applicant could raise his arguments as to why the statement of the PERSON should not be admitted as evidence before domestic courts and that he could question him in person at the appeal hearing . Emphasising that the statement of the PERSON was not the only piece of evidence used and that all CARDINAL pieces of evidence used were consistent with each other , it concluded that the proceedings , taken as a whole , were not unfair .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s complaint , without giving reasons . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW on the Legal Status of Soldiers ( PERSON über die PERSON ) provided that a culpable breach of a soldier ’s duties constituted a disciplinary offence . Pursuant to the internal regulation of ORG ( Zentrale Dienstvorschrift ) CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL , the consumption of drugs was prohibited both on duty and off duty and was subject to disciplinary sanctions . According to the constant caselaw of the domestic courts , the consumption of drugs would normally be sanctioned by a promotion ban or , in severe cases , by a demotion ( see ORG , CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) . Pursuant to LAW of LAW of ORG ) , a salary cut may be imposed in addition to a promotion ban , if it appeared that the promotion ban did not have an impact on the soldier ’s career in the armed forces .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of ORG provided that , where facts become known that justified the suspicion of a soldier ’s breach of duty , the disciplinary superior of that soldier had to establish the facts by conducting the necessary investigations . The soldier was to be informed about the investigation as soon as possible without putting the purpose of the investigation at risk , and had to be informed at DATE first questioning of which breaches of duty he was accused . At the same time , he had to be advised that he was free to remain silent . If he chose to speak , he had to give a truthful account in relation to official matters . If the instruction required was omitted or not properly given , the statement given by the soldier could not be used to his detriment . In cases warranting the opening of disciplinary court proceedings , the disciplinary superior had to refer the matter to the Prosecutor of the armed forces ( Section CARDINAL ) . Pursuant to LAW of the same LAW , the provisions of LAW were to be applied to disciplinary court proceedings in addition to the provisions of LAW , unless the nature of the proceedings was opposed to this .

The status of the PERSON , including the mode of his designation , his competencies and powers , and his role within the hierarchy , were laid down in ORG ) . At the material time , that Act , which has since been amended , provided that the PERSON was elected by groups of soldiers for a period of DATE . He was tasked with contributing to the good cooperation between superiors and subordinates and the consolidation of comradely trust . He closely cooperated with the disciplinary superior , both in the interests of the soldiers and those of the armed forces . The PERSON had to be informed and heard with regard to measures falling within the scope of his mandate and , in certain scenarios , had a right to make suggestions to the disciplinary superior . He had to be heard with regard to day - to - DATE matters of service and should be heard on a variety of matters concerning staff . Where no agreement could be reached , it was possible to refer certain matters to a more senior level within the hierarchy . The PERSON was also concerned with staff welfare and offered counselling sessions to fellow soldiers as needed . At the material time , LAW , which has since been changed , provided that the PERSON had to observe professional secrecy vis - à - vis third parties in relation to facts and matters he learned about in the exercise of his functions . Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided , at the time , that the ORG had to be heard about the soldier concerned and the facts at issue where the opening of court proceedings against a soldier for a disciplinary offence was intended , unless the soldier objected to such hearing . That hearing served the purpose to ensure that the soldier ’s interests were taken into account prior to a decision being taken on the opening of court proceedings against him ( see ORG , CARDINAL ORG DATE , decision of CARDINAL DATE ) . LAW stated that a transcript of that hearing had to be recorded .

The pertinent provisions of LAW read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

Section CARDINAL [ Right to Refuse Testimony on Professional Grounds ]

“ ( CARDINAL ) The following persons may also refuse to testify :

clergymen , concerning information that was entrusted to them or became known to them in their capacity as spiritual advisers ;

defence counsel of the accused , concerning information that was entrusted to them or became known to them in this capacity ;

attorneys , patent attorneys , notaries , certified public accountants , sworn auditors , tax consultants and tax representatives , doctors , dentists , psychological psychotherapists , psychotherapists specialising in the treatment of children and juveniles , pharmacists and midwives , concerning information that was entrusted to them or became known to them in this capacity . ...

drugs dependency counsellors in a counselling agency recognised or set up by an authority , a body , an institution or a foundation under public law , concerning the information that was entrusted to them or became known to them in this capacity ; ...

Section CARDINALa [ ORG Testimony ]

( CARDINAL ) Persons assisting , and persons involved in the professional activities of those listed in LAW subsection ( CARDINAL ) , numbers CARDINAL to CARDINAL , as part of their training , shall be considered equivalent to such persons . ...

Section CARDINAL [ Authorisation for Judges and Officials to Testify ]

( CARDINAL ) The special provisions of the law concerning public officials shall apply to the examination of judges , officials , and other persons in the public service as witnesses concerning circumstances covered by their official obligation of secrecy , as well as to permission to testify . ...

Section CARDINALa [ Prohibited Methods of Examination ]

( CARDINAL ) The accused ’s freedom to make up his mind and to manifest his will shall not be impaired by ill - treatment , induced fatigue , physical interference , administration of drugs , torment , deception or hypnosis . ...

( CARDINAL ) The prohibition under subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) shall apply irrespective of the accused ’s consent . Statements which were obtained in breach of this prohibition shall not be used , even if the accused consents to their use . ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicants are HIV - positive , with a minimum degree of disability of PERCENT . They are , or were , detained in ORG ( psychiatric section ) at FAC .

Andreas PERSON : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG , a decision given by ORG of ORG in DATE ordering the execution of a sentence passed by ORG which had been stayed , and a judgment delivered by ORG sentencing him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE but rearrested DATE and placed in preventive detention .

Christos GPE : provisionally detained from DATE to DATE , and detained by judgment of DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and then by judgment of DATE sentencing him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to ORG . Released on licence on DATE pursuant to LAW . CARDINAL .

PERSON : imprisoned on DATE . Detained pursuant to a decision given by ORG of ORG on DATE , ordering the execution of the remainder of a sentence with suspensive effect , and pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG , which merged the sentences into a total of DATE . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE pursuant to LAW .

Efthymios Karatzoglou : imprisoned on DATE . Detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG of PERSON on DATE sentencing him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to ORG . Released on licence on DATE pursuant to LAW . DATE .

Achilleas Papadiotis : imprisoned on CARDINAL DATE . Detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment ( starting date for serving the sentence : DATE ) . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Transferred to ORG on DATE .

PERSON : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , and a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to ORG . Placed in ORG .

DATE Spyridon PERSON : detained since DATE pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE under LAW No . DATE .

Chrysafis Chatzikos : imprisoned on DATE and detained ever since under the following decisions : CARDINAL DATE judgment of ORG sentencing him to DATE imprisonment ; CARDINAL DATE judgment of ORG sentencing him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment ; CARDINAL DATE judgment of ORG sentencing him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment ; DATE decision of ORG of ORG ordering the execution of the remainder of a sentence with suspensive effect which had been passed by ORG on DATE ; and DATE judgment of ORG sentencing him to DATE imprisonment ( in provisional detention from CARDINAL DATE to DATE ) .

