Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

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

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

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

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused in respect of fraud , forgery , use of forged documents , and money - laundering offences .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG decided to place the applicant in pre - trial detention . An arrest warrant was issued against the applicant and the prosecutor ’s order was confirmed by the court .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention was extended on successive occasions by court order .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the court requesting revocation of the order for his detention . In an interlocutory judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request . However , it replaced the applicant ’s detention with an undertaking not to leave the city , given that the impact of his deeds on public order had diminished with the passage of time . It ordered the applicant ’s release from detention .

The prosecutor did not appeal against the interlocutory judgment . Despite the fact that the judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was not released from ORG until DATE , namely on DATE .

The relevant provisions of domestic law and practice regarding the award of compensation in the event of unlawful detention DATE namely ORG ORG and CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) and decision no . CARDINAL of ORG are to be found in Ogică v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § MONEY , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE .

The Government submitted examples of case - law with the aim of showing that at present , in similar cases concerning unlawful detention , the system of legal remedies in GPE – including the direct applicability of the Convention and LAW made it possible to make good any damage suffered .

In a judgment of DATE concerning an unlawful detention for DATE , the ORG allowed the action for compensation and awarded the claimant CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . ORG upheld that judgment and increased the compensation to RON CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The appellate court held that , although LAW ORG was not applicable to the claimant ’s situation , LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW and LAW were applicable .

NORP In another case , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed a tort action and awarded the claimant ORG CARDINAL as compensation for an unlawful detention lasting DATE . It held that – although LAW ORG was not applicable to the claimant ’s situation – the claimant was entitled to compensation for unlawful detention .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG awarded the claimant PERSON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) by way of compensation for DATE of unlawful detention . On DATE the High Court of Cassation and ORG upheld that judgment . It noted that the claimant was entitled to compensation on the basis of LAW , even though the extension of his detention by an additional DATE after his prison sentence had been served had not been found unlawful by a decision of a prosecutor or a court , as required by LAW ORG .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed an action for compensation for unlawful detention and awarded the claimant PERSON CARDINAL . It found that , although LAW ORG was not applicable to the claimant ’s situation , he was entitled to compensation on the basis of LAW . That decision became final on DATE , when ORG and ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law against it .


CASE OF KAHRIMAN v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings against private persons concerning some contracts . On DATE ORG rendered a judgment . On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for a retrial . On DATE ORG of First Instance rendered a new judgment . That judgment was amended by ORG on DATE and by ORG of the Republika Srpska on DATE .

The applicant introduced a claim before ORG , alleging that the above proceedings had been excessively long and requesting a financial compensation . On DATE ORG found a breach of the applicant ’s right to a trial within a reasonable time . It did not award any damages .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Myroslava Antonovych;Vincent A. De Gaetano

On DATE the applicant was arrested in PERSON by ORG ( PERSON по боротьбі із незаконним обігом наркотиків PERSON районного відділу Харківського міського управління GPE внутрішніх справ України – “ the ORG ” ) and taken to ORG . The applicant stated that he had been ill - treated by the police and that upon his arrest a police officer had hit him in the left eye .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE . On DATE the applicant was released .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a cataract and a subatrophy of the left eyeball . The only recommendation after the diagnosis was to avoid hypothermia . According to the applicant , he planned to have eye surgery . No medical evidence was submitted in this respect .

On DATE the applicant was again arrested in PERSON after selling drugs to NORP and taken to ORG by ORG . The applicant stated that he “ had been beaten by the police after his arrest for DATE simply because he had wanted to have a lawyer ” . He further stated that “ pending investigation ” a gas mask had been put on his face with lit cigarettes inserted into the air valve .

On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL issued a certificate stating that the applicant had head and left shoulder injuries , a haematoma on the left ear and had possibly suffered a closed craniocerebral injury . However , the certificate stated that the applicant could be detained , so long as he was under the supervision of a neurosurgeon .

On DATE criminal proceedings on drug trafficking charges were instituted against the applicant and it was decided to arrest him .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) remanded the applicant in custody .

On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL issued a certificate stating that the applicant was suffering from the after - effects of a head injury but that he could be detained . He was also examined by an ophthalmologist and diagnosed with an old optic subatrophy in the left eye .

On DATE the applicant was placed in ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ the GPE ” ) . It was noted in his medical file that on DATE he had suffered an eye injury and that on DATE he had been suffering from a head injury . He was diagnosed with a cataract and with a subatrophy of the left eye .

On DATE ORG ordered the Head of ORG of ORG of GPE ( начальник PERSON внутрішніх справ України в Харківській області – “ the regional head ” ) to look into the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment .

On DATE the regional head informed the applicant that the police officers involved had not broken any laws .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to obtain medical evidence from his GPE medical file which would confirm the infliction of injuries on him .

On DATE the applicant complained to the regional head that :

“ ... on DATE police officers , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , accompanied by CARDINAL witnesses , arrived in GPE . Again on DATE the same diagnosis [ was established ] : closed craniocerebral injury , facial fractures , nasal fracture , haematomas on the body , arms , legs and left ear , scratches . ”

On DATE ORG , examining the applicant ’s case on the merits , ordered ORG ( PERSON Харкова ) to look into the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment . The court noted that , according to the applicant , he had been beaten in ORG by police officers PERSON . and PERSON , and that he had later been examined in Hospitals nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . It was noted that the decision to arrest the applicant had been adopted on DATE and that the applicant had been questioned on DATE . He had refused to have a lawyer present . The applicant had never complained of any ill - treatment . The police officers had stated that they had never ill - treated the applicant . On DATE the Prosecutor ’s Office informed ORG of the decision taken .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s case . The applicant pleaded guilty to some of the charges and stated that he was a drug addict , that the confiscated drugs had been for his personal use only and that he had confessed to drug trafficking after being subject to physical pressure by the police . The court convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL and a half years’ imprisonment .

The applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE he amended his appeal stating , inter alia , that on CARDINAL DATE he had asked for the severity of his injuries to be recorded and that he had not been able to appeal against the decision of DATE as he had not received a copy of it .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG again convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The applicant pleaded guilty . He did not appeal against the decision .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE he was released .

DATE he was admitted to a hospital . He was diagnosed with hypertension , chronic cholecystitis , a cyst of left kidney and optic supatrophy in the left eye .

According to the ORG , while in detention , the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist on numerous occasions , namely on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ( on the latter date it was noted that the applicant ’s state has improved ) , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ( it was noted that the applicant needed no maintenance treatment for his optic subatrophy ) , DATE and DATE . On no occasion had any deterioration of the applicant ’s state of health been established . When the applicant had complained of pain in his left eye , in particular , on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , he had been prescribed treatment .

The applicant submitted that he had been taken to ORG but did not provide any further information in this respect .

On DATE the applicant refused to be hospitalised in the ophthalmology department of the prison hospital at ORG no . CARDINAL .

According to the ORG , the applicant had had the following consultations with other specialists :

( i ) with a surgeon on DATE ( complaints about pain in the right leg , the applicant was prescribed medication ) and CARDINAL DATE ;

( ii ) with a neuropathologist on CARDINAL DATE and DATE ;

( iii ) with a psychiatrist on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ; and

( iv ) with a general physician on DATE ( the applicant complained about a pain in the left eye and general weakness and was advised to see an ophthalmologist ) , CARDINAL DATE ( the applicant complained about pain in his back and was prescribed painkillers ) , DATE ( the applicant was issued a referral to a civil hospital in order to decide whether he is able to work and whether he falls into any disability group ) , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent periodic medical screening .

On DATE the applicant received treatment for a shoulder injury .

On DATE the applicant complained of hypertension . He was offered an examination and , if necessary , treatment in the prison hospital , which he refused .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant , Mr Daniel Alojz , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody pending trial on drugrelated charges .

On DATE , he submitted a request to ORG súd ) , as the remand court , for his release . The request arrived there by mail on DATE .

