Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

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

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

NORP In DATE the applicants , who are all NORP citizens , were indicted on charges of having committed , inter alia , aggravated drug offences and aggravated violation of GPE in Medicinal Products ( lagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) om handel med läkemedel m.m . , hereafter “ the DATE LAW ) . According to the prosecutor , during the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , in GPE and the county of GPE , the applicants and CARDINAL other defendants had , together and in consultation , created a business on CARDINAL different websites on the internet through which they had sold medicinal products illegally for a total amount of CARDINAL MONEY ( SEK ) , MONEY ( ORG ) of which products for an amount of MONEY , approximately ORG CARDINAL , constituted narcotic drugs .

The first and second applicants were accused of having been responsible for the business . The first applicant had operated from GPE while the second applicant had operated mainly from GPE . They had allegedly controlled the other GPE actions , received orders from customers all over the world and forwarded these to the persons responsible for the distribution of the medicinal products , including the narcotic drugs . According to the prosecutor , they had also been involved in company acquisitions to facilitate the web trade of medicinal products and credit card payments . The first and second applicants had also participated in the creation of the websites where the medicinal products , including the narcotic drugs , had been sold and opened bank accounts for payments received for the products . The third applicant , who had operated from GPE , was accused of having created , administered and dealt with customer contacts for CARDINAL of the websites through which the medicinal products and narcotic drugs had been sold . In relation to the charges for aggravated drug offences , he was also accused of having promoted narcotic drug trafficking by illegally holding and forwarding payments for narcotic drugs . The fourth applicant was accused of having created CARDINAL of the internet sites used for the trading of the medicinal products and the narcotic drugs and of having administered and dealt with customer contacts on all CARDINAL internet sites .

Legal representatives were appointed to the applicants , who denied the charges . The applicants and their co - defendants argued , among other things , that NORP courts did not have jurisdiction in the case as no medicinal products had ever been physically present in GPE and nothing had been sold to persons in GPE . The medicinal products had been acquired outside of GPE and sold to people in various countries but never in GPE . In their view , their business had been lawful and they had not committed any criminal offence under NORP law .

On DATE , following a main hearing which lasted DATE , ORG ( tingsrätten ) convicted the applicants of aggravated drug offences and sentenced them to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . In so far as concerned its jurisdiction , ORG first noted that GPE ( Narkotikastrafflagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) ) was applicable also to crimes committed outside of GPE for which reason the alleged drug offences were covered by that Act . It then noted that several of the alleged activities had taken place in GPE , such as offering the medicinal products , including the narcotic drugs , for sale from GPE and establishing the contacts between sellers and buyers from GPE . These activities were , in the court ’s view , sufficient to find that the alleged crimes had been completed in GPE . Therefore , it had jurisdiction to try this charge . The court proceeded to find that the applicants had been involved in the activities as specified by the prosecutor and that they had known that it was illegal and in breach of NORP law .

NORP However , ORG acquitted the applicants of the second charge as it found that LAW was not applicable in the present case as no medicinal products had passed through GPE and the business had not been aimed at consumers in GPE . According to the court , the ORG ’s monopoly to trade with medicinal products in GPE had therefore not been breached .

The applicants as well as the prosecutor appealed against the judgment to ORG ( hovrätten ) . The prosecutor argued , inter alia , that the applicants should also be convicted of aggravated violation of LAW . The applicants submitted inter alia that the appellate court should dismiss the charges against them or , alternatively , that the charges for aggravated drugs offences should be rejected . They maintained that NORP courts lacked jurisdiction and that they had not committed any criminal offence under NORP law .

On DATE , following a main hearing , ORG upheld the lower court ’s conviction of aggravated drug offences for the first and second applicants . It aquitted the third applicant of that charge as it did not find that he had been aware that medicinal products classified as narcotic drugs had been sold on the internet sites . Lastly , it altered the fourth applicant ’s conviction to complicity to aggravated drug offences . However , the appellate court also convicted the first and second applicants of aggravated violation of LAW and the third and fourth applicants of complicity to aggravated violation of LAW . The first and second applicants were sentenced to DATE imprisonment , the third applicant was given a probationary sentence and a fine of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the fourth applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

The appellate court found that since the first applicant , who had had the leading role in the business , had operated from GPE and the other defendants had taken part in the same business , all their actions should be deemed as having been committed in GPE . Consequently , the court had jurisdiction to consider the acts and NORP law was applicable . As regards the charge of aggravated violation of LAW , the appellate court noted that the business had been large scale , comprising sales of MONEY CARDINAL . Since the DATE Act prohibited sales of medicinal products by others that GPE , or a legal entity in which the ORG had decisive influence , the court found that the applicants had violated the LAW as specified by the prosecutor in the indictment . ORG further noted that it did not consider that convicting the defendants would be in breach of either the principle of legality when applying LAW in its wording before it was amended on DATE , or any ORG laws or regulations .

The applicants and CARDINAL of their co - defendants appealed against the judgment to ORG ( ORG domstolen ) , maintaining their claims .

ORG granted leave to appeal concerning the question whether what ORG had found proven in relation to each of the defendants under the charges of aggravated violation of the DATE Act meant that the prerequisites to convict them under LAW were fulfilled . The question of leave to appeal for the remainder of the case was adjourned .

On DATE , ORG gave judgment , answering the question in the affirmative , namely , that the prerequisites to convict the applicants under LAW were fulfilled in the present case . In view of its finding , it refused leave to appeal for the remainder of the case . ORG first noted that the prosecuted activities of the defendants , that is the running of the retail business during the specified time , were to be seen collectively and hence be considered as CARDINAL crime , even though they comprised several acts carried out at various times where each act was sufficient to be considered a crime of itself . The main question was then whether the activities could be considered to have been performed in GPE . Agreeing with ORG , ORG found that this was the case since some of the acts had been carried out in GPE and GPE therefore had jurisdiction to try the charge in its entirety in accordance with the principle of ubiquity and LAW , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) ) . As regards the acts of complicity , such acts should be considered to be committed not only where they were performed , but also where the main act had been committed . ORG hence concluded that the NORP courts had jurisdiction to try the charges against the applicants .

ORG then turned to consider whether the applicants and their co - defendants had violated NORP law , namely LAW . Here , the court noted that LAW was primarily directed at regulating the trade of medicinal products in GPE and that it had to establish whether it was applicable when neither the products nor the buyers were physically present in GPE , that is when the trade was based in GPE but directed against foreign markets . In deciding this , the court had regard to the rapid development of the technical means of trading over national borders and the interest to protect the health and safety of consumers , also outside of GPE . It further took into account LAW and Other Information Society Services ( lagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamhällets tjänster , hereafter “ LAW ” ) which was based upon the ORG directive CARDINAL of DATE on certain legal aspects of information society services , in particular electronic commerce , in FAC ( “ ORG ” ) . The directive established the subjective territoriality principle in that Member States should ensure that services emanating from within their territories complied with national provisions applicable in that ORG . ORG noted that the subjective territoriality principle was an established principle applicable to various areas . It further concluded that retail trading of medicinal products was not , as such , covered by the scope of LAW . Even though marketing and ordering of medicinal products via internet did , in fact , fall under the LAW , actual deliveries of medicinal products were not covered by the scope of the LAW . Having regard to the above as well as to the interest to protect the health and safety of consumers , avoid that GPE be considered as a suitable base for irresponsible large - scale medicinal trade and that there did not appear to exist any formal or other circumstances directly contradicting that the subjective territoriality principle was applicable , ORG concluded that LAW was applicable and that the defendants had breached it as found by ORG .

The third applicant requested ORG to re - open the case on DATE . He claimed inter alia that LAW in its wording before it was amended on DATE , referred to a repealed ordinance ( LAW ORG ( CARDINAL ) ) and that therefore , he could not have foreseen that the acts he was convicted of were illegal . The request was rejected by ORG on DATE since it found that the applicant had not shown any such new circumstance that would justify a re - opening of the case .

The provisions applied in the present case were laid down in LAW . It may be noted that LAW was replaced , on DATE , by a new ORG in Medicinal Products ( lagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) om handel med läkemedel – hereafter referred to as “ the DATE Act ” ) .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided , inter alia , that retail trade of medicinal products should be conducted by the ORG or by a legal entity , appointed by the ORG , in which the ORG had a decisive influence . DATE and DATE the state owned company ORG had exclusive rights to sell medicinal products in GPE .

In its wording until DATE , section CARDINAL of LAW referred to retail trade in “ items that are covered by the now repealed Medicinal Products Ordinance ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) ” and QUANTITY . However , through a legislative amendment this was changed and , as from DATE , section CARDINAL instead referred to LAW ( Läkemedelslagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) ) and Regulation ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of ORG and of ORG .

According to LAW , a person who intentionally or negligently violated section CARDINAL should be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding one year , unless the act was punishable under LAW . It further provided that minor offences should not be punishable and that an intentional violation that had been conducted as a professional activity , concerned a considerable quantity or value , or otherwise was of a particularly dangerous nature , should be subject to imprisonment not exceeding DATE .

With the entry into force of the DATE Act , on DATE , the pharmacy market was deregulated to allow actors other than ORG the right to sell medicinal products to the general public . However , an authorisation and special permit from ORG is required to sell medicinal products to the general public .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides inter alia that any person who unlawfully either transfers narcotics , acquires narcotics for the purpose of transfer , or procures , processes , packages , transports , keeps or in some other similar way handles narcotics that are not for personal use , or offers narcotics for sale , keeps or conveys payment for narcotics , mediates contacts between seller and buyer or takes any other such measure , if the procedure is designed to promote narcotics traffic , shall , if he or she has acted with intent , be sentenced for drug offences to imprisonment for not DATE .

According to section CARDINAL of the LAW , in case of an aggravated offence , the sentence shall be imprisonment of DATE and at DATE .

ORG has applied LAW to criminal acts committed abroad without this having constituted an issue per se ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL and NJA DATE p. CARDINAL ) . This approach has also been confirmed in legal doctrine ( see for instance , GPE , LOC kriminalrätt [ General criminal law ] , p. CARDINAL ) .

The regulations regarding the jurisdiction of NORP courts in criminal cases and the applicability of NORP penal laws are laid down in LAW of LAW . LAW , LAW provides that crimes committed in GPE shall be adjudicated in accordance with NORP law and by a NORP court . The same applies when it is uncertain where the crime was committed but grounds exist for assuming that it was committed in GPE .

According to LAW , LAW a crime is deemed to have been committed where the criminal act was perpetrated and also where the crime was completed or , in the case of an attempt , where the intended crime would have been completed . According to the preparatory works to LAW ( see NJA II CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) and NORP case - law ( ORG case ORG DATE p. CARDINAL , as well as the ORG case ORG CARDINAL ) , as soon as a part of a crime has taken place within the realm , the criminal act in its entirety is to be considered to have been perpetrated in GPE ( the principle of ubiquity ) .

In the case of complicity to a crime , it is considered that the location of the criminal act is determined by both the act of complicity and the main act . An accomplice acting from abroad will be deemed to have committed a crime within the country , if he is aiding a main perpetrator to carry out or complete a crime in GPE ( see , for example , PERSON . , PERSON , En kommentar [ Commentary to LAW ] , p. CARDINAL ) .

Application of penal provisions by analogy is prohibited according to LAW , LAW . GPE provisions should be prescribed by law . In a judgment of DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) ORG stated that there were no impediments to interpret penal provisions in accordance with the recognised principles for interpretation of the law . However , such an interpretation had to be made cautiously .

NORP The penal law principle of legality also embodies a general requirement that a penal provision should be sufficiently clear and precise . It should be possible to foresee the application of a penal provision to a reasonable extent and it should be compatible with the grounds and purpose of the penal provision .


No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant owned shares in a limited liability company . In DATE and DATE a tax inspection was conducted in the company for DATE . The tax inspectors found that the company was not owned by CARDINAL different NORP companies but in reality the applicant and CARDINAL other NORP persons owned it , with equal shares .

On DATE additional taxes and tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skatteförhöjning ) were imposed on the company for DATE .

The company sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden ) .

On DATE ORG partly accepted , partly rejected the company ’s applications .

The applicant , in the name of the company , appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) , claiming that he owned the whole company through CARDINAL NORP companies .

On DATE ORG rejected the company ’s appeal and upheld the taxation decisions . It found that there was no proof that the NORP companies had in fact been sold to the applicant but , on the contrary , the case documents showed that in reality all CARDINAL NORP persons behind the NORP companies had equally exercised their powers in the company .

On DATE ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) refused the company leave to appeal .

In connection with the company taxation , additional taxes and tax surcharges were also imposed on the applicant as he had received disguised dividends from the company . He was to pay MONEY ( ORG ) in tax surcharges for DATE ( MONEY , ORG ) , FIM CARDINAL for DATE ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , FIM CARDINAL,CARDINAL for DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) and FIM CARDINAL for DATE ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

The applicant sought rectification from CARDINAL local ORG .

On DATE the Sisä - Suomi Tax Rectification Committee rejected the applicant ’s applications in respect of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s application in respect of DATE .

The applicant appealed to ORG , claiming that there was no reason to impose additional taxes and tax surcharges as he was the only shareholder in the company .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the decisions concerning DATE . It found that in reality the company was owned by CARDINAL NORP persons with equal shares and therefore the taxation decisions were not incorrect .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the decision concerning DATE . It found , like the other courts , that the applicant could not be regarded as the sole owner of the company .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal against any of the above - mentioned tax decisions .

On DATE , on the basis of the tax inspection , the tax authorities requested the police to investigate the matter . The applicant was arrested on DATE and his office was searched DATE . He was questioned by the police for the first time on DATE and was released thereafter . The pre - trial investigation was concluded on DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor pressed charges against the applicant . The applicant was accused , on the company ’s count , of an accounting offence ( kirjanpitorikos , bokföringsbrott ) for having introduced incorrect and misleading information in the company bookkeeping DATE , and of aggravated tax fraud ( törkeä veropetos , grovt skattebedrägeri ) for having given incorrect information to the tax authorities DATE . As a result , the company had evaded EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in taxes .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a DATE suspended sentence . As to the length of the proceedings , the court noted that the proceedings had lasted by then DATE . The proceedings had been unusually long and the length was not attributable to the applicant . The proper sentence for the applicant would have been imprisonment for DATE but due to the excessive length it was turned into a suspended sentence .

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , requesting that the charges be dropped as he had already been convicted in the matter : tax surcharges had been imposed on him and a final decision delivered .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . As to ne bis in idem , the court found that the decisions containing tax surcharges had become final on DATE . As the charges had been pressed before that , on DATE , there was no impediment to the examination of the case as the charges had been brought before the administrative proceedings became final . As to the merits , the court found that the applicant ’s true position in the company had been concealed in order to avoid his responsibilities and that in reality he had been as much involved as the other shareholders . He could thus be held responsible for the company ’s bookkeeping as well as the incorrect information given to the tax authorities .

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG and claiming in particular that he had been convicted twice in the same matter . He also pointed out that the proceedings had already lasted for DATE .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

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

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

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

On an unspecified date a third party brought criminal proceedings and joined civil claims against the applicant for attempted fraud and forgery .

On DATE the ORG indicted the applicant for attempted fraud and forgery and sent his case for trial .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG acquitted the applicant in respect of both charges on the basis of statements he had given to the prosecutor ’s office and the court , and testimonial and documentary evidence . The prosecutor ’s office and the third party appealed against the judgment .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed their appeals as unfounded on the merits . The prosecutor ’s office and the third party lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment before ORG and ORG ( “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG summoned the applicant to its first hearing of the case , listed for DATE . On DATE , a bailiff posted the summons on the applicant ’s front door and on the ORG local council noticeboard because no one could be found at the address in the town chosen by the applicant for correspondence with the domestic courts .

By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG noted that although he had been lawfully summoned , the applicant had failed to attend the hearing . In addition , it allowed a request by the applicant ’s chosen legal representative seeking an adjournment of the hearing in order to familiarise himself with the case and the reasons for the prosecutor ’s office ’s and third party ’s appeals on points of law . It also ordered that the applicant be summoned to the next hearing , listed for DATE .

On DATE the bailiff posted the summons for a second time on the applicant ’s front door and on ORG local council noticeboard because again no one could be found at the address in the town chosen by the applicant for correspondence with the domestic courts .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG noted that although he had been lawfully summoned , the applicant had failed to attend the hearing . It also noted that the applicant ’s chosen legal representative had submitted before it that the applicant had not left the country , and that he would contact his client and ask him to appear before the court . In addition , it ordered that the applicant be summoned to the next hearing , listed for DATE , with a specific direction on the summons which stated “ mandatory attendance before the court in order to be heard ” ( prezența obligatorie la instanță pentru a fi audiat ) .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG noted that the applicant had not been lawfully summoned to the hearing and adjourned the proceedings until DATE . It ordered that the applicant be summoned in accordance with its directions of DATE .

On DATE the bailiff posted the summons for a third time on the applicant ’s front door and PERSON local council noticeboard because again no one could be found at the address in the town chosen by the applicant for correspondence with the domestic courts . The summons included the specific direction given by ORG on DATE .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG noted that although he had been lawfully summoned , the applicant had failed to attend the hearing . In addition , it allowed the applicant ’s chosen legal representative and the other parties to submit observations on the merits of the case , and afterwards adjourned the proceedings pending deliberation .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed ORG and third party ’s appeals on points of law on the basis of the evidence available to it , quashed the judgments of the lower courts , convicted the applicant of attempted fraud and forgery and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal ( contestaţie în anulare ) against the final judgment of DATE . He argued , inter alia , that the final - instance court had breached the applicable rules of criminal procedure and LAW because it had convicted him without hearing evidence from him after he had been acquitted by the lower courts .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s extraordinary appeal . It held that after the applicant had been acquitted by the lower courts , ORG sitting as court of final appeal had had a duty to hear evidence from him in accordance with the applicable rules of criminal procedure . However , although the applicant had been summoned at the correspondence address he had chosen himself , he had failed to attend the hearings . Also , he had not indicated , either through his chosen legal representative or by way of written submissions , his wish for the court to hear evidence from him directly or the objective reasons preventing him from attending the hearings . The final - instance court had summoned the applicant in exactly the same way the lower courts had done . Furthermore , during the proceedings before the first - instance court the summoning of the applicant through the procedure he was contesting had not prevented him from appearing before the court , from being heard by it or from submitting arguments in his defence , either directly or through the same chosen legal representative who had represented him during the entire course of the proceedings . At no stage of the proceedings had the applicant or his legal representative asked the court to summon him at a different address . Consequently , it could not be held that the final - instance court had lacked diligence in determining if the applicant was living at the address indicated by him . The court had assumed that as long as the applicant had been lawfully summoned , he had been familiar with the proceedings and had opted not to appear before the court . In fact , his conduct had been similar to the conduct he had displayed before the second - instance court , in that he had failed to attend the hearings despite having been lawfully summoned to do so , and had chosen to be defended exclusively through his chosen legal representative . It further dismissed the applicant ’s argument that he had not been familiar with the proceedings because he had not been in contact with his chosen legal representative , on the grounds that they had signed separate legal representation contracts for each stage of the proceedings , and that on DATE the applicant ’s legal representative had informed the court about his whereabouts and had pledged to ensure his client ’s attendance before it .

Articles DATE § CARDINAL and DATE provide that it is mandatory for the finalinstance court to hear direct evidence from an accused when the lower courts have acquitted him or her . Where an appellate court quashes a judgment delivered by a lower court , it has to decide on the evidence to be adduced and set a date on which to take statements from the accused directly if the latter has not been heard or if he or she has been acquitted by the lower court .

Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that if a summoned person fails to appear before the court , and her attendance or direct evidence is required , he or she can be taken before the court on the basis of an order to appear ( mandat de aducere ) . The order to appear is enforceable by the national police , the gendarmes or the local police . If the person responsible for enforcing the order to appear is unable to find the intended recipient of the order at the address indicated , he or she must open an investigation . If the investigation remains fruitless , he or she must draft a report outlining the investigative steps that have been carried out .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( d ) provides that the court examining the appeal on points of law can allow the appeal on points of law and re - examine the case .


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

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

The applicants complained about inadequate conditions of detention .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

He is CARDINAL of the most well - known television hosts in GPE and is currently the host of a TIME talk show . He has worked in the media for DATE .

He publicly declared his homosexuality in DATE .

TIME on DATE , a live talk show , TIME ( CARDINAL Para a Meia - Noite ) was broadcast on CARDINAL of the channels of the national television service , RTPCARDINAL . The programme was presented by ORG and featured CARDINAL famous people from the media as guests .

In the course of the talk show , during a quiz , the guests were asked to answer the following question , which was identified as the most important by ORG : “ Who is the best NORP female TV host ? ” The possible answers to the question included the name of CARDINAL female television hosts and the applicant ’s ; the latter being the “ correct ” one . The transcript of the quiz reads :

“ ORG : Who is the best female NORP TV host ? Option A , GPE ; option B , ORG ; option C , GPE or option D , PERSON .

PERSON : This is a tough one .


CASE OF SILVA AND MONDIM CORREIA v. PORTUGAL

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

Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .

The first applicant was born out of wedlock . His mother always considered PERSON to be his father and from an early age he has been in touch with PERSON ’s family , who have always treated him as a relative .

On DATE the first applicant instituted an action for recognition of paternity before FAC . PERSON objected and argued that the applicant ’s claim was time - barred under LAW CARDINAL of the Civil Code . PERSON responded that this provision was unconstitutional because it violated Articles CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW .

On DATE the judge gave directions ( despacho saneador ) setting out those matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding . In addition , the judge dismissed PERSON ’s objection that the applicant ’s claim was time - barred , holding that the time - limit set by LAW was unconstitutional insofar as the limitation thus imposed on the possibility of investigating an individual ’s paternity at all times constituted an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the right of a son to know who his father was . It also found that the exercise of a person ’s right to know his parentage could not be subject to temporal barriers and could only be restricted in cases where such exercise of the right would constitute an abuse . The fact that the plaintiff had only instituted the proceedings DATE could not , in itself , be considered to constitute an abuse .

On an unknown date PERSON challenged the judge ’s decision of DATE ‒ in the part in which it considered LAW to be incompatible with constitutional provisions ‒ before ORG . On an unknown date the applicant submitted his observations in reply ( contraalegações ) , arguing that the decision should be upheld and the proceedings should not be deemed time - barred .

Meanwhile , on an unknown date , at the request of the first applicant , ORG ordered DNA tests which established that PERSON was the applicant ’s father . In the light of that result ORG asked the parties about the usefulness of continuing the proceedings . PERSON did not acknowledge paternity and requested ORG to continue the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ’s challenge . It held that LAW was unconstitutional and that the right to seek judicial recognition of paternity should not be subject to a time - limit .

T.S. appealed to ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ’s appeal and upheld the decision of ORG in its entirety .

On an unknown date PERSON appealed to ORG , to which he submitted the question of the constitutionality of LAW , pursuant to LAW ( a ) of LAW .

On DATE ORG held , with reference to its previous ruling no . CARDINAL , that LAW § CARDINAL complied with the relevant provisions of LAW .

The first applicant appealed to the Conference of the Constitutional Court ( GPE do Tribunal PERSON ) , claiming that LAW CARDINAL was unconstitutional . On DATE the Conference of ORG upheld the previous decision of ORG and dismissed the applicant ’s claim .

As a result of ORG decisions , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action on DATE .

The second applicant was born out of wedlock . His mother always considered TIME to be his father .

On DATE he brought paternity proceedings before ORG and contended that he had always known that TIME was his father . TIME objected , arguing that the claim was time - barred .

On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s action , holding that it was time - barred for being lodged outside the DATE time - limit established under LAW . In addition , it noted that the second applicant had not argued that there were any factors justifying the addition of a further DATE pursuant to LAW .

On DATE the second applicant appealed to ORG , challenging the judgment of ORG . He argued that the time - limit established under LAW for the institution of paternity proceedings was not compatible with the LAW and that the right to one ’s identity should prevail over the rights of the alleged parent .

On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment , finding that LAW was not incompatible with constitutional provisions , pursuant to Ruling no . MONEY of ORG . CARDINAL of the judges dissented , expressing the view that the protection afforded by the LAW to the fundamental right to personal identity required that the possibility of investigating one ’s biological identity should not be subject to a timelimit .

On DATE the second applicant challenged the decision of ORG before ORG and asked it to rule that the referred time - limit was unconstitutional .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG and held that the tenyear time - limit established under LAW was unconstitutional .

On an unknown date A.M. lodged a constitutional appeal before ORG , which by a summary decision of DATE ruled that , with reference to its previous ruling no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the provision was constitutional and ordered that the judgment of ORG be modified accordingly .

The second applicant appealed to the Conference of the Constitutional Court . On DATE the Conference upheld the previous decision .

Following the Constitutional Court decisions , ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s action on DATE .


Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

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

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

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

On DATE , at TIME , the motorcycle driven by the applicant ’s son - in - law collided with a pickup truck on a highway . It appears that both the applicant ’s son - in - law and her daughter , who was riding at the back of the motorcycle as a passenger , died on the spot . GPE , the driver of the pickup truck , was taken into detention for interrogation upon the orders of ORG .

Soon after the incident ORG arrived at the scene of the accident in order to carry out a preliminary examination . It appears from the public prosecutor ’s initial incident report that the accident took place on a dual carriageway , where the traffic was flowing in single lanes on CARDINAL carriageway due to roadworks on the other carriageway at the material time . According to the information that the public prosecutor received from the traffic police , the collision had occurred in the pickup truck ’s lane .

During his interrogation by the gendarmerie , GPE stated that he had been driving at a normal speed in his own lane when he noticed a motorcycle coming towards him at great speed in the same lane . Although he had tried to swerve to the right , the motorcycle had hit his vehicle on the left side . He denied any responsibility for the accident .

A detailed accident report was prepared by the traffic police on DATE , in which it was stated that no alcohol had been found in GPE ’s blood . The report also stated that the motorcycle driver , who had strayed into the opposite lane , had been entirely responsible for the accident . The traffic police also prepared a sketch map of the scene .

According to the crime scene report prepared by the gendarmerie DATE , the post - impact skid marks of the pickup truck were found to be QUANTITY long , and the scratch marks left by the motorcycle on the road suggested that the collision had occurred in the pickup truck ’s lane . According to the same report , the accident had not been caused by adverse weather conditions or any physical defects of the road . The report was accompanied by a sketch map of the accident scene .

On DATE GPE was brought before ORG and ORG , respectively , for questioning . He repeated the statements he had previously made to the gendarmerie . On DATE , the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office requested GPE ’s arrest on suspicion of causing death through negligence . However , ORG rejected that request and ordered GPE ’s release from detention .

On DATE the applicant requested the collection of certain evidence by the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office , including any ORG footage from the accident scene , the suspect ’s traffic record , a technical examination of the pickup truck ( the brake mechanism in particular ) , and a medical report on the suspect ’s eyesight . The applicant also requested the calculation , by an expert , of the approximate speed of the pickup truck at the time of the accident on the basis of the skid marks it had left on the road .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office ordered the examination of the suspect ’s traffic records and any available ORG footage in accordance with the applicant ’s request . It appears that no action was taken as regards the remaining requests .

On DATE ORG informed the public prosecutor ’s office that there were no ORG cameras in the vicinity of the accident scene , and that GPE had not been involved in any traffic accidents previously .

On DATE the applicant was invited to the Gültepe police station in GPE to make a statement . She complained that the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office was not conducting the investigation in an effective manner . Once again , she requested the collection of all the evidence referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above , as well as an examination of the suspect ’s phone records to determine whether he had been talking on the phone around the time of the accident . She also asked to be provided with any expert reports submitted to the investigation file .

On DATE the Eskipazar public prosecutor conducted an on - site examination of the accident scene with the participation of a traffic expert ( a traffic police officer ) .

In his report dated DATE ( “ the first expert report ” ) the traffic expert stated that the absence of any pre - impact skid marks suggested that neither of the drivers had had the opportunity to react in a timely manner ( such as by applying the brakes or swerving to the side ) to prevent the accident , which had increased the impact of the collision . He found that the motorcycle , which had strayed into the lane occupied by oncoming traffic , had been entirely responsible for the accident . The traffic expert ’s report was not provided to the applicant .

The PERSON public prosecutor ’s office subsequently ordered another expert report from ORG , which conducted an examination on the basis of the material in the investigation file . In its report dated DATE ( “ the second expert report ” ) , ORG repeated the findings of the traffic expert . It appears that that report was not sent to the applicant either .

Based on all the information and evidence collected , on DATE the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office delivered a decision not to prosecute GPE , who had not been found to be at fault in the incident .

The applicant objected to that decision , claiming in particular that she had not been sent the expert reports submitted to the investigation file , which had prevented her from challenging them , and that the public prosecutor had not collected all the evidence relevant to the incident . She also challenged the competence of the police officer who had prepared the first expert report , and claimed that the subsequent report by ORG had merely repeated the findings of that first inadequate report .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Republicki zavod za tržiste rada – Nacionalna služba za zapošljavanje – PERSON jedinica GPE , hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) granted unemployment benefits to the applicant until he found a new job or became eligible for retirement ( novčana naknada do zaposlenja ili ispunjavanja uslova za starosnu penziju ) .

On DATE the Law on Changes and Amendments to ORG ( “ the DATE LAW ) came into force . The law provided for different coefficients and a different methodology for calculating such benefits . It also provided , in LAW , that any administrative proceedings which had not been concluded by the date on which the new law came into force were to be finalised in accordance with the new law ( LAW provided that LAW was applicable as of DATE ) .

The applicant was receiving the full amount of the benefits he was entitled to until DATE . From that date the benefits were decreased to PERCENT of the amount he had initially been awarded , although the decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been amended or superseded by a new decision .

Consequently , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against ORG in ORG ( ORG GPE ) , seeking payment of the difference between the benefits he had received and those he had been granted by ORG and which had been due from DATE ( a claim for any earlier sum was statute - barred ) , plus statutory interest and legal costs .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim . It found that his benefits had been correctly calculated , in accordance with the DATE PERSON , as ORG decision in his case had not yet been final on the date on which the relevant law had come into force .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) upheld that judgment following an appeal by the applicant .

NORP The applicant ’s lawyer brought separate claims on behalf of numerous individuals ( hereinafter “ the plaintiffs ” ) , seeking outstanding benefits .

On DATE the same ORG ruled in favour of ORG , CARDINAL of the plaintiffs , whose claim was factually and legally identical to that of the applicant ( ORG ’s administrative decision had also been delivered on DATE ) . That judgment became final on DATE .

ORG ruled in favour of several of the plaintiffs in CARDINAL judgments delivered between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , although it appears that the dates on which the respective administrative decisions had come into force differed .

On DATE and DATE ORG delivered CARDINAL judgments in which it ruled against plaintiffs whose claims were identical to the applicant ’s . ORG upheld those CARDINAL judgments on DATE and DATE respectively .

A number of plaintiffs who were in an identical situation to that of the applicant lodged constitutional appeals with ORG . DATE and DATE ORG adopted a number of decisions in those cases , finding a violation of the right to a fair trial . It quashed the civil judgments and ordered the reopening of the civil proceedings .

Acting upon the decisions of ORG , ORG ( which became the competent court of second instance for the applicant ’s case after a reorganisation of courts in GPE in DATE , instead of ORG ) and ORG reopened proceedings in cases in which ORG had made such an order and ruled in favour of the plaintiffs .

On DATE ORG adopted a detailed action plan aimed at ensuring the general harmonisation of case - law throughout the NORP judicial system . The plan contained a series of measures to be taken at various levels of jurisdiction , and , inter alia , included the following : ( i ) the adoption of guiding legal opinions based on the principles developed in the case - law of ORG ; ( ii ) the dissemination of such opinions ; ( iii ) regular information sharing between the courts ; ( iv ) an increased number of thematic discussions and training programmes ; ( v ) the adoption of specific action plans by the courts at various levels ; and ( vi ) the development of various IT tools and related intranet databases .


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

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

The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


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

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

He was an independent journalist , satirist and poet who at the relevant time was working for the PERSON newspaper .

At TIME on DATE the applicant met a friend at the PERSON café in GPE where they had a meal . At TIME they left and the applicant took a taxi home .

Shortly after the taxi moved off , it was stopped by CARDINAL plain - clothes agents of the ORG . Without showing themselves , they dragged the applicant into a ORG . He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest . After his arrest they restrained his hands and only after some time , when the vehicle was moving , did they inform him that they were police officers .

According to the applicant , as he was in shock during his arrest , he did not immediately notice that the officers had planted some drugs on him . However , he later realised that CARDINAL of the officers , PERSON , had slipped narcotic substances into his pocket , taking advantage of the fact that the other officers had restrained his hands .

The applicant was taken to the ORG , where a search was conducted . According to record no . CARDINAL on carrying out operational measures and the seizure of physical evidence ( əməliyyat tədbirinin keçirilməsi və maddi sübutun götürülməsi barədə protokol ) , it was carried out at TIME on DATE in the presence of the applicant , some police officers and CARDINAL attesting witnesses . It appears from the record that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer . During the search , QUANTITY of a substance similar to heroin was found in his left trouser pocket . He signed the record to say that he drank alcohol , but did not use or sell drugs . He further indicated that the drugs found did not belong to him , but that he could not explain where they had come from . Moreover , it appears from record no . CARDINAL in the case file that the search was filmed . Despite the ORG ’s explicit request to the ORG to submit a copy of the video - recording , they did not do so .

Following the search , at TIME , the applicant was taken to ORG , where he underwent a urine test to determine his state of intoxication . According to him , the urine test was also a drugs test and after examination the doctor , PERSON , stated that he was in a state of intoxication but was not a drug user . Record no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was compiled DATE containing details of the urine test . Despite ORG explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings in question , the Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of the record in question .

The Government did not submit any comments in respect of the applicant ’s version of events .

It appears , however , from police report no . CARDINAL dated DATE submitted by the Government that on that date an operation was planned for the applicant ’s arrest on the basis of operational information ( əməliyyat məlumatları ) suggesting that an individual named PERSON was a drug dealer and had been involved in drug dealing near the PERSON café . It was also noted in the report that he had obtained drugs from GPE , who lived in PERSON , a village in the NORP region .

It further transpires from the documents submitted by the Government that at TIME on DATE a police investigator drew up an official record of the applicant ’s arrest ( cinayət törətməkdə şübhəli şəxsin tutulması haqqında protokol ) . The relevant part of the record reads as follows :

“ Reason for arrest : In accordance with LAW . QUANTITY of heroin , which constitutes a large quantity of narcotic substances and shows the commission of the criminal offence provided for by law , were found on PERSON person and clothes . ”

The record was drawn up without a lawyer present and was signed by the applicant and the investigator .

On DATE a police investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article CARDINAL ( illegal preparation , production , possession , storage , transportation and sale of a large quantity of narcotic substances ) of LAW . The decision relied on the fact that following a search DATE QUANTITY grams of heroin had been found on him .

At TIME on DATE the investigator questioned the applicant as a suspect in the presence of his lawyer . It appears from the record of the questioning that in reply to the question regarding where , when and why he had obtained the heroin found on him , the applicant answered that he did not know when or where the drugs in question had been planted in his pocket . In reply to another question regarding whether he sold drugs , the applicant stated that it could be seen from his examination by the doctor that he did not use or sell drugs .

On DATE the investigator separately questioned CARDINAL attesting witnesses who had participated in the search . Their statements were identical in their wording . They stated that they had seen the drugs found in the left trouser pocket of the applicant , who had stated after the search that the drugs did not belong to him .

On DATE the investigator separately questioned CARDINAL police officers who had participated in the arrest and search . Their statements were identical in their wording . They stated that they had received operational information that some drug dealers had been operating near the PERSON café , so they had gone to the area to determine who they were . Once they arrived , they stopped a taxi because an individual , who appeared to be in a state of intoxication and had caught their attention by his suspicious behaviour , had just taken the taxi in question . This individual , whose identity was later established , was then taken to the ORG where the drugs were found on him .

On DATE the applicant was charged with illegal possession of a large quantity of narcotic substances with intent to sell under Article CARDINAL of LAW . On DATE a judge of ORG , relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor ’s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody , ordered his detention for a period of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE ( the date of the record of the questioning is illegible ) the applicant was questioned by the investigator as an accused in the presence of his lawyer . He maintained his initial statement , pointing out that the drugs did not belong to him and had been planted .

On DATE the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination to establish whether the applicant was a drug addict . On DATE the investigator also ordered a forensic chemical examination of the drugs found on him .

On DATE experts issued an opinion ( no . CARDINAL ) concerning the forensic medical examination . The part concerning drug use by the applicant reads as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] denies that he uses narcotic substances . He denies that the ... heroin found in his trouser pocket and seized belongs to him . He does not give complete information about his history of drug use . He tries to hide his abuse of narcotic substances . During the examination no signs of obvious abstinence were revealed . He has developed an initial pathological tendency ( ilkin patoloji meyl ) towards narcotic substances . A psychological dependence on the use of narcotic substances is observed . A physical dependence on the use of narcotic substances is not currently observed . He denies taking narcotic substances by injection . ”

The conclusion of the opinion reads as follows :

“ During the examination it was established that PERSON suffers from drug addiction at the initial stage ( başlanğıc mərhələli narkomaniya xəstəliyi ) . This is confirmed by there being an initial pathological tendency towards narcotic substances , the results of the objective examination and the material of the criminal case . Taking into consideration that there are currently no signs of abstinence or drug intoxication and the fact that he has criticised himself for his situation , there is no need for his compulsory drug intoxication . It is advisable to register him at the local narcotics clinic . ”

The opinion was established on the basis of the applicant ’s “ general features ” , without a blood or urine sample being taken .

On DATE the chemical expert issued opinion no . DATE finding that QUANTITY of yellow sandy matter submitted for examination was home - made heroin .

On DATE the applicant and his lawyer were provided with a copy of the forensic medical opinion of DATE . The applicant immediately complained to the investigator in charge of the case , contesting its conclusions . He asked the investigator to order a “ commission forensic examination ” , indicating that he was not suffering from drug addiction . He further complained that the drugs found on him had been planted during his arrest by officer PERSON , who had taken advantage of the fact that the other police officers had restrained his hands .

On DATE the investigator dismissed his complaint , indicating that there were no grounds to doubt the conclusions of the forensic medical opinion . As to the allegation that the drugs had been planted by the police , the investigator found it unsubstantiated , indicating that the applicant had not made any such statement when questioned after his arrest .

On DATE the investigator issued a bill of indictment under Article CARDINAL of LAW and filed it with ORG .

In the course of the proceedings before ORG the applicant claimed that he was innocent , insisting that the criminal case against him had been fabricated because of his journalistic and political activity , and that the drugs had been planted on him by the police officers . In this connection , he firstly submitted that the search of his person had not been carried out immediately after his arrest in the presence of the taxi driver or other individuals present at the place of his arrest , but at the ORG . He further submitted that the police had failed to search the taxi in which he had been arrested . However , if he had really had the drugs in his pocket , he would have thrown them into the taxi before his arrest . The police had not carried out a “ real ” search and had only found the drugs they had planted on him , otherwise they would have also searched the taxi . Moreover , they had failed to take its number plate and identify the driver . The applicant also pointed out that the identity of A. , from whom he had allegedly obtained the drugs , had never been established by the investigation . Lastly , he submitted that in any event the drugs found on him could not be used in the proceedings because they had been obtained in breach of the relevant procedural requirements . In particular , he pointed out that LAW and CARDINAL of LAW did not allow investigating authorities to carry out any investigative measures except an examination of the scene of the incident before the institution of criminal proceedings . However , in the present case a search of the applicant was carried out before the adoption of the investigator ’s decision in that regard .

At the hearing , ORG heard the police officers who had carried out the arrest and search of the applicant . They confirmed their statements made during the investigation . Moreover , officer PERSON stated that he had not planted anything on the applicant , and that the applicant had lied about this .

On DATE ORG , having reclassified the criminal charges , found the applicant guilty under LAW ( illegal possession of a quantity of narcotic substances exceeding that necessary for personal use without intent to sell ) , and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . The part of the judgment concerning his conviction reads as follows :

“ It appears from opinion no . CARDINAL dated CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the forensic narcotics examination that it was established during the examination that PERSON suffers from drug addiction at the initial stage . This is confirmed by there being an initial pathological tendency towards narcotic substances , the results of the objective examination and the material of the criminal case . Taking into consideration that there are currently no signs of abstinence or drug intoxication and the fact that he has criticised himself for his situation , there is no need for his compulsory drug intoxication . It is advisable to register him at the local narcotics clinic .

The above - mentioned opinion was confirmed at the court hearing by addiction specialist ORG from ORG , who was heard as an additional witness .

It appears from forensic opinion no . DATE dated CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ... that QUANTITY of yellow sandy matter rolled in cigarette paper submitted for examination in an envelope was home - made ... heroin .

The accused PERSON commission of the above - mentioned criminal offence was therefore fully proved in court . [ His ] statement that the narcotic substances found on him had been planted in his pocket by the police is defensive in nature and was not confirmed during the court examination .

The court notes that the investigating authority accused PERSON under Article CARDINAL of LAW , indicating in the bill of indictment that [ he had ] obtained the QUANTITY of heroin found on him , which constituted a large quantity of narcotic substances with intent to sell .

The investigating authority ’s conclusion was not proved at the court hearing . In fact , when charging PERSON with this criminal offence , [ it ] relied on the fact that the QUANTITY grams of heroin found on him constituted a large quantity of narcotic substances and considered this as illegal possession with intent to sell , but failed to collect any evidence proving the intent to sell or to refer to such evidence in the bill of indictment . However , it does not transpire from the material of the case file or the statements of the persons heard in court that PERSON obtained these narcotic substances with intent to sell . The individual to whom PERSON would sell the narcotic substances was not identified during the investigation or court examination . The statements of the police officers involved in the operation made during the investigation and before the court DATE that they had information that PERSON had obtained the narcotic substances with intent to sell DATE are not supported by any plausible evidence . Moreover , the fact that the narcotic substance was in the same fold and undivided also confirms that it had not been prepared for sale . The accusation that PERSON had been in possession of the drug with intent to sell was formed by the investigating authority on the basis of speculation and could not constitute the basis of the judgment . ”

The judgment made no mention of the applicant ’s specific complaints concerning the conditions in which the search had been carried out or the lawfulness of the use of evidence obtained in those circumstances against him .

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed , claiming that he was innocent . He alleged , in particular , that the criminal case against him had been fabricated , and that the drugs had been planted on him by the police . In this connection , he reiterated that the agents of the ORG had failed to conduct a body search immediately after his arrest , and that the search had been carried out in breach of the relevant procedural requirements . Moreover , they had failed to search the taxi in which he had been arrested . He further complained that the forensic medical examination of DATE , which had been based on his “ general features ” and carried out without taking a blood sample from him , could not be considered an expert opinion . In this connection , he also submitted that it had been established in the urine test carried out immediately after his arrest that he was not a drug user . He further asked the court to examine the video - recording of his body search .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court ’s judgment . The relevant part of the appellate court ’s judgment reads as follows :

“ The panel of the court considers that the actions of PERSON were correctly classified by the court under LAW of GPE , and that he was sentenced to a punishment within the authorised limits of the LAW [ of the Criminal Code]of which he was accused .

As the arguments raised in the appeal were examined in the descriptive part of the judgment and were not confirmed , the panel of the court does not see any reason to grant the appeal . ”

ORG was silent as to the applicant ’s specific complaints concerning the narcotic substances being planted on him by the police , the conditions in which the search had been carried out , the lawfulness of the use of evidence obtained in those circumstances against him , the examination of the video - recording of the search , and the reliability of the forensic medical opinion of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant was released from prison under an amnesty law adopted by the Milli Mejlis ( ORG ) on DATE .

The applicant ’s arrest and the institution of criminal proceedings against him attracted significant public and media interest both nationally and internationally .

The relevant part of LAW ( DATE ) “ The Functioning of Democratic Institutions in GPE ” , adopted on DATE by ORG of ORG , reads :

“ CARDINAL . In view of the above , the ORG recalls its LAW ( DATE ) and urges the NORP authorities to implement a number of measures without further delay ...

As regards the follow - up to the issue of alleged political prisoners , the ORG :

CARDINAL condemns the lack of transparency and fairness in the relevant investigations and court proceedings and demands the immediate release of imprisoned opposition journalists ... PERSON ... ”


Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In a judgment of DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodní soud ) , relying on LAW , deprived the applicant of legal capacity . Based on an expert opinion and the testimony of the applicant ’s father , the court concluded that the applicant was suffering from alcoholic dementia , which was a permanent mental disability , and that he was unable to perform any legal acts on his own . The applicant was represented by a guardian ad litem and was therefore not heard by the court , which found that it appeared from the expert opinion that he was unable to understand the relevance of the proceedings . For the same reason , the court dispensed with the delivery of the judgment to the applicant .

NORP In a decision of DATE , which became final on DATE , ORG appointed ORG ( městská část ) as the applicant ’s public guardian ( veřejný opatrovník ) .

The applicant has attempted to regain his legal capacity several times , but his requests have always been refused . On DATE , refusing another request to restore legal capacity to the applicant , ORG banned him from lodging further requests for DATE because there was no possibility of his condition changing within that period . It relied on an expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE , which stated , inter alia :

“ [ the applicant ] presents a picture of a chronic alcoholic in the terminal stage of alcoholism , with complete loss of control over drinking , complete lack of awareness of his illness , severe and irreversible damage to his health fully or partially caused by alcohol abuse and social and economic downfall which , in addition to his complete lack of awareness , also indicates serious personality changes objectively caused by detected brain atrophy .

[ I]t is a long - lasting disorder which can not be completely repaired even by treatment that is fully successful . ...

[ ORG of control over drinking and complete lack of awareness regarding alcohol abuse and its consequences result in a high probability of the repetition of previous relapses and , therefore , in behaviour which could , for similar reasons , pose a threat to the financial , social and personal stability of the person examined . ”

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , having examined an expert report and heard the expert and the applicant , decided to limit the latter ’s legal capacity to act . It restricted his legal capacity so that he was not entitled to dispose of funds and conclude contracts exceeding CARDINAL korunas ( CZK ) ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) per month . The court noted that according to the expert report , the applicant was suffering from mixed organic dementia up to intermediate level and with a continued lack of awareness of his state of health . In addition , he was unable to make more complex legal decisions independently . The applicant lodged appeals on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

ORG ( městský soud ) scheduled a hearing for DATE and summoned the applicant . However , his lawyer was not informed about the hearing because his public guardian had refused to sign the power of attorney and so none of the courts recognised the lawyer as the applicant ’s legal representative . The court subsequently cancelled the hearing and remitted the case to ORG , which on DATE assigned a new guardian to the applicant . The new guardian granted the power of attorney to a lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings on legal capacity .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and sent the case back to ORG which in a judgment of DATE decided to limit the legal capacity of the applicant , for a period of DATE , so that he was not entitled to dispose of funds exceeding QUANTITY ( EURCARDINAL ) per week .

On DATE ORG initiated ex officio the proceedings on legal capacity and guardianship . At the same time , it ordered an expert opinion in psychiatry . It appears that the proceedings are still ongoing .

The applicant was admitted to the GPE - Bohnice psychiatric hospital CARDINAL times : in DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE and DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE ( for DATE ) ; and during DATE and DATE ( for DATE ) .

The applicant ’s hospital discharge report of CARDINAL DATE stated , inter alia , that he had been suffering from a mental and behavioural disorder caused by alcohol , that he was an alcoholic and that he had repeatedly experienced deliria tremens .

In the record of a telephone conversation between the applicant ’s public guardian and a neighbour on DATE it was noted , inter alia , that complaints about the applicant had been escalating , as he had been causing disturbance at TIME as a result of his excessive drinking and had been urinating on the stairs .

Another record of a telephone conversation between the public guardian and the applicant on DATE stated , in particular , that the applicant had confirmed that he had not taken any of the medication prescribed to him by the psychiatrist .

During a conversation with the applicant ’s public guardian on DATE the applicant ’s son said that his father had always kept many animals and that his treatment of them was bordering on cruelty because he did not feed them . He also allowed them in his bed , and as a result the bed was drenched and smelled foul . Moreover , the carpets and other furnishings in the flat were dirty and badly damaged .

On DATE the public guardian urged the applicant not to yell at passers - by . The applicant replied that he was a psychologist and teacher , and practised communication with people in that way .

On DATE Dr M.P. mentioned that the applicant was suffering from repeated alcohol abuse , alcohol - related cognitive impairment and alcoholic dementia . He was an alcoholic who did not cooperate and was unaware of his alcohol abuse .

On DATE the applicant ’s neighbours complained to the public guardian that the applicant was disturbing them at night , that an unbearable smell was exuding from his flat , that he had been urinating on the stairs and kept falling down when drunk , and that the situation was continuously getting worse .

On DATE the public guardian received another telephone call from the applicant ’s neighbour complaining about the behaviour of the applicant , who had been drunk , towards herself and her child . The neighbour said that she was afraid of him . On DATE , the applicant ’s parents visited his public guardian to try to resolve the problematic situation relating to the applicant ’s inappropriate behaviour . They expressed the view that the best solution would be their son ’s placement in a specialised institution , such as the social care home in GPE , as other institutions in GPE or GPE were not available . The social care home in GPE is a private institution .

On DATE , the applicant , in a state of drunkenness , visited his public guardian . From the record of the visit it appears that the applicant was unable to express himself coherently .

In his report of CARDINAL DATE the treating psychiatrist noted , in particular , that the applicant was suffering from a psychosomatic disorder , namely alcoholic dementia .

On DATE the applicant ’s guardian accompanied the applicant to the social care home in GPE , a limited liability company . There she signed an agreement on the provision of residential social services to the applicant for an unlimited period of time and the applicant was admitted to the home .

The applicant ’s guardian noted on DATE that the applicant ’s parents could no longer take care of him ; his mother had apparently talked to her son about his placement in the institution in advance , and after some hesitation , the applicant had agreed to be transferred there . It was noted , however , that he did not want to go to the institution , but having talked with his guardian about rehabilitation and medical care , he eventually agreed .

In a letter of the same date received by ORG on DATE , ORG informed the court about the applicant ’s placement in the social care home . They maintained that the placement had been necessary because he had been spending most of his money on alcohol , he had spent most of his time sitting on a bench in front of his house verbally harassing passers - by , he had been unable to dress appropriately and sometimes he had been too drunk to receive his lunch , which had been brought to his door DATE . Moreover , he had been making an excessive number of visits to doctors , requesting various examinations of his brain , thumb , knee , eyes and so on . He had also been sending confusing allegations to various institutions , such as courts , ministries and animal rights organisations .

The applicant disagreed with his placement and contacted a number of authorities , including his public guardian . On DATE he also called an emergency line and contacted the police , who dismissed his complaint , not finding any unlawfulness .

On an unspecified date ORG telephoned ORG for more information about the applicant ’s placement in the social care home . ORG answered by letter on DATE , repeating the reasons set out in its submission of CARDINAL DATE and informing ORG that the applicant had been placed there for an indefinite period as he was no longer able to live on his own .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant informed ORG that he was being held in the social care home against his will and demanded his release . In his application to the court of CARDINAL DATE he complained against his public guardian and asked that she be replaced by another person living near his domicile . ORG did not react to any of his requests .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the director of the social care home and to his public guardian alleging that he had been placed in the social care home involuntarily . The applicant ’s guardian did not react to the letter . The director replied that given that the public guardian and the doctor had consented to his placement in the social care home , he had to remain there .

On DATE , after having been contacted by the applicant , a lawyer from ORG ( ORG advokacie duševně postižených ) ( hereinafter “ the LOC ” ) in GPE visited him in the social care home . The applicant signed a power of attorney authorising the lawyer to act on his behalf . On DATE the lawyer sent a request for the applicant ’s immediate release to the director of the social care home and to the public guardian . The director replied on DATE that the applicant ’s placement was legal as he had been deprived of legal capacity and his guardian had given consent to it . On DATE the applicant received a similar answer from his public guardian , who considered the power of attorney signed by the applicant as invalid , given that he had been deprived of his legal capacity .

On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer requested PERSON District Court ( okresní soud ) to issue a decision on the lawfulness of his client ’s involuntary hospitalisation under LAW . As the court did not react , on DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a request with ORG ( krajský soud ) to set a time - limit for a procedural measure under section CARDINALa of ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

From DATE the applicant was hospitalised at the GPE hospital in PERSON for planned orthopedic surgery .

NORP The public guardian ’s records of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , indicated the following :

“ I talked on the phone with [ the senior nurse ] . She stated that she would try to transfer [ the applicant ] to a rehabilitation institution but afterwards they do not want to take him back . She informed me about it in order to give us the possibility to look intensively for another institution . ”

“ The director of the [ social care ] institution ... informed me on the phone that he had been in touch with the legal department about how to cancel the agreement and he had established that it was not possible . He is therefore sending me a letter informing me that [ the applicant ] is unhappy and that they want to discharge him . He stated that they were worried that [ the applicant ] might jeopardise the functioning of the whole institution because he lied and verbally attacked employees and constantly annoyed them by sending sms . In answer to the question what the position of the psychiatrist is ... , he said that she had not allowed [ the applicant ] to go for walks without assistance and she considered his state of health poor . ”

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG ( GPE následné péče – Léčebna dlouhodobě nemocných ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a request with ORG through the GPE CARDINAL ORG arguing that the guardianship court , namely the GPE CARDINAL ORG , had been inactive in the matter of his client ’s detention and had not initiated guardianship proceedings ( opatrovnické řízení ) seeking to solve the conflict of interests between the applicant and his public guardian . He argued that the guardianship court should have informed the relevant court , namely GPE , about the applicant ’s involuntary hospitalisation so that proceedings on its lawfulness could have been instituted . Furthermore , the guardianship court itself should have instituted proceedings to supervise the applicant ’s public guardian under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE , the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) alleging that his rights to respect for his private life , to liberty , freedom from discrimination and a fair trial had been violated by the procedure pursued by ORG and the GPE CARDINAL ORG on account of his detention in the social care home . He argued that ORG had violated those rights by placing him in the social care home without his consent and ORG by remaining inactive in the face of the situation . He also requested ORG ( GPE soud ) to issue an interim order for his release from detention .

On DATE ORG decided not to undertake any action on the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE because the power of attorney submitted by his lawyer was invalid on account of the applicant ’s lack of legal capacity to sign it and because his public guardian had informed the court , on DATE , that she would not join the proceedings .

On DATE the public guardian terminated the agreement with the social care home . The applicant was not informed about this in advance . The applicant , who was at that time hospitalised in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was discharged from the hospital on DATE . The discharge report issued by the hospital also contained information about his mental state :

“ Current mental state :

Suspicion – but in his case legitimate – indicated paranoia in respect of his guardian and her behaviour , or family members ...

[ His ] mood reactively depressive , ...

ORG abilities [ are ] entirely without signs of degradation , humiliation let alone a sign of dementia ! ...

From the current mental state of the applicant , it does not appear that there is any need to continue limiting him in his fundamental human rights and limiting his capacity to act .

Conclusion :

Behaviour disorder when using alcohol – psychotic residual disorder and later on ethylic encephalopathy , dementia ...

The DATE old patient , who has a history of behavioural disorders when drinking alcohol , was admitted for rehabilitation after surgery to his right foot . ... As he repeatedly demands a review of his situation and refuses to stay in GPE , a psychiatric consultation was carried out . The problems were discussed with his guardian ... according to whose recommendation [ the applicant ] told workers in PERSON , upon [ their ] information , his discharge is planned with home care , and psychiatric supervision is ensured .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE , holding that his lawyer had not been authorised to lodge such a request . The applicant ’s signature on the power of attorney was invalid as he had been deprived of legal capacity ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court added :

“ Even if there were not those reasons to reject the claim , it would not be possible to grant [ it ] . ... It is not possible to set a time - limit to carry out an act – the issuance of a decision on the commencement of the proceedings – if that act depends on the discretion of a court which is not obliged to decide on the commencement of proceedings but is doing so on the basis of a motion . ... ”

On DATE the ORG ( ORG ochránce práv ) issued a report in response to a letter from the applicant dated DATE . The report stated , inter alia :

“ The applicant was also prescribed psychiatric medication , both regular and in the event of ‘ unease’ ... It appears however that the medication ‘ in the event of ORG has not yet been administered to the applicant . In answer to a question concerning medication in general , the applicant stated that before his admission to the institution , he had not taken any medication . In reply to a question as to what would happen if he refused to take the medication , he answered that he had asked this question to a male nurse , who had said that in that case the medication would be administered to him by injection . For this reason the applicant did not refuse the medication . Only on CARDINAL occasion did he express the wish not to take a certain medicine and the doctor of the institution prescribed him another drug , which he had not taken before either .

The public guardian ... made a mistake when she ‘ ORG the applicant in the institution without having previously received the approval of the guardianship court .

If the court does not approve an act as legal , the act is void ab initio . In respect of some acts that have already been carried out , a subsequent ‘ disapproval’ by the court could not lead to an effective reparation , and it is evident that [ those acts ] require the approval of the court before [ their accomplishment ] ...

In my opinion , legal acts connected with the involuntary placement of an incapacitated person in a social care institution are of such character and thus require prior approval , provided that there is enough time .

Apart from the fact that the provisions of the civil law require that the legal act – the conclusion of the contract on provision of residential social services – be approved by the court , another requirement of generally binding rules , or more precisely the commitments of GPE under international law , can not be overlooked , LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention ...

[ In the applicant ’s case ] , in order to comply with the ORG , GPE ... guarantees ... the right to institute proceedings in which the court would speedily decide on the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and order the [ applicant ’s ] release if the deprivation of liberty is unlawful .

Accordingly , in the case of admission of a person who is deprived of legal capacity to a medical institution , which he is not allowed to leave , the detention procedure should be initiated as provided for by LAW , despite the possible approval of the guardian . ... ”

On DATE ORG , in reaction to the findings of the ORG , requested ORG to approve the agreement signed by the public guardian on the provision of residential social services of DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG approved ex post facto the agreement signed by the public guardian and the termination of the applicant ’s confinement in the social care home . The reasoning merely stated that the approval of those legal acts was in accordance with the law and in the interests of the applicant . The decision became final as the guardian ad litem , ORG , waived its right of appeal . The applicant was not summoned to appear before the court in those proceedings , which lasted TIME ; nor was he informed about them .

On DATE the applicant lodged a second constitutional appeal challenging the decisions of ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE , the procedural measures taken by the GPE CARDINAL ORG and ORG and , lastly , the practice of ORG . He developed , in the reasoning of the constitutional appeal , his complaints regarding the alleged interference with his rights to respect for his private life , home and correspondence during his stay in the social care home without , however , mentioning them in his final plea ( žalobní petit ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s first constitutional appeal . Regarding his request for an interim order , it held that as he was no longer being detained , it had no power to assess the alleged violations because they had already ceased . The same applied in respect of the procedural steps taken by ORG and by the GPE CARDINAL ORG , as ORG , in its judgment of DATE , had approved the agreement concluded with the social care home by the public guardian and the latter ’s termination of the agreement . ORG referred to a previous decision ( no . LAW . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it had declared manifestly ill - founded a complaint that a court had not carried out a review of lawfulness under LAW CARDINALa of LAW when a legally incapacitated person had been detained with the consent of his guardian . ORG decision was notified to the applicant ’s lawyers on DATE .

In a report of DATE by PERSON , the psychiatrist treating the applicant , it is noted , inter alia , that since the applicant ’s discharge from the social care home he had not been attending for regular check - ups and had refused to take any medication with the exception of hypnotics . He had been visited by a nurse who had occasionally found him drunk . According to the psychiatrist , the applicant had behaved inappropriately , the neighbours had complained about him because he shouted at them and threatened them , at TIME he played loud music , he was meeting with the homeless , he soiled the common DATE he poured water on them and urinated there – and he drank alcohol . The psychiatrist concluded that the applicant was dangerous to others and was not able to lead an independent life .

On DATE ORG declared inadmissible also the applicant ’s second appeal . It held that the applicant had failed to challenge both decisions addressed in his constitutional appeal by lodging a plea of nullity under LAW ) of LAW . It added that as he was no longer detained , it was not appropriate to apply section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW by which it could waive the obligation to exhaust other effective remedies if the significance of the appeal extended substantially beyond the personal interests of the appellant .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG , having sumarised the legal situation , stated that :

“ On the basis of the aforementioned documents , the public guardian considers unsubstantiated your allegation that your rights were violated on CARDINAL and , therefore , the filing of an action for protection of your personal rights by a lawyer of your choice ... [ is found ] irrelevant . For this reason , the public guardian will not conclude a contract on your legal representation in order to introduce the action for protection of your personal rights with an attorney - in - law [ PERSON . ] .

[ Taking into account the judgment of DATE ] and provided that your agreement with the lawyer ... will not exceed CZK CARDINAL per month you can conclude it on your own . ... ”

DATE . On DATE , in reply to a letter from ORG , ORG informed him that the public guardian had talked to the applicant about his placement . She had also informed his family , staff of ORG psychiatric hospital and his psychiatrist .

The Government stated that the regime in the social care home allowed patients to leave the institution either accompanied by a staff member , family member or guardian , or alone on the approval of a psychiatrist . According to the institution ’s psychiatrist , the applicant never asked to leave the LOC as he had problems with his knee . Visits to patients were not limited .

The applicant ’s personal belongings were deposited in a lockable cupboard in his room . Since his arrival , he had had a mobile phone , which was repeatedly recharged . A coin - operated phone box was also accessible without any restrictions . Any post was sent to the applicant ’s guardian , who always forwarded it to the addressee according to the applicant ’s instructions . The applicant received pocket money on request .

The social care home provided accommodation , meals and health care , including care provided by specialist doctors , assistance with ordinary self - care , and assistance with personal hygiene or provision of conditions for personal hygiene . It also provided educational , training and stimulation activities , mediation of contact with the social environment , social and therapeutic activities and other services .

According to the applicant , the social care home provided residential social services primarily for patients with Alzheimer ’s disease and dementia . Most of the patients were elderly and severely physically and mentally disabled . It was a closed institution , which he could not leave . The only possibility for outdoor activities was in a small garden with a high fence . Patients shared rooms . The applicant could not send any correspondence independently , but had to do so through employees of the home who sent some letters to his public guardian instead of to the address indicated by him , based on an assessment of whether it was official or private correspondence . Some letters that the applicant received had been opened . Furthermore , his state of health was allegedly not assessed before admission to the social care home or on his arrival . Once there , he was prescribed medication . When he refused to take it , he was threatened that it would be administered by injection .

According to the ORG , the medication that had been prescribed to the applicant on his discharge from the GPE - Bohnice psychiatric hospital was modified by the institution ’s psychiatrist on the basis of repeated examinations . The applicant ’s medical check - ups performed by the psychiatrist took place on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Moreover , his psychiatrist was informed about his health on CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE .

From the information provided by the applicant ’s psychiatrist , which was confirmed by the director of the institution , it appears that during his stay in the social care home , the applicant took the medication voluntarily .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for damages against the ORG under LAW ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . He alleged that his rights had been violated by his public guardian on account of his unlawful detention . ORG rejected his claim .

On DATE the applicant lodged a similar claim , arguing that GPE and ORG had erred in not instituting proceedings to determine the lawfulness of his detention under LAW PERSON of LAW and that the GPE CARDINAL ORG and ORG had remained inactive despite his numerous submissions describing his detention .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s second claim , holding that under LAW , the ORG was liable only for damage caused either by a final unlawful decision , which had been later quashed , or by irregular official conduct . Regarding the latter , it held that the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings did not constitute irregular official conduct for which the ORG could be held responsible because the conduct had resulted in a decision . The former situation did not arise in the present case either , as there had been no final decision that was later quashed as illegal . Furthermore , the ORG did not find that the applicant had suffered any damage . It considered that his own behaviour had been at the origin of the facts , because of his excessive drinking . It added that in any case the applicant ’s lawyer had no right to submit those claims to ORG , as the applicant had been deprived of his legal capacity and a guardian had been appointed to act on his behalf .

On DATE , following the rejection of his claim for damages by ORG , the applicant brought an action against GPE seeking damages for the incorrect procedure followed by the courts . He argued in particular that the courts had refused to institute proceedings following his claims concerning his detention and that the court procedure on guardianship had been erroneous .

NORP In letters of DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG informed the applicant ’s representatives that given that the applicant had been deprived of his legal capacity , he could not have granted them power of attorney . Accordingly , the court had decided not to accept them as the applicant ’s legal representatives . On DATE , the court appointed a guardian ad litem , ORG , to represent the applicant .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the GPE CARDINAL ORG that as the GPE CARDINAL ORG had approved the agreement with the social care home , they would not join the proceedings for damages .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings for damages on the grounds that , as the applicant was fully legally incapacitated , the power of attorney that he had given to his representatives was null and void , and that in a letter of CARDINAL DATE the guardian ad litem had informed the court that it would not join the proceedings . According to the applicant , he was unaware of the court ’s decision as his guardian ad litem failed to inform him . Consequently , the statutory period to file an appeal lapsed to no effect , and the decision became final .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicants were all parties to unrelated sets of civil proceedings .

Some applicants attended the hearings before the first - instance courts ; all of them were absent from the appeal hearings . Whenever the appeal courts addressed the issue of their absence , they did not check whether the applicants or their representatives received the summons , whether it was necessary to adjourn hearings or whether their presence was required due to the nature of the claims .

The dates of the final judgments are set out in Appendix I.