Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded;Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

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

The status of Churches and religious societies is governed mainly by Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL ( known as the “ ORG ” DATE ) of the Weimar Constitution of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG ) , as incorporated into LAW . CARDINAL Churches and religious societies , including ORG ( CARDINAL members ) and ORG of Germany ( CARDINAL members ) , commonly known as the CARDINAL “ big Churches ” ( PERSON ) , have the status of publiclaw entities . Other religious denominations have legal capacity under civil law .

As regards their financing , churches and religious societies with the status of public - law entities are entitled to levy a church tax , which accounts for a significant portion of their total budget . The churches decide independently whether to levy a tax and what its rate should be . The rate of church tax has been over DATE either PERCENT or PERCENT of the tax on an individual ’s income and , in most NORP Länder , is collected by the ORG tax authorities on behalf of churches and religious societies , which in return pay PERCENT of their tax revenue to the ORG .

The church tax is guaranteed by LAW read in conjunction with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . Only members of a particular religious denomination authorised to levy the tax are obliged to pay it . Any church member who does not want to pay church tax can leave that church by declaration towards the authorities .

If spouses are members of different churches entitled to levy taxes ( konfessionsverschiedene PERSON ) and if they have opted for a joint income tax assessment ( gemeinsame steuerliche PERSON ) , both churches levy the tax on the spouses in the form of an additional levy on the income tax of both spouses . The amount of each spouse ’s church tax is calculated on the basis of CARDINAL of the declared income tax .

NORP In marriages where CARDINAL spouse belongs to a church entitled to levy taxes ( glaubensverschiedene PERSON ) , the church entitled to the tax levies it in accordance with that person ’s tax assessment . Churches calculate the tax on the basis of the income tax attributable to the spouse liable to pay tax rather than on the basis of that spouse ’s share of the total income . According to ORG settled case - law , if the spouse belonging to a church has no income in terms of the regulations of LAW , the church tax can not be levied ( see CARDINAL paragraph below ) . In that case , in some NORP Länder ( inter alia , ORG , GPE and GPE ) , the church entitled to levy taxes charges its members a special “ church fee ” ( besonderes PERSON ) . Although called a fee , the levy is , however , treated legally as a tax . The church fee amounts to CARDINAL of the relevant church tax .

Churches only levy the special church fee if spouses decide on a joint income tax assessment . The special church fee is not levied if spouses make separate tax declarations ( getrennte PERSON ) . It is important to note that in case of a joint income tax assessment the spouses benefit from a special calculation method for the income tax ( the so - called “ incomesplitting ” , “ Splitting - Verfahren ” ) and furthermore from the progressive effect ( PERSON ) of the NORP tax system , which generally leads to a lower tax burden .

NORP If spouses decide on a joint income tax assessment , they submit a tax declaration ( Steuererklärung ) . In most of ORG ( except of ORG ) , in their tax calculation procedure ( ORG ) the tax authorities set the special church fee according to the calculation regulations of each church . The basis for calculating the special church fee is the church member ’s living expenses ( Lebensführungsaufwand ) , which are calculated on the basis of the spouses’ joint income . The special church fee is only levied on the spouse who is a church member . The remaining tax liability is applied to both spouses .

If a tax authority ’s calculation on income tax leads to a tax reimbursement for the spouse not being a member of a church and who is liable to pay income tax , only that spouse will be credited with it . At the same time , the special church fee levied on CARDINAL spouse can be offset against any tax reimbursement due to the other spouse . If the calculation of the income tax leads to a demand to pay more tax , offsetting can not take place .

Either spouse can file an objection ( PERSON ) against that part of the tax bill which applies to them . If the special church fee has been offset against a tax reimbursement due to the spouse who is not a member of a church that spouse can apply for a settlement notice ( LOC ) in accordance with LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and thus have the possibility to be repaid the offset amount .

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

The first applicant lives in GPE , in GPE . He is married . His wife is member of ORG , which is authorised to levy church taxes . In DATE the first applicant left his church and was no longer obliged to pay church taxes .

For the tax assessment period of DATE the spouses opted for a joint tax assessment .

Their DATE tax bill , dated DATE , included a special church fee for the first applicant ’s wife of MONEY ( ORG ) . As the spouses were jointly liable for income tax and the applicant ’s wife ’s income was below the minimum taxable amount , the wife ’s special church fee was calculated as a proportion of her living expenses , which in turn were calculated on the basis of the spouses’ joint income ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The tax bill applied to both the first applicant and his wife . PERSON one showed the authority ’s tax calculation ( ORG ) in a table , with CARDINAL column for income tax ( Einkommensteuer ) , CARDINAL for solidarity tax ( PERSON ) and CARDINAL headed “ ORG tax , wife ” ( PERSON evangelisch PERSON ) . The third column showed the amount of EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The table further showed that the first applicant had a tax reimbursement claim of ORG CARDINAL , which had been offset against the church fee of ORG CARDINAL of his wife . It finished with a credit for the first applicant of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

Pages CARDINAL of the tax bill contained a detailed assessment of the taxable annual income of the first applicant and his wife . The document then had explanations of the items . Line DATE , out of CARDINAL lines of explanations altogether , stated as follows :

“ Only the wife is liable for church tax . ”

Following the explanations , the tax bill provided information on possible legal remedies . As regards the special church fee , it stated as follows :

“ An objection can be raised to the setting of the church tax and to the fixing of advance payment of church tax . ... An objection can be filed by the person on whom the church tax has been levied ” ( “ PERSON die GPE die PERSON gegeben . ... PERSON ist derjenige befugt , gegen den sich die GPE richtet . ” ) .

The first applicant filed an objection against the tax bill . On DATE the tax office dismissed the objection , referring to ORG decision of DATE , fully endorsing its reasoning ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The second applicant lives in GPE - PERSON in the NORP Land of Bavaria .

The second applicant is a member of ORG . In DATE he had an DATE income of ORG CARDINAL . His wife , who was not member of a church , had income of ORG CARDINAL . In DATE , the second applicant and his wife were jointly liable for DATE income tax .

On DATE the competent tax office charged the second applicant a special church fee of ORG CARDINAL . The fee was calculated on the basis of his living expenses , which in turn were calculated on the basis of his and his wife ’s income ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The second applicant filed an objection to the decision . On DATE the tax office dismissed the objection , relying on ORG case - law that has been settled since DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The second applicant lodged an action with ORG , asserting a violation of his basic rights .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action . It argued that the special church fee had not violated the second applicant ’s right to equality or his right to freedom of religion or freedom of action and relied on ORG settled case - law . It refused leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the second applicant against the decision refusing him leave to appeal and endorsed ORG reasoning .

On DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He argued that he had no income and therefore could not pay the special church fee on his own because it had been calculated on the basis of both spouses’ income . As a consequence , the freedom of religion of both spouses had been violated and spouses in their kind of marriage had been discriminated against when compared with other kinds of marriage . The second applicant argued that he could only remain a member of his religious community if his spouse was willing to pay his special church fee , otherwise he would have to sue her for maintenance .

On DATE , ORG declined to consider the second applicant ’s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) after joining it , inter alia , with those of the third , fourth and fifth applicants . It considered that the constitutional complaint had not touched on any constitutional questions which needed to be decided as the relevant questions had been settled in a judgment delivered on DATE ( file no . QUANTITY , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . That judgment was still applicable and there was no doubt that the calculation of a person ’s living expenses on the basis of the spouses’ income was in conformity with constitutional law .

The third and fourth applicants are a married couple who live in GPE in the NORP Land of GPE . The third applicant is a member of ORG and had the higher income of the CARDINAL . The fourth applicant is not a member of a church . In DATE the third applicant ’s income amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL while the fourth applicant ’s income was ORG CARDINAL . In DATE the sums were ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively , while in DATE they were ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the competent tax office levied church tax on the third applicant for DATE . As the applicants had opted for a joint tax assessment , the third applicant ’s church tax was calculated with his income tax as a proportion of the income tax attributable to him , rather than in proportion to his share of the spouses’ total income ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the competent tax office dismissed an objection by the third and fourth applicants against the church tax calculation .

The CARDINAL applicants lodged an action with ORG , asserting a violation of their basic rights .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action , arguing that the calculation had not violated their right to equality or freedom of religion . The court stressed that the NORP tax authorities had a wide margin of appreciation regarding tax regulations . The fact therefore that the third applicant ’s church calculated its church tax on the base of a percentage of his income tax rather than on a percentage of income raised no doubts as to its legitimacy . The tax court refused leave to appeal .

