Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;General measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC . Mr PERSON was born in DATE and is currently detained in PERSON , an open - type prison hostel attached to FAC . Mr PERSON was born in DATE . He was detained in FAC until DATE , when he was released ; his current whereabouts are unknown . Mr GPE was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE , a closed - type prison hostel in GPE attached to FAC . PERSON was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .

NORP Since his incarceration Mr PERSON has been placed successively in FAC ( DATE ) , FAC ( DATE ) , PERSON ( DATE - CARDINAL ) , and ORG ( CARDINAL-present ) . In the course of transfers to court hearings he also spent short periods of time , DATE on each occasion , in FAC .

Mr PERSON was placed in FAC on DATE in execution of CARDINAL separate criminal sentences . In a decision of DATE of LOC these were combined into an aggregate sentence of DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment .

NORP In the course of his stay in FAC Mr PERSON was kept in the prison ’s high - security area , ORG ( life prisoners and other prisoners under special regime ) on the ground floor , in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , ORG and CARDINAL . Cell no . CARDINAL measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had CARDINAL windows letting in enough sunlight and allowing the cell to be properly aired . Cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL each measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had CARDINAL window , and , according to the Government , were not overcrowded . According to them , cell no . CARDINAL measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY , and was equipped with a bed , a metal locker and a table . According to Mr PERSON , the cell was only equipped with a bed and a plastic bucket . According to the Government , Mr PERSON was during most of the time kept alone in these cells , all of which had windows that let in enough sunlight and allowed them to be properly aired . According to Mr PERSON , the cell windows were covered with metal sheets , which did not permit sunlight or fresh air to come in , and the cells were not equipped with a ventilation system . None of these cells was equipped with a toilet . The Government said that they had no records on the exact amount of time spent by Mr PERSON in each of these CARDINAL cells . Mr PERSON submitted that he had spent DATE in cell CARDINAL . This cell , as well as the others in which he had been housed DATE and indeed all cells in the prison ’s high security area – had been kept locked all the time , save for CARDINAL periods of TIME in the morning , at lunch and in the evening . During these periods , he was able to go to the toilet , but the rest of time he had to use a bucket to relieve his sanitary needs . Mr PERSON submitted that while in cell CARDINAL , he was tied to the bed with handcuffs for DATE .

According to the ORG , all inmates in FAC , including Mr PERSON , were provided with adequate health care . FAC had a medical centre , and where necessary inmates were consulted by outside medical doctors .

On DATE Mr PERSON was transferred to FAC , then on DATE to PERSON , and then on DATE to ORG , where he is currently housed . He did not provide any information about the conditions in these prisons .

DATE and DATE Mr PERSON spent periods of time of DATE in PERSON on a number of occasions in connection with court hearings .

According to the Government , all inmates from other prisons who spent short periods of time in FAC were housed in a special wing . Since they were very diverse – sentenced and remand prisoners , men and women , adults and minors , inmates from open and closed correctional facilities , first time and repeat offenders – they had to be kept separated in locked cells , primarily for their own security . That , and the fact that this wing contained the disciplinary cells , had made it necessary to classify as a high - security zone . The sometimes high number of such transit prisoners had made it necessary to put CARDINAL of them in one cell . They had been allowed to visit the toilet CARDINAL times a day , separately for men and women and for adults and minors , and to spend time in the open air . They had taken their meals in the cells . Hygiene in the cells had been maintained by the inmates themselves . All the windows had glazing , and the cells had been repainted in DATE and DATE . However , because of the large number of prisoners transiting through the LOC , they were wearing quite fast .

On DATE Mr PERSON brought a claim under section CARDINAL of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in FAC . He sought CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) in nonpecuniary damages . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , citing Mr PERSON ’s failure to state clearly the alleged facts and his request for relief . Following an appeal by Mr PERSON , in a decision of DATE ( опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG quashed that decision and directed that the claim be examined on the merits . On DATE the ORG transferred the case to the territorially competent ORG .

At Mr PERSON ’s request , ORG ordered the administration of PERSON to provide information about Mr PERSON ’s stays in this prison DATE and DATE and about the conditions in which he had been kept in the course of these stays . The prison administration was able to provide such information only in relation to DATE , explaining that the records concerning short - term stays of prisoners normally housed in other prisons were not kept for DATE .

In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL юли DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , АС-Враца ) ORG dismissed Mr PERSON ’s claim . It noted that the exact periods of time when he had been housed in FAC in DATE could only be established for DATE , because the prison ’s records for DATE had not been preserved . In DATE , Mr PERSON had been housed in this prison on CARDINAL occasions : on DATE , alone in a cell ; on DATE , in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates ; on DATE , in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates ; on DATE , in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates ; and on DATE , in a cell with CARDINAL other inmate . During these periods , he had not been provided with bed linen . The cells in which he had been kept had been infested with cockroaches , had not been sufficiently lit during DATE but constantly lit at TIME , and had not had in - cell toilets . As a result , Mr PERSON had had to relieve himself in a bucket and urinate in a plastic bottle . The court made no findings in relation to the size of the cells or the number of inmates held in them , noting that at the relevant time there had been no binding legal requirement for minimum space per prisoner . However , it went on to say that Mr PERSON had failed to prove that he had suffered non - pecuniary damage as a result of these conditions . Moreover , he had only spent short periods of time in these cells . While a long period of time in such extremely poor conditions of detention could cause mental suffering , the same could not be said of a short period . There was therefore no damage to make good .

Mr PERSON appealed on points of law , arguing , inter alia , that ORG had erred by dismissing his claim as unproved in relation to the remainder of DATE based on the lack of relevant prison records . He also challenged the court ’s ruling on the existence or otherwise of non - pecuniary damage .

In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL март DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment , fully agreeing with its reasoning . It noted , in particular , that Mr PERSON had failed to prove the existence of damage .

On DATE Mr PERSON brought a claim against ORG under section CARDINAL of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in FAC in DATE . He sought BGN CARDINAL , plus interest , in non - pecuniary damages .

Mr PERSON requested to be exempted from paying a court fee . On DATE ORG refused his request , holding that the declaration of means that he had presented was not sufficient to elucidate his and his family ’s financial situation . It could not therefore be accepted that he was indigent .

At the first hearing , held on DATE , the court instructed Mr PERSON to specify which part of the damage allegedly suffered by him was due to acts and which part to omissions of prison officials . The court also directed the governor of FAC to provide information about the conditions of Mr PERSON ’s detention , gave leave to Mr PERSON to call witnesses , and ordered an expert report on the compatibility of the conditions in the cells and toilets in FAC with the applicable standards .

On DATE Mr PERSON requested to be exempted from paying a deposit for the expert report . DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the court refused his request , giving the same reason as previously : that the declaration of means presented by Mr PERSON was not sufficient to elucidate his and his family ’s financial situation and show that he was indeed indigent . Mr PERSON appealed against this ruling , but in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( опр. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG refused to examine the appeal , holding that such rulings by the first - instance court were not subject to appeal . Mr PERSON appealed further . In a decision of DATE ( опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , петчл. с-в ) a fivemember panel of ORG upheld the threemember panel ’s decision .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG decided to strike CARDINAL of Mr PERSON ’s witnesses off . It found that this witness , who was incarcerated , was a dangerous criminal regarded by the prison authorities as cruel and extremely resilient . There was therefore a risk that , if brought to the court to take part in a hearing , he might try to flee . The court instructed Mr PERSON to seek another witness in relation to the facts that he was seeking to prove through this NORP testimony .

Following further applications by Mr PERSON , on DATE the court refused to vary its earlier evidentiary rulings .

At a hearing on DATE Mr PERSON asked the judge hearing the case to recuse herself , citing her rulings in relation to the evidence . She refused to do so , saying that these rulings were not indicative of any bias against Mr PERSON . The court then heard one witness called by PERSON PERSON and ordered the prison governor to present the medical documents relating to Mr PERSON ’s stay in FAC in DATE .

In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL юли DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , АС-Варна ) ORG dismissed Mr PERSON ’s claim . It held that Mr PERSON , who bore the burden of proving all elements of the tort under section CARDINAL of the State and Municipalities for Damage Act DATE , including the existence of damage , had failed to make out his claim that he had suffered harm as a result of the conditions of his detention . He had not presented evidence that he had felt bad or fallen ill as a result of these conditions . The witness evidence that he had adduced was DATE unlike medical expert evidence – not sufficient to prove medical complaints . There was no indication that the pain and suffering allegedly endured by him had led to any permanent damage to his health . Moreover , it could not be overlooked that , in view of the fact that he had been incarcerated pursuant to CARDINAL sentences , he had been placed under a prison regime entailing heightened security .

On an appeal by Mr PERSON , in a judgment of DATE ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case . It held that the lower court had , in breach of the rules of procedure , failed to indicate to Mr PERSON which of his allegations were unsupported by evidence . For instance , the lower court had held Mr PERSON ’s omission to present medical evidence on his state of health against him without instructing him to present such evidence . Since it was apparently of the view that such evidence was required , it could have even appointed a medical expert of its own motion . Its failure to do so could not be explained by Mr PERSON ’s inability to bear the costs of such an expert report . Such financial considerations could not be allowed to trump the fundamental constitutional right of access to an independent court . The lower court had in addition failed to rule in terms on several of PERSON PERSON ’s evidentiary requests . That , as well as its failure to obtain the medical documents concerning Mr PERSON ’s stay in FAC , had in effect prevented Mr PERSON from making out his claim .

ORG re - examined the case at CARDINAL hearings . It also obtained , by way of a letter of request to ORG , the statement of a witness for the applicant who was housed in FAC .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , АС-Варна ) ORG again dismissed Mr PERSON ’s claim . It found that after his admission to FAC , DATE and DATE Mr PERSON had been kept in cell no . CARDINAL . This cell had measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had been full of beds and cabinets . Mr PERSON had had to share the cell with CARDINAL other inmates , some of whom smokers . The cell had not had proper artificial lighting or access to sunlight . It had not had a ventilation system either , and it had not been possible to air it properly because its windows could not open widely . Nor had the cell had a toilet ; it had only been equipped with a bucket for sanitary needs . Following a serious deterioration in Mr PERSON ’s mental state as a result of the conditions in this cell , on DATE the prison administration had moved him to cell no . CARDINAL , an isolation cell , where he had remained alone . This cell had not had a ventilation system or direct access to sunlight , because its window had been covered with a metal sheet . It had not had a toilet or any furniture apart from a bed . During his time in this cell – until DATE Mr PERSON had not always been allowed to use the TIME out - of - cell time permitted CARDINAL times a day under his prison regime . After that he had been moved for a period of CARDINAL or DATE to cell no . DATE , which had been CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had only been equipped with a bed and a bucket for sanitary needs . This cell ’s window had been covered with a perforated metal sheet . The court said that the evidence presented by Mr PERSON did not enable it to make any findings of fact in relation to the period after DATE .

Based on these findings of fact , ORG held that the state of affairs which lay at the origin of Mr PERSON ’s claim had come to an end on DATE . The applicable DATE limitation period had therefore expired on DATE , whereas Mr PERSON ’s claim had been lodged in DATE . Therefore , in as much as it concerned the period before DATE , the claim was time - barred . In as much it concerned the period after that date , it was unproved : there was no evidence of either unlawful acts or omissions on the part of the prison authorities or of harm suffered by Mr PERSON as a result of that .

Mr PERSON appealed on points of law . He argued , inter alia , that ORG had completely disregarded part of the evidence and had erroneously found that there was no evidence in relation to the period after DATE . For instance , the prison administration had itself admitted that throughout Mr PERSON ’s stay in FAC the cells had not been equipped with toilets or ventilation systems .

In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL юли DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG upheld ORG judgment in the following terms :

“ ... [ T]he [ lower ] court gathered all relevant evidence , analysed it in depth and in detail , and came to correct and lawful findings that are fully shared by this court .

Having elucidated the facts , the [ lower ] court was correct to hold that the latest date on which prison officials were proved to have carried out the impugned acts or omissions during the period under consideration was DATE . Not one piece of evidence concerns the period after that date . The court was therefore correct to hold that that was the point in time when the impugned acts and omissions of the [ prison ] administration had come to an end . ... [ T]he DATE limitation period [ therefore ] started to run on that date and expired on DATE . In these circumstances , and given that the statement of claim was lodged on DATE , it was proper to hold that , regardless of the veracity or otherwise of the allegations about the period of time DATE and DATE , the claim concerning that period was timebarred . As regards the remainder of DATE and DATE – the case file does not contain any evidence showing that the alleged unlawful acts and omissions of officials of FAC have indeed taken place . The prerequisites for allowing a claim under section CARDINAL of the [ CARDINAL Act ] are not in place , and the lower court was right to reject the claim as unproved . ”

On DATE , following his extradition from GPE , PERSON PERSON was placed in FAC to serve a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment whose execution had started on DATE . He remained in this prison until DATE , when he was transferred to FAC . He arrived in FAC on DATE , and DATE was placed in FAC , where he remained until DATE , when he was transferred to PERSON open - type prison hostel , attached to FAC .

Mr PERSON alleged that the cells in which he was kept , first cell no . CARDINAL and then cell no . CARDINAL on the third floor , measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY , making for a total surface of QUANTITY , and housed CARDINAL inmates , which made for QUANTITY each . Since the cell had CARDINAL triple - bunk and CARDINAL double - bunk beds , CARDINAL lockers , and CARDINAL table , the actual amount of free space was even less , QUANTITY per person . The Government did not provide any information in relation to cell no . CARDINAL , but said that cell no . CARDINAL was CARDINAL by QUANTITY , which made for QUANTITY of surface . According to them , the number of inmates in the cell was DATE , and the amount of space per inmate was QUANTITY . The cell had CARDINAL windows close to the ceiling , QUANTITY each , which allegedly did not allow direct sunlight into the cell or its proper ventilation . Since there were no cells for non - smokers , Mr PERSON had to share the cell with smokers , which was allegedly particularly problematic for him in view of the lack of ventilation . According to the Government , the issue of smoking was being resolved amicably among the cellmates ; according to Mr PERSON , that was absolutely not the case . He said that the problem could not be solved as up to PERCENT of inmates in FAC were smokers . Mr PERSON was not one , and he only received cigarettes from the outside to use them as currency , as was customary in the prison . He also said that there were CARDINAL or CARDINAL television sets in the cell that showed different programmes , which , given the little space available and the level of noise , made it impossible to watch television . There were no newspapers or magazines available in the prison either , and access to the poorly stocked library was only possible once DATE .

According to Mr PERSON , there was no running water or toilet in the cell , and inmates had to use a bucket to relieve themselves at TIME , when the cell was locked . Mr PERSON ’s floor had CARDINAL NORP - type toilets without running water for DATE inmates housed on that floor , and CARDINAL showers , which often did not work ( and , when they worked , had hot water only twice a week for TIME ) ; as a result , inmates had to use small cans to bathe themselves . According to the Government , there was running water in the toilets , and hot water was made available DATE for TIME . Mr PERSON also said that cleaning the toilets was very hard because the prison administration did not supply enough cleaning products .

According to Mr GPE , the prison canteen measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and accommodated QUANTITY people at the same time , which caused severe overcrowding and discomfort while eating . According to the Government , the number of inmates in the canteen during meals was CARDINAL . Mr PERSON said that the quality of the food was very poor , and that outside food parcels did not compensate for that , especially since there were no refrigerators in which to store them . According to the Government , each inmate was provided with CARDINAL calories a day , in line with official tables . Each inmate was entitled to receive QUANTITY of food parcels a month and QUANTITY of fruit and vegetables . According to Mr PERSON , inmates were in practice given CARDINAL of what was necessary in terms of food .

Mr PERSON alleged that there was no place in the prison for selfcooking , sports or cinema . The Government said that self - cooking in the cells could not be allowed for hygiene reasons . They also said that in DATE Mr PERSON had been enrolled in a volleyball tournament , but had desisted after CARDINAL match for health reasons . In DATE He had refused to take part in another tournament , again for health reasons . Mr GPE disputed these assertions . According to the Government , the outside walking area of the prison had bodybuilding equipment that the inmates could use , and the prison authorities regularly organised chess , backgammon , bridge and arm - wrestling contests . The prison was also equipped with a projection room , where the PERSON and NORP churches showed religious films ; Mr PERSON had not expressed a wish to attend a projection . Mr PERSON said that since his arrival in FAC there had been only one projection .

Mr PERSON also referred to the problems that he was encountering in relation to telephone communication with the outside world .

Lastly , Mr PERSON , who apparently had no health insurance , claimed that health care in prison was inadequate , with no qualified doctors but only a feldsher working on site , and no provision of medicines free of charge . An outside medical doctor visited the prison DATE , and it was almost impossible to see him in view of the large number of inmates in the prison and the need to obtain an appointment . According to the Government , Mr PERSON had on CARDINAL occasions in DATE and DATE been treated in the prison hospital in GPE and in a hospital in GPE .

Mr GPE entered FAC on DATE to serve a sentence of DATE years’ imprisonment ; he was released on DATE . He was placed in unit CARDINAL . On DATE , following a decision of the commission in charge of allocating prisoners , he was transferred to GPE open - type prison hostel , attached to FAC .

Mr PERSON alleged that the cell in which he was kept , cell no . CARDINAL on the third floor , measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates . There was no running water or toilet in the cell . From TIME , during which time the cell apparently remained locked , the inmates had to use buckets to relieve their needs . There were CARDINAL toilets on the floor but access to them was limited as they were used by CARDINAL inmates . According to the Government , cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates , which gave QUANTITY per inmate .

Mr PERSON said that he was allowed to take a shower twice a week , TIME However , the bathroom , which measured QUANTITY , featured CARDINAL shower and CARDINAL sinks and usually the inmates used small cans to pour water on themselves . The size of the bathroom and the time allowed for showering made it impossible for all CARDINAL inmates who used the bathroom to shower properly . Immediately adjacent to the bathroom were the CARDINAL litter containers for the entire floor .

According to Mr ORG , many inmates in FAC suffered from tuberculosis as a result of the poor hygienic conditions there . He did not however allege that he had himself contracted the disease . According to the Government , in FAC there had been CARDINAL registered cases of tuberculosis in DATE , CARDINAL cases in DATE , and CARDINAL cases in DATE . None of these had been in units CARDINAL or CARDINAL .

Mr PERSON also complained that telephone calls made from prison were expensive , that the food shop in the prison was overpriced , and that health care in the prison was inadequate .

Since his incarceration in GPE in DATE Mr GPE has been placed successively in FAC ( DATE ) , ORG ( DATE ) , FAC ( DATE ) and FAC in GPE ( CARDINAL ) .

Mr GPE was placed in FAC on DATE in execution of a sentence of DATE imprisonment meted out by ORG . According to him , he was not medically screened upon his arrival in prison . According to the Government , the prison ’s medical journal showed that Mr GPE was medically examined on CARDINAL DATE and found to be healthy , with no traces of violence . On DATE Mr GPE was placed under the “ strict ” regime . He was initially allocated to prisoner group CARDINAL , the intake unit for new prisoners . On DATE a special commission in charge of allocating prisoners decided to place him in group CARDINAL , where he remained until his transfer to ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The Government submitted that on DATE Mr GPE had been provided with CARDINAL bed sheets , CARDINAL pillow cover and CARDINAL blankets . In reply , Mr PERSON pointed out that this meant that he had had to do without these and sleep on a bare mattress for DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . He further submitted that he had not been provided with cutlery and had been forced , like the other detainees , to eat with his hands from random boxes that had come into his possession . Moreover , the prison was not equipped with enough tables and chairs , and as a result inmates had to eat sitting on their beds . The food that he was being provided was of very poor quality , often causing vomiting and diarrhoea . The Government did not contest these allegations .

On DATE Mr GPE was transferred to ORG .

The Government submitted that on DATE he was placed in prisoner group CARDINAL . Later he was placed in group CARDINAL , which consisted of convicted criminals . On DATE , following the re - opening of the criminal proceedings against him by ORG on DATE and the change in his procedural situation , he was placed in group CARDINAL , for persons awaiting trial . On DATE he was placed in group CARDINAL , also for persons awaiting trial . When his conviction and sentence by ORG became final on DATE , Mr GPE was placed in group CARDINAL , for convicted persons .

Mr GPE submitted that following the re - opening of the proceedings against him by ORG on DATE , he was transferred to the prison ’s recidivists unit , and , in spite of his numerous complaints , was not moved from there until DATE . In support of this assertion he pointed out that CARDINAL researches retained by his legal representative in these proceedings had visited ORG on CARDINAL DATE and spoken with the prison ’s deputy governor , who had said that there were currently no records on the allocation of prisoners in DATE . Both he and members of the prison staff had explained that at that time all prisoners without final convictions and sentences had been placed on the prison ’s fourth floor , where their cells were separated by mere iron grills allowing free contacts between all inmates .

When Mr GPE was transferred to ORG , the cells there were not equipped with in - cell toilets or running water . According to the Government , such toilets were installed on DATE . Thus , after the locking of his cell at TIME , he was forced to relieve himself in a bucket . According to a declaration by another inmate , the cells remained locked TIME and TIME or TIME during DATE and TIME on DATE . The cells were left unlocked until TIME , allowing access to the common toilets , only at times of epidemics of intestinal disorders in the prison . Initially , Mr GPE had been placed in a cell measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY that he had shared with CARDINAL other inmates . After DATE he had been placed in a cell measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY that he had shared with CARDINAL other inmates . Both cells had been equipped with CARDINAL bucket of QUANTITY .

The Government conceded that in DATE ORG had been overcrowded . The total floor space of the prison building was QUANTITY . In DATE , it was occupied by CARDINAL prisoners ; in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners ; in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners ; and in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners . The surface of the fourth floor , where Mr GPE was kept , was QUANTITY . In DATE , it was occupied by CARDINAL prisoners ; in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners ; in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners ; and in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners . The Government nevertheless submitted that at that time conditions in this prison had been fully compliant with the applicable legal framework and pointed out that , while Mr GPE had filed CARDINAL complaints with the prison authorities , he had not complained in terms of the conditions of his detention there . In reply , Mr GPE said that he had not made such complaints because conditions in the prison had been the same for all prisoners , but that , as evident from a complaint that he had filed on DATE , he had sought a transfer to PERSON precisely because of the poor conditions in FAC . That transfer request had been denied by the prison authorities .

On DATE Mr GPE was transferred to FAC . He was initially placed in prisoner group CARDINAL , and then in prisoner groups CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

Mr GPE alleged that the conditions of his detention in this prison were as poor as in the previous CARDINAL prisons . He said that in DATE heating had been turned on only twice a day for TIME . As a result of that and of the fact that the windows did not close properly , the temperature in the cell never went above QUANTITY . The Government submitted that the heating boilers in FAC had been fired twice a day , for CARDINAL to four hours . If Mr PERSON had had a problem with the window in his cell , he should have brought that to the attention of the responsible prison officials , who would have taken steps to tackle it . Mr GPE retorted that , while he could not say for how long the boilers had been fired DATE , the amount of time during which the radiators in his cell had been warm was TIME .

Mr GPE also submitted that he had worked in the prison ’s workshop , which was not properly heated in DATE either . The Government submitted that the workshop had been heated with wood - burning stoves , and when necessary also with electrical heaters .

Mr GPE further submitted that the toilets had been very dirty . The Government submitted that it was the inmates’ duty to keep the LOC clean , and that the prison authorities provided them with cleaning products for that . Mr GPE retorted that , in view of the small amounts and the low quality of the cleaning products provided by the prison authorities , it had not been possible properly to clean the toilets .

Mr GPE alleged that inmates who had spent DATE in prison had no health insurance , and as a result did not get proper medical treatment . He said that as a result of the poor conditions of his detention he was suffering from chronic colitis and periodontitis , and had lost CARDINAL teeth . The Government submitted that , while in FAC , Mr GPE had visited a dentist twice , on DATE , when he had had a tooth extracted in order to treat his periodontitis , and on CARDINAL DATE , when he had been prescribed medication for bleeding in the gums . Mr GPE retorted that although he had not been health insured during his stay in ORG , the resident dentist there had provided him with the necessary medication free of charge . However , in FAC , despite being already health insured , he was not provided with medication free of charge , and experienced great difficulties in obtaining that medication .

On DATE Mr GPE was transferred to FAC , a closed - type prison hostel in GPE attached to FAC . He complained of overcrowding and said that the conditions there were similar to these in the prisons in which he had been housed before that . According to CARDINAL declarations by other inmates submitted by Mr GPE , in DATE and DATE he was kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY together with CARDINAL inmates . The cell had CARDINAL bunk beds and a toilet in the corner , all of which further reduced the amount of living space . The Government submitted that FAC was one of the best heated prison hostels in the country and that the temperature in DATE was always adequate . An inmate was designated as responsible for the heating central and took constant care of it , even remaining there TIME .

In DATE Mr GPE brought a claim under LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in FAC DATE . He sought BGN CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages . In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL април DATE г. по адм. д. № MONEY г. , АС-София град ) ORG found that the conditions of Mr GPE ’s confinement in FAC DATE lack of glazing on the windows during a very cold DATE period , poor hygiene , and lack of proper separation between the in - cell toilet and the rest of the cell – did not meet the minimum standards laid down in the Execution of Punishments and Pre - Trial Detention Act DATE and the regulations for its application ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The court also had regard to LAW . Taking however into account the small amount of time – less than TIME – that Mr GPE had spent in these conditions , the court decided to award him BGN CARDINAL . ORG for the Execution of Punishments appealed , and in a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL април DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG fully upheld the lower court ’s judgment .

On DATE Mr GPE brought another claim under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in a transfer cell in FAC on DATE and the failure of the prison authorities to provide him a hot meal on DATE . He sought BGN CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages in relation to the stress endured by him on account of the poor conditions in the cell , BGN CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages in relation to the fact that the cell had been infested with rats , and BGN CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages in relation to the failure to provide him with a hot meal . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL април DATE г. , по адм. д. № DATE г. , АС-София-град ) ORG , having regard to , inter alia , LAW , found that the poor conditions in the cell in which Mr GPE had been kept , the presence of rats in that cell , and the lack of proper food had caused him non - pecuniary damage . The court awarded him BGN CARDINAL in respect of the first head of claim , ORG CARDINAL in respect of the second head of claim , and BGN CARDINAL in respect of the third head of claim . In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG quashed that judgment and partly dismissed the claim and partly remitted the case . It held , by reference to this ORG ’s judgment in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) , that the lower court had erred by dealing with the first and second heads of claim separately . The proper approach was to analyse them in combination and focus on their cumulative effect on the inmate ’s well - being . That part of the case was therefore to be remitted . The head of claim concerning the failure to provide Mr GPE with a hot meal was , for its part , unfounded , because there was evidence that he had been provided with a sufficiently calorific food package instead . The proceedings on remittal are apparently still pending .

In DATE Mr GPE brought a claim under LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in FAC , through which he had been transferred on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . He alleged that there he had been subjected to ill - treatment because he had at first been put for TIME together with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , and then moved to a cell measuring TIME by QUANTITY , which he had had to share with CARDINAL other inmates . This cell had had no running water , toilet or proper access to sunlight and air . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL март DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON ) ORG dismissed the claim , noting that section PERSON ) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre - Trial Detention Act DATE , which laid down a minimum requirement of QUANTITY of floor space per prisoner , as well as regulation CARDINAL ) of the regulations for the application of this LAW , which made the availability of in - cell toilets and running water mandatory , had not yet come into force ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The prison authorities had therefore not acted unlawfully by putting Mr GPE in the CARDINAL cells . Mr GPE appealed . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , ORG ) ORG quashed the lower court ’s judgment and remitted the case . It noted that the lower court had constituted as a co - defendant the administration of PERSON , which could not be a proper defendant to a claim under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . Its judgment was therefore inadmissible . The proceedings on remittal are apparently still pending .

Mr GPE has been detained in FAC since DATE in execution of a DATE sentence of imprisonment . In the course of his imprisonment there , he was moved between different units . According to information supplied by the Government , on DATE he was placed in unit CARDINAL , which was a high - security unit . On DATE he was moved to unit CARDINAL , but on DATE was moved back to unit CARDINAL . On DATE he was transferred to GPE open - type prison hostel , attached to FAC , but on DATE moved back to unit CARDINAL . On DATE he was moved to unit CARDINAL . On DATE he was once again transferred to GPE open - type prison hostel . On DATE he escaped , but was re - captured on DATE . On DATE he was against placed in unit CARDINAL , the high - security unit . On DATE he was moved to unit CARDINAL , on DATE to unit CARDINAL , on CARDINAL DATE to unit CARDINAL , and on DATE to unit CARDINAL .

In DATE or DATE PERSON left hand was amputated at the wrist following a trauma suffered as a conscript in the army . Since DATE he has been suffering from bronchial asthma . Since his incarceration he has been admitted to the prison hospital in GPE for treatment of his asthma CARDINAL times , the latest apparently being in DATE . According to the Government , PERSON was being provided with the requisite medical care and medicines .

Mr GPE complained of overcrowding and said that his cell measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates . He alleged that there was insufficient light in the cell and that the inmates had to use buckets to relieve their needs at TIME . He also submitted that there were CARDINAL NORP - type toilets , CARDINAL sinks and CARDINAL shower on his floor , for CARDINAL inmates . According to the Government , the toilets were disinfected with chlorine solution once DATE .

DATE . Mr GPE also complained of the allegedly poor hygiene in the prison canteen . According to him , as a result inmates routinely suffered from stomach and intestinal infections . According to the Government , hygiene in the prison canteen was maintained by CARDINAL inmates assigned to that task by the prison governor . They cleaned the canteen CARDINAL times a day , after each meal . Once a week the canteen was disinfected with chlorine tablets . DATE there had been no registered cases of intestinal disorders among the inmates of groups CARDINAL .

On DATE Mr GPE poured boiling water on his left leg , either as a result of an incident or as an act of self - harm . He was urgently sent to a hospital in GPE , and then moved to the special ORG hospital in GPE , where he was treated DATE and DATE . After his return to the prison he behaved in an aggressive and suicidal way , which made it necessary to place him in psychiatric institutions for inmates between DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE a special medical commission found that he was to be classified as PERCENT handicapped , based on his missing left hand , the injuries to his legs following the incident of DATE , and his mental problems .

In DATE Mr GPE swallowed CARDINAL needles and , following pain in the stomach , on DATE he was urgently hospitalised in a hospital in GPE , where he underwent surgery of the abdomen . He was discharged from this hospital on DATE and placed in a constantly locked cell in unit CARDINAL , the high - security unit .


Preliminary objection partially dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .

NORP Killing of the applicant ’s husband and investigation

According to the applicant at TIME on CARDINAL DATE QUANTITY men , wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas , had come to their house in NORP and taken her husband , PERSON , who was of NORP ethnic origin . All CARDINAL men were carrying firearms . She had reported the entire incident to the police on TIME .

On DATE the NORP Police interviewed a certain GPE , who told them that on DATE CARDINAL men dressed in camouflage uniforms and wearing balaclavas had come to his flat and taken him to a lorry , where they had tied his hands and blindfolded him . Soon afterwards they had placed another person in the van , and they were transported to an unknown building . There the men had questioned him , then driven him somewhere else and released him . Later he learned that the other person who had been taken with him was PERSON .

On DATE the body of PERSON was found on the banks of the river PERSON in NORP . An autopsy carried out on DATE showed that he had been shot dead .

On DATE the applicant learned that her husband ’s body had been found in NORP , on the banks of the river PERSON .

On DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG against a person or persons unknown on charges of murdering PERSON .

It appears that no further investigative measures were taken in respect of the death of PERSON DATE .

NORP In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .

On DATE ORG in the Criminal Justice Section of the Sisak County Police ( FAC uprava sisačko - moslavačka , PERSON kriminalističke policije , Odsjek za suzbijanje terorizma , hereinafter “ ORG ” ) interviewed a certain PERSON He said that he had been collecting information about the killing of persons of NORP ethnic origin in NORP and its area . To his knowledge CARDINAL NORP had been killed in NORP and a further CARDINAL in GPE , a village near GPE , all of them in the period DATE . In addition , CARDINAL persons of NORP origin were listed as having disappeared . PERSON also said that he had heard that PERSON , then Head of ORG , had expressed his surprise that one PERSON had been killed , given that he had not been on the list for liquidation .

On DATE ORG interviewed the applicant . She reiterated that at TIME on CARDINAL DATE QUANTITY men , wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas , had come to their house and taken her husband . All CARDINAL men were carrying firearms . She further reiterated that she had reported the entire incident to the police on TIME .

On DATE ORG again interviewed ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on DATE they questioned the doctor who had , on DATE , carried out the autopsy on PERSON body .

On DATE ORG interviewed PERSON . and PERSON . Lj . , who had lived with the PERSON family at the relevant time ; they confirmed the statement given by the applicant .

On DATE an investigating judge at the ORG heard evidence from witness FAC , who said that in DATE he had been a member of the reserve police . TIME he had been driving in a car with CARDINAL of his colleagues ( he identified them by their nicknames ) when they saw a van parked in the street and several men dressed in camouflage uniforms standing around it . PERSON and his colleagues asked those men what was happening and were told that they had come “ to search the house of a NORP who had some hunting weapons ” . CARDINAL of the men took off his balaclava and FAC recognised him as [ A.]H. He also saw an older woman crying and wailing , and asking the men to release the man they were taking with them . PERSON and his friends had then driven away . Later he heard that the man who had been taken away was PERSON ; he had been taken to PERSON , a sanatorium where NORP troops were stationed at the material time , opposite the PERSON factory . He had received that information from a person called PERSON , who also told him that PERSON had been liquidated and thrown in the river PERSON .

M.M. further explained that TIME he noticed that several persons were being held in the toilet of the ORG military base near ORG , where he was stationed . Next to the toilet he saw CARDINAL bodies covered with a blanket . He asked some of his colleagues to give him a lift in their van from the military base to NORP . They had stopped before arriving in NORP and thrown CARDINAL bodies , covered in blankets , into a hole . He had later met all of the men who had been in the van with him in NORP , but did not know their names . He had been told not to tell anyone .

Finally , ORG said that on several occasions he had seen the police taking naked persons into the NORP military base , and sometimes he had heard screams from the barracks .

On DATE the Sisak Police interviewed an anonymous witness who gave information about the killings of persons of NORP origin in the NORP area in DATE and DATE . He said that the arrests and killings of persons of NORP ethnic origin had been carried out on the orders of PERSON , Head of ORG , who had a list of persons to be arrested and liquidated . His main assistant was his Deputy , V.M. The motive for the arrests had often been material gain . The individuals in question had first been labelled as having abetted enemy activity and being members of ORG and then , once they had been arrested , all their valuables had been taken from their houses and sold on . The money had been divided between PERSON and PERSON

As regards the arrest of PERSON , the witness identified PERSON as one of the persons implicated . He said that PERSON had first been taken to the police station and then to PERSON . He had then been taken to the ORG and killed there . CARDINAL of the persons who had arrested PERSON was PERSON , who had also killed him .

The witness added that he was willing to give his evidence about those events before a court .

On DATE another anonymous witness was interviewed by the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG . He said that at DATE he joined ORG , namely ORG . He had been assigned to the reserve units of ORG , headed by PERSON , whose Deputy was PERSON The unit the witness had joined had been headed by PERSON . PERSON The witness named several of his colleagues . PERSON , PERSON and the late PERSON had made a list of persons to be arrested and brought to ORG , and given orders to that effect . PERSON had almost always been present when the orders for arrests were given . The members of the reserve units had been given NORP flags with CARDINAL C - s , badges and cards allegedly issued by ORG , and certificates issued by that ORG recognising contributions to its spread in the occupied territories ; these items were to be planted in the houses of NORP in the NORP area so that they could serve as evidence of enemy activity .

He stated that victims had been arrested at their homes and that money , gold and other valuables had always been taken . The victims had first been taken to the police station , then to PERSON , and later to the ORG military base , where they had been stripped and killed .

He said that he had personally been involved in the arrest of PERSON and that his hunting guns had also been taken from his house .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG issued a document on enquiries into the killings of civilians DATE . The document was addressed to GPE Attorney ’s Offices , which were required to examine all of the information collected to date on the killings of civilians during that period and to concentrate their activities on identifying the perpetrators and gathering the relevant evidence in order to initiate criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG FAC uprava sisačko - moslavačka , ORG načelnika ) , interviewed a certain PERSON , a former member of the police , who told them that he would inform the media of everything he knew about the killing of NORP and mining of their houses during the war in GPE and would testify against PERSON , a former Head of the ORG during the war , if his request for alterations to his “ war record ” were not complied with . He added that he had carried out orders , as had many others , and that he knew who had ordered what at ORG , and what had happened there and in other locations in NORP and the surrounding area .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s ORG issued an instruction for implementation of LAW and LAW to GPE Attorney ’s Offices , in which they indicated that an inspection of their work had indicated CARDINAL main problems : possible partiality of the persons involved in the pending proceedings as regards the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators ; and the problem of trials in absentia . The instructions favoured impartial investigations of all war crimes , irrespective of the ethnicity of those involved , whether victims or perpetrators , and stressed the duties of those working for the ORG Attorney in that respect .

On DATE ORG in the Criminal Justice Section of the Sisak County Police ( FAC uprava sisačko - moslavačka , PERSON kriminalističke policije , ORG ratnih zločina , hereinafter “ ORG ” ) , sent a gun belonging to ORG and a bullet extracted from the body of PERSON for ballistic examination . The report of DATE indicated that they did not match .

On DATE the Criminal Justice Section of the ORG filed a report with the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG , informing it that they had carried out an analysis of their ORG ’s official documents and found documents concerning the arrest and killing of a number of civilians . With regard to PERSON , it was stated that his dead body had been found on DATE on the GPE river bank in NORP .

On DATE the ORG , Criminal Justice Section interviewed ORG . , President of ORG during the war , who identified the commander of the ORG units stationed in ORG in DATE .

B. Proceedings on indictment

On DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint against GPE , GPE and PERSON on charges of war crimes against the civilian population . This included the killing of the applicant ’s husband . On the same day PERSON , Head of ORG in DATE and DATE , PERSON , police commander at the border territory of NORP and PERSON in DATE and DATE and Deputy of ORG , and PERSON , a member of the “ ORG of ORG , were arrested .

On an unspecified date the investigation was opened and on CARDINAL DATE PERSON died .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG lodged an indictment against V.M. and PERSON at ORG , alleging that they had been in command of the unit whose unknown members committed a number of crimes against the civilian population DATE and DATE , including the killings of the applicant ’s husband . They were charged with war crimes against the civilian population .

On DATE a first - instance judgment was delivered . PERSON was found guilty of war crimes against the civilian population in that he , in his capacity as “ the commander of police forces in the broader area of NORP and PERSON ” and “ Deputy Head of the NORP Police ” , had allowed the killings of persons of NORP origin and had failed to undertake adequate measures to prevent such killings . The relevant part of the judgment concerning the applicant ’s husband reads :

“ on TIME of CARDINAL DATE in ORG a group of unidentified armed members of ORG wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas ... went to the home of PERSON and , under the threat of arms , tied his hands and blindfolded him and then drove him to an unknown location in NORP ... and killed him with firearms ... [ H]is body was found on DATE with CARDINAL shots to the head , chest and left hand , on the left bank of the river PERSON near GPE in NORP . ”

V.M. was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . PERSON was acquitted of all charges .

C. Civil proceedings

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of her husband . The claim was dismissed on DATE and was upheld on appeal by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively . The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired .

A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .


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

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

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

The applicant was placed in detention on remand at FAC on DATE pending criminal proceedings against him before ORG ( case no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of a number of offences ( including burglary , theft , various road traffic offences and unlawful residence ) . On DATE the court imposed CARDINAL sentences ranging from CARDINAL months’ to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , to run concurrently from DATE .

The applicant was released on CARDINAL DATE following the suspension of his sentence by virtue of a decree issued by the President of the Republic concerning a number of prisoners .

In his application form the applicant , without specifying the exact period of his detention , submitted that he had been held in overcrowded cells at FAC , where there was only CARDINAL to QUANTITY m of personal space for each detainee . He stated that the cells were cold and lacked adequate light . Furthermore , there were no toilets in the cells . He sometimes had to wait TIME to use the toilet , and , when the cells were locked , he had to urinate into a bottle and defecate into a waste bag .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained from DATE until his release on CARDINAL DATE in CARDINAL different parts of FAC . Between DATE and DATE he had been detained in FAC , which accommodated remand prisoners . Following his conviction and sentence he had been transferred to ORG , where he had been detained between DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he had been placed in Block CARDINAL , where he had been detained until his release on CARDINAL DATE . Both ORG and CARDINAL accommodated sentenced prisoners . The Government provided copies of ORG DATE occupancy records ( ημερήσιες χωρητικότητες των κεντρικών φυλακών ) indicating the number of prisoners in each block per day . However , they submitted that no records were kept in relation to occupancy of particular cells in the blocks .

Block CARDINAL could accommodate up to CARDINAL remand prisoners ; it had CARDINAL double occupancy cells measuring QUANTITY . m , CARDINAL toilets and CARDINAL showers . Block CARDINAL included Block CARDINALA , which had CARDINAL double occupancy cells of the same size as ORG , accommodating CARDINAL remand prisoners . It was almost certain that during his detention in FAC the applicant had shared a cell with another inmate and that therefore he had had QUANTITY . m of personal space .

At the time the applicant had been detained there ORG had not yet been renovated . It had CARDINAL double occupancy cells measuring CARDINAL sq . m ; CARDINAL large cells measuring CARDINAL sq . m , which accommodated CARDINAL detainees , and a common room which had been made into a dormitory for DATE inmates . The dormitory measured QUANTITY . m and had CARDINAL windows . Prisoners with short - term sentences had been kept in the dormitory . ORG had CARDINAL toilets and CARDINAL showers .

Based on the DATE occupancy records for the relevant period , the number of inmates in the block varied from CARDINAL per day . The Government stated that it was possible that the applicant had spent time in all the different types of cells in this block during his detention . In the double occupancy cell the applicant would have had QUANTITY . m of personal space ; in the larger cell he would have had from CARDINAL sq . m , depending on whether he had shared the cell with CARDINAL , CARDINAL or CARDINAL inmates ; and , lastly , in the dormitory he would have had from CARDINAL sq . m to QUANTITY m of personal space , depending on the number of inmates detained there with him . If the applicant had been held in the dormitory in DATE or during DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) , he would have disposed of CARDINAL and QUANTITY m of personal space as the DATE occupancy records indicated that the block had accommodated CARDINAL inmates per day during those periods .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to Block CARDINAL , which had been renovated . The block had CARDINAL double occupancy cells , accommodating CARDINAL prisoners . The cells measured QUANTITY . m and thus the applicant had had QUANTITY . m of personal space at his disposal . There were CARDINAL toilets , CARDINAL showers and QUANTITY urinals .

