Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant bought an apartment in LOC . In DATE he lost his regular job and was no longer able to pay for utilities .

In DATE the utility provider instituted civil proceedings against the applicant concerning his debt of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The domestic courts allowed the claim . In DATE the judgment was transferred to a bailiff for enforcement . The bailiff decided to direct enforcement against the applicant ’s apartment . On DATE he organised a public auction at which the apartment was sold to a third party for LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . On DATE a district court confirmed the transfer of the apartment to the third party .

NORP Since that date , the applicant has not had a permanent home . He submitted that he had been living in temporary accommodation , at times in unsuitable conditions , and often in exchange for manual work .

DATE the apartment was resold and gifted to different individuals on several occasions .

In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings before ORG , arguing that the sale of his apartment at the public auction had been unlawful . The applicant submitted that , in accordance with the domestic law , taking a person ’s home in order to enforce a court judgment was only permitted when the debt in question was larger than LTL CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which had not been the case here ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant also submitted that he had owned CARDINAL hectares of land near GPE , so the enforcement should have begun in respect of that property and not his only home ( vienintelė gyvenamoji vieta ) . In view of the alleged unlawfulness of the sale , the applicant claimed damages jointly from the bailiff and the bailiff ’s professional liability insurer . According to the applicant , restitution in integrum was not possible because there was no indication that the third party who had bought the apartment at the public auction had acted in bad faith . Therefore , he claimed LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in damages , an amount corresponding to the market price of the apartment at the time of the submission of the claim .

The defendants ( the bailiff and his professional liability insurer ) contested the applicant ’s claim . They submitted that the value of the applicant ’s land had been insufficient to cover his debt , so the enforcement had had to be directed against the apartment . They also argued that the applicant ’s debt ( LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and the enforcement expenses ( LTL CARDINAL ) , taken together , had exceeded LTL CARDINAL , and thus the sale of his apartment had been in accordance with the domestic law . The defendants further argued that the applicant had acted in bad faith – he had not appealed against the execution writ or the results of the public auction , and he had submitted his claim at DATE because he had been waiting for the market price of the apartment to increase . Therefore , they argued that the applicant could not claim damages corresponding to the market price of the apartment at the time of the submission of the claim , but only the price for which the apartment had been sold at the public auction – LTL CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It acknowledged that his debt had been below the required threshold of LTL CARDINAL and that the bailiff had erred by calculating the debt together with the enforcement expenses . However , the court considered that this breach had not been such as to warrant the annulment of the sale . Accordingly , it dismissed the applicant ’s claim for damages . The court also noted that the applicant had submitted his claim DATE after the sale and on DATE permitted by the time - limit , when the market price of housing was several times higher than in DATE . Therefore , his claim for damages corresponding to the market price of the apartment at the time of the submission of the claim could be regarded as an attempt at unjust enrichment ( vertintinas kaip siekimas nepagrįstai praturtėti ) .

The applicant appealed against ORG judgment . He and the defendants presented essentially the same arguments as in their pleadings before the first - instance court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG quashed the firstinstance judgment and allowed the applicant ’s claim in its entirety . The court held that the bailiff had acted in violation of domestic law , firstly by failing to direct the enforcement against the applicant ’s land , but also by selling his apartment at a public auction even though his debt had been less than LTL CARDINAL . The court considered that the bailiff had failed to respect the balance between the interests of the debtor ( the applicant ) and the creditor . It held that , because of the material breaches of the relevant law , the sale of the applicant ’s apartment had to be declared unlawful .

Accordingly , ORG decided to award the applicant damages from the bailiff ’s professional liability insurer . It stated that it “ essentially agreed with the amount claimed by the applicant ” ( iš esmės sutinka su ieškovo nurodyta suma ) and awarded him LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , after subtracting the amount of his debt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The bailiff ’s professional liability insurer appealed against ORG judgment . It submitted , inter alia , that the amount of damages awarded to the applicant had no basis , and the court should have either ordered restitution in integrum or awarded the applicant the amount for which his apartment had been sold at the auction ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but not its market price in DATE , which had increased significantly since DATE .

The applicant contested the appeal , arguing that there was no legal obligation for him to ask for restitution rather than for damages , and that the amount of damages was a question of fact which ORG could not examine .

On DATE ORG amended the judgment of ORG in part . It upheld the conclusion that the sale of the applicant ’s apartment had been unlawful for the reasons established by the lower court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG then reiterated its own case - law that , where the sale of property at a public auction is unlawful because of a bailiff ’s actions , restitution in integrum should not be applied ; accordingly , it considered that the most appropriate way of protecting the applicant ’s rights was by awarding him damages . However , the court considered that , in line with “ the nature of the obligation and the principles of equity , reasonableness and good faith ” ( pagal prievolės esmę , atsižvelgiant į teisingumo , protingumo ir sąžiningumo kriterijus ) , the amount of damages in the applicant ’s case had to be assessed at the moment of the unlawful act , that is , the sale of the apartment . According to ORG , the market price of the applicant ’s apartment at the time of its sale had been LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Therefore , ORG awarded the applicant that amount , after subtracting his debt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the bailiff ’s enforcement expenses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

In DATE the applicant obtained a loan of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) from the ORG . The purpose of the loan was to build or buy an apartment . In DATE the applicant became the owner of an apartment built by a public association , and in exchange she took over the association ’s loan of LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) from the ORG . The apartment was pledged to the bank as collateral . Both loans were given under preferential conditions DATE the DATE interest rate was lower than the average DATE interest rate for loans given by private banks at that time . Both loans were administered by a ORG bank , ORG ( hereinafter “ the bank ” ) . In DATE that bank transferred the claims to some of its loans , including both of the applicant ’s loans , to another ORG bank , ORG . In DATE the latter bank was privatised and became the private bank ORG .

On DATE the applicant concluded an agreement with a third party , ORG , under which the applicant paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG ) and bought from ORG the right to restoration of title in respect of CARDINAL hectares of land in GPE . That land had belonged to ORG ’s grandfather , PERSON , who had died in DATE . It had been determined by a ruling of ORG of DATE that ORG had owned a total of CARDINAL hectares of land in GPE . Following that ruling , ORG sold the right to restoration of title in respect of different parts of that land to CARDINAL individuals , including the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the FAC ” ) restored the applicant ’s title in respect of QUANTITY of land . At the applicant ’s request , her property rights were restored by cancelling her outstanding debt to the State ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The ORG estimated that the value of that plot of land was LTL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) , and its indexed value was ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) , an amount equal to the applicant ’s outstanding debt under the CARDINAL loan agreements of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG forwarded to ORG a list of individuals , including the applicant , whose property rights it had decided to restore by cancelling their debts to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG ordered an internal audit into the restoration of property rights in respect of the land which had belonged to MONEY ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The audit report , delivered on DATE , found that the documents in the possession of the ORG showed that DATE GPE had sold parts of his land to numerous individuals , and that , as a result , at the time of his death he had owned CARDINAL hectares . Accordingly , the audit report considered that the size of GPE ’s land , as established by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had been incorrect , and recommended that the ORG suspend the restoration of property rights in respect of any land which had previously been considered as belonging to GPE

Following the internal audit , on DATE the ORG suspended the restoration of property rights in respect of GPE ’s land . It informed ORG about the suspension , and asked it to suspend the cancellation of debt for all the individuals on the previously submitted list , including the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Subsequently the Kaunas Regional Prosecutor ( hereinafter “ the prosecutor ” ) , at the request of the ORG and relying on the findings of the audit report , asked the domestic courts to reopen the civil proceedings concerning the size of GPE ’s land , and to suspend the enforcement of all the ORG ’s decisions concerning the restoration of property rights in respect of that land . On DATE ORG suspended the enforcement of the ORG ’s decisions . The applicant participated in the court proceedings as a third party and appealed against the suspension , but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal . On DATE ORG reopened the civil proceedings concerning the size of GPE ’s land , on the grounds that the audit report had revealed relevant information which had not been known at the time of the adoption of ORG ruling of DATE .

In the reopened proceedings , on DATE ORG determined that FAC had owned QUANTITY of land . On DATE the ORG partly amended that judgment and determined that FAC had owned QUANTITY of land . The latter judgment became final . The ORG and the applicant participated in the reopened proceedings as third parties .

On DATE the prosecutor asked ORG to revoke the order suspending the enforcement of the ORG ’s decisions concerning the restoration of property rights in respect of GPE ’s land . The prosecutor submitted that the total amount of land affected by those decisions was QUANTITY , so there was no risk of restoring property rights in respect of land which had not belonged to GPE On DATE ORG granted the prosecutor ’s application .

On DATE the ORG asked ORG to resume the cancellation of debt with regard to the applicant and other individuals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG issued a certificate confirming the cancellation of the applicant ’s outstanding debt to the ORG , amounting to ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) . On that same day the bank received the certificate from ORG and cancelled the applicant ’s debt .

It appears that from DATE to DATE the applicant did not make any loan repayments to the bank and the bank did not request any such payments . However , until DATE she was paying interest and late payment fines under the CARDINAL loan agreements , and paid a total of ORG EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the bank informed the applicant that she owed it LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in interest and late payment fines under the CARDINAL loan agreements .

On DATE the bank lodged a civil claim against the applicant concerning the unpaid interest and late payment fines under the loan agreement of DATE , amounting to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) . It asked ORG to order interim measures – seizing the applicant ’s apartment . On DATE the bank unilaterally terminated the loan agreement of DATE and asked the court to begin the forced recovery of the debt under that agreement , amounting to ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) , by seizing the applicant ’s apartment , which had been pledged to the bank as collateral .

On DATE the ORG seized the applicant ’s apartment and informed her that , following her failure to repay the debt under the loan agreement of DATE within DATE , the apartment would be sold at auction . The following day the court also granted the bank ’s application for interim measures concerning the loan agreement of DATE , but having found that the applicant ’s apartment had already been seized , the court ordered the seizure of the applicant ’s movable property , financial assets and property rights , amounting to the sum of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant submitted a counterclaim against the bank . She stated that on DATE the ORG had restored her property rights by cancelling her debt to the ORG , but due to circumstances beyond the applicant ’s control ORG had only informed the bank about the cancellation on DATE . The applicant submitted that from DATE until DATE she had repeatedly contacted the bank and asked it to not count the interest and late payment fines . Thus , she considered that the bank had known about the cancellation of her debt , and it was therefore unjust and unfair for it to ask her for any payments for that period , or to unilaterally terminate the loan agreement of DATE . The applicant further asserted that in the period of CARDINAL she had paid the bank a total of ORG EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in interest and late payment fines under the CARDINAL loan agreements ; she claimed that there had been no grounds for the bank to accept those payments , and asked the court to order the bank to return them to her .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , ORG suspended the forced recovery of the debt by means of seizing the applicant ’s apartment , pending the examination of the claim and counterclaim in the civil case . On DATE the court lifted the order for seizure of the applicant ’s apartment because the bank had not requested its sale at auction within the time - limit prescribed by law .

On DATE the ORG granted the bank ’s civil claim in part . The court found that the applicant ’s debt had only been cancelled on DATE , so there were no grounds to find that her obligation to honour the loan agreement with the bank had ended before that date . The court held that the applicant had been using the loan during DATE , and thus she was obliged to pay interest to the bank . Accordingly , it ordered the applicant to pay the bank LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .

However , ORG also noted that the loan had been given to the applicant by the ORG and not by the bank , so the latter could not claim to have suffered any losses due to late payments . The court found no bad faith on the part of the applicant – it considered that she had had legitimate grounds to expect that the cancellation of her debt , ordered on DATE , would be implemented promptly . Accordingly , the court decided that the bank had no grounds to claim late payment fines , and ordered it to return to the applicant LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) which she had already paid .

The applicant ’s counterclaim was dismissed .

NORP The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment in its entirety . The court considered that the applicant had to assume the risks resulting from her agreement with ORG , which had enabled her to seek the cancellation of her outstanding debt after paying a sum that was several times lower than that debt ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , especially as the bank had not been a party to that agreement . The court also noted that the delay in the cancellation of the applicant ’s debt had been caused not by the actions of the bank but by those of the ORG and the prosecutor , so the bank had had the right to receive interest payments during the period in question .

In those proceedings , the courts did not examine whether the applicant had been under an obligation to pay interest and late payment fines under the loan agreement of DATE , because she had not made such a claim . As submitted by the applicant and not disputed by the ORG , on an unspecified date in DATE the applicant paid LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in interest and late payment fines requested by the bank under that agreement .

On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a civil claim for damages against the ORG , ORG and ORG . She claimed that because of the unnecessary and unjustified delay in the cancellation of her debt from DATE until DATE , caused jointly by those CARDINAL institutions , she had suffered financial losses of ORG MONEY ) , consisting of interest and late payment fines paid under the CARDINAL loan agreements , as well as legal expenses incurred in the civil proceedings instituted by the bank . She also claimed non - pecuniary damages of LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) for the stress and frustration caused during that delay .

On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant ’s claim , on the grounds that complaints against ORG and ORG – and , as a result , the entire claim – had to be examined by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a civil claim for damages against the ORG only . She again claimed pecuniary damages of ORG and non - pecuniary damages of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of damage allegedly caused by the unjustified delay in the cancellation of her debt . The applicant argued that the ORG had acted unlawfully by suspending the restoration of her property rights and asking the prosecutor to apply for the reopening of the civil proceedings concerning the size of GPE ’s land . ORG and ORG participated in the proceedings as third parties .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It held that the principle of the rule of law obliged the LAW to ensure that the restoration of property rights was conducted in accordance with the applicable laws . The court considered that , in the presence of well - founded doubts about the actual size of the land owned by MONEY , the ORG had acted lawfully and diligently by suspending the restoration of the property rights and initiating the reopening of the proceedings . The fact that the courts dealing with the reopened proceedings had found that FAC had owned less land than initially determined ( CARDINAL hectares and QUANTITY , as opposed to the initial estimate of QUANTITY ) showed that the suspension had had a proper basis . Accordingly , the court concluded that the ORG had acted lawfully and there were no grounds to award damages to the applicant .

The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal and concluded that the ORG ’s actions in initiating the suspension of its decisions concerning the restoration of property rights had been in accordance with domestic law . In addition , ORG distinguished between the ORG ’s competence and that of ORG : while the ORG was responsible for the restoration of property rights , it was ORG which had the authority to cancel the applicant ’s debt and issue the bank with a certificate confirming such cancellation . The ORG ’s request of ORG to suspend the cancellation of the applicant ’s debt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not been legally binding on the Ministry , and had had no legal effect on the cancellation of the debt . The court further held that the suspension of restoration of the applicant ’s property rights had been ordered not by the ORG but by the ruling of ORG of DATE , and the ruling had been revoked by that same court only on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , ORG concluded that the ORG could not be held responsible for the suspension of the restoration of the applicant ’s property rights and the cancellation of her debt , and thus there were no grounds to award her damages .


HÁLÓZATI GYÓGYSZERTÁRAK SZÖVETSÉGE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

The first applicant , ORG Szövetsége ( “ HGYSZ ” ) ( “ ORG ” ) , is an association registered under NORP law , with its seat in GPE . The other applicants ( listed in the Annex ) are members of the first applicant . They are companies registered under NORP law . The applicants were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

s , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants listed in the ORG are companies which operate pharmacy networks in GPE and are as such members of the first applicant , HGYSZ . Each member of ORG holds shares ( usually majority shares ) in a number of different pharmacies or directly operates ( usually CARDINAL ) pharmacies . As a result of their respective shareholdings , ORG members own part of the equity , take part in the management and share the profits of a number of pharmacies in GPE .

DATE , the operation of pharmacies in GPE was governed by LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ( GPE . ) ORG , under which the opening of new pharmacies was allowed without any geographic or demographic limitation . During this period , the number of pharmacies in GPE increased by PERCENT to CARDINAL pharmacies .

From the adoption of Act no . ORG of DATE onwards , and until DATE , the operation of pharmacies was governed by different rules , according to which the opening of new pharmacies was still without obstacles and the takeover / operation of existing pharmacies by companies was possible . However , geographic and demographic barriers to the opening of new pharmacies were introduced , requirements concerning inter alia the qualification of pharmacists and their influence on the management of the pharmacies were applied , and the legal form of companies that may operate pharmacies was prescribed . At the same time , there was no limitation on the number of pharmacies that could be operated by one entity , provided the relevant sector - specific conditions were met .

In DATE , new rules contained in Act no . XCVIII of DATE ( “ the PERSON . ” ) abolished most limitations on the establishment of pharmacies and the legal form of companies that could operate pharmacies .

DATE , a number of foreign investors entered the NORP pharmaceutical retail market by acquiring shares in pharmacies . The majority of HGYSZ PERSON shareholdings date back to the period DATE . Despite the limitations in place DATE , there was no indication that shareholdings in pharmacies would be limited or that any future limitation on shareholdings would affect already existing shareholdings in pharmacies .

At DATE , NORP legislation introduced limitations on the shareholdings in pharmacies . These limitations , which Act no . CLXXIII of DATE ( “ the LAW ” ) incorporated into the PERSON . – as of DATE require that the shareholdings of pharmacists in the pharmacies where they work must exceed PERCENT by DATE and PERCENT by DATE and moreover that no one may have shares in CARDINAL pharmacies . The restrictions do not only apply to pharmacies which are established after the amendments entered into force , but ownership in already existing pharmacies must also be brought into line with the limitations by the respective deadlines of DATE and DATE . Moreover , any change in the ownership of the non - pharmacist shareholders entails an immediate obligation to meet the above thresholds , even before the deadlines of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The amendments do not contain any guarantee for an appropriate compensation for those shareholders who are obliged to give up part of their shareholdings .

The DATE amendments introduced by the LAW entail in particular the limitations outlined below .

Previously , in cases where pharmacies were operated by enterprises , it was sufficient for the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy concerned to have a PERCENT share in the enterprise operating that pharmacy . Pursuant to the amendment to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , introduced by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , enterprises are now only allowed to operate pharmacies if the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy concerned and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy exceed PERCENT .

According to section CARDINAL/A ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , introduced by LAW , these ownership rules enter into force DATE and DATE according to the following schedule .

DATE and DATE , with some exceptions ( such as the death of the pharmacist ) , changes in the ownership structure of the enterprise operating a pharmacy entail an immediate obligation under which the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy must exceed PERCENT .

DATE and DATE , the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy must exceed PERCENT and , again with some exceptions , changes in the ownership structure of the enterprise operating a pharmacy entail an immediate obligation under which the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy must exceed PERCENT .

As of DATE , the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy must exceed PERCENT .

According to section CARDINAL/A ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , introduced by LAW , once the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy have exceeded PERCENT , it is prohibited , even before the time - limit of DATE , to reduce those combined shares to PERCENT or below .

The applicants submitted that it was difficult to estimate the exact value that they would obtain in exchange for the shares they were required to transfer to pharmacists by DATE . However , they argued that , in the absence of any provision concerning compensation for the required transfer of shares and in light of the limited financial means of pharmacists in GPE , the price offered for the shareholdings in question would inevitably be substantially below pharmacies’ normal market value . Indeed , the limited number of cases where ORG members had sold shares since DATE showed that , subsequent to the amendments made to the PERSON . in DATE , purchase prices were far below the market value .

NORP Moreover , before the amendments introduced by the LAW , there was no restriction on how many pharmacies a single shareholder could have shares in . Pursuant to the amendment to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , introduced by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , companies that have shares in enterprises operating CARDINAL or more pharmacies can not acquire or hold shares in GPE ) enterprise operating pharmacies .

Furthermore , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , as amended by section CARDINAL of the LAW , as well as section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , as amended by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , give pharmacists increased powers in the decision - making of the enterprise that operates the pharmacy , regardless of their shareholding and their position in the enterprise , in derogation from NORP company law .

Given the shareholdings of ORG members , the applicants would need to give up substantial shareholdings in order to bring their shares below the PERCENT threshold by DATE and below the PERCENT threshold by DATE . Additionally , with the exception of CARDINAL applicant that holds shares in CARDINAL pharmacies , all others would need to give up completely their shareholdings in a number of pharmacies in order to reduce the number of pharmacies in their respective networks to CARDINAL . For instance , PERSON . , the largest member of ORG , which holds shares in CARDINAL pharmacies , would need to surrender its shares in CARDINAL pharmacies and reduce its shares in the remaining CARDINAL pharmacies PERCENT by DATE and PERCENT by DATE .

The value of the shareholdings that the applicants would need to give away DATE because of the restriction on the size of shareholdings – by DATE is estimated at MONEY ( ORG ) , and the value of the shareholdings that they would need to surrender by DATE is estimated at an additional ORG CARDINAL . These figures exclude the further shareholdings to be alienated on account of the restriction on the number of pharmacies owned by CARDINAL shareholder , whose value will be dependent on the choice of pharmacies to be surrendered .

In the face of the forced sales of these shares representing a very substantial amount of money , the legislation does not guarantee any particular form of compensation .

On DATE ORG rejected , without an examination on the merits , ORG ’s complaint alleging that the amendments brought about by the LAW amounted to a breach of constitutional rights . According to the decision , the complaint was inadmissible , partly because PERSON was not directly affected by the impugned provisions in that it could not possibly sustain a direct violation of any constitutional right in this context , and partly because the subject matter of the complaint was essentially the same as that of cases previously adjudicated by ORG .

Subsequently , a number of new laws were enacted , which amended several health- and health - insurance - related Acts , amongst others , the PERSON . The latter was amended in particular as of DATE , DATE and DATE .

Due to these amendments , pharmacists were given privileged rights to purchase those pharmacy shares which the current legal person owners , such as the applicants , would have to sell .

From DATE on , the operation of a pharmacy by a company is only allowed if the pharmacist exercising the pharmaceutical management of the pharmacy concerned holds PERCENT of the business shares of the owner company , or if the combined volume of shares of the principal pharmacist and of the ones employed in the pharmacy exceed PERCENT of the shares . The shares and the combined shares can be taken into consideration in respect of a maximum of CARDINAL pharmacies .

The requirements for a pharmacist to be entitled to run a pharmacy are regulated by the PERSON . As of DATE , a new element was included in the LAW , namely that such principal pharmacists must figure in a dedicated register and that , once registered , he or she exercises his or her operational rights independently .

The latest amendment of the PERSON . which entered into force on DATE prohibits companies running pharmacies from instructing the principal pharmacist ( and other employed professionals ) on commercial - pharmaceutical practices . Moreover , in the management of companies running pharmacies , the exercise of pharmacists’ shareholder rights must be guaranteed in a manner which reflects the volume of their shares and which is outlined in the articles of associations . This is a strict rule , from which any departure is null and void .

As of DATE , Government Decree no . CARDINAL . ( VI.CARDINAL . ) on Facilitating the Increase of Pharmacists’ ORG stipulated the possibility of a preferential loan for those pharmacists who are intended to purchase shares in companies running pharmacies .


CASE OF BULGARU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in the Cricova prison .

At the time of the events , the applicant was serving a DATE sentence and was detained in the same detention facility . In DATE a murder was committed there and the applicant was one of the suspects . In DATE he was taken to the LOC police station for questioning . According to him , he was told to confess to the murder and was ill - treated after refusing to do so . On DATE the applicant was taken to the police station detention facility again . Since he refused to make a confession , he was subjected to such acts of violence as being struck and slapped all over , and was detained in a very cold cell . As a result , he attempted to commit suicide by cutting the veins in his wrist . On DATE he was taken to hospital for medical treatment where , according to the documents in the case file , he was seen by a doctor and given stitches and a bandage . After returning from hospital the ill - treatment continued and intensified . According to the applicant , his arms and feet were tied together behind his back and he was suspended on a metal bar placed on CARDINAL chairs . He was left in that position until he fainted . As a result , his right hand became numb and stopped functioning . He was also beaten on his lower back with a plastic bottle full of water . As a result , he suffered kidney pain and had blood in his urine . The Government disputed the applicant ’s allegations concerning ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant was seen by a medical assistant in the police station detention facility , who noted in his medical records that the applicant had complained of pain around his right bicep and that the tissue in that area was swollen . On DATE the same medical assistant noted that the applicant had complained of numbness and tingling in his right arm . On DATE the same medical assistant concluded that the applicant ’s problem was a result of the self - inflicted laceration to his ligament .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant ’s family learned of his situation and employed a lawyer . As a result of the lawyer ’s involvement , on DATE the applicant was transferred back to Cricova prison .

On DATE the applicant ’s state of health deteriorated and he was hospitalised in a prison hospital , where he was examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with severe radial neuropathy of the right arm ( damage to the radial nerve running down the length of the arm , which controls movement in the triceps and is responsible for extending the wrist and fingers ) . He was released from hospital on DATE , but returned later on several occasions .

In the meantime , the applicant ’s lawyer complained to the prosecutor ’s office that his client had been subjected to ill - treatment , but on DATE the complaint was dismissed as ill - founded . The investigating authorities found the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment to be ill - founded , in view of the absence of any physical evidence except for that resulting from his self - harm . In reaching this conclusion , the investigating authorities relied on the statements of the accused police officers , who denied ill - treating the applicant , and on the conclusion of the medical assistant from the police station detention facility ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The findings of the doctors from the prison hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were not considered .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the GPE - ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand on suspicion of drug dealing , as well as facilitating and benefiting from prostitution , committed in an organised criminal group . The domestic court relied on a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question , on the fact that he faced a severe penalty and that he was suspected of acting with accomplices . The likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question was established , in particular , on the basis of the testimony of a key prosecution witness ( the so - called “ crown witness ” ) .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against this decision . It stressed that the sole fact that the applicant faced a severe penalty and had been suspected of committing offences in an organised criminal group justified a suspicion that , if released , the applicant would try to obstruct the proceedings by influencing witnesses or his accomplices .

The applicant ’s detention on remand was extended by ORG on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In these decisions , the court repeated the reasons originally relied on . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG further noted that the case against the applicant was complex , and indicated a number of steps that still had to be taken in order to terminate the investigation . The court noted that not all of those steps required the applicant ’s detention and urged the prosecutor to accelerate the proceedings .

The applicant appealed against all these decisions , without success .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) ordered a further extension of the applicant ’s detention on remand . It relied on the same grounds as previously given for his detention . The applicant appealed . The decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .

The bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with ORG on DATE . The applicant was charged with CARDINAL offences committed in an organised criminal group and – in the case of some of the offences – as a re - offender . The charges included facilitating prostitution by renting an apartment to prostitutes and collecting money from them , and a number of counts of drug possession and distribution . The bill of indictment concerned altogether CARDINAL accused , charged with CARDINAL offences . Later , the number of accused in the proceedings dropped to CARDINAL . The prosecutor requested that the court hear over CARDINAL witnesses , including CARDINAL “ crown witnesses ” .

Subsequently , the applicant ’s detention pending trial was extended by ORG decisions of DATE and DATE and by ORG decisions of DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , and of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The domestic courts continued to rely on the same grounds for detention as in their previous decisions . They also stressed the complexity of the case and the links between the co - accused within an organised criminal group which , according to the domestic courts , justified a suspicion that , if released , they would attempt to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings .

The appeals by the applicant against decisions extending his detention and all his applications for release were unsuccessful .

On CARDINAL DATE the trial court ordered the applicant ’s release on bail for MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant appealed against this decision , contesting the amount of bail as excessive . On DATE ORG upheld the decision . It underlined that the amount of bail had to take into consideration not only the financial situation of the applicant , but also the gravity of the charges against him . The court also stated that it had taken into consideration the fact that the applicant had abused his procedural rights in order to obstruct and delay the proceedings . It indicated that the amount in question had to be such that the prospect of its loss would constitute a genuine deterrent against any illegal activities which , until TIME , had been prevented by the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE ORG again ordered the applicant ’s release on bail of PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It also imposed a prohibition on leaving the country . The applicant paid the security required by the court and was released on CARDINAL DATE .

The case against the applicant and his co - accused appears to be pending before ORG ( no . PERSON K CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The material includes CARDINAL volumes .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement 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 applicant is a former employee of ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) . By an order of the Head of ORG applicant was dismissed from his job .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against the ORG , requesting reinstatement in his job and payment for forced absence up to the day of his reinstatement .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE found in the applicant ’s favour . In particular , it decided to declare the order of CARDINAL DATE void . Moreover , it ordered the applicant ’s reinstatement in his previous position and awarded him compensation for lost earnings .

On DATE the ORG appealed against ORG judgment . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal and upheld ORG judgment .

On DATE the ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of DATE with ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to declare the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit , so the judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE issued a writ of execution in respect of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings . On the same date he decided to oblige the ORG to comply with the requirements of the writ within DATE .

By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the bailiff requested that the ORG comply with the requirements of the writ .

On DATE the bailiff received a response from the ORG , stating that it was impossible to reinstate the applicant in his job , since the structure of the ORG had been modified and the applicant ’s former position did not exist anymore .

On DATE the applicant was paid CARDINAL NORP drams ( ORG ) for his forced absence , calculated from DATE until DATE , the date on which the judgment in his favour became final .

The applicant sent several letters to ORG and to different officials , complaining that no measures had been taken to enforce the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE and requesting that the ORG be compelled to comply with that judgment .

On DATE the bailiff decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that it was impossible to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . In particular , the applicant could not be reinstated because his previous position was no longer vacant .

On DATE the applicant contested the bailiff ’s decision before ORG .

On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant and cancelled the bailiff ’s decision of DATE .

On DATE the supervising bailiff decided to set aside the bailiff ’s decision of DATE and reopen the enforcement proceedings .

By a letter dated DATE the bailiff again requested that the ORG reinstate the applicant in his previous position and award him compensation for lost earnings until the date of his reinstatement . The ORG replied that the applicant ’s former position had ceased to exist as a result of the NORP decree of DATE .

On DATE the bailiff again decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that it was impossible to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , since the structural unit of ORG where the applicant had been working had ceased to exist .

On DATE the applicant contested that decision before ORG . He alleged , in particular , that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had not been enforced : firstly , he had not been awarded the full sum for his forced absence , and secondly , he had not been reinstated in his previous position .

By a judgment of DATE ORG decided to grant the applicant ’s claim in respect of the payments for his forced absence , stating that the period should be calculated up to DATE , DATE on which that particular unit of ORG had ceased to exist . As to the applicant ’s second claim , ORG stated that the bailiff ’s decision in this respect was lawful , since the applicant ’s reinstatement had been impossible .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim and upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of CARDINAL DATE with ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to declare the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit .

On DATE the bailiff decided to reopen the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was invited to ORG made him a verbal offer of a similar position in another tax inspectorate unit , but this offer was later turned down by the applicant .

DATE , via telephone , the applicant was again invited to the ORG , but he failed to appear .

On DATE the Head of ORG of ORG sent a letter to the applicant , offering to reinstate him in a position similar to his previous one , that is , the position of a tax inspector in ORG no . CARDINAL of ORG . The letter also stated that the compensation for the applicant ’s forced absence up to that date amounted to ORG .

On DATE the applicant refused to accept the ORG ’s offer . He claimed that the compensation for his forced absence should amount to ORG . In response , the ORG informed the applicant that it would consider the above - mentioned sum if the applicant submitted substantiating calculations .

On DATE the amount of ORG was transferred by ORG to the bailiff ’s account . On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated by the bailiff as this amount had been further transferred to the applicant ’s bank account .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that the bailiff ’s decision be quashed .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal and quashed the bailiff ’s decision of DATE . That judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE .


Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Sergiy Goncharenko;Yonko Grozev

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

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

PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , was unable to sit in the case ( Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . Accordingly , the President of ORG decided to appoint PERSON to sit as an ad hoc judge ( LAW ) .

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

On DATE ORG found the applicant , a ORG bailiff at the material time , guilty of fraud in conjunction with abuse of position , as well acceptance of a bribe , also with abuse of position . It sentenced him to a CARDINAL - and - a - DATE prison term and decided on an injunction against occupying official posts for the same period and confiscation of his personal property .

The applicant challenged the judgment on appeal .

NORP In its CARDINAL DATE issue , ORG , a triweekly regional newspaper with circulation of CARDINAL copies ( according to the information provided by the applicant ) , published an article on the court proceedings in question . The article , entitled “ A bailiff has been convicted ” ( « ORG судовиконавця GPE ) , commenced by the following introductory paragraph :

“ On DATE the criminal panel of the regional court sent PERSON , who had served as a bailiff in GPE , down for DATE behind bars . According to the court ’s judgment , he is “ deprived of the right to occupy official posts for DATE and is to serve a sentence in a high - security colony ” . Also all PERSON ’s property is to be confiscated . ”

Following this introductory paragraph , the article went into detail on the applicant ’s conduct which had led to his conviction , including the ORG last names and details of their statements , an interview with the presiding judge , who explained that the applicant ’s personal circumstances , including his status as a GPE victim with no prior criminal record , were taken into consideration in choosing a mild sanction , and the journalist ’s allegation that if the applicant were unable to pay his civil debt under the judgment , his car or his apartment might have to be sold . The article finished with the following phrase : “ Easy gain turned into heavy consequences ” .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed in part the judgment of the first - instance court in so far as it concerned the bribe - taking charge and remitted this part of the case to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation . ORG also reduced the applicant ’s prison sentence and the injunction on the occupancy of official posts to DATE . Subsequently ( on DATE ) the ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings on the bribe - taking charge against the applicant as time - barred .

On DATE , having returned to his village after serving his sentence , the applicant brought defamation proceedings before ORG of PERSON ( “ the Pershotravnevyy Court ” ) against the ORG newspaper and the journalist who had authored the article in question . He alleged that the article contained an untrue statement about his conviction in respect of the acceptance of a bribe . The applicant noted in this connection that the respective part of the judgment had eventually been quashed and that the case had been remitted for additional investigation . The applicant further submitted that the publication had caused him non - pecuniary damage , as it had resulted in his stigmatisation by the villagers as corrupt , that it had brought about complications in his family relationships and had made it more difficult for him to find employment and reintegrate into society . Accordingly , the applicant sought a declaration of the impugned statement as untrue and thus defamatory , publication of its refutation by the defendants , and compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage .

Although the applicant missed the DATE limitation period established for this kind of claims , the court considered that he had had valid reasons for that and accepted his claim for consideration .

On DATE ORG found against the applicant . It noted that the information contained in the disputed article had been accurate at the time of its publication and could therefore not be considered defamatory or subject to refutation .

The applicant appealed . He insisted that neither at the time of the publication nor later had his guilt in respect of acceptance of a bribe been established by a final judicial decision . He further alleged that publishing a full and detailed account of his conviction before it became final was in violation of the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court ’s judgment and its major point of reasoning that , when the article at issue had been published , the information about the conviction was accurate . The court further stated :

“ As regards the appellant ’s arguments that by their publication the defendants violated the principle of presumption of innocence ... they are ill - founded .

It has been established that the author of the article did not accuse [ the applicant ] of crimes before the pronouncement of the judgment in his case , but that he [ the journalist ] merely reported on the contents of the judgment , which had been publicly pronounced .

Current legislation of GPE , including the PERSON of GPE “ On ORG ” , ... does not prohibit journalists from providing their readers with information concerning convictions by first - instance courts which have not yet become final . Furthermore , it is well - known that first - instance court judgments are subject to appeal ... and the author of the publication did not state that the conviction was final .

The first - instance court ’s judgment is also in compliance with the requirements of Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the [ Convention ] concerning public hearings of criminal cases and freedom of expression .

The case - file materials indicate that the judgment was pronounced in respect of [ the applicant ] not as a private person , but as an official having a wider range of obligations to the society and the ORG . Consequently ... the journalist had the right to analyse this thoroughly and report the proceedings to the public ... ”

The applicant appealed on points of law , alleging in particular that the publication went beyond mere reporting on the outcome of the proceedings in the first - instance court . He submitted that it was couched in such terms as to leave no room for doubt in the reader ’s mind that the court ’s findings were correct . It featured details , unnecessary for reporting on a non - final conviction , such as the court ’s reasoning with respect to particular witness statements , a reference to the applicant as an apartment owner and other information not warranted by the context .

On DATE ORG , acting as the cassation instance , rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation .

Relevant domestic law can be found in the judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .


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

Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .

The first applicant was the husband and the second applicant was the son of PERSON , who died on DATE .

On an unspecified date , the applicants brought compensation proceedings against ORG , alleging that PERSON had been a victim of medical negligence . The applicants further requested legal aid for the court fees . In respect of their legal aid claim , they submitted documents attesting to their poor financial situation .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicants’ legal aid claim , without indicating any specific reasons . They were notified that they had to pay MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in court fees within DATE to continue the proceedings and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings .

As the applicants failed to pay the court fees within the time - limit , ORG sent a further warning letter to the applicants and ordered them to pay the court fees .

On DATE the applicants made a second request for legal aid and asked the court to reconsider its former decision .

On DATE ORG once again rejected the ORG request and granted them DATE to pay the court fees .

On DATE the court decided to discontinue the proceedings , because the applicants had not paid the necessary court fees .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the facts of the case , the applicant was in private legal practice and was a senator .

On DATE ORG of ORG attached to ORG and ORG ( referred to herein as “ the prosecutor ” and “ the DNA ” ) started criminal proceedings against the applicant ( urmărirea penală ) on suspicion of trading in influence ( traffic de influenţă ) . In particular , the prosecutor alleged that : ( i ) the applicant had accepted MONEY ( ORG ) from a businessman , ORG , in return for using his connection to Judge PERSON of ORG and ORG in order to influence the outcome of a case pending before that court which concerned a dispute between ORG ’s company and a state agency ; and ( ii ) that he had accepted money from GPE , under the pretext of providing legal services through his law firm , in order to facilitate GPE ’s access to the head of the police with the aim of discussing criminal investigations that were being conducted against GPE

On DATE the applicant was returning home during DATE in a car belonging to the ORG . Close to his home , his route was blocked by another car . Several armed individuals jumped out , dragged the applicant from his car and , in front of his neighbours and a crowd of passers - by , handcuffed him and put him in their car . He was then taken to the DNA ’s headquarters , where he was informed of the criminal proceedings against him . The applicant gave a statement to the prosecutor .

At the DNA ’s headquarters , the applicant found out that he had been under investigation for a crime against national security . However , the prosecutor had decided on DATE not to prosecute that offence . The evidence gathered in that investigation , in particular through intercepting the applicant ’s telephone , had led the investigators to suspect the commission by the applicant of the crimes of corruption for which he was currently under investigation by the DNA .

On DATE , the prosecutor issued an order prohibiting the applicant from leaving town for DATE .

Upon the applicant ’s request , on DATE the prosecutor sent him a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor sought , through the Minister of ORG , ORG ’s approval to arrest the applicant . On DATE , the DNA issued a press release informing the public that it had sought authorisation for the arrest .

From the moment the DNA informed the public about the proceedings against the applicant , the media took great interest in the case . Numerous panel discussions were broadcast and journalists and politicians commented publicly on the events .

Excerpts from conversations between the defendants which had been obtained through telephone tapping during a criminal surveillance operation conducted prior to the criminal prosecution made it into the newspapers before the applicant and his co - accused had been committed for trial . Those excerpts gave the impression that the applicant and Judge PERSON had tried to manipulate some of the judges from the panel ruling in a commercial case involving ORG , and had reported back to the latter on the progress of those alleged manoeuvres . In the conversations among them , the applicant and the codefendants expressed in strong terms their disappointment that the outcome had not been favourable to ORG , and made assumptions as to whether the remaining judges on the panel had been influenced by someone else .

The transcripts of telephone conversations intercepted during the surveillance operation first appeared in the press DATE .

Other pieces of evidence from the prosecution file were likewise published and commented on in the press .

On DATE the ORG met to discuss the prosecutor ’s request . The applicant was unable to take part in the session , as he was in the hospital at the time . The ORG allowed the prosecutor ’s request .

Upon obtaining the ORG ’s approval , the prosecutor submitted a detention order to ORG and ORG , which examined it in private on DATE and endorsed it . The applicant was arrested on DATE .

The High Court then took a statement from the applicant and proceeded to examine the prosecutor ’s application for the applicant ’s pretrial detention . It heard arguments from the parties , reviewed the evidence presented by the prosecutor and concluded that there were serious indications and evidence in the file that the applicant had committed the crimes of which he was accused and that he had abused his important official position , thereby damaging the reputation of the legislature and the judiciary , as well as undermining the public ’s trust in the judicial system . It therefore considered that the specific danger that the applicant posed to the public order was serious enough to justify his detention .

Upon the applicant ’s appeal , by a final decision of DATE ORG , sitting as a ninejudge bench , upheld the previous decision . At the applicant ’s request , this hearing was held in secret and journalists and the public were removed from the courtroom . ORG found that the evidence lawfully included in the file justified a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crimes under investigation . It also dismissed the applicant ’s argument as to procedural flaws , in so far as it found that the prosecutor had heard the applicant on DATE and considered that his right to mount a defence had not been disregarded because of the mere fact that a certain lapse of time had passed between the date of his statement and that of the arrest order .

The applicant sought his conditional release . On DATE ORG dismissed his application , on the grounds that the evidence in the file indicated that he had tried to influence one of the witnesses and to create false evidence in his defence . It also considered that the reasons underlying the court decision to place him in pre - trial detention were still valid , given that , in particular , such a short time had passed since that decision .

This decision became final on DATE , when ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The High Court examined the applicant ’s pre - trial detention on CARDINAL more occasions and the applicant repeatedly applied for release pending trial conditioned on the obligation not to leave town ( decisions of DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) .

ORG considered that the evidence in the file offered a reasonable indication that the applicant had committed the crimes he was accused of and that his continued detention was needed given the difficulty involved in investigating such crimes . It also referred to his attempt to influence witnesses , to his personal situation ( first time on trial , family situation ) , his personality , his office during the alleged commission of the offences , and the nature and severity of the crimes under investigation . ORG also took into account the fact that the proceedings on the merits had only recently started , on DATE .

It referred to ORG case - law and the relevant ORG texts , and considered that the grounds for the applicant ’s detention were still valid and the time spent in pre - trial detention was not excessive within the meaning of LAW .

For these reasons , it did not consider it opportune to substitute the preventive measure that had been applied with a less strict measure .

The appeals lodged by the applicant against each of these court orders were dismissed by a different panel of ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE ORG examined a new application for release on probation lodged by the applicant and decided that he could be released . It held that the vast majority of the evidence for the prosecution had already been heard in court , thus the risk of the applicant trying to influence witnesses was no longer acute . The court ordered him not to leave town and not to contact his co - accused .

NORP However , on DATE the decision was quashed and a fivejudge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application for release . ORG examined the suitability of releasing ’s case - law on the subject . It considered that the severity of the crimes allegedly committed and the particular circumstances in which they had occurred , coupled with the applicant ’s attempts to influence a witness , were sufficient factors to justify extending the applicant ’s detention pending trial , which remained the only adequate preventive measure . It also considered that the overall length of the measure remained reasonable in the applicant ’s particular situation .

On CARDINAL more occasions ( DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE ) ORG was called to examine the necessity of keeping the applicant in detention and each time it decided to release him pending trial for the same reasons as those advanced on DATE . ORG replaced the measure with the obligation not to leave town .

However , each order , save for DATE , was quashed by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG and the applicant ’s detention was extended ( on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the prosecutor against the court order of CARDINAL DATE .

As a consequence , the applicant was released from detention on DATE .

The applicant was arrested on DATE and remained in pretrial detention until DATE . He described the overall conditions of his detention as follows : it was very cold in the cell , hot water was only available for TIME a week and basic hygiene was lacking . He had to share a QUANTITY . m cell with CARDINAL other inmates and the lack of space triggered violent clashes within the cell .

ORG submitted a full record of the applicant ’s stay in prison , giving details of the cells the applicant was kept in , their occupancy and the facilities offered . According to this information , the applicant was held in FAC . CARDINAL ( “ FAC ” ) on DATE and again from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . He was held in CARDINAL separate cells , CARDINAL of QUANTITY m with CARDINAL beds and another of QUANTITY m with CARDINAL beds . The cells were at full occupancy at that time . Each cell was equipped with beds , a table , chairs , a squat toilet , a sink with cold and hot water and a shower separated from the living space by a curtain . The inmates cleaned the cell themselves with products provided by the administration or purchased by them .

The applicant described these cells as badly lit and ventilated , humid and foul smelling . He further explained that because the toilet was not partitioned off from the beds , the inmates lacked privacy when using it . The tap for washing dishes and clothes and for showering was placed above the toilet and the water ran straight into the toilet . There was frequently no running water at all , which rendered it impossible to flush the toilet . The hot water was never sufficient for all of the inmates to take showers .

The records show that from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in ORG in a hospital room measuring CARDINAL sq . m which was equipped with CARDINAL beds and had access to hot water DATE .

The applicant spent the remainder of his pre - trial detention in LOC , where he was held , at his request and because of his position as a senator , in a cell for vulnerable individuals . The cell measured QUANTITY . m , had CARDINAL bunk beds and was at full occupancy at that time . The cell had a window which allowed in natural light and ventilation . The detainees had at their disposal a table , benches , shelves and a TV set . Adjacent to the cell there was a bathroom equipped with a toilet , sinks and a shower . Cold water was continually available and hot water was available twice a week . The cell was heated to CARDINALoC during the DATE . The applicant explained that it was very hot in DATE and very cold in DATE ; the heating system was old and broke down frequently , leaving the cells brutally cold . Hot water was scarce and there was never enough for all of the inmates to take showers .

On DATE the applicant was transported from ORG to the prosecutor ’s office in PERSON and back , a trip of TIME each way . According to the applicant , they left in the TIME from LOC . He was transported in the back of a prison van . Although the outside temperature was CARDINAL , there was no heating in the van ; in addition cold air from outside was able to enter the van through CARDINAL hatches in the roof which could not be closed completely . There was insufficient light in the van because there were no windows in the detainee ’s compartment , the only source of light being a small window separating the detainee ’s compartment from the driver ’s cabin . The applicant , who was alone in the back of the van , had nothing to sit on or lean against , thus having to stand up during the entire journey with nothing to hold on to .

When the van arrived in PERSON and returned to GPE , he was allowed to stretch , warm up and do some physical exercise .

ORG informed the Government that the applicant had been transported in a van designed for transporting QUANTITY people , as follows : CARDINAL people in the forward cabin , QUANTITY detainees on chairs in a separate compartment , and CARDINAL guards in another separate compartment in the back of the van . The van had natural and artificial ventilation , a heating system , and artificial light , which was kept on throughout each journey in order to allow the guards to keep watch over the detainees . The applicant had been transported alone , thus having CARDINAL chairs at his disposal .

The journey had started at TIME and ended at TIME .

In his observations in reply to the official information supplied by ORG , the applicant explained that the back of the van where he had been held had been completely opaque without any natural light and that the artificial lighting and the heating system had not been working . He reiterated that the CARDINAL hatches on the roof had remained open during the journey , resulting in freezing temperatures inside the van . The guards had had blankets to cover themselves during the journey , but he had not been given CARDINAL . In addition , the seats in the detainees’ compartment had not been fitted with safety belts , which had made it difficult to keep his balance .


CASE OF BUKOVČANOVÁ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

They are co - owners of a residential house located in the Bratislava - Staré Mesto municipality . The house was built in DATE by their familial predecessors , who during the previous regime donated it to the ORG under circumstances that would later be accepted as constituting duress . The ownership of the house was restored to the first and second applicants on DATE under special legislation on restitution . Consequently , each of them acquired a CARDINAL share of the ownership of the house . The third and fourth applicants each acquired a CARDINAL share of the ownership of the house on DATE and DATE respectively .

At the time the applicants acquired the ownership of the house CARDINAL flats were inhabited by tenants with regulated rent . Under the relevant legislation this meant that ( i ) the applicants had to accept that their flats were occupied by these tenants , ( ii ) they could charge them no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the ORG , ( iii ) they could not unilaterally terminate the leases , and ( iv ) they could not sell the flats other than to the tenants ( “ the rent - control scheme ” ) .

The rent - control scheme applies , or has applied , to the flats in question , as follows : a CARDINAL - room flat with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m which had been subject to rent control until DATE ( “ the first flat ” ) ; a CARDINAL - room flat with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m which had been subject to rent control until DATE ( “ the second flat ” ) ; a CARDINAL - room flat with a surface area of QUANTITY m and CARDINAL - room flats measuring QUANTITY m each ( “ the third , fourth and fifth flats ” ) , to which rent control still applies .

The DATE rent chargeable for the flats under the applicable legislation was equivalent to CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) DATE . After several increases in the regulated rent , in DATE the applicants were able to charge some ORG CARDINAL DATE in respect of the CARDINAL - room flat and approximately ORG CARDINAL DATE in respect of the fourroom flats . According to the ORG ’s calculations the regulated rent reached ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively in DATE .

The parties provided differing figures as to the market rent .

The applicants relied on data from ORG ( “ the NORP ” ) and claimed that the DATE market rent for comparable tworoom flats in the area reached around ORG CARDINAL and for comparable fourroom flats some ORG CARDINAL DATE .

The Government submitted an expert valuation according to which the DATE market rent for the ORG flats in DATE amounted to ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL to ORG CARDINAL respectively .


Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

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

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

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

NORP The applicants’ family lived in GPE , a NORP town near the NORP border which was heavily attacked by ORG and paramilitary NORP armed forces in the period DATE , during the war in GPE .

According to the applicants , on CARDINAL DATE their respective husband and father , PERSON , was taken from his home in FAC , a district of the town of GPE , by NORP soldiers and killed on DATE .

According to the ORG , the town of ORG fell on DATE ; after the surrender of the last NORP forces on DATE ORG and NORP paramilitary forces established their control over it .

After the fall of ORG , the applicants went to live in GPE .

DATE ORG was a part of ORG ) . In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( ORG ) , which included ORG . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .

An investigation was opened on CARDINAL DATE by an investigating judge of ORG . On DATE the first applicant gave evidence in those proceedings .

On DATE an indictment was lodged before that court against GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON , NORP soldiers imprisoned by the NORP forces , on charges of war crimes against the civilian population .

On DATE ORG found the accused guilty as charged . The conviction of GPE and GPE covered , inter alia , responsibility for the killing of PERSON was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and GPE to death . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and thus became final .

On DATE the applicants submitted a claim for damages with the State Attorney ’s Office in respect of the death of PERSON They requested that GPE and GPE be heard as witnesses .

The NORP authorities learned about the death of the applicants’ relative for the first time when they made the above request . An investigation ensued . On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , who had no knowledge whatsoever about the killing of PERSON and said that she had never been to ORG . It was also established that PERSON had died .

The applicant ’s request was refused .

DATE and DATE the police interviewed the applicants , GPE , PERSON , GPE , GPE and PERSON of them had any relevant knowledge about the circumstances of the killing of PERSON

In the meantime , on DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG asked ORG for all evidence in respect of the killing of PERSON On DATE the latter ORG sent to the NORP authorities completed documentation which did not contain any of the judgments of ORG .

On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the ORG before ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of their relative . They asked that witness PERSON be heard in respect of the circumstances surrounding the killing of PERSON

That claim was dismissed on DATE . ORG found that the claim had been submitted after the expiry of the applicable time - limit specified in the statute of limitations . The applicants were also ordered to pay to the ORG the costs of the proceedings in the amount of MONEY ( HRK ) . In an appeal against the first instance - judgment and an appeal on points of law before ORG the applicants complained about the manner in which the rules on the time - limit specified in the statute of limitations had been applied . The first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG and ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

On DATE the applicants sent to ORG copies of judgments of ORG and ORG ( together “ the NORP ORG ” ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint . They enclosed the judgments of ORG and argued , inter alia , that there had been a conviction by a criminal court in respect of the killing of PERSON and that therefore their civil claim could not have become statute - barred . The applicants’ constitutional complaint was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE as ill - founded . ORG did not make any reference to the judgments of ORG .

The ORG authorities instituted enforcement proceedings in ORG against the first applicant , seeking the payment of the costs of the above - mentioned civil proceedings , together with applicable interest and the costs of the enforcement proceedings .

An enforcement order was issued on DATE ; under the order , CARDINAL of the first applicant ’s pension was to be seized DATE .

The first applicant lodged an appeal , arguing that her DATE pension amounted to HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the seizure of CARDINAL of that amount put her in a precarious position since it did not leave her with sufficient resources for subsistence .

The appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE and a subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the first applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE reads :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that the individual act of a state body , a body of local and regional self - government , or a legal person with public authority , which decided about his or her rights and obligations , or about suspicion or accusation of a criminal act , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , or his or her right to local and regional self - government guaranteed by LAW ( hereinafter : constitutional right ) ...

NORP If another legal remedy exists against the violation of the constitutional right [ complained of ] , the constitutional complaint may be lodged only after that remedy has been exhausted .

NORP In matters in which an administrative action or , in civil and non - contentious proceedings , an appeal on points of law is allowed , remedies are exhausted only after the decision on these legal remedies has been given . ”

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

“ ( CARDINAL ) The right to claim fulfilment of an obligation shall cease when the statutory limitation period has expired .

( CARDINAL ) The statute of limitations [ bars a right to claim ] when the statute - prescribed period in which a creditor could have claimed fulfilment of an obligation has expired .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A claim for damages shall become statute - barred DATE after the injured party learned about the damage and the identity of the person who caused it .

( CARDINAL ) In any event that claim shall become statute - barred DATE after the damage occurred .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where the damage was the result of a criminal offence and the statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution is longer , the claim for damages against the person responsible becomes statute - barred at the same time as the criminal prosecution .

( CARDINAL ) The interruption of the statutory limitation period in respect of criminal prosecution entails the interruption of the statutory limitation period in respect of a claim for damages .

“ The statutory limitation period is interrupted by the lodging of a civil action or any other action by a creditor against a debtor , before a court or other competent body , which is brought in order to secure or enforce the creditor ’s claim . ”

The relevant part of the LAW on the Nullity of Certain Legal Acts of the Judicial Bodies of the Former Y[ugoslav ] P[eoples’ ] ORG ] , the former NORP ] F[ederal ] R[epublic of ] Y[ugoslavia ] and GPE ( Zakon o ništetnosti određenih pravnih akata pravosudih tijela bivše LAW , bivše SFRJ I PERSON , adopted on DATE and published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE hereinafter the “ LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ It is to be established that by the enactment of this LAW all legal acts of the former ORG , its judicial bodies , the judicial bodies of the former SFRY and the judicial bodies of GPE which concern the Homeland War in GPE , under which citizens of GPE have been [ deemed to be ] suspects , or accused or convicted for criminal offences recognised by international law ... , committed on the NORP territory , are null and void and without legal effect , including :

- a war crime against the civilian population ...

Legal acts adopted by judicial bodies of GPE for which the NORP judicial authorities establish that they comply with the standards of the NORP criminal legislation are exempted from nullity . ”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .

In a final judgment by ORG , the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder .

The applicant was detained in FAC DATE and DATE . During that time he was transferred to other prisons or prison hospitals for short periods . On DATE he was transferred to FAC . He has been serving his sentence in FAC since DATE .

The material conditions of detention in FAC were described by the applicant as being inhuman and degrading .

As a result of the severity of his sentence , the applicant was classified as a dangerous prisoner in accordance with the prison regulations and was held in solitary confinement . He alleged that he had insufficient living space in his cell because it contained unnecessary beds . His requests for some of the beds to be removed were always refused by the prison administration . He also complained that he felt isolated , as he had been forbidden to share the cell with another person or to meet other detainees for the entire duration of his detention . This situation was aggravated by the complete lack of activities outside the cell . In this respect he contended that he had participated in educational activities only in DATE and DATE . For the rest of the time he had spent in FAC , no activities had been proposed to him .

There was a severe lack of drinking water , and of hot and cold water in general . The insufficient provision of hot water , namely once DATE for TIME for a high number of detainees in collective showers , made it impossible to maintain a proper standard of personal hygiene .

Heating was provided for TIME in the morning and TIME , which was not enough to heat the cell . The applicant therefore suffered constantly from the cold during the DATE .

NORP The food was insufficient and of very poor quality . The applicant , who did not have the financial means to buy additional food , suffered from hunger for most of the time .

There was not enough light in the cell because the window was too narrow and artificial light was only provided in TIME .

The applicant was systematically handcuffed every time he was taken out of his cell , even when he was taken to the prison ’s religious facilities .

The applicant alleged that those conditions had had a negative impact on his physical and psychological well - being . In this connection , it appears from his prison medical file that he was suffering from chronic depressive psychopathy and had attempted to commit suicide . He was also diagnosed with gastritis and duodenitis , both of which became chronic as from DATE .

The applicant was held alone in a cell measuring QUANTITY m , in which CARDINAL rows of bunk beds were installed each measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY The cell also contained a table and CARDINAL chairs . All the furniture was fixed on the floor and could not be moved . During his detention in FAC , the applicant shared the cell with other detainees for various periods of time . On CARDINAL occasion , he even planned an escape with his cellmate , PERSON The applicant participated in CARDINAL educational activities in the course of DATE and CARDINAL educational activity from DATE .

There was a constant supply of cold drinking water , in accordance with the international conventions signed by GPE . Until DATE inmates had had an opportunity to take a bath once a week in the collective bathing facilities . As from DATE , hot water was supplied DATE , for a minimum of TIME .

In DATE , heating was available DATE and DATE , in accordance with a pre - established schedule , for an average of TIME per day .

With respect to the quality and quantity of food served , the Government submitted that it was in accordance with the NORP standards and the internal prison regulations .

Concerning the alleged lack of light in the applicant ’s cell , the ORG submitted that the cell contained a window measuring QUANTITY wide , which afforded the necessary light during DATE . In addition , artificial lighting was available if needed until TIME , in accordance with the prison ’s schedule for the provision of electricity .

Prisoners classified as dangerous , such as the applicant , were handcuffed whenever they were taken out of their cells and during transportation , in accordance with the prison regulations . The handcuffs were removed while they were attending educational or ethic / religious programmes and during visits .

The applicant was detained alone in a cell measuring QUANTITY A very small window was covered with metal bars and metallic netting .

The applicant could leave his cell for TIME for a walk outside , but had no other activities .

NORP The prison rubbish dump was outside the cell window and made the air smell unbearably fetid .

Whenever the applicant needed something , he had to tap on the door in order to draw the guard ’s attention . For this he was disciplined , usually by members of the special intervention units wearing masks .

The applicant was detained in CARDINAL different cells , all of which had the same specifications , namely a surface of QUANTITY m , CARDINAL beds measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and CARDINAL bed - side table .

NORP The prison ’s rubbish dump was , and still is , located QUANTITY from the window of the applicant ’s cell and the rubbish is collected at least once per month . The Government submitted that there were situations when a fetid smell was released in the air but measures to remedy the situation were always taken . No specific measures were given as examples in that respect .

As for the activities available to prisoners in FAC , the Government submitted a general overview of the internal regulations on that matter .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG sent CARDINAL letters to the applicant at FAC . The second letter was returned to the ORG by the postal services with the mention “ recipient unknown at this address ” .

On DATE the ORG invited the ORG to submit information on whether the applicant was still detained and if so , in which prison he was currently being held .

On DATE the Government submitted information confirming that the applicant was detained at that time in FAC .

The ORG sent CARDINAL more letters by registered mail on DATE and DATE to FAC . In view of the applicant ’s failure to reply to those letters and of the difference between the applicant ’s signature on the application form and the signatures on the return receipts , on DATE the ORG asked the ORG to submit additional information as to whether the CARDINAL letters had reached the applicant .

On DATE the Government replied that as the applicant had been transferred to FAC and subsequently to PERSON , the CARDINAL letters had not reached him until DATE and DATE respectively .

In support of those allegations , the ORG submitted copies of incoming mail registers showing that the CARDINAL letters had been returned from ORG owing to the applicant ’s transfer . They also submitted a copy of a page from a register entitled “ Planning of personnel for prisoner ’s escort ” , on which the applicant ’s name , his signature and the registration number of the letter of QUANTITY DATE appeared . The page was not dated . A copy of a page from PERSON incoming mail register showed the applicant ’s name and signature confirming receipt of the ORG ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE on DATE . Another copy of a page from an incoming mail register of CARDINAL DATE showed the applicant ’s signature for a delivery from ORG .

The Government further submitted that the signatures on the return receipts belonged to the prison employee in charge of receiving and distributing correspondence from and to the detainees , as provided for by the prison regulations . In this connection , they submitted a copy of the procedural rules for ensuring ORG right to correspondence , as approved by ORG , as well as a copy of the relevant internal regulations in force in FAC . It appears from those documents that the correspondence addressed to prisoners is collected by designated staff members , who confirm the collection of mail by signing the post office register . Subsequently , the receipt of mail by the detainee to whom it is addressed is confirmed by the detainee ’s signature in the prison ’s incoming mail register .

Among the documents attached to the ORG ’s response was a copy of a statement signed by the applicant on CARDINAL DATE and drafted in the following terms :

“ ... With respect to the letter sent by the ORG [ the ORG ] to ORG concerning the letters addressed to me , which remained without reply , I declare that I submitted these CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) petitions , being unsatisfied with the conditions of detention in FAC . ... I was transferred to FAC and subsequently to PERSON . I declare that I no longer wish to correspond with the GPE because I was transferred to another prison and the previous problems do not interest me anymore . In order to clarify any suspicions , I can hand over copies of the letters in question to LOC . ... ”

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant replied to the Government ’s submissions , stating that the authorities in the prisons of GPE , ORG and PERSON continuously refused to ensure that his correspondence reached the ORG , even threatening him that if he continued to complain before the ORG “ he would get out of prison only in a coffin ” ( “ Dacă mai continui procesul la PERSON scoate de aici în patru scânduri ” ) . He further alleged that he had been transferred from ORG to FAC only to make him give up his application before the Court , and that he had been forced to sign the statement of CARDINAL DATE in the office of the prison section director and in the presence of CARDINAL masked guards . He mentioned that he intended to pursue his application before the ORG .

The applicant also mentioned that he had received the ORG ’s letters of DATE and DATE with excessive delay . They had been opened .

The Government submitted that all letters addressed to detainees were opened in order to check them for forbidden elements . They were then handed to the recipients without their content being read by the authorities . However , correspondence received from non - governmental organisations or international institutions such as the ORG was never opened . With respect to the CARDINAL letters in question , the Government contended that they had been handed to the applicant in due time and without being opened .