CASE OF BERDZENISHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Lawfully resident);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);No violation of Article 13+P7-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Lawfully resident;Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens);No violation of Article 14+P7-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Lawfully resident;Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens)

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

During the period from DATE to DATE identity checks of NORP nationals residing in GPE were carried out in the streets , markets and other workplaces and at their homes . Many were subsequently arrested and taken to police stations . After a period of custody in police stations , they were grouped together and taken by bus to a court , which summarily imposed administrative penalties on them and gave decisions ordering their administrative expulsion from NORP territory . Subsequently , after sometimes undergoing a medical visit and a blood test , they were taken to detention centres for foreigners where they were detained for varying periods of time , and then taken by bus to various airports in GPE , and expelled to GPE by aeroplane . Some of the NORP nationals against whom expulsion orders were issued left the territory of GPE by their own means ( for further details as to the background of the case see GPE v. GPE ( I ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .

The applicant entered the territory of GPE on DATE on a multiple entry business visa , valid until DATE . On DATE immigration officers stopped the applicant on the street , checked his identity documents and brought him to ORG in LOC of GPE , where he was detained . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for failure to observe the applicable registration procedure and ordered his administrative expulsion from GPE . He was subsequently , around TIME , released . On DATE the applicant left GPE by his own means .

The applicant entered the territory of GPE on DATE on a multiple entry business visa . Subsequently he registered at his place of residence with the competent authority and worked as a driver in GPE . On DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG militia department . On DATE the ORG of GPE found the applicant liable under LAW , as he had not applied for a work permit . The court fined the applicant ( RUB MONEY ) and ordered his administrative expulsion from GPE . He was subsequently transferred to the NORP militia department , where he was detained until DATE . On DATE he was transferred to ORG , where he stayed until his deportation . On DATE the applicant was taken to a military airport and was flown to GPE with a cargo plane .

The applicant entered the territory of GPE on DATE under the visa - free regime and settled in the village of GPE in LOC . On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers during an identity check operation in the area of his residence . Later that same day the ORG of GPE found him guilty of staying in the country without the required residence permit . The court fined the applicant ( RUB MONEY ) , ordered his detention and his expulsion . Subsequently the applicant was transferred to a detention centre for aliens . On DATE , after friends of the applicant had paid the administrative fine and bought him an aeroplane ticket to GPE for DATE , the applicant was released . On DATE the applicant left the territory of GPE , leaving behind his property and belongings .

The applicant entered the territory of GPE in DATE and worked on a market in GPE . On DATE the market was raided by a special unit of the police and the applicant , together with CARDINAL other NORP nationals , was arrested . The applicant was brought to ORG in the LOC of GPE . On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG of GPE found her guilty of staying in the country without the required residence permit . The court fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) , ordered her detention and her expulsion . Subsequently the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant was taken to a military airport and flown to GPE with a cargo plane .

The applicants entered the territory of GPE in DATE and lived there without the required visa , at the latest since DATE . On DATE both applicants were apprehended by the police and brought to the LOC police station of ORG . On DATE ORG of GPE fined both applicants ( RUB CARDINAL each ) for staying in the country without the required registration and ordered their expulsion . Subsequently both applicants were released . On DATE the applicants left GPE by their own means with their son , leaving behind most of their belongings .

An alleged detention of the ORG son and the fact whether the applicants owned a car , which they had to leave behind when leaving GPE , are matters of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant entered GPE on an unknown date on a multi - entry business visa , valid until DATE . She had registered her place of residence through a private agency and received a certificate valid until DATE . On DATE the applicant was apprehended by police officers for an inspection of her identity documents and was brought to the GPE police station in GPE , where she was subsequently detained . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for not complying with the applicable registration obligation , ordered her detention and expulsion . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was detained until her expulsion . On DATE she was brought by bus to GPE airport and was flown to GPE .

The first applicant stayed in GPE on a multi - entry business visa , valid until DATE , and had registered his place of residence through a private agency . The second applicant had a temporary document issued by the NORP of GPE , authorising his residency in GPE until DATE . On DATE the applicants were apprehended by police officers for an inspection of their documents and brought to the GPE police station in GPE , where they were subsequently detained . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicants ( RUB CARDINAL each ) for not complying with the applicable registration obligation and ordered their detention and expulsion . On DATE the applicants were transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where they were detained until their expulsion . On DATE the applicants were brought by bus to GPE airport and were flown to GPE .

The applicant had lived in GPE since DATE and had a visa and registration valid until DATE . On DATE the applicant left GPE by her own means .

An alleged detention of the applicant in DATE is a matter of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant had lived in GPE since DATE . He worked as an engineer , had a visa valid until DATE and a registration certificate , issued by a private agency , valid until DATE .

It is a matter of contention , whether the applicant had been detained , whether his expulsion was ordered by a court and whether he was deported ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The applicants had lived in GPE since DATE , most recently in GPE . The first applicant had a visa valid from DATE until DATE . The second applicant had a visa valid from DATE until DATE . Both applicants were in possession of registration certificates , valid until respectively CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The applicants left GPE on DATE by their own means .

An alleged detention of both applicants is a matter of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant had lived in GPE since DATE . He had a visa valid until DATE and a registration certificate that had expired on DATE . On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers and was brought to ORG in the GPE district of GPE , where he was detained . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) , ordered his detention and subsequent expulsion . After the decision of ORG the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where he was detained until his expulsion . On DATE the applicant was brought by bus to GPE airport and was flown to GPE .

The applicant had lived in GPE since DATE . She had a valid visa and a registration , but no work permit . On DATE she was apprehended by police officers in a grocery store , and , after her identity papers had been checked and an administrative report had been drawn up , the applicant was released . On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of working without the required work permit and fined her ( RUB MONEY ) . In addition the court ordered her detention and subsequent expulsion . After the court hearing the applicant was detained and brought to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was detained until her expulsion . On DATE the applicant was brought to GPE airport and was flown to GPE .

NORP The applicant entered GPE in DATE and settled in GPE . He had a valid visa until DATE . On DATE the applicant was apprehended by officers of ORG of GPE and brought to their station , where he was detained . On DATE the Kuntsevskiy ORG of GPE fined the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure and ordered his detention and expulsion . The applicant was brought to ORG no . CARDINAL , where he was detained until his expulsion . On DATE , after the applicant ’s relatives had bought him an aeroplane ticket to GPE , he was brought to the airport and released . The applicant left GPE on DATE .