On DATE the third and fourth applicants appealed against the decision refusing them leave to appeal , alleging , inter alia , a violation of their freedom of religion . They argued that in spite of the fourth applicant ’s decision not to be member of a religious community , the tax authorities had taken her income into account when calculating her husband ’s church tax .

On DATE ORG declared the applicants’ appeal inadmissible for lack of sufficient reasoning .

On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging a violation of their right to equality and freedom of religion .

On DATE , ORG declined to consider the third and fourth ORG constitutional complaint after joining it , inter alia , with those of the second and fifth applicants ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The fifth applicant lives in GPE , situated in the NORP Land of Bavaria . In DATE and DATE the fifth applicant , who had no income , was a member of ORG of the NORP Land of Bavaria . Her husband was not member of a church . The spouses opted for a joint income tax assessment for DATE and DATE .

The competent tax authority levied no church tax on the fifth applicant as she had no income , but on DATE applied a special church fee of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for DATE and on DATE it charged her ORG CARDINAL for DATE . The amounts were calculated on the basis of the fifth applicant ’s living expenses , which were calculated on the basis of her and her husband ’s joint income .

The fifth applicant raised an objection against those decisions and applied for a suspension of enforcement . On DATE the tax office dismissed her objection , arguing that there had been no violation of the right to equality because there had been an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment .

The fifth applicant lodged an action with ORG , again applying to have enforcement suspended and asserting a violation of her right to equality .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request for suspension of enforcement , arguing that the special church fee did not violate the fifth applicant ’s right to equality in view of ORG settled case - law .

On DATE the fifth applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging , inter alia , a violation of her right to freedom of religion . She argued that she could not remain in her religious community if her husband , who was not a church member , did not agree to pay her special church fee .

On DATE , ORG declined to consider the fifth applicant ’s constitutional complaint after joining it , inter alia , with those of the second , third and fourth applicants ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .


KONGRESNA NARODNA STRANKA AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary

The applicants are ORG for ORG , and of ORG and Morals in GPE ( ORG narodna stranka zaštite ljudskih prava boraca i građana , pravde i morala PERSON i ORG ; “ the ORG “ ) and CARDINAL citizens of GPE and GPE ( “ the applicants “ ) . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

The applicants were granted leave by the President to be represented by the president of the ORG and CARDINAL of the applicants , Mr. PERSON ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .

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

The ORG was established on DATE under the laws of GPE . The applicants are members of the ORG .

The ORG participated in the DATE elections for ORG of ORG of GPE . Almost all of its candidates declared themselves Bosniacs .

On DATE the ORG ’s registration for the DATE elections was refused because it was submitted out of time . The ORG failed to lodge an appeal against that decision .

On DATE the ORG ’s registration for the DATE elections was refused for failure to comply with the procedural requirements ( a failure to pay a required deposit and to submit a list of signatures in support of its candidacy ) . On DATE that decision was upheld by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

The applicants claim that they do not declare affiliation with any of the “ constituent peoples ” ( namely , ORG , NORP and NORP ) . They describe themselves as “ a person from GPE ” , “ a NORP ” , “ a NORP ” , “ a person from GPE ” , “ a person from LOC ” , “ a person from GPE ” , “ a refugee ” , “ a war veteran ” and the like ; while CARDINAL of them describe themselves as belonging to the GPE and NORP ethnic minorities respectively .

The relevant domestic law and practice and international documents were outlined in ORG and Finci v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( no . DATE , DATE ) . Notably , the LAW of GPE makes a distinction between members of “ constituent peoples ” ( persons who declare affiliation with ORG , NORP and NORP ) and “ others ” ( members of ethnic minorities and persons who do not declare affiliation with any particular group because of intermarriage , mixed parenthood or other reasons ) .

In the former ORG , a person ’s ethnic affiliation was decided solely by that person , through a system of self - classification . Thus , no objective criteria such as knowledge of a certain language or belonging to a specific religion existed . Moreover , there was no requirement of acceptance by other members of the ethnic group in question . Since the LAW contains no provisions regarding the determination of one ’s ethnicity it appears that it was assumed that the traditional self - classification would suffice .

In accordance with LAW ( Articles IV § CARDINAL and V ) , only persons declaring affiliation with a “ constituent people ” are entitled to stand for election to ORG of ORG and the Presidency of GPE and GPE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Legal assistance of his own choosing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of counterfeit software under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . The operations led to their criminal conviction for distribution of counterfeit software .

On DATE an undercover police officer V called the applicant on the number advertised by him on a job - advertisement site on the Internet and asked him to perform some computer repairs , including the installation of software . The applicant agreed , bought several compact discs with counterfeit software on them and installed the software on ORG ’s computer for MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The relevant part of the recording of the applicant ’s conversation with V in the course of the repairs read as follows :

V : how much will [ the installation ] cost approximately ?

Mr PERSON : I do n’t know exactly , [ it ] depends on the programmes to be installed .

V : [ I need ] ORG , [ Windows ] ORG etc .

Mr PERSON : with ORG , it is MONEY more .

V : We called other companies ; they said it would cost CARDINAL . Why are the prices so different ? ...

Mr PERSON : [ other companies ] are probably being careful , unlike me , I come instantly . They are probably afraid of getting caught ; they may have done it before and run into some inspection .

V : What kind of inspection ?

Mr PERSON : [ Licensing ] inspection , if I installed a licensed programme for you , it would cost a lot .

V : How much does the licensed programme cost ?

Mr PERSON : GPE is MONEY .

V : To install ?

Mr PERSON : No , the programme itself . ... if it is done like now , in a semi - legal way , the price is obviously lower ... ”

Following the above , the applicant was charged with copyright infringement . The applicant retained a lawyer during the pre - trial proceedings but could no longer afford paying for legal representation in court . He was therefore provided with a legal aid lawyer .

On DATE the Golovinskiy District Court of GPE ( ORG ) examined the applicant ’s case . The applicant testified that he had agreed to help V because he had already performed similar services for his relatives and acquaintances . He also testified that V had asked him to have some programmes installed but did not indicate whether V had specifically asked for unlicensed software . V testified that the police had launched an undercover operation after they had received information incriminating the applicant in the distribution of counterfeit software . The applicant pleaded not guilty to copyright infringement and claimed that the police had incited him to commit the crime . The court found the applicant guilty of copyright infringement and imposed a suspended sentence of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment with DATE probation .

The applicant lodged an appeal ( кассационная жалоба ) asking the appellate court ( кассационный суд ) to examine the case in his presence . In his appeal , he did not request to have a lawyer appointed for the hearing of his case .

On DATE ORG of GPE informed by post and telephone PERSON , the applicant ’s lawyer in the proceedings before ORG , that the hearing of the applicant ’s appeal had been scheduled for DATE . The court ’s call log indicated that the applicant had no retainer agreement with Ms NORP for representation in the appeal proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s arguments on appeal and upheld his conviction . The applicant was present at the hearing . However , PERSON did not appear and the applicant did not have any other lawyer to represent him during the appeal hearing . It is not clear whether the applicant requested to have the hearing adjourned or to have replacement counsel appointed .

On DATE an undercover police officer M called the number advertised by the applicant in the computer - repairs section of a newspaper and asked him to install several computer programmes . The applicant , who was in financial need at the time , downloaded several unlicensed programmes from the Internet and installed them on M ’s computer DATE for RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . The relevant part of the recording of the applicant ’s conversation with M in the course of the repairs read as follows :

M : how much does [ this programme ] cost ?

Mr Adamskiy : I did not buy it .

M : You did not ?

Mr Adamskiy : To buy means to go bankrupt .

M : [ did you get it ] from the Internet ? Or some other way ?

Mr Adamskiy : Got it through my peers , [ it was ] cracked ...

M : I do n’t really understand this stuff ... If I install it at work , will I get arrested ?

Mr Adamskiy : I think it is obvious . I would not let any inspections in while the data is downloading .

M : ... why ? What can happen ?

Mr Adamskiy : just warning , I personally would not [ let anyone inspect ] .

M : what would happen ? ... Do they inspect more often ?

Mr Adamskiy : yes ...

M : will we get jailed ?

Mr : Adamskiy : No , if it is kept quiet ... ”

Following the above , the applicant was charged with copyright infringement . On DATE the ORG of GPE examined the applicant ’s case . At the trial , the applicant did not claim that M had asked him to have unlicensed software installed . He also confirmed that he had informed M in the course of the installation that the software had been counterfeit . M testified that the police had received information implicating the applicant in the distribution of counterfeit software and had decided to verify that information . The applicant pleaded guilty to copyright infringement but claimed that the police had incited him to commit the crime . The court convicted the applicant and imposed a suspended sentence of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment with DATE probation .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction and sentence on appeal .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON Yeremenko , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr E. Markov , a lawyer practicing in GPE .