The various parts of the prison were equipped with a central heating system which covered all the blocks and cells . The central air conditioning system which functioned in DATE was in the corridors and there were individual electrical fans in the cells . All the cells had properly insulated windows , which provided natural light and ventilation . The dimensions of the windows varied . Detainees were free to move outside their cells in the closed prison , including the yard , workshops , kitchen and school from TIME ( DATE time ) or to TIME ( summer time ) . After that , the detainees could move freely within their blocks until TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE and public holidays .

Following the DATE report of ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( “ ORG ” ) on its visit to GPE from DATE , the prison administration discontinued the practice of switching off cell bells during TIME , hence detainees had access to the toilets during TIME ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The administration of the prison had issued order no . CARDINAL concerning prisoners having access to the toilet facilities whenever necessary . The order had also directed prison staff to check and ensure that the call panel in the warden ’s room was active at all times , especially during the evening , so that prisoners could be assisted and emergencies prevented . A violation of the order constituted a disciplinary offence . According to a letter by the prison director dated DATE , records were not kept of when cells were opened for toilet visits during the night , that is TIME However , a detainee could leave his cell for CARDINAL toilet visits during that period .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the public limited company ORG ( “ the company ” ) , subsequently renamed ORG , received an authorisation to begin prospecting for gold . Subsequently , the company was authorised to use cyanide leaching in the gold extraction process by ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to issue an operating permit to the company for the GPE gold mine .

On DATE ORG dismissed a case brought before it for the annulment of the permit of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and decided that the permit should be annulled . It referred to the ORG ’s obligation to protect the right to life and to a healthy environment and assessed the physical , ecological , aesthetic , social and cultural effects of the mining activity in question as described in the environmental impact report and the various expert reports which had been submitted to it . It held that those reports demonstrated the risk posed to the local ecosystem and to human health and safety by sodium cyanide use . It concluded that the operating permit in issue did not serve the public interest and that the safety measures which the company had undertaken to implement did not suffice to eliminate the risks involved in such an activity . On DATE , in compliance with ORG judgment , ORG annulled ORG decision to issue a permit for the mine . On DATE the GPE provisional governor ’s office ordered that the mine be closed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the Prime Minister ’s office drew up a report on the mine . It concluded that operations at the mine could be authorised , having regard to the additional measures taken by the company , the conclusions of a report by ORG ( “ ORG ” ) , ORG favourable opinion and an opinion of ORG , which had emphasised the economic importance of an investment of that type .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment on an application for judicial review of the report of the Prime Minister ’s office , brought by CARDINAL residents of Bergama , including the second and third applicants , PERSON ( NORP ) and Mr PERSON . The administrative court decided to set aside the report , which , in its opinion , constituted an enforceable administrative decision giving rise to the issuing of permits . Notwithstanding the measures taken by the company , the court held that judicial decisions which had become final had found that the “ risk and threat ” in question resulted from the use of sodium cyanide in the gold mine and that it was impossible to conclude that those risks could be avoided by implementing new measures . Equally , it had been established that the risk connected with the accumulation of heavy elements or cyanide could persist for DATE and was likely to infringe the right of the area ’s inhabitants to a healthy environment . Accordingly , it was appropriate to conclude that the decision at issue could lead to the circumvention of a final judicial decision and was incompatible with the principle of the rule of law .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in so far as it had been brought by CARDINAL of the plaintiffs , including the second and third applicants and dismissed a rectification application by the Prime Minister ’s office on an unspecified date .

NORP In the meantime , on DATE ORG decided to authorise the continued use of the cyanidation process at the mine for an experimental period of DATE . The company re - started mining operations on DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG set aside the provisional permit issued by ORG on DATE in a case brought by CARDINAL people , including the first applicant , PERSON . In particular , it considered that the risks highlighted in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE were , inter alia , linked to the use of sodium cyanide in the gold mine and to the climatic conditions and features of the region , which was situated in an earthquake zone . It held that those risks and threats could not be eliminated by supplementary measures which continued to be based on the same leaching process . It also concluded that the issuing of the permit in question had been incompatible with the principle of the rule of law as that administrative decision had in reality been intended to amend a judicial decision that had become final .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE and dismissed a rectification application by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers took a “ decision of principle ” , stating that the gold mine situated in the area of GPE and ORG , in the district of PERSON ( GPE ) and belonging to the GPE TIME company , could continue operations . The decision was not made public .

On DATE ORG ordered a stay of execution of the ORG decision in a case brought by CARDINAL plaintiffs , including the second and third applicants . ORG found that the Prime Minister ’s decision had been unlawful as the environmental impact assessment report which had allowed for the operating of the gold mine had been previously annulled . The Prime Minister ’s office objected .

On DATE referring to the decision of DATE , the GPE governor ’s office ordered the closure of mine .

On DATE ORG upheld the stay of execution of DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the goldmine began operating again under a permit of DATE issued by the GPE governor ’s office .

On DATE ORG annulled the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers a decision which was upheld on DATE by ORG .

According to the documents in the case file , various sets of other proceedings were brought DATE by other residents of PERSON against various administrative authorities and ORG before the administrative courts , some of which are still ongoing . The gold mine was in operation until DATE .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in LOC .

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .

The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in LOC . The land in issue was recorded on the land register as folio no . CARDINAL , parcels no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

On DATE , a decree authorising GPE to take possession of a portion of the applicants’ land was issued for DATE , through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public - interest declaration , in order to begin the construction of a road .

On DATE the authorities took physical possession of the land .

By a writ served on DATE , the applicant brought an action for damages against GPE before ORG . He alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation . He claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation .

On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land . In a report submitted in DATE , the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of QUANTITY . The expert further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the land had been irreversibly transformed , which he identified as having occurred in DATE , corresponded to MONEY ( ITL ) ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square metre .

By a judgment delivered on DATE and filed with the court registry on DATE , ORG declared that the possession of the land , which had been initially authorised , had become unlawful as of DATE . It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works . As a result , in accordance with the constructive - expropriation rule ( occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita ) , the applicants had been deprived of their property , by virtue of its irreversible alteration , on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful . In the light of those considerations , the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation .

The court drew on the expert valuation and considered that the market value of the land , which in DATE corresponded to ITL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square metre , corresponded to ITL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square metre on the date the occupation had become unlawful in DATE .

The court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation , calculated in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , which had entered into force in the meantime , in the sum of ITL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG DATE ) , to be adjusted for inflation , plus statutory interest .

The court further awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation ( DATE ) until the date of loss of ownership ( DATE ) , as well as ITL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) for the damage caused by the building works and ITL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) as compensation for the decrease in the value of the adjoining land .

The judgment became final in DATE .


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

Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE .

On DATE , at DATE , he entered GPE and requested asylum , which was refused by a final decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE he applied for a residence permit based on his marriage to a NORP national of NORP origin . She had entered GPE as a child in DATE . His request was granted temporarily , until DATE . Subsequently it was granted permanently . In DATE he was also granted asylum under section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) .

NORP The couple have CARDINAL children , all NORP nationals , who at DATE were CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively .

The applicant never went to school in GPE and he has never had a job , either in GPE or in GPE . In GPE he received social benefits until DATE , when he was granted an early retirement pension by the ORG due to his poor health : he suffered in particular from post - traumatic stress disorder . His wife was granted an early retirement pension due to back problems .

The applicant speaks and understands NORP but he can not read or write the language . He also speaks and understands LANGUAGE , but can not read or write it . The same applies to his wife . They speak LANGUAGE between themselves and with their children .

The applicant ’s wife has CARDINAL siblings living in GPE .

NORP The applicant has no other family in GPE . His mother and sister live in GPE . He also has a sister in GPE .

The applicant has a criminal record which includes , inter alia , a conviction in DATE for grave disturbance of public order and a suspended sentence of CARDINAL days’ imprisonment , a conviction in DATE sentencing him to DATE for committing violence against a public servant in the performance of his office , and a conviction in DATE for the same kind of offence , for which he was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained on remand charged with , inter alia , various counts of drug trafficking and dealing .

By a judgment of DATE ORG in GPE ( retten i GPE ) found him guilty , in part jointly with others , of CARDINAL counts of offences including drug trafficking and drug dealing contrary to LAW with regard to a significant amount of hashish ( QUANTITY in total , in addition to an attempt to import a large supply from GPE ) and an attempt to buy CARDINAL g of cocaine , all committed in DATE until DATE . In addition he was convicted of coercion by violence and threats , blackmail , theft , handling stolen property , escaping while under arrest and possession of weapons .

When sentencing the applicant to DATE imprisonment ORG took into account , in particular , the significant amount of hashish and cocaine ; that the latter was a “ hard drug ” ; the huge profit that the applicant had obtained from the resale ; the long period concerned ; the applicant ’s absolute leading role , notably in relation to the drug dealers under him , whom he had subjected to violence and threats ; and that as a member of a gang , he had delivered hashish for resale to various towns in the region . It was also noted that the applicant had previous convictions . Finally , the sentence was determined partially as a supplementary penalty because some of the offences had been committed before the applicant ’s previous conviction .

The amount of MONEY ( DKK ) , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) , and gold jewellery found in the applicant ’s home during a search were confiscated as profit from the crimes . It was noted that the applicant and his wife , who both received State benefits and who , when calculating their expenses , apparently had a deficit in their household budget for DATE , DATE and DATE amounting to a total of at least DKK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) could not substantiate that they had obtained the goods legally . For example , the applicant ’s wife denied knowledge of a receipt dated DATE for CARDINAL g of gold jewellery bought in her name in GPE for DKK CARDINAL .

Moreover , pursuant to section DATE of LAW , ORG ordered the applicant ’s expulsion , suspended and with DATE probation . ORG noted that the seriousness of the crimes spoke heavily for his expulsion without suspension , but having regard to his wife , who stated that she could not follow her husband to GPE , and his QUANTITY children in the country , the court did not find that there was sufficient basis for an unsuspended expulsion order .

On appeal , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the conviction was upheld in part by ORG of Eastern Denmark ( PERSON ) and the sentence was increased to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment due notably to the nature and quantity of the drugs , the extent of the drug offences committed and the applicant ’s leading role . By CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with the more beneficial outcome in the applicant ’s favour , the expulsion order remained suspended .

NORP The public prosecution appealed to ORG ( Højesteret ) against the judgment as regards the suspended expulsion order . New evidence was adduced in this respect , notably as regards the applicant ’s and his wife ’s ties to GPE , GPE and GPE . They were both heard .

The applicant explained that he had been in GPE for DATE during DATE . He had no contacts there but his mother and sister . His other sister lived with her husband and their CARDINAL children in a refugee camp in GPE . He had stayed there for CARDINAL or DATE during DATE , for DATE during DATE and for DATE in DATE .

The applicant ’s wife and children had been to GPE CARDINAL or CARDINAL times in DATE to visit the applicant ’s sister there . Since the applicant ’s arrest in DATE , she and the children had spent DATE in GPE in DATE , and DATE in DATE . During DATE of DATE she had gone alone to GPE for DATE because the sister had fallen ill .

During DATE the applicant began negotiations to buy an apartment in GPE because his wife and children went there quite often . He also wanted to buy a shop in the same building . Twice he transferred money via ORG to his sister to buy the apartment , but it was given up when he was arrested .

NORP The applicant ’s wife stated that she could not follow her husband if he were expelled to GPE or GPE . She and the children would not be able to stand living in either of those countries , and the children could not live outside GPE .

Statements obtained from ORG at the municipality and the children ’s schools and day - care institutions recounted that several of the CARDINAL children had serious problems , including of a psychological and educational nature . CARDINAL of the children received special education and several of the children needed extra support and supervision in their schools and institutions . Massive public support measures had been provided due to a significant need to teach them normal social behaviour . Finally , the placement of some of the sons in public care was under consideration .

According to a police report of CARDINAL DATE , based on interceptions carried out during the criminal proceedings against the applicant , it was established that in the period from DATE to DATE , thus a period of DATE , there had been CARDINAL and sixtyseven calls to and from overseas numbers on the applicant ’s and his wife ’s home telephone . These concerned CARDINAL different foreign telephone numbers , including CARDINAL in GPE and QUANTITY in GPE . To the numbers in GPE there had been in total CARDINAL calls , and to the numbers in GPE there had been CARDINAL calls . The applicant explained in this connection that the calls to GPE had mainly been to people from GPE who had been on vacation in GPE and that the calls to GPE had been to his sister . The applicant ’s wife explained that she often talked to her sister - in - law in GPE . She also had family in GPE . Nevertheless she did have difficulties understanding why there had been calls to CARDINAL different numbers in GPE .

According to a police report of CARDINAL DATE , it appeared that in the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant , his wife and their children had made various transfers of money to GPE and GPE . CARDINAL of those concerned a total of DKK CARDINAL and were made in the applicant ’s name . After the applicant ’s arrest in DATE , his wife had transferred money to the applicant ’s sisters in GPE and GPE .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , by a majority of CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , ORG decided to expel the applicant with a life - long ban on his return .

It observed that the applicant had been convicted of drug trafficking offences under LAW and attempt thereof on CARDINAL counts for QUANTITY of hashish for resale ( count DATE ) ; QUANTITY for resale ( count CARDINAL ) ; not QUANTITY for resale ( count CARDINAL ) ; entering a deal to buy CARDINAL g of cocaine for resale , which failed ( count CARDINAL ) ; and an attempt to smuggle in a large amount of hashish from GPE , which failed ( count CARDINAL ) . He had also been convicted of offences under LAW for having possessed and transferred not QUANTITY of hashish , which failed QUANTITY ( count CARDINAL ) ; and for having possessed QUANTITY of hashish for resale .

In addition he was convicted of coercion by use of violence or threats of violence ( counts CARDINAL and CARDINALa ) ; extortion ( count CARDINAL ) ; theft ( count CARDINAL ) ; CARDINAL counts of handling stolen goods ( counts CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) ; under LAW ( count CARDINAL ) ; and under LAW for having fled as a detainee ( count CARDINAL ) .

ORG went on to analyse the case in the light of the ORG ’s case - law , notably PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE and took the following into account .

The applicant was a stateless NORP who had entered GPE in DATE at DATE . He had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment for comprehensive and organised resale of large amounts of hashish , for attempting to buy CARDINAL g of cocaine , and for attempting to smuggle in hashish . Moreover , the drug trafficking had taken place over CARDINAL and a half years and the applicant had had a leading and central role .

In addition he had committed coercion by use of violence or threat of violence against his drug dealers to maintain them as sellers and against clients who could not pay for the drugs . He claimed to have been among the top CARDINAL members of the “ LOC ” gang in GPE . He had also been convicted of extortion for having demanded so - called “ protectionmoney ” for “ Black Ghost ” . Moreover , he had previously been convicted under LAW of LAW for violence against a public servant and sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

ORG also emphasised that although the applicant had been in GPE since DATE , he was not well integrated into NORP society and he had limited LANGUAGE language skills . He had no ties to GPE via work or education . He had been receiving ORG early retirement pension since DATE .

The applicant ’s spouse was a NORP citizen . She was born a NORP national and had lived briefly in GPE , arriving in GPE at DATE . The couple ’s children , who at the relevant time were DATE , were also NORP citizens . They were born in GPE and went to school and institutions in the country .

The applicant and his family spoke LANGUAGE .

ORG further noted that the applicant still had ties to GPE , where his mother and sister lived and where the applicant had lived until he entered GPE at DATE . He also had ties to GPE , where a sister and her family lived , and where the applicant had stayed for DATE in DATE , for DATE in DATE , and in DATE . Before his arrest , the applicant had set about buying an apartment in GPE for the family to use during stays there .

The applicant ’s spouse had family in GPE . Moreover , she had regular contact with the applicant ’s sister and family in GPE , and she had spent several vacations there , for instance in DATE and DATE as well as DATE in DATE and DATE in DATE . She had CARDINAL siblings in GPE . She had stated that she would be unable to follow the applicant if he were deported from GPE to GPE or GPE , and that the children would not manage outside GPE .

The majority of CARDINAL judges concluded : “ [ the applicant ] has had a leading and central role in the commission of persistent , organised and aggravated drug crimes . Despite regard for his spouse and children in GPE , we therefore find that he should be expelled with a permanent ban on his entry , see section DATE , subsection CARDINAL ( V ) , of LAW . ”

NORP The minority of CARDINAL judge found “ As found by the majority , [ the applicant ] is guilty of drug offences of particular gravity . However , I find that regard for his CARDINAL minor children makes expulsion conclusively inappropriate , see section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW . ”

On DATE the applicant was convicted for having possessed a mobile phone while in prison . He was sentenced to imprisonment for DATE .

It transpires from ORG that the applicant and his wife divorced with effect from DATE .

According to ORG , the applicant had served CARDINAL of his sentence on DATE .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG had submitted the applicant ’s case to ORG ) for a decision as to whether , upon return , the applicant would risk treatment as described in DATE of LAW .

Having found , inter alia , that the applicant would not be at risk of being subjected to the death penalty , or to torture , or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return , on DATE ORG found that the applicant could be returned to GPE . That decision was upheld on appeal on DATE by ORG ( PERSON ) .

The applicant ’s request that the ORG apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG was refused on DATE by the Acting President of ORG .

It appears that the applicant was deported to GPE shortly thereafter .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , the applicant was a member of the ORG for ORG ) , a pro - NORP political party whose dissolution was ordered by ORG in DATE , and a member of ORG . The applicant is currently the co - chair of the ORG ( ORG ) .

In DATE an article entitled “ NORP , here is your enemy ” ( NORP , işte karşında düşmanın ) was published in a Bolu local newspaper , ORG . The article in question was also published on the newspaper ’s website . In it , the author , Mr GPE , made the following statements :

Here are some newspaper titles from DATE :

- A landmine exploded in ORG . CARDINAL non - commissioned officer was martyred and CARDINAL privates were injured .

- CARDINAL village guards were killed while returning to their village in GPE .

- Attack on a military unit with a rocket - propelled grenade in the LOC district of GPE . A soldier was martyred .

- A landmine exploded in the region of Namaz mountain , in PERSON . A specialist sergeant was martyred .

- Ambush in the region of GPE mountain , in GPE . CARDINAL soldiers were martyred .

These are news articles which we have come across by chance over DATE or DATE .

I would not be surprised if , after research , we found other similar news stories .

For DATE , you have deceived us with statements such as ‘ they will be ORG , ‘ we are more determined than FAC or ‘ we will eradicate it’ .

We have had enough of your lies and fairy tales .

NORP and the military , are you fooling children ?

Or are you mocking the nation ?

Can there be a ORG or an army which can not defeat CARDINAL ‘ looters’ ?

Shame on you , since you can not defeat them .

If you are a ORG , be a ORG . If you are the ORG , act as one . If you are the Government , govern . If you are the ORG , do what you have to do .

It is enough . This has been the last straw !

We went crazy when we heard that CARDINAL soldiers from ORG had been killed DATE .

How can one preserve one ’s sanity ?

While the instigators of the terrorists who kill our soldiers , policemen , civilians and our protectors without hesitation are under the roof of ORG of GPE ,

While there are ORG mayors and provincial and district administrators who call these terrorist murderers ‘ my brothers / my ORG and who wash the carcasses of terrorists who die like dogs ,

Is it right to chase those who are in the mountains ? Are the hit men the real murderers ?

Do you know who the real murderers are ?

The real murderers are those who use yellow , green and red , the colours of the ORG , in their political party ’s flag . They are those who back the bullets of the members of the ORG , murdering bastards , and who call them their brothers and sisters . The real murderers are those who instigate murder .

They are : the President of the ORG for ORG ) ORG ; the ORG ’s Members of ORG , namely A.A.A. , GPE , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , GPE , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ; the members of the ORG ’s executive council ... and all ORG mayors and presidents of ORG provincial and district branches .

ORG , here is your enemy .

These persons will be the target of ‘ civilian ORG as the enemies of NORP , if they do not state that the ORG is a separatist terrorist organisation and that its members are traitors .

Instead of chasing the terrorists in the mountains , a few microbes should be ‘ wiped out’ and the question should be put to them – ‘ one from us , CARDINAL from you : do you still wish to continue?’ Of course , there will be patriots who will be able to do this . This is society ’s intense desire .

It is now the majority ’s wish that for every security officer who is killed , one of these people should share the same fate . It is time to cut out those organs which suffer from necrosis .

May God rest the souls of our martyrs and give patience to their families . We sincerely share their pain . We also offer our condolences to ORG .

DATE is the sacred DATE . Could you celebrate if you were the parents or siblings of one of the CARDINAL brave soldiers who lost their lives for their country in the region of GPE mountain , in PERSON ? Think about it . May your DATE be blessed although it is sad and painful . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a petition with the Bolu public prosecutor ’s office , requesting that a criminal investigation be initiated and that Mr I.E. be punished for incitement to commit a crime and incitement to disrespect the law , and for insulting his client . The lawyer also noted that Mr I.E. had committed these offences through the press . In his petition , the applicant ’s lawyer stressed that CARDINAL recent murders ( those of PERSON , a NORP priest , and PERSON , the editor - in - chief of AGOS , a bilingual NORP - Armenian newspaper published in GPE ) had been committed subsequent to publication of articles on the Internet . He stated that the content of the article openly incited society to kill the persons listed in it , including the applicant , and that by using the expression “ murderer ” in respect of the applicant , the author had insulted him .

On an unspecified date Mr I.E. sent a petition to the Bolu public prosecutor containing his defence submissions . He maintained at the outset that he had defended GPE and the NORP military forces throughout his life . He further contended that , had he committed an offence in his article as alleged by the complainant , then he had committed it under severe provocation . He submitted that the complainant had never condemned the ORG ’s activities and that he had referred to ORG members as “ brothers and sisters ” . Mr I.E. noted that he had been demonstrating solidarity with the families of the martyrs killed by the terrorists and that , were his solidarity to be regarded as an offence , then as a NORP nationalist he was proud of committing the offence in question . He also claimed that he had criticised the ORG ’s ideology and activities in his article and had intended to inform society . He contended that a case had been brought before ORG for the ORG ’s dissolution , and that the content of his article had been similar to the indictment brought by ORG at ORG in that case . He had not used the word “ NORP ” in his article , since he accepted all citizens of GPE as NORP . Until the complainant stated “ How happy is he who says ‘ I am a Turk’ ” , he would struggle against him . He also maintained that in view of the QUANTITY of cases brought against ORG members on charges of separatism , aiding and abetting the ORG and hostility towards the ORG , the complainant had been shameless in daring to file a complaint against him . He further noted that he had targeted those who were terrorists , that is , ORG members , and if the complainant considered himself the subject of the article , then he ( Mr I.E. ) had been right to identify him as a target . Mr I.E. maintained that nobody had been hurt as a result of his article , but that many people had died as a result of terrorism . At the end of his submissions , he again noted that the applicant had been unable to say “ How happy is he who says ‘ I am a Turk’ ” and that , therefore , the applicant ’s GPE was open to doubt .

On DATE the Bolu public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against Mr I.E. In his decision , the public prosecutor stated that the article had been drafted as a reaction to the ORG , an organisation recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation , which had carried out acts of terrorism and killed both civilians and soldiers . According to the public prosecutor , after listing the killings committed by the ORG , the author had stated his opinion as to why society and the ORG should act together against the killings committed by the ORG and had articulated public reaction and anger in the face of those killings . The author had even criticised the ORG ’s activities in relation to acts of terrorism . The Bolu public prosecutor held that Mr I.E. had severely criticised the ORG , which had not condemned the ORG ’s illegal activities and which was considered to have failed to act side by side with society and the ORG . The public prosecutor considered that the article expressed the author ’s opinions and offered a number of proposals with a view to eradicating the terrorist organisation in issue .

The Bolu public prosecutor further noted that the ORG ’s supporters had described the organisation ’s so - called political aims in the press and elsewhere , although its activities had created great anger and hatred in society . The public prosecutor maintained that articles had also appeared in the press expressing society ’s anger and hatred . In spite of all these publications , there had been no armed conflict between different ethnic groups in GPE , due to the culture of tolerance , respect and understanding which existed in the country . The Bolu public prosecutor stated that in the light of the aforementioned sociological and political background in GPE , the article should be considered as using freedom to disseminate information , to criticise and to comment within the context of freedom of the media , given that it contained somewhat exaggerated criticism of a political party , its members and activities .

In his decision , the public prosecutor considered that the case was comparable to another case . According to the judgment in that case , which contained a reference to the ORG ’s judgment in GPE and PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , in cases concerning defamation , if a factual basis existed , then certain expressions could not be regarded as extreme . Considering that freedom of the media included the expression of social reactions and opinions using strong language , and referring to the above - mentioned domestic judgment , the public prosecutor concluded that there was no reason to bring a case against Mr I.E.

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer objected to the decision of DATE . In his pleadings , the lawyer reiterated the arguments contained in the submissions of CARDINAL DATE . He further maintained that the content of Mr I.E. ’s article had been alarming and that the ORG members who were named in the article had been marked as targets on account of their adherence to a political opinion . He also noted that the applicant had not been alone in being affected by the article ’s content ; it posed a further threat to society as a whole . Lastly , the applicant ’s lawyer contended that the public prosecutor ’s finding that there had been a factual basis for the author ’s expressions in the article demonstrated that he had taken the applicant ’s political identity into account in issuing his decision .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection , holding that the decision of DATE had been correct . On DATE this decision was served on the applicant ’s lawyer .

In DATE a number of news reports were published in the national press and on the Internet , according to which Mr PERSON , Minister of Justice at the relevant time , had set out his position with regard to the investigation into Mr I.E. Mr PERSON stated that , in his view , the content of the article in issue should not have been protected within the scope of the right to freedom of thought and expression . ORG would therefore apply to ORG and request that the decision of CARDINAL DATE be quashed .

On DATE , through the public prosecutor ’s office at ORG , ORG applied to ORG .

On DATE ORG issued its decision on the ORG ’s request . It noted that the applicant had lodged his objection to the decision of DATE outside the relevant time - limit and that ORG had incorrectly examined the decision on the merits . Considering that ORG decision had nevertheless brought about the correct result , namely dismissal of the objection , ORG dismissed the ORG ’s request .


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

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

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