PERSON : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE , sentencing him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , followed by a judgment delivered by the same court on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG and constantly since then .

Panagiotis Kormalis : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to ORG . Released on licence on DATE under LAW No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . His release warrant mentioned that he had contracted AIDS .

Aimilianos Chamitoglou : imprisoned on DATE and detained : first of all , under a provisional detention order of CARDINAL October CARDINAL ( on charges of armed robbery ) ; and secondly , pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ( beginning on DATE ) . On DATE ORG acquitted him of the armed robbery charge . Released on licence on DATE under LAW No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

PERSON : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE under LAW .

PERSON : imprisoned on DATE . Detained pursuant to a decision given by ORG of ORG on DATE , and to the judgments of ORG and ORG of DATE and DATE respectively , sentencing him to various prison terms . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE under LAW No . DATE . Has since returned to prison .

According to the information supplied by the applicants who had been convicted under court judgments , which information was not disputed by the Government , the courts had not granted suspensive effect to their appeals ( see LAW ) .

In a petition transmitted on DATE under LAW to the supervising public prosecutor responsible for FAC , CARDINAL HIV - positive persons detained in the Aghios Pavlos Hospital , including the applicants , complained of their conditions of detention on the second floor of that hospital . They drew attention to the overcrowded LOC , the uncontrolled admission of new patients , and the fact that they were held with other detainees suffering from cancer , asthma , hepatitis , venereal diseases , bronchitis , scabies , psoriasis and even tuberculosis , which diseases necessitated confinement to individual cells because several of them were transmissible . A small quantity of cream had been distributed to some of the HIV - positive detainees who were also affected with scabies . They had been advised to change their sheets and underwear DATE and to wash them at high temperatures , even though the washing machine was out of order . When they had gone to fetch their medication the nurses had told them not to touch the bars through which they handed over the medicines in order to prevent the risk of infection . The administrative and medical staff had not given the detainees any official information in order to minimise the seriousness of the epidemic .

On DATE the supervising public prosecutor had informed the detainees that “ CARDINAL persons ” were suffering from scabies .

Relying on LAW the HIV - positive detainees , including the applicants , had also complained to ORG , but had received no reply .

A delegation of HIV - positive detainees had been received by the supervising public prosecutor to draw attention to the constantly increasing numbers of persons detained in the ORG and the intolerable conditions of detention .

The applicants submitted that the cells were so overcrowded that the personal space available for each detainee was CARDINAL m² , including beds and sanitary facilities .

NORP The bathrooms fell short of minimum hygiene standards and cleaning in the LOC was left to the discretion of the few HIV - positive persons in receipt of an allowance enabling them to purchase cleaning products .

NORP The food was so poor in nutritional value that HIV - positive detainees risked developing AIDS owing to physical debilitation .

The LOC were under - heated , and detainees were exposed to low temperatures , particularly at TIME .

Nor had the problem of smoking been resolved . Several detainees smoked in the communal areas , the cells and the dormitories , and the non - smokers , especially those with respiratory problems , became passive smokers .

The hospital staff did not include any infectious disease specialists , which placed HIV - positive detainees at risk because they were diagnosed by non - specialists .

During the distribution of medicines the nurse , wearing gloves , left the boxes on the floor outside the cell bars , and the HIV - positive persons had to stretch through the bars to retrieve them , avoiding touching the others , as recommended by the nurse .

The applicants also complained about the fact that diagnoses were conducted automatically and that the doctors always prescribed the same medicines without individually examining each patient . Any requisite transfers to outside hospitals were always carried out after long delays . Distribution of medication prescribed for some of the applicants was often interrupted without explanation for periods of DATE . Other applicants had not yet begun their treatment , which delay the doctors explained by claiming that “ the limit [ regarding the presence of the virus in the blood ] necessitating the initiation of treatment has increased ” .

The applicants also complained of a lack of access to the outside world , news programmes and even use of the telephone , and the fact that the detainees were not held separately from the convicted prisoners .

Lastly , the applicants stated that a video on conditions of detention had been leaked in DATE and had induced the prosecutor with ORG to order an inquiry , which was currently under way .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in Tver .

PERSON was born on DATE and lived before her arrest in the village of PERSON , GPE .


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

NORP The case originated in CARDINAL applications ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( “ the LAW ) by PERSON . PERSON , on CARDINAL DATE , on behalf of CARDINAL NORP nationals , ORG and M.

Ms Gribanova did not provide any written authority to act on behalf of ORG and M.

N. and LOC were born in DATE and DATE respectively and prior to their alleged disappearance lived in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG .

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

Prior to DATE N. lived in GPE . In DATE he left GPE for GPE , and settled in GPE .

Prior to DATE M. lived in GPE . In DATE he left GPE for GPE and settled in GPE .

Both NORP PERSON are practising NORP .

In DATE the NORP authorities charged PERSON absentia with being members of banned religious organisations , issued international warrants for their arrest , and ordered that they be placed in detention once arrested . During those criminal proceedings , on CARDINAL occasions ( in DATE and DATE ) the NORP authorities questioned ORG ’s relatives about his whereabouts .

NORP In DATE and DATE the NORP police arrested PERSON and PERSON in GPE under an international warrant . The FAC LOC prosecutor ’s office ordered their detention pending extradition . This was subsequently extended by ORG .

N. and PERSON retained PERSON to represent them in the extradition proceedings . She applied to ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) with a request for their extradition to GPE to be refused .

The ORG refused to extradite PERSON and PERSON on the grounds that the acts imputed to them by the NORP authorities were not regarded as criminal under NORP law .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the FAC regional prosecutor ordered ORG and PERSON ’s release . The Government submitted that since their release PERSON and PERSON had not informed the relevant authorities of their place of residence on the territory of GPE .

NORP In DATE N. and PERSON addressed the following statements to PERSON :

Statement by ORG :

“ In the event I give any written or oral submissions to the mass media to the effect that I have voluntarily decided to return to GPE , this should be regarded as a forced return to GPE . ”

Statement by PERSON :

“ In the event I give any written or oral submissions to the mass media to the effect that I have voluntarily decided to return to GPE , this should be regarded as a statement made under pressure and my return to my country of origin , GPE , should be regarded as a forced return . ”

In DATE and DATE respectively PERSON and PERSON ’s names were removed from the international wanted list following the prosecutor ’s decision not to extradite them to GPE .

N. and PERSON applied for refugee status and temporary asylum in GPE . They lodged their applications with the FAC regional branch of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . They submitted that they had been persecuted in GPE on the basis of their religious beliefs , and would be subjected to ill - treatment if they returned . They indicated that PERSON was their point of contact .

In DATE and DATE respectively the ORG dismissed their requests for refugee status . In DATE the NORP courts upheld those decisions . PERSON was represented in the proceedings by PERSON . Ryabinina , a lawyer practising in GPE .

In DATE and DATE respectively the ORG dismissed their applications for temporary asylum . They lodged appeals against those decisions . The outcome of those proceedings is unknown .

On DATE N. was arrested for violating residence regulations for foreign nationals . On DATE the court refused to expel him and terminated the administrative proceedings for lack of corpus delicti . ORG was represented by PERSON in those proceedings .

On DATE PERSON was summoned to the ORG and questioned about his place of residence . After being questioned he telephoned PERSON . According to her , he seemed very scared .

According to PERSON , on DATE ORG received a call from the NORP security service , which insisted that he return to GPE .

On TIME CARDINAL DATE N. was again summoned to the ORG and was asked to bring copies of all the appeals he had lodged with the ORG and the courts in connection with the asylum proceedings . PERSON stated that he seemed scared , and asked her to attend in his place .

At TIME on DATE PERSON telephoned PERSON to ask for help . He said that unknown persons had forced him into a car and taken him to the airport . Immediately after this call his mobile telephone was switched off .

That evening PERSON informed PERSON that ORG had been abducted , and asked him to be extremely careful .

Around TIME on CARDINAL DATE PERSON received a call from a man who introduced himself as CARDINAL of PERSON ’s friends . According to him , at TIME DATE CARDINAL unidentified men had approached PERSON in the street . CARDINAL of them were wearing camouflage uniforms , while one was in civilian clothes . They forced LOC into a yellow minibus and drove him away to an unknown destination .

Ms Gribanova submitted that prior to their abduction ORG and PERSON had given her their passports , which she still held .

On DATE PERSON sought the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG . She asked the ORG to indicate to ORG that ORG and M. ’s removal to GPE should be suspended .

On DATE the ORG granted that request , indicating to ORG that ORG and PERSON should not be extradited , expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from GPE to GPE or any other country for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG . It also asked the Government for information as to ORG and PERSON ’s whereabouts .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that N. and PERSON had not been arrested by the NORP authorities on CARDINAL and DATE , and that since CARDINAL DATE they had not passed through any border crossing points in the FAC region . Their whereabouts were unknown .

On DATE PERSON received a telephone call from ORG wife , who told her that she and ORG ’s father had been summoned by the NORP security service several times . The NORP authorities had insisted that ORG return to GPE voluntarily or else he would be forcibly returned .

On DATE PERSON submitted to the ORG that there were grounds to believe that PERSON and PERSON had been transferred to GPE on CARDINAL of the CARDINAL direct flights from FAC which had been scheduled after the ORG ’s indication of interim measures . She also submitted that at the time of their abduction NORP PERSON had not been in possession of their passports , so they could not have crossed the border without the knowledge and passive or active involvement of the NORP authorities .

On an unspecified date PERSON was visited by a man who introduced himself as ORG ’s “ mate ” . He said that ORG father had informed him that ORG was in GPE .

On an unspecified date PERSON ’s relatives informed PERSON that he had been transported to GPE on DATE .

In DATE PERSON was contacted by some people who introduced themselves as LOC and PERSON ’s relatives . They asked her to return PERSON and PERSON ’s passports . They explained that NORP PERSON were standing trial in GPE and therefore needed them . She refused to hand them over unless they made a written statement confirming that the passports had been taken by them and why . The people disappeared and never contacted her again .

At DATE the FAC regional department of the interior informed PERSON that enquiries had been made after she had reported that NORP PERSON had been abducted , but that their abduction by unknown persons and transportation to GPE had not been confirmed . In particular , ORG ’s relatives in GPE had submitted that he had been living in GPE , and there had been no information regarding PERSON and PERSON ’s possible arrest by NORP law - enforcement bodies or their departure from the FAC region . Nor were their names on the list of deceased persons .

DATE the investigating authorities on several occasions refused to initiate criminal proceedings into PERSON and PERSON ’s disappearance , for lack of corpus delicti . However , the decisions were overruled each time by the head of ORG , and the matter was sent for additional investigation .

In CARDINAL of the refusals to initiate criminal proceedings , namely a decision taken on DATE , the investigator referred to information provided by the information centre of the FAC department of the interior , to the effect that ORG had been arrested in GPE on DATE .

On DATE an investigator from the local investigation committee initiated criminal proceedings into ORG and M. ’s abduction by unknown persons . The Government did not inform ORG outcome of those proceedings .

Ms Gribanova submitted that on DATE she had been summoned by the investigator in charge of the case to give evidence as a witness .

On DATE she appeared before ORG and claimed that she could not be questioned as a witness . She applied to be acknowledged as representing PERSON and M. She was allegedly told that the investigator possessed information to the effect that PERSON had been detained by the NORP authorities in GPE , GPE , shortly after his disappearance from GPE .

In various proceedings in GPE N. and PERSON were questioned about their family situation , among other things .

N. submitted that all his relatives lived in GPE . He had been married but was divorced . He had a son from his marriage . He was not in contact with his former wife or their son . Since DATE he had been living with his female partner PERSON , an NORP national , with whom he had CARDINAL daughters . DATE PERSON and their daughters had lived in GPE . In DATE B. and the children had returned to GPE , because CARDINAL of their daughters needed to undergo an operation there . N. was in regular telephone contact with his parents , sisters and brothers . He submitted that he was not aware of any persecution of his family members in GPE .

M. submitted that all his relatives lived in GPE . He was married to PERSON . , an NORP national , and they had CARDINAL sons . In DATE his wife came to GPE to visit him and stayed with him . Their children stayed in GPE with their grandparents . In DATE his wife returned to GPE . He was in regular telephone contact with his wife and their CARDINAL young children , as well as his father and brothers and sisters .


CASE OF McHUGH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote)

The applicants were all incarcerated at the relevant time following criminal convictions for a variety of offences . They were automatically prevented from voting , pursuant to primary legislation , in CARDINAL or more of the following elections : elections to ORG on DATE ; the parliamentary election on DATE ; and elections to ORG , ORG or ORG on CARDINAL DATE ( for further details see the appended table ) .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

On DATE the applicant went to the cinema . He got into an argument with another man . A fight ensued and the applicant fired several shots , killing the other man . The police arrived immediately and took the applicant into custody .

On DATE a judge remanded him in custody .

On DATE a search of the applicant ’s car was conducted by ORG without a judge ’s authorisation . Several objects and documents were seized : a laptop , a thesis written by the applicant , sporting equipment , and several objects the applicant described as being of an intimate nature .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated murder .

On DATE the prosecution announced the end of the pre - trial investigation and decided to transfer the case to court ( lēmums par kriminālprocesa nodošanu tiesai ) . The case file was sent to ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , CARDINAL years’ police supervision , and confiscation of property .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu palāta ) upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . However , upon repeated requests by the applicant , the following objects and documents were excluded from the evidence relied on by the first - instance court for the purposes of the applicant ’s conviction : the record of the inspection of the applicant ’s car ( automašīnas apskates protokols ) , the objects and documents seized therein ( apskates laikā izņemtie priekšmeti un dokumenti ) , and their inspection record ( mantu apskates protokols ) . ORG relied on sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW and found that , in actual fact , during the inspection of the applicant ’s car a search , not a ( visual ) inspection , had been carried out , in breach of the relevant domestic provisions pertaining to inspections . Moreover , the search of the applicant ’s car was carried out in breach of LAW pertaining to searches . The evidence obtained therefrom was accordingly declared inadmissible .

On DATE the applicant asked the prosecuting authorities to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who were involved in the search of his car . He did not ask that the unlawfully seized material be returned to him , but he relied on LAW . His complaint was forwarded to ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas PERSON drošības birojs ) and he was informed about it .

On DATE ORG replied that no ancillary decision under the section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW had been made by the court . Accordingly , ORG had no legal grounds to examine investigative activities undertaken by its officers during the pre - trial investigation . The applicant was informed that he could enquire with the Chairperson of ORG of ORG . The applicant did not do so .

On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the appellate court ’s ruling of CARDINAL DATE and adopted a final decision in the applicant ’s criminal case .

Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that “ everyone whose rights are violated without justification has a right to commensurate compensation ” .

Article CARDINAL guarantees “ inviolability of private life , home and correspondence ” .

NORP However , Article QUANTITY permits restrictions on the exercise of rights set out in , inter alia , Article CARDINAL in circumstances provided for by law in order to “ protect the rights of other persons , the democratic structure of the ORG , public safety , welfare and morals ” .

Section CARDINAL defines a delict as any wrongful act as a result of which damage ( which may include non - pecuniary damage ) has been caused to a third person . The person who has suffered the damage has the right to claim satisfaction from the person who caused it .

Section DATE provides that everyone is under an obligation to make good damage caused by his or her act or failure to act .

These provisions as well as sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL relating to compensation for bodily injury ( before and after the amendments that were effective DATE ) are quoted in full in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

The relevant provision relating to searches can be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

NORP In addition , LAW ) provides that a court may adopt an ancillary decision by which violations of law are notified to the competent authority or official and they are requested to remedy the situation .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);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 5-5 - Compensation)

Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Late in TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant had a fight with his neighbour . The neighbour complained to the police that the applicant had injured him .

On TIME the police took the applicant to the LOC police station in GPE ( “ the district police ” ) . The applicant was at the police station from CARDINAL a.m. to CARDINAL a.m. and gave evidence in relation to the fight with his neighbour . The applicant claimed that he had acted in self - defence . According to the Government , at TIME the applicant left the police station and had no further contact with the police during the period at issue . His presence at the police station from TIME to CARDINAL a.m. was noted in the police ’s records .

According to the applicant , at TIME , as he left the police station , police officers took him and drove him to a forest where they beat him up and tortured him using handcuffs and an electric shock device . The police officers then took the applicant to another part of the police station that he had just left , where they continued to ill - treat him . During that time the police officers put pressure on the applicant to admit that he had intended to murder his neighbour . On DATE they released him .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s complaint to the internal security unit of the LOC police , he was examined by a forensic medical expert . The latter found that the applicant had sustained bruises on his head , nose , upper lip and chest . The expert considered those injuries as being minor and that they could have been caused by blunt , solid objects during a period of DATE before the medical examination .

On DATE the assistant prosecutor of the LOC prosecutor ’s office of ORG ( “ the prosecutor ’s office ” ) inspected the premises of the police station where the applicant had allegedly been ill - treated . He found traces of a brown substance on the floor , wall , and balcony , as well as on the pillowcase and CARDINAL mattress covers . Samples of the substance were taken and submitted to an expert for examination .

On DATE the expert stated that the brown substance was blood .

NORP The prosecutor ’s office then questioned police officers GPE , GPE , PERSON and PERSON They all denied the allegations of ill - treatment and submitted that the applicant had sustained the injuries before being taken to the police station , namely during the scuffle with his neighbour . The officers stated that the applicant ’s nose had been injured before and that it bled from time to time , that he had been offered an antiseptic tissue , that he had declined an offer by the police officers to go to a hospital and that he had continued voluntarily to give evidence about the fight with his neighbour . They also mentioned that the applicant had gone on to the balcony to have a smoke where he might have left traces of blood .

On DATE and DATE the applicant submitted further complaints of ill - treatment to the internal security unit of the LOC police and the prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office , having completed its pre - investigation inquiry , refused to initiate criminal proceedings concerning the applicant ’s allegations that he had been ill - treated by police officers CARDINAL . According to that decision , the applicant had only been present at the district police station TIME on DATE and there had been no evidence suggesting that the police officers had been involved in any alleged illtreatment or unlawful detention . The applicant challenged that decision in the courts .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) found that the decision of CARDINAL DATE by the prosecutor ’s office had been lawful and substantiated . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG quashed the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE as unfounded and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG reversed the decision of the prosecutor ’s office of DATE , finding that the measures taken to examine the applicant ’s allegations had been insufficient . The court ordered a further pre - investigation inquiry to establish the applicant ’s whereabouts CARDINAL and the circumstances in which he had sustained his injuries .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti . According to the decision , which referred to the explanations by the police officers and other evidence , the applicant had left the police station at TIME on DATE and there had been no involvement of the officers in any unlawful action in relation to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW DATE ( “ the ORG of DATE ” ) , alleging that he had been ill - treated by police officers .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office commenced a pre - trial investigation in relation to the alleged events of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE a forensic medical expert issued a report repeating the findings of the forensic report of CARDINAL DATE as regards the documented injuries .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office terminated the investigation , finding that the applicant ’s allegations had been refuted by the statements of the police officers , other witnesses , and documentary and medical evidence which suggested that the applicant might have sustained minor injuries during his fight with the neighbour on DATE .

On DATE a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the applicant ’s neighbour had sustained CARDINAL incised wounds , CARDINAL of which had been on the neck .

On DATE the district police opened criminal proceedings in relation to the moderately severe injuries sustained by the applicant ’s neighbour during the fight of CARDINAL DATE . Subsequently , the case was classified as attempted murder .

At TIME on DATE an investigator with the district police arrested the applicant on suspicion of attempted murder . The investigator relied on LAW ( “ the ORG of DATE ” ) . As regards the grounds for the applicant ’s arrest without a court decision , the investigator cited the CARDINAL sub - paragraphs of the first paragraph of LAW ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He further noted in his report that the applicant had been suspected of attempted murder , that he had a record of serious offences , and that his arrest would prevent the applicant from absconding and impeding the execution of a judgment . The investigator then charged the applicant and questioned him in relation to the case .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s pretrial detention . It stated that the applicant had been charged with a serious crime , that he had CARDINAL criminal offences on his record , and that he had no official income . The court concluded that there was a risk that if the applicant remained at liberty he might impede the establishment of the truth , hide evidence , influence the investigation , abscond or reoffend . The court further considered that a personal guarantee , which had been offered by an NGO in respect of the applicant , would not ensure his proper conduct during the criminal proceedings . Furthermore , there had been no suggestion that the applicant could not be held in a detention facility for health reasons .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of DATE , finding that there were sufficient grounds to keep him in custody .

On DATE a bill of indictment was approved by the prosecutor and the case file was sent to ORG .

On DATE ORG committed the applicant for trial on a charge of attempted murder . As regards the preventive measure , the court ruled that the applicant should be held in custody . It stated that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence , that he was unemployed , had refused to admit his guilt , and that he had CARDINAL serious offences on his criminal record . The court pointed out that no new information had been added to the material which had been examined earlier by ORG and ORG when deciding on keeping the applicant in custody .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed applications by the applicant for a change in the preventive measure and maintained its earlier decision to keep him in custody . The court stated that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence , was unemployed , had a criminal record , and had refused to admit his guilt . As to the question of bail , the court noted that no document had been produced to suggest that any funds were available for that purpose .

On DATE the applicant was released from custody after giving a written undertaking not to abscond . ORG stated that the trial was in its final stages so the applicant could no longer impede the establishment of the truth . The applicant also had a permanent place of residence where he lived with his family .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of inflicting minor bodily injuries on his neighbour . The court found that attempted murder had not been established during the trial . It sentenced the applicant to DATE of restriction of liberty . Having regard to the period of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention , the court found that the sentence had been served .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , following his arrest and questioning ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant was placed in a police cell . According to the applicant , on TIME DATE police officers beat him up at the police station .

As the applicant had complained about his health , he was examined TIME of DATE by a panel of doctors who found no injuries on his body .

On DATE the hearing before ORG concerning the preventive measure in the applicant ’s case was interrupted because the applicant had to be provided with medical care . The ambulance team which arrived at the court stated that the applicant had concussion , a haematoma by the left eye and a bruise on his chest . The applicant complained that the injuries had been inflicted by police officers .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of LOC ordered that the applicant be examined and asked the medical expert to detail , among other things , the nature , quantity , location , and severity of his injuries . He also asked the expert to state whether the injuries could have been inflicted by the applicant himself .

On DATE , following the court decision of DATE to hold the applicant in custody ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he was taken under escort to the ORG pre - trial detention centre . Upon arrival he was examined by the medical staff who documented the following injuries : a haematoma by the left eye , bruises on the left abdominal area and neck , a haematoma on the right thigh , and swelling in his genitals .

On DATE a ORG panel examined the applicant and found that he had sustained bruising on the soft tissue of his head and had a haematoma on his left eyelid .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert as requested ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In his report of DATE the expert stated that the applicant had sustained bruises on his face , neck , chest , left shoulder , right leg and right shin . The expert considered the injuries to be minor and that they had been inflicted by blunt , solid objects during a period of DATE before the examination . The expert added that all the injuries could have been selfinflicted .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office , having concluded its pre - investigation inquiry , refused to open criminal proceedings concerning alleged police brutality against the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE . According to the decision , there had been no evidence suggesting that the applicant ’s injuries documented after the alleged ill - treatment had been caused by police officers . The decision referred to the police ORG statements that the applicant had inflicted the injuries on himself .

The applicant challenged that decision before ORG , but received no reply . In DATE , DATE and DATE he made applications to ORG in relation to his complaint , but to no avail .


Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

NORP The applicant company is a limited liability company registered in DATE in GPE , with its registered office in GPE .

On DATE the applicant company and another company , S. , concluded an agreement by which the applicant company undertook to provide information and analytical services to S. , and the latter undertook to pay for those services . On DATE the parties concluded an additional agreement for supplementary services to be provided to S. by the applicant company .

On DATE the applicant company lodged a claim against S. with ORG , seeking recovery of an alleged debt under the above agreement , as well as the payment of penalties and legal fees .

On DATE ORG opened the proceedings in the case .

On DATE , during a hearing in the case , PERSON submitted a counterclaim , seeking that the agreement be declared void . The court adjourned the hearing until DATE without deciding on the admissibility of the counterclaim .

On DATE the judge hearing the case accepted S. ’s counterclaim for joint consideration with the original claim by the applicant company . At the same hearing , the judge granted S. ’s counterclaim in part and rejected the original claim of the applicant company in full . According to the record of the hearing , the hearing lasted TIME .

On DATE the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE with ORG of GPE ( “ the NORP ” ) . It argued that the proceedings before the first - instance court had not been adversarial , and had not complied with the principle of procedural equality between the parties : the first - instance court had not provided the applicant company with an opportunity to prepare and submit observations as to S. ’s counterclaim or collect and provide evidence in defence . The applicant company requested that the impugned judgment be quashed and the case remitted to the first - instance court for fresh consideration .

NORP On DATE the ORG returned the applicant company ’s appeal on points of law to it without considering the appeal on the merits , because the relevant court fee had not been paid in full .

On DATE the applicant company resubmitted its appeal on points of law with proof of having paid the full court fee . The appeal on points of law was submitted together with a cover letter . In the cover letter , the applicant company set out the circumstances which had resulted in its missing the deadline for appealing on points of law , and asked the HCCU to extend the relevant time - limit and consider the appeal . Apart from that information , the cover letter contained the date , name and address of the court to which it was addressed , the case reference number , the parties’ contact details , and the disputed amount which was the subject of the case . The letter ended with a list of enclosures , the applicant company ’s lawyer ’s details , his signature and a stamp .

On DATE the ORG found that the applicant company had submitted the second appeal on points of law outside the time - limit provided for by LAW , and had failed to enclose an application for an extension . Relying on sub - paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , the ORG declined to consider the applicant company ’s appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant company challenged the decision of DATE before ORG , arguing that on DATE it had in fact applied for an extension of the time - limit for lodging the appeal on points of law with the ORG . The application had been included in the text of the cover letter accompanying the appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .


CASE OF PEREKRESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In application no . CARDINAL the applicant also raised a complaint under LAW .


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

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova

On DATE the NORP State instituted proceedings before the GPE Real Judge of first instance No . CARDINAL to obtain an order that LOC ( ORG ) , located on part of the land which belonged , partly , to the applicant ’s mother ( and which he inherited after her death ) , should be considered the source to ORG and was therefore in the hydraulic public domain .

On DATE the GPE Real Judge ruled in favour of the applicant ’s mother ( and several other defendants ) and declared that ORG fell into the private domain . However , on DATE ORG quashed that judgment and declared that LOC had to be classified as being in the public domain .

The applicant ’s mother , along with the other co - defendants , lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurso de casación ) with ORG . On DATE the FAC sent the complete file , along with the appeals lodged by the parties , to ORG . On DATE ORG issued a judgment ruling against all the appellants and upholding the judgment of ORG .

On DATE the applicant ( as his mother ’s heir with locus standi ) lodged an amparo appeal with ORG complaining , inter alia , of the excessive length of the proceedings . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it had no constitutional relevance .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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


No violation of Article 6+6-2 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He worked as a traffic police officer in LOC .

On DATE , at TIME , CARDINAL DATE children were hit by a car in the village of NORP in LOC . CARDINAL of the children died at the scene and the third died DATE in hospital . The car left the scene of the crash immediately . A criminal investigation was opened DATE .

NORP TIME , at TIME , the applicant turned himself in to the police and confessed that he had been driving the car . The applicant submitted that he had not drunk any alcohol before the accident and that he was unable to give the exact speed he had been going . He stated that he had seen a group of children walking in front of him and “ had briefly lost control of the car ” , the car had gone off the road and “ hit something ” . The applicant submitted that he did not remember hitting the children “ because everything had happened very fast ” . Nor did he remember anything that had happened after the accident because he “ had been in shock ” . He stated that the only thing he remembered was waking up in a summer house TIME after the accident , after which he had gone to the police to confess .

On DATE the applicant was served with an official notice that he was suspected of a breach of road traffic safety regulations which had resulted in the death of other persons ( LAW ) and of a failure to provide assistance to persons in a life - threatening situation ( LAW ) . He was detained on remand and suspended from his post as a police officer .

The accident attracted considerable media attention . On DATE one of the biggest national newspapers , NORP rytas , published an article entitled “ A police officer ’s ORG crushed fourthgraders ” ( ORG patrulio PERSON traiškė ketvirtokus ) . The article stated that it was “ suspected that the car was being driven by the police officer S. NORP ” because the car belonged to his mother . It published interviews with several of the village ’s residents , who described the details of the accident and alleged that the applicant may have been drunk . The article also mentioned that DATE previously another police officer had caused a traffic accident in LOC in which CARDINAL children had received fatal injuries , but that the criminal proceedings against the officer had been discontinued .

On DATE the website of NORP rytas carried an article headlined “ After horrific accident in GPE [ the Minister of the Interior ] suggests [ the Police Commissioner General ] should resign ” . It quoted a statement made by the Minister :

“ Apologies will not suffice . The chief of the police must assume personal responsibility for this terrible incident . Especially as this was not the first time that police officers , who are supposed to stop traffic violations , have themselves caused terrible accidents . If I do not receive any reaction from the police chief , I believe that further efforts to improve the work of the police will be impossible and I will be ready to step down myself . ”

The Police Commissioner General told journalists that he “ accepted responsibility ” because “ the chief is responsible for what happens in the police organisation ” . However , he expressed doubts whether “ every such incident ” should lead to the resignation of senior police officers .

The article also quoted the President ’s spokesperson as questioning “ how many more victims of the war on the roads will it take for politicians and ORG officials to finally notice and start solving the problems on the roads ” . The article stated that the President was awaiting a response from ORG and from the police on whether they had been making sufficient efforts to create “ an atmosphere of absolute intolerance ” for officers and public officials who abused intoxicating substances .

On DATE NORP rytas published a photograph of the applicant on its front page , with a caption reading “ the man who caused the horrific accident ( kraupios avarijos kaltininkas ) , PERSON , turned himself in only after it was no longer possible to detect if he had been driving while drunk ” . It also published an article entitled “ Both [ the Police Commissioner General ] and [ the Minister of the Interior ] must resign ” , providing comments from the leaders of the main political parties about who should take political responsibility for the accident and for the “ ineffective road traffic safety policy ” . DATE and DATE after NORP rytas published details of CARDINAL traffic accidents which had been caused by police officers since DATE , where it had been suspected that the officers had driven while being drunk and where people had been killed or seriously injured but the officers had received mild sentences or had escaped criminal liability altogether .

On DATE the Police Commissioner General and the Minister of the ORG resigned . In an official statement issued on DATE , the President of GPE stated :

“ Over DATE the whole of GPE has shared the pain of [ the CARDINAL families ] who lost their children in an accident caused by a police officer . The seventh of DATE was not only the day of their tragedy but also reflected a serious crisis within the police force . The tragedy in LOC emphasised the problems ingrained in the system of interior affairs and further diminished public trust in the police . The loss of children ’s lives , the crime committed by an officer and its circumstances require clear answers why that happened , and determined solutions . It is intolerable that crimes committed by officers are justified or punished by relatively mild sentences .

A police officer must feel a higher degree of responsibility than an ordinary citizen and he must by his actions set an example to society because he has been obliged by the ORG to protect public order and thus ensure the safety of society . A crime committed by an officer can not be a simple statistical fact . It must be thoroughly examined and especially strictly evaluated ( kruopščiai ištirtas ir itin griežtai įvertintas ) .

The rest of the statement discussed problems within the police force , such as a lack of qualified personnel , inadequate training and low pay . It also urged all police officers to act in accordance with their mandate and asked the general public not to judge all officers on the basis of offences committed by a few .

Many more articles in the press reported on the accident , the suspicion that the applicant had driven while being drunk , the funerals of the CARDINAL children , reactions within the village , public protests in front of NORP police station , previous traffic accidents caused by police officers , and the resignations of the Minister of the Interior and the Police Commissioner General .

On DATE the applicant was charged with a breach of road traffic safety regulations while being under the influence of alcohol which resulted in the death of other persons ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) and with a failure to provide assistance to persons in a life - threatening situation ( LAW ) .

According to the rules of territorial jurisdiction , the case against the applicant should have been examined by ORG . However , it was transferred to ORG because CARDINAL of the ORG judges had participated in the pre - trial investigation and the chairperson of the court had previously worked with the applicant ’s father .

On DATE ORG began its examination of the applicant ’s case . The court heard testimony from the applicant , his colleague PERSON , who had been in the car with the applicant at the time of the accident , and another colleague PERSON , who had been driving in a different car and had helped the applicant to leave the scene of the accident . It also heard other workmates who had seen the applicant before or soon after the accident , as well as the waitress from the restaurant where the applicant and PERSON had had lunch before the accident , the parents of the CARDINAL children who had died , residents of the village who had witnessed the accident , and several court - appointed experts .

The applicant admitted that he had been driving the car and that the CARDINAL children had died as a result of the accident . However , he stated that he had not been drunk and had not exceeded the speed limit . He also argued that the accident had been caused by the weather and the reckless actions of some of the children .

All the hearings were held in public as none of the parties had asked for them to be closed , and several newspapers reported on the witness evidence . In a number of publications the applicant was called “ a killer of children ” ( vaikų žudikas ) and mocked for “ suddenly losing his memory ” ( staiga sutriko atmintis ) when testifying in court . The colleagues who testified in favour of the applicant were collectively called “ defenders of the killer of children ” ( vaikų žudiko užtarėjai ) who were “ trying to get him off ” ( bando išsukti ) . The newspapers also expressed sympathy to the children ’s families for having to “ relive those cruel events ” . Excerpts of the testimony of many of the witnesses , both in favour of and against the applicant , as well as the applicant ’s final statement , were reprinted word - for - word .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of both charges . The court established that the accident had occurred when the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol . It examined a video - recording from the restaurant where the applicant and PERSON had had lunch before the accident , showing that the CARDINAL men had each drunk CARDINAL a bottle of vodka . Another video - recording from the petrol station in which the applicant and PERSON had stopped after lunch showed the applicant buying CARDINAL more bottles of vodka . Several witnesses – the waitress from the restaurant , some of the applicant ’s colleagues , and people who had been present when the accident had happened – stated that the applicant had looked and sounded drunk . On the basis of that evidence , the court found that before the accident the applicant had consumed CARDINAL grams of alcohol . A court - appointed expert stated that after consuming so much alcohol the alcohol level in the applicant ’s blood must definitely have been above the legally permitted threshold of CARDINAL per mille ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court also noted that even though tests of the applicant ’s blood and urine had not detected any traces of alcohol , they had not been reliable because they had been taken TIME after the accident . The court held that since the applicant had deliberately hidden from the authorities during that period and had only given himself up TIME after the accident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he could not use the negative blood and urine tests to his advantage .

ORG also established that at the time of the accident the applicant ’s car must have been going at a speed of CARDINAL km / h . A court - appointed expert examined the tyre marks at the scene of the accident , the damage done to nearby objects and the positions in which the CARDINAL children had been found , and reconstructed the course of events of the accident . The applicant ’s colleague PERSON , who had been driving in the car behind the applicant , testified that he himself had been going at QUANTITY / h but had been unable to keep up with the applicant . Several people who had been present at the accident also stated that the noise made by the applicant ’s car had indicated a very high speed . The court noted that the speed limit in the village was QUANTITY / h and that this must have been known to the applicant , who had worked as a police officer in the area . The court concluded that the accident had been caused by the excessive speed of the applicant ’s car and not by the weather or the actions of the children .

ORG also found the applicant guilty of failing to provide assistance to persons in a life - threatening situation . The court noted that the applicant had not shown any interest in the condition of the CARDINAL children or called an ambulance but had immediately fled the scene of the accident . The court observed that the obligation to help people in lifethreatening situations was enshrined in the Law on Police Activity , with which the applicant had had to comply . By failing to do so , he had breached LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

NORP The court found no mitigating circumstances in the applicant ’s favour . However , the fact that the victims had been minors was considered as an aggravating circumstance . The court also took the applicant ’s character and his behaviour during and after the accident into account : he had been under the influence of alcohol , CARDINAL people had died as a result of his actions , he had fled from the scene of the accident , had not expressed any remorse , had attempted to mislead the court by providing contradictory testimony , and his actions had discredited the authority of the police . As a result , ORG held that the applicant ’s punishment should be close to the maximum provided by law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He was given a consolidated sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , prohibited from driving a vehicle for DATE , and ordered to pay a total of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) in non - pecuniary damages to the families of the CARDINAL children .

Reporting on the sentence , NORP rytas quoted excerpts from the judgment and published a brief statement by the mother of CARDINAL of the children , who expressed her overall satisfaction with the judgment but stated that criminal laws should be changed to provide for stricter punishments .

The applicant appealed against the judgment . Among other things , he argued that he had not received a fair trial because of a media campaign against him . He argued that the media had ridiculed and discouraged the witnesses who had testified in his favour and that journalists and high - level ORG officials had urged the court to order the strictest sentence possible . The applicant stated that this had prevented the first - instance court from examining his case objectively . The applicant also argued that he had been given a stricter punishment because he was a police officer , which had constituted discrimination on the grounds of social status .

On DATE ORG partly amended the first - instance judgment . It upheld the lower court ’s findings concerning the applicant ’s drunkenness and the speed of his car , and dismissed the applicant ’s complaint concerning discrimination . However , ORG accepted the applicant ’s argument that the age of the victims should not have been considered as an aggravating circumstance because the criminal offence had not been premeditated . Accordingly , the court reduced the consolidated sentence to DATE imprisonment . It also considered that the amount of non - pecuniary damages awarded by the first - instance court had been excessive and not reasonably related to the applicant ’s means . Instead , the court awarded a total of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) to the CARDINAL families . The prohibition on driving a vehicle for DATE was upheld .

NORP In response to the applicant ’s complaints concerning the lack of a fair trial , ORG stated that the media interest in the case had been understandable owing to its sensitive nature and that the media could not be prevented from reporting on public hearings . However , the court held that the first - instance judgment had been well - reasoned and based on reliable evidence , so there were no grounds to find that the judges had been influenced by the media or the statements of any of the officials .

On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant and upheld the judgment of ORG . It stated that the appellate court had provided an adequate examination of the applicant ’s complaints concerning the fairness of his trial and that there was no need to re - examine them .

In DATE the applicant was released on probation . According to the Government ’s observations submitted to ORG DATE , the applicant had up to that date paid a total of LTL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages to the GPE families .


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić

At the relevant time all applicants were employed in a company called ORG aluminijuma GPE .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and DATE the applicants brought separate civil claims against their employer in ORG in GPE , seeking payments of the difference between the salaries which they had received and those which they had allegedly been entitled to on the basis of ORG ( GPE ugovor o radu ) .

On DATE the first instance court in GPE joined and dismissed the applicants’ cases .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG in GPE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court .


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

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and are serving whole life sentences in FAC .

The facts of the case can be summarised as follows .

NORP In DATE both applicants were arrested on suspicion of murder and were remanded in custody . In DATE they were transferred to FAC . In DATE the trial court , ORG , found them guilty of murder resulting from terrorist activity and sentenced them to whole life imprisonment , to be served initially under the “ special regime ” . In DATE the appellate court , ORG , upheld that sentence which was further upheld by ORG in a final judgment of DATE .

The applicants have been serving their sentences under the “ special regime ” in FAC , in permanently locked individual cells measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , under heightened security supervision . Both applicants have been allowed out of their cells for DATE to take exercise in the open , which they have been spending walking in the prison courtyard .

The parties diverge in respect of the material conditions in which the applicants have been kept .

According to the applicants , the daylight in the cells has been scant and a light bulb attached to the ceiling has been on TIME a day . There is so little unencumbered space in the cell that the applicants are forced to spend most of DATE either lying or sitting on their beds . There are no toilets in their cells and , since DATE , the prison authorities have allowed them to use the common sanitary facilities CARDINAL times a day . The rest of the time they use a bucket to satisfy their physiological needs . Hygiene is rather poor : the prison LOC , including the canteen and kitchen , are infested with cockroaches and rats . The food is of inadequate quality and insufficient quantity . The medical service in the prison lacks even the most basic medical supplies . Mr Dimitrov caught psoriasis in prison and because of the absence of adequate treatment his condition has deteriorated into psoriatic arthritis .

According to the Government , the applicants’ cells are equipped with toilets and the light is sufficient for them to read and write . In addition , the prison LOC are cleaned DATE and a thorough cleaning is carried out DATE by a specially designated individual . The authorities employ the services of an external company which regularly cleans and disinfects all prison areas . The prison director supervises the quality and quantity of the food offered to the inmates who receive meat dishes CARDINAL times a week and a NORP dish once a week . The prisoners have access to a bathroom with hot running water CARDINAL times a day . Sometimes they spend TIME a day in the open . They can visit the prison library , the prison chapel , as well as take part in DATE unspecified DATE group activities . Mr PERSON has tended to participate in them happily , while Mr PERSON has refused to do so without giving any reason for that .


CASE OF MILLBANK AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Vote)

Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

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

The applicants , who are convicted prisoners , complained about their ineligibility to vote in elections .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant took part in the cleaning - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . He was subsequently registered disabled by GPE authorities , becoming entitled to various social benefits .

In DATE the applicant settled in GPE . The welfare authorities rejected re - establishing the applicant ’s disability status . The applicant challenged the rejection before the courts .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claim and ordered ORG to issue a certificate of benefits .

On DATE the judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant was issued with the certificate of benefits .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG allowed the defendant authority ’s application for supervisory review and quashed the judgment of DATE , considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law . The case was remitted for fresh consideration .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings since the parties failed to appear .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently residing in GPE . Before his arrest the applicant was the managing director of a private company , A.

A. concluded a contract with PERSON , a NORP company , undertaking to export a certain amount of ferromanganese to GPE .

During DATE the applicant , in his capacity as the director of A. , concluded contracts with CARDINAL NORP companies , F. , GPE . ( “ the seller companies ” ) According to those contracts A. would buy the goods from the companies and pay them sums which included value added tax ( NORP ) .

On a number of occasions DATE and DATE A. exported ferromanganese to GPE , delivered it to PERSON and received payment for it . Subsequently , PERSON claimed and , in DATE , received from the NORP authorities a refund of the ORG mentioned in the contracts with the seller companies .

In DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant . According to the investigating authorities , the contracts which A. had concluded with the CARDINAL seller companies were fictitious and had been concluded for the sole purpose of obtaining export ORG refunds . In fact those companies had not sold ferromanganese to ORG , the applicant and his co - defendants had bought the ferromanganese from private persons , without concluding any contracts with them and without paying ORG on those transactions . The applicant had then forged certificates of quality and fraudulently obtained certificates of origin for the goods . Using all the above documents , A. had exported the goods to GPE . He had then obtained or applied for GPE refunds based on the fictitious documents .

The applicant stated that the contracts had not been fictitious and the certificates had not been forged . A. had legally bought ferromanganese from the private companies , exported it to GPE and received tax refunds .

During the pre - trial investigation , the investigating authorities questioned managers of the CARDINAL seller companies and the owner of a lorry which had been used for transporting the goods . They made certain statements the domestic courts subsequently found to be incriminating . In particular , managers of the CARDINAL seller companies said that the contracts had been either forged or fictitious and that no actual shipments of the goods had taken place . Some of the managers repeated those statements in the course of confrontations with the applicant conducted in the course of the pre - trial investigation . Detailed information about the statements of the witnesses and confrontations can be found in the Table set out in paragraph CARDINAL below .

On an unspecified date the investigation was completed and the case was referred to ORG for trial .

On CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE the court ordered the GPE regional police to bring the witnesses listed in the Table below to court hearings , but the police failed to do so for various reasons .

On DATE the police informed the court , in response to its latest order to bring the witnesses to court , that S. , PERSON and NORP ( see Elements CARDINAL in the Table below ) were away from GPE on holiday .

At the court hearing held on DATE the prosecutor , in the light of the above - mentioned information from the police , asked the court to read out the pre - trial statements of the witnesses who had failed to appear , including all those listed in the Table below . The defence did not object and the statements were read out . The court then proceeded to examine the documents in the file .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the court to summon PERSON , PERSON and NORP again ( see LAW in the Table below ) , because the examination of documents had revealed inconsistencies in their pre - trial statements and because the reasons for their failure to appear had not been established . The trial court refused the request on the grounds that the statements of those witnesses had already been read out at the trial .

On DATE the court found the applicant guilty of smuggling ( export of ferromanganese based on forged documents ) , misappropriation accompanied by abuse of office ( receipt of tax refunds on the basis of fictitious and forged documents ) , abuse of office , and forgery of documents . For the charge of misappropriation accompanied by abuse of office the applicant was sentenced under LAW of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment with a ban on holding managerial positions for DATE . He was also sentenced to various other more lenient punishments under LAW of DATE , but the court held that the most severe of the applicant ’s punishments absorbed the more lenient ones . The final sentence was thus DATE of imprisonment with a ban on holding managerial positions for DATE .

In convicting the applicant the court relied , in particular , on the statements of a number of witnesses given during the pre - trial investigation , as shown in the below Table :

Table . Witness evidence

The trial court also relied on certain inconsistencies between the official records of the applicant ’s company and the shadow accounting records discovered by the authorities .

The applicant and his lawyer appealed . They stated , inter alia , that the trial court had relied on the evidence of witnesses who had not been examined at the trial and that he should have been tried for smuggling under LAW of DATE .

On DATE the ORG held that the applicant should be deemed to have been convicted for smuggling under LAW of DATE instead of LAW of DATE . Otherwise , ORG upheld the findings of the first - instance court and the applicant ’s sentence .

According to the applicant , the appellate court did not give him a copy of the decision of DATE , despite his numerous requests .

In DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed on points of law to ORG against the decisions of DATE and DATE and enclosed copies of those decisions with her appeal . In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant lodged his own appeals with ORG , stating , inter alia , that the trial court had relied on evidence of witnesses who had not been examined at the trial . The applicant also stated that he should have been tried for misappropriation , abuse of office and forgery under LAW of DATE , rather than DATE , but did not provide any details .

On DATE ORG heard the case in the presence of the prosecutor but in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer , who were not informed of the date and time of the hearing . ORG dismissed the appeals lodged by the applicant and his lawyer , stating that the lower ORG findings had been based on a substantial amount of evidence , in particular the statements of the directors of the seller companies made at the investigation stage .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was released from detention following a presidential pardon .