The applicant had arrived in GPE for the first time in DATE . Since then he had lived , with short interruptions , in GPE and worked as a driver . After the last interruption he entered GPE on DATE on a one month visa . On DATE ORG of Moscow Region discontinued proceedings against the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for not observing the applicable registration procedure . The court also ordered his expulsion from GPE . On DATE the applicant left GPE by aeroplane .

NORP The arrests and detentions surrounding the CARDINAL court decisions are matters of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE for the first time . On DATE she was expelled from GPE due to a violation of visa - related regulations . On DATE the applicant returned to GPE . For the relevant time the applicant had a visa and registration , valid until respectively DATE and CARDINAL DATE . ORG of GPE decided that the expulsion decision of DATE had included a DATE ban from entering GPE . Consequently it fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) , ordered her detention and expulsion . After DATE of detention the applicant was expelled from GPE .

The exact circumstances and dates of the applicant ’s arrest , detention , court decision and expulsion are matters of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant entered the territory of GPE on DATE on a multiple entry business visa . Subsequently she registered at her place of residence with the competent authority through a private agency . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for not having a valid , but a counterfeited , registration certificate . The court also ordered her detention and expulsion . At the latest on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was held until her expulsion . On DATE the applicant was taken to a military airport and was flown to GPE with a cargo plane .

The date of the applicant ’s arrest and her detention before DATE are matters of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The conditions of detention in the different places of detention are a matter of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The ORG reiterates that the proceedings before the ORG are adversarial in nature . It is therefore for the parties to substantiate their factual arguments by providing the ORG with the necessary evidence . Whereas the ORG is responsible for establishing the facts , it is up to the parties to provide active assistance by supplying it with all the relevant information . In this context , the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account ( Lisnyy and others v. GPE and GPE DATE . ) , ORG . ORG GPE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE , with further references ) .

In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events , the ORG is inevitably confronted with the same difficulties as those faced by any first - instance court when establishing the facts . As to facts in dispute , the ORG reiterates its jurisprudence requiring a standard of proof “ beyond reasonable doubt ” in its assessment of evidence . Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact ( Aslakhanova and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE , with further references ) .

Furthermore , it is to be recalled that Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio ( ORG v. the former GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § DATE ) . Under certain circumstances the ORG has borne in mind the difficulties associated with obtaining evidence and the fact that often little evidence can be submitted by the applicants in support of their applications ( NORP v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) . According to the ORG ’s settled case - law , in these cases it is for the applicant to make only a prima facie case and to adduce appropriate evidence . If , in response to such allegations made by the applicants , the ORG then fail to disclose crucial documents to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation , strong inferences may be drawn . The prima facie threshold is reached primarily on the basis of witness statements , including the ORG submission to the ORG and to domestic authorities , and other evidence ( see GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL , DATE , with further references ) . However , where the applicants fail to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof can not be reversed ( see GPE , cited above , § QUANTITY , with further references ) .

The ORG has already found that these considerations apply to disappearances examined under LAW , where , although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities , it is possible to establish that he or she was officially summoned by the authorities , entered a place under their control and has not been seen since . In such circumstances , the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible and satisfactory explanation as to what happened on the LOC and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities , but left the LOC without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty . Furthermore , the ORG reiterates that , again in the context of a complaint under LAW , it has required proof in the form of concordant inferences before the burden of proof is shifted to ORG ( see PERSON , cited above , LAW , with further references ) .

The ORG reiterates that it concluded in GPE v. GPE ( I ) ( cited above , § CARDINAL ) that from DATE a coordinated policy of arresting , detaining and expelling NORP nationals had been put in place in GPE , which had amounted to an administrative practice . While the ORG does not suggest that at that time all NORP nationals were arrested or detained in GPE , it nevertheless finds it appropriate to apply the principles concerning reversing the burden of proof to the present case . Nonetheless , where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case , no strong inferences will be drawn and proof “ beyond reasonable doubt ” would be required .

According to the applicants their then DATE son had been detained for TIME at the PERSON district police department on DATE and he was only released after the payment of a bribe . The applicants also indicated that their belongings , which they had to leave behind in GPE , included a car .

The Government objected to the allegation of the detention of the ORG son and stated that an inquiry by the prosecutor ’s offices had not produced any proof for this allegation . The ORG also indicated that no vehicle was registered in the name of the applicants in the database of ORG .

The ORG observes that the applicants’ submission was of a general nature and lacked several important details , such as the exact time of the detention , the amount of the paid bribe , the make , model or registration number of the car ( see , a contrario , PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . The ORG also notes that the applicants did neither submit any documents or witness statements regarding the alleged detention of their son and the ownership of the car nor have they informed the ORG of any attempts they may have made in order to obtain at least fragmentary documentary evidence to substantiate their allegations ( see Lisnyy and others , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . Accordingly , the ORG finds that the applicants have not made a prima facie case and that the information in the ORG ’s possession does not suffice to establish that the ORG son had been detained on DATE or that the applicants had to leave behind their car ( see , mutatis mutandis , PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE ) .

The applicant alleged that on or CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE she was arrested by police officers and brought to ORG , where she was detained for DATE . Due to health issues , according to the applicant half her body had become paralysed , she was released on TIME . On DATE she left GPE by aeroplane .

The ORG observes that the applicant alleges a detention in a not closer specified police station . The ORG also notes that the applicant was not able to provide the exact date of her arrest and that she did not submit any medical certificate regarding her paralysis , which was allegedly the reason for her release . Having regard to these uncertainties , the ORG finds that the applicant has neither made a prima facie case nor that the applicant ’s detention has been established beyond reasonable doubt ( see , mutatis mutandis , Lisnyy and others , cited above , § § DATE , CARDINAL ) .

According to the applicant he was arrested on DATE by officers of the migration authorities and was brought to ORG for the Serpokhova district of GPE , where he was kept for CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant was taken to an unspecified ORG in GPE , which ordered his detention and expulsion . Subsequently the applicant was transferred to the Serpokhova special detention centre , where he was detained until his expulsion . On DATE the applicant was taken by bus to GPE airport and he was flown , by cargo plane , to GPE .

The Government submitted that neither ORG nor ORG had any records or information about the placement of the applicant in any detention facility . It further indicated that a PERSON temporary detention centre does not exist .

The Government provided several documents with regard to administrative proceedings concerning the applicant . These include an administrative offence report from the NORP district dated DATE , indicating the applicant ’s arrest on DATE at TIME and a decision of ORG of LOC , also dated DATE , fining the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for not observing the applicable registration procedure , and ordering the applicant ’s expulsion . The ORG decision also indicates that the applicant shall be held at FAC of PERSON until his expulsion . Furthermore , the judgment shows a stamp of NORP airport , dated DATE .

On the basis of the material in its possession , the ORG finds it established that the applicant was arrested on DATE and taken to the NORP police station , where he was held for one and a half hours . Subsequently the applicant was brought before ORG , which fined the applicant and ordered his detention and expulsion . The applicant was then detained until DATE in the Reception Centre of NORP . On DATE the applicant was taken by bus to GPE airport and was then flown , by cargo plane , to GPE .

The applicants submitted that on DATE they were stopped by police officers in the street next to the GPE pole metro station in GPE for identity checks . Subsequently they were taken to ORG for the NORP district of GPE . After TIME they were transferred to a special detention centre in the ORG district . After DATE in the detention centre they were , for the first time , allowed to call their mother and were able to ask her to buy aeroplane tickets for them . After the applicants’ mother had done so and presented the aeroplane tickets to the officers of the detention centre , the applicants were released . On DATE the applicants left GPE by aeroplane from GPE airport in GPE .

The Government submitted that an inquiry into the alleged detention in ORG for NORP and ORG districts of GPE did not confirm the applicants’ version of events . According to the Government the applicants had not been brought to the police station of LOC of GPE either , as that police station was closed for reconstruction at the relevant time . Lastly , the Government submitted that no criminal proceedings were instigated against the applicants .

The ORG notes that the applicants have submitted copies of their passports , showing that they left NORP territory on DATE , in support of their application . However , the ORG also observes that the applicants have not submitted any documents , such as the aeroplane tickets and the receipts of the purchase , or witness statements , such as from their mother , corroborating their submission regarding their detention and release . Under these circumstances the ORG finds it unable to conclude that the applicants have made a prima face case . Consequently , the burden of proof can not be reversed and fully shifted to the Government ( see GPE , cited above , § QUANTITY , with further references ) . The ORG considers it not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had been detained DATE .

According to the applicant ’s submission , on DATE CARDINAL police officers of ORG of ORG visited him at home and checked his identity documents . Owing to him being NORP and under the pretence that he was suspected of theft , he was taken to the NORP police station , where he was identified in an identity parade by the theft victim . Subsequently he was detained and only after the intervention of one of the applicant ’s friends , who worked for ORG , his involvement in the alleged theft was cleared up and the investigation was dropped . The applicant was nonetheless not released but kept in a cell of the police station TIME . On DATE he was transferred to the special detention centre in the LOC district in GPE , where he was detained until DATE , when ORG of Moscow Region discontinued proceedings against the applicant for not observing the registration procedure . DATE the applicant was stopped by CARDINAL men in plainclothes on the highway , who forced the applicant into their car and put a hood over his head . After TIME drive , the applicant was led to an unspecified police station and placed in a cell . On DATE of detention in the police station the applicant was handed a decision of ORG , ordering his expulsion and fining the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . DATE , DATE , the applicant was taken to the PERSON airport by police officers and put on a flight to GPE , GPE .

The Government submitted that the applicant was apprehended on DATE by officers of ORG of the GPE district of GPE and was brought before LOC on DATE . The court fined the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure and ordered the applicant ’s expulsion . The ORG also stated that neither ORG nor ORG had any records or information about any subsequent detention of the applicant and that the applicant was not forcibly removed from GPE , but left on his own on DATE .

The applicant submitted inter alia the decision of ORG of GPE Region of DATE and of ORG of DATE . The ORG submitted in addition to the decision of ORG , reports concerning the arrest and detention of the applicant on DATE .

The ORG observes that the applicant has not submitted any proof concerning his detention from CARDINAL to DATE and from DATE to DATE , and that his submission concerning the second alleged detention is partially fragmentary . The ORG also notes that ORG did not order the applicant ’s subsequent detention in CARDINAL of ORG , as the NORP courts did in other cases . Accordingly the ORG considers the information submitted by the applicant insufficient to conclude that he has made a prima facie case . Therefore , the burden of proof can not be reversed and shifted to the Government ( see GPE , cited above , § QUANTITY , with further references ) . The ORG considers it not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been detained DATE . However , based on the information and documents provided by the ORG , the ORG concludes that the applicant had been detained in ORG of the GPE district of GPE on DATE .

The applicant initially submitted that at DATE she had submitted her passport and several other documents to her University , for the renewal of her registration . On DATE she received a call from the ORG , informing her that there were problems with her passport and that she had to go to ORG . When she went there DATE , she was notified about a decision to expel her , owing to her visa - related offence in DATE . On DATE she returned to the passport department to prove that she was an internally deplaced person and had a right to stay in GPE . In the evening on DATE she was taken to ORG , which confirmed her expulsion . Subsequently she was brought to ORG of LOC , where she was detained until TIME . During TIME the police attempted to bring her to several different detention centres , where she was not admitted as they were already full or only for men or for convicted persons . At TIME DATE she was admitted to a ORG , near GPE prison , and was detained until her expulsion . On DATE the applicant was brought to GPE airport and flown to GPE by an aircraft belonging to ORG of GPE .

DATE . According to the Government the applicant was apprehended on DATE by officers of ORG of ORG . On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of not complying with DATE ban from entering GPE . The court fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) and ordered her expulsion and detention . Subsequently the applicant was placed in ORG no . CARDINAL until her expulsion on DATE .

The applicant subsequently submitted a copy of her passport , showing a stamp leaving GPE on DATE and entering GPE over GPE airport on DATE . The Government provided a copy of the decision of ORG of GPE dated DATE .

On the basis of the material in its possession , provided by the applicant and the Government , the ORG concludes the following :

The applicant was arrested on DATE by officers of ORG of ORG and detained until DATE . On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) and ordered her expulsion and detention . From CARDINAL until DATE the applicant was detained in ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant was expelled from GPE .

The applicant submitted that on DATE , after her husband PERSON , who is also an applicant ( application no . CARDINAL ) , had been deported , she went to the local passport department , to arrange her departure from GPE . In the local passport department her passport was taken from her and she was transferred to a militia department for detention . DATE , she was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was detained until her expulsion on DATE .

According to the Government the applicant was arrested on DATE and was subsequently brought before FAC of GPE , which inter alia ordered the applicant ’s detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE she was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was detained until her expulsion on CARDINAL October CARDINAL . The Government submitted several documents in this regards , including a report of the applicant ’s arrest , the court decision and reports from an initial medical examination in the detention centre , all dated DATE .

On the basis of the material in its possession , and noting that the alleged earlier detention is not only not corroborated by any other evidence but also contradicted by the documents submitted by the ORG , the ORG can not conclude that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been detained prior to DATE . It has been established , however , that the applicant was arrested on DATE and fined by ORG of GPE , which also ordered her detention and expulsion until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .


András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their former Agent , Ms E. Baltutytė .

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

The first applicant is a known NORP actor . The second applicant is his wife . She is also the daughter of the former President of GPE .

On DATE a NORP newspaper , “ PERSON ” , published an article entitled “ PERSON DATE a feast for the eyes . The GPE couple was showing off their beauty [ private parts ] in PERSON ( PERSON – desertas akims / ORG demonstravo savo grožybes ) ” . The article was printed on the front page and continued up to the fourth page of the newspaper , and was also published online on the newspaper ’s website . The front page of the newspaper had CARDINAL - page photographs of the applicants in the nude , which had been taken on the nudist beach at ORG , a seaside resort in GPE . Altogether , CARDINAL photos of the applicants in the nude on the beach were published .

On DATE the Inspector of ORG concluded that the above - mentioned publication had breached the applicants’ right to privacy .

The applicants instituted court proceedings , arguing a breach of privacy . They claimed that the publication had caused them great distress , given that CARDINAL photographs had been printed on the front page of the newspaper and presented in a sensational manner to increase the sales of the newspaper . From the content of the article and the photographs , it was clear that journalists had secretly followed the applicants and photographed them . This had taken place in a specific secluded environment – a nudist beach DATE where no reasonable person would wish to be photographed ( as regards the interpretation of the concept of a secluded place , the applicants relied on GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI ) . After the humiliating publication of the photographs , which concerned very private aspects of their lives , the applicants and their family had been deeply psychologically affected and had also received a lot of unwanted attention . Furthermore , the photographs had been published on the newspaper ’s website , which meant that readers could comment on the applicants’ appearance . Some of those comments were extremely insulting . The applicants also contended that , following the publication , the second applicant ’s health had deteriorated and the first applicant had lost a job on a television show which he had been promised .

The applicants asked the court to award each of them CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – approximately MONEY ( EUR ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG granted the applicants’ claim in full . The court relied extensively on the ORG ’s case - law as to the need to balance the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression , as well on ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) to the effect that the right to privacy entailed avoidance of being placed in a false light , non - revelation of irrelevant and embarrassing facts , and prohibition to publish private photographs ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court noted that the applicants were well - known people in GPE and that , by publishing the photographs , the newspaper had blatantly damaged their honour , dignity and right to a private life . There was no public interest in publishing the photographs , given that they were private and did not concern matters which society had a legitimate interest in knowing . On the contrary , by such an act the newspaper was attempting to satisfy readers’ curiosity by creating a sensation , and was pursuing its commercial interests . For that purpose , the newspaper had consciously placed their photographs on the front page , knowing that the nude photographs of the applicants , who were well - known people in GPE , would no doubt attract the ORG attention . The fact that the applicants had been photographed on a nudist beach did not diminish the breach of privacy , because nudity was an important part of private life , and publishing the ORG nude photographs with inappropriate ( nekorektiškomis ) headlines was particularly offensive .

The first - instance court also noted that that issue of the newspaper had had a large print run , and that the photographs had also been placed on the newspaper ’s website , thus giving a great many people access to them . The court observed that , following the decision of ORG , the newspaper had had the opportunity to apologise to the applicants for the photographs , which could have lessened the damage , but it had failed to do so . Nor had the newspaper attempted to settle the case before ORG , thus confirming its malicious behaviour .

As for the sum to be awarded to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage the applicants had sustained , ORG observed that neither NORP nor international law set out criteria to determine such a sum . However , guidelines had been provided by ORG , which had underlined the need to take into account the situation of each particular case . Of relevance was whether society had an interest in making the relevant information public , the victim ’s reaction to the publication , and the actions of the media . In the case at hand , taking into account the particularly gross breach of the applicants’ right to privacy by a newspaper which had been printed in “ large volume ” , ORG found it reasonable to award the requested sums in full , that is each of the applicants was to receive ORG .

The applicants were also awarded LTL CARDINAL for legal costs and LTL CARDINAL for court fees , the expenses they had incurred when lodging the civil claim . Those sums were to be paid to them by the newspaper .

NORP The newspaper appealed , requesting , inter alia , that the abovementioned sum in respect of non - pecuniary damage be lowered .

By a ruling of DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision , noting that the published photographs had clearly been offensive and degrading to the applicants . The situation in which they had been photographed fell within the sphere of private life , and was one in which no reasonable person would wish to be photographed . There was no public interest whatsoever in publishing CARDINAL photographs of the sort published by the newspaper .

As to the question of the sum to be awarded as compensation for non - pecuniary damage , ORG noted that the newspaper had assets with a value of LTL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) , and that in DATE the newspaper ’s statutory capital had been increased . Therefore , the newspaper ’s plea for the award in respect of non - pecuniary damage to be lowered on the basis of its allegedly difficult financial situation was unfounded . In this connection , the appellate court also observed that the photographs had been widely distributed because the newspaper had been sold throughout GPE , and had been printed on the front page of DATE ’s issue as the most “ gossip - worthy ” news of DATE . To make matters worse , the photographs had been published on the internet . Following the publication , a television programme called “ PERSON ” had been announced , which had been based on the photographs in question . The only reason the programme had not been broadcast was because of a court injunction . In such circumstances , the first - instance court had correctly found that the applicants had suffered following the publication . Also taking into account that the newspaper had been unwilling to acknowledge its transgression , the sum awarded by ORG was reasonable .

ORG dismissed the newspaper ’s argument that the first - instance court had deviated from ORG guidelines as to the sums to be awarded as compensation for non - pecuniary damage . In fact , according to ORG , no case analogous or very similar to the applicant ’s case had [ ever ] been examined in GPE .

Lastly , ORG ordered the newspaper to pay each of the applicants LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of lawyers’ costs at the appellate court .

An appeal on points of law being lodged by the newspaper , on CARDINAL DATE ORG varied the lower courts’ decisions . It held that a nudist beach was not a public place . Accordingly , a person could reasonably expect privacy there . The applicants’ behaviour on that beach had not been in breach of good morals . ORG entirely agreed with the lower ORG conclusion that the newspaper had gravely breached the applicants’ right to privacy by abusing its right to impart information , by imparting information merely for readers’ curiosity , and consequently to obtain pecuniary advantage .

ORG also observed that there were no legislative limits on the sum which could be awarded as compensation for nonpecuniary damage , thus giving the courts rather wide discretion in such matters . Nonetheless , it considered it important to follow its earlier case - law to the effect that , when assessing the sum to be awarded , the courts should take into account the value protected by law which had been compromised ( įstatymu saugoma vertybė / teisinis gėris ) ( in the present case , the applicants’ right to privacy ) , and also adhere to the sums that the courts had awarded in analogous cases ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . In the case at hand , each of the applicants had been awarded LTL CARDINAL , which was equal to or in excess of the awards of LTL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) – LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) made in cases concerning nonpecuniary damage caused by severe physical injury , where more important values ( such as life and health ) had been at stake ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG also had regard to its case - law , where awards between LTL CARDINAL had been granted in relation to breaches of the right to protection of one ’s image ( teisės į atvaizdą pažeidimas ) or the right to privacy ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In the light of the above , ORG concluded that the award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL to each applicant was excessive . It was therefore reasonable to grant each of the applicants LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . Such sums would not contradict established case - law , and would be adequate compensation for the damage which the applicants had suffered and sufficient in respect of both defending the applicants’ right to privacy and deterring the abuse of press freedom , thus balancing CARDINAL competing values which were equal in weight – privacy and the freedom to impart information .

ORG also decided that the applicants were to bear some of the newspaper ’s litigation costs ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , because PERCENT of the sum which the applicants had claimed had been awarded to them . ORG also noted that the sums which both the applicants and the newspaper had paid to their respective lawyers in connection with the proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law were higher than those recommended by ORG , and thus not entirely justified . As a result , the applicants were together ordered to pay the newspaper ORG for litigation costs and ORG for court fees . The applicants thus received LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in total , or LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) each .

NORP In DATE the magazine ORG published an article about the applicant PERSON , where she explained how she had lost QUANTITY in weight . In DATE the same magazine published a story where the applicant PERSON gave an interview about his family life , also answering questions put by a journalist about the other applicant ’s ( his wife ’s ) plastic surgery , and giving details about her weight loss .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE reads :

“ A person ’s private life shall be inviolable ...

The law and the courts shall protect everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference in his private and family life , or from encroachment upon his honour and dignity . ”

DATE LAW provides that compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage suffered by a person must be established by law .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW read :

“ CARDINAL . A photograph ( or part thereof ) , or some other image of a person may be reproduced , sold , exhibited , or published , and the person may be photographed , only with his consent . Such consent following a person ’s death may be given by his spouse , parents or children .

Where such acts [ using a person ’s image ] are related to a person ’s public activities , his official post , or requests from law - enforcement agencies , or where a person is photographed in public places , a person ’s consent shall not be required . However , a person ’s photograph ( or part thereof ) produced under the above - mentioned circumstances may not be exhibited , reproduced or sold if such an act were to debase a person ’s honour or dignity , or damage his professional reputation .

A person whose right to protection of his image has been infringed has the right to ask a court to require the discontinuance of an act and to award compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage ... ”

“ CARDINAL . A person ’s privacy shall be inviolable . Information regarding a person ’s private life may be made public only with his consent ...

NORP Unlawful invasion of a person ’s dwelling or other private LOC , including fenced private territory ; keeping the person ’s private life under observation ... , publication of data relating to the state of his health , in violation of the procedure prescribed by law ; and other unlawful acts shall be deemed to violate the person ’s private life .

The creation of a file on another person ’s private life , in violation of the law , shall be prohibited . A person may not be denied access to the information contained in the file , except as otherwise provided for by law . Dissemination of the information collected on the person ’s private life shall be prohibited unless , taking into consideration the person ’s official post and status in society , dissemination of the said information is in line with a lawful and well - grounded public interest in being aware of that information .

NORP The public announcement of facts concerning a person ’s private life , however truthful they may be ; making private correspondence public , in violation of the procedure prescribed in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Article ; invasion of a person ’s dwelling without his consent , except as otherwise provided for by law ; keeping his private life under observation ; or gathering information about him in violation of the law ; and other unlawful acts infringing the right to privacy shall form the basis for bringing an action for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of those acts ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG - pecuniary damage shall be deemed to be a person ’s suffering , emotional experiences , inconvenience , mental shock , emotional depression , humiliation , damage to reputation , diminution of opportunities to associate with others , and so on , evaluated by a court in terms of money .

ORG - pecuniary damage shall be compensated for only in cases provided for by law . Non - pecuniary damage shall be compensated for in all cases where it has been sustained as a result of crime , health impairment or deprivation of life , as well as in other cases provided for by law . The courts , in evaluating the non - pecuniary damage , shall take into consideration the consequences of the damage sustained , the degree of fault on the part of the person who caused the damage , his financial status , the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the aggrieved person , and any other circumstances important to the case , as well as the criteria of good faith , justice and reasonableness . ”

In case no . ORG , decided on DATE , which concerned an injury at work , ORG held that , when evaluating non - pecuniary damage , it was important to consider the values being protected and their interrelationship ( turi būti atsižvelgta į ginamų vertybių specifiką ir jų tarpusavio santykį ) , because the right to life and the right to health were absolute rights , whereas the right to privacy and the right to dignity were conditional rights ( santykinės teisės ) which could not be equally valued as regards damages ( vertinamos vienodai neturtinės žalos dydžio aspektu ) . A worker who had fallen off a building platform and cracked his skull was thus awarded LTL CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of that injury .

On DATE ORG gave a ruling in civil case no . ORG concerning an accident at work following which the plaintiff in question had become handicapped . ORG noted that the worker was partly to blame for his injury , because he had not followed safety instructions at work . Accordingly , although the plaintiff had asked for LTL CARDINAL and the first - instance court had awarded him LTL CARDINAL , ORG considered that a sum of LTL CARDINAL would be sufficient to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage suffered .

On DATE ORG examined case no . CARDINALKCARDINAL/CARDINAL , which also concerned an accident at work . The plaintiff in that case was awarded LTL CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage suffered as a result of physical injury .

On DATE , in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG held that there had been a violation of the plaintiff ’s right to privacy and reputation , owing to a publication about his allegedly fraudulent manner of conducting business and his alleged debts to his business partners , and the printing of the plaintiff ’s photograph . For ORG , LTL CARDINAL was sufficient to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage sustained .

On DATE , in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG considered that an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL was sufficient to compensate for a breach of the plaintiff ’s right to privacy , when information which alleged that he had had a child out of wedlock was printed .

On DATE , in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG agreed that an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in a civil case was sufficient to compensate for the plaintiff ’s mental suffering where a local television station had wrongfully accused the plaintiff of having committed a traffic violation .

On DATE ORG gave a ruling in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning a civil claim by a woman , PERSON , for breach of privacy in respect of an article in a DATE newspaper , PERSON , entitled “ A date with a lesbian ” ( “ Pasimatymas su lesbiete ” ) . The case concerned an article which had included CARDINAL photographs . PERSON was in CARDINAL of those photographs , which was in a large format . She had been photographed from the front , although her name had not been disclosed . The first - instance court considered that , “ taking into account society ’s negative opinion about people of non - traditional sexual orientation ” ( “ teismas , įvertinęs susidariusią neigiamą visuomenės nuomonę apie netradicinės seksualinės orientacijos žmones ” ) , the publication of PERSON ’s photograph in such a context could cause her to be evaluated oddly ( galėjo sukelti prieštaringų ieškovės vertinimų ) . The court also noted that the newspaper ’s financial situation was good , it had a large print throughout GPE . The newspaper had not apologised to the plaintiff or paid her damages , even though it had initially promised to do so . However , the sum claimed by the plaintiff , LTL CARDINAL , was clearly excessive . It was therefore reasonable to award her LTL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage . That sum was upheld by the appellate court , which underlined that the article “ A date with a lesbian ” was conflicting ( vertinamas prieštaringai ) in a homophobic society , and people whose photographs were linked to that article could therefore experience negative consequences , as indeed in GPE ’s case . She had had to explain herself to her parents , colleagues at work and friends from times of studies . The award of LTL CARDINAL would also not impede the DATE commercial activity of the defendant .

The newspaper lodged an appeal on points of law , arguing that the award for non - pecuniary damage was too high . ORG noted that it was important to adhere to the principle of non - discrimination , which meant that similar cases should be decided similarly , and which also meant that , in analogous situations , awards for non - pecuniary damage should be comparable . ORG also relied on its earlier ruling to the effect that courts should not only follow the criteria established in legal norms and court practice , but should also take into account the awards already granted in analogous cases .

ORG thus distinguished CARDINAL categories of cases .

Firstly , there were cases where a plaintiff ’s privacy had been breached on account of the arrangement of his or her nude photographs with offensive text and headlines ( ORG referred to the instant case of PERSON and PERSON ) , or where information regarding “ family secrets ” or health had been made public ( ORG referred to its ruling of DATE in Žvagulis’ case ) , or where information about private life had been published together with photographs , which had amounted to a breach of the right to a private life . The awards in those cases were , respectively , LTL CARDINAL , LTL CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL .

As to the second category , ORG referred to some cases where the press had used plaintiffs’ private photographs without permission , or had accused them of crimes , where the non - pecuniary damage awards were LTL CARDINAL .

The third category concerned cases where photographs of plaintiffs who were well - known people in society had been published without their consent , and for the purpose of a newspaper gaining financial benefit from advertisement , where the awards for non - pecuniary damage were LTL CARDINAL .

ORG then held that , in the case of GPE , the award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL was too high , because it did not correspond to the abovementioned court practice . PERSON ’s photograph had been published only as an illustration of the article , and neither her personal data nor information about her private life had been made public . Moreover , the photograph had been taken at a public event when PERSON was posing ( viešame renginyje , ieškovei pozuojant ) . In the view of ORG , an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL would be fair and adequate in respect of the non - pecuniary damage sustained by PERSON in relation to the breach of her right to protection of her image , and to prevent the abuse of freedom of expression by the press .

On DATE ORG adopted a ruling in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which concerned ORG civil claim for defamation against a television channel , Tele-CARDINAL . In particular , PERSON , who is a singer , had complained that in DATE , during a television broadcast , a presenter had made statements about someone else allegedly being the father of PERSON ’s child , had made allegations about PERSON ’s actual sexual orientation , and , in the latter context , had also claimed that PERSON had been operated on in clinics in GPE DATE after “ he had sustained trauma to his anus from a blunt object ” .

ORG held that information about PERSON ’s fatherhood , his sexual orientation , and his unverified operation concerned his private life , notwithstanding PERSON being well - known because he was a singer . Moreover , disseminating such information had no public interest . On the contrary , having had regard to the manner in which the information had been presented , ORG held that the only aim in disseminating it had been to spread gossip to satisfy the curiosity of a certain category of television viewers . The fact that PERSON had communicated with the media before did not mean that he had lost his right to privacy . Having examined the case in the light of the ORG ’s case - law ( ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE , ECHR DATE ) , ORG held that there had been a breach of PERSON ’s right to privacy .

Although PERSON asked the courts to award him LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage , ORG found that the lower courts had correctly applied Article CARDINAL of LAW , and had had a proper basis for their decision to award GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation .

As concerns the division of legal costs , LAW states :

“ CARDINAL . A court orders the legal costs of the party to the proceedings in whose favour a court decision has been adopted to be paid by the other party to the proceedings ...

NORP If a civil claim is granted in part , the plaintiff ’s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is granted , and the defendant ’s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is rejected .

The rules set out in this LAW also apply to court fees ...

NORP If the appellate court or court of cassation , without referring the case for fresh examination , changes a lower court ’s decision or ruling , or adopts a new ruling , it accordingly changes the division of legal costs . If the appellate court or court of cassation does not change the division of legal costs , it is the court of first instance which has to resolve this question . ”

On DATE ORG of ORG adopted LAW , containing a LAW , the relevant parts of which read :

“ CARDINAL . There is an area in which the exercise of the right of freedom of information and freedom of expression may conflict with the right to privacy protected by LAW Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life , his home and his correspondence ... The exercise of the former right must not be allowed to destroy the existence of the latter .

The right to privacy consists essentially in the right to live one ’s own life with a minimum of interference . It concerns private , family and home life , physical and moral integrity , honour and reputation , avoidance of being placed in a false light , nonrevelation of irrelevant and embarrassing facts , unauthorised publication of private photographs , protection against misuse of private communications , protection from disclosure of information given or received by the individual confidentially . Those who , by their own actions , have encouraged indiscreet revelations about which they complain later on , can not avail themselves of the right to privacy .

A particular problem arises as regards the privacy of persons in public life . The phrase ‘ where public life begins , private life ends’ is inadequate to cover this situation . The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection , save where they may have an impact upon public events . The fact that an individual figures in the news does not deprive him of a right to a private life .

NORP In order to counter these dangers , national law should provide a right of action enforceable at law against persons responsible for such infringements of the right to privacy .

The right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media . National legislations should comprise provisions guaranteeing this protection . ”

The relevant passages of Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) of ORG of ORG on the right to privacy , adopted on DATE , read :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recalls the current affairs debate it held on the right to privacy during its DATE session , DATE after the accident which cost FAC GPE her life .

NORP On that occasion , some people called for the protection of privacy , and in particular that of public figures , to be reinforced at the NORP level by means of a convention , while others believed that privacy was sufficiently protected by national legislation and LAW , and that freedom of expression should not be jeopardised .

The right to privacy , guaranteed by LAW , has already been defined by the ORG in the declaration on mass communication media and human rights , contained within LAW ( DATE ) , as ‘ the right to live one ’s own life with a minimum of interference’ .

In view of the new communication technologies which make it possible to store and use personal data , the right to control one ’s own data should be added to this definition .

The ORG is aware that personal privacy is often invaded , even in countries with specific legislation to protect it , as people ’s private lives have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media . The victims are essentially public figures , since details of their private lives serve as a stimulus to sales . At the same time , public figures must recognise that the position they occupy in society – in many cases by choice – automatically entails increased pressure on their privacy .

Public figures are persons holding public office and/or using public resources and , more broadly speaking , all those who play a role in public life , whether in politics , the economy , the arts , the social sphere , sport or in any other domain .

It is often in the name of a CARDINAL - sided interpretation of the right to freedom of expression , which is guaranteed in LAW , that the media invade people ’s privacy , claiming that their readers are entitled to know everything about public figures .

Certain facts relating to the private lives of public figures , particularly politicians , may indeed be of interest to citizens , and it may therefore be legitimate for readers , who are also voters , to be informed of those facts .

It is therefore necessary to find a way of balancing the exercise of CARDINAL fundamental rights , both of which are guaranteed in LAW : the right to respect for one ’s private life and the right to freedom of expression .

The ORG reaffirms the importance of every person ’s right to privacy , and of the right to freedom of expression , as fundamental to a NORP society . These rights are neither absolute nor in any hierarchical order , since they are of equal value .

NORP However , the ORG points out that the right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . They were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .


Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Josep Casadevall;Síofra O’Leary

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

On CARDINAL May DATE ORG declared unconstitutional several provisions of the Law on DATE State Budget and Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts which had been the basis for re - calculation and eventual decrease of the applicant ’s PERSON pension .

In DATE , referring to the above decision of ORG , the applicant lodged a civil claim with ORG of GPE against ORG , complaining that as from DATE the amount of his Chornobyl pension was too low contrary to the LAW and seeking damages caused by a legislative act which had decreased his pension and later had been recognized unconstitutional . He invoked Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW in this respect .

By judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim on the ground that the conditions and mechanisms for implementation of the provisions of Articles DATE LAW had not been established by the legislation . Furthermore , the court noted that the applicant did not prove any damage caused to him , given that he alleged damages to have been sustained as from DATE , whilst the provisions found unconstitutional lost their legal force on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE and DATE respectively ORG and ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court confirming : that the applicant failed to meet the conditions laid down by Articles DATE and CARDINAL ; and that compensation for material damage as guaranteed by Articles DATE and CARDINAL would only have been possible if a special law establishing the conditions and procedure for such compensation had been enacted . The court of appeal noted in particular that , in the circumstances referred to by the claimant , the possibility of obtaining compensation in respect of pecuniary damage is linked to the existence of legislation establishing the specific conditions and the relevant procedure . It concluded that , as such legislation did not exist , the first - instance court had rightly decided that the applicant ’s claims were unfounded .

The Civil Code , which came into force in DATE , lays down different obligations as to compensation in respect of damage . Among others , CARDINAL articles , namely Articles DATE , relied on by the applicant in the domestic proceedings , provide for the ORG to compensate the victims of unlawful decisions of ORG authorities . The articles in question provide as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Pecuniary damage caused to a natural person or legal entity by unlawful decisions , actions or omissions of ORG authorities , authorities of GPE or local self - governance authorities in the course of the exercise of their powers shall be compensated for by the ORG , GPE or local self - governance regardless of the fault of these bodies . ”

“ CARDINAL . Pecuniary damage caused to a natural person or legal entities as a result of adoption by ORG authorities , authorities of GPE or a local self - governance authority of a normative - legal act that was declared illegal and annulled , shall be compensated for by the ORG , GPE or the local self - governance authority regardless of the fault of officers and employees of these bodies . ”

“ CARDINAL . Provisions of the Law on DATE State Budget and Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts , found unconstitutional , lose their legal force from the date when this decision has been adopted by ORG . ”


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE ORG decided to restrict access to the investigation file in accordance with LAW of LAW ( the “ ORG ” ) , PERSON no . DATE

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of forming a criminal organisation and fraudulent use of credit cards .

On DATE the applicant ’s statement was taken by the police in the presence of his lawyer and he was questioned at length about his telephone conversations that had been intercepted . The police read out the transcripts of the intercepted conversations , and the applicant did not deny that he had had these conversations but claimed that they did not prove that he was guilty .

On DATE the investigating judge questioned the applicant in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant denied that he was involved in a criminal organisation and submitted that the intercepted calls did not prove that he was guilty . The investigating judge ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand taking into account the strong suspicion that he had committed the alleged offence , the risk of absconding and tampering with evidence as well as the risk of coercing some of the witnesses and victims .

On various dates the applicant requested his release pending trial . These requests were dismissed by the courts , having regard to the nature of the offence with which the applicant was charged , the existence of a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question , the state of the evidence , the risk of absconding and tampering with evidence as well as the time spent in detention . The applicant objected to these decisions . By decisions of DATE and DATE the appeal courts , without holding a hearing , rejected the applicant ’s objections based on the information contained in the case file .

Upon his application , on DATE , the CARDINALth ORG ordered the applicant ’s release having regard to the time he spent in detention .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

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

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


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 lives in PERSON .

It appears that in DATE an action was brought against the applicant before ORG . The plaintiff sought the payment of some outstanding fees .

After a first- and a second - instance judgment , on DATE ORG gave final decision in the case .


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

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in Batman .

On DATE , the first CARDINAL ORG son and the other NORP brother , ORG , aged DATE at the time , went into Batman Stream to swim and subsequently drowned .

According to the applicants , the uncontrolled draining of sand from Batman Stream of LOC changed the stream ’s ecological balance . Eventually , holes and vortexes which occurred as a result of uncontrolled sand drain allegedly contributed to PERSON drowning .

Criminal proceedings where initiated against the PERSON joint stock company ( “ the company ” ) , which was conducting the sand mining business at the time of events , and the Batman Governor ’s office which issued the necessary permits to run the sand mine . On DATE , the criminal proceedings before the Batman public prosecutor ’s office concluded with a decision not to prosecute . On DATE , the first applicant appealed against the non - prosecution decision . However , on DATE his appeal request was also rejected by ORG .

While the criminal proceedings were pending , the first applicant requested the determination of evidence from ORG into the incident which led to ORG ’s death . CARDINAL expert reports were issued following the scene investigation , conducted by ORG on DATE . According to the expert reports , it was stated that the uncontrolled sand draining from Batman Stream changed the natural flow of the water and caused artificial holes and vortexes which amounted to QUANTITY in depth in some parts . Despite these dangers , there were no warning signs .

On DATE the applicants being convinced that the failure of the authorities and the company to take necessary safety measures to protect ORG ’s right to life , applied to the civil court of first instance with a compensation request . They sought a total of MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) in compensation for both pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages .

The applicants also requested legal aid for the court fees . On DATE , ORG Instance ordered ORG in Batman to investigate the economical means of the applicants . According to the report submitted by ORG , it was revealed that the applicants were unemployed and lived on state benefits and help from their neighbours . Nevertheless , the trial court rejected the ORG legal aid request on the basis of ORG , the father of the deceased ’s , age and his ability to work .

On DATE the trial court notified the applicants that they were required to pay a court fee of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) within DATE in order to continue the proceedings and that the proceedings would be discontinued if they failed to do so .

NORP On DATE the ORG of First Instance decided to discontinue the proceedings as the applicants had not paid the court fees .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion)

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE in the NORP SSR of the GPE . He had lived in GPE since DATE . On DATE his NORP nationality was revoked by a decree of the President of GPE .

In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant was convicted of drug - related

offences in GPE and given a custodial sentence . The most recent sentence was set to expire on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision declaring that the applicant ’s presence in GPE would be undesirable upon his release ( the “ exclusion order ” ) .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) issued a deportation order against the applicant and asked ORG of GPE to authorise the applicant ’s placement into the detention centre for aliens pending his deportation . On DATE ORG granted the request , holding that the applicant should remain in the centre “ until his deportation ” .

On DATE the ORG , and on DATE ORG of GPE , confirmed the validity of the exclusion and deportation orders . On DATE the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal was rejected .

On DATE ORG of the GPE heard the applicant ’s appeal against the decision on his placement in custody . ORG upheld the detention order but limited it in time until DATE .

On DATE the ORG examined an application for an extension of the time - limit . Noting that the ORG had not yet received a response from ORG as to the applicant ’s nationality , it extended the time - limit until DATE .

NORP The applicant filed an appeal . He submitted that , upon serving the sentence , he should have been given an opportunity to leave GPE of his own will but that had been refused to him .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the appeal . It further held that ORG had erred in fixing a specific time - limit for the applicant ’s detention and that the applicant should remain in detention “ until his deportation ” . On DATE the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal was rejected .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the ORG inquired ORG at the Embassy of GPE in GPE whether or not the applicant was a NORP national . On DATE ORG replied that the applicant ’s NORP nationality had been revoked by the President ’s decree on DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant asked the ORG to consider his deportation to GPE where he owned real estate and where he had lived DATE . On DATE the ORG applied for assistance to ORG ( ORG ) . However , on DATE the ORG explained that it was unable to issue laissez - passer documents to foreign nationals and referred the ORG to ORG in GPE .

NORP In DATE the ORG established a working group on the applicant ’s deportation . On DATE the group sent a request to ORG and also asked ORG whether the President ’s decree revoking the applicant ’s NORP nationality could be quashed in connection with the NORP amnesty act of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant complained to a court about an excessive length of his detention . He submitted that he had been spent DATE in custody owing to the ORG ’s failure to act diligently in the deportation proceedings . On DATE the ORG agreed with the applicant ’s claim , noting that DATE had lapsed between a first inquiry to ORG about the applicant ’s nationality dated DATE and the second inquiry dated DATE , that no information about any action by the ORG in the period DATE and DATE had been submitted , and that a request to ORG had been sent CARDINAL days after receiving the ORG ’s explanation . ORG pronounced unlawful the ORG ’s failure to act but refused to fix a time - limit for the applicant ’s detention , referring to ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the meantime , NORP counsel for the applicant ’s family challenged the President ’s decree revoking the applicant ’s NORP nationality in the Tbilisi City Court . Hearings were held on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE ORG granted the claim and set aside the decree . That decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the applicant obtained NORP passport . On DATE he was deported from GPE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant , a lawyer , was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON do GPE ) of ORG ( ORG dos Advogados ) instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant , following a complaint introduced by ORG of the North ( Tribunal Central Administrativo do ORG ) against the latter ( disciplinary proceedings no . CARDINAL ) . In particular , the complaint concerned the applicant ’s request made in the course of CARDINAL different tort actions against the ORG , in which he was a legal representative , to have a judgment from ORG translated and paid by the domestic court .

On DATE the applicant was summoned of the disciplinary proceedings and on DATE he presented his submissions .

On DATE ORG dismissed the case for being time - barred .