Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving his sentence in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder committed during a fight with the victim . DATE the ORG of GPE authorised his remand in custody , having noted the gravity of the charges , his previous convictions , including for violent crimes , his failure to “ get on the road to improvement ” , the absence of an “ official ” source of income , and his lack of dependants .

NORP That decision was upheld on appeal by ORG , which fully endorsed ORG reasoning . In addition , ORG took into account that the applicant was suffering from the human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) but stated that there was no medical evidence that he could not continue being detained in the conditions of a temporary detention facility .

Another extension of the applicant ’s detention followed on DATE , when ORG accepted the investigator ’s arguments that he was likely to re - offend , abscond and interfere with the investigation . ORG linked those risks to the gravity of the charges against the applicant , his having received “ negative characteristics ” at his place of residence , as well as his having already been “ the subject of criminal prosecution ” . At the same time the court examined medical evidence produced by the applicant in support of his claim that the fact that he was suffering from an advanced stage of HIV precluded his detention . ORG dismissed the claim , stressing that the applicant regularly received medication prescribed by a prison doctor and that his detention in the temporary detention facility did not pose a risk to his health .

ORG issued further orders extending the applicant ’s pretrial detention on DATE , DATE and DATE . Each time , it relied on the gravity of the charges and the risk flowing of the applicant absconding , interfering with the course of justice and reoffending . Neither detention order mentioned that the applicant had a criminal record . The applicant ’s arguments about the progress of his HIV infection and the rapid deterioration of his health did not convince ORG . The order of DATE extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE , with reference to the gravity of the charges and the applicant ’s “ personality ” . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ On DATE ... ORG of FAC ordered [ the applicant ’s ] detention . Subsequently , the detention was lawfully extended . ...

In extending the detention for DATE , the court reasonably took into account that [ the applicant ] was charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and that , in view of hiswas liable to reoffend or destroy the evidence .

The court also correctly held that the case was particularly complex , due to the large number of investigatory activities and complex expert examinations to be conducted . The court also took into account the applicant ’s lengthy treatment in the prison hospital .

The court correctly concluded that there were no grounds for changing the measure of restraint . ”

ORG did not address the applicant ’s arguments , raised in his statement of appeal , that the investigating authorities significantly delayed a number of procedural actions , including the expert examination scheduled DATE and not yet performed .

ORG further extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention on DATE , summarily referring to his “ personality ” and “ socially dangerous conduct ” . The court also pointed out that some unspecified expert examinations had been conducted , which had “ objectively influenced the length of the investigation ” .

On DATE the applicant ’s pre - trial detention was again extended on the grounds of the gravity of the charges and the continued risk of his absconding and interfering with the course of justice . The court used similar wording as in the previous detention orders .

On DATE the applicant was served with the final version of the bill of indictment . The bill indicated that the applicant had no criminal record .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder . The court found that he had killed the victim in the course of an altercation caused by the victim ’s insults . ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE of imprisonment , having taken into account the following mitigating circumstances : the applicant had no criminal record , was “ positively characterised ” , had surrendered himself to the police , had confessed to the killing and felt deep remorse , and the victim had behaved provocatively having initiated the conflict with the applicant .

NORP In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with stage CARDINAL HIV . He was taken under the supervision of specialists of ORG from AIDS ( hereinafter “ the AIDS Centre ” ) .

Medical certificates provided by the applicant show that he had started receiving antiretroviral therapy on DATE with very positive results . The viral load had significantly decreased and the applicant ’s immune status had improved . A CDCARDINAL cell - count test carried out on DATE showed that the level of CDCARDINAL cells was CARDINAL cells / mmCARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was placed in detention facility no . CARDINAL . On DATE he was examined by a doctor , who recorded no complaints and diagnosed him with a stomach ulcer in remission .

On DATE doctors from the AIDS Centre recorded a deterioration in the applicant ’s condition . They recommended continuation of the antiretroviral therapy and an in - patient examination .

DATE and DATE the applicant underwent a check - up in the prison hospital of correctional colony no . CARDINAL ( “ the hospital ” ) . He was diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis , chronic gastroduodenitis , iron deficiency anaemia , fungal esophagitis , urolithiasis , and hepatic haemangioma .

It appears that on DATE an immunological test was performed . It showed that the level of CDCARDINAL cells was CARDINAL cells / mmCARDINAL .

NORP Since DATE the doctors have again recorded a deterioration in the applicant ’s condition and an increase in his viral load . They linked the deterioration to prior interruptions in the antiretroviral therapy . It is not clear from the documents submitted by the applicant when and why those interruptions occurred .

On DATE a doctor from the AIDS Centre diagnosed the applicant with stage CARDINAL HIV and fungal esophagitis , and recommended that antiretroviral therapy be continued .

On DATE , on a recommendation of the medical staff of the AIDS Centre , the applicant was again admitted to the hospital . He underwent treatment for HIV and fungal esophagitis . On DATE he returned to the detention facility .

NORP Throughout his detention the applicant was prescribed a special diet .

According to a typed copy of the applicant ’s medical file provided by the ORG , on admission to detention facility no . CARDINAL the applicant was examined by a doctor whom he informed that he was suffering from HIV .

On DATE medical staff from the AIDS Centre were allowed to see the applicant . The doctors noted that he was suffering from stage CARDINAL HIV and recommended that his antiretroviral therapy be continued . On DATE the applicant received DATE dose of antiretroviral drugs ( ORG and PERSON ) .

The applicant continued being monitored by the medical staff of ORG , who examined him again on DATE . Following their recommendations , and in response to the applicant ’s complaint of fatigue and pain in the epigastrium ( upper abdomen ) , on DATE he was transferred to the hospital for an in - depth examination . On the same date it was noted in his medical file that he was receiving antiretroviral drugs . The entries dated CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE indicated that he had been taking those drugs .

While at the hospital , the applicant was monitored by an infectious diseases specialist , who examined him on CARDINAL occasions . The applicant also underwent an ultrasound examination and a fibrogastroduodenoscopy . On DATE he was examined by an urologist and a gastroenterologist in a civil hospital . He was also observed by an otolaryngologist and a neurologist . The final diagnosis was : HIV infection aggravated by secondary illnesses , chronic pancreatitis , chronic gastroduodenitis , iron deficiency anaemia , oesophageal candidiasis , hepatic hemangioma , chronic prostatitis , chronic cholecystitis , fungal esophagitis , and a duodenal bulb ulcer . The applicant received treatment for those illnesses .

On DATE , having found that the applicant ’s condition had improved , the hospital discharged him .

On DATE a doctor from the AIDS Centre examined the applicant at the detention facility . The doctor noted that the applicant was taking the antiretroviral drugs with strict adherence , and recommended virological and immunological testing , as well as another ultrasound examination and a fibrogastroduodenoscopy .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the hospital for additional tests . On DATE he was transferred back to the detention facility .

On DATE the applicant complained of fatigue , coughing and headaches . A doctor diagnosed chronic bronchitis and prescribed him anti - candidiasis and cough medication , as well as vitamins .

On DATE an entry made in the applicant ’s medical file indicated that the “ last ” immunological test had shown the level of CDCARDINAL cells at CARDINAL cells / mmCARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant complained to a doctor of heaviness in his abdomen , dizziness and heartburn . The doctor noted that those were the effects of his not complying with the special diet and prescribed medication for his ulcer and gastroduodenitis .

On DATE the applicant was examined in response to his complaints of fatigue , pain in the abdomen , and pyrosis . The doctor noted that the applicant had been receiving antiretroviral therapy and recommended his transfer to hospital for an examination and another diagnosis .

On the applicant ’s admission to the hospital on DATE , his complaints of fatigue , heartburn and stomach aches were recorded . On the same date it was again noted that he was receiving antiretroviral drugs . At the hospital he was seen by an infections specialist several times a week , examined by a neurologist and an otolaryngologist , and underwent a fibrogastroduodenoscopy . In addition to his previously recorded illnesses , the applicant was diagnosed with a prostate adenoma . He received treatment for his non - communicable diseases , and was prescribed the same antiretroviral drugs as before .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from the hospital “ in a satisfactory condition ” , with the proviso that he had to be actively supervised by the detention facility medical personnel . On DATE he was examined by a doctor at the detention facility . The doctor noted that the applicant needed “ dynamic supervision ” and prescribed medication for his pancreatitis and stomach ulcer .

On DATE , in response to the applicant ’s complaint of back pains , he was prescribed anti - inflammatory drugs .

On DATE the applicant complained to a psychiatrist of sleeping problems and irritability , and was prescribed antidepressants .

On DATE a doctor from the AIDS Centre paid the applicant a visit . Following the doctor ’s recommendation , the applicant was yet again admitted to hospital . On arrival he complained of poor appetite , fatigue , heartburn , pains in his chest and stomach ache . He was then seen by an infectious diseases specialist , an ophthalmologist , an otolaryngologist , a cardiologist and a neurologist . They concluded that there was no change in his diagnosis and prescribed him treatment for the non - communicable infections . On DATE it was noted that the applicant was regularly taking antiretroviral drugs . DATE , despite the lack of significant improvement in his condition , he was discharged from the hospital since he had to appear at a court hearing .

On DATE the applicant was re - admitted to the hospital . Under the supervision of the infectious diseases specialist he received treatment for cholecystitis and gastroduodenitis . He was also examined by a neurologist , an otolaryngologist and an ophthalmologist , and was diagnosed with cerebrovascular disease . An entry in the record of DATE showed that the applicant had enough drugs to last until DATE . The entry dated DATE mentioned that he had not complied with the special diet prescribed to him . On DATE the applicant was discharged in “ satisfactory condition ” , having been provided with antiretroviral drugs until DATE .

On the applicant ’s admission to correctional colony no . CARDINAL on DATE , he was examined by prison doctors , who noted that he was receiving antiretroviral therapy .

On DATE , in response to the applicant ’s complaints of pain in the abdomen , he was examined by a prison doctor . A fibrogastroduodenoscopy was carried out on DATE , and he was prescribed medication for gastroduodenitis .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an infectious diseases specialist from the AIDS Centre . The doctor observed the applicant ’s complaints of pain in the oesophagus and the chest , and noted that he was receiving antiretroviral drugs , namely ORG and ORG . The doctor recommended that the applicant continue with the therapy and undergo an immunological test . He also suggested that he be subjected to an in - patient examination . The applicant refused to be admitted to the hospital .

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s lawyer wrote to the administration of detention facility no . CARDINAL , drawing their attention to the applicant ’s state of health and asking for his examination by a medical expert . On CARDINAL DATE the facility director informed the lawyer that there was no evidence that the applicant was suffering from an illness preventing detention and that , accordingly , there were no grounds for a medical expert examination .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer reiterated his request .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the investigator in charge of the applicant ’s criminal case to order a medical examination of the applicant . On CARDINAL DATE the request was refused . However , on CARDINAL DATE that decision was revoked , and the applicant ’s medical expert examination was authorised .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer complained to ORG of GPE of the correctional colony administration ’s inaction and asked the court to authorise the applicant ’s medical examination . On DATE the court dismissed the complaint and refused the examination request .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Samorodkina , a lawyer practising in GPE .

In DATE Mr PERSON started working for ORG , a ORG design bureau that developed air defence weapons .

Mr PERSON signed an undertaking concerning the non - disclosure of ORG secrets which contained a restriction on the right to go abroad . The employer had despatched PERSON on official missions to GPE ( in DATE and DATE ) , GPE ( in DATE and DATE ) and GPE ( in DATE and DATE ) . On DATE he was provided with a travel passport ( заграничный паспорт ) , the identity document that entitles NORP citizens to leave the country and travel abroad . It was renewed on DATE and then on DATE , both times for a DATE period .

On DATE Mr Berkovich terminated his employment . His employer retained his travel passport and refused to return it to him .

On DATE Mr PERSON applied to the Passport and Visa Service of the Akademicheskiy District in GPE for a new travel passport . On DATE the head of the ORG and ORG refused his application . The refusal indicated that his right to obtain a travel passport was restricted until DATE on account of his past access to ORG secrets .

Mr Berkovich challenged the refusal before ORG , relying on the fact that he had been previously allowed to travel abroad on official business .

On DATE ORG gave judgment . It found that , even though the law provided that a refusal could be challenged before ORG for ORG , PERSON could not avail himself of that remedy because the ORG had not held any hearings since DATE and had been disbanded by a Government resolution of CARDINAL DATE . ORG upheld the restriction on PERSON right to travel abroad , noting that , according to his former employer , he had last accessed confidential information in DATE and that the classified status of that information was not due to be reviewed until DATE . As to his previous official trips abroad , ORG said :

“ The court has established that PERSON work duties required him to travel abroad for official purposes more than once ; each time [ his employer ] obtained for him through ORG a travel passport , which was kept by the human resources department [ of the employer ] until its expiry .

His travel abroad DATE as an individual aware of ORG secrets DATE was organised in accordance with the procedure set out in [ the internal documents of the employer ] .

The claimant was allowed to go abroad because his personal participation was required for the performance of the task and because it was impossible to send abroad other employees who were aware of ORG secrets to a lesser degree . ”

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld ORG judgment on appeal .

Following the expiry of the restriction , on DATE Mr PERSON was issued with a travel passport . He used it to travel to GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .

The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE to DATE he was a military serviceman in ORG .

Mr Boldyrev was the only son to his parents , who lived in GPE , GPE . His father was born in DATE and his mother in DATE , and they were both retired and disabled . During his military service Mr PERSON visited his parents CARDINAL times ; each time he submitted a report to his military superior indicating the purpose of his visit and the dates and means of transport that he would be using .

Following the termination of his military service , on DATE Mr ORG applied to ORG for a travel passport . He also submitted medical certificates that attested to the poor health of his parents and justified his need to go and see them .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG notified him that his application had been refused on account of his previous awareness of ORG secrets during the period of his military service . His right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .

Mr Boldyrev challenged the refusal in court .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the travel ban as lawful . It held that the poor health of Mr PERSON ’s parents was of no legal significance . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that decision on appeal .

On DATE Mr ORG mother died in GPE . He tried to obtain a travel passport to attend her funeral but received no response to his application . A travel passport was first issued to him in DATE .

The applicant , Mr PERSON Ilchenko , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE to DATE he was a military serviceman employed in ORG of ORG of ORG .

On DATE Mr GPE signed a contract of employment , which contained a restriction on his right to leave GPE for a period not exceeding DATE on account of his awareness of ORG secrets . In DATE , ORG of ORG issued a new travel passport for him , which he never used .

Following his retirement in DATE , on DATE Mr Ilchenko applied to ORG in GPE for a travel passport . He submitted that he needed to go abroad for rest and recreation and pointed out that he had already surrendered all classified material on DATE .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG notified him that his application had been refused on the following grounds :

“ During the period of your service in ORG of ORG of ORG from DATE to date , you have been aware of ORG secrets ; accordingly , your right to go abroad has been temporarily restricted until DATE [ on the basis ] of a decision of ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE . ”

Mr Ilchenko challenged the refusal in court .

On DATE the Presnenskiy District Court of GPE rejected his complaint . It examined the above - mentioned decision of DATE , according to which “ the plaintiff ’s right to travel abroad for private purposes [ would ] be possible after CARDINAL DATE , but there [ were ] no objections to his leaving abroad on official missions arranged by organisations or companies affiliated with ORG . ”

The court found that the decision refusing the application had been made by the competent authority .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment , summarily endorsing its reasoning .

Mr Ilchenko also challenged the compatibility of section CARDINAL ) of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act and section CARDINAL of LAW with LAW . By judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG rejected his complaint , holding as follows :

“ CARDINAL . To recognise that the interconnected provisions of section CARDINAL ) of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act and section CARDINAL of LAW do not contradict LAW inasmuch as these provisions ... presuppose that a decision concerning a temporary restriction on the right to leave GPE may not be predicated solely on the formal grounds that are expressly mentioned in these provisions ; such a decision should not have as its sole basis the established fact that the individual concerned has had access to particularly important or top - secret information classified as a ORG secret ; the elements to be verified in every case should include the nature of the specific information which the individual has had access to [ through ] his work duties , the degree of confidentiality – including at the time when an application to competent authorities is being made in connection with a planned trip abroad – as well as the purpose of the trip and other circumstances which are relevant for determining that the said restriction was necessary . ”

From DATE he was a military serviceman in ORG . In DATE , with the consent of his commander and ORG ( ORG ) , he was issued with a travel passport , which he used to go abroad on private tourist trips in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

Following the expiry of his travel passport in DATE , on DATE Mr PERSON applied to ORG for its renewal . In DATE he was notified that his application had been refused and that his right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .

Mr PERSON challenged the refusal in court . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG of LOC on DATE and ORG on DATE . Both courts upheld the restriction as lawful .

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE to DATE he was a military serviceman in ORG .

On DATE Mr PERSON applied to ORG for a travel passport which would allow him to go abroad . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , he was notified that his application had been refused and that his right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .

Mr PERSON challenged the refusal in court . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , first by ORG on DATE and later by ORG of GPE on DATE . Both courts upheld the restriction as lawful .

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in LOC . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was a military serviceman in ORG .

In DATE , Mr PERSON applied to ORG for a travel passport . By a letter of DATE , he was notified that his application had been refused and that his right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .

The applicant , Mr PERSON GPE , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a lawyer . From DATE to DATE he was a military serviceman in the ORG .

On DATE the GPE division of ORG issued Mr PERSON with a travel passport valid for DATE . In accordance with the regulations in force , the passport was kept in the human resources department of the ORG .

Following his retirement on DATE , Mr PERSON repeatedly asked the ORG to return his travel passport because he wished to travel abroad for private reasons . His request was refused on the grounds that , by a report of DATE , his right to go abroad was restricted until DATE , that is , for a period of DATE from his last contact with top - secret documents . It appears that the documents in question contained details of ORG informants .

Mr GPE challenged the restriction in court , seeking to have it lifted or reduced to a period of DATE . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG of FAC on DATE and ORG of ORG on DATE .

The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . From DATE to DATE PERSON was a military serviceman in the ORG .

On DATE and DATE he applied to ORG for a travel passport which would allow him to go abroad . By a letter of DATE , he was notified that his application had been refused and that his right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .

Mr Garkusha challenged the refusal in court . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG of FAC on DATE and ORG of ORG on DATE .

From DATE to DATE he was an investigator with the LOC regional investigations department of the ORG . He had a travel passport and in DATE travelled with his spouse to GPE for DATE .

On DATE the chief of the FAC regional office of the ORG decided that PERSON right to travel abroad for private purposes should be restricted until DATE on the grounds that he had previously had access to a top - secret investigative file concerning the theft of property committed by a NORP national on NORP territory .

Mr PERSON applied for a judicial review of that decision . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG on DATE and ORG of GPE on DATE .

From DATE he was a military serviceman in the NORP regional office of the ORG . His contract of employment provided that his access to ORG secrets would be terminated if he or his family members took up permanent residence abroad or started making an application to take up residence abroad . Termination of his access to ORG secrets would lead to early termination of his employment .

Following his retirement in DATE , his right to travel abroad for private purposes was restricted until DATE .

In DATE , anticipating the expiry of the restriction on his right to travel , he applied to ORG for a travel passport which would allow him to go abroad . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , he was notified that his application had been refused .

Mr Samasadkin challenged the refusal in court . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG on DATE and ORG of GPE on DATE . Referring to section CARDINAL of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act and the decision to restrict PERSON right to leave GPE , the courts held that the refusal to issue him with a travel passport had been lawful .

On DATE Mr Samasadkin was issued with a travel passport .


Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The background facts relating to the planning , conduct and dispersal of the demonstration at FAC are set out in more detail in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , DATE ) . The parties’ submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below .

On DATE a public demonstration entitled the “ DATE of CARDINAL ” was held in central GPE to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections . The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at FAC which was supposed to end at TIME The march was peaceful and held without any disruptions , but when the marchers arrived at FAC it became apparent that barriers installed by the police had narrowed the entrance to the meeting venue , allegedly restricting the space allocated for the meeting . To control the crowd the police cordon forced the protestors to remain within the barriers ; there were numerous clashes between the CARDINAL sides . At TIME the police ordered the meeting to finish early and began to disperse the participants . It took them TIME to clear the square .

On DATE the GPE city department of ORG opened criminal proceedings to investigate suspected acts of mass disorder and violence against the police ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) . On CARDINAL DATE the file was transferred to the headquarters of ORG for further investigation . On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising acts of mass disorder ( LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .

At the time of his arrest the applicant was working as an artist . According to him , on CARDINAL DATE he arrived at FAC to take part in the march and walked down FAC to FAC . He passed the metal detectors and joined other protestors in front of the stage , where a rock group was performing . Sometime after TIME he walked towards FAC but discovered that movement in that direction had been blocked by a police cordon . The applicant walked back , staying in the general area ; at TIME groups of police officers started pushing into the crowd , forcing it apart by using their truncheons . Protestors were surrounded and squeezed together . At some point the applicant realised that he was facing the police line and that the police were using excessive force to arrest protestors . The applicant was both angered and scared by the actions of the police and actively resisted . He was eventually seized by CARDINAL police officers and escorted to a police car , which took him to a police station .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of LOC of GPE found the applicant guilty of noncompliance with a lawful order by a police officer , an offence under LAW . The Justice of the Peace established that after the meeting at FAC the applicant had shouted anti - government slogans , ignoring the lawful demands of the police to cease those acts . He had thrown objects at the police officers , including stones , flagpoles , empty plastic bottles , and pieces of asphalt , and had refused to proceed to the police van . The applicant was sentenced to detention of TIME . It appears that after his release the applicant continued to live at his usual address and pursue his customary activities .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s flat was searched . On DATE he was detained on suspicion of participation in acts of mass disorder and of committing violent acts against the police on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE ordered that the applicant be placed in pre - trial detention until DATE . It referred to the gravity of the charges and stated that if he was at liberty the applicant could co - ordinate his position with accomplices whose identities were still being established by the investigation . The court also pointed out that the applicant had forcefully resisted the police officers during his arrest , which had led to them using force and handcuffs against him . In addition , the court relied on information obtained from undercover sources that the applicant had connections with football fans and groups of anarchists . The applicant denied that allegation and challenged the use of information from undisclosed sources . However , the court concluded that there were sufficient reasons to believe that he was likely to abscond , continue his criminal activity , threaten witnesses , destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the course of the criminal proceedings . It dismissed a request from the applicant for an alternative preventive measure and found that his release was not required on health grounds .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE charges were brought against the applicant under CARDINAL Articles of LAW , Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( participation in acts of mass disorder accompanied by violence ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( use of violence against a public official ) . He was accused , in particular , of active resistance to police officers and of participation in a group assault on a police officer whereby the applicant had allegedly pulled a protective helmet off the officer ’s head and had punched and kicked him on the head and body .

On DATE ORG examined an application from the investigator for an extension of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . The applicant argued that he had no criminal record , was in work , and had a permanent residence in GPE where he lived with his family . He denied any involvement with football fans or anarchists and asked for the preventive measure to be changed to house arrest . On DATE ORG granted the investigator ’s application and extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It relied on the gravity of the charges and information on the applicant ’s character , which gave it sufficient grounds to presume that he might reoffend , threaten witnesses and other participants of the criminal proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the proper administration of justice .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the extension order , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG examined a new application for an extension of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . Referring to the gravity of the charges and the complexity of the criminal investigation , the court extended his detention until DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the extension order , which was dismissed on DATE by ORG .

On DATE the charges against the applicant were updated . The classification of the offences remained unchanged but it was specified that the applicant had struck the police officer once on the head and had kicked him once on the body while he was lying on the ground .

On DATE ORG authorised a further extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court relied on the gravity of the charges and the need to allow the defendants sufficient time to read the investigation case file . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG granted an extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court noted that even though the applicant and his lawyer had already finished reading the case file , other defendants had not . It reiterated the grounds given in the previous extension orders and stated that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed . ORG upheld that decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s criminal case was transferred to the ORG of GPE for the determination of criminal charges .

On DATE that court granted another extension of the applicant ’s detention , until DATE . The decision concerned CARDINAL defendants . Along with the gravity of the charges , the court based its decision on the findings that “ the reasons which initially warranted the detention have not changed ” and that “ no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings ” . ORG upheld that extension order on DATE .

On DATE the ORG granted another extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . It ordered their detention until DATE on the grounds of the gravity of the charges and the nature of the offences imputable to them . On DATE ORG upheld that extension order .

On DATE court proceedings began in hearing room no . CARDINAL at ORG , moving at DATE to hearing room no . CARDINAL . The defendants , including the applicant , were held in glass cabins in both hearing rooms . From DATE to DATE the hearings continued at ORG of GPE in hearing room no . CARDINAL , while in DATE and DATE they took place at FAC in hearing room no . CARDINAL . Those hearing rooms were equipped with metal cages in which CARDINAL defendants ( CARDINAL from DATE ) , including the applicant , sat during the hearings .

For a detailed description of the conditions in those hearing rooms see GPE ( cited above , § § CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG of GPE began a preliminary hearing in a criminal case against CARDINAL participants in the demonstration at FAC , who were charged with participation in acts of mass disorder and committing acts of violence against police officers . On DATE the court began the trial on the merits .

On an unidentified date Police Officer PERSON , the alleged victim of the applicant ’s assault , was examined as a witness . He testified that he had been carrying out an order to split the crowd up when someone had pulled at his bullet - proof vest . He had fallen to the ground ; someone had hit him several times and had taken off his anti - riot helmet . Other police officers had picked him up to take away him from the crowd . As a result of his fall and the blows , he had sustained injuries . Another police officer , PERSON , testified that the applicant had kicked an unidentified police officer .

CARDINAL other officers , also examined as witnesses , stated that the applicant had resisted arrest by planting his feet firmly on the ground and attempting to escape . He had also uttered obscenities to the police officers and shouted at them .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged . It held , in particular , as follows :

“ TIME on DATE ... at FAC ... unidentified persons ... called those present [ at the venue ] to move outside the agreed meeting venue , to defy the lawful orders of the police ... , to use violence ... which led to mass disorder accompanied by the use of violence against public officials in connection with the performance of their duties [ and ] the destruction of property .

On DATE at TIME at the latest [ the defendants ] acquired the criminal intent to participate in mass disorder and to use violence against ... police officers ...

Moreover ... the participants of the acts of mass disorder threw chunks of tarmac , stones , sticks and other objects at the police ... which hit them on various parts of their body , and [ the defendants ] ... [ who ] participated in the acts of mass disorder ... implemented their criminal intent to use violence against public officials ... applied physical force which was not a danger to the life or health of those [ officials ] ...

Thus , [ the applicant ] used violence against Police Officer [ K. ] which did not endanger his life or health ...

... between TIME and TIME ... unidentified participants of acts of mass disorder ... intentionally seized [ K. ] by his uniform and knocked him down , while [ the applicant ] together with other unidentified participants of acts of mass disorder , acting intentionally ... tore off [ ORG ’s ] anti - riot helmet ... and punched and kicked him several times on his head and body , meanwhile [ the applicant ] punched [ PERSON ’s ] head at least once and at least once kicked [ PERSON ] on the body when the latter was lying on the ground . ...

[ The applicant ] ... pleaded not guilty and testified that ... he wanted to see why the meeting was not starting and went to FAC where he saw the cordon ... Around TIME [ the applicant ] saw how police officers ... started beating people with truncheons . ... Then a jam occurred ... At some point [ the applicant ] found himself in the first line and saw the police officers harshly arresting and beating people , who tried to evade the blows . He was hit several times on the shoulder and the head , which led to dizziness . He was scared , he felt that his life was in danger , and while in a state of fury he moved towards a police officer , who happened to be [ PERSON ] and then moved his leg towards the police officer , who was getting up . [ The applicant ] did not see who knocked the latter down ... [ He ] did not know whether his hand reached the target but supposed that he was able to touch the bullet - proof vest . He definitely did not touch [ PERSON ] with his leg and he caused him no harm . TIME he was taken out of the crowd and beaten , his T - shirt was torn , then ... QUANTITY police officers seized him and dragged him along the tarmac to the police vehicle . [ The applicant ] insists that he caused no injuries to the police officer and that his actions , provoked by panic , were taken in response to the events occurring around him . ...

... the court considers the [ defendants’ ] arguments that they were protecting somebody from the police officers or happened to be victims of the police ’s use of force as farfetched and aimed at the mitigation of their responsibility ...

... no medical document which could prove the presence of injuries on the [ applicant ’s ] body ... was provided to the court . ”

The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , calculated on the basis of a DATE prison term under LAW , partly concurrent with a term of DATE and DATE under LAW . The applicant ’s pre - trial detention counted towards the prison sentence .

The applicant appealed against the judgment . He contested the classification of the crimes under both LAW and LAW . He insisted that he had been a victim of unlawful police action and that his involvement in using violence against the police officer has not been proven .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Nebojša Vučinić

The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in ORG .

The Veszprém County Administrative Office rejected the request of the applicant , a real - estate developer , for a building permit to construct a CARDINAL - flat condominium . The ORG was of the view that the project was irreconcilable with the planned location , the historical neighbourhood of ORG town .

On DATE the applicant challenged this decision in court .

On DATE the ORG quashed the administrative decision and remitted the case to the administrative authorities .

In the resumed administrative proceedings , on DATE the applicant ’s request was again dismissed .

On DATE the applicant renewed its action .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action , holding that the administrative decisions had been given in compliance with the law .

On DATE ORG dismissed , on the merits , the applicant ’s petition for review ( service : DATE ) .


Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

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

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

PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , withdrew from sitting in the case ( Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . On DATE the President of the ORG decided to appoint PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , to sit as an ad hoc judge ( Rule CARDINAL § MONEY ) ) .

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

The applicant was a tenured professor at ORG ( PERSON fakultet GPE u GPE , hereinafter : the Faculty ) . She was the co - editor - in - chief of ORG , an international peer - reviewed journal owned by CARDINAL NORP medical schools ( the universities of GPE , PERSON , PERSON and GPE ) . The applicant also performed various other functions in different international academic initiatives in the field of medical science .

In DATE together with ORG , the applicant co - authored a textbook on anatomy entitled ‘ PERSON [ Human Anatomy ] , which was in use in teaching at the Faculty .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG received an anonymous letter signed by “ students of ORG ” alleging that in the applicant ’s textbook on anatomy she had plagiarised a textbook written in LANGUAGE by PERSON , an author from GPE , entitled ‘ ORG . Attached to the letter were copies of the relevant parts of the applicant ’s and PERSON ’s books .

On DATE the PERSON established a special commission to assess the allegations of plagiarism against the applicant .

In a report of DATE the commission found that a more appropriate avenue concerning the allegations of plagiarism would be an inquiry by the criminal justice authorities , where a certified court expert would compare and assess the CARDINAL texts . Stressing , however , that it wished to facilitate the process , the commission explained that it had randomly taken and compared certain parts of the CARDINAL texts ( QUANTITY short paragraphs and CARDINAL tables ) and found that they were identical .

With regard to the special commission ’s report , the PERSON asked ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) to assess the report ’s findings . ORG consisted of several faculty professors , including Professors PERSON and PERSON

The applicant had a long - lasting conflict with PERSON concerning various issues of academic conduct and integrity . In DATE the applicant and PERSON respectively lodged complaints before ORG ( Sud časti GPE , PERSON fakulteta ; hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) making reciprocal allegations of academically improper conduct .

On DATE the applicant reported to the PERSON that PERSON had plagiarised parts of an earlier version of the book ‘ PERSON when writing his book on anatomy , and that he and PERSON had plagiarised another book on neural sciences when writing their book on the matter .

On DATE ORG scheduled a meeting for the assessment of the report for DATE and invited the applicant to attend the meeting .

On DATE the applicant replied by letter , arguing that the anonymous letter had not been forwarded to her and that the real motive for the allegations of plagiarism against her had to be viewed in the context of similar allegations made by a certain professor , PERSON , concerning another article which she had published with her researchers and which had been dismissed as unfounded . The applicant contended that the members of the ORG PERSON and PERSON had actively supported PERSON ’s allegations against her and she therefore considered that they should withdraw from the case . She also stressed that she had reported PERSON and PERSON to the PERSON for plagiarism . The applicant also extensively discussed why she considered that the allegations of plagiarism against her were unfounded . In particular , she contended that at maximum PERCENT of her text corresponded to PERSON ’s book and that this concerned well - known information which could not be stated differently in different textbooks on anatomy .

By a letter of DATE the applicant reiterated her above arguments , contending that the allegations of plagiarism against her were unfounded and that the proceedings at issue had damaged her professional academic status .

On DATE ORG expressed its view on CARDINAL reports . CARDINAL members of ORG accepted a report prepared by ORG and expressed their view that probably PERCENT of the text in the applicant ’s book corresponded to the relevant text in PERSON ’s book , without the necessary references . CARDINAL members of ORG , including PERSON and PERSON , accepted a report prepared by PERSON according to which CARDINAL lines of the applicant ’s text were plagiarised from PERSON ’s book , which corresponded to PERCENT or , depending on the method of calculation , PERCENT of the overall text . In addition , CARDINAL tables had been plagiarised , which meant that PERCENT of the tables in the book had been plagiarised . CARDINAL member of ORG abstained .

On DATE , on the basis of ORG findings , the PERSON instituted proceedings against the applicant in the Faculty ’s ORG in connection with a suspicion that she had plagiarised parts of PERSON ’s book , by which she had breached sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Code of Ethics ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In support of her allegations , the PERSON forwarded to ORG findings and the examples from the applicant ’s and PERSON ’s books .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that she had several times requested access to the relevant documents on the basis of which its findings had been drafted but had never received a reply . She therefore reiterated her request for access to the relevant documents .

On DATE ORG forwarded the PERSON ’s submission to the applicant and invited her to respond to the allegations against her . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant replied , contending that no supporting evidence had been forwarded with the PERSON ’s submission . She rejected the accusations of plagiarism .

Meanwhile , the Faculty had commissioned a report from PERSON , a court interpreter for LANGUAGE , concerning the similarities between the texts in the applicant ’s and PERSON ’s books . In a report of CARDINAL DATE the interpreter had analysed various parts and aspects of the CARDINAL texts and concluded that PERCENT of the first part of the applicant ’s book and PERCENT of the second part of the book were literal translations of PERSON ’s book . In addition , PERCENT of the tables and the relevant text in the first part and PERCENT in the second part of the book corresponded to PERSON ’s book .

At a hearing before ORG on DATE , a letter from the co - author of the applicant ’s book , ORG , was read out . In the letter she explained that she had started to work with the applicant on the updating of a previous edition of the book on anatomy . The applicant had presented her a manuscript and ORG had realised that the information provided had been correct and well presented . She stressed that she had trusted the applicant and that she could not be held responsible for any issues arising from the way the applicant prepared her part of the book . Further to this letter a summary of the special commission ’s findings was also read out ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , the findings of ORG reports ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the concluding part of PERSON ’s report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were read out as well .

Following the reading out of the materials in support of the accusations against her , the applicant asked to be provided with a copy of these documents , and sought an adjournment of the hearing so she could study the evidence obtained . ORG dismissed her request on the grounds that the relevant documents had been read out during the hearing .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant had committed plagiarism and sentenced her to a public reprimand . ORG considered it established on the basis of the evidence obtained and examined at the hearing that the applicant had plagiarised PERSON ’s book in a proportion of PERCENT in the first part and PERCENT in the second part of her book . The applicant was instructed that she could challenge ORG decision before ORG ( NORP vijeće Medicinskog fakulteta GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG decision before ORG . She contended in particular that her right to a fair trial had been breached owing to the fact that she had never been provided with the relevant evidence against her and that therefore she had not been able to prepare her case properly . The applicant also argued that PERSON was not a properly certified interpreter and that her findings lacked clarity . In addition , the applicant stressed that she had reported PERSON and PERSON for plagiarism . She also considered that the proceedings should have been conducted in accordance with the Regulations on the disciplinary responsibility of teachers , associates and students of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ; hereinafter “ the LAW ” ) , which had come into force before the proceedings in her case had been instituted .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaints . It stressed that the proceedings had been conducted before ORG in accordance with its rules and that the disciplinary proceedings under LAW were a separate but parallel avenue which could be pursued against a faculty employee for breaches of working duties . ORG also considered that the applicant had had an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that ORG had correctly established all the relevant facts concerning the allegations of plagiarism . The decision of ORG was signed by the PERSON .

On DATE , as no further remedy lay against ORG decision , the applicant lodged a request for protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) alleging , inter alia , that her right to a fair trial and respect for her honour and reputation had been breached . She contended in particular that ORG was not a tribunal established by law , given that the proceedings should have been conducted in accordance with LAW . She further argued that she had not had an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings and to prepare for the case due to the fact that she had never been shown the anonymous letter containing allegations of plagiarism against her and had never been provided with the other evidence on which the findings of plagiarism had been based . Moreover , the applicant complained that she had not had access to the relevant expert report which had been relied upon for her conviction and the conclusions of which had only been read out at the trial . The applicant also challenged the findings of the Faculty bodies concerning the charges of plagiarism .

In DATE the reprimand against the applicant was published on the public noticeboard and the Faculty ’s website .

On DATE , on the basis of the parties’ written submissions , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights . The relevant parts of the decision read :

“ The appellant lodged a request under LAW of LAW ... alleging that the decision of ORG , dismissing her appeal and upholding the decision of ORG applying a public reprimand for the breaches of sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Faculty ’s Code of Ethics , infringed [ her ] rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW ...

According to section CARDINAL of LAW ... a request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom ... if such a right or freedom has been violated by a final individual act [ that is , decision ] , and no other judicial protection is secured , shall be decided by the [ ORG ] , by applying , mutatis mutandis , the provisions of this LAW .

In the case at issue the impugned decision of ORG is an individual act under section CARDINAL of the cited Act and thus the appellant was allowed to submit a request for the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights before ORG .

In her request the appellant firstly alleges a breach of LAW arguing that in the disciplinary proceedings the Faculty failed to comply with the provisions of ORG , LAW and the Regulations on the disciplinary responsibility of teachers , associates and students .

However , LAW , according to the well - established case - law of ORG , does not provide for individual rights given that it stipulates the basic principles of constitutionality and lawfulness ... Accordingly , as the said provision of the LAW concerns a general principle of the legal order of GPE , this court finds that the appellant ’s constitutional rights in this respect were not and could not have been breached .

The appellant invokes LAW alleging that she has not been treated equally before the law ...

... [ t]his court has considered the appellant ’s arguments from the perspective of LAW which guarantees equality before the law .

In view of the above , this court finds that the available materials show that the impugned decision was based on an acceptable application of the substantive law and on its constitutionally acceptable interpretation . The competent bodies , in view of the facts established during the proceedings , provided sufficient reasoning for their decisions , which are not the result of an arbitrary interpretation and application of the substantive law . For these reasons , this court does not accept the appellant ’s arguments that she has not been treated equally before the law as guaranteed under LAW .

Furthermore , with regard to the complaint of a breach of the right to a fair trial under LAW , and in view of the fact that the available materials show that ORG allowed the appellant to participate in and to follow the proceedings , and that she was able to take all the relevant procedural actions and to use remedies , and being mindful of the fact that the impugned decisions are sufficiently reasoned and adopted in accordance with the relevant procedural law , this court finds that the appellant ’s constitutional right to a fair trial have not been breached .

In view of the above , the impugned decision was adopted in proceedings which , according to this court , did not breach the appellant ’s [ constitutional ] rights and thus it can not be held that the decision in question breached any of the protected guarantees under LAW , namely the respect for private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . Accordingly , this right invoked by the appellant has not been breached either . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , arguing that ORG had not properly ruled on her complaint of a breach of her constitutional rights . The applicant stressed in particular that LAW decisions on the allegations of plagiarism against her had not been adopted by a “ tribunal ” established by law , and that she had not had an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings with regard to the manner in which the relevant evidence against her had been obtained and used by ORG . The applicant also stressed that her conviction for plagiarism by ORG had damaged her professional academic integrity and reputation , which ORG had failed to rectify .

On DATE ORG , emphasising that it was not its function to deal with alleged errors of law or fact but to review compliance with the applicant ’s constitutional rights , dismissed the applicant ’s complaints as unfounded , endorsing the findings of ORG .

The decision of ORG was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

On DATE ORG , Education and Sports ( ORG znanosti , obrazovanja i športa ; hereinafter “ the Ministry ” ) conducted an administrative supervision of ORG acts in the applicant ’s case , and found that with the adoption of ORG the proceedings against the applicant on charges of plagiarism should not have been conducted before ORG . It thus considered that the proceedings had not been conducted before a body established by law , and prohibited the enforcement of the decision on the applicant ’s responsibility for plagiarism .

On DATE ORG issued an authentic interpretation of LAW , by which it explained that the purpose of LAW was not to set aside the provisions concerning the functioning of ORG . It also stressed that the procedure before ORG and the procedure under LAW were CARDINAL separate parallel procedures and that a case could be processed in either of CARDINAL ways , depending on the nature of the misconduct at issue . This meant that breaches of ethics would be processed before ORG , while breaches of work duties would be processed in accordance with LAW . In this context , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Rules of ORG represented a link between the proceedings under LAW and the proceedings under LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , following an administrative action by the Faculty , ORG quashed the ORG ’s decision on the grounds that it had overstepped its powers and authorities and unlawfully encroached upon the Faculty ’s autonomy as provided under LAW , LAW and the case - law of ORG . ORG explained that the decision of ORG did not represent a decision which would be susceptible to further administrative supervision .

According to the documents provided by the applicant , in DATE she was found not to be eligible for a ORG scholarship award because of the public reprimand issued against her on charges of plagiarism . The applicant also explained that as a result of pressure from within the Faculty following her conviction for plagiarism she had had difficulty in being reappointed to the position of tenured professor . She eventually left GPE and now works in ORG ( PERSON fakultet PERSON u PERSON ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG , ORG . DATE , GPE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ In GPE the laws shall comply with the LAW ...

Everyone should abide the LAW and the law and respect the legal order of GPE . ”

“ Everyone in GPE shall enjoy rights and freedoms regardless of their race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other belief , national or social origin , property , birth , education , social status or other characteristics .

All shall be equal before the law . ”

“ In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

“ Everyone has a right to respect for and legal protection of his private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . ”

“ The autonomy of the universities shall be guaranteed .

A university shall independently decide on its organisation and operation , in accordance with the law . ”

The relevant part of section CARDINAL of LAW ( Ustavni zakon o FAC PERSON , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) reads :

“ Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that a decision ( pojedinačni akt ) of a ORG body , a body of local and regional self - government , or a legal person with public authority , which has decided on his or her rights and obligations , or about a suspicion or accusation of a criminal act , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , or his or her right to local and regional self - government guaranteed by LAW ( hereinafter “ constitutional right ” ) ... ”

The Scientific Activity and LAW ( Zakon o znanstvenoj djelatnosti i visokom obrazovanju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that CARDINAL of the basic principles governing higher education in GPE is the principle of autonomy and self - regulation of universities ( section CARDINAL ) ) . The employment and academic status of university teachers and other university staff are regulated in sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that university teachers and other staff face disciplinary action for breaches of their work duties and other related activities , as well as for causing serious damage to the reputation of the university , in accordance with the relevant university statute . Paragraph CARDINAL of the same section provides that disciplinary responsibility exists only with regard to an offence which was at the time of its commission proscribed under the relevant university acts and for which a sanction has been provided . Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , as in force at the relevant time , the LAW provided that the institutions in the higher education system could establish their own ethical boards and adopt their own codes of ethics .

Section CARDINAL provides that overall regulation of the lawfulness of the activities and general acts of the academic institutions is the responsibility of ORG .

According to the Statute ( GPE ) of CARDINAL DATE , ORG is a ORG - funded public institution ( section CARDINAL ) . The Statute in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provides that the ORG of the University shall adopt a code of ethics on the professional and public activity of teachers and other employees and that staff shall face disciplinary action for infringements of work obligations and violations of the code of ethics , in accordance with this Statute and the regulations of the ORG ’s constituent units .

Section CARDINAL of the Statute specifies that failure to meet the requirements of the rules of conduct set forth in the ORG or the statutes of the ORG ’s constituent units or regulations based on them , as well as damage caused to the reputation of the ORG and its employees , shall be subject to disciplinary responsibility . The disciplinary sanctions are reprimand , public reprimand and dismissal . The description of disciplinary offences and disciplinary procedure shall be determined by the regulations of the ORG and its constituent units .

The Code of Ethics of ORG kodeks GPE ) of CARDINAL DATE in section CARDINAL provides that the aim of LAW is to promote the values of academic society as a whole . LAW of the same section in conjunction with sections CARDINAL explains that ethical boards , established either at the level of the ORG or its constituent units , shall be competent to give advisory opinions on general or particular issues related to compliance with ethical standards .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW further provide that procedures under LAW exist independently of any civil , criminal , administrative or disciplinary proceedings . However , if under LAW a breach of LAW also implies disciplinary responsibility , the relevant University or Faculty regulations may need to obtain an opinion from the competent ethical board . The opinion at issue serves to promote the principles established in LAW .

The Statute of the School of Medicine ( PERSON fakulteta GPE ) , first adopted on DATE with further amendments on DATE , provides in CARDINAL that breaches of the relevant ORG acts and conduct damaging the reputation of the University entail disciplinary responsibility which may be sanctioned by a reprimand , public reprimand or dismissal . Detailed provisions in this respect should be provided under the regulations on disciplinary responsibility ( section CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL provides that the PERSON is presiding over ORG .

The consolidated version of LAW ( Kodeks nastavničke etike ) , adopted by ORG on DATE , which was , according to an undisputed submission by the Government , applicable at the relevant time , in section CARDINAL obliged faculty teaching staff to carry out their tasks diligently and to have their private lives and conduct bear witness to the integrity of the profession . In section CARDINAL the Code of Ethics emphasised a heightened duty of diligence for teachers when carrying out their duties in respect of the Faculty itself . Section CARDINAL obliged teachers to maintain a heightened awareness of the ethical standards in the interest of their profession , students and the Faculty .

The Rules of ORG ( PERSON ) , first adopted in DATE with further amendments , in their relevant parts provided :

“ ORG is established in order to protect the proclaimed ethical standards and the ethical standards set out in LAW and other general acts which the teachers are obliged to respect when carrying out their activities . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) For a breach of the ethical standards under LAW , ORG may pronounce the following sanctions : reprimand , public reprimand , or proposal for the institution of proceedings for the adoption of a disciplinary sanction for serious breaches of work duties .

( CARDINAL ) In addition to a reprimand or public reprimand , ORG may suggest to the competent faculty body that proceedings be instituted for the removal of a teacher from the position which he or she occupies in the Faculty . ”

The Rules of the ORG further provided specific provisions concerning the composition and procedure before that court . In particular , ORG had a president , CARDINAL vice - presidents , CARDINAL full members and their deputies elected by ORG . It also had a Registrar ( section CARDINAL ) . Any of these could institute proceedings before ORG , but it could not act on the basis of anonymous submissions ( section CARDINAL ) . Cases were to be decided after a preliminary inquiry and a hearing . Respondents could be legally represented and proceedings could be held in their absence if that absence was not justified ( sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The decisions of ORG were published in the ORG ’s official gazette ( LAW ) . Appeals against decisions of ORG could be lodged before ORG , which could overturn the first instance judgment by adopting its own judgment or could quash it and remit the case for a re - examination ( section CARDINAL ) .

The Regulations on the disciplinary responsibility of teachers , associates and students of ORG ( PERSON o stegovnoj odgovornosti nastavnika , suradnika i studenata PERSON fakulteta ) , which were adopted on DATE by ORG and came into force on DATE , prescribe the responsibility and procedure for breaches of professional duties and conduct seriously damaging the reputation of the Faculty ( section CARDINAL ) . They also oblige the teachers to comply with the relevant ethical standards ( section CARDINAL ) .

The possible sanctions which may be adopted under LAW are : reprimand , public reprimand , or a proposal for dismissal . A fine may also be imposed as an ancillary sanction , and further sanctions are envisaged for discrimination and harassment ( section CARDINAL ) . Proceedings under LAW are conducted before a committee of CARDINAL members ( section CARDINAL ) . An appeal against the decision of the committee may be lodged before ORG , which could overturn it by adopting its own decision or could quash it and remit the case for a re - examination ( sections DATE ) .

The relevant part of the transitional provisions provides :

“ Proceedings before ORG instituted before the coming into force of these Regulations shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of general acts as in force at the moment of the lodging of the request [ instituting the proceedings ] . ”

The Regulations on the functioning of ORG ( PERSON o GPE povjerenstvu , MONEY ) were adopted on DATE and were then amended on DATE . A consolidated version of the text of CARDINAL DATE establishes further relevant ethical standards for faculty teachers and other staff ( sections DATE ) . It also provides that ORG shall have the competence to advise the Faculty on matters of ethics and shall work on the development and application of ethical standards . It can also give opinions on matters of ethics and compliance with the relevant ethical standards in individual cases ( section CARDINAL ) .

In the transitional provisions , the Regulations on the functioning of ORG of DATE repeal the following : the Regulations on the functioning of ORG of DATE and DATE , the Code of ORG of DATE , and the Rules of ORG ( section CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) obliges ORG to inform the PERSON and ORG of all proceedings pending before it in order for them to take further necessary measures as provided under the Regulations .

On DATE ORG adopted rules of conduct concerning allegations of academically improper behaviour and fraud in science ( Pravila o postupanju pri optužbama za znanstveno nedolično postupanje i prijevaru u znanosti ) , published on DATE ; the rules came into force in DATE . The aim of these rules was to complement existing faculty regulations on the matter of , inter alia , plagiarism , and to regulate procedures for inquiry into such cases . It provided in particular “ depending on the outcome of the proceedings , it is possible to take disciplinary measures and proceedings under LAW , [ Disciplinary ] Regulations and other general regulations of the Faculty and the University ” ( para . II.CARDINAL ) .

With regard to the institution of proceedings before the competent body concerning allegations of plagiarism , these Rules provided as follows :

“ ... the PERSON shall decide whether disciplinary measures should be taken against the defendant and , if he or she finds it necessary , shall forward the case to ORG , which will establish and recommend such measures ... A final decision on the disciplinary measures will be adopted by ORG on the basis of the suggestion of ORG . ”

LAW ( Zakon o državnim službenicima , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , with further amendments ) provides in section CARDINAL that civil servants are those employed in GPE bodies , judicial bodies , penal institutions , the administrative staff of ORG , the administrative staff and officers of ORG , the administrative staff of ORG , the administrative staff of the ombudsman , the administrative staff of the children ’s ombudsman , the administrative staff of the gender equality ombudsman , ORG , ORG , and other ORG bodies .

The Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The [ ORG resolves the matter , in principle , on the basis of the facts established in the administrative proceedings .

( CARDINAL ) If the court finds that the dispute can not be settled on the basis of the facts established in the administrative proceedings because there are inconsistencies related to the operative facts , or [ the operative facts ] are not fully or correctly established , or if [ the administrative bodies ] failed to observe the procedural rules of relevance for the outcome of the proceedings , the court shall adopt a judgment quashing the impugned administrative act . The administrative body is then obliged to comply with the findings in the judgment ...

( CARDINAL ) If the quashing of the impugned administrative act and re - examination of the case by the administrative body as provided under paragraph CARDINAL of this section would cause serious damage to the claimant , or if it is obvious from the public documents or other evidence available in the case file that the facts are different from the CARDINAL established during the administrative proceedings , or an administrative act in the same proceedings had already been quashed , and the competent body has failed to fully comply with the judgment , the court can establish the facts on its own and adopt a judgment or a decision on the basis of those facts . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The court adjudicates the matter by a judgment .

( CARDINAL ) By a judgment , [ the court ] upholds or dismisses as unfounded the [ administrative ] action . If the action is upheld , the court quashes the contested administrative act .

( CARDINAL ) When the court finds that a contested administrative act has to be quashed , it may adjudicate on the administrative matter by a judgment if the nature of things allows and if the information from the procedure provides a reliable basis . Such judgment replaces the quashed [ administrative ] act in all respects .

“ ( CARDINAL ) When the court quashes an [ administrative ] act against which an administrative dispute was initiated , the proceedings shall be reinstated to the stage in which they were prior to the adoption of the quashed act . If by the nature of the matter in dispute a new act has to be adopted instead of the annulled administrative act , the competent body is obligated to adopt it without any delay , at the latest within DATE from DATE of service of the judgement .

( CARDINAL ) The competent body is bound by the legal standpoint of the court and by the comments of the court concerning the procedure . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the competent body , after the annulment of an administrative act , adopts an administrative act contrary to the legal standpoint of the court or contrary to the comments of the court regarding the procedure , and the claimant therefore submits a new complaint , the court shall annul the contested act and , as a rule , adjudicate the matter on its own by a judgement . Such judgement replaces the act of the competent body in all respects .

“ A request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom ... if such a right or freedom has been violated by a final individual act [ that is , decision ] , and no other judicial protection is secured , shall be decided by ORG ] , by applying , mutatis mutandis , the provisions of this LAW . ”

According to the conclusion reached at the plenary session of judges of ORG held on CARDINAL DATE , an action against an administrative act is to be considered a request for judicial protection within the meaning of LAW of LAW if from the content of the action it transpires that it may concern a breach of rights or freedoms guaranteed by LAW . In such cases ORG could not review every breach of procedural or substantive law but only those that amount to breaches of constitutionally guaranteed rights or freedoms ( see further PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

According to ORG case - law ( judgment no . Zpa-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) , the requirements for affording judicial protection under LAW of LAW , which must be met in their totality , are : ( a ) the request has to concern rights or freedoms expressly guaranteed by LAW , ( b ) those rights or freedoms were allegedly breached by a final decision which does not have the characteristics of an administrative act , and ( c ) the legal system does not provide for another judicial avenue of redress .

NORP In its decision no . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG explained that GPE autonomous status encompasses the right of a university to determine its internal organisation and functioning in accordance with the law .

The autonomy of a university means that the university must be organisationally and functionally independent of all other bodies and institutions in carrying out its activities . The beneficiaries of the university ’s autonomous status are also individual faculties and other organisational units within a university as well as all academic staff .

NORP However , ORG explained that there are inevitable limits to university autonomy imposed by those who establish , support or supervise the work of universities . These limits are expressed through laws and other regulations determining the functioning of a university . However , such limitations should not disproportionately affect the university ’s autonomous status . In this respect ORG identified the core aspects of university autonomy , which include , inter alia , the appointment of teachers .

For the case - law of ORG and ORG on the applicability of the guarantees of a fair trial in the administrative proceedings see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

In DATE ORG ( ESF ) , as a common platform of CARDINAL member organisations from CARDINAL countries , and ORG ( ALLEA ) , ORG Humanities of CARDINAL member academies in CARDINAL countries , published LAW as a “ LOC - wide agreement on a set of principles and priorities for the research community ” .

LAW explains that researchers , and other research organisations , must observe and promote the principles of integrity in scientific and scholarly research . According to the Code , plagiarism is a violation of the rules of responsible conduct . It is defined as the appropriation of other people ’s material without giving proper credit . The Code stresses that researchers must show fairness in providing references and giving credit for the work of others and that all authors , unless otherwise specified , should be fully responsible for the content of publication .

Attached to the LAW is ORG I containing Recommended Principles for Investigating Research Misconduct , the relevant text of which reads as follows :

“ Integrity of the process

• Investigations into research misconduct allegations must be fair , comprehensive and conducted expediently but without compromising accuracy , objectivity , and thoroughness .

• Those parties involved in the procedure must ensure that any interests they have which might constitute a conflict of interest are disclosed and managed .

• Detailed and confidential records will be maintained on all aspects of the procedure .

Uniformity

• Procedures for dealing with misconduct should be spelled out in sufficient detail so that the transparency of the process and uniformity within CARDINAL domain of jurisdiction from CARDINAL case to another is ensured .

Fairness

• Investigation of research misconduct allegations should be conducted in a manner that is fair to all parties and in accordance with relevant laws .

• Persons accused of research misconduct must be given full details of the allegation(s ) in writing and allowed a fair process for responding to allegations , asking questions , presenting evidence , calling witnesses , and providing responses to information presented .

• Allow witnesses to be accompanied by or seek advice and assistance from anyone of their choosing .

• Proportionate action should be taken against persons found to have committed research misconduct .

• Any action(s ) taken should be subject to appeal . Of course , there should be an authority issuing the final decision .

Confidentiality

• The procedure should be conducted as confidentially as possible , in order to protect those involved in the investigation . Such confidentiality should be maintained provided this does not compromise the investigation of the allegation , health and safety , or the safety of participants in research .

• Where possible any disclosure to third parties should be made on a confidential basis .

• If the organisation and/or its staff have legal obligations to inform third parties of research misconduct allegations , those obligations must be fulfilled at the appropriate time through the correct mechanisms .

No detriment

• Anyone accused of research misconduct is presumed innocent .

• No person should suffer any unnecessary penalty when accused of research misconduct before the allegation is proven .

• No person should suffer any penalty for making an allegation of research misconduct in good faith , but action should be taken against persons found to have made allegations in bad faith . ”


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Georgia)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE .

According to the applicant , he first arrived in ORG , GPE , in DATE . Since his arrival took place shortly after the disintegration of the GPE , there were no entry requirements to comply with .

According to the ORG , the applicant lived in ORG DATE .

In DATE the applicant married PERSON , a NORP national , and in DATE they had a son , PERSON According to the applicant , at some stage they sold their flat . Later they bought another flat . A loan for that flat was taken by the applicant ’s wife , PERSON , and is to be repaid by DATE .

In DATE the applicant together with his family moved to GPE , GPE , where until DATE he worked at ORG of ORG .

According to the applicant , DATE he regularly went to GPE to visit his parents - in - law . In DATE L. and PERSON moved back to ORG as L. had to return to her work after the maternity leave . The applicant also moved back to ORG in DATE . He then regularly went to GPE to visit his mother . As before DATE there was no visa system between GPE and GPE , he did not have to obtain any documents in this regard . After the visa system had been put in place , the applicant ’s wife had to issue him an invitation so that he could legally reside in GPE . After CARDINAL of his stays in GPE he moved back to GPE on the basis of this invitation and thereafter lived together with his family in ORG .

According to the Government , having left for GPE in DATE , the applicant returned to GPE on DATE on the basis of a visa valid until DATE . DATE he still worked at ORG . After his return to GPE in DATE his visa was renewed on a number of occasions .

On DATE the applicant applied for a residence permit .

On DATE ORG granted the application .

On DATE the applicant was issued with a residence permit valid until DATE , the date of expiry of his NORP passport .

On DATE the applicant was found in breach of Article CARDINAL of LAW on account of his failure to apply for the renewal of his residence permit , which had expired DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for the renewal of his residence permit .

On DATE his residence permit was renewed until DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s residential registration in ORG was cancelled upon his request and he obtained residential registration at a different address in GPE until DATE , the date of expiry of his residence permit .

On DATE ORG notified the applicant at the address of his registration in GPE that he had to apply for the renewal of his residence permit DATE prior to the expiry of the valid residence permit . As it transpired later , the applicant had moved to a different address in ORG and did not receive the notification .

According to the applicant , the authorities refused to accept his application for renewal of the residence permit submitted in due time because his birth certificate was not enclosed .

The applicant reapplied for residence permit on DATE , that is DATE before the expiry of his valid residence permit .

On DATE the applicant was found to have violated Article CARDINAL of LAW on account of his failure to submit DATE notifications of his continuous stay in GPE in breach of section QUANTITY of LAW .

On DATE ORG of the Federal Migration Service refused to renew the applicant ’s residence permit . The decision stated that the applicant had failed to apply for the renewal in due time , despite the reminder sent to him on DATE , and had not specified any reasons for his failure . Furthermore , he had been twice found guilty of an administrative offence , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG sent the decision to the applicant with an accompanying letter which stated that upon expiry of his residence permit his residential registration would be cancelled and he would no longer have the right to live in GPE . Therefore , he had to leave GPE within DATE . However , the applicant could re - enter GPE and , after having obtained registration in the immigration register , reapply for a temporary residence permit . The applicant appealed to a court .

Also on DATE the applicant was found in breach of Article CARDINAL of LAW on account of his failure to inform the authorities of the change of his address as required by the legislation on immigration .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of ORG of CARDINAL DATE . The court dismissed , inter alia , the applicant ’s argument that he had first applied for the renewal of his residence permit in DATE , but his application had not been accepted as he had had to renew his NORP passport prior to applying . The court noted , firstly , the lack of evidence that the applicant had applied for the renewal of his residence permit in DATE , and , secondly , that in his application of CARDINAL DATE he had only stated that he had not been familiar with the procedure as the only explanation of his failure to apply in due time .

On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court ’s decision on appeal .

Between DATE and DATE the applicant lived in GPE without a residence permit .

On DATE ORG found the applicant to have violated LAW on account of his continued failure to leave GPE after the expiry of his residence permit on DATE and imposed on him a fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB , MONEY ) .

The applicant did not appeal against this decision , and it became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was granted transit visa valid until DATE so that he could leave GPE legally .

According to the applicant , he went to GPE to have his birth certificate reissued .

In the meantime the applicant ’s wife applied to ORG of ORG to issue an invitation for the applicant to stay in GPE .

By a decision of DATE her application was refused on the ground of the applicant having been CARDINAL times found guilty of an administrative offence on account of breach of immigration rules and numerous other times on account of other administrative offence involving breach of traffic rules . For these reasons the issue of an invitation for the applicant to enter GPE was refused until DATE .

It appears that the applicant ’s wife resubmitted her application which was again refused on CARDINAL DATE on the same grounds . The letter of the same date accompanying the decision reiterated that the issue of an invitation for the applicant to enter GPE had been refused until DATE .

On DATE the applicant entered GPE through the border with GPE . GPE had no visa requirements for NORP nationals . According to the applicant , passport control officers on the BelarussianRussian border explained to him that , having entered GPE from GPE , he could stay in GPE without a visa for DATE .

On DATE , in the course of an identity check conducted by the police , the applicant failed to present any documents that would authorise his stay in GPE . On DATE ORG found him guilty of an administrative offence under LAW of LAW on account of a breach of immigration regulations , fined him with RUB CARDINAL and ordered his administrative removal from GPE . The court also ordered the applicant ’s placement in custody until his removal and noted that the decision could be appealed against within DATE after its announcement . In the decision the court noted the particular circumstances in which the offence had been committed and further stated as follows :

“ In order to determine the type ... of administrative penalty , the judge takes into account the concrete circumstances of the offence ... committed , [ the applicant ’s ] financial and family situation , his personality , [ the fact that ] in DATE he was found guilty of an administrative offence on account of a breach of regulations on foreign nationals’ stay in GPE , and , furthermore , that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was living in GPE without [ registration ] in the ORG register and without a residential registration either , and avoided leaving GPE .

The court is unaware of any circumstances that would prevent [ the applicant ’s ] removal from GPE , given that he had been ... previously found guilty of an administrative offence in DATE and the issue of an invitation for him to enter GPE is refused until DATE . ”

As the applicant did not appeal within the set time - limits , the decision became enforceable .

NORP The applicant was deported on DATE .

The applicant subsequently appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In his statement of appeal he submitted , in particular , that he had been married to L. since DATE and that they had a son born in DATE . The decision on his administrative removal disrupted his family life . In particular , his son , who was DATE at the time , needed his father at his side . The applicant ’s removal from his family also placed a heavy burden on his wife , who not only had to raise their son on her own , but also to pay back the bank loan for the flat they had bought together . The applicant argued that the decision was in breach of LAW . He also noted that he had failed to comply with the time - limits to apply for the renewal of his residence permit which had expired on DATE as his application had been refused for his failure to enclose his birth certificate , which he had not had with him in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE , having found that ORG had duly taken into account the information about the applicant , his financial and family situation , the previous administrative offence , the fact that between CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE he had lived in GPE without being duly registered , and that the issue of an invitation for him to enter GPE was refused until DATE . The court also took note of the fact that , according to the applicant ’s explanations provided on DATE , he had come to GPE for certain business matters and was going to leave once they were solved .

The applicant submitted a request for supervisory review .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decisions of DATE and DATE under supervisory review . It noted , in particular , that the penalty imposed on the applicant was in accordance with the law and proportionate for the purposes of LAW , since the courts had taken into consideration the nature of the offence , his financial and family situation and other circumstances .