As by law the request fell to be determined first by ORG , ORG sent it to ORG , which dismissed it and returned the matter to ORG on DATE .

ORG scheduled an in - chambers hearing ( neverejné zasadnutie ) of the applicant ’s request for DATE . However , the hearing was rescheduled for DATE at the request of the ORG lawyer , who was unable to attend on the former date as she was to attend a conference .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant was indicted to stand trial on the above - mentioned charges . As a consequence , the case was assigned to a new judge , as the trial judge .

Following the hearing of DATE before the trial judge , on DATE , ORG dismissed the request . When the decision was pronounced , the applicant immediately lodged an interlocutory appeal ( sťažnosť ) .

The applicant ’s appeal was dismissed by ORG ( PERSON súd ) on DATE . The written version of that decision was served on the applicant through the intermediary of ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW of LAW ( Constitutional Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG ( Ústavný súd ) , concerning the length of the proceedings on his request for release of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG appointed a legalaid lawyer to represent the applicant . The lawyer restated the applicant ’s complaint on CARDINAL DATE . In a standardised and prescribed form ( petit ) , the lawyer directed the complaint against ORG , alleging that the applicant ’s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention had been breached in the proceedings on the applicants’ request for release of CARDINAL DATE . He claimed MONEY ( ORG ) in damages .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG declared the complaint admissible and found a violation of the applicant ’s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention . It awarded him ORG CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage .

The Constitutional Court observed that it had taken the ORG DATE to decide on the applicant ’’ rights .

The applicant unsuccessfully requested release also on other occasions , both prior to and after the request of DATE .

The trial on the merits ended with ORG and ORG convicting the applicant and sentencing him to DATE in prison on DATE and DATE respectively .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which was rejected on CARDINAL DATE . He subsequently sought the re - opening of his trial , but was unsuccessful .


Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Síofra O’Leary

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder , robbery and attempted murder . He remained in police custody until DATE .

The applicant alleged that during his stay in police custody CARDINAL and DATE he had been tortured by unspecified police officers , as a result of which he had confessed to having committed the crimes of which he was suspected . In the course of a medical examination on DATE the doctors noted a number of bruises and lesions on the applicant ’s limbs , chest and back The applicant alleges that no medical treatment was given to him for his injuries .

The applicant stated that he had subsequently brought his allegation of ill - treatment by the police before the trial courts but the courts had not responded to it . He provided no copy of his complaints .

On DATE the applicant was taken to court ; the court ordered his remand in custody pending completion of the criminal investigation against him .

On DATE the applicant was placed in a cell in ORG ( “ GPE ” ) no . CARDINAL .

On DATE , following his conviction ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he was transferred to a high - level security cell within the same GPE for detainees sentenced to life imprisonment by a final judicial decision . From DATE the rules applicable to this latter category of detainees had also been applied to the applicant . In particular , his clothes were taken away from him and instead he was given special orange clothes bearing the words “ life imprisonment ” in large print on the front and back ; when leaving his cell the applicant had at all times been escorted by a special unit of guards in black uniforms with masks covering their faces .

The applicant complained to the courts about the allegedly unlawful execution of his sentence . On DATE the ORG refused to consider his complaint for lack of substantiation and failure to pay the court fee . The applicant did not appeal against that ruling .

On DATE the applicant was placed in FAC no . CARDINAL ( the “ GPE ” ) . In DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE in GPE , which was later reorganised as a detention centre for convicted prisoners .

According to the applicant , the conditions of his detention in the colony were debasing . In particular , he alleged that the drinking water and food had been of poor quality , that he had not received adequate medical assistance and that he had been subjected to psychological pressure by the colony staff .

The applicant raised those allegations before the prosecutors . On DATE , the deputy prosecutor responsible for supervising prison authorities’ compliance with the law informed him by letter that an inquiry had been carried out into his allegations but that it had not revealed any irregularities in his conditions of detention . According to the medical information submitted by the applicant , while in detention he had been medically examined and had been given the necessary treatment .

The applicant alleged that in the course of the investigations and the trial he had been prohibited from corresponding by ordinary mail with his relatives and his counsel and from making telephone calls . The applicant did not raise those allegations before the authorities .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant had CARDINAL onehour visits from his mother and father .

The applicant stated , in general terms , that following his conviction on DATE he had not been allowed to have long meetings with his relatives and that the duration and frequency of the short visits they had been permitted to make had been considerably limited . He provided no further details in that regard .

During his first interrogation , on DATE , the applicant had the assistance of a lawyer of his own choosing . DATE , due to the latter ’s failure to appear , the applicant was assisted by a lawyer appointed for him by the authorities . On an unspecified date the applicant hired a new lawyer , who continued to defend him during the investigation and trial . The applicant ’s mother also took part in the proceedings as the applicant ’s representative .

In the course of the investigation and trial , the applicant admitted that he had committed the murders and the attempted murder of which he was suspected .

NORP The criminal investigation of the applicant ’s case was completed in DATE . Subsequently , the criminal case was referred to ORG for trial .

On DATE the court found the applicant guilty of the aggravated murder of CARDINAL persons ‒ CARDINAL of whom was a minor ‒ and of the attempted murder of another person , with the aim of stealing the GPE property . The court based its judgment on statements made by the applicant during the investigation and at the trial , the testimonies of CARDINAL of the victims and CARDINAL witnesses – one of whom had caught the applicant at the scene of the crime − and the conclusions of several forensic examinations , including a psychiatric examination which found that the applicant had been aware and in control of his actions at the time of the offences . The applicant was held to be exceptionally dangerous to society and was sentenced to life imprisonment , together with the confiscation of all his property .

The same judgment ordered his continuing detention in the Kyiv GPE .

The applicant lodged an appeal . He contended that he had committed the crimes whilst of unsound mind and requested an additional psychiatric examination .

NORP In his appeal , the applicant ’s lawyer contested the first - instance court ’s finding that the applicant had committed the murders with the aim of stealing the GPE property .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE and it accordingly entered into force on that date .

In DATE the applicant requested that ORG of Appeal provide him with copies of certain documents from his case file , including the verbatim records of his questioning during the investigation , the decisions concerning his detention , and various procedural decisions taken in the course of the investigation and trial , which he intended to submit to the ORG in support of his application . In a letter dated DATE , a ORG judge informed the applicant that his request had been refused , pointing out that the procedure governing applications to ORG did not require the submission of the documents of which the applicant had sought copies .

On an unspecified date the applicant ’s mother , acting on his behalf , made similar requests , which were refused by the Deputy President of ORG on DATE , on the same grounds .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

As an officer in a subunit of the special anti - terrorist unit within the special forces for State security ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , the applicant participated in the events which commenced in GPE on DATE and led to the fall of the PERSON dictatorship on DATE .

The applicant was arrested by army forces and held in detention from CARDINAL DATE until DATE . He was then held by the unit ’s commander from DATE until DATE . During this period of time , he was subjected to ill - treatment and , as a result , he suffered depression and he was placed on the officers reserve list on the grounds of poor health ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the military prosecutor , alleging that he had been ill - treated and illegally detained in the ORG building and requesting the punishment of various officials , including the unit ’s commander , G.A. The military prosecutor questioned the defendants and a large number of witnesses during the criminal investigation and gathered medical evidence .

On DATE the military prosecutor found that the unit ’s commander PERSON had been responsible for the applicant ’s deprivation of liberty and his injuries ; however , criminal proceedings could not be initiated because the commander had died .

On DATE the applicant asked the military prosecutor to extend the investigation to other officials he alleged were involved , including doctor GPE and various ORG officers .

On DATE the military prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the doctor P.I. on the ground that the constituent elements of the alleged offence were not present . Following the applicant ’s appeal , this decision was set aside by a decision of CARDINAL DATE and the investigation continued .

On DATE the military prosecutor found doctor GPE liable to pay an administrative fine ; however , the type of offence he committed had been pardoned by a decree of DATE . The military prosecutor discontinued the investigation in respect of the dead defendant , G.A. The criminal case related to the other defendants , the ORG officers , was severed into separate proceedings .

On DATE and DATE the military prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against some of the defendants as the applicant ’s complaint had become partly statute - barred . The investigation into crimes allegedly committed by CARDINAL of the defendants was severed and jurisdiction was relinquished to the prosecuting authorities at ORG and ORG in order to be joined to the main criminal investigation into the events of DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was heard as a witness and as a civil party in the main criminal investigation .

The most important procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation are summarised in ORG “ DATE ” and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , LAW CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , and ORG v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) . Subsequent developments are as follows .

Following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in DATE , jurisdiction over the case was relinquished in favour of the military prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office closed the main investigation , finding that the complaints were partly statute - barred and partly ill - founded . The parties have not submitted any information on whether there was an appeal against that decision .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

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

On DATE I.P. , a well - known NORP journalist , and his business associate PERSON were killed by the explosion of an improvised device placed under ORG ’s car , which was parked in front of his publishing company . The explosion also caused injuries to CARDINAL employees of the publishing company and considerable material damage on the surrounding buildings and nearby parked cars .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : the “ ORG Attorney ’s ORG ” ) indicted several persons in ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) on charges of conspiracy to kill FAC and for putting that into action . The applicant was indicted for having participated in the group by aiding and abetting the direct perpetrators .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant ’s conviction was upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

Following the attack against ORG and his publishing company , the intelligence available to the police showed that the applicant and several other persons could be implicated in the events and it was therefore decided to arrest them .

The Police Director ( PERSON ) issued an oral order that the arrests be carried out by an antiterrorist team of ORG policija , PERSON ; hereinafter : the “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE , at TIME , the ORG stormed into the applicant ’s flat , where he was at the moment together with his sister and grandmother .

According to the applicant , immediately after breaking into the flat , the ORG officers threw him on the floor and started punching him over the head and body .

According to the Government , an ORG team of CARDINAL officers broke into the applicant ’s flat and ordered him to lie down . As he started resisting , the police officers applied the throwing technique of “ foot sweep ” , which made the applicant to lose his balance and while falling on the ground he hit the table with his head . He was immediately offered medical assistance but he refused .

A report available to the ORG signed by the Commander - in - chief of ORG ( PERSON ) of DATE , which is essentially a verbatim of a report of CARDINAL of the arresting ORG officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in its relevant part concerning the circumstances of the applicant ’s arrest , reads :

“ ... the intervention with a view to arrest [ the applicant ] started by the ORG officers forceful breaking the front doors using the [ battering ram ] . Inside the flat they found the suspect and an older woman to whom they issued several orders : “ Police , lie down on the floor ” . As the suspect resisted , CARDINAL officers approached him and grabbed him by the arms but he continued to resist . [ The officers ] then applied the technique of QUANTITY sweep and pulled him to the ground . As he was still trying to set himself free he was handcuffed . While he was falling on the ground he hit the table with his face ... Afterwards ... [ the officers ] offered to the suspect medical assistance but he refused it saying that he felt good . ”

According to the applicant , following his arrest he was blindfolded and taken to a remote place by a river , where he was again beaten up and his head was immersed in the water , forcing him to confess to the murders of GPE and ORG and some other crimes . The police officers also continued to beat him up while taking him to the police station .

According to the Government , following the applicant ’s arrest he was taken to the parking area of the police station used by ORG of ORG ( FAC uprava CARDINAL , ORG kriminalističke policije , ORG organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : the “ police ” ) where he was kept in the minivan of the ORG in the period TIME , awaiting other suspects to be arrested and brought to the police station .

The available report of the arresting ORG officer ( see paragraph DATE below ) in this respect indicates that the applicant was brought to the parking area of the police station at TIME where he was kept in the minivan of the ORG until TIME and then surrendered to the police inspectors .

Once when he was brought to the police station on DATE at TIME the applicant was placed in a room under the control of CARDINAL police inspectors GPE and GPE

According to reports of these QUANTITY police inspectors dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the applicant was for a while guarded by an ORG officer but then , at unspecified time , they requested that officer to leave the room . The police inspectors also submitted that the applicant had been handcuffed when he was brought to the police station and then , at unspecified time but sometimes soon after his arrival , the handcuffs were taken off . They also acknowledged that they had seen visible injuries on the applicant ’s head and nose for which he had been allegedly offered medical assistance but he had refused it . The emergency had been called in only after the order of their superiors .

The emergency service came to the police station on DATE at TIME The relevant record of the applicant ’s examination , in so far as legible , reads :

“ Brought to the police station . Visible open injury above the left eye ; QUANTITY long . Contusion and haematoma of the nose with the possible fracture . Regular general status . The patient refuses to go to the hospital and further treatment . ”

The applicant stayed in the police station until DATE at TIME During that period he was taken to searches of his house and car and he was questioned by the police inspectors GPE and FAC in the presence of a lawyer and a Deputy at the ORG Attorney ’s ORG .

According to the applicant , throughout his stay in the police station he was tightly constrained , beaten and threatened that he should make no problems concerning his injuries .

According to the ORG , during his stay in the police station the applicant was kept in one of the offices ordinarily used by the police officers . Apart from TIME upon his arrival to the police station , the applicant was not handcuffed . He also had access to the toilet and drinking water . He was obliged to sit on a chair as there were no beds but it was impossible to take him to the detention unit as the investigative actions were still ongoing . In any case , he had an opportunity to ask for a rest and food but he did not make any such request .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was taken to ORG and Escort Unit ( GPE za zadržavanje i prepratu ; hereinafter : “ JZP ” ) for a rest . A report accompanying his transfer , signed by the Chief of the police and dated DATE indicated , inter alia , that he had no visible injuries .

A report signed by the on - duty officer at ORG , dated DATE , indicated that the applicant was admitted to the detention unit with visible injuries of his face .

According to the applicant , during his stay in ORG he was offered a sandwich but he could not eat due to a strong jaw pain .

According to the ORG , during his stay in PERSON the applicant was placed in a room which was equipped with beds and sanitary facility . The room was appropriately heated and ventilated and had access to natural and artificial light . The hygiene and sanitary conditions were good and the applicant was provided with food and water .

On DATE at TIME the police took the applicant from PERSON to participate in a further search of his LOC .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was brought for questioning before an investigating judge of ORG . He decided to remain silent concerning the charges held against him , but with regard to his injuries the applicant stressed :

“ The only thing I would point out is that before I was taken in [ to the police station ] I fell in my flat and according to the findings of the doctors who were called in to the police station , I sustained a nose fracture , most probably with dislocation . I refused the medical assistance in order to get out from the police station as soon as possible . ”

The investigating judge put no additional questions concerning this matter nor did he take any further actions in that respect .

Following the applicant ’s questioning , an investigation into the explosion was opened in respect of him and several other persons . At the same time , an investigating judge of ORG ordered his pre - trial detention .

On DATE the applicant was examined in FAC ( GPE ) and several medical records were drafted .

One medical record available to the ORG indicates that the applicant sustained his injuries after a fall on DATE , whereas CARDINAL other medical reports refer to several blows on the applicant ’s head and nose .

Based on his medical examination in ORG , the applicant was diagnosed with contusions of head , nose and shoulder and a nose fracture without dislocation , as well as a distortion of a metal implant in his hand related to an old injury . His general medical condition at the time was regular and he had a smaller hematoma on the left side of his head and nose and smaller hematomas below both eyes . He also had a smaller hematoma on the left shoulder and a visible dislocation of the metal implant in his hand but without a fresh fracture . In DATE the applicant again saw a doctor who indicated testicular problems .

On DATE one of the arresting ORG officers reported on the applicant ’s arrest to the Commander of the ORG . In his report , he indicated that the ORG had been requested to arrest the applicant in connection with a suspicion of double murder . The report also provides the details of the arrest already observed above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the Commander of the ORG requested the Commander - in - chief of ORG to assess the lawfulness of the ORG ’s actions ; and the latter forwarded that request to the Police Director .

On DATE the Police Director assessed the reports concerning the ORG actions by indicating the following :

“ This is to inform you that I find the use of force , namely the physical force and the measures of restraint , used by the ORG team on DATE during the arrest of PERSON ... lawful within the meaning of sections DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW and sections DATE , DATE and DATE of the By - law on the police conduct . ”

In DATE the applicant , through lawyers , requested ORG and the emergency services to provide him the relevant medical records concerning the injuries he had sustained during his arrest on DATE . He also requested the police to provide him the relevant documents related to his arrest .

On DATE the police replied that all relevant reports were confidential and could not be disclosed . This reply was forwarded for information to the ORG Attorney ’s ORG .

On DATE , after receiving the reply , the applicant complained to the ORG Attorney ’s ORG asking why an effective investigation , within the meaning of LAW , had not been conducted .

The State Attorney ’s ORG replied on DATE , indicating that the applicant should consult the relevant domestic law on the use of police force and that , in case of any complaint to that effect , he could always lodge a criminal complaint with the competent ORG Attorney ’s ORG .

In the meantime , the applicant obtained the requested medical records .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u GPE ) against unidentified perpetrators alleging ill - treatment during his arrest and stay in the police station .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s Office informed the applicant that his criminal complaint had been forwarded to the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG ( GPE državno odvjetništvo u GPE ) for further examination .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG rejected the applicant ’s criminal complaint on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed . It relied on a written report of the Police Director and written reports of the police inspectors GPE and M.M. It also observed the applicant ’s medical documentation and search and seizure records as well as the interrogation records in the criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG ( Općinski građanski sud u GPE ) against the ORG claiming damages in connection with his alleged ill - treatment by the police during his arrest and stay in the police station .

The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG , representing the ORG , challenged the applicant ’s civil action on the grounds that the police had acted in accordance with the law and that their use of force had been caused by the applicant ’s conduct .

DATE . During the proceedings , ORG heard the applicant and several witnesses , including the applicant ’s sister and grandmother , one of the applicant ’s co - suspects and the police inspectors GPE and GPE , as well as the Police Director .

The applicant ’s grandmother testified that she had seen the police officers immediately attacking and hitting the applicant as they had entered the flat , and his sister confirmed that she had heard him screaming and had also seen him being dragged around by the police .

The applicant ’s co - suspect in his testimony submitted that he had seen the applicant seriously injured in the police station , while the police inspectors GPE and PERSON denied any ill - treatment , as did the Police Director who also stated that the police had monopoly of the use of force .

In his statement of DATE the applicant contended that during his arrest he had been severely beaten by the ORG officers all over his head and body . Afterwards he had been taken near a river and again beaten , subjected to mock execution and immersed in the water . When he was finally brought to the police station , the uniformed police officers continued to beat him with the acquiescence of the police inspectors GPE and PERSON He was also tightly constrained to a chair and at CARDINAL point , while he was dragged from CARDINAL office to another , he felt strong pain in his shoulder . Later on , during his transfer to the investigating judge , CARDINAL uniformed police officers who escorted him said that he should say nothing about the ill - treatment and that he would soon go home . In the ensuing period , he started feeling various health problems related to the ill - treatment and has been seeing doctors regularly .

The civil proceedings are still pending .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

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

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


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

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE he was placed during his pre - trial detention in GPE FAC . On DATE he was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment by ORG and ORG . He served his sentence in the same prison until DATE , when he was conditionally released .

The first applicant alleged that there had been severe overcrowding , having had to share cells measuring QUANTITY m. with CARDINAL other prisoners without proper ventilation . He further alleged that there had been a severe lack of hygiene , no provision of hygiene products , a lack of heating during DATE , a lack of bedclothes , an infestation of lice and bugs in the cells , as well as frequent water and power cuts and poor quality water .

In addition , he alleged that strip - searches were conducted regularly on groups of prisoners in the prison yard , even during DATE , with prisoners being bullied by guards . In this connection , the first applicant submitted statements made by CARDINAL inmates who declared seeing such a search conducted on prisoners , including the first applicant , in DATE .

The Government submitted that FAC had been built in DATE and that no changes were made to the size of the cells since . They further submitted that the prison authorities held no information with respect to the number of persons with whom the first applicant had shared his cell before DATE , the date a regulation requiring such statistics to be logged entered into force . Hence , CARDINAL and DATE the first applicant had been placed in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m , which he shared with CARDINAL other inmates .

With respect to hygiene conditions , the Government mentioned that all prisoners had unrestricted access to water and sanitary facilities , while access to showers was allowed twice per week . In addition , hygiene products and bedclothes were provided to all prisoners in accordance with the regulations and within the limits of the budget available . The ORG also mentioned that internal prison regulations provided that prisoners could bring or buy their own hygiene products or bedclothes DATE the first applicant had been given permission to receive bedclothes from his family on CARDINAL occasions . The Government also submitted that , according to the governor of FAC , regular disinfections had been carried out DATE .

The Government further contended that ORG had its own heating system with wood - burning stoves and a heating program which provided adequate warmth . In this connection , they submitted documents showing that DATE certain quantities of wood were consumed DATE , while certain quantities remained unused .

Lastly , according to documents submitted to the Government by the prison governor , potable water and food were tested regularly and were in compliance with hygiene standards .

On DATE the ORG representatives at the time informed the ORG that the applicant PERSON no longer wished to pursue his application .

CARDINAL letters , in which Mr Dumitrof ’s attention was drawn to the fact that the ORG may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application , were sent by the ORG by registered mail directly to him on DATE and DATE . The letters remained unanswered and were returned to ORG and DATE marked “ Unknown recipient ” and “ Recipient moved from the address ” respectively .


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

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings . In some of the applications , the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention .


CASE OF YABLOKO RUSSIAN UNITED DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote)

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

GPE ( “ GPE ” ) is a subject ( constituent region ) of GPE . Under LAW of GPE , subjects of the Federation possess the full authority of GPE in all matters other than those that come within the sole jurisdiction of the federal government or within the shared jurisdiction of federal subjects and the federal government to the degree of the latter ’s scope of authority .

At the relevant time , ORG of PERSON ( hereinafter “ the GPE ” ) had CARDINAL members elected by universal direct suffrage for a DATE term . CARDINAL seats were allocated on a proportional representation basis to registered party lists receiving PERCENT of the region - wide vote , while the remaining seats were allocated to the winners of CARDINAL single - mandate constituencies , determined by majority vote . There was no minimum turnout for the election to be valid , and each voter could only vote for CARDINAL party and CARDINAL candidate in the electoral constituency in which he or she resided .

NORP The regional branch of the PERSON political party was registered by a competent ORG authority ( at that time the regional department of ORG ) in DATE .

On DATE the regional council of the applicant party called for a regional party conference to be held in CARDINAL sessions on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively . The aim was to prepare for the GPE elections that were to take place in DATE .

DATE and DATE local party branches throughout GPE held assemblies and conferences in accordance with the PERSON party ’s articles of association ( hereinafter , “ the charter ” ) and selected delegates to attend the regional party conference . At the time , the regional party had CARDINAL members , of whom CARDINAL were so - called “ registered party members ” , that is , members who had specifically asked to be registered with the local party bodies in order to participate more actively in the party ’s work , such as regional conferences . As a result , the CARDINAL registered members elected CARDINAL delegates to the regional conference .

On DATE CARDINAL delegates present at the conference expressed their desire to participate in the upcoming GPE elections . The nomination of candidates to the party list and electoral circuits was left to the second session scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the PERSON party at national level held its Thirteenth ORG , which adopted several amendments to the party ’s charter . The charter maintained the division between party members and registered party members . In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of both versions the right to elect and be elected to the party ’s governing and controlling bodies was reserved to registered members . The DATE version specified , additionally , that party members who did not register automatically delegated the right to elect and be elected within the party to the registered party members of the relevant local branch .

On DATE the GPE set an election date of DATE .

On DATE the amendments to the GPE national party charter were registered with ORG , upon which date they came into force .

On DATE the regional party conference resumed . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL party delegates were present , and a quorum was declared . In accordance with the party ’s charter , the conference nominated a CARDINAL-member party list and candidates for CARDINAL electoral constituencies by secret ballot . The second and third applicants were chosen to run for office in CARDINAL single - mandate constituencies .

The conference was attended by CARDINAL representatives from ORG of ORG , and CARDINAL members of ORG of GPE ( “ the Electoral Commission ” ) . At that time they did not report any irregularities in the conduct of the regional party conference .

On DATE the applicant party submitted documents to ORG in order to participate in the forthcoming election . On DATE it paid the requisite deposits ( MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of the party list and RUB CARDINAL in respect of each of the CARDINAL single - mandate candidates ) .

On DATE and DATE , after reviewing the documents , ORG issued Orders nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL , by which it registered the applicant party ’s CARDINAL candidates , including the second and third applicants , and the party list .

On DATE ORG wrote to ORG and informed it that the party conference of DATE had been based on the participation of registered party members , and not party members in general . It referred to the provisions of the legislation on political parties ( see below ) which guaranteed equal rights of participation in party activities for all members . It argued that the party could not make a distinction between registered and other party members for the purposes of internal activities . As such , the conference of CARDINAL DATE had been held in breach of the applicable legislation .

On DATE ORG applied to ORG hereinafter ORG ) to annul its own decision to register the party list and single - mandate candidates . Referring to the letter of DATE , the Commission referred to the provision of LAW allowing the judicial annulment of the registration of individual candidates and party lists where “ new facts ” had come to light showing a violation of federal or regional law regulating the nomination of candidates .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG wrote to the head of ORG and informed him of the application lodged with the court . It also enquired which version of the charter should be applicable to the party conference of DATE since the party had submitted the DATE version to the Commission .

On DATE ORG replied to ORG that the new charter had been registered by that service on DATE and that on DATE the old version of the document had ceased to be valid . The regional party should therefore have submitted the new version as the one applicable to their conference of DATE . At the same time , the ORG stated that in DATE PERSON had received a warning from it in connection with its differentiating between registered and other party members , and that the new version of the charter had contained provisions designed to correct that . In view of those considerations , the decision of the regional conference of CARDINAL DATE , which had been based on the previous version and had taken only registered members into account , could be seen as being in breach of the relevant legislation .

On DATE ORG allowed the application of ORG and annulled the decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE to register the applicant party ’s list and candidates . It referred to the conclusions of ORG and found that the procedure whereby only registered members had taken part in the decision - making process had contradicted the legislation on elections and on political parties . It also noted that the party had submitted an invalid version of its charter .

More specifically , the court concluded that the annulment decision was justified because the participation of a minority of the party ’s regional membership in the nomination process had thwarted “ the will of the majority ” , finding as follows :

“ If CARDINAL takes a formal approach to the problem it seems that all the requirements governing the nomination of the lists of candidates were observed .

At the same time the court believes that the procedure for the nomination of the lists of candidates [ to the GPE ] was breached .

It was established at the court hearing that only so - called ‘ registered members of the party’ participated and nominated the lists of candidates [ to the GPE ] at the regional conference .

What is the difference between ‘ registered members of the party’ and ‘ unregistered PERSON ? Let us turn to section CARDINAL of the party ’s charter ...

The practice of applying these provisions of the charter in the party ’s regional division in GPE is such ... that members of the party determine themselves whether to actively participate in the work of the regional branch of the party or to participate [ only ] as needed ... Accordingly , they decide whether to register with the regional branch or not . If a party member asks to be registered , CARDINAL of the local branches , or the regional CARDINAL , registers him with the [ relevant ] branch . From that moment the party member obtains the rights provided for by p. CARDINAL of the charter ...

It is impossible to agree with applying the party ’s charter in such a way . ...

Section CARDINAL of the [ LAW ] states that political parties should provide an equal opportunity for representation in a party ’s governing bodies , in election lists and other positions ... LAW and CARDINAL of the [ LAW ] establish that members of political parties take part in its functioning , have rights and bear obligations in line with the charter . Members have the right to elect and be elected to the party ’s governing bodies , ... receive information about the party ’s activities and the work of its governing bodies . However , this right , under p. CARDINAL of the [ GPE ] charter , is reserved to a limited number of persons – ‘ registered DATE which in turn breaches the principle of the equality of party members as set out in LAW of the [ LAW ] .

As a result , while the number of party members in GPE was DATE ( DATE ) , the Conference was attended by CARDINAL delegates who represented CARDINAL registered members ( PERCENT of the total number of members ) . ...

A democratic regime is characterised by the wide participation of the population in forming the organs of ORG authority and a wide spectrum of political rights and freedoms for citizens governed by the rule of law , the protection of the rights and legal interests of citizens and others . One can imagine that those exact same elements should appear in the activities of any democratic party .

ORG has emphasised the significance of the principle of the mandatory will of the majority , pointing out that ‘ ... elections as a means of determining the will of the people and forming the corresponding legitimate organs of ORG authority and local government , on whose behalf they exercise public authority , is based on the priority of the will of the majority of voters taking part in the ORG ( ruling of ORG of CARDINAL DATE ... ) .

This principle applies with equal measure to the nomination of lists of candidates to [ the legislature ] , since the basis for forming the representative bodies are the [ candidates ] nominated by political parties .

In this specific case the principle of the ‘ will of the ORG was violated .

In such circumstances , the court believes that the order for submitting electoral lists of candidates to the Karelia GPE has been breached . ”

NORP The court dismissed the applicant party ’s argument that interpreting the law in such a way constituted interference by the ORG authorities with the party ’s internal organisation . The court responded by saying that it had been the conference ’s duty to ensure compliance with the applicable legislation .

Lastly , the court noted that the party had submitted an invalid version of its charter . As a consequence , the court cancelled the registration orders of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant party lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG of GPE . It stressed that the difference in treatment between registered and other party members could not be regarded as a “ newly discovered fact ” since it had been based on the party ’s charter of DATE , which had been registered with the relevant service . A record of the entire proceedings of the conference had been submitted to ORG , together with a copy of the charter on which both stages of the conference had been based . The party also pointed out that the ORG had had CARDINAL members present at the conference in DATE , and therefore should have been fully aware of the procedure applied .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant party ’s appeal , with reasoning that was similar to that of ORG .

As a result of the annulment order coming into force the applicant party lost its election deposits .

On DATE elections to ORG took place . The party list and the single constituency candidates nominated by the applicant party were not present on the ballot . The fourth applicant submitted that she had cast a ballot for the PERSON party list , but that her choice had not been counted in the election results .

The Government submitted the following information about the elections which took place on DATE . CARDINAL parties competed for places in the regional assembly : the GPE branch of ORG of GPE ( KPRF ) ( obtained PERCENT of the votes cast ) , ORG “ People ’s Will ” ( PERCENT ) , the regional branch of the NORP of GPE party ( PERCENT ) , the regional branch of ORG GPE ( PERCENT ) , the regional branch of ORG of GPE ( LDPR ) ( PERCENT ) , the regional branch of ORG ( PERCENT ) and the regional branch of ORG ( PERCENT ) . The total number of people who voted in the elections was CARDINAL , or PERCENT of the electorate .

The Government also presented information about the subsequent election to the Karelia GPE , in which GPE candidates had participated . That election took place on DATE and had CARDINAL parties competing . PERSON obtained PERCENT of the votes and had deputies elected to the GPE . A total of PERCENT of voters took part .


CASE OF MAGYAR KERESZTÉNY MENNONITA EGYHÁZ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Just satisfaction partially reserved

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

The applicants are religious communities and individuals . The applicant communities originally existed and operated lawfully in GPE as Churches registered by the competent court in conformity with Act no . DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ” ) .

NORP In application no . CARDINAL , PERSON ( NORP Christian Mennonite Church ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . Mr PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a minister of PERSON .

In application no . CARDINAL , ORG ( ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . Mr PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a minister of ORG .

This applicant community was involved in social activities outsourced by the municipality of PERSON and had concluded an agreement with ORG on the provision of services for homeless people . In DATE the ORG cancelled this agreement and granted the relevant subsidy only until DATE . As a consequence the applicant had to terminate the corresponding contract with the municipality , but was obliged to continue to perform its social services up to and including DATE , thereby allegedly sustaining damage in the amount of MONEY .

In application no . CARDINAL , ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . Mr PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a minister of PERSON .

In application no . CARDINAL , PERSON ( ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . Mr PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a member of ORG .

In application no . DATE , PERSON ( Alliance of NORP ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is a member of ORG PERSON .

NORP In application no . CARDINAL , ORG is a religious association with its registered office in GPE . It acts as an umbrella organisation for progressive NORP congregations in LOC . PERSON ( see application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and ORG PERSON ( see application no . CARDINAL ) are among its members .

In application no . DATE , ORG ( ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE .

In application no . PERSON , ORG PERSON ( “ The Bible Talks ” Church of GPE ) is a religious community active in GPE for DATE .

In application no . CARDINAL , the applicants ( ORG PERSON ( ORG ) , PERSON ( Traditional Church of the Legal Basis of Árpád ’s Order ) , PERSON Magyarország PERSON ( ORG ) , PERSON ( “ Children of Light ” Hungarian ORG ) , Mantra Magyarországi Buddhista Egyháza ( Mantra Buddhist Church of GPE ) , PERSON A Gyógyító Buddha Közössége Egyház ( PERSON , Community of Healing Buddha Church ) , ORG of the Universe ) , PERSON ( ORG ) , Út és ORG ) ) are religious communities active in GPE since DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE Parliament enacted Act no . ORG of DATE on the right to freedom of conscience and religion and the legal status of Churches , denominations and religious communities ( “ the DATE LAW ” ) . It entered into force on DATE and was subsequently amended on several occasions , most recently on DATE and DATE .

Apart from the recognised Churches listed in the Appendix to the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , all other religious communities previously registered as Churches lost their status as Churches but could continue their activities as associations . If intending to continue as Churches , religious communities were required to apply to ORG for individual recognition as such .

In decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( III . CARDINAL . ) , ORG found certain provisions of the DATE LAW to be unconstitutional and annulled them with retrospective effect .

Meanwhile , several applicants filed requests to have the minister responsible register them as Churches , but these applications were refused on the ground DATE despite the decision of ORG DATE Church Act precluded the registrations requested .

After ORG decision , several applicants applied to ORG seeking to be reissued with the number which is necessary in order to remain entitled to PERCENT of income tax which taxpayers may donate to Churches . ORG suspended the procedure and invited the applicants to initiate a recognition procedure before ORG . In the ORG submission , this demonstrated further disregard for ORG decision .

Several applicants regained their status as Churches pursuant to ORG decision .


Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

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

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In applications ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and PERSON , the applicants also raised other complaint under the provisions of the Convention .


The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention .


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

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


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was employed at a ORG institution . His employment was terminated in DATE . Upon the termination of his employment , a certain part of his severance payment was taxed at a PERCENT rate , in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

The complaints raised in this application arise out of the NORP military intervention in northern GPE in DATE and DATE . The general context of the property issues arising in this connection is set out in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) , and NORP and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ) .

In DATE the applicant was gifted CARDINAL plots of land , or shares in them , by her aunt , who died in DATE . In DATE she was also gifted an additional share of CARDINAL of the plots of land by her mother . According to the certificates of ownership provided by ORG , the applicant is the sole owner of CARDINAL plots of land and owns a CARDINAL share of the fifth plot .

The land lies in the village PERSON ( PERSON ) in the “ LOC ” . The total area of the land is CARDINAL dönüm .

NORP In DATE the applicant instructed a law firm in GPE , which duly obtained a valuation report on the land from a NORP chartered surveyor . The valuation report of DATE assessed each of the CARDINAL plots of land and provided valuations for them , which ranged from MONEY ( GBP ) per dönüm to GBP CARDINAL per dönüm .

NORP In DATE the applicant obtained a further valuation report by a chartered surveyor from GPE . This report valued the CARDINAL plots of land , including the economic loss and interest ( all calculated for the period DATE ) , at MONEY ( ORG ) in total .

NORP In DATE the applicant obtained a new valuation report from ORG of GPE which assessed the value of the property in question , including economic loss and interest accrued since DATE ( when the applicant became owner of the property ) to DATE , at FAC in total .

In DATE the applicant , through her NORP representatives , filed a claim with the ORG under LAW no . TIME ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) ‒ supported by an affidavit ‒ claiming restitution of her property and/or compensation at the property ’s current market value and damages for loss of use of the land in question . The total compensation sought was GBP CARDINAL per dönüm ( GBP CARDINAL or approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .

In her affidavit the applicant attested that the property in question had been transferred to her after DATE by her aunt , who had owned it since before DATE . The affidavit also attested that there were no mortgages , liabilities or restrictions on the property in question , that the applicant lived in GPE in a house owned by a NORP , and that she was paying rent to GPE . The file also contained the applicant ’s identity documents ( NORP passport and NORP identity card ) , certificates from GPE and ORG concerning the ownership and legal status of the applicant ’s plots of land ( indicating no mortgages , liabilities or other restrictions ) , and a document issued by the relevant NORP authority showing that the applicant lived in a house owned by a NORP and had been billed CARDINAL Cypriot pounds ( ORG ) by way of rent for DATE to DATE .

The applicant ’s claim was communicated to the “ TRNC ” Attorney General as provided under PERSON no . TIME and the relevant IPC Rules ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , the Attorney ORG submitted an opinion to the ORG in reply to the applicant ’s claim . It relied on an affidavit by the “ GPE ” Director of ORG , who explained that their records showed that one of the registered owners of the property in question was PERSON ( the applicant ’s aunt ) , that PERSON ( the applicant ’s mother ) was the owner of part of one of the plots of land , and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that she was the legal heir of the CARDINAL registered owners . He also considered that the applicant ’s compensation claim was excessive and unfounded .

A directions hearing before the ORG took place on DATE . The applicant ’s representative stated that they had received the Attorney General ’s opinion only on DATE of the hearing and thus asked for an adjournment in order to prepare their case . The Attorney General ’s representative did not object and the hearing was adjourned until DATE .

At a directions hearing on DATE the applicant ’s representative undertook to obtain a valuation report and a document showing that the plots of land had been transferred to the applicant by way of donation . The Attorney General ’s representative requested that documents showing that the applicant was the legal heir of ORG [ sic . ] should be provided , as well as proof of the amount of rent she was paying for the NORP house where she lived in the LOC , or alternatively the lease agreement by which the house had been allocated to her . The Attorney General ’s representative also undertook to submit a search document from the “ TRNC ” ORG and ORG , and indicated that he reserved his right to submit and request further documents . The hearing was adjourned so that the parties could obtain the relevant documents .

On DATE the Attorney General submitted the search document of the “ NORP ” ORG and ORG relating to the plots included in the applicant ’s claim .

On DATE , through her representative , the applicant asked permission to amend her initial claim . She submitted that she had in the meantime become the sole owner of the plot of which she had previously owned a CARDINAL share and that in DATE she had obtained a valuation report indicating that the value of her properties was ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At a preliminary hearing on DATE , after the Attorney General ’s representative stated that he had no objections with regard to the amendment of the applicant ’s claim ; the President of the ORG accepted the amendment and instructed the applicant to submit her amended claim and the Attorney ORG to submit an opinion in that regard .

On DATE the applicant complied with the order and amended her claim , seeking compensation in accordance with the new findings and developments concerning her property title .

On DATE the applicant submitted the documents requested by the Attorney General ’s representative on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In particular , the applicant submitted certificates issued by the head of the local community ( mukhtar ) explaining that there were inconsistencies in the spelling of the applicant ’s aunt ’s name in different documents . The mukhtar explained that the latter had held NORP identity document no . DATE and had been variously known as : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , but these were one and the same person . The mukhtar further certified that she had never married and that before her death she had gifted her immovable property to her sister ’s daughter , the applicant ( PERSON , holder of a NORP identity card ) . In support of the mukhtar ’s certificates , the applicant submitted her aunt ’s identity documents ( including a NORP identity document ) . The applicant also submitted documents showing the transfer of title from her aunt to her in respect of the plots of land in question . She also submitted documents showing that she had been allocated a NORP house in the LOC and had paid ORG CARDINAL by way of rent for DATE and ORG CARDINAL for the period DATE to DATE .

A preliminary hearing before the ORG scheduled for DATE was adjourned due to the absence of the Attorney General ’s representative , who could not attend the hearing for family reasons .

At a preliminary hearing on DATE the “ NORP ” authorities were represented by the Attorney General ’s representative and the undersecretary of ORG . They asked the applicant to submit the birth certificates of her aunt and her mother and a title deed for the property which she now owned in its entirety . The hearing was adjourned to enable the applicant to obtain the documents in question .

On DATE the applicant submitted the requested documents , which also included documents confirming that her aunt had never been married .

At a preliminary hearing on DATE the “ NORP ” representatives asked the applicant to submit certificates from the mukhtar showing that the names PERSON , PERSON and GPE PERSON all referred to the applicant , and further certificates showing that her aunt had been variously known as PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( FAC ) , PERSON and PERSON ( PERSON ) , and that her mother had been variously known as PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and that their antecedent PERSON ( PERSON ) , had also been known as PERSON and PERSON . The hearing was adjourned to permit the applicant to obtain the requested documents .

On DATE the applicant submitted certificates from the mukhtar showing that the aforementioned different names referred to the same individuals , namely the applicant , her mother , her aunt and their antecedent , respectively . The mukhtar ’s certificates also identified these individuals on the basis of their identity card numbers . A certificate dated CARDINAL DATE indicated that the applicant ’s mother was variously known as PERSON ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ) PERSON and her aunt as PERSON .

At a preliminary hearing on DATE , at which the applicant was also present , the “ NORP ” representatives argued that the mukhtar ’s certificates were incomplete and that the names PERSON ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ) PERSON , for the applicant ’s mother , and PERSON , for the applicant ’s aunt , should be added . The representative further argued that an official document should be submitted showing that the applicant ’s aunt had not married and did not have any other heirs . He also requested a document showing that there were no liabilities attaching to the property in question . Upon production of these documents , the Attorney General ’s representative would be prepared to settle the case by paying GBP CARDINAL to the applicant .

In reply , the applicant ’s representative stated that they would obtain the requested documents . However , he pointed out that they had already produced documents showing that the applicant ’s aunt had never married and this was anyway apparent from the fact that she had never changed her last name . The applicant ’s representative also pointed out that the applicant ’s aunt had transferred the property in question to the applicant while she was still alive . He asked for an adjournment in order to consider the Attorney General ’s settlement offer .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative asked that a hearing be held before the ORG .

A further examination of the case before the ORG took place on DATE . The President and members of the ORG questioned the applicant ’s representative with regard to the instructions he had received from the applicant concerning the case . As the applicant was not present and could not be reached at that time to give clear instructions concerning the case , the hearing was adjourned .

On DATE the applicant ’s NORP representatives informed her representative in GPE that the fact that an application had been lodged with the ORG had caused them upset . They also stated that they would not represent the applicant in further proceedings .

A hearing before the ORG was held on DATE . The applicant ’s NORP representative explained that she had informed the applicant of her wish to withdraw from the case . However , she was unable to provide an official document to that effect and the hearing was therefore adjourned in order for the representative to complete the formalities for withdrawal .

On DATE the applicant took over the files from her NORP representatives .

At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the ORG accepted the applicant ’s NORP representatives’ withdrawal from the case and decided that the applicant should be contacted directly during the future course of the proceedings . Another hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that she had not received the summons to the hearing of CARDINAL DATE until DATE .

A further meeting for the examination of the case , at which the applicant was personally present , was held on DATE . The “ GPE ” representatives argued that the applicant should provide further documents showing the exact dates of birth of her mother and her aunt as well as the respective death certificates . Furthermore , they argued that the applicant could not be considered to be a legal heir of her aunt for the purpose of PERSON no . MONEY as she had obtained the property at issue from her aunt while the latter was still alive . The applicant contended that these arguments were being raised for the first time now and she therefore asked for a formal hearing to be openedThe proceedings before the ORG are still pending .


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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Síofra O’Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant , born in DATE , is the mother of CARDINAL children , who are CARDINAL - brothers . Her older son , born in DATE , was taken into permanent public care by the authorities in DATE and placed with the applicant ’s mother and stepfather . Her younger son , X , was born in DATE . The applicant has been diagnosed as having a hyperkinetic disorder and has had a history with psychiatric treatment .

On DATE , after receiving notifications from the authorities and a private individual regarding the applicant ’s inability to take care of X , the municipal child welfare authorities decided to place him in emergency foster care . On DATE , that decision was upheld by ORG ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) .

The emergency placement was followed up by the child welfare authorities with a petition of DATE to ORG for a public care order . The authorities requested that X be placed in a foster home and that the applicant be granted supervised access rights . Concerning the question of where he should be placed , the authorities essentially stated that the applicant ’s mother and stepfather had previously been approved as foster parents for the applicant ’s older son ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the ability to cooperate was necessary for those wanting to be foster parents and there had been some conflict between the applicant ’s mother and the authorities . Moreover , the applicant ’s mother and stepfather were considered to be relatively old ( having been born in DATE and DATE , respectively ) to serve as foster parents to a small child , and the applicant ’s mother had recently been ill . Furthermore , the applicant ’s mother had not made visiting the applicant ’s younger son her priority . In these circumstances , it would not be in GPE ’s best interest to be placed with his maternal grandmother and her husband DATE the applicant ’s mother and stepfather .

The applicant objected to the request for an order of public care in respect of her younger son PERSON and maintained that , if such an order be granted , he should be placed with her mother and stepfather . In her view , the child welfare authorities had not properly evaluated that possibility . Her mother ’s alleged inability to cooperate had in fact merely been a question of disagreement . The applicant ’s mother and stepfather had been aware of the applicant ’s difficulties and had helped her . They had also been approved as foster parents to the older son , who had developed well and had positive references from his kindergarten . Their age was not in itself of importance , given that other circumstances were in favour of their acting as his foster parents . To place GPE with them would be more stable and less stigmatising than an external placement .

On DATE , after hearing the parties and CARDINAL witnesses , ORG granted the request for an order of public care . It decided that X should remain in the home in which he had already been placed as an emergency measure .

In its reasoning regarding the issue of the choice of foster home , ORG firstly noted that it was accepted that the applicant ’s mother and stepfather had been generally approved as foster parents in connection with the care order in respect of the older son in DATE , but that this issue had to be assessed in view of the current situation , taking into account the best interest of the younger son X. On the specific question as to whether it would be in his best interest to be placed with them , ORG stated the following :

“ ORG sees that there are many positive sides to a placement within the family network , which justifies that such a placement be considered . ORG considers that the grandmother and her husband in many respects are well suited as foster parents for [ X ] . [ According to ] the grandmother , they have been asked whether they [ are willing to ] adopt [ the older son ] . Placing [ X ] with his maternal grandmother and her husband would mean that [ the CARDINAL sons ] would grow up together .

As ORG has previously mentioned , [ X ] may be inherently vulnerable . This is reinforced by the fact that the ORG finds that it can not be ruled out that the boy may have attention - related difficulties . Reference is made to the emergency foster mother ’s description of the boy ’s restlessness . In addition to the mother ’s diagnosis and her considerable difficulties , it has emerged that her brother has also been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ORG ) and has considerable difficulties . This means that there is a risk of the boy having the same type of difficulties .

ORG has referred to problems concerning cooperation between the maternal grandmother and agencies such as ORG and health workers . ORG in [ the municipality ] has also reported difficulties regarding cooperation . On the basis of the statements of ORG and the [ younger son ’s ] health visitor , the ORG finds that there have been challenges as regards their cooperation with the grandmother . However , the ORG finds no grounds for concluding that these problems have been as serious as they might have initially seemed , and the grandmother ’s explanations are to a certain extent plausible . ORG nonetheless finds reason to conclude that there have been some difficulties regarding cooperation .

The grandmother has seen that [ the applicant ] has not been capable of caring for [ the older son ] , and she has also been concerned about [ the applicant ] ’s ability to look after [ X ] . In her statement to ORG , she still seemed to be uncertain about [ the applicant ] ’s ability to care for the boy . She nevertheless largely left [ the applicant ] and the child to themselves shortly after the birth while they were staying with her . ORG further remarks that the grandmother had not arranged with ORG in [ the municipality ] that [ the applicant ] and [ X ] were to move in with her and [ the applicant ’s older son ] . [ The applicant ] moved out of her mother ’s house , together with [ X ] after a short period , even though the grandmother realises that [ the applicant ] faces challenges as regards running a home . ORG has noted that the grandmother has not attended the contact sessions and thus not seen [ X ] since he was placed in care .

The grandmother and her husband are relatively old to be foster parents to such young children . [ The applicant ] ’s mother was born in DATE and her husband in DATE . ORG considers it likely that [ X ] ’s placement in care will be long - term . Although age alone is not decisive in relation to the choice of foster home , it is a factor in the assessment . The maternal grandmother and her husband already have a foster child who is DATE , and it will require a lot of energy on their part to have another foster child ... who is also younger than the one they [ already ] have . Taking care of [ X ] could also affect the situation of [ the older son ] , who they already have care of and must look after .

ORG has found that its doubts about placing [ X ] with his grandmother and her husband are so serious that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages . The reason is the uncertainty relating to the boy ’s vulnerability and the strain that another foster child would entail , regardless of whether or not this child has special needs , the grandmother ’s and her husband ’s age and certain difficulties regarding cooperation . ”

On the basis of the above , the ORG arrived at the conclusion that X should not be placed with his grandmother and her husband . On DATE X was transferred from the emergency home to a foster home .

NORP The applicant appealed to the local ORG ( tingrett ) , which held an oral hearing from CARDINAL until DATE . In accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court ’s bench comprised CARDINAL professional judge , CARDINAL psychologist and CARDINAL lay person . It heard CARDINAL witnesses in addition to the parties . The applicant was present , was represented by counsel , and gave testimony .

In its judgment of DATE , ORG upheld ORG decision in full .

With respect to the applicant ’s caring skills and PERSON ’s care needs , ORG reiterated the findings of ORG and the court - appointed expert . It concluded that there were beyond doubt serious deficiencies in the applicant ’s DATE care of and personal contact with X , and that it was necessary to place him in public care .

Turning next to the question of whether he could be placed with the applicant ’s mother and stepfather , ORG observed that they had been approved as foster parents when the applicant ’s older son had been placed with them in DATE . It further noted that there were advantages to a child moving to a foster home comprising family members . X would in that case be placed within the family network . It had moreover been documented that the applicant ’s mother and stepfather might well be suitable foster parents for him . Furthermore , it would be an advantage that the CARDINAL sons would be allowed to grow up together .

ORG nonetheless found that , in this case , there were no grounds for deciding that the applicant ’s younger son should be placed in foster care with his maternal grandmother and her husband . In addition to referring to the ORG ’s assessment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court quoted excerpts from the court - appointed expert , PERSON , a specialist in psychology .

The expert did not recommend the placement of X with the applicant ’s mother and stepfather . In the report she stated , inter alia :

“ Several factors have emerged that may have a bearing on the assessment of whether [ X ] ’s grandparents can be his foster parents :

Firstly , the grandparents’ age has been taken into account in the assessment . The undersigned does not see this as a decisive factor .

Furthermore , it has been emphasised that [ X ] ’s step - grandfather has himself mentioned that he is getting older , and that this may be perceived as an expression of doubt on his part . This has not had a decisive bearing on the undersigned ’s assessment , either . The child ’s step - grandfather comes across as an honest , responsible and reflective man who would be an excellent foster father for [ X ] , even though he expresses some doubts himself .

In addition , it has also been suggested that ORG has had difficulties in cooperating with the foster mother in respect of [ the applicant ’s older son ] . To the undersigned , these so - called ‘ cooperation difficulties’ seem to be nothing more than disagreements / challenges that the parties are capable of handling and working out . That is how the challenges are described by both the representative of ORG in [ the municipality ] and the grandmother herself . It must also be added that [ the applicant ] ’s mother and stepfather cooperated with the undersigned in an impeccable manner during the investigation . They have had many difficult challenges over DATE , and it would almost be strange if there had been no ‘ friction’ during all this time . This has therefore not had any bearing on the undersigned ’s assessment of the question of [ X ] ’s foster home placement .

What has been important to the undersigned ’s assessment of this question , however , is , first of all , that [ the applicant ] has very different emotional ties to her CARDINAL sons ... , in the sense that she seems to have renounced her role as mother of the [ older son ] , while she must still be expected to make an effort to have as much contact as possible with [ X ] . This will necessarily be a problem for both boys if they are to live in the same foster home .

Furthermore , there is good reason to believe that , if [ X ] is placed in foster care with [ the applicant ] ’s parents , this situation will ... represent an opportunity for the contact between mother and child to constantly increase in scope , and thus be a hindrance to [ X ] in his development of a good attachment to his foster home . For the undersigned , this concern is based , not least , on the fact that [ X ] ’s grandmother has clearly expressed to the undersigned that she primarily wants to be a mother to [ the applicant ] .

However , the argument in favour of letting [ X ] ’s grandmother and step - grandfather be his foster parents is of course the fact that [ he ] will then get to grow up together with his ( CARDINAL ) brother . The undersigned is nonetheless of the view that this can not carry more weight than the concerns mentioned above .

This means that placing [ X ] in foster care with his grandparents is not recommended . ”

Expert PERSON had upheld these assessments in her report during the main hearing , but also stated that there were “ dilemmas ” if the applicant ’s mother and stepfather were to be chosen as foster parents . ORG shared the expert ’s concerns . Moreover , it pointed out that the CARDINAL children had different needs and challenges . Although the older brother , according to the information received , was happy in his foster home with the applicant ’s mother and stepfather , PERSON , despite his young age , had experienced QUANTITY broken relationships – firstly with his biological mother and then with his emergency foster mother . He had now formed an attachment with his new foster mother after he had moved into his latest foster home in DATE . There would be a risk of “ contact injury ” ( kontaktskade ) – that is to say a serious impairment to his ability to form attachments – if he were to experience another broken relationship . From the foster mother ’s testimony it was clear that he was developing well in the foster home and that he was happy and thriving . ORG moreover emphasised the challenges associated with having CARDINAL small boys of pre - school age living with people of the age of the applicant ’s mother and stepfather . In addition , there was the issue of the applicant ’s very different respective emotional relationships with the QUANTITY boys , which also entailed special challenges , particularly if X were to be placed in foster care in the same home as that of his older brother . Overall , ORG agreed with ORG and the court - appointed expert that the applicant ’s mother and stepfather should not be the foster parents of the applicant ’s younger son .

The applicant lodged an appeal against ORG judgment in so far as it concerned the choice of foster home . ORG ( lagmannsrett ) refused leave to appeal on DATE , and on DATE ORG ( Høyesteretts ankeutvalg ) rejected the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision .