Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 37-1-b - Matter resolved);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

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

The applicant is the father of CARDINAL children . His eldest daughter , born in DATE , is from a former relationship and lives with him . In DATE the applicant married his ( now ex-)wife , with whom he had CARDINAL more children , born in DATE and DATE .

The applicant and his wife separated in DATE . The separation was pronounced by ORG of GPE ( Tribunal Civil de l’Arrondissement de l’Est Vaudois – hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) on DATE and the mother was given custody ( garde ) of the CARDINAL children , particularly in view of their young age ( the younger child was CARDINAL at the time of the decision ) . In turn , the applicant was granted extensive contact rights , which he had to exercise by agreement with his wife . He confirmed that since then his children usually stayed with him every DATE after school until TIME , and DATE , from DATE after school until TIME . Additionally , they spent CARDINAL of the school holidays – around DATE a year – with him . He calculated that that amounted to PERCENT of the time . His daughter from his former relationship resided with him .

On DATE the applicant filed for divorce with ORG . After his wife ’s reply to the court on DATE , the couple submitted a joint petition for divorce on DATE . In addition , both parties applied for sole parental authority ( autorité parentale exclusive ) over and custody of the children .

In order to decide to whom parental authority should be awarded , ORG commissioned an expert opinion from the psychiatry and psychotherapy service for children and adolescents in the GPE of GPE . The expert ’s report , based on several interviews with the parents as well as with the children , was issued on DATE . It revealed that owing to major disagreements between their parents , both children were caught in conflicts of loyalty towards them , which they tried to resolve by wishing to divide their time equally between the parents . Furthermore , while the applicant wished for shared parental authority ( autorité parentale conjointe ) for the children , his wife opposed it . She justified her opposition by alleging that the applicant had attempted to pressure her and had made incessant requests regarding the children . She feared that he would use shared parental authority to increase his influence over the children in order to distance them from her . In this regard , she also mentioned that he had used inappropriate strategies to obtain custody of his eldest daughter , who was living with him , and had influenced the daughter negatively against her mother . However , the applicant ’s wife was largely in favour of the children maintaining contact with their father and supported his extensive contact rights . Regarding the applicant , the expert observed that while he acknowledged that he had regular contact with his children , he had also expressed the feeling that he was not accepted as the other parent and had been made to feel like a mere “ paying father ” . The expert also noted that the couple disagreed on many child - related issues , which had had a negative impact on the children . In view of the fact that the applicant ’s wife was a good mother and had shown her willingness to cooperate with the applicant , the expert recommended that parental authority be awarded to her and that the applicant be granted extensive contact rights . Furthermore , the youngest child had expressed the wish to stay close to his mother and the children were socially well integrated at their mother ’s place and at the local school .

The applicant contested the expert opinion and ORG therefore ordered a second one . On DATE the second expert , also specialised in child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy , confirmed the findings of the first expert . He based his findings on numerous documents received from ORG and the parents , as well as on various interviews conducted with all the family members . At the outset he observed that despite the fact that DATE had elapsed between the drawing up of the first and second expert reports , the applicant and his wife had maintained their conflict and had been unable to find any common ground for agreement regarding the children . Furthermore , they both had difficulties recognising each other ’s parenting abilities . Nevertheless , the expert acknowledged that both parents had good parenting skills and were able to create an adequate environment for their children . Owing to the ongoing tensions between them , however , the expert found that there was no common ground for shared parental authority and custody and that that would therefore not be in the best interests of the children , who were still caught in conflicts of loyalty towards their parents . The expert further recommended that the applicant should not be awarded sole parental authority over the children . In his view , the applicant still appeared to be very affected by the divorce proceedings . He had criticised the parenting skills of the children ’s mother on various occasions and had shown that he had difficulties in distinguishing his feelings towards her from those aroused by the separation from his children . Despite having exercised extensive contact rights with the full support of his wife , he still claimed that he sometimes felt like a mere “ paying parent ” . In that context , the expert also mentioned the inappropriate ways in which the applicant had obtained custody of his eldest daughter . The expert concluded that it was in the best interests of the children for the courts to award parental authority to the mother and to maintain the applicant ’s extensive contact rights . That solution would furthermore provide continuity for the children .

NORP Following that expert opinion , the applicant informed ORG by letter of DATE that he was withdrawing his application for parental authority and custody . At the subsequent hearing , ORG questioned various witnesses , who testified that the applicant was fully exercising his contact rights and was undertaking many activities with the children . They also stated that the GPE relationship had remained conflictual and that the applicant felt much more animosity towards his exwife than she did towards him . By a final judgment of DATE ORG pronounced the divorce of the parties and awarded parental authority over and custody of the children to the mother , while maintaining the applicant ’s previous extensive contact rights .

On DATE and DATE , the applicant lodged a “ partial appeal ” against ORG judgment with ORG of GPE ( le Tribunal Cantonal , chambre des recours , GPE - hereinafter “ the Appeal Court ” ) . He complained that the granting of parental authority to his ex - wife by ORG was not in accordance with ORG judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . He claimed that parental authority could not be withdrawn from a father who had , since the separation from his wife in DATE , extensively proved his parenting abilities . He reproached his ex - wife for behaving inappropriately towards the children in several respects and claimed that that was why he disagreed with the award of sole parental authority to her . Lastly , he stated that he no longer had the financial means to be represented by a lawyer .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ruling that under LAW of LAW ( hereinafter “ the Civil Code ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on divorce proceedings , parental authority could only be awarded to one of the parents . The maintenance of shared parental authority would require , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , a joint request by both parents , and shared parenting could not be imposed on a parent who opposed it , such as the mother in the present case . ORG also found that despite the applicant ’s criticism of his ex - wife ’s parenting abilities , there were no grounds for changing the award of parental authority . Furthermore , such a solution would be contrary to the experts’ findings . As provided for in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the judge ’s paramount consideration when deciding on parental authority was what was in the child ’s best interests . All relevant circumstances had to be taken into account , including any possible joint request by the parents for shared parental authority and , where possible , the children ’s views . In cases such as the present one , in which experts had recognised that both parents had good parenting abilities , a parent ’s willingness to cooperate with the other parent in the children ’s best interests was conclusive . As shown by the experts’ opinions before ORG , it had been the mother in the present case who had shown fewer difficulties in cooperating with the father . ORG therefore upheld ORG judgment .

In his appeal to ORG , the applicant held that , owing to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and his wife ’s refusal to make a joint request , he had not been given the opportunity to apply to the domestic courts for shared parental authority . Referring to the case of PERSON ( cited above ) , he stated that every father should be able to apply to the domestic courts for shared parental authority , even if the mother was opposed to it , as that was in the children ’s best interests .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on DATE . It held that it was doubtful whether the applicant had sufficiently substantiated his appeal . Even assuming that he had done so , his case differed substantially from ORG ( cited above ) . First , while in PERSON the parents had not been married , in the present case the applicant was a divorced father . Second , NORP law not only provided that the applicant , like his ( ex-)wife , could apply for sole parental authority but both parents had also been treated equally . Unlike the NORP law regarding parents of children born out of wedlock , as established in ORG , LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) did not privilege one of the parents on the basis of his or her sex when awarding parental authority , and the mother had no right to veto the father ’s request in this regard . Under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the decision was based solely on the children ’s best interests . ORG concluded that the applicant ’s case could not be compared to ORG because there was no indication that he had been treated differently , when deciding on parental authority , from the children ’s mother .

On DATE ORG adopted amendments to LAW provisions on parental authority , which will enter into force on CARDINAL July CARDINAL . Accordingly , shared parental authority will be the rule , independently of the GPE civil status . To continue with shared parental authority after divorce will hence no longer require a joint request by the parents . However , if the judge considers that it is in the child ’s best interests , parental authority can still be awarded to CARDINAL parent . The implementation provisions of this amendment to LAW further provide that in cases decided under ( former ) LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , where parental authority had been awarded to CARDINAL of the parents , the other parent or both together can apply to the child protection authority for shared parental authority . Moreover , the parent from whom parental authority had been withdrawn in the divorce proceedings may also apply to the court on his or her own motion if the divorce was finalised after DATE .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the attempted murder of his brother , GPE

On DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with ORG .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill - founded .

Following his arrest , on DATE the applicant was remanded in custody in FAC .

On DATE the prison authorities discovered CARDINAL pills of psychoactive drugs hidden in the applicant ’s clothes .

On DATE the applicant encouraged other prisoners to start a hunger strike . On DATE , ORG , viewing the applicant as someone who posed a severe danger to the safety of the facility , classified him as a “ dangerous detainee ” . The applicant then went on a hunger strike which lasted until DATE . He was punished by being placed in solitary confinement for DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant refused to continue to take part in his rehabilitation programme and was therefore excluded from it .

On DATE the special regime for dangerous detainees was lifted in respect of the applicant .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in LOC . On DATE he was transported back to GPE .

The applicant ’s behaviour during DATE varied : he was sometimes rewarded for good behaviour and sometimes faced disciplinary measures . Such measures were imposed in particular for illegal contact with other inmates , for commencing hunger strikes and for being active in the prison subculture .

On DATE prison officers found that the applicant had MONEY in cash from an unknown source . The money was seized and transferred to the applicant ’s bank account .

On DATE the applicant attempted to go for a walk in the prison yard without permission from the supervising officer and was reprimanded on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was visited by members of his family and tried to pass them an illegal message on a piece of paper . After the visit he was ordered to undergo a strip search .

On DATE the applicant complained about the strip search to ORG .

On DATE the director of ORG examined his complaint and found that the search had been performed in accordance with the law and that the applicant had not been debased or humiliated . The director also found that on DATE the applicant had given a visiting member of his family a piece of paper with some notes on it . The director found that that “ constituted a violation of discipline and order ” .

On DATE the applicant complained about another strip search , which had taken place on DATE . His complaint was examined on DATE by the director of ORG , who found that the search had been carried out in accordance with the law .

On DATE the applicant underwent a strip search which was accompanied by a search of his cell . The inspection of the cell was part of an action plan introduced at FAC in DATE to increase security . The plan included the inspection of all the cells .

In his observations before this ORG , the applicant ’s lawyer submitted that the applicant had been ordered to undergo a strip search on DATE , even though he had had severe back pain and had barely been able to walk . He had also had difficulties getting undressed .

The applicant complained to the director of the remand centre . He submitted that after the search of his cell his personal belonging had been thrown on the floor , mixed in with other inmates’ possessions and that the cell had “ looked like after a hurricane ” . In the complaint he neither mentioned any irregularities as regards the strip search nor complained about back problems .

On DATE the remand centre director dismissed the complaint . He found that the search had been performed in accordance with the law and had respected the applicant ’s rights and personal dignity . The relevant part of the director ’s decision read as follows :

“ The strip search and cell inspection were conducted in accordance with LAW , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW . The guards did not use offensive language and did not debase you . Nobody hit you . The objects which were inspected were not thrown around . Nothing was damaged during the search . ”

In DATE the applicant was seen by a neurologist CARDINAL times and on CARDINAL occasions by a neurosurgeon . On DATE an operation , apparently for back pain , was scheduled for the applicant for DATE . The doctors did not advise against body checks of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant had a visit from his sister and brother - in - law and was afterwards ordered to undergo another strip search . He again complained to the director of ORG , submitting that the strip search had not been justified and had lacked legal grounds .

On DATE the director of ORG dismissed the complaint as ill - founded .

The relevant part of the decision read :

“ The strip search you were subjected to was carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions and with respect for your personal dignity . ”

On DATE the applicant received a visit from members of his family and was allowed to have direct contact with them . Afterwards , he was again ordered to undergo a strip search . The applicant stated that he had intense pain in his spine on DATE and could barely stand and had therefore refused to undergo the search . The chief duty officer was then called . He arrived with CARDINAL other guards and subjected the applicant to a strip search . He was ordered to strip naked , bend at the knees , show his penis and open his mouth . However , as he was deemed to have performed the PERSON orders “ in a dilatory manner ” he was punished on DATE with a DATE ban on having direct contact with his family during visits , only being able to see them from behind a glass screen .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the way the strip search of DATE had been conducted . He submitted , among other things , that he had had severe back pain after the family visit , had barely been able to move and had therefore refused to undress . The prison officers had apparently ignored his complaints and had “ forced him to undergo the strip search ” . He also submitted in the complaint that he had been unable to get dressed after the strip search because of the severe pain in his back and that he had been left standing in only his underpants for TIME . CARDINAL of the officers had then opened the window to let in freezing air to make him get dressed quickly .

On DATE the applicant also complained about the imposition of the disciplinary penalty on him after the strip search of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the director of ORG informed the applicant that his complaint of DATE needed further investigation , which would last until DATE . The applicant did not provide any further information about the outcome of those proceedings .

The complaint of CARDINAL DATE was dismissed on DATE . The decision , issued by the deputy director of ORG , said that the “ applicant refused to undergo a strip search and only agreed to comply when the chief duty officer was called ” . The decision does not refer to the applicant ’s submissions that the alleged reason for his refusal to undergo the strip search had been severe back pain . It also made no reference to his allegations that he had been left for TIME in a state of being unable to get dressed and that he had been forced to put his clothes on by someone letting freezing air into the room . The applicant then lodged a further complaint with ORG , which , on DATE upheld the decision given by the deputy director of ORG . The court found that the decision had been issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law and that it had no competence to examine whether the decision had been well - founded or not .

On DATE ORG , in view of the applicant ’s state of health and his neurological and orthopaedic problems , granted him leave to undergo the operation outside prison . The applicant was scheduled to return to prison on DATE .


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

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

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

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

On DATE the applicant took out a loan with Z. bank ( hereinafter “ the bank ” ) of CARDINAL deutschmarks ( ORG ) . He used his house as security , allowing the bank to register a charge against it .

On DATE the bank instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) , for the seizure and sale of his house . It was argued that he had failed to repay the loan .

On DATE ORG granted the bank ’s request and issued an enforcement order against the applicant . He appealed , arguing that the enforcement order had been declared invalid and that the interest rate on the loan had been miscalculated .

On DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as being without merit , finding that the statutory conditions for enforcement had been met .

On DATE ORG ( Općinski građanski sud u GPE – “ the ORG ” ) held a second public auction for the sale of the house . There was CARDINAL bidder , PERSON The court granted title to the applicant ’s house to him , on condition that he paid CARDINAL kunas ( HRK ) as the purchase price , which was CARDINAL of the estimated market value . The decision became final on DATE , after PERSON paid the purchase price .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered that the house be transferred to M. The decision was not amenable to appeal .

On DATE the applicant requested that the enforcement proceedings be stayed until the outcome of criminal proceedings he had instituted against his former representative was known .

On an unspecified date ORG scheduled the applicant ’s eviction for DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested that the enforcement proceedings be stayed until the dispute with his bank had been settled . He argued that his daughter would have to interrupt her studies in the middle of the academic year and that she was a carer for other members of the household .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s application inadmissible , finding that the statutory conditions for adjournment had not been met and that he had lost his right to possession of the house when he had received the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In addition , the court referred to a statement he had given to the court bailiff on DATE promising to move out of the house before DATE without lodging any further appeal .

On DATE the judge in charge of the enforcement proceedings held a meeting with the parties’ lawyers , the court bailiff and the police . The applicant ’s representatives were informed that there would be no further announcements regarding the eviction date , but that it would not take place before CARDINAL DATE . They were also informed that there would be no further adjournments , and the police were instructed to better prepare themselves .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for the judge in charge of the enforcement proceedings to be withdrawn from the case , arguing that he was preparing a “ secret eviction ” .

On DATE the President of ORG refused that request .

On DATE ORG scheduled the applicant ’s eviction for DATE , ordering the court bailiff to execute it . The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision .

On DATE the applicant and his family were evicted .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as it did not have jurisdiction .

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim against PERSON before ORG to determine ownership of a garage and some land adjacent to the house . He argued that in the enforcement proceedings PERSON had bought only the house , not the garage and land .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim , arguing that PERSON had bought the property in its entirety in good faith at the court ’s public auction .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment , which is still pending .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE ) read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A contract that is contrary to the LAW , mandatory rules or morals shall be declared null and void ( ništetan ) unless the purpose of the breached rule indicates some other sanction or the law in a particular case provides otherwise .

( CARDINAL ) If the conclusion of a contract is prohibited only to CARDINAL party , the contract shall remain valid , unless the law in a particular case provides otherwise , and the party that has breached the statutory prohibition shall bear the relevant consequences . ”

“ A contract is voidable ( pobojan ) if a party to it had no legal capacity or entered into the contract under duress ( mane volje ) at the time when it was concluded or where the contract is voidable LAW or another statute . ”


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant served his prison sentence in GPE prison from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he was transferred to PERSON prison . He stayed there until DATE , when he was further transferred to GPE prison , the Section Novo mesto ( the Section Novo mesto ) . The applicant ’s complaints do not relate to the conditions of detention in PERSON prison .

In the period DATE and DATE the applicant was held in the closed section of GPE prison . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) .

In the period DATE and DATE the applicant was held in the semi - open section of GPE prison , in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) .

All the cells in the closed and semi - open sections contained , apart from the furniture , CARDINAL sleeping places ( CARDINAL bunk beds and CARDINAL single bed ) . According to the applicant , CARDINAL prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention . The Government , however , submitted that the number varied CARDINAL . Each cell had CARDINAL x QUANTITY double casement window , which the prisoners could freely open or close .

As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi - open sections , material conditions inside the cells therein , sanitary conditions and health care , see the judgment in ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE , § § DATE .

As to the out - of - cell time in the closed section , the ORG found in the aforementioned judgment that sentenced prisoners in the closed section of the prison were locked up in their cells and were only able to leave them if they applied for certain activities , most of which were to take place in the recreation room . There was , however , CARDINAL ORG - metre recreation room per floor , which was to be used by CARDINAL inmates at most ( NORP and Others § DATE ) .

As to the out - of - cell time in the semi - open section , the ORG submitted that the cell doors in the semi - open section of the prison were unlocked , except from TIME ( on DATE and DATE from TIME ) until TIME ( on DATE , DATE and during holidays until TIME ) . During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor ( QUANTITY ) , living quarters of co - prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas , in accordance with prison rules . The Government alleged that this regime had been in place for DATE . However , as the applicant was transferred to the semi - open section only on a ground of overcrowdedness , while being detained there he was not granted outside visits and unsupervised leave .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was held in the closed section of the Section Novo mesto . During his detention in the Section Novo mesto the applicant was held in unit CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and including CARDINAL separate rooms , namely an ante - chamber measuring QUANTITY , a sanitary facility measuring QUANTITY , a smaller room measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL beds and a larger room measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL , occasionally CARDINAL beds , where the applicant was held most of the time with CARDINAL other prisoners . In the ante - chamber prisoners could watch television and prepare hot beverages . All together there were CARDINAL prisoners in unit CARDINAL . They could move freely in the unit TIME per day as the inner doors were unlocked . From TIME they could move freely also in the shared corridor of the Section Novo mesto and recreation areas . The applicant spent out of the unit TIME per day : TIME outdoors in an area of QUANTITY , TIME in a shared corridor of QUANTITY or in shared living quarters of QUANTITY . The applicant could also move in an outdoor recreation yard for TIME per day .

During his imprisonment the applicant had CARDINAL consultations with a general practitioner and CARDINAL psychiatric treatment . He never requested treatment by a psychologist or dentist .

As regards the cell temperature , the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in TIME ( CARDINAL- TIME ) in DATE and DATE had been approximately CARDINAL , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE .


CASE OF ŽIROVNICKÝ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in FAC .

On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings for protection of his personality rights ( “ the main proceedings ” ) against GPE in the person of ORG ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG ( městský soud ) dismissed the applicant ’s action . ORG ( vrchní soud ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant on DATE and ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal on points of law on DATE .

On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings . As ORG did not deal with the applicant ’s request within the DATE statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action on DATE ( proceedings no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodní soud ) acknowledged that there had been delays in the main proceedings and awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas ( CZK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and dismissed the rest of the claim .

On DATE ORG amended the lower court ’s judgment by dismissing the whole financial claim , leaving the rest of the judgment intact . It found that the applicant had not suffered any non - pecuniary damage on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG , upon an appeal on points of law by the applicant , quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case to it . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim for financial compensation but acknowledged that his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time had been violated in the main proceedings . Given the high number of lawsuits brought by the applicant , the court concluded that the finding of a violation was sufficient redress for the non - pecuniary damage caused to him . The court also saw no need to award him damages on account of the length of the compensation proceedings , as the applicant had requested , considering that they had not been unreasonably long .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant , stating , inter alia :

“ ORG pointed out in its previous cassation judgment in this case that , without providing any further reasons , it can not be concluded that the fact that a plaintiff has initiated a large number of disputes ... means that the presumption of non - pecuniary damage caused by excessively long proceedings has been rebutted .

The fact that an injured person has instigated a large number of judicial disputes can have an impact on his approach to a particular set of proceedings ; for example , he may fail to respond to the court ’s requests on time , pay court fees on time , remedy shortcomings in his submissions on time and such like , thus he may not pay proper attention to the proceedings . Such conduct may show that the subject matter of the proceedings is of lesser importance for the injured person and it may be taken into consideration under the criterion of the injured person ’s conduct .... Nonetheless , even if there are no such circumstances on the part of the injured person , it is not possible to wholly ignore the fact that the plaintiff has initiated a large number of judicial disputes . It puts him in a different position as regards the perception of the degree of damage caused by the excessive length of CARDINAL of the disputes compared to the position of a person participating in CARDINAL or only a few judicial proceedings ( compare , in similar terms , ORG inadmissibility decision in the case of GPE v. GPE , of DATE , applications nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , and the decision of ORG , no . CARDINAL Cdo CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

As to the appellant ’s complaint that the court of appeal should have taken the length of the compensation proceedings themselves into account when determining redress , it must be admitted that the base amount of compensation can indeed be increased if compensation proceedings are themselves excessively long and a plaintiff requests an increase in compensation on those grounds ( part ORG . of ORG opinion of DATE , no . PERSON ... ) . However , in its judgment of DATE , no . CARDINAL DATE , ORG added that if in the proceedings concerned the procedure under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) has been followed , the application of the possibility to increase compensation is limited by the rules for submitting new facts and modifying the initial action in the proceedings before the court of first instance ; the same applies in similar fashion to appeal proceedings ( see LAW ORG ) . Thus , an injured person has to raise an objection about the length of compensation proceedings pending the effects of concentration in the particular proceedings . In the present case , the appellant raised a claim for compensation for the length of the compensation proceedings only in the course of the proceedings before the appellate court , in a submission of DATE ( file page CARDINAL ) ... so it was an inadmissible new claim . ”

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed a constitutional complaint ( ústavní stížnost ) by the applicant .

NORP In the meantime , the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage for the excessive length of the first set of compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . He later began proceedings for compensation for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the second set of compensation proceedings too ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG of the ORG before ORG under LAW . He claimed compensation for an allegedly illegal search of his house on DATE .

On DATE he was asked to remedy shortcomings in his action , which he did on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided the case was not in its jurisdiction and referred it to the Prague CARDINAL ORG . Following an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the jurisdiction decision on DATE .

On DATE ORG appointed a legal representative for the applicant . On DATE and DATE and DATE the applicant supplemented his action .

On DATE ORG asked the Prague CARDINAL ORG to send it the criminal case file concerning the house search at issue .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action on DATE after a hearing on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law . On DATE he filed a constitutional complaint , which was rejected as premature by ORG on DATE . ORG dismissed his appeal on points of law on DATE , referring , inter alia , to a decision by ORG on the same matter , which had found the complaint manifestly ill - founded ( see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .

NORP The applicant subsequently renewed his complaint to ORG but it was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . As the Ministry did not deal with his request within the DATE statutory time - limit , on DATE he brought a civil action before the GPE CARDINAL ORG seeking CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in compensation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action , considering that the main proceedings had not been unreasonably long .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , finding that although the main proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time the applicant could not be awarded compensation because of the lack of significance of the proceedings for him . According to the court , the applicant had abused his right of access to a court by initiating a very large number of legal disputes against the ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG . It noted that even if the applicant had abused his right of access to a court , unreasonably long proceedings might still cause him damage which had to be compensated for by at least a finding of a violation .

On DATE ORG modified ORG judgment by finding a violation of the applicant ’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment . The court refused to deal with a new complaint by the applicant about the length of the compensation proceedings .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which is apparently still under consideration .

In the meantime , the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings and then proceedings for compensation for delays in that second case ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant brought an action for damages against ORG of the ORG before ORG , alleging that he had suffered damage in connection with a “ terrorist attack ” on his family by police officers on DATE .

On DATE the case was referred to ORG as the court competent to deal with it at the first instance .

After several decisions on exemption from court fees , the appointment of a legal representative for the applicant and several attempts by the court to procure the related criminal case files , a hearing was held on DATE , following which ORG dismissed the action .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings , no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL . As ORG did not deal with the applicant ’s request within the statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action before the Prague CARDINAL ORG on DATE , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation .

On DATE ORG dismissed his action , acknowledging that the main proceedings had been unreasonably long , but seeing no necessity to award him financial compensation .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment , finding it non - reviewable for lack of reasoning , and remitted the case to ORG . In a judgment of DATE , ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment and dismissed the action regarding financial compensation . According to the court , the finding of a violation constituted adequate redress . It found that awarding him financial compensation would be against good moralsapplicant ’s conduct in the main proceedings , the conduct of the courts , the importance of the subject matter of the proceedings for the applicant as well as his character , his relation towards the ORG and society and his lack of respect for the rights of others .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant . A subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed as manifestly ill - founded by ORG on DATE .

Following a plea of nullity by the applicant , ORG on DATE quashed its judgment of DATE on the grounds that the applicant had not been able to attend a hearing at the court .

On DATE ORG issued a new judgment , modifying ORG judgment by awarding the applicant CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) . It found that the length of the compensation proceedings meant that a mere finding of a violation of his rights no longer constituted adequate redress . Having regard to the overall length of the main proceedings , ORG determined the sum to be awarded to the applicant ( CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL – EUR CARDINAL ) and then adjusted it with regard to the length of the compensation proceedings ( + PERCENT ) , procedural difficulties in the main proceedings ( PERCENT ) and the importance of what had been at stake for him ( PERCENT ) .

It appears that the compensation proceedings are still ongoing .

The applicant instituted a further CARDINAL sets of proceedings related to the compensation claim : CARDINAL to seek compensation for non - pecuniary damage for delays in the initial compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL for compensation for the excessive length of that second set of compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant brought an administrative action against ORG before ORG , seeking the annulment of ORG Decree no . CARDINAL on the rules for imprisonment ( vyhláška Ministerstva spravedlnosti , kterou se vydává řád výkonu trestu odnětí svobody ) and the internal rules of ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected his action for lack of competence .

Following a cassation complaint ( kasační stížnost ) by the applicant , ORG ( GPE správní soud ) quashed the judgment on DATE and remitted the case to ORG . It found that the applicant ’s action should have been dismissed ( zamítnuta ) rather than rejected ( odmítnuta ) .

After several decisions on the appointment of a legal representative for the applicant in DATE , ORG dismissed the action on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation complaint by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings ( no . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL/CARDINAL , later no . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant ’s request within the statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action before the GPE CARDINAL ORG on DATE , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the action , considering that the overall length of the proceedings at issue had not been unreasonable despite CARDINAL particular delay , particularly because the applicant had in fact known the result of the proceedings after ORG first judgment of DATE .

DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , holding that a finding of a violation of the applicant ’s rights would be sufficient compensation for the CARDINAL delay in the main proceedings .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG , stating that the finding of a violation should have been set out in the operative part of the judgment .

In a judgment of DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s right to have his case heard without unnecessary delays in the operative part of the judgment . It found that the length of the main proceedings had been unreasonable , given that the case had not been complex . However , it found that the finding of a violation would provide adequate redress , given the lack of importance of what was at stake for the applicant and the fact that he must have known the result of the proceedings as soon as ORG had issued its first judgment . The court considered the finding of a violation to be adequate redress , even taking into account the length of the compensation proceedings themselves .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant . On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint as manifestly ill - founded .

In the meantime , the applicant initiated proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) for compensation for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings . He later made a claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage from the excessive length of the latter compensation proceedings too ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant brought an administrative action against ORG ( vězeňská služba ) and ORG , challenging decisions on a disciplinary penalty ( a reprimand ) that had been imposed on him and the failure of ORG to decide on a complaint by him about a violation of regulations by ORG staff .

After exempting the applicant from court fees , appointing a lawyer to represent him and seeking necessary clarification of the action , on DATE ORG found the action in respect of the disciplinary decisions inadmissible , severing the part of the action concerning ORG alleged failure to act .

On DATE ORG dismissed the latter part of the action , finding that ORG had not been obliged to deal with the applicant ’s complaint in administrative proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation complaint by the applicant . On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint as manifestly ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings ( no . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant ’s request within the statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action before the Prague CARDINAL ORG on DATE , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the action , finding that the main proceedings had not been unreasonably long .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG since it had failed to also consider proceedings no . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG again dismissed the action , finding that the main proceedings , nos . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL/CARDINAL and QUANTITY Ca CARDINAL/CARDINAL , had not been unreasonably long .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . Although , contrary to ORG , it considered that the main proceeding had been unreasonably long , it held that finding a violation was sufficient redress .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG . The latter court on DATE modified ORG judgment by setting out a violation of the applicant ’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment . It did not find that the length of the compensation proceedings had been unreasonable .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which is apparently still ongoing .

In the meantime , the applicant initiated CARDINAL other cases for compensation for non - pecuniary damage from delayed proceedings : CARDINAL related to delays in the initial compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL related to delays in that further compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant sent a request for compensation of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) under LAW to ORG . He stated that he had suffered non - pecuniary damage as a result of irregular official conduct by police officers who , on DATE , had taken a DNA sample by way of a cheek swab , without authority to do so and under the threat of force .

On DATE the ORG rejected the request . On DATE the applicant brought an action for damages against ORG before ORG .

DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the action as time - barred . Following an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG , finding an erroneous assessment of the statutory limitation period .

On DATE ORG delivered a new judgment , dismissing the action for compensation . It admitted that there had been irregularities in the actions of the police officers when taking the applicant ’s DNA samples , but found that he had not suffered any damage .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , although with different reasoning . It considered that the finding of a violation was adequate redress for the damage caused to the applicant .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG . It stated that ORG “ should not overlook ” ORG case - law regarding the statutory limitation of a claim . Consequently , on DATE ORG delivered a new judgment , dismissing the applicant ’s action as time - barred .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . On CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued proceedings on that appeal as the applicant ’s lawyer had failed to submit it properly within the statutory time - limit .

On DATE ORG rejected a constitutional complaint by the applicant on the grounds that he was not represented by a lawyer . It also observed that the applicant did not want to pursue the complaint .

On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim , finding no delays in the main proceedings and considering their overall length as reasonable . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation .

DATE . After several attempts by the court to procure the relevant case file ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a hearing was held on DATE . ORG dismissed the action on DATE , finding that the length of the main proceedings had been reasonable .

According to the ORG , the applicant filed an appeal on DATE , which is apparently still ongoing .

In the meantime , the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant brought an action for protection of his personality rights against a newspaper publisher and ORG .

After an amendment of the action and several decisions on exempting the applicant from court fees , on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against GPE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action .

On DATE the Prague High Court modified the judgment , awarding the applicant CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG , which upheld ORG judgment on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which is apparently still under consideration .

On DATE the applicant lodged a plea of nullity against ORG judgment , asserting that he had not been able to attend a hearing . Apparently , those proceedings are still ongoing .

On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim , finding no delays in the main proceedings . On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry , seeking EUR CARDINAL in compensation .

On DATE the Prague CARDINAL ORG awarded the applicant CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) and dismissed the rest of the action . It considered that the main proceedings had been unreasonably long , taking into consideration that they had concerned the applicant ’s personality rights .

On DATE ORG modified the judgment by finding a violation of the applicant ’s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time but dismissing his claim for financial compensation . Having regard to the fact that the applicant had brought a number of actions , overloading the court system in GPE by such actions , the court concluded that the finding of a violation constituted adequate redress for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law . It emphasised that if a plaintiff initiated a large number of legal cases then the strength of his feelings towards the damage caused by the unreasonable length of CARDINAL of those sets of proceedings was different to someone who had participated in CARDINAL or a few sets of proceedings .

ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicant as manifestly ill - founded on DATE .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a “ permanently resident noncitizen ” of GPE who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence GPE . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

As of DATE the applicant was detained in FAC ( GPE cietums ) . Prior to DATE it had been named Daugavpils Prison ( NORP cietums ) . In the course of his detention the applicant also spent certain periods of time in other prisons . It appears that he stayed in FAC until DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the conditions in FAC . He asked to be released until prison conditions had been improved and requested a monetary compensation of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) .

First of all , he submitted that the prison was overcrowded . He was housed in cell no . CARDINAL , which was occupied by QUANTITY persons , even though it had been designed for CARDINAL . The situation was similar in other prison cells . On DATE he had been transported to a hospital owing to heart problems . Upon his release from the hospital he had been returned to the same cell no . CARDINAL .

Furthermore , the applicant , a non - smoker , was exposed to cigarette smoke on a DATE basis .

Also , CARDINAL sets of bunk beds had been placed next to each other . The applicant had to sleep next to another man , and another inmate was sleeping above the applicant . His sleep suffered as a result , and his nervous system was also negatively affected .

Lastly , the applicant submitted that the cells were not equipped with emergency buttons in order to call for help . He generally stated that he was unable to purchase the necessary products in the prison shop .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s aforementioned complaint .

With regard to the issue of living space , ORG found that the applicant had been provided with living space as required by statute , namely a minimum of PERCENT ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In reaching that conclusion ORG provided information on the floor area and intended number of inmates for each of the applicant ’s cells DATE and DATE , including cell no . CARDINAL .

As to the applicant ’s complaint of exposure to cigarette smoke , according to the applicant ’s submissions of DATE he had refused his transfer to a non - smoking cell . Also , on DATE he had requested that CARDINAL packs of cigarettes , a lighter and matches be purchased for him in the prison shop .

ORG did not react to the complaint concerning bunk beds .

Lastly , it provided general information on the products available at the prison shop .

NORP That decision could be challenged before ORG ( ORG rajona tiesa ) .

On DATE the ORG received the applicant ’s complaint , as supplemented on DATE , regarding poor conditions in FAC over “ a long period of time ” . The applicant requested financial compensation .

He submitted that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions in the prison . He raised most of the same issues as previously before ORG , namely overcrowding , his exposure to cigarette smoke , the bunk beds , and the absence of an emergency button .

He further criticised the first aid in response to his heart attack on DATE , and submitted that prior to his arrest in DATE he had not suffered from heart problems . Following the heart attack , the applicant had refused his transfer to a single - occupancy cell because it already held CARDINAL inmates and thus would not remedy his situation . He argued that he had purchased the cigarettes in order to use them to repel rodents .

In addition , owing to the large number of inmates , the applicant had difficulty in accessing sanitary facilities , including a non - partitioned toilet , and a table to have a meal . There was also a bad smell and a lack of ventilation in the prison cells . He was locked up in those conditions for TIME a day .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint .

Concerning the issue of overcrowding , ORG concluded that the information provided by ORG showed that DATE and DATE the applicant had been held in prison cells with a surface area of CARDINAL m² per person , which complied with statutory requirements .

As to the applicant ’s confinement with smokers , ORG held that the statutes did not require smokers and non - smokers to be held separately . However , such an obligation was incumbent on the prison once a convicted person had made a request to be transferred to a non - smoking cell .

In that regard , there was no evidence that the applicant had made such a request prior to his heart attack on DATE . He had made the request on DATE . Yet he had refused to be placed in non - smoking cell no . CARDINAL because of certain conditions in that cell . However , there was no indication in the case file that the applicant had informed the prison of these issues and had requested that they be addressed or that he be moved to a different cell . That being the case , it could not be said that the prison had ignored the applicant ’s requests in relation to non - smoking conditions and that he had been forced to share a cell with smokers .

As regards the bunk beds , ORG did not accept that beds had led to the applicant ’s being subjected to inhuman treatment . His sleep problem had nothing to do with the beds . It was a medical issue , concerning which the applicant ought to have consulted a prison doctor .

An appeal lay to a higher court against that decision of ORG .

In his appeal of DATE , as supplemented on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant requested that the above - mentioned decision of ORG be quashed and that he be awarded compensation of ORG .

The applicant argued that the lower court had been mistaken in finding that he had been provided with a minimum of CARDINAL m² of living space as required by the statutes . The floor space had been taken up by furniture and the toilet , thus reducing the available floor space .

He further complained that the statutes should also require , with regard to prisons , that separate , isolated and well - ventilated rooms be provided for smoking . The applicant had no complaints about other inmates smoking , since they were his friends . It was therefore illegitimate to require him to move to a different prison cell . Furthermore , a fine metal mesh had been installed on the windows hampering air circulation . As a result , the applicant had experienced renewed heart problems .

On DATE ORG ( NORP apgabaltiesa ) examined the applicant ’s appeal and partly granted his claim .

ORG noted that during the court hearing the applicant had stated that he had been subjected to inhuman conditions for DATE . It further stated that the scope of the case was limited to the matters in relation to which the administrative proceedings had been initiated .

As regards the applicant ’s confinement with smokers , ORG endorsed the lower court ’s findings .

As to the applicant ’s complaint of overcrowding , ORG noted the recommendation of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) that CARDINAL m² be provided per prisoner in multiple - occupancy cells , as mentioned by ORG in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

In the applicant ’s case , that standard had not been complied with for a period of ORG DATE , namely DATE and DATE . Also , as a result of overcrowding , the ventilation during that time had been inadequate . Consequently , the applicant had suffered treatment in breach of the prohibition of torture .

In determining the amount of compensation to be paid , ORG took into consideration the degree and duration of the violation of the applicant ’s rights . It referred to the case - law of the administrative courts . It also observed that in ORG had awarded CARDINAL ( ORG ) where a person had been held for DATE in conditions of overcrowding and also of limited out - of - cell activities , lack of personal hygiene products ( soap , toothbrush , toilet paper ) , insufficient ventilation and natural light ; in addition , there had been a suspicion that the person had contracted tuberculosis while in detention ( ibid . , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

That being the case , ORG deemed that compensation of ORG CARDINAL ( roughly corresponding to LAW ) was appropriate in the applicant ’s situation .

That judgment was open to appeal before ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG lietu departaments ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the above judgment of ORG . He requested that the ORG of ORG re - calculate the compensation awarded .

He submitted that the appeal court had not taken all the circumstances into account . He further specified that he had been detained in Daugavgrīva Prison in inhuman conditions for a long period of time , namely DATE and DATE , and that owing to those conditions he had had a heart attack .

For DATE spent in FAC the applicant claimed ORG CARDINAL in compensation , in total ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which he had rounded to LVL CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the impugned judgment and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

It affirmed that LAW had been violated in the applicant ’s case on account of the small living space and insufficient ventilation , which had been switched on for CARDINAL or two hours every day .

With regard to the applicant ’s complaint regarding the period of time considered by ORG , the ORG held that the circumstances of which the applicant had complained to ORG had been scrutinised in the present case . First , his complaint in relation to a non - smoking cell had been dismissed , and in that part ORG judgment had become final . Further , he had complained about the size of the prison cells . The ORG ruled that none of the facts of the case had been disregarded by ORG .

That judgment was final .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG about conditions of detention in FAC DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed that complaint as out - of - time .

Furthermore , in the final decision of ORG of DATE the court proceedings were also rejected in view of the belated nature of the applicant ’s complaint .

In regard to LAW ) prohibiting the torture and cruel or degrading treatment of a person , see PERSON GPE ( no . GPE , § DATE , DATE ) . Moreover , LAW everyone ’s right to adequate compensation in the event of an unlawful interference with his or her rights .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG izpildes kodekss ) , which provides for living space in dormitorytype prison cells of CARDINAL m² per person for men , was cited in GPE ( DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

The Administrative Procedure Law ( Administratīvā procesa likums ) came into force on DATE . It provides , among other things , for the right to challenge the actions of public authorities ( faktiskā rīcība ) before the administrative courts ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On TIME the pregnant applicant , after her contractions had started , was taken by ambulance to the gynaecology ward of GPE Military ORG .

Following her admission , she was handed a booklet issued by the hospital which contained , among other things , a notice warning patients about their possible involvement in the clinical teaching taking place at the hospital . The notice read :

“ We ask you to respect the fact that medical treatment in our hospital is combined with teaching for students studying obstetrics and gynaecology . Because of this , all patients are involved in the study process . ”

The exact time at which the booklet was handed to her is unclear .

At TIME the applicant was examined by a doctor , who established that she was DATE pregnant and that there were complications with the pregnancy because she had mild polyhydramnios ( excess amniotic fluid ) . The doctor noted that the applicant ’s contractions appeared premature and that she was suffering from fatigue . In view of these symptoms , she was put in a drug - induced sleep , which lasted from TIME .

At TIME the applicant ’s doctor again established that the contractions had been premature and prescribed her anti - contraction medication to suppress premature labour .

DATE the applicant underwent various medical examinations . The doctors found no other pathologies except that she had been having irregular contractions .

According to the applicant , at TIME she was informed that her delivery was scheduled for DATE and that it would be attended by medical students .

At TIME the applicant was put in a drug - induced sleep . During the TIME her condition was monitored by doctors .

At TIME DATE , after the applicant had been woken up , the frequency and intensity of her contractions increased . The doctors found traces of meconium in her amniotic fluid , which indicated there was a risk that the foetus was suffering from hypoxia . The applicant was prescribed medicine to improve uteroplacental hemodynamics ( blood flow to the placenta ) .

At TIME the doctors carried out a cardiotocography examination and described the state of health of both the applicant and her foetus as satisfactory . They also decided to conduct a vaginal delivery . According to the applicant , in the delivery room she objected to the presence of medical students at the birth .

The birth lasted from TIME in the presence of doctors and medical students , who had apparently received some information about her state of health and medical treatment . During the labour the doctors performed an episiotomy ( incision ) . The child was diagnosed with light asphyxia . At TIME the child was moved to a special care baby unit and remained there until CARDINAL DATE , the date the applicant took her home .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the hospital , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused as a result of the measures aimed at delaying the birth .

In response , the hospital administration carried out an internal inquiry . The results of were set out in a report dated DATE , which confirmed that the delivery had been conducted in line with the relevant standards , and that upon the applicant ’s admission she had been notified of the possible presence of the public during her labour . The relevant part of the report read as follows :

“ ... DATE medical students were present in the delivery room during [ the applicant ’s ] labour , as [ per ] their timetable for DATE . This could not have had any negative impact on the outcome of the birth . Management of the delivery was performed by [ the head of ORG ] . On admission [ the applicant ] was notified of the possible presence of the public during her labour . Obstetricians did not intentionally delay the birth . The treatment was carried out in the best interests of the mother and foetus in accordance with the particular circumstances of the applicant ’s delivery ... ”

On DATE the hospital dismissed the applicant ’s request , stating that there had not been any mistakes in the management of the birth .

On DATE the applicant sued the hospital in GPE Vyborg District Court ( " ORG " ) . She sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage and a public apology for the intentional delay to her labour and the non - authorised presence of third parties during the birth .

On DATE ORG ordered an expert examination of the applicant ’s case . Experts were requested to examine whether or not the applicant ’s delivery had been intentionally delayed and whether or not her labour had been affected by the presence of the students .

In their report dated DATE the experts concluded that :

“ [ The hospital ] provided [ the applicant ] with medical care without any shortcomings capable of deteriorating the health of mother or child . The medical treatment was adequate and carried out timeously . After [ the applicant ’s admission ] she had been carefully examined by doctors , who had made the correct diagnosis and prepared an adequate plan for the birth . Owing to the prematurity of [ the applicant ’s ] contractions and her general fatigue , the prescription of a drug - induced sleep should be considered an appropriate measure . The subsequent treatment [ for ] the premature contractions was necessary ...

Childbirth is stressful for every woman . The presence of [ the hospital ’s ] medical students , even at the second stage of delivery , when the pregnant woman was bearing down , could not have affected management of the labour . The delivery could only have been adversely affected at the first stage . During the bearing down phase , a pregnant woman is usually focused on her physical activity . The presence of the public could not adversely affect her labour . Medical documents show that it was impossible to delay the delivery at the second stage , the stage of unintentional bearing down . The documents in the [ applicant ’s ] case file contain no evidence to confirm that the birth was intentionally delayed with a view to arranging a study of this case by medical students . ”

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim . Relying on the above - mentioned expert report , it held that the quality of the applicant ’s treatment at the hospital had been adequate . It further noted that the domestic law , in particular , LAW , in force at the time , did not require the consent of a patient to the presence of medical students in writing . It also established the fact that the applicant had been informed of her involvement in the study process beforehand , as she had received the hospital ’s booklet containing an explicit warning about the possible presence of medical students during her treatment . ORG dismissed her argument that she had objected to the presence of the public during the birth as unsubstantiated by accepting the oral submission of her doctor that no such objection had been made . The court did not verify the doctor ’s statements in this respect by questioning other witnesses and did not refer to any other evidence in connection with the issue . It concluded that the hospital doctors had acted lawfully and had not caused her any nonpecuniary damage .

NORP The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :

“ ... The applicant lodged a claim seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage ... [ She ] alleged that the birth of her child had been intentionally delayed to arrange for a public procedure in the presence of medical students . [ She ] stated that the demonstration of her labour , which had been carried out without her consent , had caused her physical and psychological suffering and violated her rights . She stated that the defendant should pay her RUB CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

The representatives of [ the hospital ] objected to the claim . They stated that the [ applicant ] had been aware of the study process in [ the hospital ] before she had been admitted there ... They further argued that [ she ] had received adequate and timely medical treatment ...

[ B. ] , a doctor who assisted [ the applicant ] during her labour stated while being questioned ... [ in ] court that the medical care had been provided in line with the expected standards and without delay . The applicant did not make any complaints about the quality of [ her ] medical care . [ B. ] also submitted that it was impossible to delay labour . According to her , the presence of students lasted TIME . The GPE curriculum provided that they had to take part in ORG rounds and the medical treatment of patients ...

In accordance with LAW , students of secondary and higher medical educational institutions are allowed to assist in the administration of medical treatment in line with the requirements of their curriculum and under the supervision of medical personnel . The relevant rules are to be set forth by ORG . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG provide that such medical interventions may not be performed without a patient ’s consent , which must be confirmed in [ writing ] .

The court finds that the mere presence of [ the hospital ’s ] students in the delivery room can not be construed as a medical intervention within the meaning of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . As can be seen from the case file documents , ambulances do not usually take their patients to [ hospital ] . [ The applicant ] was taken to [ the hospital ] because her husband served in the [ army ] .

According to [ the applicant ’s ] statements , she was aware of her possible involvement in the study process ( see the booklet ) . The case file contains no evidence which could support the allegations that she had objected to the presence of the public during the delivery .

Taking into account the circumstances of this case , the court sees no grounds to find the [ hospital ’s ] doctors guilty of inflicting any non - pecuniary damage or physical or moral suffering on the applicant . Accordingly , [ the hospital ] is under no obligation to pay any compensation [ to her ] ... ”

On DATE GPE upheld ORG judgment on appeal .


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

András Sajó;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant brought criminal charges ( “ criminal action ” ) for defamation against ORG , thus undertaking criminal prosecution as private prosecutor . Along with the criminal action , the applicant made a motion to be awarded compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary loss arising from the commission of the criminal offence in question .

On DATE ORG handed down its judgment and found GPE guilty of the criminal offence of defamation , giving him a suspended sentence of DATE in prison and ordering him to pay the costs of the proceedings . In respect of the applicant ’s claim for compensation , the district court held that the claim was unsubstantiated and directed the applicant to seek compensation in civil proceedings .

Both parties appealed against the judgment before ORG . In particular , the applicant alleged that there had been a violation of LAW and that the punishment imposed on GPE had been too lenient . He also complained about the fact that the first - instance court had not ruled on his claim for compensation , despite the fact that there had allegedly been enough material in the case file to enable it to rule on the matter .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s appeal in respect of the punishment and increased it to DATE of suspended sentence . However , it dismissed the complaint concerning the applicant ’s unsuccessful claim for compensation , confirming the lower court ’s view that it had not been substantiated .

The applicant did not institute separate civil proceedings for compensation .

On DATE TIME lodged with ORG a request for the protection of legality ( an extraordinary legal remedy whereby to challenge the procedural and substantive legality of final decisions ) , alleging an incorrect application of LAW . In particular , he alleged that the applicant ’s criminal action had been brought out of time .

On DATE ORG notified the applicant ’s representative that on DATE TIME had lodged a request for the protection of legality ; however , the notification did not include a copy of the said request for the protection of legality .

On DATE , pursuant to LAW , the request for the protection of legality was sent to ORG for a response .

NORP In that response , ORG agreed that the criminal action had been brought out of time . This response was served on ORG and his representatives .

NORP However , neither the applicant nor his representative were served with that response ; nor were they ever served with the request for the protection of legality .

On DATE ORG , without having informed the parties of the date of the deliberation session , deliberated in private and upheld the request for the protection of legality , dismissing the applicant ’s action as having been lodged out of time . Further , it ordered the applicant to pay the costs of proceedings including the costs and attorney ’s fees incurred by GPE and a lump sum covering court fees of MONEY ( ORG ) .

Not being aware that the request for the protection of legality had already been decided , on DATE the applicant ’s representative requested the relevant documentation from ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s representative that the case - file documents had been with ORG since DATE . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant ’s representative requested from ORG the documentation regarding the request for the protection of legality .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s representative that ORG had lodged a request for the protection of legality which had been upheld on DATE .

On DATE ORG judgment was served on the applicant ’s representative .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . Citing Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW , the applicant claimed that he had not been afforded equality before the law and that his right to judicial protection and his right to equal protection had been violated as he had not been given the opportunity to participate in the proceedings before ORG . He also alleged violations of the LAW , citing Articles CARDINAL and DATE and LAW No . CARDINAL , the latter in respect of the fact that he had been ordered to pay the opposite party ’s costs of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

A list of the applicants , who lodged the present applications DATE , is set out in the appendix .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agents , most recently , Mr I. Lishchyna .

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

On DATE ORG of GPE staged a military aviation show at the PERSON aerodrome in GPE . During the aerobatics performance , an SU-CARDINAL military aircraft crashed into a crowd of spectators and exploded . Both pilots had successfully ejected before the explosion . As a result of the crash , CARDINAL people were killed and over CARDINAL people , including the applicants , sustained damage to their health ( see details in paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On the date of the accident criminal proceedings were instituted to establish the cause of the crash .

On various dates the applicants were admitted in these proceedings as injured parties and civil claimants . Following individualised assessments of the applicants’ injuries by forensic experts within the framework of those proceedings , they were divided in CARDINAL categories : “ minor injuries ” , “ injuries of intermediate seriousness ” and “ grave injuries ” depending on their impact on the applicants’ health and well - being , the reversibility or irreversibility of their nature , the length of recovery and the intensity of the medical intervention required . The seriousness of both the physical and the emotional trauma were taken into account in the process of attribution to a category .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against CARDINAL officers of the rank of general ( hereinafter “ the ORG case ” ) were disjoined from the criminal proceedings against the pilots and the supporting ground crew ( hereinafter “ the performers’ case ” ) .

On DATE ORG examined the performers’ case and found the CARDINAL pilots of the crashed aircraft and CARDINAL supporting crew members guilty of negligence . These officers were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment .

On DATE the court also ruled on the applicants’ civil claims , awarding them various amounts in respect of pecuniary damage ( mostly medical expenses ) and non - pecuniary damage in connection with physical injuries and emotional distress , to be paid by ORG ( see details in the appended table below ) .

The applicants appealed , seeking , in particular , an increase in the compensation payments .

On DATE the Military Panel of ORG of GPE rejected the ORG appeals and the judgment in the performers’ case became final .

DATE all the judgment awards due to the applicants were paid out .

Some applicants lodged further civil claims within the framework of the ORG case , which was still ongoing at the material time .

On DATE ORG examined the ORG case and acquitted the CARDINAL officers charged in these proceedings .

On DATE this decision was upheld on appeal by ORG of ORG of GPE and all the civil claims lodged within the framework of the ORG case were left unexamined in view of the acquittal .

On various dates starting DATE , in addition to the compensation awarded by the court , almost all of the applicants also obtained payments in ORG and municipal aid from the PERSON accident victim relief funds ( see details in the appended table below ) . Every applicant also obtained further payments ranging from CARDINAL hryvnias ( ORG ) ( Ms GPE ; minor emotional injury ) to ORG CARDINAL ( Mr PERSON ; grave injury ) from charitable funds set up and managed by the authorities to attract private donations in aid to the PERSON accident victims . On various occasions some of the applicants were also provided with vacation vouchers and recreational treatment vouchers to facilitate their mental and physical recovery . For more details concerning the accident , the ensuing investigation and ORG and municipal aid to the victims see PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . ORG and CARDINAL others , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals who are resident in GPE : PERSON PERSON , born in DATE and Mr PERSON , born in DATE . PERSON is the mother of Mr PERSON . The applicants were represented by Mr T.R. Sendega , a lawyer practising in GPE .

As a result of the PERSON air show accident , PERSON PERSON sustained a blunt soft tissues leg injury with haemorrhage and multiple abrasions cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as injuries of “ intermediate seriousness ” .

Mr PERSON had his popliteal artery and right leg muscles crushed . He also sustained multiple abrasions , contusions and other injuries cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as a “ grave injury ” . Following the accident , he underwent treatment in the hospital rehabilitation unit followed by lengthy inpatient and outpatient treatment .

By the time the present application was lodged in DATE , Mr PERSON had been classified as suffering from “ second ( intermediate ) degree ” disability under domestic classification and was in receipt of a disability pension .

NORP The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals resident in GPE : Mrs Natalya PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON PERSON born in DATE and Mr PERSON , born in DATE . The first CARDINAL applicants are spouses and the third applicant is their son . They were represented by PERSON D.A. ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .

According to the applicants , they were so close to the site of the ORG aircraft crash that their clothes were stained with the blood and body parts of people injured and dying around them . In order to reach safety , they had to make their way past numerous mutilated corpses and disfigured screaming people along the aerodrome runway .

Mrs PERSON sustained an ankle injury with a ligament rupture , contusion and haematoma . Subsequently she was also diagnosed as suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder , which transformed into asthenic - depressive neurosis . Her injuries were classified as injuries of “ intermediate seriousness ” by domestic forensic experts .

Mr PERSON was diagnosed as suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder . His psychological trauma was classified by domestic forensic experts as a “ minor injury ” .

Mr PERSON , a DATE minor at the date of the accident , sustained a contused cerebral wound , concussion and a haematoma . He also developed post - traumatic stress disorder , which included symptoms such as fear of crowds and sleep disturbance . He also suffered from various forms of physiological dysfunction , including a stutter and disruption of his speech development . Mr PERSON Chornyy ’s injuries were classified by the domestic forensic experts as ones of “ intermediate seriousness ” . On several occasions in DATE that followed , Mr PERSON was placed on inpatient treatment programmes in psychoneurological institutions .

According to the applicants , at the date of the exchange of observations in DATE , they were still suffering from the after - effects of the accident . They provided numerous medical documents as evidence that they had continued to be under on - going medical supervision in connection with the psychological trauma sustained at the accident site .

The present application was lodged by PERSON PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . The applicant was represented by Ms GPE Kulbiy - Kukhar , a lawyer practising in GPE .

As a result of the PERSON air show accident , PERSON sustained a heavy cerebral contusion with subarachnoid haemorrhage and a fracture of the clavicular bone . For DATE after the accident he was in a coma . Upon regaining consciousness , he suffered from partial amnesia , temporary speech loss , hallucinations and was unable to walk . Following intensive inpatient neurological treatment , PERSON regained some cerebral functions . However , he never attained full recovery and by DATE he had been classified as suffering from disability of “ the first degree ” in need of outside assistance for meeting basic DATE needs . According to classification by domestic forensic experts , PERSON trauma was classified as a “ grave injury ” .

The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals ‒ Mrs GPE PERSON , born in DATE , and PERSON PERSON , born in DATE , and a GPE national ‒ Mr Nikita Sergejevich Bastrakov , born in DATE . The first CARDINAL applicants are the grandparents of the third applicant . All CARDINAL applicants are resident in GPE . They were represented by PERSON A.P. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

According to the applicants , on the date of the accident , moments before the SU-CARDINAL hit the ground , Mr Bastrakov − a DATE minor at that time − was watching it with his mouth open , while PERSON said to him in amusement : “ Wow , look how low can this airplane fly ! ” The next moment , PERSON PERSON , having suddenly realised that the aircraft was falling , pushed his grandson to the ground and covered him with his body , urging his wife to likewise lie on the ground . Moments later , the applicants were hit by the heat wave from the aircraft ’s turbines , which burnt their clothes and skin . The soles of PERSON PERSON ’s shoes were also completely burned . When the applicants finally got onto their feet , they were covered with other people ’s blood and with soot from the aircraft , which had exploded some distance from them .

As a result of the accident , PERSON suffered multiple burns to her face , limbs and eyes . The heat wave from the aircraft ’s turbines also entered her respiratory system and burned her larynx , trachea , bronchi and lungs . In addition , PERSON suffered an acute neurological reaction to stress . Domestic forensic experts classified her injuries as “ minor ” . According to the applicant , this classification was incorrect , as she had never fully recovered from her injuries . She provided extensive medical documentation as evidence to prove that the after - effects of her injuries included chronic obstructive bronchitis , pulmonary emphysema , encephalopathy , and various other medical complications . By DATE Mrs PERSON had been classified as suffering from general disability of the “ third ( mildest ) degree ” according to the domestic classification system .

Mr PERSON GPE sustained contusion of the chest area , fractures of the fifth and seventh vertebra and multiple abrasions cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as “ injuries of intermediate seriousness ” . He also developed complications , including frequent headaches , back pain and a number of other neurological symptoms .

Mr Nikita Bastrakov sustained a hand wound , face abrasions and post - traumatic stress disorder manifested most markedly , through phobias , asthenic symptoms and bed - wetting . His injuries were classified by domestic forensic experts as being of “ intermediate seriousness ” .

The present application was lodged by PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . The applicant was represented by PERSON D. A. ORG and Mrs S. V. GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .

As a result of the accident , the applicant suffered contusion of her foot and developed post - traumatic stress disorder classified by domestic forensic experts as a “ minor injury ” . According to the applicant , this classification was incorrect , as her mental state had in fact deteriorated to a point that she was forced to quit her employment as a kindergarten mentor . After a series of inpatient and outpatient treatment programmes , in DATE Mrs Kurylka was classified as suffering from “ second - degree ” ( moderately serious ) disability and unfit for work , excluding the performance of domestic tasks . At the time of the exchange of observations in DATE , PERSON was unemployed on a disability pension and was under permanent outpatient psychiatric supervision . In addition , several times per year she participated in courses of inpatient rehabilitative treatment in psycho - neurological institutions .

The present application was lodged by PERSON ( married name PERSON ) , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . She was represented by ORG ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .

As a result of the ORG air show accident , Ms Koshulap , a DATE minor at that time , sustained a complicated hand injury with damage to the extensor tendons classified by domestic forensic experts as an “ injury of intermediate seriousness ” . She underwent a series of reconstructive operations followed by inpatient and outpatient treatment programmes . It is not clear from the case file whether the applicant has fully recovered .

The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals resident in GPE : Mr ORG , born in DATE , and Mr ORG , born in DATE . Mr ORG is the father of Mr Volodymyr Garasymiv . The applicants were represented by Mr D.A. ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .

As a result of the ORG air show accident , PERSON ORG sustained cerebral concussion , multiple facial and head burns , as well abrasions to the fingers and knees , cumulatively classified by domestic experts as “ minor injuries ” . According to him , this classification was incorrect , as he had never regained his health and continued to suffer from the after - effects of the accident at the date of the exchange of observations in DATE . As a result of his physical injuries and stress , Mr ORG started suffering , in particular , from frequent headaches , hypertonic disease , and other complications . Within DATE of the accident he was forced to abandon his career as a military wind instrument player and was eventually dismissed from the military forces on health grounds . By DATE , Mr ORG was classified as suffering from disability entailing PERCENT loss of capacity to work .

Mr Volodymyr Garasymiv , an DATE minor at the date of the accident , developed post - traumatic stress disorder classified by domestic experts as “ minor injury ” .

The present application was lodged by Ms GPE ( married name PERSON ) , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . She was represented by ORG ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .

As a result of the PERSON air show accident , Ms GPE , a DATE minor on the date of the accident , developed posttraumatic stress disorder , which was treated on an outpatient basis . Her trauma was classified by domestic forensic experts as a “ minor injury ” .

The present application was lodged by Ms Liubov Grygorivna Stupets , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . She was represented by ORG ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .

Ms Liubov Stupets sustained rupture of the acromio - clavicular ligament , her injury having been classified by domestic experts as CARDINAL of “ intermediate seriousness ” . According to the medical documents presented by PERSON , treatment of this trauma required several surgical interventions and extensive inpatient rehabilitation treatment . The applicant had to abandon her career in sports and as a school physical education teacher . In DATE she was classified as suffering from disability of the “ third degree ” . By DATE her state of health was still deteriorating : she developed post - traumatic arthritis , pain syndrome , and a number of neurological and other conditions . At the date of the exchange of observations in DATE , the applicant was receiving a disability pension .

The present application was lodged by Ms Nataliya Yaroslavivna Sivanych ( married name Buntseva ) , a NORP national born in DATE and residing in GPE . She was represented by ORG ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .

As a result of the ORG air show accident , Ms Nataliya PERSON sustained cerebral concussion , numerous wounds and fractures of QUANTITY bones , which required inpatient treatment followed by an outpatient rehabilitation programme . The applicant ’s injuries were cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as ones of “ intermediate seriousness . ”

The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals residing in GPE : Mr PERSON , born inCARDINAL and PERSON Andriy Anatoliyovych Shevchuk , born in DATE . Mr PERSON is PERSON PERSON father . The applicants were represented by Mr D.A. ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .

According to the applicants , as the fallen aircraft exploded , parts of it flew their way . Both of them would have probably been killed , had it not been for Mr PERSON quick reaction : he managed to push his son to the ground and cover him with his body just before the moment they would have otherwise been hit by these flying parts . When the applicants got up , they saw numerous mutilated bodies of dead , burnt and wounded people around them . Whilst attempting to provide first aid to accident survivors , Mr PERSON lost view of his son , who wandered off in the midst of the mutilated bodies and screaming people . After having looked for his son for TIME , PERSON PERSON found him uninjured physically , but in a state of deep mental shock , unable to speak or make productive contact with others . Mr PERSON was immediately placed in a psycho - neurological hospital for inpatient treatment .

DATE . On DATE Mr PERSON went back to work and attempted to resume his normal duties . However , after suddenly developing a stutter , he applied for psychiatric assistance .

Subsequently , both applicants underwent several sessions of inpatient psychiatric treatment followed by outpatient treatment and regular supervision . They were diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder classified by domestic experts as an “ injury of intermediate seriousness ” .

Article DATE of the LAW of GPE ( DATE ) provides , in particular , as follows :

“ Everyone has the right to health protection , medical care and medical insurance .

Health protection is ensured through state funding of the relevant socio - economic , medical and sanitary health improvement and prophylactic programmes .

The ORG creates conditions for effective medical service accessible to all citizens . ORG and communal health protection facilities provide medical care free of charge ; the existing network of such institutions shall not be reduced . The ORG promotes the development of medical facilities of all forms of ownership . ... ”

Other relevant provisions of domestic law are cited in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON ( cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .


CASE OF LIŢĂ AND S.C. GEORGIANA IMPORT EXPORT S.R.L. v. ROMANIA

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings .