Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a former Minister of ORG and at the material time he headed a political movement called “ Civil Disobedience ” .

On CARDINAL DATE criminal proceedings were instituted under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( money laundering ) in respect of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and on CARDINAL DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE ordered the applicant ’s detention for a period of DATE , upon an application by the investigator , taking into account the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence and the fact that the applicant , if remaining at large , could abscond and obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings . The applicant objected to that application , arguing that the investigator had failed to submit any wellfounded arguments in support of the allegation that he would abscond or obstruct justice , whereas he had no previous convictions , was known to be of good character , had a permanent place of residence and stable social life , and was a well - known public figure . ORG decision stated that it could be contested before ORG within DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , raising similar arguments .

On DATE ORG decided to uphold the decision of ORG , finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence , sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE extended the applicant ’s detention by DATE , upon an application by the investigator , finding that the applicant , if remaining at large , could obstruct the investigation , abscond , exert unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and commit another offence . ORG decision stated that it could be contested before ORG .

On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , raising arguments similar to those previously raised .

On DATE ORG decided to uphold the decision of ORG , finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence , the particular circumstances and complexity of the case ; the investigative measures to be carried out and the applicant ’s behaviour , namely his refusal to give any testimony , which was a factor slowing down the investigation , gave sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and also abscond .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE extended the applicant ’s detention by DATE , upon an application of the investigator , on the same grounds as before . ORG decision stated that it could be contested before ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , raising arguments similar to those previously raised

On DATE the investigator decided to replace the applicant ’s detention with a written undertaking not to leave his residence and to release him in view of the fact that the investigative measures would take some time and it was no longer necessary to keep the applicant in detention .

On DATE ORG decided to leave the applicant ’s appeal of DATE unexamined in view of the fact that he had been released .


Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a professional politician who has held in the past the posts of GPE PERSON governor , Deputy Prime Minister , and Minister for Energy . He later became CARDINAL of the best - known opposition leaders , a founder of the political party ORG , and subsequently of the political movement GPE .

On DATE CARDINAL individuals , none of whom are applicants in the present case , submitted notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of GPE . They indicated , in particular , that a meeting would be held from TIME on FAC , GPE . They estimated that CARDINAL people would take part in the event . The notice stated that the proposed demonstration was intended “ to demand respect for the constitutional right to peaceful demonstration and assembly guaranteed by LAW GPE ” . The organisers indicated , inter alia , that it would not be necessary to divert the traffic .

On DATE ORG informed the organisers that the event had been approved by the deputy mayor of GPE . The number of participants had been limited to CARDINAL , and a particular sector of FAC had been designated for the event : “ in the area between the First and the Second Brestskaya Streets , opposite FAC and the adjacent road leading to the PERSON Concert Hall ” .

In the meantime , on DATE another group of CARDINAL individuals , none of whom are applicants in the present case , submitted notice of an alternative public demonstration to the mayor of GPE , at the same time and place as the authorised event and with the same title . It appears that this second public demonstration was not authorised , but on DATE a number of alternatives as to the time and place were offered to the organisers . Moreover , none of its organisers could go to the venue on DATE because CARDINAL of them had been arrested earlier on DATE ; the third had been abroad .

The authorised meeting began at TIME on DATE at FAC , as planned . According to the applicant , the perimeter of the square was cordoned off and was guarded by the riot police . The only access to the meeting venue was at FAC . The applicant claimed that he had arrived at the meeting with his daughter ; he had parked his car at FAC and they had entered FAC from FAC through the only opening in the cordon .

During the meeting the applicant addressed the participants with a speech in which he criticised the criminal conviction of PERSON , the former owner of the PERSON oil company , and PERSON , his associate . He also condemned the corruption in the ORG administration . He chanted the slogans “ The authorities to resign ! ” , “ PERSON to resign ! ” , “ Happy New Year without GPE ! ”

At the end of the meeting the applicant , accompanied by his daughter , headed across FAC towards FAC . At the exit he saw the riot police arresting one of the participants in the demonstration . Shortly afterwards the applicant was also arrested and put into a police vehicle .

The parties disagreed as to the circumstances of the applicant ’s arrest .

The applicant claimed that on the way to his car his passage had been obstructed by police officers and he and his daughter had found themselves in a crowd . They heard the police instruction over a loudspeaker calling for people to stay calm and to pass through . The applicant saw CARDINAL people being arrested and put in police vans , and then he was arrested too , without any warning or explanation . The applicant claimed that he had not disobeyed or resisted the police ; on the contrary , he had followed their instructions “ to pass through ” . He had been arrested by an officer who had been wearing a fur hat , an indication of his higher rank , as opposed to the crash helmets worn by the riot police troops guarding the cordon .

The applicant alleged that there existed CARDINAL video recordings of his arrest , including the events immediately leading up to it ; they had been produced by CARDINAL media channels and CARDINAL independent photographer , PERSON also maintained that there existed an official video of the public demonstration and the ensuing arrests , which had allegedly been shot by the police and kept at ORG of the Interior .

According to the Government , at the end of the meeting the applicant had headed towards FAC and had begun calling passers - by to take part in another , unauthorised , meeting while shouting out anti - government slogans . They alleged that QUANTITY police officers , PERSON and Private Y , had warned the applicant ; they had ordered him to stop agitating the crowd and to return to the authorised meeting . They further contended that the applicant had ignored the warning and had continued shouting out the slogans and disobeying the police . Confronted with this behaviour , X and Y arrested him .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to the police station of ORG of the ORG . At TIME Private Y drew up a report stating that the applicant had been escorted to the police station “ in order to draw up the administrative material ” . Also at CARDINAL p.m. , the on - duty police officer drew up a report on the applicant ’s administrative arrest under LAW , stating , like the other report , that he had been arrested “ in order to draw up the administrative material ” . The applicant signed both reports , indicating his disagreement with their content .

Both X and Y produced identical duty reports stating , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ... on DATE at CARDINAL PERSON was apprehended [ because ] he had disobeyed a lawful order of the police in connection with [ X and Y ] performing [ their ] duty of maintaining public order and safeguarding the public . He ( PERSON ) stood at CARDINAL FAC and began to shout “ Down with GPE ! ” , “ GPE without GPE ! ” as well as insults to President PERSON , catching people ’s attention and calling them to come to the Mayakovskiy monument for a meeting . [ X and Y ] approached PERSON , introduced themselves and warned him that it was unacceptable to hold a meeting at FAC . They invited him to proceed to the authorised event that was taking place between the First and the Second Brestskaya Streets , opposite FAC . PERSON did not react and continued to shout out slogans and call people to hold a meeting . PERSON deliberately refused to comply with the lawful orders to cease his actions breaching public order , and continued them ostentatiously . To prevent him from organising an unauthorised meeting at FAC and to prevent the unlawful acts , he was invited to enter a police van . In response to [ these ] lawful orders to enter the police van , PERSON began to break loose . He pushed us away and shouted insults to us : “ Down with the police state ! ” , “ Free - for - all cops ! ” , attempting to cause mayhem among the citizens surrounding him . By doing so he demonstrated his refusal to carry out the lawful order of the police and prevented them from carrying out their duty , thus committing an offence under LAW ” .

At TIME X and Y made witness statements , essentially copying the text of their duty reports .

At the same time the district police inspector drew up a report on the administrative offence , stating that the applicant had disobeyed a lawful order of the police in breach of LAW . The applicant signed that report with the remark “ PERCENT lies ” .

On DATE the head of the same police station issued a decision to transfer the administrative case file to the Justice of the Peace .

On DATE at TIME the ORG television channel reported on the series of arrests following the demonstration at FAC . Police Colonel PERSON commented on the applicant ’s arrest , stating that he had been arrested for instigating an unauthorised meeting .

The applicant remained in detention at the police station until DATE , pending the determination of the charges against him .

NORP The applicant described the conditions of his detention at the police station as extremely poor . He was detained in a solitary cell measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , with a concrete floor , without windows and with very bleak artificial lighting , which was insufficient for reading . The cell was not equipped with ventilation or furniture , except for a narrow wooden bench without a mattress or any bedding . The walls in the cell had been coated with “ shuba ” , a sort of abrasive concrete lining . The cell was not equipped with a lavatory or wash basin . The applicant had been obliged to call the wardens to take him to the lavatory when they were available . He was not provided with food or drink ; he received only the food and drinking water that was passed to him by his family .

The Government submitted that from DATE to TIME on DATE the applicant had been detained in an administrativedetention cell measuring QUANTITY m equipped with artificial lighting and mandatory ventilation . They claimed that the applicant had been provided with drinking water and food , as well as with a sleeping place and bedding , but had refused to take them because he had received everything necessary from his family and friends .

On DATE CARDINAL members of a public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited the police station to check the conditions of the applicant ’s detention . Their report stated that the applicant had been detained in a cell without a window , which was poorly lit , lacked ventilation and had no sanitary facilities , sleeping place , mattress or bedding . They found that the cell was not adequate for a DATE confinement and noted that the applicant had not been receiving hot food .

On DATE , following his conviction for an administrative offence , the applicant was transferred to another detention facility until DATE .

The applicant claimed that the poor conditions of detention had had a negative impact on his health . He submitted a medical certificate indicating that CARDINAL he had sought medical assistance DATE .

On DATE the Justice of the FAC of circuit no . CARDINAL of GPE of GPE scheduled the hearing of the applicant ’s case to take place on DATE .

At TIME the applicant was brought before the Justice of the FAC , who examined the charges .

In the courtroom the applicant discovered that there was no seat for him and he remained standing during the hearing , which lasted for TIME . The parties disagreed as to the reasons why the applicant had remained standing . According to the applicant , the Justice of the Peace had ordered him to stand . The Government contested that allegation and claimed that the Justice of the Peace had repeatedly asked if anyone in the audience could give their seat to the applicant , but the applicant and his counsel had objected and insisted that he remain standing .

The applicant claimed that standing throughout the trial had been humiliating and physically difficult , especially after having spent DATE in detention in poor conditions . He also alleged that it had prevented him from participating effectively in the proceedings because he could only address the judge in writing and had been obliged to write his submissions while standing up . This had further aggravated his fatigue and hampered the conduct of his defence .

The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed that he had been detained for no reason other than political oppression . He contested the content of the police reports , in particular the statement that the police had given him a warning or an order which he could have disobeyed .

At the hearing the applicant lodged a number of motions . He requested in particular that the court admit as evidence the video footage of his arrest broadcast by CARDINAL media channels . He also requested that the recording made by PERSON , an independent photographer , be admitted as evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant also requested that the court obtain from the prosecution the video recording made by the GPE police at the scene of the public demonstration .

The applicant further requested that the court call and cross - examine Police Colonel B. about the circumstances of the applicant ’s arrest , which he had commented on in the media ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The Justice of the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request to admit the video recordings on the grounds that the provenance of the recordings was not supported by evidence . The court also refused to order that the video recording made by the police be admitted as evidence , stating that the applicant ’s request was not “ specific enough ” and that the applicant had failed to prove the existence of any such recordings . Lastly , the court refused to call and examine Police Colonel B. as a witness , having considered that request irrelevant .

At the applicant ’s request the court called and examined CARDINAL witnesses who had been at the scene of the authorised demonstration . They testified that they had heard the applicant addressing the meeting and that after his speech he had said farewell and left ; he had not made any calls to go on to another meeting . CARDINAL of those witnesses testified that they had left the meeting at the same time as the applicant and had witnessed his arrest . They explained that the exit from the meeting had been blocked by the riot police and the crowd had begun to build up because those who wanted to leave FAC could not do so . When the applicant arrived at the cordon the police surrounded him so as to separate him from others wanting to leave the meeting , and arrested him . CARDINAL witnesses stated that the applicant had not been shouting any slogans and had not been acting against the police orders before being surrounded and arrested . CARDINAL of those witnesses , PERSON , stated that she had heard the applicant asking the riot police why the exit had been blocked . She had also heard him shouting that LAW guaranteed the freedom of assembly , but he had not shouted any calls or obscenities . The remaining witnesses had not seen the actual arrest . In particular , the applicant ’s daughter and her friend testified that they had been walking back to the car with the applicant and talking about the plans for New Year ’s eve , and when they had arrived at the police cordon they had lost sight of the applicant in the crowd ; TIME they had called him on his mobile phone and had found out that he had been arrested .

The court called and examined CARDINAL policemen , sergeant PERSON and private Y , who had signed the reports stating that they had arrested the applicant because he had disobeyed their orders . They testified that on DATE they had been on duty maintaining public order at FAC . They had seen the applicant at TIME . He had been shouting anti - government slogans and calling people around him to hold an unauthorised meeting . They had approached the applicant and requested him to stop agitating outside the authorised meeting ; they had asked him to return to the place allocated for the meeting and to speak there . The applicant had not reacted to their requests , so they had asked him to proceed to the police van . The applicant had disobeyed that order and had been arrested ; he had put up resistance while being arrested .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace found that the applicant had disobeyed the police orders to stop chanting anti - government slogans and had resisted lawful arrest . The Justice of the FAC based her findings on the witness statements of X and Y , their written reports of DATE , their written statements of the same date , the report on the administrative arrest of the same date , the notice of the public demonstration of CARDINAL DATE and the reply of DATE indicating that it had not been authorised ( it appears that this reference concerned the events described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Justice of the FAC dismissed the applicant ’s testimony on the grounds that as a defendant , he would have sought to exonerate himself from administrative liability . She also dismissed the testimonies of CARDINAL eyewitnesses on the grounds that they had contradicted the policemen ’s testimonies and because those witnesses had been acquainted with the applicant , had taken part in the same demonstration and therefore must have been biased towards the applicant . The testimonies of the remaining QUANTITY witnesses were dismissed as irrelevant .

The applicant was found guilty of having disobeyed a lawful order of the police , in breach of LAW . He was sentenced to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention .

On DATE the applicant wrote an appeal against the judgment and submitted it to the detention facility administration unit . It appears that despite his counsel ’s numerous attempts to lodge the appeal directly with the court , it was not accepted before DATE . On CARDINAL DATE his counsel submitted a supplement to the points of appeal .

In his appeal the applicant claimed that his arrest and conviction for the administrative offence had been in breach of the domestic law and in violation of the Convention . He alleged that his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly had been violated . He contested the findings of fact made by the first instance as regards his conduct after he had left the meeting . He challenged , in particular , the court ’s refusal to admit the photographic and video materials as evidence or to obtain the footage of the demonstration shot by the police . In addition , he complained about the manner in which the first - instance hearing had been conducted . In particular , he alleged that the Justice of the Peace had ordered him to stand throughout the hearing , which had been humiliating and had made it difficult to participate in the proceedings . The applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention at the police station from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Tverskoy District Court examined the appeal . At the applicant ’s request the court kept the verbatim records of the hearing .

During the appeal hearing the applicant complained of the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest and the poor conditions of his detention at the police station . He asked the court to declare the acts of the police who had detained him for TIME before bringing him before a court unlawful .

As regards the merits of the administrative charges , the applicant reiterated before the appeal instance his requests that the court admit CARDINAL video recordings of his arrest as evidence and that it obtain the video recording made by the GPE police . He also requested that CARDINAL photographs of his arrest be admitted as evidence . He asked the court to call and examine photographers T. and PERSON as witnesses and to cross - examine police officers PERSON and Y again . The court granted the requests to admit CARDINAL video recording and CARDINAL photographs as evidence , and decided to call and examine photographer T. as a witness , but rejected all the other requests .

Photographer T. testified at the hearing that he had gone to the meeting to film it and had been waiting for the applicant at the exit from the meeting because he had wanted to interview him . When the applicant approached the exit a big group of policemen rushed over to block his way and there had been a TIME ’s pause when a crowd began to build up against the cordon , blocking the passage . Then CARDINAL person was arrested , and TIME later someone else , and then the applicant . T. saw the applicant ’s arrest as he was filming it from a distance of QUANTITY . He was separated from the applicant by several rows of people , of which CARDINAL rows consisted of policemen . The recording began TIME before the arrest and continued without any interruption until the applicant had been put in the police van . He specified that the applicant had not put up any resistance to the officers arresting him . He identified on the photograph the officer wearing a fur hat , who had arrested the applicant , and explained that that person had taken the applicant out of the crowd and then passed him on to another policeman in order to put the applicant into the police van . He also stated that the applicant had not shouted any slogans or insults . The applicant had repeated “ Easy , easy ” to the policemen while being escorted to the van . T. also testified that the applicant had been standing throughout the first - instance hearing , while his counsel had been sitting on a chair .

The court watched the video recording made by ORG However , it decided not to take cognisance of ORG ’s testimonies , his recording or the photograph , on the following grounds :

“ ... the footage begins with the image of a large number of people gathered at CARDINAL FAC in GPE , with Mr PERSON at the centre . A policeman addresses the citizens through a loudspeaker with a request to disperse and not to block the passage , but Mr PERSON remains standing in CARDINAL place addressing the gathered citizens . The video operator is at such a distance from the applicant that he is separated from him by several rows of people , including the gathered citizens and the riot police , and it is impossible to understand what these citizens and the applicant are saying . Subsequently the recording of the applicant is interrupted as the camera points away onto the policemen putting the first arrested person , and then another one , into the police vans . Only afterwards does the video recording show the applicant being led to a police van by policemen , and he puts up no resistance at this moment of the footage .

In this respect , and taking into account that the footage does not show Mr PERSON ’s actions immediately before his placement in the police van , the video and the accompanying audio do not depict Mr PERSON addressing the citizens before he was detained . The court concludes that the submitted footage does not refute the testimonies of the policemen , and [ T. ’s ] testimony can not refute them either because he observed only those actions of Mr PERSON that appear on the footage .

The photographs submitted during the appeal hearing that depict Mr Nemtsov surrounded by policemen , CARDINAL of whom is supporting his arm , can not be considered by the court as refuting the event of the offence or the evidence , including the testimonies of [ X and Y ] , because of the absence of information on the exact time of its taking , or on its connection with the place ... ”

DATE . On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . It found , in particular , on the basis of the testimonies and reports of NORP and Y , that the applicant had indeed been guilty of having disobeyed a lawful order of the police . It upheld the reasoning of the first - instance court whereby it rejected the testimonies of CARDINAL witnesses called at the applicant ’s request . As regards the testimonies of GPE and Y , on the other hand , it found no reason to mistrust them because they had had no personal interest in the outcome of the applicant ’s case .

In its appeal decision the court addressed the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention pending the first - instance trial and considered that there had been no breach :

“ ... after the report on the administrative offence had been drawn up , the information necessary for establishing the circumstances of the committed offence was collected , including the explanations of [ X and Y ] , the notice of the place of the public demonstration of DATE , the [ mayor ’s ] reply to that notice , as well as the personal characteristics of the person in relation to whom the administrative offence report had been drawn up . A ruling was made by ORG convicting the applicant of an offence under LAW . Therefore the applicant ’s detention during TIME was not in breach of LAW . ”

As regards the conditions of the applicant ’s detention DATE and DATE , the court found that his complaints had been outside the scope of the current proceedings , holding that another type of legal action should have been brought by the applicant to challenge those acts . The court did not specify what procedure the applicant should have followed as an avenue for those complaints .

On DATE the applicant lodged before ORG a complaint under LAW of LAW . He challenged his initial arrest and complained of the poor conditions of detention for TIME .

On DATE the court refused to accept the applicant ’s action , holding that the questions concerning the lawfulness of the police acts had to be examined in the relevant administrative proceedings , but could not be dealt with in civil proceedings .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the refusal to accept his complaint . ORG dismissed his appeal on DATE . It relied , in particular , on Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE by ORG of GPE and held , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ... the courts may not examine complaints lodged under LAW of the Code of Civil Procedure against acts or inaction connected with the application of LAW , LAW of which provides for the procedure for challenging them ; or acts or inaction for which LAW does not provide for a procedure by which they may be challenged . Acts or inaction that are inseparable from the administrative case may not be subject to a separate challenge ( evidence in the case , [ including ] reports on the application of precautionary measures to secure the course of justice in the administrative case ) . In this case the arguments against the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence or the application of a precautionary measure to secure the course of justice may be put forward during the hearing of the administrative case or in points of appeal against the judgment or ruling on the administrative case . However , if the proceedings in the administrative case are terminated , the acts committed in the course of these proceedings , if they entailed a breach of an individual ’s or a legal person ’s rights or freedoms , or hindered the exercise of their rights and freedoms , or imposed an obligation after the proceedings had been terminated , [ they ] may be challenged under LAW of LAW . Under the same procedure one may challenge the acts of officials if no administrative file has been opened . ”

The applicant also attempted to challenge the acts of the judiciary involved in his case before ORG . His attempts were , however , unsuccessful .


CASE OF ĐURIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

By CARDINAL judgments of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) of CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , which became final on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , ORG ( an Entity of GPE and GPE ) was ordered to pay , within DATE , the following amounts in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate :

( i ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the PERSON ;

( ii ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the ORG ;

( iii ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the ORG and PERSON ;

( iv ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the PERSON ;

( v ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to Mr GPE ;

( vi ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the PERSON .

ORG issued writs of execution ( rješenje o izvršenju ) on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .

The applicants complained of the non - enforcement to ORG the LAW ” ) .

On DATE ORG found a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL in the cases of the PERSON , Mr GPE , the ORG and PERSON . In line with its established practice in cases of this type , it refused the applicantsʼ compensation claims , holding that a finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction .

The cases of the PERSON , the PERSON and the PERSON are still pending before ORG .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively the PERSON , the PERSON , the PERSON , PERSON GPE and the PERSON were paid legal costs and default interest .

Under the new settlement plan ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the NORP case was scheduled for enforcement in DATE ; the Bošnjaksʼ in DATE ; the ORG and PERSON in DATE ; the ORG in DATE ; PERSON in DATE ; and the PERSON in DATE .


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)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was notified by ORG that a criminal investigation had been opened against him on suspicion of fraud committed in an organised group ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . It was suspected that from DATE until DATE the applicant and his accomplices , using companies founded or acquired for the purpose , had bought large amounts of fish from unspecified persons without paying value added tax ( VAT ) , forged payment documents to show that the applicable ORG had been paid , and then sold the fish to another company for a price that included the applicable VAT – thus appropriating an amount equal to the said applicable VAT . It was suspected that in this manner the applicant and his accomplices had appropriated CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) , which should have been paid into the ORG budget as LOC .

On DATE the applicant was prohibited from going abroad or leaving his home without the approval of the investigating authorities ( kardomoji priemonė DATE rašytinis pasižadėjimas neišvykti ) .

On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant and his accomplices . The applicant was charged with several counts of fraud and forgery of documents committed in an organised group ( under LAW , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW ) . The indictment noted that the applicant had admitted his guilt and cooperated with the investigative authorities .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of all charges and ordered him to pay a fine of LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG partly amended the judgment of the regional court . It acquitted the applicant of fraud but upheld his conviction for forgery of documents and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment . The sentence was suspended for DATE , during which time an injunction ( įpareigojimas ) was imposed on the applicant : he was prohibited from leaving his home for DATE in a row without the approval of the supervising institution ( hereinafter , “ the sentence for forgery ” ) .

The applicant began complying with the injunction imposed on him by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG partly amended the judgment of ORG . It quashed the applicant ’s acquittal of fraud and returned that part of the case for re - examination by ORG . The remaining of the appellate court ’s judgment was upheld .

On DATE ORG , after re - examining the above - mentioned part of the case , convicted the applicant of fraud . When determining the sentence , the court took into account various aggravating circumstances ( the crime had been well organised , the applicant had played a leading role in its commission , and the value of the appropriated property had been high ) , as well as mitigating circumstances ( the applicant had admitted his guilt , he had a family and a job , and he had been complying with the injunction previously imposed on him ) . As a result , ORG sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for DATE and DATE a sentence which was close to the minimum sentence stipulated in LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The court combined this sentence with the CARDINAL previously imposed on the applicant for forgery of documents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered a consolidated sentence ( subendrinta bausmė ) for the QUANTITY crimes – imprisonment of DATE and DATE . ORG stated that because the crime of fraud was serious ( sunkus nusikaltimas ) , the consolidated sentence could not be suspended ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant submitted a cassation appeal to ORG . He asked the court to quash the sentence of imprisonment for the crime of fraud ordered by ORG and instead restore the fine imposed by ORG in its judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG delayed the execution of ORG judgment of DATE until the applicant ’s cassation appeal was examined . ORG decision did not explicitly indicate whether the applicant had to continue complying with the injunction imposed on him during the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Nonetheless , during the period of the delay the applicant continued complying with the injunction .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal . It found that when determining the sentence ORG had correctly assessed the gravity of the crime , the applicant ’s personality , and all relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances . It also reiterated that LAW excluded the possibility of suspending the sentence in the event that the individual concerned had been convicted of a serious crime , such as fraud . However , ORG partly amended ORG judgment of DATE by applying the terms of a DATE law on amnesty and reducing the applicant ’s sentence of imprisonment by CARDINAL . Thus , the applicant ’s final consolidated sentence was DATE and DATE of imprisonment ( hereinafter , “ the consolidated sentence ” ) .

After ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant began complying with the injunction imposed on him during the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery . The applicant was not allowed to leave his home for DATE without the approval of the supervising institution . He was also obliged to report to the local prison department DATE , which he did from DATE until DATE . At the applicant ’s request , on DATE the local prison department issued a certificate stating that he had been complying with the injunction and that the term of suspension of his sentence for forgery would end on DATE .

In DATE the applicant submitted a request to ORG to be released from serving the consolidated sentence . The applicant stated that he had nearly completed serving the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery by complying with the injunction imposed by ORG . According to the applicant , given that the sentence for forgery ( DATE of imprisonment ) was longer than the consolidated sentence ( DATE and DATE of imprisonment ) and given that he had served the former , he should be released from serving the latter ; otherwise he would have to serve CARDINAL sentences for CARDINAL crime .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request . The court reiterated that the applicant had been convicted of CARDINAL crimes – one of which ( fraud ) was serious and the other ( forgery of documents ) less serious ( apysunkis ) DATE and LAW did not permit the suspension of a sentence for a serious crime .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the regional court ’s judgment . The court firstly found that the applicant had not yet finished serving the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery : the completion of the term had to be confirmed by a decision of the relevant district court , but no such decision had been adopted as at that date ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG further held that the imposition of an injunction during the term of suspension of a sentence ( įpareigojimai , paskirti nuosprendžio vykdymo atidėjimo metu ) did not amount to the serving of that sentence ( bausmės atlikimas ) ; therefore , the applicant had not actually served his sentence for forgery , so the question of “ double punishment ” did not arise . The fact that he had been complying with the injunction was relevant only during the determination of the final consolidated sentence , and that had been done by ORG .

The judgment was final and not subject to appeal .

Subsequently the applicant submitted a request to ORG , asking it to confirm that he had completed the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery . On DATE the court refused to examine the applicant ’s request because , under domestic law , a request for the term of suspension of a sentence to be declared completed could only be submitted by the supervising institution and not by the convicted person ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The court stated that that the applicant had been prohibited from leaving his home since DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , so during the entire time he had been complying with that restrictive measure and not with the injunction relating to the suspended sentence . The court further held that ORG judgment of DATE had annulled the suspension of the sentence for forgery , but that the domestic law did not provide for the possibility to release a convicted person from the obligation to serve a sentence due to the fact that he or she had been complying with an injunction which had subsequently been annulled .

Around the same time the applicant submitted a request to ORG , asking it to order the local prison department to request a district court to affirm that the applicant had completed the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG held that it did not have the competence to examine the applicant ’s request because that request only related to matters of criminal sentencing and not acts of public administration . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the lower court on the same grounds .

On DATE the applicant began serving the consolidated sentence in ORG . After serving CARDINAL of the sentence , on DATE he was released on probation .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)

Aleš Pejchal;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .

On DATE the Gazeta Wyborcza – a major DATE newspaper DATE published an article with the headline : “ A law in exchange for a bribe : when GPE pops by to see PERSON ( PERSON za łapówke , czyli przychodzi GPE do PERSON ) .

The article was about bribery in connection with the legislative procedure for the amendment of LAW . According to the article , in DATE PERSON ( the applicant ) , a well - known film producer , had offered a bribe to representatives of the company that published the ORG newspaper , ORG The applicant was said to have been acting on the instructions of a purported “ group in power ” ( grupa trzymająca władze ) , which allegedly included certain high - ranking ORG officials , among them the Prime Minister . More specifically , the applicant had reportedly offered the representatives of ORG his assistance in amending LAW so that the company could buy the private television channel ORG , and had asked for the following , among other things , in return : payment of MONEY ( ORG ) , his appointment as chairman of the channel ORG and an undertaking from the newspaper ORG to refrain from publishing any criticism of the government . The above - mentioned proposal was said to have been made by the applicant during a meeting with PERSON , editor - in - chief of ORG . The meeting had been recorded by the latter and transcriptions from the recording were later included in the article published by his newspaper .

NORP The criminal proceedings against the applicant , the work of the NORP commission of inquiry and the media coverage

After the case was revealed in the press , the public prosecutor at ORG brought proceedings against the applicant , on DATE , on a charge of influence peddling ( przestępstwo płatnej protekcji ) , under LAW .

On DATE , the PERSON DATE lower house of ORG – passed a resolution ( uchwała ) setting up a parliamentary commission of inquiry ( “ the commission ” ) . Under that resolution the commission was set up with the following aims :

“ ( CARDINAL ) To investigate the circumstances surrounding the attempted extortion by PERSON of material and political gains in exchange for his assistance in preventing an amendment of LAW that would be unfavourable to private media and in guaranteeing that ORG would decide in favour of such media ; and to determine the identity of any persons that may have taken steps to this effect , as revealed by the ORG newspaper and other media .

( CARDINAL ) To examine , in the light of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , the parliamentary procedure for the amendment of LAW .

( CARDINAL ) To examine whether the authorities’ response to the media revelations concerning the affair mentioned under point CARDINAL above was regular . ”

The resolution stated that the commission ’s meetings would be held in public , unless otherwise provided by law or by the PERSON ’s rules of procedure .

On DATE , the commission , consisting of CARDINAL MPs , began its work .

On DATE the public prosecutor questioned the applicant and notified him of the charge against him . The applicant was obliged to present security in the form of a registered charge against his property and his passport was seized .

On DATE issue number CARDINAL of the DATE magazine PERSON was published with , on the cover , a photomontage showing the applicant with his head emerging from a toilet bowl while CARDINAL hands of unknown persons were pressing the flush button . The photomontage was accompanied by the following caption : “ How many men in power will GPE bring down with him ? ” ( Ilu ludzi wladzy pociagnie za soba GPE ? ) . Inside the same issue of PERSON was an article headed “ PERSON ” ( PERSON ) , on the subject of corruption in GPE .

Following that publication the applicant brought proceedings against PERSON for the protection of his reputation , complaining about a breach of his right to be presumed innocent .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim , finding in particular as follows :

“ Until the final conviction has been handed down , the complainant must be treated as a person presumed innocent . It is nevertheless true that he had been charged with specific offences , that a bill of indictment had been preferred against him , and that the matter is being examined by a parliamentary commission of inquiry . It must be emphasised that the general public have been informed about the “ group in power ” [ sic ] . In that situation , the journalists had not only the right but also a duty , under LAW , to ask questions about any figures in power who may be implicated in this affair ...

In the lower court ’s opinion , the complainant ’s picture was widely known to the public in the context of the ‘ Rywin affair’ even before the article was published . The image of PERSON had appeared on a number of occasions in the media in connection with this matter . The complainant was interviewed by the parliamentary commission of inquiry in the course of hearings that were broadcast on television . Having regard to this context , the publication by the DATE PERSON of the applicant ’s picture did not harm his reputation .

What is important in the present case is the fact that the cover does not contain any material that may prejudge the complainant ’s guilt in [ what is known as ] the ‘ Rywin’ affair . According to the court below , the cover may be seen by readers as a [ mere ] indication that the complainant was involved in the case . His implication in this affair , of which the public were well - informed before the impugned publication , is therefore not attributable to the latter . ...

The seriousness of the bribery justified , in the present instance , the use of scathing expressions and very expressive symbols . ... Bribery is so harmful and blameworthy that the fact of representing it using a toilet bowl as a symbol is no exaggeration ... The picture where the complainant ’s head is seen emerging from the toilet bowl – a symbol of corruption – only means that he may be implicated in the affair and that its elucidation may lead to establishing the identities of others involved ... ”

In the meantime , the criminal investigation and the work of the commission were ongoing . The commission sat throughout DATE and until DATE , when its last session was convened .

The sessions held by the commission DATE and DATE were devoted to the hearing of witnesses , such as the executives of ORG , high - ranking government officials starting with the Prime Minister , journalists , members of the GPE public prosecutor ’s office and businessmen representing the media . The applicant , who appeared before the commission on DATE , refused to answer any of its questions . The commission ’s hearings were public and broadcast live on radio and television . CARDINAL of the witness hearings were apparently held in private . The transcripts of the commission ’s hearings , consisting of CARDINAL typed pages , were systematically published on the ORG ’s website .

NORP The commission ’s work was widely reported in the media , including comments by its members .

Pursuant to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the commission worked in close cooperation with the GPE public prosecutor conducting the criminal investigation in respect of the applicant .

Thus in DATE the president of the commission asked the public prosecutor ’s office to conduct certain investigative acts , and in particular : to obtain the transcripts of the applicant ’s telephone conversations ; to determine the places where his documents were kept ; to seize the hard drives from his computer ; and to carry out a search of his private and professional premises .

On DATE the public prosecutor conducting the investigation authorised the commission to disclose , in the context of the proceedings before it , the material in the criminal investigation file . On DATE the national public prosecutor ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against this measure , observing that the disclosure of such material was authorised provided it was not prejudicial to the outcome of the case .

On DATE the commission forwarded to the public prosecutor , at his request , the transcripts and recordings of its hearings , including the witness hearings .

Information was exchanged between the commission and the public prosecutor on several occasions . In that connection , members of the commission ’s presidium had meetings with the national public prosecutor and the public prosecutor leading the investigation .

In DATE the criminal investigation in respect of the applicant was completed and the indictment , together with a case file of CARDINAL volumes , was presented to GPE ORG . Mr GPE was indicted for attempted influence peddling , an offence under LAW combined with LAW .

On DATE ORG ordered the case to be sent to ORG on the ground of its exceptional nature and its importance ( sprawa szczególnej wagi ) , having regard to the positions held by the individuals implicated in the case , the media and public interest and the work of the commission .

On DATE ORG declared that the public prosecutor ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) applied to the judicial phase of the criminal proceedings .

Noting that the commission had been privy to the whole of the investigation case file concerning the applicant , the court pointed out that if the material in the file were used in the proceedings before the commission it would have to be careful not to cause any prejudice to the persons concerned by that investigation , such as the witnesses and the applicant .

On DATE the case was assigned to a bench of CARDINAL professional judges .

On DATE , when the trial opened , ORG authorised the broadcasting of the hearings live on radio and television , emphasising that journalists should not impede the smooth running of the proceedings and should abide by the rule that testifying witnesses were not to be apprised of the statements of the other witnesses .

The court also authorised the media disclosure of the applicant ’s identity and picture , observing that the public interest in following the proceedings prevailed over any contrary interest of the persons on trial .

DATE GPE ORG heard testimony from a number of witnesses , including those who had already been interviewed by the commission . During these hearings , the court systematically compared the statements before it with those that the same witnesses had given to the commission .

ORG and the commission exchanged , on a number of occasions , information they had gathered in their respective proceedings .

On DATE , after the closing of the witness hearings , the court made public all the evidence , including that which it had received from the commission .

The court informed the parties that there might be a change in the legal classification of the charges against the applicant , which might fall under LAW combined with LAW , corresponding to the offence of attempted fraud ( usiłowanie doprowadzenia do niekorzystnego rozporzadzenia mieniem ) .

In response to a request by the defence for the adjournment of the proceedings for a maximum of DATE , the court postponed the trial until DATE , fixing DATE as the date of the last round of oral argument .

On DATE the court rejected a defence request for the admission of new evidence .

In response to a request by the defence , the court then adjourned the trial until DATE , declaring that judgment would be given on DATE .

On DATE the newspaper ORG published an article with the heading “ Before the judgment ” ( “ ORG wyrokiem ” ) , beginning as follows :

“ The biggest corruption scandal of GPE will certainly end in a failure for the justice system – regardless of the charges on which PERSON is convicted or the sentence handed down .

... I think that the judgment will be disappointing in terms of the intention and capacity of the justice system to succeed in discovering the truth – this indeed being the mission of the courts and the public prosecutor – beyond the politics . After the GPE affair , citizens will still be convinced that laws are not enacted but purchased and that even the high - ranking officials of the State – and I quote the public prosecutor – ‘ place their personal interests above those of FAC ; in other words – to call a spade a space – [ that they ] are corrupt .

In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of attempted fraud , under LAW combined with LAW , LAW and LAW , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) . In its reasoning the court found as follows :

( a ) that it was established that DATE , the applicant had attempted to incite PERSON , chair of ORG ’s board of directors , and PERSON , editor - in - chief of ORG , to dispose of that company ’s property with detrimental effect thereto for a value equivalent to MONEY ;

( b ) that it had not been established that the applicant had been instructed by the Prime Minister or any figures in his entourage .

CARDINAL of the judges on the bench submitted a separate opinion , taking the view that the applicant should have been given a suspended sentence with probation , in view of his age , his professional background and his state of health .

After the delivery of the judgment , the president of the trial court of ORG published a statement . He commended the efforts of his fellow judges to bring the trial to its conclusion in a calm manner , notwithstanding the various comments about the procedure that had been reported in the media . Noting that some of those comments could be regarded as an attempt to influence the court ’s work , the president emphasised the following points : that throughout the trial the judges had acted pursuant only to the provisions of criminal law ; that the purpose of the trial was different from that of the parliamentary commission of inquiry ; and that as professional judges the members of the bench had been able to resist any pressure that might result from the media statements made in connection with the case by various journalists and politicians , or even by certain members of the commission . Pointing out that a statement such as his in the present case was unusual , in view of the judiciary ’s duty of discretion , the president explained that he could not refrain from mentioning the remarks made by the author of the article entitled “ Before the judgment ” , which had been published in the period when the case was under deliberation and which could be regarded , in his view , as an attempt on the part of the journalist to influence the outcome ; such statements were , in his view , inadmissible and blameworthy , even in connection with a case which , like the present one and rightly so , had attracted significant media interest .

On DATE the applicant and the public prosecutor ’s office each appealed against the judgment of DATE . In his statement of appeal the applicant alleged , among other things , that on account of the influence of the commission ’s work on the judges , exacerbated by the press coverage of the CARDINAL sets of proceedings , his trial had been devoid of the requisite fairness under LAW .

At the end of its last session on DATE , the commission adopted its final report , concluding that the applicant had acted alone . Several commission members submitted their own draft reports to the PERSON . After examining it at the plenary of CARDINAL DATE , the PERSON rejected the commission ’s report and expressed its preference for that of the MP PERSON , which was regarded as the most radical . It can be seen from the file that this report was drafted with a view to having the persons concerned held to account before ORG . In view of doubts as to the weight of the vote of CARDINAL May , the PERSON endorsed the report by the MP PERSON by its final vote of DATE . The position taken in that report was as follows :

“ PERSON , Prime Minister , PERSON , junior minister in ORG , PERSON , the Prime Minister ’s chief of staff , PERSON , chair of the board of directors of the company ORG , and PERSON , member of ORG , committed , by deliberate and concerted action in DATE , the offence of bribery , within the meaning of LAW of LAW taken together with LAW thereof ; in that they , [ while ] influencing the content of LAW being amended and the parliamentary proceedings related thereto , in DATE , through the intermediary of PERSON , acting as agent of the ‘ power - holding group’ , made a corrupt proposal to the representatives of ORG , namely on DATE to PERSON and PERSON and on DATE to PERSON , consisting in demanding a financial reward of MONEY ( ORG ) , the appointment of PERSON as chairman of the channel ORG and an undertaking from the company ORG that the newspaper ORG would refrain from publishing any criticism of the Prime Minister or government . In return , provisions would be inserted in LAW that would be beneficial for ORG , allowing it to purchase the television channel ORG .

The evidence gathered in this case renders highly plausible ( w wysokim stopniu uprawdopodabnia ) the above - mentioned account , to the extent of justifying the prosecution of the above - named persons . ”

The report , disseminated by the media , was widely discussed and commented on by the various public stakeholders .

In the meantime , the applicant ’s trial continued before ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the parties that the charge against the applicant was likely to be reclassified to aiding and abetting influence peddling ( pomocnictwo do płatnej protekcji ) , an offence under LAW of LAW taken together with LAW .

ORG adjourned the proceedings until DATE to allow the defence to adapt its strategy to the intended change of classification . On the scheduled date the defence submitted their observations .

In a judgment of DATE ORG found Mr GPE guilty of aiding and abetting influence peddling ( pomocnictwo do płatnej protekcji ) , an offence under LAW of LAW taken together with LAW , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine of PLN CARDINAL .

In its reasoning , ORG found that the applicant had facilitated the perpetration by other individuals – whose identity had not been established DATE of the offence of bribery . In this connection it found it established that , on CARDINAL and DATE , the applicant had presented to PERSON and PERSON an offer devised by the above - mentioned individuals who , on the strength of their positions at the level of the ORG , had proposed their assistance as intermediaries to amend LAW in a manner favourable to ORG , thereby enabling it to purchase the television channel ORG , in exchange for MONEY , a sum that was to be paid to ORG ( ORG ) via the bank account of a company belonging to the applicant .

In response to the applicant ’s complaint that the proceedings of the commission and their media coverage had undermined the fairness of his trial , ORG found that this complaint was not substantiated by any tangible evidence ; the applicant had not explained concretely how the media reports on the commission ’s work had influenced the reasoning of the judges in their deliberations or the outcome of the criminal proceedings , or how the commission ’s proceedings and report might have had any impact on the impartiality of the judges or on the reliability of the testimony given before the trial court . ORG took the view , in sum , that this was tantamount to implying that only an adjournment of the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of the commission ’s work could have preserved its fairness . Noting that the courts were frequently confronted with media interest in a given case , ORG was of the view that this fact , in itself , did not suffice for the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant to be called into question .

As to the applicant ’s complaint that the testimony used in support of his conviction had been vitiated by the fact that the witnesses had been heard by ORG after being questioned on the same circumstances by the commission , in public sittings that had received significant media attention , ORG regarded it as ill - founded ; testimony was always assessed by judges in accordance with the rules in LAW and in the light of all the evidence . In the present case , ORG could not identify any circumstance that would lead it to believe that the witnesses heard by ORG had been influenced by the content of their previous statements to the commission or by those of other witnesses .

With reference to the applicant ’s complaint that the reasoning of ORG judgment was insufficient , ORG acknowledged that in certain respects the reasoning had been succinct . Nevertheless , it endorsed that reasoning to a large extent , noting that ORG had examined the relevant aspects of the case and that its conclusion was justified .

Lastly , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint concerning ORG refusal to admit in evidence certain items proposed by the defence ; the court below had rightly found them superfluous for the outcome of the case . In the view of ORG , the exercise of defence rights could not consist in requests made ad infinitum , and in particular those that were irrelevant for its resolution .

The applicant and the public prosecutor ’s office appealed on points of law .

In a decision ( postanowienie ) of DATE ORG dismissed the CARDINAL appeals , endorsing the reasoning given by ORG . ...


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-b - Non-compliance with court order);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)

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

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

On DATE she was charged with contempt of court and criminally insulting the presiding judge and parties at a hearing on DATE in which she had acted as a defendant ’s representative .

An outpatient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant was ordered in the course of the pre - trial investigation . On DATE she was apprehended and taken to a psychiatric facility for examination . On DATE she was examined by a panel of psychiatrists , who concluded that her clinical state was unclear and that no answers could be given concerning her mental health state . She was released , the panel recommending a placement in ORG in GPE ( NORP научный центр социальной и судебной психиатрии им. PERSON ) ( “ the ORG Centre ” ) for an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination .

On DATE the ORG of LOC ( PERSON городской суд PERSON области ) ( “ the Town Court ” ) , having considered the applicant ’s complaint of unlawful apprehension and deprivation of liberty DATE , ruled in her favour . The court reasoned that the detention had been unlawful , since the sanction for the crime she was suspected of did not provide for any form of deprivation of liberty . The applicant did not initiate any further proceedings in this regard .

On DATE the prosecution made an application for the court to order an involuntary forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant at ORG .

On DATE ORG granted the prosecutor ’s application . The relevant part of its order reads :

“ By virtue of paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of LAW , a defendant may be placed in a psychiatric hospital if a forensic psychiatric examination requires his assessment in the hospital .

... the court considers that it should allow the application by the investigator , Ms NORP , to place [ the applicant ] in [ ORG ] for a forensic psychiatric evaluation , because [ the applicant ] is in need of such a hospital examination . ”

The applicant and her representative did not attend the hearing , because they had not been summoned to it . However , both the prosecutor and the investigator attended and made oral submissions .

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , that she had not been given an opportunity to present her case to ORG .

DATE and DATE the applicant applied to adjourn her appeal hearing CARDINAL times . Her application was granted on each occasion . On DATE during the appeal hearing in a separate set of proceedings she accused the judges of criminal conspiracy and attempted murder .

On DATE the applicant was also charged with criminal slander of certain judges during the hearing of DATE . The proceedings in respect of the CARDINAL criminal cases were joined .

On DATE the applicant was apprehended by the authorities and transferred to ORG . On DATE a panel of psychiatrists issued a report , concluding that the applicant suffered from “ paranoid personality development ” , and that she had not been able to understand or control her actions during the events of DATE ( contempt of court ) and CARDINAL DATE ( criminal slander ) . The report further stated that she presented a danger to others and therefore needed compulsory treatment in a psychiatric facility . On DATE the applicant was released .

DATE on DATE ORG ( ORG областной суд ) ( “ the ORG ” ) held a hearing on the applicant ’s appeal against the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE authorising psychiatric examination , and rejected it . As regards the applicant ’s complaint about the hearing taking place in her absence , ORG noted that LAW provided for ex parte hearings where there was judicial authorisation of investigative actions , including internment in a psychiatric facility for forensic examination ( as set out in LAW ) .

On DATE ORG ( ORG городской суд ) ( “ the ORG ” ) adopted decisions in CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant . The first decision terminated the criminal proceedings relating to the contempt of court charges in respect of the events of DATE . The applicant ’s statements , while offensive , were found to have been lacking the degree of insult requisite for incurring criminal liability . In the second decision , ORG established the principal facts of the events of DATE . Concluding that the applicant had acted in a state of insanity , it terminated the criminal proceedings against her and ordered her to undergo compulsory medical treatment in a psychiatric facility . It relied on the findings and recommendations of ORG report of CARDINAL DATE in its reasoning .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the lower court ’s decisions .

It appears from the parties’ submissions that the applicant was not detained and did not receive any treatment pursuant to ORG order until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was involuntarily admitted to ORG no . CARDINAL ( PERSON областная психиатрическая больница № DATE ) for compulsory psychiatric treatment .

On DATE a panel of hospital psychiatrists concluded that the applicant ’s mental health had improved and she no longer posed a danger to society . On DATE an application to discharge the hospital order and discontinue the compulsory treatment was sent to ORG .

On DATE ORG scheduled the hearing of the application for DATE . However , it was adjourned until DATE , because the applicant ’s representative failed to appear and additional medical records and statements had to be obtained . CARDINAL subsequent hearings were adjourned following applications by the applicant ’s representatives .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s compulsory treatment to be discontinued . Her representative lodged an appeal , arguing that the proceedings should have been discontinued from the very beginning , and that the applicant should have been released , since there had been no need for any compulsory treatment . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court ’s decision .

NORP The applicant was released from hospital on DATE .


András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicants , whose names and places of residence are set out in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP summarised as follows .

The applicants were the mayors of CARDINAL municipalities at the time of lodging their application with the ORG .

On DATE the ORG of Turkey adopted PERSON no . CARDINAL “ on establishing districts within the boundaries of metropolitan municipalities and amending various laws ” , which was published in ORG of DATE and entered into force on that date . Law no . DATE stipulated , inter alia , that the legal personality of a number of municipalities , including those headed by the applicants , would be abolished and that either those administrative units would become villages / neighbourhoods and join other municipalities , or a certain number of them would together constitute new municipalities . Law no . DATE further stipulated that the legal personality of those municipalities , as well as their authority and rights , would continue to exist until the next general local elections were held .

On DATE CARDINAL members of parliament from the ORG , the main opposition party , Mr GPE Okay , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE GPE , the party leader , made an application to ORG of GPE . The MPs requested ORG to repeal certain provisions of PERSON no . DATE , including those applicable to the applicants’ municipalities . The MPs claimed , inter alia , that there was no public interest in abolishing the legal personality of certain municipalities and that PERSON no . DATE had been adopted so that the governing party , the ORG , could win the local elections in the areas in issue . They further submitted that a referendum should have been held in the municipalities in question , in accordance with LAW no . DATE ) , and that PERSON no . DATE was in contravention of the provisions of the Law on Elections in Local Administrations ( Law no . CARDINAL ) and the LAW . On this last point , the MPs submitted that , according to LAW , a legislative amendment concerning elections would not be applicable to elections held within DATE of the entry into force of those amendments and that the local election process of DATE would start on DATE , in line with the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL . They therefore considered that PERSON no . DATE should not be applied to the local elections of DATE .

On DATE ORG rendered its decision in the case ( case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , decision no . CARDINAL ) and dismissed the case in so far as it concerned the municipalities headed by the applicants . The court noted at the outset that the MPs had not requested the repeal of the provision which concerned the entry into force of LAW no . DATE , and that therefore their submissions regarding the compatibility of PERSON no . DATE with LAW could not be examined .

As regards the submission that a referendum should have been held in accordance with PERSON no . DATE and that the provisions of Law no . DATE were incompatible with PERSON no . CARDINAL , ORG held that a legal norm could be reviewed only in the light of the relevant constitutional norm and not in relation to another legal norm . It further held that the legislature had the authority to make , amend and repeal laws and the responsibility to maintain harmonisation between laws . ORG concluded that it could therefore not review the compatibility of the provisions of PERSON no . DATE with those contained in PERSON no . DATE and PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Lastly , as to the allegations that the provisions of PERSON no . DATE lacked public interest and that this law had been passed for political reasons , ORG noted at the outset that it had the authority to examine whether certain legislation had been passed with the purpose of serving the public interest . The court further noted that the question of whether a legal norm was compatible with the needs of the country was political in nature and that the legislature was permitted a degree of discretion on that point . The court considered that it could not assess the existence of a public interest on the basis of the political choice of the legislature alone . ORG further noted that in accordance with LAW , the administrative units were to be determined , through laws , by the legislature and taking into account their geographical features , economic circumstances and need for public services . The court observed that the petition lodged by the MPs for the repeal of certain provisions of Law no . DATE did not contain any concrete argument as to how those provisions did not serve the public interest but were the result of the political considerations of the governing party . ORG also observed that the aim of the changes brought about by PERSON no . DATE was the efficient functioning of the public services provided by the local administrations and the efficient and productive use of public resources by the central administration . ORG held that there was no evidence demonstrating that the amendments had been made with the aim of acquiring political or personal gain . The court lastly noted that since , in accordance with PERSON no . DATE , the legal personality of the municipalities in question , as well as their authority and rights , would continue to exist until the first general local elections were held , the legislature had respected the will of the electorate regarding the last DATE election period in the areas concerned .

On DATE the local elections were held and as a result the legal personality of the municipalities headed by the applicants ceased to exist on DATE .

DATE LAW provides :


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

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

The applicants complained of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties .


CASE OF CIRNEROVÁ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

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

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

On DATE a claim was lodged with PERSON - okolie ORG against some of the applicants or their predecessors . With this claim , the plaintiffs were seeking a judicial ruling declaring them to be the owners of an area of grassland . The other applicants entered the proceedings as defendants on different dates and on the basis of different legal entitlements as outlined in the annexed table .

DATE the first - instance court held a number of hearings , ordered expert opinions , dealt with other relevant evidence , and heard witnesses . It also took some time to determine the parties who were actually to be sued in the proceedings in view of multiple deaths among the original defendants and various transactions made in respect of the property in question .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment , finding that the applicants’ ( or their ORG ) right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated by ORG . It ordered ORG to proceed without undue delay and to reimburse the ORG legal costs . It also awarded just satisfaction in respect of nonpecuniary damage in the amount of ORG CARDINAL to the applicants listed under points CARDINAL to CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL to those listed under points CARDINAL to CARDINAL and to the deceased predecessor of the applicants listed under points CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the Appendix . ORG noted inter alia that ORG had failed to proceed with the matter DATE . It also observed some of the applicants’ lack of interest in those proceedings . That judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment on the merits of the case , which was not served on the parties to the proceedings until DATE after its delivery .

On DATE ORG rejected a fresh constitutional complaint that had been lodged by the applicants ( except those listed under points CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) . It found no further undue delays in the proceedings before ORG after the constitutional judgment of DATE . It noted the delay of DATE which ORG had taken to serve its judgment on the parties . However , it did not consider it unconstitutional .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG transferred the case file to ORG following an appeal lodged by the applicants listed under points CARDINAL and DATE and some other defendants in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG had to identify and deal with successors of some of the deceased parties to the proceedings . It partly upheld ORG judgment and partly dismissed the claim concerning some of the contested property . It also rejected the remainder of the appeal . The judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicants listed under points CARDINAL and CARDINAL to DATE , together with several other defendants in the proceedings , lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE the proceedings in respect of that appeal were discontinued without examination of its merits due to the appellants’ failure to pay the court fees . That decision became final on CARDINAL DATE .


CASE OF YILMAZ YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicants are NORP nationals who were born in DATE respectively . Mr PERSON lives in PERSON and the others live in GPE .

The first applicant , PERSON , is a health officer and the branch chairman of ORG ( GPE ve ORG DATE “ the SES ” ) in PERSON . The second applicant , PERSON , is a doctor and the branch chairman of the ORG in GPE . The third applicant , PERSON , is a doctor and also a member of the ORG in GPE .

On DATE several members of the union gathered in front of ORG ( ORG – “ the ORG ” ) Hospital . Subsequently the first applicant read out the ORG ’s press statement drawing attention to the problems that could arise as a consequence of the transfer of hospitals incorporated in the ORG to ORG .

The statement read as follows :

“ For the attention of the press and the public :

Hospitals incorporated in the ORG have been transferred to ORG pursuant to LAW no . DATE . Following that structural change patients were unable to take their medication for a long time and hospital staff have been working in a tense atmosphere .

Before the structural changes our union warned the ORG and the public . The probable administrative and bureaucratic problems were pointed out : ORG was going to be under a huge economic burden , people would have to pay for health care services and an additional tax was going to be imposed on workers .

Our union maintains that the ORG should allocate more funds from the budget to the health care services to redress the structural problems .

Our union states that all citizens should be provided with equal , accessible , sufficient and free health care services . ”

On DATE the second and third applicants together with another thirty persons gathered in ORG yard . Subsequently , the second applicant read out the press statement in his capacity as chairman of the GPE branch of the union .

The police did not prevent anyone from entering the yard during either gathering . Nor did they interfere with the demonstrations or the reading out of the press statements .

According to the police reports of CARDINAL DATE in GPE and CARDINAL DATE in GPE , the CARDINAL groups of demonstrators had been warned verbally that their gatherings were illegal and ordered to disband for the protection of public order and safety .

The PERSON and GPE public prosecutors filed indictments charging the applicants with intentionally disobeying orders issued by the authorities aimed at protecting public order and safety , pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW , PERSON No . ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , convicted the applicants as charged and imposed on them administrative fines of MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

The applicants appealed against the courts’ decisions .

On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , dismissed the ORG appeals . These decisions were notified to the applicants respectively on DATE and DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicants paid the fines to the relevant tax departments .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP The media reported that on DATE a group of CARDINAL members of ORG ( also referred to herein as “ the ORG ” ) occupied the reception area of the President ’s Administration building in GPE and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor .

They asked for a meeting with the President , the deputy head of ORG Administration Mr PERSON , and the President ’s economic advisor PERSON ORG . They waved placards with “ PERSON , resign ! ” ( « PERSON , уйди ! PERSON ) written on them through the window and distributed leaflets with a printed address to the President that listed CARDINAL ways in which he had failed to uphold LAW , and a call for his resignation .

The intruders stayed in the office for TIME until the police broke through the door . During the arrest , they did not offer any resistance to the authorities .

According to the applicant , she was not a member of ORG . She was writing a master ’s thesis in sociology on forms of activity of radical political movements in modern GPE . On DATE one of the members of ORG told her about the direct action in the President ’s Administration building planned for DATE . She came to witness the protest action in order to collect information for her thesis . She did not take part in the occupation of the office , but merely watched the action , took notes and pictures .

The indictment of the applicant states that at TIME on DATE forty ORG members effected an unauthorised entry into the reception area of the building used by the President of ORG . Some of them pushed back the guards at the entrance and occupied room no . CARDINAL on the ground floor . They locked themselves in , blocked the door with a heavy safe and let other members of their group enter through the window .

Until the police arrived , the ORG members , including the applicant , waved placards through the office window , threw out leaflets and chanted slogans calling for the President ’s resignation . They stayed in the office for TIME , destroyed office furniture and equipment and damaged the walls and the ceiling .

On DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ordered the applicant ’s detention on the grounds that she was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence , might abscond , reoffend , interfere with the witnesses or obstruct the investigation in some other way .

On DATE the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of the ORG ( LAW ) and intentional destruction and degradation of others’ property in public places ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant asked to be released , referring to her clean criminal record , permanent residence in GPE and permanent employment as a school teacher .

On DATE the investigator refused her request , referring to the gravity of the charges , the absence of a registered residence in GPE and the risk that she might abscond .

On DATE the ORG of GPE extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , finding that the grounds on which the preventive measure had previously been imposed still persisted and there was no reason to vary the preventive measure .

On DATE the charges against the applicant were amended to that of a charge of participation in mass disorder , an offence under LAW .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , referring to the gravity of the charge and the risk that she might abscond or interfere with the investigation .

On DATE the investigation was completed and CARDINAL people , including the applicant , were committed for trial .

On DATE the ORG of GPE held a preliminary hearing . It rejected the GPE requests to be released . It stated that it had taken into account the GPE characters , their young age , frail health , family situation and stable way of life . However , it found , referring to the gravity of the charges , that “ the case file gives sufficient reasons to believe that , once released , the defendants would flee or interfere with the trial ” . It therefore ordered that all defendants should remain in custody . On DATE ORG rejected appeals lodged by several of the applicant ’s co - defendants .

On DATE the applicant and her co - defendants lodged applications for release . On DATE the ORG rejected the applications , finding that their detention was lawful and justified . In particular , it noted that their detention had been extended by the court order of DATE and , under LAW , that order was valid for DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .

On DATE the applicant and her co - defendants filed new applications for release . On DATE the ORG rejected the applications . It held :

“ The court takes into account the defence ’s argument that an individual approach to each defendant ’s situation is essential when deciding on a preventive measure .

Examining the grounds on which ... the court ordered and extended detention in respect of all the defendants without exception ... the court notes that these grounds still persist DATE . Therefore , having regard to the state of health , family situation , age , profession and character of all the defendants , and to the personal guarantees offered by certain private individuals and included in the case file , the court concludes that , if released , each of the applicants might abscond or obstruct justice in some other way ...

In the court ’s view , in these circumstances , having regard to the gravity of the charges , there are no grounds for varying or revoking the preventive measure in respect of any defendant ... ”

During the trial the applicant and her co - defendants stated that they had taken part in a peaceful protest against President PERSON ’s policies . According to the plan of the protest action agreed in advance , they were to go to the President ’s Administration building to meet officials and hand over a petition that listed the President ’s CARDINAL failures to comply with the LAW and contained a call for his resignation . They were then to talk to journalists . On DATE they had entered the reception area of the President ’s Administration building as planned and had gone into a vacant office on the ground floor . The guards had followed them and had hit those who had lagged behind , had pushed them into the office and had shut the door behind them . The guards had threatened to use force against the protesters . Taking fright , the protesters had locked the office door and blocked it with a metal safe . They had chanted slogans and distributed leaflets through the windows , thereby expressing their opinions about important political issues . They denied destroying any furniture or offering resistance to the police . They claimed that the furniture had been destroyed by the police officers who had broken down the door and arrested them .

The employees and the guards of ORG stated that on DATE a group of CARDINAL people had rushed into ORG reception area . They had pushed CARDINAL of the guards aside , had scurried through the metal detectors and had jumped over tables and chairs . They had run into CARDINAL of the offices , had locked the door and had started to chant political slogans . The police had arrived and ordered that the office be vacated . As the protesters had failed to comply , the police had broken down the door and arrested them . Some of the witnesses stated that the protesters had showed resistance to the police , in particular by preventing them from forcing open the door .

The police officers who had participated in the arrest stated that before breaking the door down they had ordered that the LOC be vacated . Having received no response , they had forced open the door and had arrested the protesters . They denied breaking any furniture in the office , stating that it had been damaged before their arrival .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant and her co - defendants guilty of participation in mass disorder . It found it established that the defendants had unlawfully entered the President ’s Administration building without complying with the requisite entry formalities . In particular , they had bypassed identity and security checks and had pushed aside the guard who had attempted to stop them . They had then proceeded to CARDINAL of the offices without being registered at the reception desk and without complying with the PERSON lawful demands to leave the LOC . In view of their unlawful and aggressive behaviour , they could not argue that they had participated in a peaceful political action . The court also held as follows :

“ [ The defendants ] , acting in conspiracy , committed serious breaches of public safety and order by disregarding established norms of conduct and showing manifest disrespect for society ... They effected an unauthorised entry into the reception area of the President of ORG building and took over office no . CARDINAL on the ground floor ... They then blocked the door with a heavy metal safe and conducted an unauthorised meeting , during which they waved ORG flag and placards , threw anti-[Putin ] leaflets out [ of windows ] and issued an unlawful ultimatum by calling for the President ’s resignation , thereby destabilising the normal functioning of ORG and preventing its reception personnel from performing their service duties , namely ... reception of members of the public and examination of applications from citizens of GPE ...

While performing the above disorderly acts [ the defendants ] ... destroyed and damaged property in the offices of the reception area of the President ’s Administration building ... ”

In respect of the applicant , the court noted that it was irrelevant whether she had joined the direct action for academic or other purposes . It had been established that she had directly participated in the mass disorder together with the others . Taking into account the fact that the defendants had voluntarily compensated the pecuniary damage in the amount of MONEY ( MONEY ) caused by their actions and that the applicant had positive character references , the court sentenced her to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , but suspended the sentence and put her on DATE probation . She was immediately released .

In her appeal submissions the applicant complained , in particular , that she had been convicted , in breach of LAW , for her participation in a peaceful assembly and for public expression of her opinions about important political issues .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

According to the applicant , her cell , which accommodated DATE inmates , was overcrowded . The applicant suffered from psoriasis ( a skin disease ) , chronic pyelonephritis ( a kidney infection ) , chronic bronchitis and allergies . She did not receive medical treatment appropriate for her conditions .

According to the Government , from CARDINAL to DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and housed CARDINAL inmates . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and housed CARDINAL to thirty inmates . From CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and housed CARDINAL inmates . The applicant had a separate bunk at all times and was provided with bedding . In support of their position , the Government submitted certificates issued by the remand centre governor on DATE and selected pages from the prison population register which recorded , for DATE , the number of sleeping bunks and the number of inmates in each of the remand centre ’s cells .

Relying on certificates of DATE from the remand centre governor , the ORG further submitted that all cells had been equipped with toilet facilities which were separated from the living area by a partition . There had been forced ventilation in the cells . The windows had been large and had not been blocked by shutters . The cells had had sufficient artificial light , which had been located so as not to disturb the ORG sleep . There had been no insects or rodents in the detention facility , as all the cells had been disinfected DATE . Hot food had been served CARDINAL times a day . Inmates had been able to take TIME daily walk in the exercise yards . They had been allowed to take a shower at least once DATE .

Relying on the applicant ’s medical records , the ORG submitted that the applicant had been regularly examined by specialist doctors and had been prescribed treatment when necessary .