Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos

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

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

ORG exercised their right under LAW to intervene in the ORG ’s proceedings , and submitted written observations .

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

The applicant is a NORP business man who had invested in GPE after DATE . As he was familiar with the NORP business environment , he was empowered by a NORP company ( “ the company NORP ” ) to represent it in the process of the privatisation of the company GPE S.A. ( “ GPE ” ) , which had its headquarters in ORG . The company ZV won the bid , which was managed by ORG ( Fondul Proprietatea ) , and the contract for the transfer of shares was concluded on DATE .

The transfer of control of the company GPE to company NORP was followed by the dismissal of many local employees . The privatization was strongly opposed by the workers’ trade union , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) led by PERSON ( “ the ORG leader ” ) who challenged the validity of the privatisation contract in court and organised strikes .

In DATE , the applicant recommended to the NORP manager of company NORP the services of a company ( “ company P. ” ) for guarding and security services , headed by PERSON “ the manager of company P. ” ) . It was the same company which was providing similar security services to the applicant ’s companies in GPE .

NORP The terms of the contract between the CARDINAL companies were discussed on DATE at a hotel . All the NORP managers were present . A press conference was organized on that occasion . The applicant was present at a drinks reception after the press conference there ; however , he denied that he had taken any part in a conversation between Mr Z. ( “ the manager of NORP ” ) , the manager of company P. , and PERSON ( “ the manager of GPE ” ) during which it was allegedly decided to eliminate the ORG leader .

The contract on provision of security services was signed by company ORG and GPE on DATE .

On DATE an attempt by the manager of company P. and his employees to take over the security posts in GPE was physically prevented by the ORG . According to the applicant , on DATE the manager of company P. indicated to his employees that the ORG leader should be assaulted to prevent him from organising the workers of the ORG against the takeover of the security posts at GPE .

On DATE staff members of company P. succeeded in taking over GPE ’s security posts . However , DATE they were forced out again .

According to the prosecuting authorities , the manager of company P. gave B. , PERSON and PERSON the address of the ORG leader so that he could be attacked .

B. invited his friend PERSON to take part in the assault . On DATE , he allegedly informed the manager of company P that he and ORG had agreed to use a knife during the assault . The manager of company ORG allegedly consented to the use of the knife , stating that the reward they had been promised would be doubled if the ORG leader was killed .

On DATE , at TIME , PERSON and PERSON attacked the ORG leader in the hallway of the building where he was living and caused him fatal injuries . He died shortly after being transported to hospital .

NORP The perpetrators of the killing and the manager of company P. were arrested on DATE . They did not mention any involvement by the applicant in their initial statements . However , on DATE the manager of company P. did mention that the applicant was involved in the attack .

The manager of GPE was also arrested on DATE . On DATE he gave a statement which began by mentioning the applicant ’s involvement in the discussions which took place at the hotel on DATE .

Mr. PERSON , a friend of the manager of company P. , was heard as a witness on DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE he alleged that he had been present when a conversation took place between the manager of company P. and the applicant , during which the latter had allegedly told the former that the problems could be solved by the physical elimination of the ORG leader .

On DATE the prosecutor began an investigation in respect of the applicant too , and instructed the police not to allow him to leave the country .

In TIME of DATE the applicant was stopped at the NORP border in GPE , while he was trying to leave the country . He was transported to ORG by police officers . He was questioned on arrival there . He pleaded not guilty and denied any involvement in the killing of the ORG leader .

The applicant was assisted by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice during the investigation stage .

On DATE the prosecutor in charge set up a confrontation between the applicant and the manager of company P.

On DATE the applicant was officially arrested and remanded in custody .

On DATE the applicant was heard in connection with another charge against him concerning fraud in respect of public assets .

On DATE the prosecutor filed with ORG an indictment of the applicant for fraud in respect of public assets , conspiracy to commit an offence , and incitement to aggravated homicide . The killers of the ORG leader and the managers of the companies P. and GPE were also charged .

By a decision of DATE ORG granted the applications of the applicant , the NORP embassy and ORG for the referral of the case from GPE ORG to another court , because of the political pressure in ORG . The file was transferred to ORG .

Initially the applicant was assisted by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice . Starting from DATE he was assisted by CARDINAL lawyer of his choice , GPE

On DATE the ORG appointed a ORG interpreter ( C.E. ) . The applicant requested the appointment of the same authorised interpreter used by the prosecutor during the investigation stage and the hearings before FAC . His request was refused on the ground that the cost would be too great since he resided in ORG .

On DATE the court appointed a new authorised interpreter , G.I. , on the ground that the applicant alleged that he had not understood the interpretation done by DATE . He acted as the applicant ’s interpreter at the subsequent hearings before the county court .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal lodged by the applicant and the manager of GPE against the interlocutory judgment on the extension of their pre - trial detention . It replaced their detention with an obligation not to leave their place of residence , and ordered their release . It also stated that the events as described in the indictment were not completely confirmed by the statements of the defendants and the witnesses heard before the court . The judgment had a dissenting opinion which stated that the extension of the detention was justified , as the grounds for taking the preventive measure had not changed .

After the applicant had been released from detention , workers of GPE gathered in the streets of ORG protesting against the release . On DATE the Prime Minister of the time attended one of these meetings and expressed support for the workers . He called the killing of the ORG leader a “ political murder ” and promised to ask ORG to explain to the people of ORG why those considered by the citizens of ORG to be guilty of the murder were being prosecuted without being detained .

After DATE , the decision to release the applicant was challenged by ORG , who submitted a complaint of breach of law to ORG . He also ordered that the applicant be rearrested .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE , the GPE ORG ordered the suspension of the decision of ORG of DATE until the examination of ORG complaint . It also ordered the re - arrest of the applicant and of the manager of GPE and the extension of his detention

On DATE ORG dismissed the extraordinary appeal lodged by ORG , and consequently ORG replaced the detention of the applicant and of the manager of GPE with an obligation not to leave their places of residence . They were released from prison .

On DATE , ORG applied to ORG for referral of the case to another court than the PERSON GPE Court . The request was justified by the wide media coverage of the case and its effect on public opinion . The ORG stated that the request for the referral of the file to another court had been made at the insistence of the NORP embassy . The NORP embassy attended the hearing at ORG and contested that measure . The request of ORG was dismissed .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE because the applicant ’s interpreter and part of the witnesses were absent .

At the hearing of DATE the applicant and his lawyer consented to the hearing of CARDINAL witnesses in the absence of the interpreter . PERSON was present at the following hearings before the Satu Mare County Court . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer complained about the services provided by him during the proceedings before the Satu Mare County Court .

At the hearing of DATE , the applicant requested the hearing of CARDINAL witnesses in his behalf . ORG had granted the applicant ’s request for the hearing of CARDINAL witnesses , while it considered that the hearing of the fourth witness was not relevant as he had heard about the facts of the case from the applicant indirectly during their detention in the same cell .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was acquitted of the charge of fraud and found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime and of incitement to battery with fatal results ( instigare la infracțiunea de lovituri cauzatoare de moarte ) . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The court held that the applicant and the managers of the companies P. and ORG had instructed the attackers only to cause the ORG leader injuries that would stop his activities in GPE for DATE . It also held that the attackers had exceeded their instructions . The applicant ’s conviction was based on evidence that comprised the statements of coaccused and witnesses whom he had had the opportunity to cross - examine in the presence of his lawyers .

The applicant , the other defendants and the prosecutor ’s office all lodged appeals with ORG .

In the appeal proceedings the applicant was assisted by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice ( CARDINAL of them was the same lawyer who had assisted him before ORG , GPE ) .

At the first hearing before the appellate court the interpretation services were provided by the same interpreter as before the county court , G.I. On DATE the appellate court ordered an adjournment of the hearings because the applicant ’s lawyer required the services of another interpreter claiming that the applicant was not satisfied with the services provided by ORG new interpreter , GPE , was appointed for the hearing of DATE .

On DATE the newly appointed interpret was absent . The court appointed another interpreter , ORG from the list of authorized interpreters provided by ORG . The hearing was adjourned for DATE .

On DATE the appelate court adjourned again the hearings at the request of ORG , who informed that she was abroad .

According to the applicant , at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the court had informed the applicant that the next hearing , scheduled for DATE , would take place in the absence of an interpreter if he did not secure CARDINAL himself . In response to that statement the NORP embassy sent a note to ORG , which subsequently informed the appeal court that the services of an interpreter must be secured by the judicial authorities . The interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE did not contain such a statement . The hearings were adjourned at the request of CARDINAL of the applicant ’s lawyers .

The appellate court had difficulties in finding an available interpreter . It contacted by telephone most of the CARDINAL interpreters found on the list provided by ORG and none was able to ensure interpretation services at the hearing of DATE . At that hearing the applicant did not accept the interpretation ensured by a person who knew NORP language , invited by ORG to help the applicant . The court adjourned the hearings in order to find an authorized interpreter for the applicant .

At the last hearing before the appeal court , on DATE , the interpretation services were provided by an authorized interpreter , GPE The applicant asked the court to allow more witnesses to be heard on his behalf , submitting a list of CARDINAL names in this respect . The list included the name of CARDINAL NORP managers of GPE , among whom were GPE and the interpreters who had provided the service for the meeting held on DATE . The list also included witness NORP , who had shared a prison cell with the applicant . His request was refused , on the ground that the hearing of these new witnesses did not appear to be necessary at this stage of the proceedings .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG in part . It found the applicant guilty of fraud in respect of public assets , conspiracy to commit a crime , and incitement to aggravated murder . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , with deprivation of civil rights for a period of DATE . He was also ordered to pay a DATE allowance to the daughter of the victim until she reached DATE , provided that she continued her studies after reaching the age of majority . He was also ordered to pay the costs of the interpretation provided by ORG , which had been paid for by ORG .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision , submitting that LAW ( e ) of the LAW had been violated . In this respect he claimed that most of the written procedural acts had been delivered to him in the NORP language , and that interpreting services at ORG were provided by non - authorised interpreters who were not well understood by him . He also contended that he had been ordered to pay for the interpreting services provided by interpreter PERSON at ORG .

He also complained that his right to defence had been infringed , because his request for further evidence made before the appellate court was dismissed without sufficient reasons .

Another complaint concerned lack of impartiality on the part of the domestic courts , because certain judges who had examined his appeal against the extension of his pre - trial detention had also examined the merits of the case . He referred in particular to Judge PERSON

In the proceedings before ORG the interpretation services were ensured by CARDINAL interpreters . The fees for interpretation were paid by the ORG .

The applicant was assisted before ORG by the same CARDINAL lawyers who had assisted him before the appellate court .

By a decision delivered on DATE ORG and ORG quashed the decision of ORG in part . It acquitted the applicant of the charge of fraud in respect of public assets , maintained the other CARDINAL charges , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment with CARDINAL years’ deprivation of civil rights . It also rescinded the applicant ’s obligation to pay the costs of interpretation provided at ORG .

As regards the alleged infringement of the applicant ’s right to an interpreter , ORG held that from the examination of all interlocutory judgments it could be noted that no hearing had been held in the absence of an interpreter . Whenever the interpreter was absent the hearing was adjourned , and the court took all necessary steps to ensure the presence of an interpreter for the subsequent hearing .

As regards the applicant ’s allegation that he could not understand the translation offered by the court - appointed interpreters because some of them were authorised to provide interpretation in the NORP language and not in the NORP language , ORG noted that according to the statements of ORG , a NORP citizen of NORP origin , the applicant had no difficulty in communicating with her . It also referred to PERSON , who was hired as an interpreter at GPE and also used as an interpreter at the meeting held on DATE . It noted that he was of NORP origin too . ORG further stated that “ Whenever the applicant requested the replacement of the interpreters they were changed ” . The court also noted that the applicant ’s counsel had never complained before any court of difficulty in establishing proper communication with the applicant through the court - appointed interpreters .

As regards the applicant ’s complaint about the dismissal by ORG of his request for new evidence , ORG noted that the NORP witness , GPE , had been summoned to be heard in different proceedings in connection with offences related to the applicant ’s case , but he had not returned to GPE to be heard . The court also noted that taking into account his involvement in the applicant ’s case it could not be expected that GPE would give accurate statements . Moreover , there was enough evidence in the file attesting to the applicant ’s involvement in the killing of GPE The other CARDINAL NORP managers indicated by the applicant in his list of witnesses were only involved in economic activities . As regards the statements by the CARDINAL interpreters of NORP origin , PERSON and GPE , who had attended the meeting DATE , ORG noted that both of them had often provided interpretation to the NORP managers in their economic activity and were very much involved in profitable activities with the latter . Furthermore , ORG was not only his business partner but also his life partner . The court concluded that their testimony in connection with the discussions held on DATE could not be considered reliable , as both had provided interpreting services for the conversations held on that occasion . They could not acknowledge that they had thus become aware of the ORG intention to eliminate the leader of the ORG , because they could thereby have been held responsible for not preventing his killing .

For medical reasons the applicant was allowed to start serving his sentence on DATE . However , taking advantage of the lack of vigilance of the border authorities , he escaped from GPE to GPE in DATE .

ORG issued a NORP Arrest Warrant in his respect on DATE . By a decision of DATE GPE Court refused to allow his extradition to GPE .

ORG requested GPE to take over the execution of the prison sentence . ORG submitted , in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW , a request to GPE for approval of the NORP courts’ decisions .

In the course of the proceedings before ORG there were CARDINAL hearings . The court heard several witnesses , who included one of the applicant ’s defence counsel before the NORP courts , CARDINAL employees of the NORP embassy in GPE , and the applicant ’s interpreter and partner GPE

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to approve the NORP courts’ decisions , on the ground that the applicant had not benefitted from a fair trial in GPE . The main reason for the refusal was infringement by the NORP court of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( e ) of the LAW , as the applicant had not been provided with the free assistance of an interpreter .

In accordance with LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , in force at the material time , parties who did not speak or did not understand the NORP language , or who could not express themselves in it , were given the opportunity , free of charge , to acquaint themselves with the documents in the file , to speak in court and to submit conclusions , through the services of an interpreter and translator .

LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL/JHA on LAW and the surrender procedures between the Member States , transposed into NORP law since DATE , has as main purpose to simplify and expedite procedures for extradition of persons convicted or accused of crimes between the ORG member states .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant lives in the village of FAC in GPE , whilst the second applicant is resident in the village of GPE , GPE .

Early in the morning of CARDINAL DATE law - enforcement agencies in the town of GPE , GPE , were attacked by a number of heavily armed people , who appear to have been local insurgents . The agencies included ORG of ORG , ORG of ORG of ORG , various district departments of ORG , ORG of ORG , various checkpoints of ORG , ORG of ORG , ORG of ORG and the office of ORG of ORG . Also , a few privately owned weapon shops were attacked . According to the Government , there were CARDINAL participants in the attack .

The ensuing fight between the governmental forces and the insurgents lasted until CARDINAL DATE .

The applicants submitted that they were relatives of the persons who participated in the attack and died on CARDINAL and DATE or shortly afterwards .

The first applicant refers to the death of his son PERSON , born on DATE , whilst the second applicant refers to the death of her son PERSON , born on DATE .

The Government stated that the authorities had killed a total of CARDINAL insurgents in the anti - terrorist operations mounted in response to the attack of CARDINAL DATE . In essence , they acknowledged that the deceased referred to by the applicants were among those killed by the authorities .

It appears that on DATE the authorities instituted criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL in connection with the attack in GPE .

NORP In the course of the investigation it was established that between CARDINAL and DATE a group of individuals , including A. ORG , PERSON . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , had formed a terrorist group . It was this group that organised the attack . CARDINAL law - enforcement officers and QUANTITY civilians were killed , whilst CARDINAL law - enforcement officers and CARDINAL civilians were injured . Massive damage was done to property .

The applicants did not have any procedural status in the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

It appears that on several occasions the applicants requested various officials , including the prosecutors , to return the bodies of their sons for burial .

The requests either remained unanswered or were refused .

The applicants were furnished with death certificates in respect of their sons , indicating DATE as the date of death in respect of both individuals and DATE ( in respect of PERSON ) and DATE ( PERSON ) as the dates of issue .

On DATE the investigation authority terminated the criminal proceedings in respect of the CARDINAL deceased on account of their deaths , having taken an individual decision in respect of each deceased person . Each decision described the degree and character of their individual involvement and concluded that these persons had taken part in the attack and died in the course of the ensuing gunfight . It appears that the deceased referred to by the applicants were among those concerned by this decision .

The decision of DATE in respect of PERSON stated that his body was located on DATE at CARDINAL Malbakhov Street , GPE . The investigators found a PERSON pistol containing CARDINAL cartridges near the corpse and a PERSON pistol containing CARDINAL cartridges in his trousers . The deceased held an armed hand grenade in his left hand . The subsequent expert report identified the cause of death as a gunshot wound to the chest , which damaged his heart and caused a massive loss of blood and traumatic shock .

In view of the collected evidence , the investigation concluded that at TIME on DATE the deceased , acting in concert with other participants , carried out a pre - planned and armed attack on an arms shop with a view to capturing arms and ammunition . The attack resulted in the deaths of CARDINAL persons and the wounding of CARDINAL more . The deceased personally killed CARDINAL of the victims and ordered the killing of another .

NORP The decision of DATE in respect of PERSON stated that his body was located on DATE in the vicinity of the local LOC of FAC of ORG . The investigators found CARDINAL used bullet cartridges nearby . The subsequent expert report identified the cause of his death as multiple gunshot wounds to the legs , leading to massive loss of blood and traumatic shock .

Based on the collected evidence , the investigation concluded that the deceased , along with CARDINAL other persons , organised and carried out an armed attack on the building of ORG . The deceased took part in the attack for TIME , by shooting at police and passer - bys from an automatic rifle and throwing hand grenades at them . He was later killed when the police returned fire . The attack resulted in the death of CARDINAL civilian , the wounding of CARDINAL more and injuries to QUANTITY police agents .

The Prosecutor General ’s Office notified the applicants of the above decisions on DATE , but no copies of the decisions in question were attached to the notifications .

According to the ORG , CARDINAL corpses of the presumed terrorists were cremated on DATE . From the applicants’ submissions , it appears that they first learned of the cremations from the Government ’s observations in the present case .

According to the ORG , the cremations took place pursuant to a decision not to return the bodies of the deceased to their families , dated DATE . In contrast to the individual decisions of CARDINAL DATE , the decision of CARDINAL DATE referred to the deceased persons collectively . The decision stated , in particular :

“ ... the head of investigation group ... [ official S. ] , having examined the materials in case file no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , established : ... [ that ] in the course of the counter - terrorist special operation aimed at tackling the attack , CARDINAL terrorists were eliminated , namely :

[ the decision names among the deceased the persons referred to by the applicants ]

At present all forensic expert examinations , including molecular genetic examinations , involving ... the corpses of the deceased terrorists , have been finalised and their identities have been established by way of proper procedure .

By decisions of CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE the criminal proceedings in respect of these CARDINAL persons , who had committed ... the attack on various sites and law - enforcement agents of the town of GPE ... was discontinued on account of their deaths , under LAW part CARDINAL subpart CARDINAL and LAW part CARDINAL subpart CARDINAL of LAW .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG Law no . PERSON ) : ‘ the interment of persons against whom a criminal investigation in connection with their terrorist activities has been closed because of their death following interception of the said terrorist act shall take place in accordance with the procedure established by ORG of GPE . Their bodies shall not be handed over for burial and the place of their burial shall not be revealed.’

Pursuant to part CARDINAL of Decree no . CARDINAL , ‘ On interment of persons whose death was caused by the interception of terrorist acts carried out by them’ , approved by ORG of GPE on DATE , ‘ the interment of [ these ] persons shall take place in the locality where death occurred and shall be carried out by agencies specialising in funeral arrangements , set up by organs of the executive branch of the subjects of GPE or by organs of local government ... ’ .

[ In view of the above , official PERSON decided to : ]

bury the bodies of the CARDINAL terrorists ...

forward the decision to the President of GPE for execution ;

inform [ his superiors ] of this decision ” .

The Government alleged that the authorities had notified the applicants of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , but acknowledged that no copy of that decision had been provided to them .

It appears that on several occasions ORG informed the applicants , in substance , of the refusal to return the bodies . It does not appear that the applicants were furnished with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

NORP The applicants’ initial attempts to obtain judicial review of the decisions of DATE and DATE were unsuccessful , as the courts refused to examine their arguments .

The relatives of other deceased participants in the attack contested the legislation governing the interment of terrorists before ORG . Their initial complaints were rejected as premature . Eventually , some complaints were accepted for examination .

On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) in which , in essence , it rejected their complaints alleging that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Interment and Burial Act and Decree no . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE of DATE were unconstitutional . The ruling stated , in particular , that the impugned legal provisions were , in the circumstances , necessary and justified . The court reached the following conclusions regarding the legitimate aims and necessity of the legislation in question :

“ ... At the same time , the interest in fighting terrorism , in preventing terrorism in general and specific terms and in providing redress for the effects of terrorist acts , coupled with the risk of mass disorder , clashes between different ethnic groups and aggression by DATE those involved in terrorist activity against the population at large and law - enforcement officials , and lastly the threat to human life and limb , may , in a given historical context , justify the establishment of a particular legal regime , such as that provided for by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , governing the burial of persons who escape prosecution in connection with terrorist activity on account of their death following the interception of a terrorist act ... Those provisions are logically connected to the provisions of paragraph LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG of ORG on combating terrorism through culture , dated DATE , in which it was stressed that extremist interpretations of elements of a particular culture or religion , such as heroic martyrdom , self - sacrifice , apocalypse or holy war , as well as secular ideologies ( nationalist or revolutionary ) could also be used for the justification of terrorist acts .

Action to minimise the informational and psychological impact of the terrorist act on the population , including the weakening of its propaganda effect , is one of the means necessary to protect public security and the morals , health , rights and legal interests of citizens . It therefore pursues exactly those aims for which LAW and international legal instruments permit restrictions on the relevant rights and freedoms .

The burial of those who have taken part in a terrorist act , in close proximity to the graves of the victims of their acts , and the observance of rites of burial and remembrance with the paying of respects , as a symbolic act of worship , serve as a means of propaganda for terrorist ideas and also cause offence to relatives of the victims of the acts in question , creating the preconditions for increasing inter - ethnic and religious tension .

In the conditions which have arisen in GPE as a result of the commission of a series of terrorist acts which produced numerous human victims , resulted in widespread negative social reaction and had a major impact on the collective consciousness , the return of the body to the relatives ... may create a threat to social order and peace and to the rights and legal interests of other persons and their security , including incitement to hatred and incitement to engage in acts of vandalism , violence , mass disorder and clashes which may produce further victims . Meanwhile , the burial places of participants in terrorist acts may become a shrine for certain extremist individuals and be used by them as a means of propaganda for the ideology of terrorism and involvement in terrorist activity .

In such circumstances , the federal legislature may introduce special arrangements governing the burial of individuals whose death occurred as a result of the interception of a terrorist act in which they were taking part . ... ”

The ruling further noted that the application of the measures prescribed in the legislation could be regarded as justified if proper procedural safeguards , such as effective judicial review , were in place to protect individuals from arbitrariness . The court noted that ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for such review .

In sum , ORG upheld the impugned provisions as being in conformity with the LAW but at the same time interpreted them as requiring that the authorities refrain from burying bodies unless a court had confirmed the competent authority ’s decision . It reasoned as follows :

“ ... The constitutional and legal meaning of the existing norms presupposes the possibility of bringing court proceedings to challenge a decision to discontinue , on account of the deaths of the suspects , a criminal case against or prosecution of participants in a terrorist act . Accordingly , they also presuppose an obligation on the court ’s part to examine the substance of the complaint , that is , to verify the lawfulness and well - foundedness of the decision and the conclusions therein as regards the participation of the persons concerned in a terrorist act , and to establish the absence of grounds for rehabilitating [ the suspects ] and discontinuing the criminal case . They thus entail an examination of the lawfulness of the application of the aforementioned restrictive measures . Until the entry into force of the court judgment the deceased ’s remains can not be buried ; the relevant ORG bodies and officials must take all necessary measures to ensure that the bodies are disposed of in accordance with custom and tradition , in particular through the burial of the remains in the ground ... or by [ cremation ] , individually , if possible , and to ensure compliance prior thereto with the requirements concerning the identification of the deceased ... and of the time , location and cause of death ... ”

Judge PERSON issued a separate opinion in which he agreed that the impugned provisions were in conformity with the LAW but held a different view as to how they should be interpreted . The opinion stated as follows :

“ ... if the relevant law - enforcement agencies find , as a result of a preliminary investigation , that a terrorist act has been committed and that a given person was involved , but the criminal proceedings against that person ... are discontinued on account of his or her death following interception of the terrorist act , and if they then conclude that the decision to return the body to the family for burial is capable of threatening public order and peace and the health , morals , rights , lawful interests and safety of others , they are entitled to take a decision refusing to hand over the body and applying special arrangements for burial .

At the same time , in the event of a refusal to return the body of an individual whose death occurred as the result of the interception of a terrorist act committed by him , the authorities competent to take a decision concerning the burial must secure compliance with all the requirements concerning the establishment of the deceased ’s identity , the time and place of death , the cause of death , the place of burial and the data necessary for the proper identification of the grave ( a given location and number ) . The burial must take place with the participation of the relatives , in accordance with custom and tradition and with humanitarian respect for the dead . The administrative authorities of a ORG governed by the rule of law must respect the cultural values of a multi - ethnic society , transmitted from generation to generation . ... ”

Judge PERSON issued a dissenting opinion in which he described the legislation in question as incompatible with the LAW . In particular , he noted :

“ ... The impugned norms banning the return of the deceased ’s bodies to their relatives and providing for their anonymous burial are , in our view , absolutely immoral and reflect the most uncivilised , barbaric and base views of previous generations ...

The right of every person to be buried in a dignified manner in accordance with the traditions and customs of his family hardly requires special justification or even to be secured in written form in law . This right is clearly self - evident and stems from human nature as , perhaps , no other natural right . Equally natural and uncontested is the right of every person to conduct the burial of a person who is related and dear to them , to have an opportunity to perform one ’s moral duty and display one ’s human qualities , to bid farewell , to grieve , mourn and commemorate the deceased , however he may be regarded by society and the state , to have the right to a grave , which in all civilisations represents a sacred value and the symbol of memory . ... ”

After ORG judgment of DATE the domestic courts apparently changed their approach and agreed to review the formal lawfulness of the decisions of DATE and DATE . The domestic courts still could not review the need for application of the measures set out in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Interment and Burial Act and Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE in individual cases .

The applicants contested the actions of the authorities before the courts .

In DATE , in order to prepare the cases for examination , the presiding judge made repeated requests to the officials of ORG , including the Head of ORG , seeking copies of the materials relating to the investigation of the deaths of both applicants’ sons . It appears that these requests remained unanswered .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the NORP Town Court of GPE partly granted the claims of the second applicant in respect of his son . In particular , the court quashed both the decision dated DATE to terminate criminal proceedings in respect of the second applicant ’s son because of his death and the decision dated DATE not to return the body of the second applicant ’s son to his family . The court noted that the decision of DATE had failed to take account of the new law on terrorism , adopted on DATE and DATE , and that therefore the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been premature . The court ordered the prosecution authorities to examine the relevant issues afresh .

A similar judgment was taken on DATE by the ORG of GPE in respect of the first applicant ’s son .

The judgments were appealed against by both parties .

ORG upheld the judgments on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

The parties have not submitted any information about the subsequent events in the applicants’ domestic cases .

According to those relatives of the deceased who took part in the identification of the bodies , for DATE following the events of CARDINAL and DATE the corpses were kept in the town morgue and other locations in wholly unsatisfactory conditions . In particular , the bodies gave off an intense smell owing to the lack of proper refrigeration and were chaotically piled on top of each other .

The applicants did not participate in identification of their deceased relatives in person .

The Government submitted that PERSON had been identified by his cousin PERSON . on DATE , whilst PERSON had been identified by his cousin PERSON on DATE .

The Government submitted that the corpses in question had been initially held in the GPE morgue . CARDINAL the applicants examined the corpses and the clothing . Thereafter the bodies were placed in CARDINAL refrigerator wagons . On DATE the wagons were moved to the town of GPE - on - Don for molecular genetic examinations and on DATE all of the bodies were cremated . CARDINAL and DATE the person in charge of the identification proceedings was the head of the investigation group , investigator PERSON From DATE he was replaced by investigator ORG also acknowledged that immediately after the attack no facilities had been available to keep the bodies .

According to the ORG ’s most recent submissions , the overall amount of human casualties as a result of the events of CARDINAL DATE was CARDINAL civilians , QUANTITY police and law - enforcement officers and eightyseven participants in the attack .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law , see ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE and DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) and PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .

For a summary of other relevant sources referred to by the applicants , see GPE and Others , cited above , § § CARDINAL and also PERSON and Others , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Alvina Gyulumyan;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

Since DATE the applicant has claimed , so far unsuccessfully , title to part of a house , owned by PERSON at the material time , and to the land on which it stands . Her claim is based on the following arguments : that the part of the house in question was constructed at her and her late husband ’s expense ; that her husband lawfully obtained title to the property , which she subsequently inherited ; that it was not sold to PERSON despite there having initially been an agreement with the applicant ’s son to that effect ; and that the sales contract on which PERSON claim to the property was based was forged .

The applicant ’s property claim was considered on numerous occasions by the domestic courts . Eventually , following the reassignment of the case by ORG to lower courts with different territorial jurisdiction , the applicant ’s claim was dismissed . Relying on the statements of CARDINAL witnesses , CARDINAL of whom was heard in person , and documents submitted by PERSON , the courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction found that Mr M. had bought the foundations of the part of the house in question from the applicant ’s son in DATE and had subsequently built it at his own cost . Mr PERSON , accordingly , was the lawful owner of that part of the house and had the right to use the land on which it had been constructed . The final decision , upholding the rulings of the lower courts , was taken by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG , complaining in particular of unfairness in the domestic court proceedings concerning her claim . She also complained about the length of the proceedings and alleged a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with LAW on account of their outcome .

On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment in the case , which became final on DATE . The ORG held that there had been a violation of LAW , having regard to the circumstances in which the applicant ’s case had been reassigned by ORG and to the lack of sufficient reasoning in the domestic decisions , these issues being taken together and cumulatively ( see GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

The ORG reasoned as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... [ The ] reassignment [ of the applicant ’s case ] was ordered by ORG after having expressly disagreed with the findings of the lower courts as to the facts and having stated its position concerning one of the principal aspects of the case ... even before the new assessment of facts and taking of evidence by the lower courts took place ... Considering in addition ORG failure to provide reasons for the reassignment , the ORG is of the opinion that the applicant ’s fears that the judges of ORG , including its Deputy President , had a prefixed idea concerning the outcome of the case and that the judges to whom the case had been transferred on DATE would have to consider the case in accordance with ORG view could be held to be objectively justified .

The ORG considers that this overall procedural situation also disturbed the principle of legal certainty ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALIX ) . The fact that ORG views on the subject of the applicant ’s case differed from those of the lower courts could not be a sole ground for its repeated re - examination . Higher courts’ power of review should be exercised for correction of judicial mistakes , miscarriages of justice , and not to substitute the lower courts’ assessment of facts . ”

The ORG further noted that the domestic courts had afforded no reply to the applicant ’s submissions concerning the reliability of the ORG statements and the validity of the documentary evidence , which had been decisive for the outcome of the case ( see GPE , cited above , § § DATE ) .

Relying on the above findings under LAW , the ORG decided that it was not necessary to rule on the applicant ’s complaint based on LAW No . CARDINAL , as it raised no distinct issue ( see GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

The applicant ’s complaints about the length of the proceedings and a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL taken in conjunction with LAW were dismissed as unsubstantiated ( see GPE , cited above , § § DATE and CARDINAL ) .

The applicant was awarded ORG CARDINAL by way of just satisfaction in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The ORG also noted “ that the applicant was entitled under NORP law to request a rehearing of her case in the light of the ORG ’s finding that the domestic courts had not complied with LAW in her case ” ( see GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL and DATE ) .

To date , ORG has not yet concluded the supervision of the execution of the judgment under LAW .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG an “ appeal in the light of exceptional circumstances ” pursuant in particular to Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Relying on the ORG ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE , she asked ORG to quash the ORG decisions in her case and to adopt a new judgment allowing her claims in full . She joined to her appeal copies of the ORG ’s judgment and of the domestic decisions .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG of ORG , having examined the appeal in chambers and relying on LAW set out in paragraph CARDINAL below ) , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The relevant part of ORG decision reads as follows :

“ By the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG declared the applicant ’s complaints of unfairness in the proceedings and of a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL admissible , and the remainder of the application inadmissible . A violation of LAW ... was found in the case . [ The ORG ] ordered that the respondent ORG was to pay the applicant , within DATE from the date on which the judgment became final according to LAW ( DATE ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage ...

In paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment of ORG , it is noted that the applicant ’s submissions mainly concern CARDINAL issues , namely :

( a ) NORP whether the courts , which dealt with [ the applicant ’s ] case , were independent and impartial ;

( b ) DATE whether the fact that the case was heard by ORG prevented the applicant from participating in the proceedings ;

( c ) NORP whether the principle of equality of arms was observed with regard to the failure of the domestic courts to hear the witnesses whose written statements the courts admitted as evidence ;

( d ) whether the final decisions given by the courts of first , appeal and cassation instances were sufficiently substantiated .

As can be seen from the case materials , the applicant was represented in the [ domestic ] proceedings by her son , a lawyer ... During the entire duration of the proceedings she failed to appear before the court , although she was duly informed of the hearings .

None of those taking part in the case , including Mr B.I. [ the applicant ’s son ] , asked for the witnesses to be summoned ... Mr B.I. failed to submit witness statements ... capable of proving that the house was constructed at his ( or his father ’s or his mother ’s ) expense .

None of the parties , including Mr B.I. , sought the withdrawal of the [ first - instance ] judge . Complaints of the court ’s lack of objectivity ... were only raised by PERSON B.I. after the judgment had been adopted in the case .

As can be seen from the case materials , the validity of the sales contract of DATE , according to which Mr PERSON purchased from Mr B.I. half of the foundations and some of the construction materials , was not challenged ... There is also a document confirming that the left - hand side of the house was constructed at Mr M. ’s expense and a document according to which PERSON paid Mr GPE karbovanets [ the former transitional currency of GPE before DATE ] for the foundations of the left - hand side of the house . These circumstances were not refuted by the expert examination in the case .

In its judgment , ORG also noted that the applicant ... had failed to provide evidence that she had suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her property rights , contrary to LAW , on account of the outcome of the civil proceedings . [ The ORG ] concluded that the applicant ’s complaints [ under these provisions ] were to be rejected as manifestly ill - founded pursuant to LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . Therefore , ORG concluded that the [ domestic ] courts’ decisions were lawful and well - founded and decided to award the applicant compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL only for the violation of the ‘ reasonable - time’ requirement by the NORP courts .

In the light of the foregoing , the courts’ decisions in the case may not be quashed on the grounds mentioned in PERSON application .

Relying on [ Article ] CARDINAL of the [ Code of Civil Procedure of GPE ] , the panel of judges of ORG of ORG of GPE

[ Decided ] :

To refuse to allow the appeal [ of PERSON ] for review in the light of exceptional circumstances of the judgment of DATE of ORG of ORG , the decision of DATE of ORG and the decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG of GPE . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a new “ appeal in the light of exceptional circumstances ” with ORG . She argued that the decision of DATE had been based on an incorrect “ interpretation ” of the ORG ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE and requested ORG to reconsider the merits of the case in the light of the ORG ’s findings under LAW in that judgment as noted in paragraph CARDINAL above .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG of ORG , relying on Article CARDINAL of LAW , declared the appeal inadmissible , as it contained no arguments capable of serving as grounds for reconsideration of the case in the light of exceptional circumstances pursuant to LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below for the text of LAW and for the relevant extracts from LAW ) .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .

On an unspecified date before DATE the applicant was convicted of homicide and sentenced to imprisonment . The term of his imprisonment was to end in DATE .

At the relevant time he was detained in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant ’s grandmother died .

On DATE in the morning the applicant received a telegram from his relatives informing him of the death of his grandmother and of the date of her funeral . The funeral was scheduled to take place on DATE at TIME in PERSON , a town located at a distance of QUANTITY from PERSON .

On DATE the applicant made an application for leave from prison to attend his grandmother ’s funeral . His application was transmitted by the penitentiary authorities to ORG via fax at CARDINAL p.m. It read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ I kindly ask ORG to grant me leave to attend the funeral of my grandmother . She was very close to me , she was the person who had raised me . Thank you very much for considering my request . ”

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Penitentiary Judge of ORG ( sędzia penitencjarny ) , refused the applicant ’s request . The reasons given for the decision were as follows :

“ ... the convicted person ’s application for compassionate leave under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW was refused due to the nature of the committed offence , negative opinion about the convicted ( negatywna opinia środowiskowa ) and the remote date foreseen for the completion of his sentence . ”

NORP The decision was notified in writing to the applicant on DATE . The applicant did not appeal against it as the funeral had already taken place and he considered that this would be purposeless .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9 - Positive obligations;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The case concerns an incident which took place on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , in front of ORG in the centre of GPE , in which leaders , members and supporters of the NORP political party ORG clashed with NORP worshippers who had gathered around the mosque for the regular DATE prayer . The case also concerns the ensuing official investigations into that incident .

The Banya Bashi Mosque was built in DATE and is currently the only operating mosque in GPE . It can hold up to QUANTITY worshippers . According to information provided by the Chief Mufti ’s Office , there are CARDINAL NORP in GPE ; some of them are NORP nationals , and others immigrants from GPE , LOC and LOC . The mosque is fitted with loudspeakers which were installed soon after the fall of the communist regime in DATE . Those loudspeakers are turned on during the call for prayer , which lasts TIME five times a day , and during the whole of the DATE prayer . They are turned off TIME to comply with the regulations concerning the level of urban noise .

The mosque itself is surrounded by railings approximately QUANTITY high . CARDINAL sides of the mosque face onto a park , behind which is ORG ( “ GPE централна минерална баня ” ) . CARDINAL side faces onto a side street , FAC . The final side faces onto the Princess PERSON . There , the pavement of the boulevard is QUANTITY wide . Owing to a lack of space inside the FAC , worshippers often pray around the building during the DATE prayer , placing their prayer rugs on the boulevard pavement . On the boulevard side of the mosque , there is also a single storey extension , which is not protected by railings , the top of which is CARDINAL high . It is therefore possible to gain access to the mosque compound from the boulevard by climbing onto the roof of the single storey extension .

Ataka is a NORP political party . It was founded in DATE and , since then , in parliamentary elections has gained PERCENT of the popular vote and CARDINAL seats in ORG . The party ’s leader , PERSON , has been a Member of ORG for ORG since DATE .

In DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON began a campaign against the noise emanating from the loudspeakers installed on FAC . DATE , they gathered CARDINAL signatures for a petition , presented to ORG on DATE , which called for the removal of the loudspeakers . On TIME DATE PERSON organised a rally against the “ howling ” emanating from the loudspeakers during the call to prayer .

NORP In DATE ORG ’s mayoral candidate for PERSON , Mr PERSON , declared that , if elected , he would ban the calls for prayer broadcast from those loudspeakers because he believed that they disturbed persons who had other religious beliefs .

On DATE , DATE , supporters of ORG mounted loudspeakers on a car and circled close to mosque , playing recordings of church bells and NORP chants during the regular DATE prayer that was taking place at the time . This was repeated during DATE that preceded the incident of CARDINAL DATE . In the words of CARDINAL of ORG ’s Members of ORG , this was done to counter the “ noise terror ” emanating from the mosque .

At TIME on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , worshippers began to gather in and around the mosque for the regular DATE prayer . The applicant was CARDINAL of them . He , along with CARDINAL other worshippers , remained outside the mosque , either in the surrounding park or on the pavement on Princess PERSON . Prayer rugs were spread out on the pavement boulevard , in keeping with the worshippers’ normal practice .

At the same time , CARDINAL members and supporters of ORG gathered in front of the mosque on the boulevard to protest against what they called the “ howling ” emanating from the loudspeakers installed on the mosque . The group included Mr PERSON , Mr D. Chukolov , the party ’s deputy leader , PERSON , a Member of ORG for the party , and Mr PERSON , a Member of ORG for the party .

According to information provided by the Government in the course of proceeding before the ORG , on DATE PERSON had notified the municipality that , pursuant to LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it intended to hold an assembly in the park behind the mosque ( i.e. between the mosque and FAC ) . This was scheduled for TIME on CARDINAL May with CARDINAL participants . This notification was received by the municipality at CARDINAL a.m. on CARDINAL DATE .

The Government also provided copies of CARDINAL letters which they had received from various authorities in the course of the proceedings .

The first , from the municipality , stated that ORG was notified of the planned demonstration on DATE at TIME

The second , from ORG , stated that ORG only learned of the demonstration at TIME on DATE when they received information that supporters of ORG had started to gather in the park beside the mosque . Until that moment , ORG had received no information about the demonstration . At this point , specialist police officers were dispatched to scene . A request for cooperation from the municipality was then received by the directorate by fax at TIME

The third , from ORG ( “ PERSON по вероизповеданията ” ) , a governmental agency attached to ORG , stated that , TIME on DATE , they were informed by the Deputy Chief PERSON that the NORP demonstration was going to be held in proximity to the mosque and that they immediately contacted ORG , after which the specialist police officers were dispatched to the mosque . They also contacted the municipality , which confirmed that permission had been given for the assembly to take place in the park between the mosque and ORG .

Video recordings of the event made by the media and broadcast on NORP television have been provided to the ORG by the parties . On the basis of those recordings , the following events can be established .

The demonstrators congregated , not on the LOC side of the mosque , but on Princess PERSON in front of the mosque , where the worshippers had already began to gather for DATE prayers . Most of the demonstrators were wearing black t - shirts featuring the inscriptions “ PERSON , you owe us MONEY ” and “ ORG says : No to GPE in the ORG ” . Many carried large NORP flags and NORP flags , which were green and featured the inscriptions “ NORP ” and “ Let ’s get GPE back ” . In the course of the demonstration , the participants played NORP patriotic songs from loudspeakers mounted on cars .

The recordings also show the demonstrators shouting invective at the worshippers , calling them “ NORP stooges ” , “ filthy terrorists ” , “ scum ” , “ janissaries ” , “ cut - offs ” and “ NORP ” . They also depict the protestors shouting “ Off to GPE ! ” , “ Do not soil our land ! ” , and “ Your feet stink ! That is why you wash them ! ” One of the participants in the rally can be seen slowly cutting a NORP fez with a pocket knife , saying “ Can you hear me ? We shall now show you what will happen to each one of you ! ”

While this was happening , the mosque ’s imam , using the loudspeaker system , repeatedly appealed to the worshippers not to respond to the ORG provocation .

When the DATE prayer started , CARDINAL demonstrator climbed onto the roof of the single storey extension and played CARDINAL loudspeakers on the roof in order to suppress the sound of the prayer . CARDINAL or CARDINAL worshippers then interrupted their prayers , climbed onto the roof and tried to move the loudspeakers .

NORP In response , several more demonstrators entered the mosque compound by climbing onto the roof of the single storey extension . A scuffle ensued , in which members and supporters of ORG , some of whom were carrying wooden flagpoles and metal pipes , moved against the worshippers and started hitting them . Some of the worshippers hit back in response . Some can be seen holding and waving plastic tubing which appears to have been torn from the side of the mosque . TIME police officers also climbed onto the roof of the single storey extension to separate the fighting parties ; CARDINAL people were then arrested . While this was happening CARDINAL other police officers can be seen attempting to keep the demonstrators in the park beside the mosque and back from the side of the single storey extension : at this point , there were CARDINAL demonstrators in the park . Some of them can be seen throwing eggs at the worshippers .

Another few police officers can be seen attempting to maintain a human cordon between the remaining demonstrators ( another CARDINAL ) who were standing on the boulevard QUANTITY back from the area where the worshippers’ prayer mats are spread out , though several members of ORG , including its leaders , can be seen standing in that latter area , just in front of the mosque railings .

The demonstrators then continued to pelt the worshippers with eggs and stones and insult them . CARDINAL of the demonstrators can be seen on the video recording wielding rolled up banner and shouting “ We have been putting up with you for DATE . Where else would permit this [ praying outside a mosque ] ? To whom are you praying ? ”

The parties accept that CARDINAL police officers , CARDINAL worshippers and Ms PERSON , who was hit on the chin by a flying stone , were injured in the course of the incident . It is not possible from the video recordings to determine who was responsible for her injury . CARDINAL of the NORP worshippers had to be hospitalised because he had concussion . CARDINAL police vehicles also sustained damage .

NORP In apparent response to the police arresting CARDINAL demonstrators on the roof of the single storey extension , Mr Siderov , surrounded by members of ORG and journalists , then spoke into a microphone and addressed the police officers who were present at the scene . He asked them why they had not arrested any of “ the real criminals who threw the stones ” and accused them of bothering “ NORP patriots ” rather than NORP who “ promoted violence against NORP ” . He then turned to the senior police officer at the scene , asking him if he was a janissary and suggesting that he put on a fez . Finally , he stated that , in GPE , there was no NORP police only a NORP one and that those police officers present were a disgrace to their uniforms .

The incident ended at TIME when , led by Mr PERSON and others , the demonstrators left the scene , Mr PERSON stating that he was going to ORG to ask for the resignation of the Minister of ORG . As Mr PERSON was about to leave , CARDINAL demonstrators wearing black t - shirts can be seen on the video recording piling some of the worshippers’ prayer rugs and setting fire to them . No action was taken against those responsible , though it appears the police did call the fire brigade .

A number of politicians , including the then President of the Republic , PERSON , condemned ORG ’s involvement in the incident .

On DATE the ORG adopted a declaration also condemning the incident . It read as follows :

“ Members of ORG categorically condemn the aggression of the political party ‘ Ataka’ of CARDINAL DATE against worshippers in the centre of the capital . It is particularly scandalous that this was done on a DATE , DATE for NORP , at the time of their obligatory prayer . With those actions , that party isolated itself from NORP society in GPE .

The conduct of that party is deeply alien to the NORP people , to its religious and ethnic tolerance . We express our profound disquiet at the attempts to undermine the ethnic peace and to stir up religious tensions between NORP citizens .

Following its attempted aggression against ethnic peace , which gives rise to a threat to the national security of GPE , the political party ‘ Ataka’ has become dangerous for the government of the country .

LAW says that it is impermissible to use religious communities and institutions , or religious beliefs , for political ends .

We , Members of ORG , insist that all competent ORG authorities , including the prosecuting authorities and the courts , take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the LAW and the laws of GPE .

We call on the mass media to behave responsibly , which in this tense time full of provocations means not to provide a platform to the voice of hatred . ”

There have been CARDINAL separate series of investigations into the events at the mosque DATE : CARDINAL by the police , the other by ORG .

In a letter dated DATE , ORG set out the progress made in the police investigations . CARDINAL investigations had been opened : CARDINAL into the injury sustained by PERSON ; a second into injuries sustained by CARDINAL police officers and a cameraman , and criminal damage to the FAC and a police car ; and CARDINAL into the violence directed towards the worshippers . The first CARDINAL investigations have been suspended without anyone being charged .

NORP The letter also stated that , in the course of the third investigation , CARDINAL people had been interviewed as witnesses , and video recordings and other evidence had been obtained . In the course of that investigation , CARDINAL people had been charged ( “ привлечени като обвиняеми ” ) with aggravated hooliganism contrary to LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . No information has been provided about whether those people were then prosecuted and , if so , whether any convictions were obtained .

An investigation was also opened by ORG on DATE . The focus of that investigation was whether there had been any offences committed under LAW ( the prohibition on hate speech motivated by religion : see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant asked to be allowed to take part in that investigation as a victim within the meaning of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request . It said that the offence under LAW DATE was a “ conduct ” ( “ формално ” ) one ( see paragraphs CARDINAL

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG . On DATE the ORG referred the case back to ORG , instructing it to rule on the applicant ’s request by means of a formal decision . On DATE ORG did so , repeating the reasons that it had given on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision . On CARDINAL DATE the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor ’s Office found that the question whether an offence was a “ conduct ” ( “ формално ” ) or a “ result ” ( “ резултатно ” ) CARDINAL was irrelevant as to whether a person could be a victim of that offence . However , there was no evidence that the applicant had been present when the alleged offence had been committed or that the offence had directly affected him . It was therefore necessary to interview the applicant .

Accordingly , on DATE the applicant was interviewed by the investigator in charge of the case . He stated that he had arrived at the mosque at TIME and had sat in the park between the mosque and FAC until prayers began . He described the ORG behaviour in the course of their demonstration , including the insults he had heard . He said that the police had done their job well in keeping the groups apart . According to the applicant , in the course of the interview the investigator was hostile to him and his religion , asking him whether he knew whether he was entitled to pray in front of the mosque and whether he had obtained permission to do so by an appropriate authority .

On DATE the applicant requested that the supervising prosecutor assign the case to another investigator on the basis that the original investigator was ethnically and religiously biased . He also requested access to the case file .

On DATE the applicant once again asked to be allowed to take part in the investigation as a victim of the alleged offence .

On DATE the Sofia City Prosecutor ’s Office refused the applicant ’s request , again finding that the offence under LAW DATE was indeed a “ conduct ” offence ( “ формално престъпление ” ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and could therefore not have a victim . It went on to reject the applicant ’s request to have the case reassigned to another investigator , reasoning that , not being party to the proceedings , the applicant had no standing to make such a request . For the same reason , the applicant had no right to inspect the case file .

On DATE , after unsuccessful appeals by the applicant to ORG and ORG , the deputy Chief Prosecutor decided that “ conduct ” offences ( “ формални престъпления ” ) could in principle have a victim . It was therefore necessary to check whether the applicant had himself been prevented from carrying out his religious observances , and if so , in what way . That point had not been fully elucidated in his first interview , which made it necessary to interview him again , before deciding whether he could be allowed to take part in the proceedings in his capacity as a victim .

It appears that ORG investigation is still ongoing . Although a number of witnesses have been interviewed and expert reports obtained , no charges have been brought against any person in the framework of that investigation . However , the Government have submitted part of the investigation file . This includes CARDINAL statements given by a Mr M. In the second of those CARDINAL statements he admitted to being the person responsible for cutting up the fez during the demonstration . He stated that he was instructed to do so by Mr PERSON and that Mr PERSON told him to do it before Mr PERSON arrived at the scene . He said he could not refuse because he was working for PERSON at the time . PERSON also stated that it would have been possible to avoid any collisions between the demonstrators and worshippers if Mr PERSON had wanted . This could have been done by returning to the allocated place for the demonstration or by withdrawing after the scuffle on the single storey extension . PERSON also stated that young , far - right supporters of ORG had been drafted in from the town GPE specifically for the demonstration and that they had been placed in the front line of the demonstration . In Mr M. ’s view , Mr PERSON could have also avoided a confrontation with the worshippers had he not placed the GPE group at the front of the demonstration .

From the investigation file as submitted to the ORG , various efforts were made to summon the ORG party leaders who were at the demonstration in order to interview them . With the exception of PERSON LAW , the party ’s deputy leader , who has been interviewed , those efforts have failed .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant and his friends , GPE , GPE and GPE , arrived at a petrol station near the town of GPE . While they were waiting in line at the petrol station ’s shop , another group of men , who were not known to them , arrived at the shop and attempted to skip the queue , leading to an argument between the CARDINAL groups . After they had all left the shop , some of the men started beating PERSON in the petrol station ’s parking lot . When the applicant tried to help his friend , the men punched the applicant in the face and head several times , causing him to fall to the ground , where they kicked him in the head . According to the applicant , the assault lasted TIME and he was hit CARDINAL times .

On DATE of the incident the GPE police ( hereinafter “ the police ” ) opened a pre - trial investigation , interviewed the applicant and granted him victim status . On unspecified dates PERSON , GPE and D.R. were also granted victim status .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a court medical expert . The expert found contusions on the applicant ’s face and head , and determined that they could have been caused by CARDINAL blows with a hard , blunt object . The expert concluded that the injuries corresponded to negligible health impairment ( nežymus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) and that they could have occurred at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the police identified CARDINAL suspects , E.G. and PERSON , and notified them that they were suspected of disturbing the public order , contrary to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE a third suspect , PERSON , was identified and notified of the same suspicion .

On DATE the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party . He claimed CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – MONEY ( ORG ) ) in pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages jointly from all the suspects .

On DATE a court medical expert again examined the applicant and his medical file . The expert found that DATE after the incident the applicant ’s doctor had detected a fracture in the applicant ’s nose , without any displacement of the bone ( nosies kaulo lūžiai be dislokacijos ) , and that the applicant had been granted sick leave from work for DATE . The expert concluded that the injury corresponded to negligible health impairment .

On DATE ORG , PERSON and PERSON were notified that they were also suspected of causing negligible health impairment or physical pain to other persons by violent acts , contrary to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In the course of the pre - trial investigation , the police interviewed CARDINAL witnesses , examined the GPE clothes and other items , obtained a video recording of the incident from the petrol station , and carried out various other investigative measures . On DATE the suspects and the victims were informed that the pre - trial investigation had been completed .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the prosecutor ” ) issued an indictment against ORG , PERSON and PERSON , charging them with the crimes set out in Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE at the applicant ’s request ORG ordered an additional medical examination of his injuries in order to determine whether there had been any further deterioration of his health . On DATE the applicant was examined by a court medical expert . The expert found that although DATE previously the applicant had been diagnosed with inflammation of the auditory nerves , that condition was not related to the injuries sustained during the incident of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG convicted E.G. , PERSON and PERSON of the crimes set out in Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . The court considered that the charges had been proven by victim and witness testimony , the confessions of the accused , and the video recording from the petrol station ’s camera . E.G. , PERSON and PERSON were given suspended prison sentences ranging from DATE . The applicant ’s civil claim was granted in part and he was awarded LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages .

The convicted persons and the victims , including the applicant , appealed against the district court ’s judgment . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment because of grave breaches ( esminiai pažeidimai ) of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . ORG held that the district court had not based its judgment on circumstances examined at the hearing but solely on the description of the charges in the indictment . It also held that the district court had not assessed all the testimony and other evidence in detail and had not explained why some evidence had been considered reliable and some not . ORG concluded that such breaches had affected the district court ’s impartiality . As a result , the case was remitted to ORG for re - examination .

On an unspecified date the prosecutor amended the indictment and charged ORG , PERSON and GPE only with disturbing public order , contrary to LAW .

On DATE a different panel of ORG , after re - examining the case , convicted ORG , PERSON and PERSON of the charges against them and gave them suspended prison sentences ranging from DATE . The applicant ’s civil claim was granted in part – he was awarded LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damages consisting of travel expenses to attend court hearings , LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages and LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in legal costs . The court also held that the applicant had the right to claim further pecuniary damages from the convicted persons in separate civil proceedings .

The convicted persons and CARDINAL of the victims , PERSON , appealed against the district court ’s judgment . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment because of grave breaches of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It found that the district court had not made any findings in respect of CARDINAL of the victims , PERSON , and had thereby breached ORG rights and those of the accused . ORG also held that the district court had not examined whether CARDINAL of the accused , PERSON and PERSON , had disturbed public order , as submitted in the amended indictment . Rather , the district court had examined whether PERSON and PERSON had assaulted the victims , thereby de facto changing the charges against them and violating their right to defend themselves . ORG concluded that such breaches had affected the district court ’s objective impartiality , and the case was again remitted to ORG for re - examination .

On DATE a different panel of ORG held that the DATE statute of limitations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had expired and discontinued the case as time - barred , leaving the GPE civil claims unexamined . The victims , including the applicant , appealed against that decision , arguing that the court had erred by applying the statute of limitations because the legal classification of the charges had been incorrect . However , on DATE ORG dismissed their appeal , finding that the legal classification of charges was the prerogative of the prosecutor and that LAW did not provide for any possibility to continue criminal proceedings after the expiry of the statute of limitations .

After the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings , the applicant submitted a civil claim against ORG , PERSON and PERSON He claimed LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damages , consisting of the salary which he had allegedly lost while attending court hearings in the criminal proceedings , travel expenses to attend those hearings , and legal costs sustained in the criminal proceedings . He also claimed LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s civil claim in part . It examined the evidence which had been collected in the criminal proceedings and on that basis concluded that ORG , PERSON and PERSON had caused damage to the applicant by their deliberate actions . However , the court considered that the applicant had not proven the pecuniary damage claimed and awarded him LTL CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately EUR DATE ) under that head on the basis of petrol receipts he had submitted . The court further observed that the applicant ’s nose had been broken and that he must have suffered a certain amount of inconvenience owing to the need to attend numerous court hearings ; however , the injury had not caused him any long - term physical or psychological damage . On those grounds , the court awarded the applicant LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in nonpecuniary damages .

NORP The applicant appealed against that judgment , and on DATE ORG partly upheld his appeal . It found that the district court had erred in refusing to award the applicant pecuniary damages related to the legal costs which he had incurred in the criminal proceedings , and granted him LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) under that head , thereby increasing the total amount of pecuniary damages to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . The amount of non - pecuniary damages was left unchanged .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

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

The first and second applicants were born in DATE and the third applicant in DATE . They all live in ORG .

On DATE the first and the second applicants’ daughter , who was the third applicant ’s sister , was killed in a bar by GPE , who at the time served as a soldier in the NORP army .

By a judgment of ORG ( Vojni sud u ORG was found guilty of murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On appeal , ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE upheld the conviction , which thereby became final , but increased the sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicants submitted a request to ORG for their claim for damages to be settled in connection with the unlawful killing of their relative by a soldier , as required under LAW , in force at the material time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , after their request was refused , the applicants brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking compensation from GPE in connection with the killing of their relative .

During the proceedings , the State Attorney ’s ORG raised a number of substantive and procedural objections to the applicants’ claim against the ORG .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicants withdrew their civil action against GPE but maintained their action against the ORG .

Owing to the failure of the ORG representative to appear at several hearings , of which the first applicant was informed , on DATE ORG found that the civil action was considered to have been withdrawn ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ; section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

As no appeal was lodged by the parties , on an unspecified date this decision became final . The applicants DATE attempted to have the statement of finality quashed and to lodge a belated appeal , but this was dismissed by the competent court .

On DATE the applicants brought their claim for damages before ORG ( PERSON ) , which meanwhile had acquired competence to hear the case , against the ORG and GPE related to the killing of their family member .

During the proceedings , the State Attorney ’s ORG challenged the applicants’ claim on several procedural grounds , arguing in particular that they had failed to seek to have their claim against the ORG settled before lodging their civil action , as required under the relevant domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG declared the applicants’ civil action against the ORG inadmissible , on the grounds that before they lodged their civil action the applicants had failed to attempt to have the case settled with the competent ORG Attorney ’s ORG , as required under the relevant domestic law .

The applicants challenged the decision of ORG by lodging an appeal before ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal , holding as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW ( Official Gazette , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provides that a person intending to bring a civil suit against GPE must first submit a request for a settlement to the competent ORG . When there is no doubt that before lodging the civil claim the claimant has failed to settle the case with the competent ORG , the first - instance court is correct to declare such a claim lodged directly before it inadmissible ( VS Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) .

The duty to seek settlement with the ORG Attorney ’s ORG is a procedural requirement for lodging a civil action which must be complied with at the moment when the action is lodged .

Section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW is inapplicable to claims for damages lodged before the courts prior to DATE .

It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs on DATE lodged an identical claim against the same defendants before ORG ... It is also not disputed that on DATE , after the conditions for the stay of proceedings had been met twice , a decision was adopted finding that the claim against the first defendant , GPE , was withdrawn .

However , these undisputed facts do not mean that the plaintiffs were released from their obligation under section ORG ) of LAW because they had previously submitted an identical claim . With the amendments to LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) the duty to seek settlement with ORG is a procedural requirement for lodging a civil action which must be complied with at the moment when the action is lodged . Further amendments to LAW ( Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE ) did not [ alter this obligation ] with regard to the actions against GPE . ”

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG , challenging the decision of ORG on the grounds that it unreasonably restricted their right to access to court . They argued that before they brought their civil action of CARDINAL DATE before ORG they had attempted to settle the matter with the State Attorney ’s Office . However , their request had been refused , and later during the proceedings the State Attorney ’s Office had also challenged their claim in the court . The applicants therefore considered that there was no reason to seek another settlement concerning the identical claim brought before the court after it was decided that it had been withdrawn .

The applicants also lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on DATE , reiterating their above arguments .

On DATE ORG declared the applicants’ constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the decisions of the lower courts did not concern individual acts deciding on their civil rights and obligations .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal on points of law , endorsing the reasoning of ORG that the applicants had been obliged to seek settlement with ORG before lodging their action of CARDINAL DATE . ORG pointed out :

“ It should be noted that the procedural requirement for the admissibility of an action under section ORG ) of LAW , and the reliance of the lower courts on that provision , do not represent a violation of a plaintiff ’s right of access to court . This is because the plaintiff , by complying with that provision , does not lose any of their rights to claim [ damages ] since , for example , the lodging of a request for settlement interrupts the running of the statutory prescription period ( [ Article CARDINAL ) ] § CARDINAL ) and the plaintiff may lodge an action in the court if ORG refuses the request [ for settlement ] or does not decide on it within DATE it was lodged ( [ Article ORG ) ] § CARDINAL ) .

It can not therefore be said that the obligation of the plaintiffs to seek settlement of the claim with ORG before lodging an action against GPE represents an unreasonable restriction of access to a competent court which can decide the case on the merits as required under LAW of LAW ( Official Gazette - International Contracts , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG text , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) . This is because section CARDINAL of LAW neither impaired the right to lodge a civil action nor the right to have the case decided on the merits ... ( see ORG in PERSON v. GPE of DATE and GPE v. GPE of DATE ) . ”