ORG were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being the organiser of a criminal group which committed CARDINAL of violent offences , including murders .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant had been the organiser of an established criminal group , and had masterminded and participated in a number of aggravated murders , extortion and money laundering offences . The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment . The judgment became final on DATE when it was upheld on appeal by ORG .

In DATE his arrest the applicant suffered from a slowly progressing second - stage encephalopathy of mixed etiologies at the stage of decompensation , arterial hypertension , chronic hepatitis with hepatic impairment and cirrhosis , pancreatitis and focal duodenitis . In DATE he was certified for DATE as having a third - degree disability .

Upon admission to a temporary detention facility in DATE the applicant underwent a general medical check - up which included the measurement of his height and weight , recording of his blood pressure and body temperature , a chest X - ray examination , and tests for HIV and syphilis . A prison doctor noted the applicant ’s assertion that he was suffering from hepatitis C and prescribed him hepatoprotectors to support the liver .

DATE the applicant complained of pain in the right hypochondrium . The prison doctor diagnosed him with hepatic cirrhosis . Hepatoprotectors , antispasmodic medications , vitamins and dietary nutrition were prescribed and provided .

NORP Over the following DATE the applicant was transferred between various detention facilities and each time was subjected to a thorough medical examination . It appears from the submitted documents that he was continuously provided with a special dietary regime and hepatoprotectors . The medical records show that he was examined and treated by prison doctors for an acute respiratory disease at DATE , for headaches at DATE , and haemorrhoids DATE .

In DATE the applicant was seen by a neurologist from a prison hospital and an infectious diseases specialist from a civilian hospital . The neurologist concluded that the applicant had encephalopathy of mixed etiologies and vegetative - vascular dystonia as well as a neuropathy of the right medium nerve . Nootropic medication and vitamins were prescribed . The infectious diseases specialist confirmed the presence of hepatitis and recommended a combined treatment involving cholagogue drugs and injections with both antiviral and hepatoprotective action .

At DATE the applicant complained to the prison doctor of discomfort in the abdominal area . The doctor found no signs of acute hepatitis and prescribed DATE of treatment with hepatoprotectors and a special diet . In DATE the applicant underwent regular check - ups performed by an infectious diseases specialist from a civilian hospital . On the doctor ’s recommendation he was given antiviral drugs and vitamins . In DATE the applicant was given a course of nootropics for his brain vascular disorder . According to the medical records , the state of the applicant ’s health did not deteriorate over DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant was successfully treated for a cold , cystitis , orchitis and a perineum boil .

The authorities continued treating the applicant for hepatitis and cirrhosis of the liver . They also addressed his neurological problems and secondary medical conditions , such as seasonal colds . The applicant underwent a thorough medical examination performed by a medical panel comprising a number of specialists . In the report of CARDINAL DATE the doctors concluded that the applicant was suffering from chronic hepatitis at a latent stage , first - stage cirrhosis of the liver and a second - stage encephalopathy of mixed etiologies . They also concluded that these primary chronic ailments had not progressed during the period of the applicant ’s detention . In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with developed chronic prostatitis and acute cystitis . The conditions were brought fully under control with a comprehensive drug regimen .

NORP In DATE the applicant underwent a number of medical tests and received treatment for hypertension , which seemed to have become a major health issue for him at the time .

On DATE the applicant was seen by a surgeon in connection with haemorrhoidal bleeding . A drug regimen was prescribed , but it did not bring the expected results . DATE the doctor recommended inpatient treatment .

The applicant was admitted to the surgical department of ORG in GPE . After a number of tests , including a sigmoidoscopy , the doctors established that the applicant had chronic internal haemorrhoids of the first stage . No surgery was required .

On DATE he underwent a medical examination by a panel of doctors with a view to establishing whether he should apply for renewed certification as a disabled person . The commission gave a negative answer as his condition did not involve any functional pathology of his organs and his vital activity was not restricted .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from hospital .

In DATE most of the applicant ’s medical complaints concerned hypertension which , according to medical reports , had progressed to the second stage . His blood pressure was regularly monitored and he was given hypotensive drugs . The authorities also performed several tests , including an electrocardiogram examination in DATE . That examination revealed a left bundle branch block . According to his medical records , the applicant continued to receive treatment for his heart , brain and liver conditions .

The applicant neither made any complaint about nor provided any description of the treatment received in DATE .

The relevant provisions of the domestic and international law on general health care of detainees are set out in the judgment of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


CASE OF BIBLICAL CENTRE OF THE CHUVASH REPUBLIC v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

On DATE the NORP mission “ ORG ” was registered as a religious organisation under LAW of DATE . It belonged to the NORP movement of the NORP faith .

On DATE , in connection with the enactment of a new Religions Act of DATE , the organisation was renamed ORG GPE ( Библейский Центр Чувашской PERSON евангельской ( пятидесятников ) ) .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of the organisation ’s articles of association , CARDINAL of the activities of FAC was the establishment of educational institutions for training clergymen , organising conferences and seminars and lecturing . To that end FAC had the right to found institutions of professional religious education , spiritual educational institutions , including DATE schools for youth and children , and to establish non - commercial organisations pursuing educational aims ( paragraph CARDINAL of the articles ) .

On DATE the ORG founded ORG and a DATE school , which were not registered as legal entities .

The DATE school did not have any organised structure as such . It was held once DATE as a means of keeping the children of parishioners occupied while the adults attended the religious service . Parents took turns to spend time with the children , to read and discuss the Bible with them . The school was free of charge and did not employ any staff .

The Biblical College recruited students from religious organisations belonging into the same NORP denomination but located in different regions of GPE . Students were trained as evangelical attendants , pastors , preachers , missionaries , DATE school teachers , preceptors , biblical signers for the deaf , and youth leaders . The subjects taught at the ORG included theology ( dogma ) , exegesis ( interpretation of religious texts ) , homiletics ( the study of preparation and delivery of sermons ) , apologetics ( defence of the NORP faith ) , history of NORP , basics of pedagogy , theory of music , memorisation , and others . Upon completion of a training course , students obtained a document , referred to as a “ diploma ” , which certified training in particular subjects . Education at the ORG was free of charge .

In DATE and DATE the GPE town prosecutor , together with ORG and ORG , conducted an inspection of the applicant organisation ’s premises with the declared aim of verifying its compliance with the requirements of the legislation on education , freedom of conscience and religious associations . The grounds for the inspection were not revealed .

On DATE the town prosecutor requested the director of ORG to provide , within DATE , detailed information about the activities of the DATE school and ORG , including a list of subjects taught and the names of the teachers and all students , both past and present .

On DATE ORG issued a formal note establishing the following violations of fire safety regulations :

( a ) the windows of the premises were equipped with solid metal bars ;

( b ) an automatic fire alarm with smoke detectors was not installed ;

( c ) fire - safety signs were absent .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG reported the following violations to the town prosecutor :

( a ) students were not provided with comfortable work stations adapted to their height , sight and hearing ; rudimentary benches were used instead ;

( b ) walls were covered with paper - based wallpaper which could not be wiped clean ;

( c ) linoleum on the floor did not offer sufficient protection against the cold ;

( d ) windows were decorated with flowers in pots ;

( e ) doors in the toilets for children of both sexes did not have locks ; there was no personal - hygiene room for girls ;

( f ) the staff did not have a separate toilet ;

( g ) descriptions of course content , methodical literature and timetables did not refer to hygienic requirements ;

( h ) the delivery and composition of ORG meals had not been agreed upon with ORG .

All the violations were established by reference to the ORG - approved hygienic standards binding on institutions of public education and vocational training .

On DATE the town prosecutor instituted administrative proceedings against the director of the Biblical Centre for allowing the Centre to conduct educational activities without authorisation ( a licence ) , an offence under LAW . On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALth ORG of GPE heard the charge and found the director guilty of that offence . The ORG found , in particular , as follows :

“ The PERSON prosecutor ’s office inspected [ the FAC ] and discovered that the educational process [ there ] follows a specific educational programme and class schedule and is carried out by staff teachers in exchange for pay . Students’ knowledge of subjects is evaluated on a CARDINAL - point scale or with pass - fail marks ; upon completion of a course students obtain a diploma ... These elements indicate that the ORG engages in educational activities which are not listed in its articles of association ...

LAW ( law no . NORP of DATE ) defines education as the purposeful process of upbringing and learning in the interests of the individual , society and the ORG , accompanied by the confirmation of achievement of the educational levels established by the ORG ... Pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW , an educational institution acquires the right to conduct educational activities upon receipt of authorisation ( a licence ) ... As the materials in the case file show , the ORG has no such licence ... ”

The ORG rejected the director ’s argument that the activities of the ORG fell outside the scope of the definition contained in LAW , holding that the definition “ may not be used to describe educational activities that are carried out in breach of LAW ” . The director was sentenced to pay a fine of MONEY .

In his statement of appeal , the director pointed out that LAW established specific educational levels ( basic and intermediate general education , basic , intermediate and higher professional education , and post - graduate professional education ) , none of which were mentioned in the ORG ’s programmes or diplomas . The religious instruction and guidance of followers fell outside the scope of LAW and were not subject to any licensing requirements .

On DATE the ORG upheld the ORG ’s decision in a summary fashion , without addressing the director ’s arguments in detail .

In concurrent proceedings , on DATE the same ORG found the applicant organisation liable for the administrative offence of violating sanitary rules and hygienic requirements in respect of all the points identified by ORG and ORG . ORG issued a warning to the applicant organisation .

On DATE ORG of GPE summarily rejected the applicant organisation ’s statement of appeal , in which it maintained that the sanitary standards binding on ORG educational institutions were not applicable to the DATE school and Biblical college .

On DATE the GPE town prosecutor filed a claim for dissolution of ORG . He rested his claim on the findings of the CARDINAL inspections , as described above , and the allegation of illegality of the educational activities conducted at ORG and DATE school . In his submission , such activities “ violated the right of an indeterminate group of people to receive education in conditions that guarantee security , improvement of health and counter the negative influence of unhealthy factors ” .

In his comments on the prosecutor ’s application , the director of ORG submitted that the applicant organisation merely dispensed religious instruction to its followers and did not provide formal education . He invited the court to reject the application and pointed out that the court could issue a separate decision ordering FAC to bring its activities into conformity with the requirements of the law . He indicated that , in response to the prosecutor ’s claims , ORG had promptly adopted the Rules on lecture- and seminar - based education , as a result of which it had eliminated the use of ambiguous terminology such as “ college ” , “ diploma ” , and others .

NORP The town prosecutor participated in the hearing on DATE . Responding to questions from the director of ORG , he admitted that the initial inspection had purported to uncover elements of extremism in the ORG ’s activities and that he had filed a claim for dissolution because “ it was within his competence ” .

A representative of ORG , the entity in charge of the registration of religious organisations , took part in the proceedings as a third party . She stated that there were CARDINAL registered religious organisations in LOC . When asked by counsel whether those organisations had licences for their DATE schools , she replied that the majority of them were NORP parishes which were entitled to carry out such activities under the provisions of the “ standard NORP statute ” .

On DATE ORG ordered the dissolution of the applicant organisation and its removal from ORG . Having examined documents from the archive of ORG , it acknowledged that some of the ORG ’s activities had been one - time seminars and conferences to which the licensing requirement did not apply . However , the organisational chart of ORG , the class schedule , work contracts with teachers , lists of students and diplomas issued to them were held by ORG to be evidence of ongoing educational activities in the College for which it should have obtained authorisation ( a licence ) . Neither the Biblical Centre nor ORG were registered as an educational institution , nor had they obtained a licence for conducting educational activities . Accordingly , they had acted in breach of the requirements of CARDINAL of LAW and section CARDINAL of LAW .

With regard to the DATE school , ORG found that the contents and nature of religious education dispensed to children may be determined by the religious organisation providing it . Nevertheless , the material conditions of religious education should be compatible with sanitary and hygienic standards and other requirements applicable to educational institutions . ORG held that the above - mentioned judgments of CARDINAL and DATE , which had acquired the force of res judicata , were sufficient proof of both the fact that ORG dispensed education without the required licence , and the fact that the conditions in which students were educated at the DATE school and the ORG fell short of the sanitary standards .

ORG held that the educational activities conducted by the applicant organisation without a licence amounted to a “ gross and repeated violation ” of the requirements of LAW and ordered its dissolution on the basis of LAW of LAW and section QUANTITY .

On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting as a CARDINAL - judge panel composed of Judges PERSON . ( President ) , PERSON and PERSON , dismissed the applicant organisation ’s appeal against the dissolution decision , rejecting its arguments in a summary fashion .


Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP and NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr Ž. Klun , a lawyer practising in GPE .


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

Egidijus Kūris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied for rent allowance ( GPE ) under LAW ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG ( Magistrat der PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s request , holding that the applicant was not eligible for rent allowance as his income exceeded the statutory limit ( GPE ) .

The applicant appealed and complained that ORG had failed to take into account his maintenance obligations towards his CARDINAL sons .

On DATE ORG ( ORG PERSON ) dismissed the appeal , holding that maintenance obligations were , according to ORG case - law , not to be considered as income - reducing , as long as no enforcement proceedings were instituted against the applicant ’s income .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request for legal aid in order to file a complaint against ORG decision .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG , claiming in essence that ORG had wrongly interpreted ORG case - law as regards the nonconsideration of the applicant ’s maintenance obligations .

On DATE the ORG declined to deal with the applicant ’s complaint , holding that it did not raise any questions of constitutional law and transferred the case to ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted his amended complaint to ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as unfounded . Referring to its case - law , it held that the applicant had failed to argue that he was in a state of emergency due to enforcement proceedings being conducted in connection to his maintenance obligations . It was therefore not unlawful that ORG had refrained from taking into account the applicant ’s maintenance payments when assessing his eligibility for rent allowance .

NORP This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .


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

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

The applicants complained of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties .


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is detained in LOC ( in LOC ) .

The application was initially allocated to LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . The ORG decided of its own motion to grant the applicant anonymity ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG ) . On DATE ORG were reorganised . The application was thus reallocated to FAC CARDINAL § CARDINAL and Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

NORP The applicant was granted leave to represent himself in the proceedings before the ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

NORP Since DATE the applicant has been convicted CARDINAL times of various crimes , including sexual assault of minors , possession of child pornography , unlawful possession of narcotic substances , and falsification of official documents . At the time of the lodging of his application with the ORG he was serving a prison sentence for sexual crimes against minors , and at the time of the present judgment he was serving another prison sentence for similar crimes .

The applicant claimed to be a board member of several non - governmental organisations , an author of various publications , a member of the anti - NORP resistance and a political prisoner of the NORP regime . Meanwhile , the ORG submitted that he had falsified documents purportedly proving his participation in the anti - NORP resistance , and that he was widely known to the NORP public solely because of his long history of sexual crimes against minors .

On DATE the newspaper PERSON sostinė published a CARDINAL - page article entitled “ Perverts are getting more impudent ” ( GPE įžūlėja ) ( hereinafter “ the first article ” ) . The article had CARDINAL sections , DATE of which discussed various instances of sexual crimes against minors committed in the city of GPE . The last CARDINAL sections of the article were dedicated to the applicant . The first of those CARDINAL , entitled “ Convicted for paedophilia ” , discussed his conviction for sexually assaulting a minor in DATE . The second section , entitled “ Suspicion regarding an armed assault ” , stated that in DATE the applicant had established a political party , and that in DATE he had complained to the police that he had been the victim of an armed assault . The third section , entitled “ Pretended to be a doctor ” , stated that the applicant had had his first encounter with the police in DATE , after he had pretended to be a doctor and had performed “ medical check - ups ” on underage girls . The final section of the article ( the fourth one dedicated to the applicant ) was entitled “ Had [ sexual ] intercourse with his mother ” ( PERSON motina ) and consisted of CARDINAL paragraphs . The first CARDINAL paragraphs described several instances in DATE when the applicant , pretending to be a doctor , had examined people in an educational institution and a public bath , and had drugged and sexually assaulted a male university student . The last paragraph of that section read :

“ DATE , law enforcement officers had a suspicion that [ ORG ] may have had sexual relations with his mother , with whom he lived ... During a search [ of the applicant ’s apartment ] , officers found photographs in which the well - known pederast of PERSON was depicted with his mother in specific positions . It was decided not to open a case . ”

The article did not include any photographs of the applicant or his mother .

On DATE the magazine ORG published a CARDINAL - page article entitled “ Pornography – a flourishing illegal business ” ( Pornografija – klestintis nelegalus verslas ) ( hereinafter “ the second article ” ) . The article had CARDINAL sections . The first CARDINAL sections discussed clandestine photo studios in GPE which had pornographic photoshoots . The sixth section of the article , entitled “ The ‘ classic’ pornographer ” ( PERSON klasikas “ ) , was dedicated to the applicant . Its relevant parts read :

“ In DATE [ law enforcement officers ] had many concerns about sexual relations between the well - known paedophile of GPE , [ ORG ] , and his mother , with whom he lived .

DATE , during a search of his home , officers found photographs in which the paedophile , who enjoyed presenting himself as “ Doctor PERSON , was depicted not only with minors , but also with his mother , while having sexual intercourse in non - traditional positions . However , it was decided not to open a case . In DATE [ ORG ] , who until then had avoided longer prison sentences for sexual crimes , was sentenced to DATE of imprisonment . ”

The article printed a photograph of the applicant with the following caption :

“ The ‘ classic’ pornographer , [ ORG ] , who for a long time used to lure teenagers to his apartment , sexually assault them and take their photographs , was convicted of sexual crimes in DATE and sentenced to DATE of imprisonment . ”

The remaining CARDINAL sections of the article contained interviews with photographers involved in erotic photography , and discussed the business of intermediaries taking young NORP women to foreign countries to work as escorts .

On DATE the applicant contacted PERSON and asked it to publish a retraction of the part of the article concerning sexual relations between him and his mother ( who had died in DATE ) . The applicant submitted a draft retraction , but the magazine refused to publish it on the grounds that the text contained insulting language .

Subsequently , the applicant submitted a complaint regarding the second article to ORG . On DATE the ORG concluded that the statements about sexual relations between the applicant and his mother were “ of a clearly degrading character ” ( akivaizdžiai žeminančio pobūdžio ) , and “ undoubtedly caused negative public opinion ” ( neabejotinai sukelia neigiamą nuomonę visuomenėje ) .

On an unspecified date in DATE or DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim for damages against the journalist who had written the second article , GPE , and the magazine ORG . He argued that the claims concerning sexual relations between him and his mother had been erroneous , and that the publication had humiliated him , damaged his reputation and caused him emotional distress .

In their reply to the claim , GPE and ORG submitted that the disputed statements in the second article had been based on the information published in the first article . They therefore argued that , in line with domestic law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the publishers of the second article could not be held liable for republishing erroneous information which had not been publicly retracted . They further submitted that , in any event , the disputed claims were true and testimony to that effect could be provided by law enforcement officers who had searched the applicant ’s apartment in DATE . Lastly , they argued that because of the applicant ’s long history of sexual crimes , there was a general interest in making such information public , and that “ as far as someone with such a reputation was concerned , it was impossible to cause any more dishonour ” ( tokios reputacijos asmeniui dar labiau sumenkinti jo garbę nebeįmanoma ) .

Subsequently , the applicant amended his claim to also include the author of the first article , PERSON , and the company which owned the PERSON sostinė newspaper . He also alleged that that publication had included erroneous claims about him and his mother , which had damaged his reputation and caused him emotional distress .

In their reply to the amended claim , ORG and the newspaper company submitted that the first article had not stated that the applicant had had sexual relations with his mother , but only that law enforcement officers had had such suspicions . They also submitted that , in line with domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant could not bring court proceedings against them , because he had not asked the newspaper to publish a retraction within DATE of the disputed publication . They asserted that in DATE the applicant had been interviewed by PERSON and some television journalists ; subsequently he had sued the television broadcasting company , but not PERSON sostinė . Accordingly , PERSON and the newspaper company submitted that the applicant had known about the first article and its contents , but had failed to ask for a retraction within the time - limits provided for in law .

ORG held a hearing on DATE . During that hearing the applicant denied having given an interview to FAC in DATE , and claimed that he had not been aware of the first article until the current court proceedings had started . However , when asked by the judge how that article could have caused him any emotional distress if he had not known about it , the applicant replied that he had heard rumours about the publication but had not seen it himself . The court also heard the testimony of a witness requested by the applicant , who stated that in DATE he had been imprisoned together with the applicant and had seen other prisoners insult and humiliate him because of the statements published in the second article . The hearing was adjourned at the applicant ’s request , and the court ordered the defendants to provide the disputed photographs of the applicant and his mother .

The next hearing was held on DATE . ORG heard another witness requested by the applicant , who also stated that the second article had led to insults and humiliation of the applicant by other prisoners . The hearing was adjourned at the applicant ’s request in order to allow his new lawyer to acquaint himself with the case file .

On DATE ORG suspended the civil proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant brought a private prosecution against GPE and the editor of ORG , GPE , accusing them of defamation , insult , and contempt of the memory of a deceased person , under LAW § CARDINAL , LAW and LAW . He also submitted a civil claim for damages .

On DATE the Vilnius City Third District Court held a hearing in the criminal case . During the hearing the applicant submitted that the defendants were former supporters of the NORP regime , and the purpose of the publication had been revenge for his political and public activities . Meanwhile , PERSON stated that his purpose had been to warn the public about the applicant ’s dangerous sexual activities and that , when preparing the article , he had spoken to ORG and a prosecutor , ORG , who had confirmed the existence of the disputed photographs . That prosecutor was called as a witness and testified that he had personally seen such photographs . However , the photographs were not submitted to the court , because the prosecution archives of DATE had already been destroyed .

The applicant made an application for the court to call additional witnesses who could testify about the damaging effects of the second article , and to obtain documents proving that ORG had participated in anti - independence repression during the NORP occupation . The court rejected his applications as unfounded and unnecessarily time - consuming with regard to the proceedings .

The next hearing was held on DATE . The applicant made an application for the Vilnius City Third ORG to call witnesses who could testify about the circumstances of his mother ’s death , but the court rejected that application as unrelated to the case . In his final address to the court the applicant insisted that the statements about his sexual relations with his mother were false and unproven , and that GPE and GPE had published them to insult and humiliate him . Meanwhile , GPE and GPE argued that they had made a sufficient effort to verify the disputed statements – they had relied on the first article , which had not been publicly retracted , and had interviewed law enforcement officers who had had the relevant knowledge . They also submitted that the purpose of the article had not been to insult or humiliate the applicant , but to inform the public about a dangerous person known for his sexual crimes . They emphasised that the article had examined a certain aspect of life in the city of GPE , and statements about the applicant had constituted only a small part of it .

On DATE the Vilnius City Third ORG acquitted GPE and GPE of all charges . The court held that the criminal offence of defamation consisted of the intentional distribution of erroneous information about another person , but GPE and GPE had had reasonable grounds to believe that the disputed statements about the applicant and his mother were true , because they had been previously published in another newspaper and not retracted . The court also held that the criminal offence of insult consisted of the public humiliation of another person in an intentionally obscene or offensive manner , whereas a mere negative opinion about another person , presented in a civil manner , would not qualify as criminal insult . The court considered that the disputed statements of the second article , albeit amounting to negative characterisation of the applicant , had been presented in a neutral manner which was not offensive , and that GPE and GPE had not intended to insult the applicant . Lastly , the court dismissed the charge of contempt of the memory of a deceased person as time - barred . The applicant ’s civil claim for damages was left unexamined .

NORP The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG upheld the acquittal . It emphasised that , in criminal proceedings , the burden was on the prosecuting party to prove that statements published by defendants had been erroneous , or that defendants had intended to insult a victim . The court considered that the applicant had not discharged that burden . It also held that the first - instance court had been justified in not hearing the additional witnesses requested by the applicant , ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , because those witnesses could not have provided any information relating to GPE and ORG alleged intention to defame or insult the applicant .

Subsequently , ORG resumed the examination of the applicant ’s claim for damages against the publishers of both articles ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In a hearing held on DATE the court heard another witness called by the applicant , who stated that the publication of the second article had led to insults against the applicant among his fellow prisoners . The hearing was adjourned at the applicant ’s request .

The next hearing was held on DATE . At the applicant ’s request , the court ordered a linguistic examination of the disputed statements in the first article , in order to determine whether they could be understood as unequivocally stating that the applicant had had sexual relations with his mother . The examination was carried out by ORG , which delivered its conclusion on DATE . It found that the article did not unequivocally state that the applicant and his mother had had such relations , but that it could raise suspicions that such relations may have existed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It held that domestic law provided for a mandatory out - of - court settlement procedure in cases concerning the publication of allegedly erroneous statements in the media , in accordance with which the applicant should have asked the publisher of the first article to retract it within DATE of its publication ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The court noted that the applicant had missed that time - limit and had not asked for its renewal . As a result , he could not claim any damages from the publishers of the first article . The court further held that the disputed statements in the CARDINAL articles were essentially identical , and thus the publishers of the second article could not be held liable for republishing the contents of the first article , as long as they had not been publicly retracted .

The applicant submitted an appeal in which he insisted that he had not known about the first article until he began the civil proceedings against the publishers of the second article . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The court underlined that the DATE time - limit to request a retraction was necessary in order to protect journalists from the unreasonable burden of having to prove the truthfulness of information which had been published a long time ago , especially in cases such as the CARDINAL in question , where the applicant had complained DATE after the publication of the first article . The court also referred to the submission of PERSON and the newspaper company that the applicant had been interviewed in DATE as part of the preparation of the first article ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and concluded that the applicant ought to have known that the impending publication would concern him . Accordingly , ORG found that the journalists could not be held responsible for the applicant ’s own failure to take timely action in respect of the first article .

On DATE ORG refused to examine a cassation appeal submitted by the applicant on the grounds that it raised no important legal questions .

Relevant provisions of LAW read :

Article CARDINAL

“ Private life shall be inviolable ...

The law and courts shall protect everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his private and family life , as well as from encroachment upon his honour and dignity .

Article CARDINAL

No one must be hindered from seeking , receiving , or imparting information and ideas .

The freedom to express convictions , as well as to receive and impart information , may not be limited otherwise than by law when this is necessary to protect human health , honour or dignity , private life , or morals , or to defend the constitutional order .

The freedom to express convictions and to impart information shall be incompatible with criminal actions – incitement to national , racial , religious , or social hatred , incitement to violence or to discrimination , as well as defamation and disinformation ... ”

In its ruling of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG held the following :

“ CARDINAL . A person ’s honour and dignity ... shall be protected when all of the following facts are established : a ) information has been disseminated ; b ) that information concerns the claimant ; c ) it is humiliating to the claimant ’s honour and dignity ; d ) it is erroneous .

The right to a private life ... shall be protected when all of the following facts are established : a ) information has been disseminated ; b ) that information concerns the claimant ; c ) it concerns the claimant ’s private life ; d ) it has been disseminated without the claimant ’s consent ; e ) there is no legitimate public interest in receiving that information ...

... A civil claim for the protection of honour and dignity ... must specify ... what disseminated information is humiliating or erroneous ... If the defendant is a media source , the claimant must indicate that he or she has exhausted the mandatory out - of - court settlement procedure by requesting a retraction ...

... Acquittal of a person accused of libel on the grounds that no criminal offence has been committed , as well as the refusal to open a criminal case or the decision to terminate it due to the expiry of statutory limitations ... does not preclude a victim from submitting a civil claim for the protection of his or her honour and dignity ...

It must be underlined that LAW and LAW to the Public seek to protect CARDINAL distinct values : a person ’s honour and dignity , and a person ’s right to private life . They can be violated by different facts and thus must be distinguished ... Information about a person ’s private life can be made public without his or her consent only when its publication does not cause any harm to that person , when that information may help to disclose criminal offences and breaches of law , or protect human rights and fundamental freedoms , and when that information is disseminated in a public court hearing ... The right to a private life is protected ... irrespective of whether the disseminated private information is humiliating to the person ’s honour and dignity or not ... ”

At the material time , LAW , which remained in force until DATE , provided in its relevant parts :

“ Individuals or organisations have the right to ask a court to retract information which is erroneous and damages their honour and dignity .

If such information was published by the mass media , the court shall examine requests for retraction only after the individual or organisation in question has provided the publisher with a written retraction ... and the publisher has failed to retract the erroneous information ...

If the publisher does not substantiate that the disputed information corresponds to reality , the court shall oblige it to retract the information in question ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the DATE Civil Code , in force from DATE onwards , provides in its relevant parts :

“ CARDINAL . A person shall have the right to demand the retraction , in judicial proceedings , of information which has been made public and which denigrates his honour and dignity and is erroneous ; in addition to the right to compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage incurred by the placing in the public domain of the aforementioned information ... Information which has been made public shall be presumed to be erroneous , unless the publisher proves the opposite to be true .

Where erroneous information has been made public by the mass media ( including the press , television and radio ) , the person who is the subject of the publication shall have the right to provide a proposed retraction , and to demand that the media source concerned publish the aforementioned retraction free of charge or make it public in some other way . The media source shall publish the retraction or make it public in some other way within DATE of receipt . The media source shall have the right to refuse to publish the retraction or make it public , only in such cases where the content of the retraction contradicts good morals ...

Media sources which make public erroneous information which denigrates a person ’s reputation shall only provide compensation for damage to property , and for any pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage incurred , in cases where they knew or should have known that the information was erroneous ... ”

At the material time , LAW to the Public provided that a written request to retract information had to be submitted to a producer or disseminator of public information within DATE of the information being published .

At the material time , LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG to the Public provided that a producer of public information could not be held liable for the publication of erroneous information if that information had been previously published in other mass media sources , and had not been retracted by the media source which published it .

Article CARDINAL of the DATE Civil Code , in force from DATE onwards , provides that information about a person ’s private life may be made public only with his or her consent .

At the time of the publication of the first article , LAW to the Public provided for civil liability of the producer or disseminator of information who published information about a person ’s private life without his or her consent , where that information was degrading to the person ’s honour and dignity . At the time of the publication of the second article , LAW amended version of that PERSON provided for civil liability of the producer or disseminator of information who published any kind of information about a person ’s private life without his or her consent .

In its ruling of CARDINAL DATE in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG held :

“ [ T]he defendant disseminated ... in newspaper publications ... information about the birth of the claimant ’s son , his last name , alimony granted by courts , and so forth , and thereby breached the claimant ’s and her son ’s right to a private life . The district court correctly held that that information was not related to the claimant ’s occupation or the public interest ... As provided in law , the court shall determine the amount of non - pecuniary damages , taking into account the defendant ’s financial situation , the gravity of the breach and its consequences , and other relevant circumstances ... The courts correctly found that the dissemination of the information about the claimant ’s private life had caused her emotional suffering and negatively affected her authority . Her son , a minor , also experienced suffering and distress . In such circumstances , the award of non - pecuniary damages can not be reduced only because of the defendant ’s financial situation ... ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that the offence of libel in the media or in any other publication is punishable by a fine , arrest or imprisonment for a term of DATE .

At the material time , LAW provided that the public humiliation of another person in an abusive manner by actions , words or in writing is punishable by a fine , restriction of liberty , arrest or imprisonment for a term of DATE .


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)

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action with ORG ( previously named ORG ) for divorce and division of joint property including a number of real estates and shares of companies .

The defendant submitted his arguments to the court on DATE .

A preliminary hearing took place on DATE . An adjournment was requested because of the illness of the defendant ’s lawyer . The applicant submitted a request concerning new evidence and interim measures .

On DATE a preliminary hearing took place . The applicant submitted that she intended to supplement her action .

On DATE the applicant submitted new arguments and a request concerning new evidence . On DATE the defendant replied .

On DATE the applicant submitted a number of procedural objections and requests concerning new evidence , including a request to appoint an expert . On DATE she requested to stay the proceedings .

On DATE a preliminary hearing took place . As the defendant had failed to appear at the hearing , the examination of the case was adjourned .

On DATE the defendant submitted additional evidence . On DATE the applicant replied , submitted new arguments and a request concerning new evidence . On DATE the defendant made further submissions .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted new evidence , arguments and requests concerning new evidence , including a request to appoint an expert , and supplemented her action .

On DATE a hearing took place . The applicant requested ordering an expert assessment . She had not yet submitted the list of the joint property , information about its value and relevant proof . The applicant objected to the defendant ’s request that a partial judgment in respect of divorce be made .

On DATE ORG delivered a partial judgment divorcing the marriage . The applicant appealed .

On DATE she submitted a request for the removal of the judge and requests concerning new evidence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

On DATE the applicant submitted a complete version of her claims that had been requested by ORG since she had previously made numerous amendments to her initial claims . She also made a request concerning new evidence and an expert assessment . In DATE to follow , written submissions were exchanged between the parties .

On DATE the applicant submitted new arguments and requests concerning new evidence .

On DATE ORG ruled on an advance payment concerning an expert assessment .

On DATE the applicant requested an interim judgment for the establishment of joint property . The defendant agreed . On DATE ORG requested the parties to submit the lists of property .

NORP In DATE the parties exchanged submissions concerning the court expenses and the court ordered the parties to submit any unsubmitted evidence .

On DATE the ORG delivered an interim judgment on the composition of the joint property . Both the applicant and the defendant appealed . In DATE and DATE the parties exchanged submissions .

On DATE a hearing took place before ORG which , on DATE , delivered a judgment partially granting the defendant ’s appeal . Both parties lodged an appeal with ORG in respect of the partial judgment .

On DATE ORG refused the parties leave to appeal and the partial judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant supplemented her action and applied for interim measures .

On DATE ORG applied interim measures .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to make an advance payment related to expert assessments . On DATE it ordered the assessments .

On DATE the applicant submitted objections to the activities of the court , supplemented her action and submitted new evidence .

On DATE the court warned the parties that they would be fined in case of failure to submit the required information to the experts . On DATE the applicant submitted objections to the activities of the court and requested the removal of the expert . On DATE ORG dismissed the removal request .

On DATE ORG ordered the defendant to present the required documents to the expert .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted an additional opinion and again requested the removal of the expert . The request was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .

In DATE , DATE and DATE ORG received expert assessments concerning the value of a number of real estates and of the shares of a company .

In DATE and DATE the parties exchanged proposals and submissions on the division of the property .

On DATE the applicant requested the removal of the judge responsible for the case . This request was dismissed .

In DATE the applicant made further submissions and a request concerning new evidence . She also filed an objection to the court ’s activities .

On DATE the court dismissed the request concerning new evidence . The applicant filed an objection .

At a hearing of CARDINAL DATE experts were heard . The applicant stated that she did not accuse the court or the defendant for the length of the proceedings and requested an adjournment of the hearing as she wished to obtain an estimation of the value of the forest on CARDINAL of the real estates . The hearing was adjourned .

On DATE the applicant submitted new requests concerning the real estate . On CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed these requests and ordered the defendant to submit an estimation . The defendant requested an extension .

On DATE the applicant submitted a supplementary opinion .

On DATE the applicant submitted new requests .

A hearing was held on DATE .

On DATE ORG made a judgment on the merits concerning the division of the joint property . Both parties appealed .

In DATE the parties exchanged submissions .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment . It partly granted the applicant ’s appeal , dismissed the defendant ’s appeal and partly amended ORG judgment . Both parties lodged an appeal with ORG .

On DATE ORG refused the parties leave to appeal .


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

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

He is a doctor with substantial experience , having been a general practitioner for DATE . In this capacity , he currently has his own private practice , with CARDINAL employees . He also teaches at ORG and has authored several works in the field of general medicine .

In DATE the applicant graduated from law school ; DATE , he registered to become a lawyer , after having passed the annual entrance examination organised by ORG . On DATE ORG issued a decision validating the results of the examination and declaring that the applicant was admitted to the Bar .

The Bucharest Bar further decided on DATE to register the applicant as a trainee lawyer ( avocat stagiar ) as of DATE . A DATE traineeship period being an obligatory condition for obtaining a licence to practise as a lawyer , the applicant signed a traineeship agreement ( contract de colaborare ) with the ORG private law firm . On DATE the Bar approved the applicant ’s traineeship within the firm .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request to the PERSON of ORG to be allowed to pursue his DATE traineeship ( stagiu ) in compliance with section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL regulating the legal profession , notwithstanding the fact that he simultaneously had his own private medical practice . He considered that “ the medical profession was not incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession or the lawyers’ rules of conduct within the meaning of Rule CARDINAL of the Rules governing the Legal Profession ” .

On DATE , applying section CARDINAL ( b ) and section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( e ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL , ORG rejected the applicant ’s request . In its decision the Bar held :

“ the applicant ’s request to practise simultaneously as a lawyer and as a doctor is dismissed , and the applicant must consequently opt for CARDINAL of the CARDINAL professions . ”

On DATE the applicant contested that decision before ORG . He challenged the reason for the dismissal of his request , which , citing section CARDINAL ( b ) , referred to ineligibility to practise as a lawyer for anyone who already pursued a “ profession that infringes the dignity and the independence of the legal profession or is contrary to good morals ” . He contended that his professional CV , including a Ph.D. in medicine , a career of teaching at the university and the authorship of several books on medicine , could on no account infringe the dignity of the legal profession . At the same time , he pointed to the fact that he was neither an employee nor a trader , as proscribed by the legislation regulating the activities of lawyers .

On DATE ORG upheld the GPE decision , this time on the basis of LAW no . CARDINAL , which enumerated “ exhaustively ” the professions that were compatible with the profession of lawyer ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . As the practice of medicine was not specified among those professions , the applicant ’s request was dismissed .

NORP That decision was contested before ORG .

In its reply to the applicant ’s submissions , the respondent argued , firstly , that the combined interpretation of sections DATE and CARDINAL of the PERSON led to the conclusion that no other profession could be practised in parallel with that of a lawyer , except for those restrictively enumerated under section CARDINAL ; furthermore , the practice of CARDINAL liberal professions at the same time was not permitted by the law , nor was it desirable , in view of the fact that each liberal profession required PERCENT dedication on the part of the person practising it .

On DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s claims , holding that section CARDINAL ( b ) was not applicable , in so far as “ the profession of doctor does not impinge on the independence of the profession of lawyer ” . The court further held that any restriction on practising a profession must be expressly and unequivocally prescribed by law , which was not the case in this instance . Moreover , LAW protected the right to work , which could not be subject to any limitations , with a few exceptions expressly enumerated in section CARDINAL , such as national security reasons , protection of public order , health and public morals or protection of individual rights and freedoms , none of which was applicable in the applicant ’s case .

Furthermore , the prohibition on practising as a lawyer while also practising as a doctor was not included in the text of section CARDINAL ( b ) of Law no . CARDINAL , which referred only to professions that infringed the dignity and the independence of the legal profession or were contra bonos mores .

The court further held that LAW did not contain an exhaustive list of the professions compatible with the profession of lawyer , in spite of ORG interpretation of that provision to the effect that if the medical profession was not included in the text among the compatible professions , this meant , by converse implication , that it was not compatible with the profession of lawyer . The incompatible professions were enumerated exhaustively in section DATE , and the profession of doctor was not among them .

The assertion that practising a liberal profession required total dedication and implicitly a lot of time on the part of the practitioner could not be taken into consideration for the assessment of the lawfulness of the decisions taken by the local and national Bars ; not having enough time to devote to clients’ cases had nothing to do with the independence of the legal profession . The court thus confirmed the applicant ’s right to practise both professions simultaneously , annulling the Bars’ decisions .

ORG appealed against that judgment to ORG and ORG . It argued that while section CARDINAL of the PERSON listed the professions that were incompatible with the profession of lawyer in a generic manner , giving examples , LAW regulated , strictly and restrictively , the exceptions that were allowed , among which the profession of doctor was not mentioned . At the same time , the simultaneous practice of both professions infringed the principle of the independence of lawyers . In wanting to practise both professions , the applicant demonstrated only his extreme mercantilism , as he “ minimised the importance of these professions , treating them as mere sources of income ” .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicant ’s request , holding that the combined interpretation of sections CARDINAL and DATE led to the conclusion that the list of compatible situations was exhaustive and thus section CARDINAL referred to the only professions that by law were compatible with that of a lawyer ; ORG pointed out that even if the provisions of LAW , relied on by the applicant in his defence , also enumerated other situations of incompatibility and compatibility , they were of inferior rank to a law and therefore they could not contradict those of the law itself .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The right to work shall not be restricted . Everyone has the free choice of his or her profession , trade or occupation , and workplace . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The exercise of certain rights or freedoms may only be restricted by law , and only if necessary , as the case may be , for : the defence of national security , of public order , health or morals , or of ORG rights and freedoms ; the conduct of a criminal investigation ; or prevention of the consequences of a natural calamity , disaster or extremely severe catastrophe .

( CARDINAL ) Such restriction shall be ordered only if necessary in a NORP society . The measure shall be proportionate to the situation that caused it , shall apply without discrimination , and shall not impair the existence of such right or freedom . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person who meets the following conditions may be a member of a Bar in GPE :

( a ) he or she is a NORP citizen and a holder of civil and political rights ;

( b ) he or she is a law faculty graduate or a doctor of law ( Ph.D. ) ;

( c ) he or she is not in one of the categories of ineligibility specified by this PERSON ;

( d ) he or she is medically fit to practise as a lawyer .

( CARDINAL ) Compliance with the condition in point ( d ) of subsection ( CARDINAL ) above shall be proved by means of a medical certificate attesting that the person is in good health , issued on the basis of findings by a medical board constituted under the terms specified in the LAW governing the legal profession . ”

“ Practising the profession of lawyer shall be incompatible with :

( a ) a salaried activity within a profession other than the legal profession ;

( b ) occupations affecting the dignity and independence of the legal profession or good morals ;

( c ) direct involvement in trading activities . ”

“ Practising the profession of lawyer shall be compatible with :

( a ) the position of member of parliament or senator , or member of a local or county council ;

( b ) teaching activities , and offices in higher legal education ;

( c ) literary and publishing activities ;

( d ) the function of arbitrator , mediator , conciliator or negotiator , tax adviser , adviser on intellectual property , adviser on industrial property , licensed translator , administrator or liquidator in procedures of judicial reorganisation or liquidation , in accordance with the law . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Admission to the profession shall be obtained on the basis of an examination organised by the Bar , under the provisions of this PERSON and the LAW governing the profession . ( ... ) ”

( CARDINAL ) The conditions for completing the traineeship and the rights and obligations of lawyers on probation , and of supervising lawyers and the LOC towards them , shall be regulated by the LAW governing the profession .

( CARDINAL ) The training term shall be suspended if the lawyer performs military service or is conscripted , if he or she is absent from the profession for good reasons , or if the professional guidance is terminated through no fault of the lawyer on probation . The training already completed shall be taken into consideration when calculating the completion of the term .

( CARDINAL ) After the training term is completed , the lawyer on probation shall take the examination to become a permanent lawyer . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A Bar Council shall be composed of CARDINAL members , elected for a DATE term of office . The President and Vice - President of the Bar shall be included in that number .

( CARDINAL ) The powers of the ORG shall be as follows :

( e ) to check and establish that the lawful requirements have been met as regards applications for admission to the profession , and to approve admission to the profession on the basis of an examination or an exemption from the examination ; ( ... ) ”

“ ORG shall have the following powers :

( o ) it shall check , at the request of the persons concerned , that the decisions of ORG on admission to the profession are lawful and based on good grounds ;

( p ) it shall annul decisions by the Bar on grounds of unlawfulness , and settle complaints and legal disputes brought against decisions adopted by ORG , in the circumstances specified by law and the LAW governing the profession ; ( ... ) ”

The relevant parts of the Rules governing ORG read as follows :

“ In order to be registered and to practise this profession , the lawyer must not be in CARDINAL of the situations of incompatibility referred to in the law . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The following are incompatible with the practice of the profession of lawyer , unless declared otherwise by a lex specialis :

( a ) personal trading activities , performed with or without a licence ;

( b ) the status of associate in private companies such as a general partnership ( societate în nume colectiv ) , a limited partnership or a partnership limited with shares ( societate comercială în comandită simplă sau în comandită pe acțiuni ) .

( c ) the status of manager of a limited partnership with shares private company ( societate în comandită pe acțiuni ) ;

( d ) the status of CEO , sole manager or member of the board of directors of a private company such as limited liability or a joint - stock company ( societate comercială cu răspundere limitată sau pe acțiuni ) .

( CARDINAL ) The lawyer may be an associate or partner in a limited liability or a joint- stock private company ( societate comercială cu răspundere limitată sau pe acțiuni )

( CARDINAL ) The lawyer may be a member of ORG limited liability or a joint - stock private company , on condition that he / she brings this information to the Dean of the Bar [ ... ]


No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE a criminal investigation was conducted into suspected irregularities in customs procedures with respect to the transit of vehicles . As a result of these unlawful activities , it had been possible for third persons to legalise foreign goods ( the vehicles ) in GPE using falsified documents .

CARDINAL customs officials , including the applicant , were charged with exceeding their official powers or failing to fulfil their duties . Each of the officials had allegedly acted unlawfully at different stages of the customs procedures . The applicant was charged with negligence which had caused substantial harm to the ORG and public interest . This charge was brought in connection with the processing of documentation for a used semi - trailer .

Several witnesses were questioned during the pre - trial stage , including witness E.A. , a NORP national residing in GPE , who had purchased CARDINAL of the vehicles .

On DATE ORG , acting as the court of first instance , found the applicant guilty and imposed on him a fine to the amount of DATE salaries .

With respect to the applicant , the court established that on DATE at a customs control point he had acted contrary to the applicable regulations in the processing of documentation for the importation of the used semi - trailer .

NORP In particular , the applicant had accepted a transit declaration from a person who had not been a declarant ’s authorised representative . He had not verified whether the person submitting a power of attorney had been the person to whom it had been issued . The applicant had not verified whether the used semi - trailer had been in the customs zone . Further , he had not issued an administrative violation record on the non - compliance with TIME time - limit for the delivery to the customs office of the used semi - trailer . Furthermore , the documentation processed had been incomplete .

NORP The regional court relied on a report drawn up by the ORG revenue service , dated DATE . The report stated that the applicant had not complied with a number of applicable regulations .

Further , the court referred to the pre - trial statement of witness E.A. who was summoned to a court hearing but could not attend due to his hospitalisation . The court took note of a medical certificate to that effect .

E.A. had testified that he had purchased the semi - trailer at DATE . He had come to the customs control point together with the vendor ’s representative . The vendor ’s representative had turned first to a customs representative and then to a customs officer who processed the documentation . The semi - trailer had not been at the customs warehouse and it could not have been inspected by the customs officer . According to the documentation , the customs clearance of the vehicle was carried out by the applicant .

After the statements were read out , the applicant ’s defence asked the court to explain on what grounds a certified copy of the statements of E.A. was included in the case - file and where was its original . The request was upheld and the prosecutor provided a reply .

The court relied on a set of documentary evidence attesting to the fact that the documentation for the semi - trailer in question had been processed by the applicant and that the semi - trailer had not entered the customs territory .

The applicant appealed against the first instance court judgment .

At the appellate hearing on DATE , E.A. could not be summoned to the hearing because he was abroad at the time . The applicant requested that E.A. be summoned to the appeal proceedings .

The appellate court decided that this request be granted and E.A. was summoned to the hearings of DATE and DATE . On both occasions E.A. asked the appellate court in writing to excuse his absence from the hearing on the grounds of hospitalisation ( in DATE ) and his being abroad and having a technical problem with a car which had prevented him from coming to the hearing ( in DATE ) . He further asked the court to read out his pre - trial statements .

On DATE the appeal proceedings were resumed .

During the court hearing , the applicant ’s defence and the court questioned a defence witness – a customs expert on the customs procedure and its application .

E.A. did not appear at the court hearings on CARDINAL and DATE . The prosecutor submitted that , by way of such conduct , E.A. avoided appearing in court and that this gave grounds for his testimony to be read out .

NORP The applicant ’s defence counsel disagreed that E.A. ’s testimony could be read out . At the same time , the defence counsel submitted that he

“ [ did ] not need witness [ E.A. ] anymore ... the evidence [ previously ] given by the expert [ was sufficient ] . We do not uphold the request anymore . I consider that his statements should not be read out ... I consider that there are no justifiable grounds for [ E.A. ] not appearing in court ” .

The appellate court ruled that DATE ’s testimony be read out in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW .

After the testimony was read out , the applicant ’s defence explicitly stated that they did not have any requests and that the court adjudication could be terminated .

On DATE the appeal court upheld the applicant ’s conviction . It considered that the applicant had inadequately verified the power of attorney ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The appellate court referred to the evidence of witness E.A. , i.e. , that the semi - trailer had not been at the customs warehouse and the customs officer could not have inspected it . It also relied on the logbook indicating that the semi - trailer had not entered the customs territory . The court also relied on the applicant ’s statements in which he considered that the verification on the merits had been carried out by the customs broker and therefore those tasks fell outside his duties . The appeal court dismissed the applicant ’s contention that he had inspected the semi - trailer .

Furthermore , the appeal court held that the applicant had inadequately verified the payment documents . It reasoned that the payment orders in question had given the appearance that a transfer of funds had been made to the ORG . However , a bank report indicated that these orders had neither been registered nor confirmed by the bank .

The appeal court found that the applicant had formally performed his official duties . However , it deemed that the applicant ’s contention DATE that a customs broker and not a customs officer had been responsible for the truthfulness of the information – indicated that , in fact , the applicant had not verified anything .

In his appeal on points of law the applicant argued that the appellate court had not ensured the attendance of E.A. He insisted that the evidence attested to the fact that he had verified the power of attorney and had compared the bank accounts indicated in the payment orders . No electronic database had existed at the time and the only way to check the payment documents had been to compare the bank accounts listed .

On DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

It reasoned that the appellate court had verified the testimonies of witnesses in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW . Also , the appeal court had made efforts to establish E.A. ’s whereabouts and to bring him to court . Therefore , the appeal court had done everything possible in order to call E.A. to court .

This decision was final .