George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

The first applicant , Mr T.H .- A. , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . The second and third applicants are his wife and child who are also NORP nationals and born in DATE and DATE respectively . The President granted the applicants’ request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . The applicants were represented before the ORG by ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

The applicants are a couple and their child born in GPE on DATE . They are NORP citizens originating from the FAC region and are NORP by religion . The first applicant had lived previously in GPE but fled from the war in DATE back to ORG . The second applicant , his wife , was born in GPE from where their family fled in DATE to GPE and from there to ORG in DATE . Both applicants claim that they have not been politically or religiously active and do not belong to any group .

The first applicant ’s problems with the authorities started DATE . He was arrested , on the basis of witness testimony , by the local police in DATE , suspected of the murder of a police officer . After DATE in detention , the court ordered his release as the witness had retracted his statement . He was not , however , released immediately but only after DATE when his brother paid money to the police . The first applicant claimed that he had lost track of time while in detention as he was deprived of sleep . The interrogations went on continuously and if he fell asleep he was immediately awakened . A bag was put over his head to humiliate him and he was verbally humiliated as well . The first applicant claimed that he was not , however , otherwise physically ill - treated . He assumed that as he was relatively wealthy and well - known in his community , the police did not dare to beat him as it would have become known in the community .

The first applicant heard from the prosecutor that the witness testimony against him had been fabricated and ordered by the ORG ( ORG of GPE ) but the applicant did not know why . His legal counsel advised him to leave as , once targeted by the ORG , he would never be left alone . The first applicant did not want to leave as he did not consider himself guilty of any crime .

After his release , security troops of some sort ( silovikis ) searched his house . The first applicant escaped when he saw the military vehicles approaching his house . He went to live in his aunt ’s house QUANTITY drive from his house , where the applicants stayed for DATE ( in DATE ) until they fled to GPE . The house belonging to him and his brother was searched CARDINAL times and the applicants’ passports were taken . The first applicant was never home when the searches were made but on CARDINAL occasion the second applicant was present . She and the other family members , who were at home at the time , were ordered to lie down on their stomachs on the ground for TIME while the men in military uniform , who did not specify who they were , waited for the first applicant to arrive . The men shot the applicants’ kitten and stated that the applicants would soon be treated similarly . A gun was held to their heads and they were verbally intimidated . Finally the men tired of waiting and left .

The ORG left the first applicant CARDINAL written summons to present himself for questioning about his participation in group meetings and demonstrations . The first applicant stated that he had not participated in those meetings mentioned in the summons but that he only had participated in such meetings DATE before . His brother went to the ORG with a lawyer in DATE to tell them that the first applicant had left and would not be returning . The applicants maintained that they did not know why the ORG was after the first applicant . He assumed that he was on their blacklist for some reason but other people were also wanted by the ORG without any real reason .

The second applicant stated that her brother had also been taken by unspecified authorities in DATE without notice and held for DATE but then released . She did not know the reason . Her cousin ’s son had been reported missing since DATE . Her sister ’s husband had apparently also been killed after the applicants arrived in GPE .

Both applicants also spoke in their asylum interview more generally about the human rights problems in ORG , such as house searches by masked men in military uniforms who always came in TIME , and unresolved abductions and killings . Some of the victims of these incidents were distant relatives or friends of the applicants .

After the applicants’ arrival in GPE , the second applicant had suffered from several psychosomatic symptoms which were diagnosed as post - traumatic stress disorder . She has been treated with antidepressants which apparently have not improved her health . She submitted medical certificates to the domestic courts .

On DATE the applicants sought asylum in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( ORG virasto , PERSON ) rejected their applications and decided to order their expulsion back to GPE . The Service did not consider it credible that the ORG could have been looking for the first applicant and failed to find him when he was still in Ingushetia and residing at his aunt ’s house CARDINAL minutes’ drive from his own home . It also found it odd that the first applicant could not state any reason why he might be wanted by the ORG . Furthermore , the ORG noted that the ORG authorities had acted properly when releasing him from detention when there was no evidence against him and that they had not ill - treated him . According to the ORG , the first applicant was treated in a correct manner by the local NORP authorities . They also noted discrepancies , mostly in timing , in the applicants’ stories concerning the searches of their home and the disappearance of their passports . Also , the applicants managed to leave the country without problems and their families had not been harassed after their departure . As the applicants had also themselves confirmed that they had not been politically or religiously active in their home country , the ORG did not find it likely that they would be of any interest to the NORP authorities .

On an unspecified date the applicants appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) , also requesting an oral hearing to be held .

On DATE ORG rejected both the appeal and the request for an oral hearing , considering the latter unnecessary as it found the applicants’ story in principle credible and thus no additional information could be obtained by organising an oral hearing . However , it considered that nothing in the applicants’ or in their family ’s background , gave reasons to suspect that they would be of special interest to the ORG . It also noted that , according to the country reports , it was possible that the first applicant might be targeted only because of the previous suspicion of criminal activity . However , it did not consider that to be enough to amount to a real risk of his ill - treatment upon expulsion . Furthermore , ORG noted that the first applicant had obtained a driving licence through his brother during his absence from GPE , thus it was unlikely that the authorities would persecute him . The court noted that the general security and human rights situation in PERSON was relatively poor but that it was not sufficient in itself to amount to a real risk of ill - treatment of the applicants . It also noted that mental health care was available in PERSON for the second applicant .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting also an interim order to stay their expulsion for the duration of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicants’ legal counsel was informed that no interim order was granted by ORG .

On DATE ORG refused the applicants leave to appeal .

According to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW of Finland ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the right of foreigners to enter GPE and to remain in the country is regulated by an LAW . A foreigner shall not be deported , extradited or returned to another country , if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence , torture or other treatment violating human dignity .

According to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( ulkomaalaislaki , utlänningslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL ) , aliens residing in the country are granted asylum if they reside outside their home country or country of permanent residence owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ethnic origin , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion and if they , because of this fear , are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on grounds of subsidiary protection if the requirements for granting asylum under LAW are not met , but substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person , if returned to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence , would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm , and he or she is unable , or owing to such risk , unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . Serious harm means : CARDINAL ) the death penalty or execution ; CARDINAL ) torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; or CARDINAL ) serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts .

Under section CARDINALa of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on the basis of humanitarian protection , if there are no grounds under LAW or CARDINAL for granting asylum or providing subsidiary protection , but he or she can not return to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence as a result of an environmental catastrophe or a bad security situation which may be due to an international or internal armed conflict or a poor human rights situation .

According to section CARDINALb of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the well - founded fear of being persecuted referred to in section CARDINALb or the real risk of being subjected to serious harm referred to in section CARDINAL may be based on incidents after the applicant ’s departure from his or her home country or country of permanent residence or on acts that the applicant has participated in since his or her departure .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) provides that the requirements for issuing a residence permit are assessed individually for each applicant by taking account of the applicant ’s statements on his or her circumstances in the ORG in question and of real time information on the circumstances in that ORG obtained from various sources . After obtaining the statement , the authorities shall decide on the matter in favour of the applicant on the basis of his or her statement if the applicant has contributed to the investigation of the matter as far as possible , and if the authorities are convinced of the veracity of the application with regard to the applicant ’s need for international protection .

According to section CARDINAL of the Act , no one may be refused entry and sent back or deported to an area where he or she could be subject to the death penalty , torture , persecution or other treatment violating human dignity or from where he or she could be sent to such an area .

Section CARDINALb of LAW ( as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) incorporates into the NORP legal system the ORG CARDINAL of DATE on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of CARDINAL or more member GPE , of third - country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders . The annex of the ORG contains common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air including , inter alia , an obligation for the member GPE to ensure that the returnees for whom they are responsible are in an appropriate state of health , which allows legally and factually for safe removal by air .

The World Health Organisation ’s ( WHO ) Mental Health Atlas from DATE provides the following information on the mental health care situation in GPE :

“ Mental health is a part of primary health care system . Actual treatment of severe mental disorders is not available at the primary level . The practice of recognition and treatment of depression in primary care is developing in several regions . ... There are community care facilities for patients with mental disorders . A social rehabilitation system including workshops , rehabilitation units in industrial firms and residential homes ( for CARDINAL persons ) exists . Day care facilities are available for CARDINAL persons . Home care is also provided in some cases .

The system of ORG consists of CARDINAL mental hospitals , CARDINAL psycho - neurological outpatient clinics ( dispensaries ) that include day - hospitals as separate wards in their structure ( each dispensary provides sectorised coverage to a population of CARDINAL people ) ; DATE psychoneurological consulting rooms in rural areas ; CARDINAL psychotherapeutic rooms , mostly in primary care facilities . There are also beds in CARDINAL hostels , nursing homes and ‘ GPE under the authority of ORG .

The country has specific programmes for mental health for refugees , disaster affected population and elderly . Programmes on refugees and disaster victims are carried out by ORG ( EMERCOM ) . Elderly population are looked after by ORG .

The following therapeutic drugs are generally available at the primary health care level of the country : carbamazepine , ethosuximide , phenobarbital , phenytoin sodium , sodium valproate , amitriptyline , chlorpromazine , diazepam , fluphenazine , haloperidol , lithium , biperiden , carbidopa , levodopa . ORG approved the list of mentally ill who would receive free medication in DATE , the funds for which were to be allocated by local institutions . ”


CASE OF MERZLYACHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

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

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


Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra

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

NORP The applicant lodged an application for asylum at GPE ( GPE ) Airport on DATE .

On DATE he was interviewed about his identity , nationality and travel itinerary ( eerste gehoor ) . Confronted with the fact , apparent from the PERSON database , that he had lodged a previous asylum request in GPE , he admitted that he had done so , claiming to be an adult . He stated that he had spent DATE detained in a NORP reception centre where he had been badly treated . He had been refused asylum in GPE . He had travelled by boat from GPE to GPE and overland from GPE to the GPE .

A GPE Claim interview ( gehoor GPE ) was held on DATE . The applicant stated that he had left GPE because he had been refused asylum . He alleged that he had been detained underground in a prison .

On DATE the applicant , through his counsel , submitted a document containing corrections and additions ( correcties en aanvullingen ) to the report of the Dublin Claim interview and “ weighty advice ” ( zwaarwegend advies ) . He stated , inter alia , that if forced to return to GPE he would be locked up for DATE in an underground prison known as “ LOC ” .

On DATE the Minister of ORG rejected the applicant ’s asylum request on the ground , in so far as relevant to the case before the ORG , that under LAW ( ORG ) No CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a third - country national ( “ FAC ” ) the ORG responsible for examining his application for asylum was GPE and GPE had agreed to take him back . The applicant had failed to make out a convincing case that he was at risk of treatment contrary to LAW ; moreover , he could be expected to make use of the domestic remedies offered by GPE if need be .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE on DATE . As relevant to the case before the ORG , he alleged that sending him back to GPE would expose him to conditions of detention violating LAW . He submitted documents in support of this allegation . At the same time he requested a provisional measure in the form of a stay of deportation .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( sitting in GPE ) dismissed both the request for a provisional measure and the appeal , finding that the applicant had failed to make out his case that GPE would fail to meet her Conventional obligations towards him .

Having in the meantime been informed that his transfer to GPE was scheduled for DATE , on DATE the applicant requested the President of ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) to order a provisional measure in the form of a stay of deportation . On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG .

On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for a provisional measure .

NORP On DATE the applicant was found to be in a psychiatric state of such seriousness that he was not fit to travel . His flight to GPE was cancelled and he was transferred to an institution for psychiatric treatment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s further appeal on summary reasoning .

On DATE the ORG received from the applicant a request for a stay of expulsion to be indicated to ORG . On DATE President of the ORG to which the case had been allocated decided , in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , to indicate to the ORG , under LAW , that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .

The applicant has submitted a medical statement dated DATE from which it appears that he continues to receive psychiatric treatment .

The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum - seekers and transfers of asylum - seekers under LAW are set out in LOC v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL‑CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Agent of ORG submitted replies to questions of the Judge PERSON ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of the Rules of Court ) . As relevant to the case now before the ORG , these included the following :

“ CARDINAL . When did the applicant arrive in GPE and on what basis did he request protection ( asylum , subsidiary protection or other ) there ? In what manner has this request been dealt with in practice ; what was the outcome of the procedure and was the applicant provided with shelter , subsistence and medical care during this time ?

The applicant entered GPE in an irregular manner on DATE . Upon arrival , the applicant was served with a removal order and was put in the detention centre . Whilst in detention , the applicant was housed in a sheltered compound with adequate bedding and was provided on a DATE basis with breakfast , lunch and dinner . The applicant was also given clothing and supplies to cater for his personal hygiene . Furthermore , the detention centres are equipped with the services of a medical practitioner and the services of a nurse and these services are available on a DATE basis in order to assist and cater for the medical needs of persons in detention .

The applicant requested international protection at ORG on DATE . The applicant requested asylum on the basis that he claimed that he was next in kin to become the king in his village but this was not accepted by his uncle who had poisoned his father and brother and had , therefore , instilled fear for personal safety in the applicant . In the applicant ’s preliminary questionnaire which was conducted on DATE , the applicant declared that he was born on DATE . On the basis of this information , the applicant was presumably DATE upon arrival . The applicant did not mention that he suffered from any particular medical condition .

On the CARDINALth DATE , the applicant sat for his asylum determination interview and he again confirmed his date of birth . The applicant added that apart from the problem that he had with his uncle in his country of origin , that is , GPE , there were no further problems in his country .

On DATE , the Refugee Commissioner rejected the applicant ’s asylum application .

On DATE , the applicant appealed from the decision by filing an application before ORG . The appeal is still pending given that the applicant absconded from GPE in the meantime .

Furthermore , the applicant was released from detention on the CARDINALrd DATE and was moved to an open centre which is run by ORG . The applicant had free medical care when he was accommodated in the open centre given that his asylum application is still pending in the appeals board . The applicant remained in the open centre until DATE and left the open centre without leaving any contact details .

NORP What , if any , concrete , practical and effective steps are taken by the NORP authorities to ensure that aliens returned to GPE under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation , considering also that the applicant is a minor with a medical condition , are provided with shelter , subsistence and medical care upon arrival in GPE ?

The Government wishes to emphasize that the applicant always declared that he was not a minor upon his arrival : in fact the date of birth given to the local authorities makes it clear that the applicant was DATE upon arrival in GPE . Moreover , the applicant never complained that he suffered from any medical condition .

When aliens are returned to GPE , they are not being taken into police custody unless it results that an offence was committed by them in GPE .

Moreover , given that the applicant ’s appeal is still pending , he is still considered to be an asylum seeker , and the applicant will be housed if he so wishes in the open centres where he will have access to free medical care pending the determination of his appeal . Moreover , if it is established that the applicant is a minor , the Agency for ORG provides its services to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers under a ‘ care ORG issued in terms of ORG . ”

The applicant replied on DATE , stating that living conditions in the open centres were very bad and unsuited to persons in his condition .

Appended to the applicant ’s reply were :

( a ) a report by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe , Mr PERSON , following his visit to GPE from DATE ( FAC , DATE ) . On the subject of open centres , this report stated the following :

“ CARDINAL . Material conditions in the open centres visited by the Commissioner were clearly sub - standard , with the PERSON - Far tent village offering totally inadequate conditions of accommodation even for short periods of time . The village , which at the time of the visit hosted approximately CARDINAL migrants , mainly from LOC , consists of tents , some of which had been damaged due to bad weather conditions , and containers , as well as offices , a classroom , sanitary facilities , a mosque , and a restaurant . Each tent is shared CARDINAL men who sleep in bunk beds . The tents were clearly overcrowded and offered no privacy . Residents have complained to the Commissioner about bad sanitary conditions , including having to share the same space with persons who are sick , and about the very cold temperatures in the facilities in the winter and hot temperatures during DATE . The presence of rats was also reported by migrants . The tent village has a building with toilets , showers and basins for laundry . However , hot water is reportedly not always available . A female migrant stated that she avoided using the toilets at TIME as she felt unsafe covering the considerable distance between them and the container where she was accommodated . Reportedly the tent village was served by CARDINAL social worker and CARDINAL nurse . For medical services migrants were referred to centres outside of the tent village .

At walking distance from the tent village another complex , the Hangar Open Centre in ORG , which includes CARDINAL containers and a dilapidated hangar , accommodated CARDINAL migrants , mainly from LOC . At the time of the visit , the Commissioner noted that certain women and families with children were accommodated in containers separately from the male migrants . In the centre there was a recent building that included toilets and showers . The hangar was closed and not in use . However , the Commissioner was informed that following the new arrivals from GPE since his visit , the hangar has been re - opened and that tents have been placed inside of it to accommodate migrants . Material conditions in the hangar are reported to be seriously sub - standard , with lack of adequate bedding , dirty floors , toilets ( which are shared by men , women and children ) , and kitchen , insufficient lighting , and the presence of rats . These conditions are all the more worrying as the Commissioner understands that a number of family units with young children are accommodated there , as mentioned below .

Conditions were somewhat better at the open centre in GPE with CARDINAL male residents mostly from GPE and GPE . Unlike the tent village and hangar complex in LOC , which are run directly by ORG ) the running of the centre in GPE is subcontracted by the authorities to a non - governmental organisation ( the ORG for Shelter and Support to Migrants ) . The Commissioner notes that extensive refurbishment work , which would allow for better conditions and a more functional distribution of space , were underway during his visit . At the time of the visit however , serious overcrowding was still very obvious . Toilets visited by the Commissioner , although they had been cleaned , appeared to be run down , while the whole area of the open centre in GPE , situated near a port , was covered by a smell which appeared to be caused by stagnating water in a neighbouring canal . ”

( b ) CARDINAL reports by ORG , a NORP NGO engaged in providing assistance to asylum - seekers and refugees , the first dated DATE , the second dated DATE . Both describe the open centres as squalid and overcrowded and basic facilities , including for vulnerable groups , as insufficient .

( c ) CARDINAL letters from a child and juvenile psychiatrist who was treating the applicant , dated DATE and DATE , describing the applicant as psychotic and potentially suicidal and expressing concern that conditions for the applicant ’s reception in GPE should be appropriate to his mental state .

On DATE the NORP Minister for ORG and ORG published a paper entitled “ Strategy for the reception of asylum seekers and irregular migrants ” . The following is taken from this document :

“ GPE ’s ratio of asylum seekers in proportion to population has consistently been among the highest , and very often the highest , among all ORG Member GPE . In fact , GPE received a total of CARDINAL asylum applications per CARDINAL inhabitants DATE , compared to an ORG average of CARDINAL . It is also to be stated that ORG does not only receive international protection applications from irregular migrants ; for during DATE up to CARDINAL asylum applications were also received from migrants who applied directly at ORG . All this goes a long way to show that even though asylum applications may be generally constant , the number is at the same time elevated when compared to the country ’s geo - physical and social circumstances and realities . Matters are further complicated by the fact that a majority of those who seek international protection in GPE are actually found to be deserving of such protection . This means that these people do not only require immediate reception arrangements , but also long - term solutions .

In view of the abovementioned circumstances , conditions in reception centres have been rendered difficult during certain periods ; however over DATE several initiatives were carried out in order to improve the living conditions of irregular migrants and asylum seekers residing in such centres , including by means of ORG funding mechanisms . DATE , apposite NORP funding mechanisms and national funds will be utilised for the provision of adequate food supplies , bedding , clothing and medical support among other initiatives . Investment will also continue being made in reception facilities , where the required refurbishment initiatives in open and closed centres will be undertaken . Furthermore , GPE ’s Open Reception capacity will be enhanced by means of a new ORG , with the utilisation of ORG funds , in order to better address current and future needs .

The present document seeks to build upon the existing reception system , introducing improvements at several stages with a view to ensuring compliance with new ORG obligations , as well as to improve the system from the perspective of national security on the one hand and humanitarian and human rights considerations on the other . ” ( page CARDINAL )

and

“ Asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection released from ORG or from Detention shall , if no alternative accommodation arrangements are available to them , be offered accommodation at ORG managed by ORG , or an entity or NGO working in partnership with the ORG . Such accommodation shall also be offered , on the same terms and conditions , to asylum seekers who would have reached GPE regularly , wherever GPE is the ORG responsible for determining their asylum application , and to beneficiaries of international protection granted protection by the NORP authorities who would have been resettled or relocated into GPE .

Persons accommodated at ORG shall be provided with accommodation free of charge and , so long as they are not employed , with an allowance intended to cover DATE expenses , such as meals and transport .

Migrants considered vulnerable , with the exception of unaccompanied minors , shall also be accommodated at ORG as per above . However , such persons shall be offered additional support , be it psychological , medical or otherwise as required . ” ( page CARDINAL )

The United Nations Human Rights Council ’s ORG on Arbitrary Detention visited GPE DATE . Its report of this visit was published by ORG on DATE ( ORG document A / HRC/CARDINAL/CARDINAL/Add.CARDINAL ) . The following is taken from this report ( page CARDINAL , advance unedited version ) :

“ CARDINAL . ORG also visited PERSON for immigrants , outside PERSON , run by ORG . The centre has a capacity for CARDINAL persons . CARDINAL were persons present during ORG visit . In the open centres , migrants enjoy freedom of movement but are requested though they are requested [ sic ] to undergo DATE movement registration and provide details of their whereabouts .

ORG received information that CARDINAL persons were living in CARDINAL open centres including PERSON , which consisted of prefabricated container housing units that had replaced scores of tents . Most of them were asylum - seekers awaiting decisions on their applications . Some migrants whose applications for asylum had already been rejected were also hosted there . Residents were suffering uncomfortable living conditions given inadequate ventilation and high temperatures in DATE , in addition to the overcrowded condition in each unit . Residents were referred to the centre by immigration authorities .

ORG was informed that although the open centres were locked and guarded by security officers , residents were allowed to enter and exit the premises freely . Residents were allowed to stay for a maximum period of DATE . Their beds would be restored after DATE of absence so that it could be assigned to another migrant in need . It was brought to the attention of ORG that some residents arrived at the centre in DATE , which means that they had been held there for DATE . ORG was informed that during their stay at the open centre , residents were offered accommodation ; free food , and were provided with a transportation allowance to enable them to travel to the city centre . In addition , ORG was informed that the centre would provide LANGUAGE language courses , computer training and cultural orientation . ”

There is a prison in GPE . Its official name is ORG . Conditions of detention in this institution were the object of Story and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .


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

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


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

The applicant , who was a sergeant in the ORG had a traffic accident in DATE and was declared “ disabled ” ( PERSON malül ” ) .

On unspecified date , the applicant requested ORG ( the Fund ) ( “ ORG ” ) to modify his retirement statute as service - disabled ( “ vazife malülü ” ) , but the fund rejected that request .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG seeking the annulment of the ORG ’s decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the applicant ’s rectification request was rejected .

During the proceedings , namely on DATE and DATE ORG at ORG filed lengthy written opinions on the case . However these opinions were not communicated to the applicant .


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused on account of premeditated murder . The applicant was subsequently arrested by the authorities .

On DATE the applicant addressed a letter ( kërkesë ) to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and the GPE district prosecutor ( “ the district prosecutor ” ) , stating that he had engaged ORG , a lawyer , to represent him before the district prosecutor during the investigation and during the trial proceedings . It appears that the applicant wrote this letter while he was in detention .

On DATE ORG found the applicant not guilty and ordered his release . He had attended the trial and had been defended by A. , his chosen lawyer . The CARDINAL other co - accused were convicted and sentenced .

On an unspecified date the CARDINAL other co - accused and the prosecutor appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant left GPE . It appears that the applicant was not informed of the appeals of the CARDINAL other co - accused and the prosecutor , but apparently PERSON was so informed .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) quashed ORG decision and remitted the case for reexamination . The applicant was represented by A. in his absence .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal lodged by PERSON against ORG of Appeal decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , during the retrial proceedings , the ORG convicted the applicant in absentia of premeditated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant was represented by lawyer PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , the decision stating that PERSON had been appointed by the court . The CARDINAL other co - accused appealed .

On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld the decision of DATE . The applicant had been represented in those proceedings by a new , court - appointed lawyer .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother hired another lawyer , PERSON , to make an application for review . It appears from ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that an application for review was rejected by ORG . There is no copy of the said ORG decision in the case file .

On DATE the applicant was informed of his conviction in absentia by his family members . He lodged an application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of DATE , arguing that he had never been informed of his conviction in absentia as he had been living abroad . The applicant was represented by PERSON as his counsel .

On DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and ORG dismissed , and ORG rejected , his application . The domestic courts held that the applicant should have known of the proceedings as he had been represented by a lawyer of his own choosing , A. , who had been informed of the prosecutor ’s appeal , and as his mother had appointed a lawyer to make an application for review . They also held that the case had already been examined at all instances and that their decisions were still in effect .

Judge PERSON , who had been a member of ORG bench that had delivered the judgment of DATE , also sat in ORG bench of CARDINAL DATE that dismissed the applicant ’s application . Judges PERSON and PERSON . PERSON , who had been members of the Court of Appeal ’s bench that on DATE had upheld the decision of DATE , also sat in ORG ’s bench that dismissed his appeal on DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant , represented by his lawyer , lodged a constitutional complaint in respect of the alleged unfairness of the proceedings in absentia and the lack of impartiality of ORG and ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer was informed of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE to dismiss the applicant ’s constitutional appeal . ORG , noting that A. and the applicant ’s mother had had knowledge of the trial proceedings , stated that there had been no exceptional circumstances which had prevented the applicant from attending the proceedings in person . It did not examine the applicant ’s claim about the impartiality of ORG and ORG


CASE OF S.S. YENİKÖY KONUT YAPI KOOPERATİFİ v. TURKEY

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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens

The applicant , PERSON , is a housing construction cooperative under NORP law operating in GPE .

In DATE , a third party cooperative bought a plot of land measuring QUANTITY and the title deed of the land was registered in its name . In DATE , construction works started on the land in question .

In DATE , the forest administration initiated proceedings before ORG of First Instance for the annulment of the title deed to the land , alleging that it was part of the public forest area . In the meantime , the third party cooperative had merged with the applicant cooperative and the land had been registered in ORG in the name of the latter .

On DATE ORG Instance ordered QUANTITY of the land be registered in the name of the ORG as it was part of the public forest area . It also ordered that the buildings constructed on this part of the land be demolished .

Subsequently , the applicant brought a case before ORG of First Instance and sought pecuniary damages from the ORG under LAW which provided for the ORG ’s responsibility for any damage resulting from the keeping of the land registry records .

On DATE ORG awarded CARDINAL NORP Liras ( TRL – MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) to the applicant .

On DATE ORG of ORG quashed the judgment of ORG on the ground that there was no illegal act or action on the part of the land registry officials that might have had a causal link with the applicant ’s loss .

On DATE the applicant submitted a further petition to ORG and indicated that there was a decision of ORG of ORG which was in contradiction with the decision of ORG . In this context , the applicant alleged that its case should be accepted according to that decision of ORG issued on DATE and numbered E.CARDINAL/CARDINAL PERSON .

On DATE ORG of First Instance followed the decision of ORG of ORG and dismissed the applicant ’s claim .

The applicant appealed . Reiterating its allegations and referring to the decision of ORG of ORG DATE , it repeated its compensation request .

On DATE the applicant ’s appeal was rejected by ORG of ORG . This decision became final .

In their decisions , neither ORG of First Instance nor ORG of ORG expressed any reason about why they had reached a different conclusion from ORG of ORG .


CASE OF TRAPEZNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants were claimants in civil proceedings .

In the applications PERSON v. GPE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , the applicants were former participants of the GPE clean - up operation who sued the relevant authorities for an inflation adjustment to their social benefits .

In the application NORP v. GPE , the applicant sought the eviction of her late son ’s wife and her granddaughter from the flat she was living in , alleging that she was the sole owner because her son had renounced his share in the flat in her favour .

In the application PERSON v. GPE , the applicant inherited a house in accordance with a will drawn up by his late mother . Later he discovered that she had CARDINAL plots of land which she transferred back in DATE to an agricultural company to which she was a member . The applicant sought to recover the property of these CARDINAL plots of land alleging that the transfer had not been duly formalised and that consequently the land formed part of his inheritance .

In all of the applications , the first - instance courts found for the applicants , the judgments were upheld on appeal and they became enforceable . Subsequently , at the GPE requests , the presidia of the relevant regional courts quashed the judgments by way of supervisory review . In the applications PERSON and PERSON and Others , the presidia found that the lower courts failed to take into account the specific method of calculation of indexation established by the ORG for this particular category of social benefits . In the applications NORP and PERSON , they concluded that the findings of the lower courts favorable to the applicants were based on the retrospective application of the law ( see PERSON ) .


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant ’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by Ms M. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

NORP The applicant works as a police inspector in ORG FAC uprava s. )

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant ’s wife requested the assistance of the police alleging that she had been beaten by the applicant in their flat in Z.

QUANTITY police officers from one of the local police stations of ORG FAC uprava z. ) ORG and PERSON , intervened at the scene where they found the applicant and his wife , who had a visible nose injury . She was immediately taken to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a dislocation of septum and superficial nose hematoma .

The applicant was requested to undergo an alcohol intoxication test which he refused . The police officers also found in his flat several pieces of hunting firearms which were , together with the applicant ’s police handgun , seized from him . The applicant refused to sign the seizure records .

At TIME the applicant was arrested and taken to the police station .

According to the applicant , inside the police station he was knocked to the ground and beaten by several police officers for refusing to sign the seizure records . He was in particular ill - treated by the police officers PERSON , GPE and GPE

According to a report of the police officer PERSON of DATE , at around CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. , while he was held in the police station , the applicant started shouting and disobeying the orders to calm down . PERSON therefore approached him and twisted his arm behind his back after which he was handcuffed .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was examined by a doctor at the police station . The medical examination indicated signs of alcohol intoxication but did not disclose any injuries .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was again examined by a doctor who found no injuries but indicated that the applicant had low blood sugar .

Following the applicant ’s release from detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE he underwent another medical examination in a hospital in S. The examination indicated spinal and abdominal contusions which could , as alleged , relate to a beating dating back DATE before .

On DATE the police officer PERSON reported on the use of force against the applicant to his superiors ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the Chief of the police station accepted the report finding no irregularities in the use of force . These findings were forwarded to the Chief of ORG .

On DATE the Chief of ORG found that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified .

This finding was confirmed by ORG of ORG ( ORG za unutarnju kontrolu GPE unutarnjih poslova ) on DATE .

On DATE the First - instance ORG of ORG ( Odsjek prvostupanjskog disciplinskog PERSON ; hereinafter : the “ First - instance ORG ” ) found the applicant guilty on disciplinary charges of inappropriate behaviour and sentenced him to dismissal from service suspended for DATE and a PERCENT reduction of salary in DATE . This decision was upheld by the Second - instance ORG of ORG ( Odsjek drugostupanjskog disciplinskog sudovanja ; hereinafter : the “ Second - instance ORG ” ) on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u PERSON ) against the police officers PERSON , GPE and GPE alleging that they had ill - treated him during his arrest on DATE . In particular , he submitted that he had been knocked to the ground and then beaten . The applicant also alleged that ORG . , an on - duty police officer in the police station at the time of the events , had attempted to cover up the ill - treatment by unlawfully instituting minor offences proceedings against him on charges of domestic violence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG requested ORG to conduct an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations .

ORG submitted a report on DATE indicating that they had interviewed the suspects and CARDINAL witnesses and obtained the relevant documentation concerning the use of force against the applicant . The suspects denied any ill - treatment and CARDINAL of the witnesses , also a police officer , stated that she had seen the applicant handcuffed and kneeled on the ground .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG rejected the applicant ’s criminal complaint on the grounds that there was no evidence that he had been ill - treated as alleged in his criminal complaint . The applicant was instructed that he could take over the criminal prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor by lodging an indictment before the competent criminal court .

Meanwhile , the applicant submitted another criminal complaint before the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG against the police officers PERSON GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG . and ORG alleging unlawful search of his flat and their unlawful conduct in the processing of his case related to the alleged domestic violence .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG rejected this criminal complaint as unfounded on the grounds that there was nothing disclosing any unlawfulness in the conduct of the police officers .

On DATE the applicant lodged an indictment in ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u ORG ) against the police officers PERSON , GPE , GPE and GPE . in connection with his alleged ill - treatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG expressing his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the circumstances of his criminal complaint had been assessed and with the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG replied on DATE indicating that all the applicant ’s objections should be addressed in the criminal proceedings which he had instituted as a subsidiary prosecutor .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s indictment inadmissible as he had failed to inform that court of the change of his whereabouts for which reason he could not be summoned to amend the indictment in accordance with the formal requirements of the relevant domestic law . This decision was placed on ORG public notice board from which it was taken on DATE . It was thereby considered to be served on the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the police instituted minor offences proceedings against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) on charges of domestic violence , abusive conduct towards the police officers , improper storage of firearms and failure to report the change of his whereabouts .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on charges of abusive conduct towards the police officers , improper storage of firearms and failure to report the change of his whereabouts . The applicant was fined in total with CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) and the seized firearms were confiscated . The proceedings were discontinued in respect of the charges of domestic violence on the grounds of lack of evidence . The applicant was released from detention .

On DATE ORG ( ORG prekršajni sud PERSON ) , acting as the court of appeal , quashed the part of the first - instance decision by which the proceedings in respect of the charges of domestic violence were discontinued and ordered a retrial , while it upheld the remainder of the first - instance decision .

On DATE the resumed minor offences proceedings concerning the charges of domestic violence were discontinued on the grounds that they had become time - barred .

According to the applicant , on DATE , at TIME , while celebrating his wedding anniversary with friends , he was attacked and injured by PERSON , the same police officer who had been involved in his alleged ill - treatment on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . He sustained injuries to his head and arms . Thereafter he was arrested and placed in a psychiatric hospital from which he was released on DATE .

According to the documents submitted by the Government , on DATE , at TIME , the police received an anonymous call informing them that a person was lying on the ground in front of a residential building in GPE The police officers PERSON and ORG immediately drove to the address .

A report signed by the police officers ORG and ORG , dated DATE , indicates that upon their intervention at the scene they established that the person lying on the ground was the applicant , who was severely intoxicated . He also had visible injuries on his head and arms . Soon afterwards an emergency team joined them and they decided that the applicant should be taken to a hospital for further treatment . During the transfer to the hospital the applicant became aggressive and the police officer PERSON and CARDINAL of the members of the medical team tried to calm him down . At the hospital , the applicant continued his aggressive behaviour and threatened to kill them all once released . The police officers thus used physical force and the measures of restraint to calm him down . It was decided that he should be taken to another hospital .

A medical report of the emergency service of CARDINAL DATE indicates contusion of the applicant ’s head and superficial injuries on both arms .

A medical report prepared on the applicant ’s release from the hospital on CARDINAL DATE indicates that the applicant sustained his injuries during a fall caused by his intoxication .

Following his release the applicant contacted another doctor on DATE . His report of the same date indicates that the applicant had contusions to the head , and hematomas on the right upper arm and left forearm which could have been caused by blows DATE before , as alleged by the applicant .

On DATE the police officers ORG and ORG reported on the use of force against the applicant to their superiors . They explained that the applicant had been aggressive during his medical treatment in the hospital and that therefore ORG grabbed him by the left arm and twisted it behind his back while PERSON did the same thing with his right arm . He was then handcuffed .

On DATE the applicant was indicted in ORG on charges of breach of public peace and order and violent behaviour during his medical examination .

The applicant was questioned on DATE and he denied having breached the public peace and order . He stressed that he had only refused to undergo the medical examination to which the police officer PERSON had been forcing him .

At a hearing on DATE doctor ORG , who received the applicant in the hospital on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stated that the applicant had arrived at the hospital with a head injury and under the influence of alcohol . He also explained that he had not seen any violent behaviour on the part of the applicant .

At a hearing on DATE ORG questioned the police officer PERSON who could not remember any details of the event at issue .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant on the grounds of lack of evidence of his alleged violent behaviour and breach of public peace and order .

On DATE ORG instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in the First - instance ORG on charges of inappropriate behaviour related to the events of CARDINAL DATE .

At a hearing on DATE the applicant submitted that on the critical day he had been with his friends GPE , GPE and GPE , drinking and celebrating his wedding anniversary . When they approached the building where he lived , they came across QUANTITY police officers one of whom was PERSON , who approached him and asked him whether they had settled their dispute . The applicant answered that the competent court would decide about that and at that point PERSON pulled him by the hand as a result of which he fell to the ground and then he lost his conscience .

On DATE the First - instance ORG questioned the applicant ’s friends GPE , GPE and GPE and the police officers PERSON and ORG

Ž.K. stated that he had seen the applicant in front of the building talking with CARDINAL police officers and that at CARDINAL moment CARDINAL of the police officers , without any particular reason , pulled the applicant by the hand after which he fell to the ground and hurt his head . GPE and GPE confirmed this version of the events .

In their statements the police officers ORG and PERSON denied any ill - treatment reiterating that they had only used force as a result of the applicant ’s aggressive behaviour during his medical treatment .

On DATE the First - instance ORG found the applicant guilty on charges of inappropriate behaviour and sentenced him to dismissal from service suspended for DATE . It considered that the statements of GPE , GPE and FAC were inconsistent in particular given that an analysis of GPE ’s mobile phone at about the time of the events showed that he had been in another city . It therefore rejected the applicant ’s allegations that he had been ill - treated by the police officers ORG and ORG

On DATE the Second - instance ORG upheld the first - instance decision .

The applicant then challenged the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) and on DATE ORG dismissed his complaints as ill - founded endorsing the reasoning of the disciplinary bodies .

The applicant further challenged the findings of the disciplinary bodies and ORG before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . On DATE ORG upheld the decisions of the lower bodies dismissing the applicant ’s complaints as ill - founded .

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

Article CARDINAL

“ No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall only be instituted and conducted upon the order of a qualified prosecutor . ...

( CARDINAL ) In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney and in respect of criminal offences that may be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .

( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .

( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds that there are no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party may take his place as a subsidiary prosecutor under the conditions prescribed by this LAW . ”

With regard to the service of the court decisions , the relevant part of LAW provided :

( CARDINAL ) If a party has not reported a change of address to a court or if the party can not be reached at the address that was previously given to the court or it is evident that he is evading receipt of a decision that is subject to appellate review other than a judgment imposing a sentence of imprisonment , the court shall put the decision on the court ’s public notice board . After the lapse of the term of appeal the decision shall become final . ”

( CARDINAL ) If ... a decision can not be served on [ a subsidiary prosecutor ] to his or her current address , the court shall put ... the decision on the public notice board and , after DATE from the moment when it was put [ on the public notice board ] it shall be considered as duly served . ”

Relevant procedures concerning the submission of and decisions on criminal complaints were provided in ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL , the relevant parts of which read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) All state bodies and legal entities are obliged to report any criminal offence subject to automatic prosecution about which they have been informed or about which they have otherwise learned .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal complaints shall be submitted to the competent ORG Attorney in writing or orally .

( CARDINAL ) If a criminal complaint was submitted before a court , the police or a ORG Attorney who was not competent in the matter , they shall forward the criminal complaint to the competent ORG Attorney . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The ORG Attorney shall reject a criminal complaint by a reasoned decision if the offence in question is not an offence subject to automatic prosecution , if the prosecution is time - barred or an amnesty or pardon have been granted , or other circumstances excluding criminal liability or prosecution exist , or there is no reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed the offence . The ORG Attorney shall inform the victim about his decision ... within DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) and if the criminal complaint was submitted by the police , he shall also inform the police .

( CARDINAL ) NORP If the State Attorney is not able to ascertain the reliability of the submissions from the criminal complaint , or if he does not have sufficient information to ask for a judicial investigation , or if he has been otherwise informed that an offence has been committed , and particularly if the perpetrator is unknown , the State Attorney shall , if he is not able to do it himself , ask the police to collect all relevant information and to take other measures concerning the offence ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . ”


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

In DATE the applicant began a relationship with X , a married woman who continued to live with her husband , with whom she had CARDINAL children . In DATE , X became pregnant and disclosed this to the applicant . In DATE , she gave birth to a girl . Shortly after , the relationship with the applicant ended .

X and her husband , the girl ’s legal father , refused the applicant ’s subsequent initiatives to have contact with the child . They disputed that the applicant was the biological father but refused to consent to paternity testing .

The applicant initiated various proceedings to establish his legal paternity , to have biological paternity testing conducted and to obtain joint custody . His requests were to no avail .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to obtain regular contact with the child , referring to the ORG ’s judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) delivered on DATE . He claimed to be the child ’s biological father and offered to prove this claim by means of an expert ’s report . In addition , he made a sworn declaration that he had had sexual intercourse with X around the time of conception .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request . It held that the applicant ’s paternity had not been established and that , consequently , he could not be granted contact .

On DATE the applicant appealed . On DATE he supplemented his appeal , mainly relying on the ORG ’s judgment in the case PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and requested contact with the child at least once a month , initially under supervision .

On DATE , ORG orally heard the applicant and the child ’s legal father . The latter declared that he knew about the relationship between his wife and the applicant and also assumed that there had been sexual contact . In DATE the mother had told him and the children that her relationship with the applicant was terminated although he could not rule out , and indeed considered it likely , that she had continued the relationship without his knowledge . He had learned of his wife ’s pregnancy in DATE and concluded that he was the father . In DATE the applicant had told him on the telephone that he was the child ’s father . At that moment , the mother had felt relieved that the time of secrets was over . This moment had been a breakthrough for them as a couple and their relationship had improved subsequently . The child had been desired by both . Even assuming that the applicant were the child ’s father , he would not agree to any contact because the applicant had caused them much suffering and had to bear the consequences of his behaviour . The proceedings the applicant had instituted were a burden for the couple but did not have a negative impact on the relationship with his wife , but had rather consolidated it . Everyone in the family but the child knew that the applicant believed that he was the child ’s father .

On DATE ORG orally heard the child ’s mother . At the end of the hearing it informed the parties that it considered contact with the applicant not to be in the child ’s best interest for the time being and suggested that the applicant withdraw his appeal .

On DATE the child ’s appointed guardian ad litem ( Verfahrenspfleger ) , a psychologist , furnished a detailed written statement concluding that contact with the applicant would be detrimental to the child ’s wellbeing at this age .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to mandate an expert opinion on the question of whether contact would be detrimental to the child or would at least serve her best interest ; to hold an oral hearing where the guardian ad litem should explain her written statement ; to conduct a paternity test and to hear the child .

On DATE , ORG informed the parties that it considered it necessary to hear the child . The child ’s guardian ad litem opposed this . She submitted , inter alia , that the child had no knowledge of the applicant ’s claims , that the latter could not prove his fatherhood in the absence of a legal basis and that the child ’s legal parents had not submitted any proof of their allegations that the mother ’s husband was also the child ’s biological father .

On DATE ORG heard the sixyearold child in the presence of her guardian ad litem only . According to the TIME , the child was aware - without knowing the real reasons - that her parents were in dispute with the applicant , who wanted to visit her or wanted her to visit him , but that neither her parents nor herself agreed to this .

On DATE the guardian ad litem submitted that the child ’s hearing confirmed her written statement of DATE .

On DATE the applicant commented on the child ’s hearing , submitted a private expert opinion and requested ORG to mandate an expert opinion regarding contact rights and to appoint a new guardian ad litem . He further asked ORG to inform the child about his application during a new hearing . He added that in the event that his appeal were to be denied , he should receive a written report on the child ’s development and CARDINAL recent photographs DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s requests . It observed , at the outset , that the applicant could not rely on LAW as he was not the child ’s legal father . He could not rely on LAW either , because he had never borne any actual responsibility for the child . ORG then addressed the question of whether LAW of LAW could be interpreted , in the light of the ORG ’s judgments ORG and PERSON ( cited above ) , as assuming that a father who was able to prove that he had seriously tried to bear actual responsibility but failed to do so because of the mother ’s or legal parent ’s resistance , could be considered as having borne actual responsibility within the meaning of this Article .

NORP This question could , however , be left open because contact had in any event to serve the child ’s best interest . In this respect ORG held that it was already contrary to the child ’s best interest to address the preliminary question of whether the applicant was the child ’s biological father . The child was living in a well - organised and emotionally stable family unit consisting of a father , a mother and other children . ORG pointed out that it was convinced that this family union would be destroyed if the applicant ’s paternity were established and contact rights ordered . The hearing of the child and the legal parents had shown that in the child ’s perception of the world , there was only one father , the mother ’s husband . There were no indications that the latter did not assume his role as a father towards the child or assumed it differently than towards his other children . The child was well - integrated in the family , where she felt protected and secure . This assessment was also consistent with the conclusions of the child ’s curator ad litem .

The Court of Appeal feared that clarifying the question of paternity bore the risk that the family unit would break up , which would have considerable negative consequences on the child because she would lose her essential attachment figures . As it had indicated after the hearing , it held it to be more likely that the applicant was the child ’s biological father . This question could , however , ultimately only be determined by a paternity test , to which the child ’s legal parents were opposed . The mother affirmed that her husband was the biological father of her daughter and both stood firm against the applicant . According to ORG it resulted from the hearing that the legal father trusted , in principle , his wife ’s assertions but at the same time had doubts as to his paternity , although he had not explicitly expressed them . In spite of these doubts , and the long - lasting court proceedings , he did not put in question his wife ’s statements . ORG received the impression that the spouses had barricaded themselves against the applicant as if they were in a corral , as had shown the legal father ’s declaration that the legal proceedings did not have a negative impact on the relationship with his wife but had rather consolidated it . ORG concluded that the legal father could live with this uncertainty , and that his attitude had no consequences for the child . If , however , the applicant ’s biological paternity were to be established , the legal father would realise that his long - standing trust in his wife was not justified . It was not possible to predict the legal father ’s reaction , but the manifest risk that the spouses’ marriage would break up could not be dismissed in view of the couple ’s past difficulties . The couple ’s separation would amount to the breaking - up of the child ’s family unit and the loss of her relationships , which would endanger her well - being .

ORG pointed out that it was aware that , in view of the importance of the child ’s well - being , it could be a long time before the preliminary question of paternity could be clarified and DATE before contact rights could be granted . This might evolve once the child started to ask questions , but for now it was not in her best interest to be confronted with the paternity issue . It was therefore not advisable to tell her about the applicant ’s allegations or to substitute the child ’s guardian ad litem .

ORG went on to say that , even assuming that the applicant was the child ’s biological father , contact with the applicant was not in the child ’s best interest . Due to the highly emotional conflicts between the legal parents and the applicant , and the fact that the applicant had not ruled out that he might tell the child that he was her biological father if he saw her , contact would jeopardise the child ’s well - being . Therefore it was not advisable to order an expert opinion regarding the question of whether and how the child would deal with CARDINAL fathers or whether it was in general advisable to grant children contact with their biological fathers at an early stage . These issues had to be assessed in the light of the extremely tense relations between the applicant and the child ’s legal parents , and in view of the predictable consequences for the child if contact were granted . ORG added that it could decide on these questions on its own after having orally heard the persons involved , and based on the written statements of the guardian ad litem , an experienced psychologist well - known from other proceedings .

As regards the applicant ’s request for information ORG held as follows :

“ The applicant ’s request for information , claimed in the alternative in his lawyer ’s submissions of DATE , does not exist . Such claim can not be based on LAW , DATE sentence , of LAW because the applicant is not , as required by this provision , the child ’s legal father . Whether the provision can be interpreted in the light of the above mentioned decisions of ORG , as assuming that a biological father can also claim a right for information , can be left open : that would require addressing the preliminary issue of whether the applicant was the child ’s biological father . It has already been shown that clarifying this question by ordering a paternity test would be contrary to the child ’s well - being . ”

On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection alleging a violation of the right to be heard .

Previously , on DATE , the applicant had lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that on DATE , the PERSON for the strengthening of the rights of biological but not legal fathers had entered into force which , pursuant to LAW , provided a new possibility for biological fathers to be granted contact and information rights even if they had no social and family relationship with the child ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It added that in court proceedings concerning the enforcement of such rights , the determination of the preliminary question of paternity could be necessary , pursuant to Article CARDINALa § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It enquired of the applicant whether , under these circumstances , he would withdraw his constitutional complaint .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant replied that he would maintain his complaint because , even under the new law , he would not have obtained a more favourable decision . He pointed out that ORG had rejected his request for contact rights , even assuming that he was the child ’s biological father , since contact did not serve the child ’s well - being . ORG had thus already decided in the light of the new DATE of LAW . The applicant added that the same reasoning applied to his request for information . Given that , in its view , the determination of paternity would endanger the family unit , ORG would refrain from ordering a measure of examination because the legal parents could not reasonably be expected to undergo any examination , under ORG CARDINALa § CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint without providing reasons .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant , who was walking home after an evening drinking , was stopped on the street by police officers from the patrol and inspection service and driven to the Sovetskiy district police station of GPE ( Советское ORG г. Орска ) . He attempted to run away , but was stopped and assaulted by the police officers , who kicked him in the stomach . He felt unwell and lost consciousness . The police officers placed him in a cell and did not react when he demanded that they call an ambulance .

The applicant was released TIME . On TIME of CARDINAL DATE he was admitted to hospital with internal bleeding . He spent DATE in hospital .

According to forensic medical expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE , the applicant had blunt abdominal trauma with a ruptured intestine , which had provoked the development of serofibrinous peritonitis . This injury had been caused by impact with a hard , blunt object , possibly DATE before the applicant ’s hospitalisation , and had caused him “ serious health damage ” . The applicant also had abrasions on his back and forearms , and circular abrasions on his wrist joints , which had originated from impact with hard , blunt objects during the same period , and had not caused him any “ health damage ” .

Forensic medical expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE contained similar information concerning the applicant ’s injuries . The expert considered that the injuries had been caused TIME several days before the applicant ’s hospitalisation . The expert excluded the possibility that they had been caused as a result of him falling over .

On DATE the GPE police received information about the applicant ’s hospitalisation in ORG no . CARDINAL with blunt abdominal trauma and abrasions on his body .

On DATE an investigator from the PERSON district prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal case under LAW of LAW ( physical assault causing “ serious health damage ” ) .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status and questioned .

On DATE the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was suspended under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , owing to the inability to identify the individuals to be charged .

On DATE and DATE the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was restarted , in view of the need to take additional investigative measures .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was suspended again , on the same grounds as before .

In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against various ORG authorities , including ORG , seeking MONEY ( RUB ) in compensation for his illtreatment at the police station and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint .

On DATE ORG of PERSON allowed the applicant ’s claim in part and awarded him RUB CARDINAL ( the equivalent of CARDINAL ) in compensation . It established that the applicant had been taken into police custody in good health and that his injuries had been caused at the police station , since the ORG authorities had failed to provide a plausible explanation for the injuries or any evidence showing that he could have sustained them elsewhere .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .


No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković

On DATE , at TIME in GPE , police officers of ORG of ORG ( PERSON kriminalističke policije PERSON uprave dubrovačko - neretvanske ) ( hereinafter “ the police ” ) arrested the applicant on suspicion of drug abuse .

According to the ORG , the applicant resisted arrest and the police had to apply force in order to be able to bring him to the police station . During this process both the applicant and CARDINAL of the police officers who had arrested him , GPE , sustained minor bodily injuries .

According to the applicant , he did not resist arrest and did not sustain injuries during his arrest ; rather , it was during his stay in the police station that the police officers ill - treated him in order to pressure him to make incriminating statements against his co - accused in the trial .

The applicant was taken to the police station immediately after his arrest . At TIME he was examined by a doctor , who found that he had sustained minor bodily injuries – excoriations on his left elbow , on the left side of his chest and behind his left ear . Minor bodily injuries were also found on the police officer , GPE , who had arrested the applicant – specifically , excoriations on his right knee and elbow . During their medical examination the applicant and the police officer GPE stated that they had sustained their injuries by falling to the ground . The doctor ’s report of the examination was forwarded to the police .

According to a common report issued on DATE by the QUANTITY police officers who arrested the applicant , GPE , PERSON and ORG , the applicant had resisted arrest and they had had to apply force in order to bring him to the police station . In particular , it was noted that the applicant had been found in a vehicle on the road and arrested . He had refused to step out of his vehicle , so GPE had grabbed him by his left wrist and had applied the socalled “ wristlock ” technique in order to get him out of his vehicle . At that point police officer PERSON had grabbed the applicant by his right hand in order to apply the so - called “ elbow - lock ” technique , but due to the fact that the applicant had continued to resist all CARDINAL of them had fallen to the ground . The applicant had tried to stand up and PERSON had kept him on the ground by pressing his knee against his back . The applicant had then been handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police vehicle . In the police vehicle the applicant had continued to resist and the police officer GPE had applied the “ elbow - lock ” technique and leaned him forwards in order to restrain him . By the time they had parked in front of the police station , one handcuff had come loose , so PERSON and PERSON had applied the “ elbow - lock ” technique again . When they had entered the police station the applicant had once again fallen to the ground . Then the applicant had been seated in a room and had ceased to resist , so the police officers had stopped using force and removed his other handcuff . Lastly , it was noted that during the application of coercive measures the applicant and GPE had sustained injuries which , according to the doctor ’s report , had been minor .

On DATE a shift manager of ORG noted in a report that the applicant had actively resisted arrest and that GPE , PERSON and ORG had applied coercive measures against him – bodily force , restraining techniques and handcuffing . It was also noted that the applicant had been examined by a doctor , who had found that he had sustained excoriations on his left elbow , on the left side of his chest and behind his left ear . The applicant signed the report and stated that he did not have any objections to the procedure that had been followed .

On DATE the chief of ORG examined the information gathered in respect of the application of coercive measures against the applicant and found that they had been necessary , justified and lawful .

According to a police report made on DATE of the applicant ’s arrest , the applicant was informed of the reasons for his arrest and his right to remain silent , to hire a lawyer of his own choosing and to have a person of his choice be informed of his arrest . The report noted that the applicant had declined to hire a lawyer and that he had asked that his father be informed of his arrest . In this connection it was noted that the applicant ’s father had been contacted at TIME The applicant signed the report without making any objections to its contents . On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant under a reasonable suspicion of drug abuse .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was questioned by the police . In the report on his questioning it was noted that the applicant had been advised of his right to remain silent and to hire a lawyer of his own choosing who could be present during the questioning . In this connection it was noted that the applicant had declined to hire a lawyer . The applicant then gave a statement , explaining that in DATE he had on QUANTITY occasions acted as an intermediary in the selling of amphetamines . He also stated that DATE he had on several occasions bought cocaine from a certain PERSON He expressed regret for his actions . The questioning ended at TIME The applicant signed the report on his questioning without making any objections regarding its contents .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was brought for questioning before an investigating judge of ORG . A deputy GPE State Attorney , PERSON , was also present during the questioning . According to the report on his questioning , the applicant was twice advised by the investigating judge of his right to remain silent and to hire a lawyer of his own choosing , who could be present during the questioning . The applicant replied that he understood the advice and the grounds for his being under suspicion and maintained that he did not require a lawyer for that DATE ’s questioning and that he would give a statement to the investigating judge and answer questions . He then explained that in DATE he had on QUANTITY occasions acted as an intermediary in the selling of amphetamines and that DATE he had on several occasions bought cocaine from GPE Lastly , the applicant stated that he had been arrested DATE at TIME and that apart from the use of force during his arrest he did not have any objections about the police conduct during his stay in the police station . The questioning ended at TIME The applicant signed the report on his questioning without making any objections as to its contents . He was then released .

On DATE an investigation was opened in respect of the applicant and D.Š on the reasonable suspicion of their having engaged in drug abuse . On DATE the investigation was extended to encompass a third person , GPE

On DATE the applicant hired a lawyer , PERSON , to represent him .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG ( GPE državno odvjetništvo u PERSON ) indicted the applicant , PERSON , and V.V for drug abuse .

On DATE a hearing was held before ORG , which the applicant and his lawyer attended . The hearing was adjourned in order for GPE ’s ability to follow the proceedings to be determined .

The hearing of DATE , which the applicant and his lawyer attended , was adjourned owing to the illness of the presiding judge .

At a hearing held on DATE , which the applicant and his lawyer attended , ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) established the identity of the defendants and the charges brought against them . The applicant stated that he understood the charges brought against him and the warnings regarding his rights given by the presiding judge and that he would present his defence and answer questions . He pleaded not guilty . He asked to give his defence at the end of the trial . Evidence was read out aloud , whereas certain evidence was excluded from the case file at the request of the defence . The trial court heard CARDINAL witnesses .

At a hearing held on DATE , which the applicant and his lawyer attended , the trial court heard GPE , a witness .

At a hearing held on DATE , which the applicant and his lawyer attended , the trial court continued to hear ORG and examined certain other evidence . The applicant ’s lawyer then proposed that the trial court examine the medical records of the applicant ’s father who allegedly suffered a stroke after learning of the applicant ’s arrest , as well as a medical certificate dated DATE confirming that on DATE the applicant had been examined by a doctor and that the doctor ’s report had been forwarded to the police . He also proposed that the trial court hear the applicant ’s sister and examine the power of attorney by which she had hired a lawyer to represent the applicant during the time that the investigating judge was questioning him . The applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , explained that this proposed evidence was relevant for the establishing of the conduct of the police against the applicant . ORG , the lawyer allegedly hired by the applicant ’s sister , who represented PERSON , the applicant ’s co - accused in the trial , stated that the power of attorney in question had been signed in his office on TIME when the applicant had been held in the police station . The trial court examined the applicant ’s father ’s medical records and rejected the other proposed evidence , considering them irrelevant for the proceedings at that point .

At a hearing held on DATE the trial court heard the applicant ’s co - accused , PERSON stated , inter alia , that he had not sold drugs to the applicant and that he had learned from his lawyer , ORG , that the police had ill - treated the applicant in the police station and had beaten him . The trial court then heard the applicant .

The applicant reiterated the part of his statement given to the investigating judge on DATE concerning the criminal accusation against him , namely that he had on CARDINAL occasions acted as an intermediary in the selling of amphetamines . He retracted the part of his statement concerning the buying of cocaine from GPE He alleged that after he had been brought to the police station he had been physically and psychologically ill - treated and had been coerced to into giving such a statement to the investigating judge . He further alleged that the following TIME his father and sister had come to the police station , and when he had seen his father crying , he had agreed to give his statement to the investigating judge . He explained that once he had been brought to the police station he had immediately confessed to being an intermediary in the selling of amphetamines . However , when the police had started questioning him about GPE and the cocaine , he had asked for a lawyer . Later , at CARDINAL point police officer PERSON had told him that ORG had arrived at the entrance of the police station but had not been allowed to come in . He alleged that he had been beaten by police officers GPE , GPE and ORG

When asked by the prosecutor , the applicant explained that during his arrest and transportation to the police station the police officers had used force against him and had beaten him . When further asked by the presiding judge and the lawyer , ORG , the applicant explained that even though on CARDINAL DATE he had been advised by the investigating judge of his right to remain silent and to hire a lawyer , he had been afraid of the police officers who had brought him before the investigating judge , given that they had been the same police officers who had beaten him . The applicant ’s lawyer then asked that the applicant ’s sister be heard on account of a conversation that she had had with the police officer , PERSON also asked that ORG be heard and that the medical documentation relating to the injuries the applicant had sustained during his questioning by the police be examined . The trial court dismissed these requests , considering such evidence to be unnecessary .

In a closing statement the applicant ’s lawyer asked the trial court to take into account , when determining the applicant ’s sentence , the fact that he had confessed to his crime . The applicant reiterated his lawyer ’s statement and added that he intended to finish school and start working and would never repeat his actions .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It also found GPE and GPE guilty as charged and sentenced them to CARDINAL and CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , respectively . In finding PERSON guilty the trial court referred to , inter alia , the statement that the applicant had given to the investigating judge concerning his having purchased cocaine from GPE in DATE . It did not consider credible the applicant ’s allegation that he had given his statement to the investigating judge under police duress . It found that during the trial the applicant himself had alleged that he had given his oral statement to the investigating judge uninterruptedly , without the police officers being present , and after being advised of his right to hire a lawyer and to remain silent . In this respect it noted that the applicant had told the investigating judge that he had been illtreated by the police only during his arrest , and not during his stay in the police station . It considered that the fact that the applicant had changed the nature of his allegation was an attempt to help his co - accused D.Š in the trial .

The trial court dismissed evidence proposals relating to the applicant ’s alleged ill - treatment in the police station , specifically that his sister be heard in respect of this allegation , finding that his sister had not been present during his arrest and transportation to the police station , and later on had not been in the same room with the applicant and the police officers . As to the criminal accusation against the applicant , the trial court found that the applicant had confessed to being an intermediary in the sale of amphetamines and it took his confession into account as a mitigating circumstance .

The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment to ORG ( PERSON ) . In his appeal he stated that he had not resisted his arrest and had not sustained injuries during his arrest . He explained that once he had been brought to the police station he had immediately and voluntarily confessed to his crime . Therefore , he could have had no reason to resist the police TIME beforehand . He further stated that the police had physically and psychologically pressured him into incriminating PERSON and had denied him access to a lawyer . He alleged that he had given a statement to the investigating judge under duress applied by the police officers who had brought him before the investigating judge . He complained about the trial court ’s dismissal of his proposals regarding evidence relating to those circumstances . He lastly stated that , given that the trial court had believed the statement that he had given against GPE and had taken it into account when convicting PERSON , he should have been given a milder sanction .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction but reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment . ORG found that in his appeal the applicant himself had stated that the police officers had had no reason to exert pressure on him given that he had immediately confessed his crime . As to the change of the applicant ’s line of defence during the trial , ORG agreed with the trial court that this had probably been an attempt to help his co - accused , PERSON , in the trial , rather than constituting a credible reason for retracting his earlier statements . ORG lastly found that the applicant ’s statement had helped to convict PERSON and that therefore his sentence was to be reduced to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . He complained that during his stay in the police station he had asked for a lawyer and that his sister and father had hired ORG to represent him . However , he stated that the police had forced him to waive this right . He further complained that he had been ill - treated during his stay in the police station . He explained that he had not resisted arrest and had not been injured during his arrest , but during his stay in the police station when he had been forced to incriminate GPE

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint as ill - founded . The decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .