Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+2 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Armen Harutyunyan;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant married PERSON , a NORP national , and CARDINAL children were born of the marriage : a daughter in DATE and a son in DATE .

The applicant alleged that after their marriage her husband had started beating her . However , in DATE the applicant followed her husband to GPE in order to provide her children with the opportunity of a more serene future .

The applicant submitted that her husband , who was an alcoholic , had already been physically abusing her for a long time when , on DATE , she requested the intervention of the police after she and her daughter had been assaulted by ORG

When the police arrived , ORG had left the family home . He was found in the street in a state of intoxication , with scratches on the left side of his face . The police drew up a report of the incident . The report stated that the applicant had been beaten and bitten in the face and the left leg and that she had a number of bruises . The report also stated that the applicant ’s daughter had herself been hit after intervening to protect her mother and presented a neck injury caused by a fingernail and injuries to both arms . The applicant and her daughter were informed of their rights and expressed their intention to go to the hospital accident and emergency unit .

The applicant alleged that she had not , however , been informed of the possibility of lodging a complaint or contacting a shelter for battered women . She also submitted that she went to the accident and emergency unit in order to have her injuries recorded , but that after waiting for TIME she had decided to return home .

The Government , referring to the police report , submitted that there was no evidence that the applicant had gone to the accident and emergency unit .

The applicant submitted that after the assault on DATE she had taken refuge in the cellar of her flat and started sleeping there .

She recounted the following events as follows . On DATE , after receiving a threatening telephone call from her husband , and fearing an attack by him , she decided to leave the house . When she returned home , she found that the cellar door had been broken . She tried telephoning a friend to ask if she could stay the night with her , but no one answered her call . She then decided to go back to the cellar . ORG attacked her there with a knife and forced her to follow him in order to have sexual relations with his friends . Hoping that she would be able to seek help once outside , she resigned herself to following him . She asked a police patrol in the street for help .

The police merely checked her and ORG ’s identity papers , and despite the applicant ’s assertions that she had been threatened and beaten by her husband , they invited her to go home without offering her help and told ORG to keep away from her . ORG was fined for unauthorised possession of a lethal weapon .

Shortly after she had returned home , the applicant called the emergency services and was taken to hospital . The doctors noted , among other things , that she suffered from cranial trauma , a head injury , multiple abrasions to her body and a bruise on her chest . It was deemed that her injuries would heal up within DATE .

The Government indicated that , according to the incident report drawn up by the police , they had arrived at FAC shortly after TIME . The applicant informed them that she had been hit in the face . PERSON had given the police officers a knife . The applicant told the police that she wanted to go to hospital to have her injuries recorded . She had gone there and ORG had returned home . The knife had been seized and the applicant fined for unauthorised possession of a lethal weapon .

At the hospital the applicant spoke to a social worker and said that she refused to return home to her husband . She was then given shelter by an association for the protection of female victims of violence , ORG ( “ the association ” ) .

The president of the women ’s shelter , accompanied by police officers , went to the cellar where the applicant had been living in order to fetch her clothes and personal effects .

From DATE PERSON began harassing the applicant by telephoning her and sending her insulting messages .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against her husband for bodily harm , ill - treatment and threats of violence , urging the authorities to take prompt action to protect her and her children and to prevent ORG from approaching them . She stated that she had taken refuge in a women ’s shelter and that ORG was harassing her by telephone .

A.T. was placed under judicial investigation on charges of ill - treating family members , inflicting grievous bodily harm and making threats . The police sent the criminal complaint to the prosecution on CARDINAL October DATE .

On DATE the prosecution , having regard to the applicant ’s requests for protection measures , ordered urgent investigative measures , in particular requesting the police to find potential witnesses , including the applicant ’s daughter .

NORP The applicant was given shelter by the association for DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the head of GPE social services informed the association that there were no resources available to take charge of the applicant or to find alternative accommodation for her .

The Government gave a different interpretation of that letter , saying that , as the applicant had not first been referred to the GPE social services , which cared for victims of violence in the context of another project , called “ CARDINAL tolerance ” , the latter could not pay the association ’s expenses . In their submission , female victims of violence could contact social services requesting assistance , which the applicant had not done .

On DATE the applicant left the shelter to look for work .

She said that she had first slept in the street before being accommodated by a friend , and had subsequently found a job as an assistant nurse for elderly people and was then able to rent a flat . According to the applicant , ORG had continued exerting psychological pressure on her to withdraw her complaint .

On DATE the prosecution , finding that no investigative measure had been carried out , again asked the police to investigate the applicant ’s allegations rapidly .

On DATE , DATE after she had lodged her complaint , the applicant was questioned for the first time by the police . She altered her statements , mitigating the seriousness of her original allegations . Regarding the episode of DATE she stated that ORG had unsuccessfully attempted to hit her and her daughter . With regard to the incident that had occurred in DATE , she said that ORG had hit her but had not threatened her with a knife . ORG had , however , pretended to turn the knife on himself .

The applicant also stated that at the time she had not spoken very good NORP and had not been able to express herself properly . She also stated that ORG had not forced her to have sex with other people and that she had returned to live at the family home . She said that when she had been living at the shelter provided by the association , she had not spoken to her husband on the telephone because she had been told not to . She stated that , barring her husband ’s alcoholism , the situation at home was calm . She concluded by saying that her husband was a good father and a good husband and that there had been no further episodes of violence .

The applicant submitted that she had altered her original statements because of the psychological pressure exerted on her by her husband .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor ’s office , after noting , firstly , that the applicant , who had been interviewed in DATE , had mitigated her allegations against her husband saying that he had not threatened her with a knife and that she had been misunderstood by an employee from the shelter where she had taken refuge and , secondly , that no other violent episode had occurred , asked the investigating judge to close the complaint lodged against ORG for ill - treatment of family members . Regarding the offence of grievous bodily harm , the prosecuting authorities indicated that they intended to continue the investigations .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge discontinued the part of the complaint concerning the allegations of ill - treatment of family members and threats . He considered that the course of the events was unclear and that , with regard to the alleged ill - treatment , the offence had not been made out because , since the applicant had complained only about the incident of DATE , the criterion of repeated episodes of violence was not satisfied .

With regard to the complaint of threats aggravated by the use of a weapon , the investigating judge noted that the applicant ’s statements were contradictory and that in the report drawn up by the hospital there was no reference to knife injuries .

With regard to the offence of causing bodily harm , the proceedings were continued before the magistrate . PERSON was committed for trial on DATE . The first hearing was held on DATE and ORG was ordered to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) on DATE .

It can be seen from the case file that on DATE PERSON received notice of his committal for trial before the magistrate ’s court on DATE for inflicting bodily harm on the applicant in DATE .

In TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant sought the intervention of the police in connection with a dispute with her husband .

The police made the following findings in their report : on their arrival they saw that the bedroom door had been broken down and that the floor was strewn with bottles of alcohol . The applicant had stated that her husband was under the influence of alcohol and that she had decided to call for help because she thought he needed a doctor . She told them that she had lodged a complaint against her husband in the past , but that she had subsequently changed her allegations . The applicant ’s son had stated that his father had not been violent towards him . Neither the applicant nor her son had shown any traces of violence .

A.T. was taken to hospital in a state of intoxication . In TIME he left the hospital and went to an amusement arcade .

While he was walking along the street he was arrested by the police for an identity check at TIME

The police report shows that ORG was in a state of intoxication and had difficulty keeping his balance and that the police had let him go after stopping and fining him .

At TIME entered the family flat armed with a QUANTITY kitchen knife with the intention of assaulting the applicant . The applicant ’s son attempted to stop him and was stabbed CARDINAL times . He died of his wounds . The applicant tried to escape but ORG succeeded in catching up with her in the street , where he stabbed her several times in the chest .

On DATE PERSON was convicted by the magistrate ’s court of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the applicant , on account of the injuries he had inflicted on her during the incident in DATE , and sentenced to a fine of LAW .

On an unspecified date in DATE the investigation into acts of ill - treatment was reopened .

A.T. asked to be tried in accordance with the summary procedure ( giudizio abbreviato ) .

On DATE PERSON was sentenced to life imprisonment by the GPE preliminary hearings judge for the murder of his son and the attempted murder of his wife and for the offences of ill - treatment of his wife and daughter and unauthorised possession of a prohibited weapon . He was also ordered to pay the applicant , who had applied to join the proceedings as a civil party , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in damages .

With regard to the ill - treatment , the preliminary hearings judge , after hearing witnesses and the applicant ’s daughter , considered that the applicant and her children had been living in a climate of violence . He found that ORG had been habitually violent and held that , apart from the DATE harassment suffered by the applicant , there had been CARDINAL violent episodes . He added that ORG , at his trial , had confessed to experiencing feelings of hatred towards his wife . According to the preliminary hearings judge , the events of CARDINAL DATE were the consequence of an attempt by the applicant to get away from ORG

On DATE PERSON appealed against the judgment .

It can be seen from the file that in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the judgment was upheld by ORG . However , neither of the parties annexed the judgment to their observations .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev

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

NORP On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer informed ORG applicant ’s death and of the wish of his heirs , namely his spouse , Ms Ornela Kotherja , and his children , Mr PERSON and PERSON , to pursue the application . For practical reasons , use will however continue to be made of the initial applicant for the purpose of this decision , although his heirs are now to be regarded as having that status ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI and PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and GPE , § § CARDINAL , ORG DATE ) ..

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

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

In DATE the applicant sought to obtain housing from the ORG . At the time , housing units were owned and managed by the ORG . They were allocated to households by the local authorities .

On DATE his spouse was issued with an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat by ORG in GPE ( autorizim nga PERSON i PERSON ) . The authorisation also indicated the address of the flat . As a result , on CARDINAL DATE a tenancy agreement ( kontratë qiraje ) for a ORG - owned flat was concluded between the applicant ’s wife and the ORG - owned housing maintenance authority ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant concluded an agreement ( akt marrëveshje ) with the local authority to vacate the flat and exchange it for another CARDINAL - bedroom flat which was in the process of being constructed by the ORG - owned ORG ( ndërmarrja pyjore ) at an indicated address .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s spouse was issued with another occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat . The authorisation also indicated the address of the flat and the fact that , if a contract were not concluded within DATE , the authorisation would cease to have effect . On DATE a provisional tenancy agreement was concluded . It would appear that the applicant never occupied the flat .

On DATE , further to a decision of the municipality of GPE ( “ GPE ) , the applicant was issued with an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat that had been constructed by ORG . The authorisation also indicated the address of the flat . However , the applicant was unable to occupy the flat and conclude a privatisation agreement in the light of a GPE ’s letter of DATE , which stated as follows :

“ No action should be taken for the privatisation of ORG ’s flat [ address indicated ] until further notice ( të mos veprohet për privatizimin e apartamentit të PERSON ... deri në një urdhër të dytë ) .

On DATE the GPE revoked its decision of DATE , no reason having been given .

On DATE ORG ( “ NHA ” ) , pursuant to an agreement it had concluded with a ORG - owned company , PERSON , for the construction of a block of flats through the aid of its funding , requested the GPE and the municipal council ( ORG ) not to allocate , amongst others , flats CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL to anyone on their list of homeless households , because those flats would be made available to employees of the ORG - owned company ( see paragraph CARDINAL and DATE below ) .

NORP In the meantime , on DATE an inspection report by ORG found that NORP funds had been erroneously used for the construction of a block of flats belonging to ORG . Pursuant to a Government decision the block of flats had been made available to the municipal council , which was responsible for the allocation of flats to homeless households .

On DATE the municipal council decided to include the applicant ’s name on the list of households to be provided with an occupancy authorisation in respect of flat no . CARDINAL . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ ... the council ... decided to provide the following citizen[s ] with authorisation :

PERSON in respect of flat no . CARDINAL ( a CARDINAL - bedroom flat ) ” .

On DATE the applicant was issued with a fresh occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat . The authorisation , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ Pursuant to council ’s decision of ... DATE Mr PERSON is allocated a CARDINAL - bedroom flat located at [ address indicated ] flat no . CARDINAL . ”

Confronted with pressing housing needs , the applicant occupied flat no . CARDINAL immediately , no tenancy agreement having been concluded . CARDINAL party , R.B , occupied the neighbouring flat on the strength of an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat . However , upon entering the flat , the applicant found that the construction company , on instructions from the ORG , had amended the layout of the flats so that the flat occupied by the applicant had CARDINAL bedroom . The neighbouring flat , occupied by R.B , had been modified to a CARDINAL - bedroom flat contrary to his occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat . The applicant and PERSON , following the LOC ’s approval , then converted the flats into CARDINAL - bedroom housing units .

By a letter of DATE the municipal council was asked to transfer the applicant ’s authorisation to another flat located at a difference address , because flat no . CARDINAL had already been allocated to other households ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Consequently , on CARDINAL DATE the municipal council decided to amend the applicant ’s occupancy authorisation of DATE by allocating the applicant another flat whose construction had not yet started . The decision reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ The council , [ which was ] convened on CARDINAL DATE , ( ... ) decided :

The authorisation issued in respect of LOC ] ... CARDINAL [ address indicated ] pursuant to the decision ... of DATE should be transferred to [ address indicated ] whose construction will commence [ shortly ] ( autorizimet e dhëna për apartamentet nr ... CARDINAL sipas vendimit ... dt CARDINAL ... të transferohen në seksionin ... që do të fillojë së ndërtuari ) .

NORP The decision enters into force immediately . ”

On an unspecified date the applicant instituted legal proceedings seeking the nullity of the municipal council ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . These proceedings , which continued until DATE at various levels of jurisdiction , ended with the dismissal of the applicant ’s claims .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant began a hunger strike to protest against the injustices he believed he had suffered . He submitted newspaper clips as evidence of this .

On DATE the applicant was informed of the municipal council ’s decision of DATE , which had decided to allocate the applicant the flat indicated in its decision of DATE and the authorisation of DATE . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :

“ The council , [ which was ] convened on DATE , ... decided :

The authorisations issued by way of the council ’s decision ... of CARDINAL DATE should be transferred to FAC ] nos . ... CARDINAL at [ address indicated ] ( autorizimet e dhëna me PERSON nr ... dt . CARDINAL të transferohen në apartamentet nr . ... CARDINAL në seksionin ... ) . ”

In the meantime , on DATE PERSON , who was an employee of the ORG - owned company PERSON , was issued with an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom apartment in respect of flat no . CARDINAL . On DATE PERSON concluded a provisional contract with the ORG for the sale of the flat , while the final contract of sale by way of payment of instalments ( kontratë për shitje apartamenti me pagesë me këste ) was concluded on DATE .

On DATE R.S initiated legal proceedings against the applicant requesting him to vacate the flat , which the applicant had allegedly occupied unlawfully since DATE . R.S relied on the authorisation granted to him and the provisional and final sale contracts of DATE and DATE .

The domestic proceedings continued before various levels of jurisdiction . On DATE ORG finally found that R.S had acquired property rights over the flat by virtue of the sale contract of DATE and the payment of the sale price . The applicant could not be regarded as a lawful occupant , because the occupancy authorisation of DATE had been revoked in DATE . Furthermore , the domestic courts had ruled against the applicant in the proceedings he had instituted in relation to the nullity of the municipal council ’s decision DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In DATE the applicant was forcibly evicted from his flat by the police . In DATE he left the country for GPE .

In DATE the applicant instituted legal proceedings against R.S alleging that the sale contract between PERSON and the ORG was null . The proceedings were concluded on DATE in favour of GPE

On an unspecified date either in DATE or DATE F.D , who was an employee of the ORG - owned company PERSON , was issued an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom apartment in respect of flat no . CARDINAL . On DATE F.D concluded a provisional contract with the ORG for the sale of the flat , while the final contract was concluded on DATE .

On DATE F.D instituted legal proceedings against the applicant and PERSON He requested that the applicant vacate and restore him the room he had occupied as a result of the modification to the layout of the flat ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG held that the municipal council should not have allocated flats , which had been constructed with the funding of ORG - owned companies , to homeless households found on its lists . F.D , being an employee of the ORG - owned company PERSON , was entitled to the allocation of flat no . CARDINAL . ORG considered that the sale contract was lawful and stated that the flat had also been registered in the immovable property register . It further held that the municipal council had annulled its authorisation of DATE . As regards the nature of the authorisation , it stated as follows :

“ The authorisation to a flat merely serves planning purposes ; as long as no consequences have derived therefrom , it may be revoked , as in the instant case , by the authority that adopted it ( autorizimi për banesë është thjesht një akt planifikimi dhe deri sa nuk ka sjellë pasoja PERSON nga vetë organi që e ka dhënë si kundër është vepruar edhe në rastin konkret ) .

The applicant ’s constitutional complaint , a copy of which was not submitted to this ORG , was dismissed by ORG on DATE as follows :

“ The only ground of appeal related to F.D ’s lack of standing , which was rejected by the ordinary courts , including ORG . ORG considers that the claim raises no legal argument so as to examine the complaint . ”

The relevant part of LAW , which is entitled “ FAC ” , reads as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ The ORG , within its constitutional powers and the means available to it , and in the fulfilment of the private initiative and responsibility , aims at :

b. the fulfilment of the housing needs of its citizens .

The DATE Act established the organisation of local government in the country . CARDINAL administrative units were established : the commune ( komunë ) , the municipality ( bashkia ) and the district ( rreth ) . The organs of the municipality were the mayor and the municipal council . CARDINAL of the responsibilities of the municipal council was to take measures to provide employment and housing ( section CARDINAL § DATE ) . It had power to issue orders ( urdhëresa ) and decisions ( vendime ) ( section CARDINAL § DATE ) .

The CARDINAL Act , which repealed LAW , introduced CARDINAL administrative units in addition to the commune and municipality : the region ( qarku ) and the sub - division ( nëndarja ) . Section CARDINAL recognises the municipality ’s responsibility for urban planning , land - management and housing as provided for in the relevant legislation .

This Act aimed at privatising ORG - owned housing units and creating a free housing market , empowering tenants to become owners . It enabled individuals residing , by virtue of a tenancy agreement , in flats owned by the ORG to transfer their flat into their private ownership , upon compliance with a set procedure , payment of the full privatisation price and registration of the property at the mortgage registry .

Under ORG of ORG ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of the spouses or another adult member of the household had the right to lodge a housing request with ORG ( ORG i DATE sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) or ORG , which had authority to provide that person with an occupancy authorisation ( autorizim ) . The authorisation indicated the number of the flat as well as its location .

State companies or institutions , which had contributed by way of their funding to the construction of a block of flats , could issue an occupancy authorisation to their homeless employees ( sections CARDINAL ) . A commission for the allocation of housing units was established for this purpose ( komisioni i shpërndarjes së banesave në qendrën e punës – “ the Commission ” ) . The local government councils had the right to withhold approval of the Commission ’s decisions if they were considered unjust ( section CARDINAL ) .

A tenancy agreement was to be concluded , within DATE from the date of the authorisation , between the tenant and the ORG - owned housing maintenance authority ( ORG ) . Failing the conclusion of the tenancy agreement within the prescribed time - limit , the authorisation became invalid .

The decision provided for the establishment of the ORG , which was responsible for financing , constructing and administering housing units ( banesa ) in the country . Some of its responsibilities included the conclusion of contracts for the construction , completion and sale of flats and cooperation with local authorities in fulfilling their housing obligations . The ORG ’s funds consisted of allocations by the ORG and local budgets , loans by domestic and international financial institutions , donations and revenues resulting from privatisation of ORG - owned housing units .

The decision determined the criteria for the classification of homeless citizens . The commune or city councils were tasked to draw up local lists of homeless citizens . The lists would be deposited with the ORG .

The decision provided that ORG companies and institutions could use their profits to construct flats to accommodate the housing needs of their homeless employees ( punonjësit e pastrehë ) . The funding would be transferred to the ORG , which constructed housing units in accordance with the domestic legislation . The allocation of flats by way of an authorisation was carried out by ORG set up within the ORG company or institution , according to a list of homeless employees . The list of beneficiaries was deposited with the local authority . The ORG was responsible for concluding sale contracts with the homeless employees who had been provided with an authorisation .

The decision provided that the ORG would conclude a sale contract with a homeless citizen , who was required to make a down payment , the remaining amount to be paid in instalments over a CARDINAL - year period with CARDINAL interest rate . The upfront payment of the entire sale price resulted in a reduction of the total price .

NORP The decision provided that the ORG would conclude a provisional sale contract with a homeless citizen within DATE from the commencement of construction works . At the time of the conclusion of the provisional sale contract , the homeless citizen was required to make a down payment . Failure to make the down payment would result in the loss of use of the authorisation . A final sale contract would be concluded at the completion of the construction works .

The decision reiterated that the lists of homeless citizens were drawn up by local authorities and were deposited with the ORG . State companies and institutions would transfer their funding to the ORG for the construction of blocks of flats . State companies and institutions would draw up lists of homeless citizens to be housed in these blocks of flats . The lists would be deposited with the ORG , which would conclude sale contracts with those citizens .


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

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

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


Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr D.T. , is a NORP national , born in DATE , and currently staying in the GPE . He was represented before the ORG by ORG , a lawyer practising in LOC .

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

The Government of GPE , having been informed of their right to intervene ( LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of the Rules of Court ) , did not avail themselves of this right .

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

On DATE , the applicant entered the GPE where on CARDINAL DATE he applied for asylum , submitting in the course of CARDINAL interviews with immigration officials that he had been working as a military trained senior border guard at the border between GPE and GPE . Between the respective border posts lies a neutral zone via which drugs are being smuggled into GPE . CARDINAL of the applicant ’s main responsibilities had been to combat drug trafficking .

On DATE the applicant had been ordered by his superior officer to escort a person , PERSON , from the neutral zone to GPE , evading the normal border controls . On DATE he had again been ordered to escort X across the border to GPE on DATE . On DATE , he had received a tip that a drugs trafficker had been sighted in the neutral zone . The applicant had gone to the market located in the neutral zone where he was discretely shown the trafficker whom he recognised as X. The applicant had passed on this information to his superior , PERSON , who responded by telling the applicant that he had checked this information and that it was wrong .

On DATE the applicant had once more been ordered by PERSON to escort X across the border . The applicant had refused . TIME he had received a telephone call from his mother who apparently was held hostage by CARDINAL of the applicant ’s colleagues . He had then felt compelled to take X across the border into GPE , which he had done .

On DATE the applicant had asked his superior , PERSON , for explanations and informed his superior that he intended to do something about it . He had then written a memo to PERSON , the Chief of ORG as well as to the Deputy Minister of ORG , explaining the situation and asking for an inquiry , or to transfer or dismiss the applicant . He had left this memo at PERSON secretariat . DATE , he had been summoned to his superior Mr L. who showed him the memo and told him that he should stop writing and follow orders . The applicant had then resumed his work and nothing special had occurred until DATE . On DATE , Mr L. had ordered the applicant for a fourth time to escort NORP across the border . The applicant was told that it would be the last time and he saw on PERSON table a proposal to promote the applicant to the next rank , which promotion had been planned already for some time .

The applicant had taken X across the border into GPE and had returned with his car to an agreed spot at TIME to pick up X again and bring him back to the neutral zone . When he had arrived at the designated place , X had been accompanied by QUANTITY persons , CARDINAL of them wearing a jacket bearing the letters DATE which stands for ORG – and the other one dressed in plain clothes . The CARDINAL men brought X to the applicant ’s car . X and the plain - clothed man took a seat next to each other in the car and the applicant was given to understand that they had something to discuss and needed some privacy . Thereupon the applicant and the NORP man had walked away QUANTITY from the car . The ORG man had taken an interest in the applicant ’s service weapon . The applicant had then heard that X and the plain - clothed man had started shouting at each other . The plain - clothed man had then approached the applicant and the NORP man , telling the latter that X had not agreed . The ORG man , who was then holding the applicant ’s service weapon in his hands , had walked to the car , opened the door and fired three shots , killing X. The applicant had then run away as fast as he could and , it already being dark , had managed to hide himself in the nearby forest . After a short unsuccessful search for the applicant , the men had left .

As an NORP drug trafficker had been killed with the applicant ’s service weapon and in the applicant ’s car , and as the perpetrators had also tried to kill him , the applicant felt trapped CARDINAL fires and had decided to flee the country , fearing problems from the side of the NORP and/or the NORP drugs mafia . With the help of a colleague , who had managed to remove a plastic bag with documents belonging to the applicant from the applicant ’s office room and give these to the applicant , the applicant had managed to flee the country on CARDINAL DATE . ORG , he had travelled to the GPE .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) requested the Minister of ORG to conduct an inquiry in relation to the applicant ’s asylum request .

NORP In DATE , the applicant was informed by his mother that she had had a visit from an official of ORG who had known that the applicant was in the GPE and who had asked her questions relating to the applicant ’s asylum account given to the GPE authorities and who had shown her documents submitted by the applicant to the GPE authorities . The applicant ’s comments about this visit to the GPE refugee aid agency led to a conversation on DATE between the applicant and the person at ORG dealing with the inquiry in GPE .

On DATE , the Minister of ORG transmitted a person - specific official report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) concerning the applicant to the Deputy Minister of Justice . According to this report , CARDINAL identity documents and a veteran ’s card in the applicant ’s name – submitted by the applicant in the asylum proceedings – were authentic but there was a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of another document . The report further contained the verified registration as home owner of the applicant ’s mother and brother at a specific address . However , it had not been possible to verify whether the applicant had been registered as living at that address or at the address of the military base . The report also stated that the applicant had worked as a border guard until DATE , that reportedly he had been dismissed due to a reorganisation , that various sources had indicated that he was not wanted by the ORG , and that he was not wanted in relation to the commission of a criminal offence . It further contained names and functions of persons mentioned by the applicant in his account .

On DATE , after having been granted access to the underlying materials of the person - specific official report of DATE , ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) of ORG concluded that this report , both as regards its content and procedure , had been drawn up in a careful manner and that it provided insight in a transparent manner , and informed the Minister of ORG accordingly .

On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG rejected the applicant ’s asylum request . Mainly on the basis of the outcome of the investigation carried out by the Minister of ORG of the applicant ’s claims as set out in the person - specific official report , the Deputy Minister concluded that no credence could be attached to the applicant ’s account and that it had not been established that the applicant , if expelled to GPE , would be exposed to risks from the side of the NORP authorities or the drugs mafia from GPE .

On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG of The Hague and filed the grounds for this appeal on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant was informed that the impugned decision of DATE had been withdrawn and that a fresh decision would be taken .

In a fresh decision taken on CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG again rejected the applicant ’s asylum request . Although accepting the veracity of the applicant ’s account that , at the orders of his superiors , he had taken a person DATE who turned out to be a drug trafficker – across the border into GPE without the papers and luggage of this person being checked and his account of the killing of this trafficker , the Deputy Minister rejected as not credible the claimed risk of persecution , taking into account that DATE according to the contents of the person - specific official report – several sources had stated that the applicant was not wanted by the ORG and that he was not wanted either as a suspect of a criminal offence . The Deputy Minister further considered that the general situation in GPE was not such that all persons from that country qualified for an asylum - based residence permit and that the applicant could turn for protection to the NORP authorities in so far as the alleged LAW risk would emanate from corrupt officials or the NORP drugs mafia .

The applicant ’s appeal against this decision was accepted on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . It quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG ; the successor to the Deputy Minister of Justice ) to take a fresh decision . It accepted the applicant ’s argument that the investigation on which the person - specific report was based had been incomplete as his registration as living at the address of his mother and brother could have been easily verified on the internet by consulting an electoral list and as it could be deduced from the underlying materials that a document of CARDINAL DATE ( DATE unknown ) referred to in the underlying materials was missing . The court also accepted the applicant ’s argument that the finding in the person - specific official report that the applicant had been dismissed following a reorganisation was contradicted by the applicant ’s statements , which had not been rejected as not credible , that until his departure from GPE he had followed professional training programmes and that he was about to be promoted . ORG lastly disagreed with the Deputy Minister that the applicant could have turned to the NORP authorities for protection .

On DATE , the Minister for ORG filed a further appeal to ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG . At the latter ’s request , the Minister of ORG provided ORG on DATE with the materials underlying the person - specific official report of DATE . In accordance with section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , the Minister of ORG requested ORG to order that ( parts of ) these materials were to be disclosed only to ORG . On DATE , ORG decided that the access restriction requested by the Minister of ORG was justified . It subsequently sought and obtained the parties’ consent to determine the further appeal also on the basis of those underlying materials which had not been disclosed to the parties but only to ORG .

On DATE , ORG accepted the Minister ’s appeal , quashed the impugned judgment and rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It held that the mere circumstance that the Minister of ORG had been unable to obtain information about the applicant ’s registration gave no cause to find that the inquiry into the registration or in respect of other elements had been careless and incomplete . It further rejected the applicant ’s claim in respect of the allegedly missing document dated DATE , finding that the mention thereof was an obvious clerical error and that the mention concerned had in fact referred to another document which had been taken into account in the decision - making process . It further found that ORG had unjustly held that the contradiction between the applicant ’s dismissal following a reorganisation and his statements about an imminent promotion concerned an essential part of his asylum account . According to ORG , the core of the asylum account was the alleged fear of persecution by the ORG in that he was wanted by the NORP for having witnessed the murder of GPE committed by a NORP collaborator whereas it was stated in the person - specific official report that various sources had indicated that the applicant was not wanted by the ORG . It therefore did not find it established that the person - specific official report had been drawn up in a careless manner or that it was incomplete . It also found no concrete indications in the applicant ’s other submissions for doubting the correctness or completeness of this report . It lastly accepted the Minister ’s view that it had not been shown that the incident with the ORG collaborator was representative for the entire police apparatus in GPE , that it had not been established by the applicant that the Head of the ORG was involved in drugs trafficking and that , bearing this in mind , the applicant could have turned for protection to the NORP authorities . No further appeal lay against this ruling .

The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON v. the GPE ( ( DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE and § § DATE , DATE ) .

At the material time , the ORG ’s policy on asylum - seekers from particular countries was devised by the Deputy Minister of ORG and his successor , the Minister for ORG , on the basis of , inter alia , official country assessment reports drawn up by the Minister of ORG on the countries of origin of asylum - seekers , but also reports published by ORG agencies or NGOs ( non - governmental organisations ) . There was no country - specific policy in respect of asylum - seekers from GPE .

According to the Government , person - specific reports ( individuele ambtsberichten ) are researched with the assistance of the GPE diplomatic missions in the countries concerned . In investigating information and documents submitted by asylum - seekers , ORG enlists the services of agents who are carefully screened for objectivity and reliability on the basis of information supplied by institutions such as NGOs , international organisations like the ORG ( ORG ) as well as third - country embassies that can make disinterested , informed assessments . Agents must satisfy high demands ; they must be discreet and painstaking , and have extensive networks and access to sources of information . Agents receive instructions before they begin their investigation , and their findings are discussed in meticulous detail when they report back to the embassy . The investigation is organised in such a way that the authorities are never made aware of the alien ’s identity , to ensure that ORG investigation does not cause any problems for the alien in his / her country of origin .

ORG never provides information to the alien concerned or to his authorised representative about the identity of the agents or informants who have assisted with the investigation , because this could expose them to serious danger from the authorities or from the alien or his relatives or associates . Nor does the ORG ever provide information about the methods and techniques used to examine the authenticity of documents , to avoid facilitating the making of better forgeries in the future or enabling future asylum - seekers to improve their accounts in support of their applications .

In a ruling given on DATE , ORG ( ORG ; “ REK ” ) of ORG of GPE held that the duty of due care when preparing a decision of an administrative law nature includes providing access to the documents on which a person - specific report is based . In cases in which a decision is based on a person - specific report , an employee of ORG and ORG ) must examine the report to determine , on the basis of the underlying materials , whether due care was taken in drawing it up , both substantively and procedurally , and whether the report is clear . This is referred to as the “ REK check ” .

Furthermore , with the parties’ consent , ORG and/or ORG may base its judgment also on information that has not been made available to the alien concerned . Before doing so , ORG and/or ORG decides , using a different panel of judges , whether the restrictions placed on the alien ’s access to the underlying document of a person - specific report are justified .

The most recent general official country assessment report ( algemeen ambtsbericht ) on GPE was published by ORG on DATE . It covers the period from DATE to DATE . As regards corruption it reads :

“ In order to professionalise the judiciary and to combat corruption , the government of GPE started in DATE an extensive and fundamental reform of the judiciary . Many judges of the old regime were dismissed or placed on a reserve list . In addition , several judges resigned themselves . During the reporting period various measures were taken to increase the quality and independence of the judiciary . ...

CARDINAL of the most visible reforms after the Rose Revolution of DATE concerns the police force . Corruption , abuse of power , extortion , torture practices and a dismissive attitude towards those seeking protection against criminality were being associated with the police in the past . With the assistance of the OSCE [ Organisation for Security and Cooperation in LOC ] the police was fundamentally reorganised . The number of staff was reduced drastically and the salaries of agents in active duty were increased by tenfold . After the reorganisation , the police force consists of traffic patrol police , criminal investigation police and border police . The new police force falls under the competence of ORG . In addition , in DATE , an improved Code of Ethics for the police entered into force . Corruption within the police force has almost entirely disappeared and the trust of the general population in the functioning and actions of the police during the reporting period has increased . ORG with complaints about the police can file them at specifically designated reporting points . ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Sinj .

On DATE PERSON brought a civil action against the applicant before ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking that a will be declared null and void . ORG was represented by lawyers , PERSON . and GPE

On DATE ORG adopted a judgment in the applicant ’s favour .

The plaintiff lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) . ORG of that ORG has over forty judges . On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges presided over by Judge PERSON , sitting in a closed meeting , reversed the first - instance judgment and upheld the appeal . It held that the first - instance court had correctly established the facts but had wrongly applied the relevant law .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) alleging , inter alia , that she had not had a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal because Judge PERSON was the father of a trainee lawyer working at the law office of GPE . and GPE , who had both represented the plaintiff in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as unfounded and upheld the second - instance judgment . It held in particular :

“ The case file shows that ORG , Judge PERSON ’s son , did not participate in any manner in the proceedings at issue . This court therefore considers that there are no circumstances which put the impartiality of Judge PERSON in such doubt as to exclude his participation in the adoption of the appeal judgment . ”

In a constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE the applicant argued that even though ORG had not participated at the hearings held in the proceedings at issue , there were no indications that he had not been otherwise involved in the case . He had been in a relationship of subordination ( employer - employee ) to the opposing party ’s legal representative and the law office concerned had employed only a very small number of people . The applicant noted that the first - instance judgment in her favour had also later been reversed on appeal . The constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on DATE by ORG .