Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The first applicant , Mr FAC GPE , was born in DATE . The second applicant , Mr Khakim PERSON , was born in DATE . The third applicant , Mr FAC , was born in DATE . The fourth applicant , PERSON Olim PERSON , was born in DATE . The applicants are currently detained in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicants moved from GPE to GPE to seek employment .

On DATE an investigator with ORG indicted the applicants on the charges of participation in an extremist religious group known as ORG and attempting to overthrow the ORG ’s constitutional order in GPE and ordered their arrest . Their names were put on the list of wanted persons .

On DATE the applicants were arrested at Vnukovo airport in GPE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE authorised the applicants’ detention pending extradition . On DATE ORG further extended their detention until DATE .

DATE and DATE ORG of GPE refused the NORP authorities’ request for the applicants’ extradition citing , as a ground for his decision , LAW ) of LAW which banned extradition in respect of persons charged with an offence not punishable under the NORP criminal law . The parties did not submit copies of the relevant decisions .

DATE and DATE ORG ordered the ORG release .

The applicants were immediately re - arrested as illegal aliens . The Babushkinskiy District Court of GPE examined the applicants’ cases , imposed an administrative fine of MONEY on each of them and ordered their expulsion to GPE . The court noted that the applicants had failed to leave GPE upon the expiration of the permissible DATE period of residence without a permit . It further noted that the ORG request for asylum had been refused and that they had not applied for “ legalisation ” of their stay in GPE .

ORG delivered the relevant decisions on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

The applicants appealed . They argued , inter alia , that their removal to GPE would be contrary to LAW and that they would run a risk of being subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment if forcefully returned to GPE to be tried for the offences they were charged with .

DATE the ORG indicated to the ORG , under LAW , that the ORG removal / expulsion to GPE should be suspended until further notice .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the expulsion orders . The court found the applicants liable for their failure , as foreign nationals , to leave GPE upon the expiry of the maximum permissible period of temporary residence in the country . It further noted that the applicants were refused refugee status even though it considered their asylum application to be irrelevant for the purpose of the proceedings . Lastly , referring to the interim measure indicated by ORG , ORG suspended the execution of the expulsion orders until further notice .

It appears that the applicants are held in custody to date .

On DATE the first applicant lodged an application seeking asylum in GPE claiming that , if returned to GPE , he would be subjected to unlawful criminal prosecution on fabricated charges . In the follow - up interview with the migration authorities , the first applicant explained that ( CARDINAL ) he had come to GPE to seek employment ; ( CARDINAL ) he had not been persecuted prior to leaving GPE ; ( CARDINAL ) he had not received any direct threats in GPE ; ( CARDINAL ) he had not been affiliated with any party or non - governmental organization ; and ( CARDINAL ) he had been unaware of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in GPE until his arrest on DATE .

On unspecified dates the second , third and fourth applicants lodged similar applications .

On DATE ORG refused to grant refugee status to the second applicant . The parties did not submit a copy of the relevant decision . Nor did they inform the ORG whether the second applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s application . The relevant decision stated as follows :

“ [ The first applicant ] did not apply for asylum within DATE of his arrival in GPE ... .

According to the information submitted by ORG of GPE , ‘ the internal political situation in GPE is characterised by relative stability . The authorities control it through law - enforcement bodies and traditional institutions of local self - government .

NORP foreign policy is sufficiently active . The Republic is recognised by GPE . It has established diplomatic relations with CARDINAL of them . It has CARDINAL embassies and consulates abroad . CARDINAL of the priorities of NORP foreign policy is international cooperation for the purposes of preserving stability and peace at the regional and global levels .

GPE is a member of major international organisations . It has ratified all international human rights conventions , the provisions of which have been incorporated into the national legislation .

As of DATE , the President ’s Decree on the abolition of the death penalty has been in force in GPE . ... Currently the most severe sentence in GPE is life imprisonment .

GPE has ratified all CARDINAL major ORG human rights treaties . It regularly submits periodic compliance reports to ORG bodies . As a whole , the country ’s parliament has ratified CARDINAL international human rights treaties . ... ’

According to the materials in the case - file , ... [ the first applicant ] does not wish to return to [ GPE ] for fear of being prosecuted on the charges brought against him in GPE .

It should be noted that the offences he is charged with are punishable under the NORP criminal law and the prescription period for criminal liability for such offences has not expired under the NORP criminal law .

Having instituted criminal proceedings against [ the first applicant ] , the law enforcement authorities of GPE do not intend to prosecute him on account of his belonging to a particular social group , his nationality , religion or political opinion .

Upon arrival in GPE in DATE , [ the first applicant ] did not seek refugee status in GPE . He lodged such an application only after his arrest and placement in [ custody ] .

Regard being had to the above , it follows that [ the first applicant ] is not running a risk of being subjected to persecution in GPE [ on account of race , religion , nationality , belonging to a social group or political opinion ] and does not qualify to be recognised as a refugee ... .

The reasons , as stated by [ the first applicant ] , for his refusal to return to GPE do not justify his fear of being subjected to persecution on account of faith , nationality , ethnicity , belonging to a social group or political opinion . ”

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that the first applicant did not challenge the said decisions in court .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the fourth and third applicants’ applications for asylum . It reiterated verbatim the reasoning of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that no appeal was lodged against the said decisions .


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

Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The first applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC , while the second applicant is his mother and lives in GPE .

The first applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of multiple thefts , together with several other accused . He was DATE at the time . The prosecutor ordered that he be remanded in custody for TIME and applied for him to be placed in pre - trial detention for DATE .

The Alba - Iulia District Court ( “ the ORG ” ) allowed the prosecutor ’s office ’s application DATE . The reasons adduced by the court to justify the first applicant ’s detention were the strong suspicion that the offences had been committed , as well as the repeated nature and the gravity of the offences .

In assessing the impact on the public the first applicant ’s release from detention would have , the court stressed that the acts had allegedly been committed by a significant number of perpetrators over DATE of time . It noted that prior measures against the first applicant , such as a warning and CARDINAL administrative fines , had been unable to prevent him from committing further thefts .

In an indictment dated DATE the prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG charged the first applicant and CARDINAL other defendants with CARDINAL counts of theft allegedly committed DATE and DATE .

The first applicant ’s pre - trial detention was regularly extended by interlocutory judgments of ORG .

The reasons adduced by the court were that , although he was a minor , there was a reasonable suspicion that he was guilty of the thefts and would pose a danger to public order , given that he had developed a habit of stealing . His age was not considered to be an argument in favour of his release pending trial . Furthermore , in CARDINAL of the interlocutory judgments it was mentioned that he did not have an occupation or place of work and thus would be unable to support himself by honest means – there was therefore a risk that he would continue to commit theft .

The first applicant lodged appeals on points of law against the extension of his detention . He claimed , inter alia , that he was a minor , that he had committed the offences under the influence of his codefendants , who were adults with a criminal record , and that his detention among adults without access to education had had a negative impact on him . He also stated that , under national law and the ORG ’s case - law , detention of a minor should be a preventive measure of last resort .

The Alba County Court consistently dismissed the first applicant ’s appeals , endorsing the reasoning of the lower court for keeping him in detention .

The first applicant lodged a request for his pre - trial detention to be replaced with alternative measures , such as a ban on him leaving town . He said that he had already been detained for DATE and therefore the initial reasons for extending his detention no longer applied . He also submitted that he had had time to understand the consequences of his criminal behaviour and had changed . The second applicant and the first applicant ’s uncle made written statements promising to take responsibility for supervising him if released , and presented to the court a job offer that he could take up if released .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s request . It had regard to the gravity of the offences allegedly committed by him , the severity of the sentence that could be applied to him and the risk of him reoffending . The judgment was upheld by GPE , which dismissed the first applicant ’s appeal on points of law for the same reasons .

On DATE the first applicant was eventually convicted of theft and sentenced to DATE imprisonment by ORG . On CARDINAL DATE an appeal on points of law by him against this judgment was dismissed by ORG .

According to information submitted by the Government , the first applicant was detained in prisons for adults DATE and DATE , but did not share his cells with adult prisoners . Moreover , between DATE and DATE he occupied an individual cell . His contact with adult prisoners was very limited .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant married GPE From DATE the couple lived in GPE and as of DATE they resided in a rented apartment . In DATE they moved to GPE but maintained their place of residence in GPE . In GPE the couple acquired an apartment , which was the applicant ’s registered address in GPE at that time . In DATE or DATE the applicant moved back to GPE and stayed in the couple ’s previous place of residence . The couple maintained contact by telephone and post . On DATE they both signed a paper which stated that “ with view of regulating their separated life , [ the applicant and GPE ] conclude the following agreement ” . There is no information on the content of that document .

According to the documents submitted by the applicant , her residence permit in GPE expired on DATE . The ORG maintained that the correct date had been DATE .

On DATE A.S. brought divorce proceedings concerning his marriage to the applicant before GPE ( PERSON pilsētas PERSON rajona tiesa ) . In his application GPE stated that the last time he had seen his spouse had been in DATE and that their marriage was to all intents and purposes dissolved . He also submitted that prior to lodging this claim he had talked to the applicant over the telephone and had informed her of his intention to bring divorce proceedings . He had invited her to submit in writing any pecuniary claims she might have in relation to their common property ; however , the applicant had refused to discuss this issue . GPE also alleged that the applicant ’s last known place of residence had been their apartment in GPE and that , owing to their disagreements , he could not find out where the court summons should be sent to . Accordingly , GPE suggested that the applicant should be summoned to the hearing by a notice in ORG .

On DATE the GPE District Court summoned the applicant to a divorce hearing by sending summons to her previous place of residence in GPE – the apartment in which she used to live with her husband GPE Upon receiving the information from post authorities that the applicant did not live at the above address , on DATE the applicant was summoned to the hearing scheduled for DATE with a notice in ORG . PERSON hearing was postponed at GPE ’s legal representative ’s request in order to present additional evidence . With a notice in ORG the applicant was summoned to a divorce hearing scheduled for DATE .

At the hearing of DATE GPE established that the applicant had been summoned to the hearing in accordance with the requirements of LAW . Therefore , it ruled that the adjudication of the case could take place in her absence . Owing to his poor health , GPE was represented by a lawyer who stated , inter alia , that ORG and the applicant ’s children lived in GPE . After hearing testimony from CARDINAL witnesses , who stated that they had not seen the applicant since DATE , the court granted the divorce . No appeal was brought against this judgment and it came into force on DATE .

On DATE GPE married A.A. – one of the witnesses who had testified in the divorce proceedings . The following day GPE passed away .

According to the applicant , she learned about the judgment dissolving their marriage when she came to GPE for GPE ’s funeral . The Government did not dispute this fact .

Following a request by the applicant of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the PERSON and GPE of GPE ( ORG ) on DATE delivered a declaratory decision ( Feststellungsbescheid ) stating that the requirements for legal recognition of the judgment of GPE had not been met , as the divorced spouse had not been afforded an opportunity to present her case in the divorce proceedings . On the basis of the information before it , ORG established that GPE had been aware of the applicant ’s address in GPE . Notably , GPE had maintained contact with this address in general correspondence and in correspondence concerning the pension he had been receiving from GPE and the GPE .

Following a prior request by the applicant , on DATE , the President of ORG submitted an application for supervisory review ( protests ) to the ORG of ORG asking for the judgment of GPE to be set aside and for the case to be adjudicated anew . He argued that the first - instance court had overlooked some evidence concerning the applicant ’s domicile and had erred in its application of the procedural rules when summoning the applicant to the hearings . In accordance with LAW have placed a notice about the proceedings in a newspaper in GPE , where the applicant resided . Besides , as GPE had been the applicant ’s registered place of residence , she should have been summoned to the proceedings via ORG . The President of ORG emphasised that owing to these violations ORG of the PERSON and GPE of GPE had refused to recognise said judgment . Lastly , the application for supervisory review stated that the applicant ’s rights guaranteed under LAW had been violated .

On DATE the ORG of ORG , sitting in an extended composition , with a final judgment dismissed the supervisory review application and upheld the judgment of GPE . The ORG of ORG concluded that , since GPE ’s claim had not contained a reference to the applicant ’s address and since GPE had therefore been unaware of her whereabouts , its actions had been compatible with the procedural requirements of LAW . LAW imposed no obligation on the court ; it only gave the plaintiff a right to publish the court ’s summonses in other newspapers at his or her own expense . The ORG of ORG also stated that in the circumstances of the present case a reference to LAW could not serve as grounds for setting aside the judgment of the firstinstance court . It reasoned :

“ The aim of the application for supervisory review – a fresh adjudication of the case permitting the defendant to exercise her procedural rights DATE can no longer be achieved because the plaintiff , [ GPE ] , passed away on DATE , a fact which excludes any further proceedings .

Besides , one should bear in mind that following his divorce form PERSON [ GPE ] concluded a new marriage , which , according to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , could not be declared null and void , irrespective of whether the judgment of DATE of GPE would be quashed . ”

The parties differ on whether GPE had been aware of the applicant ’s place of residence and on whether the applicant had been aware of the divorce proceedings . In relation to the first issue the applicant maintained that she had been residing in the couple ’s previous place of residence in GPE and that the landline telephone there had been used for their telephone conversations . Furthermore , GPE ’s retirement pension and health insurance had been transferred to their shared bank account , as well as to their place of residence in GPE . The Government , in turn , relied on the information GPE had submitted to GPE and also emphasised that no other evidence had been at the court ’s disposal .

With regard to the applicant ’s knowledge of the divorce proceedings the ORG pointed to PERSON ’s submissions before the ORG of ORG . In particular , PERSON had alleged that the applicant had been informed of the divorce proceedings over the telephone . The applicant maintained that even though she had been aware of ORG desire to dissolve their marriage , she had only learned of the divorce proceedings following the death of GPE

On DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings against PERSON claiming CARDINAL of the undivided share of the property that FAC had acquired during their marriage . She argued that it had been the spouses’ common property . On DATE ORG granted her claim in full . PERSON appealed against this judgment . The ORG has no further information about these proceedings .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and until his arrest lived in GPE .

On DATE the police opened a criminal investigation into large - scale fraud . According to investigators , an unknown person had convinced a businessman to hand MONEY ( approximately LAW ) on the pretext of selling some equipment . However , the person had had no intention of selling the equipment or returning the money .

On DATE the applicant was accused of aggravated fraud . The police ordered him not to leave his place of residence , but he fled and was put on a wanted list by the police .

On DATE he was arrested and taken to a police custody facility . DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) authorised his pre - trial detention until DATE , having regard to the seriousness of the charges against him and the risk of his absconding , reoffending and interfering with justice .

The applicant appealed . He referred to , among other things , his poor health .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) upheld the detention order on appeal after examining his recent medical documents , stating that his health did not preclude his detention on remand .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , citing the risk of his absconding given his previous attempt to evade prosecution and the seriousness of the charges against him . ORG also linked that risk to the applicant ’s lack of stable income or work . In the court ’s view , no alternative measure , such as house arrest or bail , could have ensured that the criminal proceedings ran smoothly . Lastly , the court noted the complexity of the case and several steps in the investigation which had yet to be performed , including some which required the applicant ’s presence and participation .

The applicant appealed . He applied to ORG to be released on bail because of his worsening health . He insisted that he could no longer move without assistance . In the meantime , in DATE he was served with the final version of the bill of indictment and was committed to stand trial before ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of CARDINAL DATE , endorsing ORG reasoning . After examining medical evidence pertaining to the applicant ’s health , it found that the illnesses he suffered from were not severe enough to warrant his release .

On an unspecified date the police searched the applicant ’s flat and found a passport with his photograph but under another name .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It again cited his unemployment status and ability to abscond , in view of the seriousness of the charges and his having been on the run from DATE . Noting that his state of health was compatible with the detention conditions , the court concluded that the extension of his detention was justified .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for release on bail or under a written undertaking not to leave GPE . It reiterated the arguments contained in the preceding detention orders and noted the discovery of the forged passport in his flat during the police search , which for the court was a clear sign of his intention to flee . It also addressed his arguments that he had become paraplegic and thus no longer posed a flight risk . It noted that according to a recent conclusion of a medical panel ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , his health did not call for his release .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment in a correctional colony .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction , but reduced the sentence to DATE .

For DATE after his arrest on DATE the applicant was kept in a GPE police ward .

His cell measured QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places and usually housed CARDINAL inmates . He did not complain about his health and was not seen by a doctor , save for a general check - up on admission .

On DATE the applicant was taken to remand prison no . IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE . He underwent the usual general medical check - up on arrival . Informing the resident doctor about serious back injuries he had sustained in DATE and DATE , he did not make any specific complaints , except about his hypertension . He was considered to be in good health .

According to the Government , he was placed in a cell which measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL other inmates . Subsequently he was transferred between less spacious cells , which he shared with CARDINAL inmates . The living space afforded to him varied between QUANTITY and QUANTITY . Throughout his detention he slept on an individual prison bunk . The applicant did not dispute the above information submitted by the Government .

According to the applicant , in DATE he fell and hurt his back . Severe back pain was accompanied by numbness in the legs and resulted in him being unable to walk unaided . He spent the major part of DATE in bed being assisted by his cellmates . They took him for walks in the prison yard , carried him to the toilet and washed him with wet towels , which was their way of showing that they were annoyed with his helplessness .

The applicant ’s medical records show that on DATE he complained to the resident doctor that he was suffering from a headache and back and abdomen pain . The doctor prescribed him drugs and a consultation with a neurologist .

On DATE he was taken to a medical unit in the same remand prison for inpatient treatment . The attending doctor noted that , owing to a pain syndrome , he had been unable to move unaided . After blood tests and a CAT ( computerized axial tomography ) scan , he was injected with painkillers , muscle relaxants , nootropics and vitamins .

The applicant submitted that on DATE during his transfer to a court hearing in a standard prison van , he had again severely hurt his back and head .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from the medical ward to be transferred to the hospital in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE for more comprehensive treatment .

The transfer occurred DATE . On admission to hospital the applicant complained of head and back pain and numbness in his legs . The hospital performed a number of medical tests , including blood and urine tests , a CAT scan and a cerebrospinal fluid analysis . As a result he was diagnosed with paraplegia of unknown origin , headaches and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy . He received antibiotics , muscle relaxants , vitamins and other medication . His health improved , but not significantly . The paraplegia remained unchanged . He was discharged from hospital on DATE to undergo treatment in a civilian hospital and to check whether his state of health called for his early release .

DATE the applicant stayed in FAC no . CARDINAL , where he underwent a medical expert examination and received treatment . He had an MRI ( magnetic resonance imaging ) scan of his spinal column and spinal cord , a scintigraphy and an X - ray of his pelvis . According to a medical report dated DATE , he suffered the consequences of a reduced blood supply to the PERSON artery , including lower limb spasticity , dysfunction of the pelvic organs and bedsores developed outside the hospital . In addition , he was diagnosed with hypertension , a small hydrothorax on the right side and some residual effects of pneumonia that did not call for any treatment . The conditions did not fall within the established list of illnesses warranting early release .

The applicant was taken to the intensive care unit of remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , where he continued his drug regimen in line with the hospital ’s recommendations . The doctors were , however , unable to ensure any improvement in his conditions . DATE he was sent back to ORG no . CARDINAL .

A report drawn up on DATE by a medical panel from the hospital stated that , in addition to the previous diagnosis , the applicant suffered from neurogenic bladder and bowel dysfunction . However , his conditions still did not reach the level of severity to warrant his release .

The stay in hospital was followed by DATE of detention in remand prison no . CARDINAL . There is nothing to suggest that his treatment was interrupted during that period .

On DATE the applicant was again taken to ORG no . DATE of treatment . The hospital staff changed his drug regimen , completing it with antioxidant and neutrophil treatment , muscle relaxants , painkillers , and introducing physiotherapy , which resulted in “ certain positive changes in [ his ] state of health ” .

Meanwhile , the applicant ’s lawyer asked an independent medical specialist to provide an opinion on the quality of medical care afforded to the applicant in the remand prison . In a report dated DATE the specialist stated that the applicant ’s conditions required enhanced medical attention and inpatient treatment that could only be performed in a neurological medical facility . Remand prison no . DATE was not licensed to provide neurological treatment or perform neurosurgery . His bedsores were a sign of insufficient medical attention . The report ended with a recommendation that he be classified as disabled .

On DATE the applicant was taken to remand prison no . CARDINAL , where he was detained until DATE . According to the Government , he shared his cell measuring QUANTITY with another inmate . As he was unable to care for himself , medical staff and inmates assisted him with his DATE needs . It is apparent from the case file that he continued to receive treatment as prescribed .

On DATE he was sent to serve his sentence in a correctional colony in GPE , QUANTITY away .

In TIME the applicant was taken in a PERSON minivan designed to transfer the seriously ill , to a GPE train station . The trip took TIME .

At the train station he was placed on board a standard train carriage , where he had to stay for TIME awaiting departure . The journey to the destination , the town of ORG , took TIME . The Government only stated that the applicant had shared his carriage with other detainees and had been accompanied by escort officers ready to assist him if necessary .

NORP In Yaroslavl the applicant was taken from the train to a prison van . According to the written statements by escort officers submitted by the Government , he was put on a thin blanket on the floor of the van . In TIME he was taken to a remand prison , so that new escort officers could join the transfer team . The applicant had to wait for TIME , lying on the floor of the van , while the official procedure involving the escort officers was under way . He was then taken back to the train station in GPE .

At the station the applicant was taken to a prison train carriage , which he shared with other inmates . After TIME the train departed for GPE . The trip took TIME . At TIME the train arrived at the LOC train station . The Government did not provide any description of the conditions in which the applicant travelled .

Within TIME a prison van took the applicant to a nearby remand prison , where he was detained from DATE .

On TIME the applicant was taken in the same prison van to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the correctional colony ” ) . The trip took TIME .

The parties disagreed whether the vehicles used to transfer the applicant , with the exception of the PERSON minivan , were equipped to accommodate ill inmates . While the Government argued that all vehicles could transport bedridden patients , the applicant stated that they had had no special equipment on board . He had been forced to lie on the floor of the prison vans on a thin blanket used as a stretcher . During the entire journey he had been in severe pain , but had not received any painkillers .

The applicant was placed in the medical unit of the colony . He continued receiving various drugs and injections , including nootropic drugs , muscle relaxants and antioxidants and vitamins , to improve the function of the central and peripheral nervous systems . He was regularly seen by doctors . His condition remained stable .

The applicant spent all his time in bed . Personal care workers provided him with bedside care , including basic nursing procedures .

The applicant was examined by a panel of doctors to check whether he should be released early on health grounds . In their report dated DATE they concluded that his conditions , in particular his lower limb spasticity and bladder and bowel dysfunction called for his early release .

On the panel ’s recommendation , the colony administration asked the court to authorise the applicant ’s early release on health grounds .

The Sverdlovskiy District Court of GPE granted the request and on DATE ordered his release . On DATE ORG upheld the order on appeal . DATE the applicant was released .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was the owner and the editor - in - chief of a publishing house , namely PERSON ve PERSON , at the time of the events giving rise to the present application .

NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant ’s company published CARDINAL books entitled PERSON ( “ ORG in the LOC ” ) and PERSON ( “ DATE in the Deluge ” ) , respectively .

On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG filed an indictment with ORG charging the applicant with aiding and abetting the ORG , an illegal armed organisation , under LAW , on account of the publication of the book entitled The Language of Life in the LOC .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged .

On DATE ORG , on appeal , upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG requested that the court revise its judgment of DATE since LAW had been amended on DATE . ORG accepted that request .

By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , state security courts were abolished . The case against the applicant concerning the book entitled The Language of Life in the LOC was transferred to ORG .

On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG filed an indictment with ORG charging the applicant with aiding and abetting the ORG under LAW of the former LAW on account of the publication of the book entitled DATE in the Deluge . According to the indictment , on pages CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL the struggle of the ORG and its leader , PERSON , was praised and the applicant had therefore aided the ORG through the medium of the press .

On DATE ORG decided to join the proceedings concerning ORG in the LOC and DATE in the Deluge .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . ORG ) for disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG twice , because he had published CARDINAL books , and sentenced him to a total of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . With regard to the publication of DATE in the Deluge , the assize court considered that on pages CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL the ORG and its leader , PERSON , were praised and the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation had therefore been committed . The assize court furthermore found that the book allowed for the transmission of the opinions of the ORG to the public and was aimed at bringing more sympathisers into that organisation .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , holding that the first - instance court should not have joined the CARDINAL cases , since the case concerning ORG in the LOC was a re - qualification of the applicant ’s previous final conviction ( uyarlama yargılaması ) .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant once again under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG on account of the publication of ORG in the LOC and sentenced him to a fine .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment .

On DATE ORG decided to suspend the execution of the sentence pronounced in its judgment of DATE .

In the meantime , ORG resumed the trial concerning the publication of DATE in the Deluge following ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG for disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG on account of the publication of DATE in the Deluge and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . In its judgment , the assize court reiterated that on pages CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL the ORG and its leader , PERSON , were praised and the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation had therefore been committed . The court held that the turns of phrase used on those pages were not protected by LAW and constituted an abuse of the right to freedom of expression . The assize court further found that the book permitted the opinions of the ORG to be transmitted to the public and was aimed at bringing more sympathisers into that organisation and thus at destroying the unitary nature of ORG .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings concerning the publication of DATE in the Deluge , holding that the prosecution was time - barred .


CASE OF RASHKOVA AND SIMEONSKA v. BULGARIA

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

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

D.D. , father of the second applicant and grandfather of the first applicant , and his son P.R. , father of the first applicant , owned a plot of land and a house in GPE .

By CARDINAL decisions of the mayor of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a residential building . The decisions , based on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of DATE ( ORG за териториалното и селищно устройство – hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , provided that GPE was to be compensated with a CARDINAL - room flat in a building which the municipality planned to construct on the expropriated plot , and P.R. with the right to build a house on municipally owned land .

NORP In DATE the expropriated house was pulled down and in DATE construction work was started on the site .

By a supplementary decision of DATE , based on section CARDINAL of the PERSON , the mayor specified the exact location and size of the future flat to be offered to D.D. No supplementary decision was issued however with regard to the right to build a house on municipally owned land which was due to P.R.

D.D. and ORG passed away in DATE respectively , and GPE ’s wife passed away in DATE . This left the CARDINAL applicants as heirs of GPE , and the first applicant as sole heir of P.R.

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants requested that the mayor of ORG revoke the expropriation order in respect of their ORG property , under paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the transitional provisions of LAW ( ORG за устройство на територията , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The mayor did not respond , which under domestic law was considered a tacit refusal . After the applicants applied for judicial review , the refusal was upheld by the courts , in judgments of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and ORG of DATE and DATE respectively .

Following a fresh request by the applicants for the revocation of the expropriation order , in judgments of DATE and DATE ORG and ORG annulled a new tacit refusal on the part of the mayor , acknowledging that the preconditions for such a revocation had indeed not been met , but instructing the mayor to examine the ORG request under paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the transitional provisions of LAW , providing for the possibility of monetary compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

As the mayor failed once again to take a decision on the ORG request , on an unspecified date they challenged his new tacit refusal , which was annulled once again by ORG and ORG , in judgments of DATE and DATE respectively .

Following that , on CARDINAL occasions ( DATE and DATE ) the mayor refused expressly to revoke the expropriation order in respect of the applicants’ property . After the applicants challenged these refusals , they were found to be null and void by the courts , the first one in a final judgment of ORG of DATE , and the second one in a judgment of ORG of DATE . The courts , finding that the fresh refusals were in contradiction with the earlier court judgments in cases between the same parties , sent the case back to the mayor , instructing him once again to examine it under paragraph CARDINAL ) of the transitional provisions of LAW .

NORP In DATE an expert commission of the municipality assessed the value of the expropriated property and set the amount of compensation to be provided to the applicants at MONEY ( ORG ) . After the applicants challenged that amount , in a judgment of DATE the ORG increased it to BGN CARDINAL .

That sum was paid to the applicants in DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The CARDINAL applicants are NORP nationals . They now live in GPE , where they were granted asylum in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The first and second applicants , Mr GPE and PERSON , born respectively in DATE and DATE , are spouses . The other CARDINAL applicants , PERSON , Mr GPE and Mr PERSON , born respectively in DATE , DATE and DATE , are their sons .

On DATE the applicants , who had fled from GPE , covertly crossed the NORP - Bulgarian border . They were travelling with QUANTITY other families . From there , they took taxis which drove them to the outskirts of GPE , where they slept under the open sky for DATE . On DATE , they hired other taxis to drive them to the NORP - NORP border , somewhere around the town of GPE . Shortly before the border , the applicants switched cars , getting into a ORG sports utility vehicle , which was supposed to take them through a wooded area to the border itself . They intended to cross that border covertly as well , and from there continue towards LOC .

At that time , the second applicant was DATE pregnant .

According to media reports , over DATE the abovementioned route has been a popular one for migrants trying to cross GPE covertly on their way to LOC . According to a report submitted by the Government , in DATE the NORP border police intercepted CARDINAL adult migrants and CARDINAL minor migrants near GPE and took them into custody .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicants were driven in the ORG towards the NORP - Serbian border near the village of GPE , which is QUANTITY south of GPE , QUANTITY west of the town of GPE , and QUANTITY from the border . It was also transporting the CARDINAL other families ; together with the applicants , it carried a total of CARDINAL passengers , CARDINAL of whom were minors .

At TIME , when the ORG was just a few metres away from the border , CARDINAL officers of the NORP border police intercepted it . The driver fled . CARDINAL of the officers gave chase , while the other ordered all the passengers to step out of the vehicle . The first officer could not catch up with the driver and came back . According to the applicants , he was apparently annoyed about his inability to detain the driver and hit one of the passengers . The applicants submitted that they had been afraid that he might hit them as well .

TIME , CARDINAL more officers came to the scene ; subsequently , a bus , with a driver and a photographer , also arrived . According to the applicants , the officers insulted the arrestees , called them “ mice ” ( the applicants did not specify in what language ) , and made insulting gestures . They ordered the applicants and the other passengers to get into the bus and drove them to ORG detention facility in GPE . According to the applicants , the drive took TIME . According to the Government , the drive could not have taken TIME . The preparation of the documents relating to the ORG arrest then took TIME , and the written declarations that they had been acquainted with their rights were stamped as having been signed at TIME The applicants could not have therefore been placed in their cell TIME

Upon their arrival at the border police ’s detention facility in GPE , the applicants were searched . According to them , all their effects – including travelling bags , mobile telephones , money , food , and even the fifth applicant ’s nappies , baby bottle and milk – were taken away from them , except for a mobile telephone belonging to the third or the fourth applicant , which they managed to conceal . According to a search report submitted by the Government , when searching the second applicant the authorities seized from her CARDINAL mobile telephones , ORG cards , a ORG flash drive , CARDINAL digital video disks and cash . The Government also pointed out that in a video submitted by the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , travel bags and personal effects were visible inside their cell .

After the search , the arrestees were split into CARDINAL groups . The applicants and another family were put in one cell , and the others in an adjoining one . In the application form , the applicants stated that both cells were on the detention facility ’s second floor .

According to the applicants , the cell was hot and its window could not be opened .

The applicants also submitted a video , which according to them had been shot with the mobile telephone that they had managed to conceal during the search ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It shows that the cell was at ground level , CARDINAL by QUANTITY , with a large double window ( secured on the inside by a mesh grille ) , an open door , and a padlocked metal grille on the door . In the video the cell looks run - down , with dilapidated walls , paint coming off the ceiling in flakes , and a dirty floor partly covered with dirty ( and in places damp ) cardboard sheets . The furniture consists of CARDINAL old and dilapidated bunk beds and a single bed , with CARDINAL bare soiled mattresses . CARDINAL of the mattresses are on the floor , CARDINAL is on the single bed , and CARDINAL is on the bottom bunk of CARDINAL of the bunk beds . A single crumpledup bed sheet lies on CARDINAL of the mattresses on the floor . Personal effects , such as a small shoulder bag , training shoes and some litter , are strewn about . Other random objects – food remains , empty plastic bottles , rubbish and a torn blanket – are piled up in a corner . The third and fourth applicants can be seen sitting on CARDINAL of the bunk beds , whereas the fifth applicant ( the toddler ) can at first be seen sitting on the floor beside the door and then being picked up and carried around by the first applicant . Apart from the CARDINAL applicants , CARDINAL other people can be seen in the cell : a middleaged woman lying on the single bed , a boy ( perhaps DATE ) , and the man shooting the video .

The video was submitted by the applicants on a digital video disk containing CARDINAL video files . CARDINAL is in .mpg format and bears a time stamp according to which it was last modified at TIME on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL ; and the other is in .mpCARDINAL format and bears a time stamp according to which it was last modified at TIME on DATE . The footage in both files is identical , except that : ( a ) the faces of the applicants in the first one have been pixelated ( whereas in the second they have not ) ; ( b ) the running time of the first video is TIME and TIME ( whereas that of the second is TIME and TIME , as it continues for TIME ) ; and ( c ) in the first file the footage is horizontal whereas in the second it is rotated to the right at a QUANTITY angle . The footage in the first file has a definition of CARDINAL by CARDINAL pixels and is at CARDINAL frames per second , whereas that in the second file has a definition of CARDINAL by CARDINAL pixels and is at CARDINAL frames per second .

The applicants explained that the above - mentioned dates and times corresponded with when they had copied the video files in GPE , and that they had in fact recorded the original video on DATE , at TIME . Since they had taken the ORG cards out of the mobile telephone several times in the course of their journey and then re - inserted them , the telephone had not indicated the correct time and date , making it impossible to pinpoint the exact date and time when the video had been recorded .

In a letter to ORG , an official from ORG in GPE , having compared the video footage with the photographs in the applicants’ migration files , stated that he could confirm that the applicants were indeed the people featured in the video .

According to the Government , the border police ’s detention facility in GPE was equipped in accordance with the relevant regulations . They did not provide further details in that respect .

According to the applicants , after being put in the cell , they were not given anything to eat or drink , or allowed to go to the toilet . Since there was no toilet or a bucket in the cell , they had to urinate onto the floor . The Government did not comment on that point .

TIME , at TIME , officers came and took the first applicant to another building in order to take his picture and to digitally fingerprint him . After that , the officers took out the second applicant for fingerprinting . After the fingerprinting procedure , the officers left the applicants in the cell for TIME .

TIME and TIME DATE , DATE , a border police investigator interviewed respectively the first and the second applicants . The interviews were conducted in LANGUAGE and translated into NORP with the help of an interpreter .

According to the applicants , after the interview the second applicant asked the guards to give her back her bag , so that she could prepare a baby bottle for her toddler ( the fifth applicant ) , and the guards did so . The Government did not comment on that point .

After that , the guards took the applicants CARDINAL by CARDINAL out of the cell to go to the toilet .

According to the applicants , DATE , a DATE child in the adjoining cell touched an electrical wire and suffered an electric shock . That caused panic among the detainees , and the guards allowed all of them out of their cells . An ambulance was called . When hearing that the applicants had not had anything to eat or drink since their arrest , the nurse who came with the ambulance argued with the guards and took the second applicant and her youngest child , the fifth applicant , to a hospital in GPE , where the second applicant was examined by a gynaecologist between CARDINAL p.m. and TIME , and the fifth applicant was examined by a paediatrician TIME and TIME they were taken back to the detention facility .

According to the applicants , at that point the guards told them that they would give them food if they paid for it ; the guards then took money from their bags and gave them CARDINAL loaves of bread , a yoghurt , CARDINAL bottles of ORG , QUANTITY of tomatoes , QUANTITY of cucumbers , QUANTITY of bananas , and a small piece of paté . According to the Government , the applicants were provided with food and water , in accordance with the relevant regulations . In support of their assertion , the Government submitted a table setting out the prescribed DATE rations for adult and minor detained migrants and a report , drawn up by the head of ORG on DATE , which listed the names of all migrants – including the applicants DATE which had been detained in the GPE ’s detention facility in GPE during DATE and provided with food there .

Then , at TIME , the applicants were put back in the cell . According to them , they were allowed to go to the toilet before that , but had not been able to do so during TIME . The Government did not comment on that point .

DATE , DATE , the applicants were served with orders for the first and second applicants’ removal from GPE and for their detention pending removal , all issued DATE . It does not appear that separate orders were issued with respect to the third , fourth and fifth applicants , who were mentioned as accompanied minors in the orders for the first and second applicants’ detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

According to the applicants , at TIME on DATE they were given back their belongings and driven to an immigration detention facility in GPE . According to the Government , that happened much earlier that day , at TIME , since the relevant records showed that the applicants had been placed in the detention facility in GPE at TIME , and the normal travel time between the CARDINAL facilities was CARDINAL or seven hours .

On DATE the applicants sought international protection in GPE . Their applications were registered by ORG DATE , and they were released from the immigration detention facility in GPE and settled in an open facility for the accommodation of asylum - seekers . On DATE those proceedings were , however , discontinued because the applicants had vanished from the facility .

In the meantime , the applicants made their way to GPE , where they likewise sought international protection on DATE . On DATE the NORP authorities decided not to examine their applications but rather to transfer them back to GPE under Regulation ( ORG ) No CARDINAL/CARDINAL establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of GPE by a thirdcountry national or a stateless person ( “ LAW ” ) , which also applies to GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . Following legal challenges by the applicants , on CARDINAL DATE the NORP authorities varied their own decision and proceeded with the examination of the applications . DATE , on DATE , the applicants were granted asylum in GPE .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-d - Minors);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed CARDINAL armed robberies and CARDINAL attempted armed robbery with the use of a machete on DATE . He was initially detained in a police establishment for children ( policyjna izba dziecka ) in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Family and Juvenile Section ) instituted inquiry ( postępowanie wyjaśniające ) with a view to determining whether the applicant had committed the offences at issue .

On DATE FAC decided to place the applicant in a shelter for juveniles ( schronisko dla nieletnich ) for a period of DATE . It found that , in view of the available evidence , there existed a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed CARDINAL armed robberies and CARDINAL attempted armed robbery and some other offences . The court also noted that the applicant was lacking in moral character and that the nature of the offences with which he had been charged militated in favour of placing him in a correctional facility ( zakład poprawczy ) . It also noted that there was a risk that he might go into hiding or put pressure on witnesses .

The applicant appealed . He argued , inter alia , that there had been no risk of fleeing or interfering with witnesses . He also objected to his placement in the shelter on the grounds that he had a history of mental difficulties and had been schooled in a specialised institution .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the lower court . It had regard to the gravity of the offences which the applicant had allegedly committed and the fact that they could not be treated as an isolated incident . The court also noted that in the past a family court had handed down a warning and that on CARDINAL DATE he had been put under the supervision of a court guardian . In view of those circumstances , it was considered likely that the applicant would be placed in a correctional facility . His placement in the shelter was further justified by the fact that he had threatened CARDINAL of the victims of the robbery . Responding to the arguments related to the applicant ’s mental health , the court noted that the placement in the shelter , in addition to the applicant ’s isolation , placed him under educational supervision which could not be seen as incompatible with his well - being .

On DATE the CracowKrowodrze District Court ordered that the applicant ’s case should be examined in correctional proceedings ( postępowanie poprawcze ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel requested the CracowKrowodrze ORG to order the applicant ’s immediate release . He submitted that the DATE period for which the measure was applied had expired on DATE and that no decision on prolongation of the measure had been given . He argued that in accordance with LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Juvenile Act the decision on prolongation of the placement in a shelter for juveniles could be taken only by a court after summonses had been sent to the parties and counsel . The applicant ’s counsel obtained information from the court ’s registry that in practice such decisions were not given , and that it sufficed for the court to issue an order for the case to be examined in correctional proceedings . The applicant ’s counsel objected to such a practice and considered it to be unlawful .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for release . It provided the following reasons :

“ The juvenile PERSON is accused of having committed criminal acts with the use of a dangerous object .

These circumstances exclude the possibility of altering the security measure in respect of the juvenile .

At present the state of health of the juvenile is normal .

In the absence of reasons justifying the quashing of the security measure in respect of the juvenile , it has been decided as above in accordance with sections DATE of the Juvenile Act ” .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel wrote to the director of the PERSON for Juveniles urging him to release the applicant .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant ’s counsel that after the court had ordered the examination of the case in the correctional proceedings on DATE , it did not prolong the applicant ’s placement in the shelter for juveniles pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW .

The Cracow - Krowodrze District Court held hearings in the applicant ’s case on DATE and DATE . On the latter date the court delivered a judgment and held that the applicant had committed the offences which had been imputed to him . The court ordered the applicant ’s placement in correctional facility but suspended the application of this measure for a DATE probationary period . It further ruled to place the applicant under the supervision of a court guardian during DATE .

Having regard to the judgment , on DATE the ORG quashed the applicant ’s placement in a shelter for juveniles . The applicant was released on DATE .

The judgment of DATE was not appealed against and became final on DATE .


Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Legal assistance of own choosing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born on CARDINAL DATE and at the time of his most recent communication with the ORG was detained in PERSON ( previously PERSON ) .

Early on the morning of DATE PERSON , a night security guard at a shop in PERSON , was found dead and partially undressed at her place of work , with injuries on her head and genitals . It was established that a grinder tool had also gone missing . The prosecutor ’s office instituted criminal proceedings on DATE and over DATE proceeded to interview a number of witnesses .

At TIME on DATE QUANTITY police officers arrived at the applicant ’s home and asked him , at the time sixteen years of age , and his father to go to the police station with them .

Once at the police station , the applicant was separated from his father and questioned as to whether he had any information about the grinder which had disappeared from the shop . According to the applicant , then the police had started urging him to plead guilty to the murder and theft . According to him , as he repeatedly denied those allegations , CARDINAL officers allegedly beat him on various parts of his body and threatened him that he would be raped in prison .

At an unspecified time DATE the applicant ’s father and grandfather , who lived in the same house as the applicant , made statements to the police about the presence of the grinder in their house . The father stated that the applicant had apparently brought the grinder home around the time of the murder and had originally told him that a stranger had been offering the grinder for sale . On learning that the police were searching for a grinder , the applicant had told him the story he had told the police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . However , in the applicant ’s story as retold by the father , the grinder was found in a different street . On hearing this , the father had hidden the grinder . The grandfather ’s account of events was similar to the father ’s . On DATE the police also obtained a statement of PERSON , the applicant ’s friend , about the time they had spent together on TIME of the murder and the circumstances under which they had parted .

From TIME the police went to the place where the applicant ’s father had hidden the grinder . The father pointed to where the grinder was and the police seized it .

At TIME the applicant signed a document explaining his rights as a suspect , including the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer before his first questioning . When signing the document , the applicant added that he did not object to PERSON representing him . The applicant alleged that he had mistakenly understood that PERSON had been asked to appear on his behalf by his parents . In fact , PERSON had been asked to represent the applicant by the investigator .

Subsequently the Qualifications Commission of the Bar of GPE , at the time the highest authority in charge of the advocates’ qualifications and discipline , examined the applicant ’s GPE complaint concerning the procedure used in the appointment of ORG established that there was no evidence that PERSON had been appointed through a bar association , as required by law , in particular there was no order of the bar association or agreement with the client appointing PERSON It also established that there was no evidence that the investigator had issued a formal decision appointing PERSON as the applicant ’s lawyer , as he had been required to do by law .

At TIME the applicant was questioned in the presence of L. He stated that on TIME of the murder he had been walking home after TIME out with friends . He had observed a stranger running down the street with a grinder and had started running after him . Once the man had dropped the grinder , the applicant had picked it up and run away . When he had brought the grinder home he had said to his father that someone had been offering to sell a grinder . When he had learned DATE that a night security guard had been killed and that grinders had been stolen , he had revealed the truth to his father , who had then hidden the grinder .

At TIME the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert , who concluded that he had several light injuries that had been inflicted DATE before the examination .

At TIME the investigator PERSON drew up an arrest report , whereby the applicant was arrested on suspicion of NORP ’s murder . According to the report , the applicant was being arrested on the grounds that “ eyewitnesses indicate the person who committed the crime ” . According to the Government , the applicant ’s parents were informed of the applicant ’s arrest at that time . According to the applicant , no such notification was made .

At the same time most of the applicant ’s clothes were seized for a forensic examination .

The applicant ’s father was taken to the family home to accompany the police during a search .

At TIME the police completed the search of the applicant ’s home , seizing some clothes . According to the applicant it was only then that the police officers who had conducted the search brought replacement clothes from the applicant ’s home to the police station .

According to the applicant , he was left handcuffed at the police station , wearing just his underwear , for the entire period from the seizure of his clothes until the end of the search and return of the police officers who conducted it , feeling very cold and vulnerable . During that time police officers continued urging the applicant to confess to the murder and beat him with plastic water bottles .

On TIME the applicant was placed in a cell in the police ’s temporary detention facility with CARDINAL adult detainees , PERSON , born in DATE , and O. , born in DATE , who were at the time registered as suffering from drug addiction . O. had also been suffering from tuberculosis and had had a prior conviction ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) . It is unclear whether the applicant knew of the above background of his codetainees at the time he had been held with them .

According to the applicant , the CARDINAL other detainees were secret police informants . They advised the applicant that as he was a minor and if he chose to cooperate the investigative authorities would prosecute him on less serious charges and he would not receive a real prison sentence .

PERSON was diagnosed with tuberculosis in DATE . O. and PERSON died in DATE respectively , the former allegedly of an overdose and the latter of a disease .

NORP The applicant continued to be detained in the cell with NORP and PERSON until a court detention order arrived on DATE and he was transferred to the remand prison ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

According to the applicant , on TIME of CARDINAL DATE QUANTITY police officers took him out of his cell without registering it . They threatened to make sure he got a long prison sentence , to charge him with rape , which would lead to him being raped and harassed in prison by other inmates , and to create “ problems ” for his family , unless he confessed . Unable to withstand such pressure , the applicant agreed to copy by hand a statement prepared for him by the police officers , acknowledging his guilt for murder in “ self - defence ” .

According to the authorities , on TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant asked to see the officer in charge of the police detention facility .

The applicant then made a handwritten statement of surrender to Officer PERSON , the head of the police detention facility . In his statement , the applicant noted that early on DATE , while in a state of alcoholic intoxication , he had decided to burgle the shop . Having suddenly run into the victim , who had tried to attack him with a grinder , he had defended himself and had hit her with a brick . When she had become unconscious , the applicant , scared of what had happened , had carried her to a couch and had undressed her to make it look as though there had been a rape . Then he had picked up the grinder and taken it home .

Later on DATE the applicant repeated the above confessions in a formal questioning session in the presence of his lawyer , L.

On DATE the applicant , unaccompanied by PERSON , was taken to an identification parade , where PERSON , a shop assistant who had been working on a TIME shift at a kiosk close to the scene of the crime on TIME of the murder , picked the applicant out of a CARDINAL - person line - up as the person she had seen by her kiosk shortly before NORP had been killed . In the course of CARDINAL of the subsequent trials ORG stated that she had not identified the applicant with total certainty but had merely thought that there was a resemblance between him and the person she had seen that night .

On DATE the applicant was charged with murder without aggravating circumstances and theft . Accordingly , his procedural status changed from that of “ suspect ” to “ accused ” . Questioned on DATE in the presence of L. the applicant repeated his previous confession .

On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody pending the completion of the investigation . That decision was not appealed against and became final .

On DATE the applicant ’s cellmates , PERSON and NORP , were released .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the police detention facility to the remand prison in GPE ( at the time Artemivsk ) .

On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of B. , a lawyer engaged by his parents . He stated that he confirmed his prior statements about the murder . In the course of the subsequent investigation he was again questioned in the presence of the same lawyer and made detailed statements that repeated his confession .

On DATE a commission of psychologists and psychiatrists produced a report at the request of the investigator concerning the applicant ’s mental state at the time of the crime and at the time of his examination by the experts . The experts concluded , in particular , that the applicant , according to his own account , had committed the killing in self - defence , without premeditation and through an unexpected confluence of circumstances . As a result , he had suffered a serious shock and confusion . At the remand prison he had suffered from sleep troubles , fear , and confusion and had displayed inappropriate behaviour . When examined by a prison psychiatrist he had been diagnosed with an acute reaction to stress , put in the prison ’s medical wing and treated with sedatives , which had helped .

In the course of the trial , conducted in the presence of his lawyer PERSON . and his mother acting as a lay defender , the applicant confirmed the account of the attack on NORP which he had given in the course of the pre - trial investigation .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder without aggravating circumstances and theft and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant , represented by his parents and a new lawyer , PERSON , appealed against the judgment . Additional appeals were also lodged by them on later dates . In the appeals the applicant retracted his confessions as false . He and his representatives alleged that the confessions had been extracted from him under physical and psychological pressure from the police , namely that he had been subject to “ physical pressure ” , “ threats and beatings ” , “ moral and physical influence ” , that his statement of surrender “ resulted from beatings ” ( “ применены меры силового давления ” , “ угрозами , избиваниями ” , “ моральные и физические воздействия ” , “ выбита явка с повинной ” respectively ) . According to him , he had been told that unless he confessed to murder he would be falsely accused of rape making his life in prison extremely difficult . He stated that CARDINAL cellmates at the police detention facility also urged him to confess . He also noted that he had kept to his initial confessions until his conviction because his cellmates and the police had told him that the police would make his life difficult in prison if he told anyone of the pressure on him . On the other hand , they had assured him that if he chose to cooperate with the police they would make sure the charges against him were not serious and that he would be released from custody right after his trial . Accordingly , he had said nothing to his lawyers about his ill - treatment .

NORP The prosecutor also appealed , in particular arguing that the sentence was excessively lenient .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed the judgment of DATE and returned the case for further investigation . The court noted that the judgment had been poorly reasoned . As far as the motives for the applicant ’s actions were concerned , it had also been based heavily on the applicant ’s confessions , without sufficient corroboration from other evidence . The description of the crime scene , for instance that the lock had been sawn off rather than broken off , had not matched the trial court ’s conclusion , based on the applicant ’s account , that the applicant had simply been exploring the shop out of curiosity . The victim had also had unexplained injuries on her genitals .

On DATE and on several subsequent occasions the investigators attempted to question the applicant within the framework of the further investigations . However , he refused to answer any questions and denied any involvement in the crimes he had been charged with .

On DATE and DATE the investigator reclassified the charges against the applicant from simple murder to aggravated murder for gain , and from theft to robbery . The applicant was also charged with theft of a friend ’s cell phone .

On DATE ORG released the applicant from custody , finding that a further extension of his detention would be in breach of the applicable procedural time - limits .

On DATE the applicant ’s case was submitted for a retrial .

On DATE ORG again remanded the applicant in custody . It held that while the applicant had no prior convictions and had positive character references , he had no employment and had been charged with grave offences . Accordingly , it held that detention was necessary to prevent the applicant from absconding or interfering with the investigation and to ensure his compliance with procedural decisions . No time - limit for his detention was fixed in that decision or in those made on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE ( see below ) .

On DATE ORG returned the case for further investigation and ruled that the applicant should remain in custody . The court based its decision on the gravity of the charges which , according to the court , made the applicant likely to abscond .

On DATE the applicant ’s case was submitted to ORG for a retrial .

On DATE ORG again sent the case back for further investigation and , without giving reasons , ruled that the applicant should remain in custody .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and the murder of NORP

On DATE ORG quashed the conviction , returning the case for further investigation . ORG also ruled that the applicant should remain in custody . It gave no reasons for the latter part of its decision .

On DATE ORG returned the case , which in the meantime had been re - submitted to it , for further investigation . It also ruled that the applicant should remain in custody . By way of reasoning it stated that there were no grounds to order his release given that , in view of the gravity of the charges against him , it could not be ruled out that the applicant would attempt to abscond . On DATE ORG quashed that decision .

On DATE ORG committed the applicant for trial and ruled that he should remain in custody for the same reasons as given in the order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the course of the final retrial the applicant denied any involvement in the attack on NORP and said that he had found the grinder , describing essentially the same circumstances as on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . To explain the presence of his fingerprint in the shop where the victim had been killed he stated that he had bought cigarettes there on DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and aggravated murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . In particular , it made the following findings .

( a ) It found established that the applicant had broken into the shop intending to burgle it , had discovered NORP sleeping , had repeatedly hit her on the head with a brick and then , after she had become unconscious , had inserted the neck of a vodka bottle into her vagina .

( b ) In finding the applicant guilty , the court referred to various pieces of evidence , including forensic examinations , witness statements and the applicant ’s confessions “ given by him when questioned as a suspect and as an accused ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the presence of the applicant ’s fingerprint at the crime scene . In particular , the trial court referred to the pre - trial identification of the applicant by witness Y. and to the testimony of GPE , who had seen the applicant near the shop around the time of the murder . The court considered the applicant ’s explanation for the presence of his fingerprint in the shop unconvincing since he had first mentioned the supposed visit to the shop on DATE in the course of the retrial and had not previously mentioned that visit .

( c ) The court rejected the applicant ’s argument that his confessions had been inadmissible because they had been obtained under duress . It noted in particular that there was no evidence that the applicant had suffered any physical injuries at the hands of the police . Moreover , the applicant had consistently repeated his confessions in the presence of his lawyers , mother , and psychiatric experts in the course of the first investigation and trial . His parents had voluntarily paid the victim ’s burial costs . Still , the applicant ’s confessions had only partially reflected the truth . In particular , according to the forensic and other evidence , NORP had been raped with a vodka bottle , which was not in line with the applicant ’s initial statements that he had accidentally killed her after being surprised by her and had then run away almost immediately .

( d ) The absence of the applicant ’s lawyer from the identification parade on DATE had not breached the applicant ’s defence rights since he had not made any statements on that occasion and had simply been physically shown with other men in the line - up to the witness Y. through a CARDINAL - way glass partition . It had been Y. , and not the applicant , who had actively participated in that investigative measure , and therefore it had not had any impact on his chosen defence strategy . Moreover , contrary to the applicant ’s submissions , ORG ’s statements concerning the applicant ’s presence near the crime scene on TIME of the murder had been consistent with the statements of other witnesses .

( e ) On an application by the defence the court ruled certain expert evidence inadmissible .

( f ) While the statement in the arrest report that “ eyewitnesses indicate the person who had committed the crime ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been technically incorrect in the applicant ’s case , the discovery of the grinder in the applicant ’s home had in fact constituted an independent legal basis for his arrest . Accordingly , ORG refused to declare the applicant ’s arrest unlawful .

In an appeal to ORG the applicant gave the account of alleged ill - treatment by the police set out above . He stressed , however , that he had managed to withstand most of the pressure from the police . What had made him finally agree to plead guilty to a murder he had not committed had been the threat that he would be charged with rape and that that would lead to him being raped in prison . That threat had had a particularly strong impact on him given that he had already been made to spend TIME in a state of undress and vulnerability . He had chosen the false confession as a lesser evil . He had then maintained his confession throughout the trial because he had been assured by the lawyer PERSON , who had good relations with the investigator in charge of the case , that the trial court would reclassify the charges against him from murder to a lesser charge of a “ killing committed while exceeding the limits of legitimate defence ” . He had hoped that such a reclassification would allow him to get probation instead of an actual prison sentence . It was not true that , as stated by ORG , he had repeated his confession to psychiatrists . In fact the investigator had assured him that the psychiatric assessment was prearranged to allow for reclassification and its results would be worded accordingly . The applicant had not talked to the experts and his mother assured him that she had arranged for the psychiatrists’ report to be worded in such terms that it may justify reclassification of charges against him .

On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment and it became final .

It would appear that the applicant first raised his allegations of illtreatment in his appeals against his first conviction ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In those appeals his allegations were framed in rather general terms and were limited essentially to allegations of “ beatings ” and “ psychological pressure ” . He also stated , more specifically , that he had been told that , unless he confessed , charges of rape would be brought against him and this would make his life in prison extremely difficult .

Afterwards the applicant ’s parents also lodged complaints about his alleged ill - treatment with the prosecutor ’s office . It appears that the applicant ’s mother lodged first such complaints on DATE and DATE . The ORG has not been provided with copies of those complaints .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office , in response to the applicant ’s mother ’s complaint of DATE , refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant ’s complaints for lack of a corpus delicti in the police ORG actions , concluding that there was no evidence of any physical or psychological illtreatment . The prosecutors referred essentially to the lack of medical evidence of any injuries suffered by the applicant at the time of the alleged ill - treatment and the lack of any complaints from him before his first conviction . The prosecutors also stated that there had been no irregularities in the applicant ’s placement and holding in the police detention facility and that O. and PERSON with whom the applicant had been placed at that facility had had no prior convictions .

In the course of examination of the case against the applicant , on DATE , the applicant complained to the trial court about the beatings , handcuffing , stripping and the threats of prison rape he had allegedly been subjected to by the police . On DATE the trial court ordered the prosecutor ’s office to investigate the allegations .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings essentially on the same grounds . No mention was made of the applicant ’s placement with adults in the detention facility .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to the regional prosecutor ’s office , reiterating her allegations that the applicant had been physically ill - treated by the police , left in a state of undress and handcuffed and threatened that he would be charged with rape and would , therefore , be raped in prison . She referred to her previous complaint of DATE on the same subject and complained that she had received no satisfactory answer to it .

On DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office overruled the decisions of DATE and DATE .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings , essentially on the same grounds as in its previous decisions . The prosecutors stated , with no further explanation , that there were no irregularities in the course of the applicant ’s placement and holding in the police detention facility . On DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office overruled that decision as premature .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings essentially on the same grounds . No mention was made of the applicant ’s detention with adults . On DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office upheld that decision .

Subsequently , other decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings were taken , the most recent CARDINAL on DATE . The copies of those decisions have not been provided to the ORG .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office wrote to the applicant ’s father in response to his complaint . It said that the records of local medical institutions showed that at the time the applicant had been placed in the cell with O. the latter had been registered as suffering from tuberculosis but , according to his file , he had not posed a danger of infection to others . He had been admitted to hospital in DATE to treat his tuberculosis . O. had had a conviction at some point in the past but his conviction had been considered sufficiently old to have been considered expunged by time the applicant had been detained with him .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office wrote to the applicant ’s father , again in response to his complaint , stating that the placing of adult arrestees in the same cell with the applicant , a minor , had been in breach of domestic law ( section CARDINAL of ORG ) and had constituted a disciplinary infraction on the part of the police officers who had taken that decision . However , they could not be disciplined because the DATE limitation period for disciplinary measures had expired . The prosecutor ’s office also confirmed that the applicant ’s cellmates were at the time registered as drug users .


CASE OF SHALYAVSKI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

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

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG . The first and second applicants are cohabiting partners and the fourth applicant is their daughter . The third applicant is the second applicant ’s son . At the relevant time all the applicants were living together .

The first applicant suffers from muscular dystrophy , which has gradually progressed since DATE . Currently ( and at the time of the relevant events ) , he is only able to move his head and hands . He needs assistance for most DATE activities , which is usually provided by the second applicant or his care assistant . According to the applicants , the care assistant , who was specially trained and had taken care of the first applicant for DATE , was the only person with whom the latter felt secure when he needed to go out of his home , in particular to go to his office , as this involved the assistant carrying him and installing him in a car . The assistant also drove the applicant ’s car . At the time the first applicant owned a pawnshop and managed several companies . CARDINAL of his activities was giving short - term loans at high interest rates .

In DATE the prosecution authorities opened criminal proceedings against the first applicant for usury . Prior to that , in DATE and DATE he had been convicted for an abuse in the exercise of a disputed right and for threatening another person .

On DATE , at TIME , the first applicant , while travelling in his car which was being driven by his care assistant , was stopped by police officers and ordered to follow them to the police station . Upon arrival , his care assistant was arrested . While the parties have not specified the grounds for this arrest , it is very likely that it was on the basis of ORG , which allowed , inter alia , the detention for up to TIME of a person suspected of having committed an offence , and that it was related to the investigation against the first applicant .

The car remained in the carpark and the first applicant remained in it . Unable to move , he stayed in that position for TIME , guarded by QUANTITY police officers . At TIME his care assistant was brought out under guard to move him to another car , because the first one was going to be impounded as physical evidence . On CARDINAL occasions during DATE the second applicant was allowed to come to help him with his physical needs .

During the time the first applicant spent in front of the police station , police officers searched his home , his office and his pawnshop , as well as his GPE flat and house . They also searched the applicant ’s cars . The operation against him had been planned in advance .

At TIME , while still in the car and in the presence of his lawyer who had arrived in the meantime , the first applicant had charges of usury brought against him by an investigator . For that purpose the police officers installed the necessary equipment in the carpark , including a computer and a printer . The applicant was invited to make a declaration in relation to the charges ; he stated that he was not guilty .

The first applicant remained in the car in front of the police station until TIME After that he was brought in front of the building of ORG , which was to hold a hearing to examine an application by the prosecution to place him under house arrest . In the court carpark police officers attempted to take the applicant out of the car and place him in a wheelchair , despite the second applicant ’s protests . They gave up , after becoming aware that they could hurt him . After that his care assistant , still in detention , was again brought out under guard . The first applicant was thus able to get out of the car at TIME He attended the court hearing , which ended at TIME The care assistant remained with him until the end of the hearing . The prosecution ’s application to have the first applicant placed under house arrest was allowed .

The applicant ’s care assistant was released on DATE and has not been questioned any further or prosecuted .

The Blagoevgrad Regional Court ’s decision to place the first applicant under house arrest was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . Before taking its decision , that court heard evidence from , among others , ORG , who stated that she was the first applicant ’s sister and a neurologist and gave evidence concerning the applicant ’s state of health .

On DATE the first applicant had charges brought against him once again , in a detailed bill of indictment listing CARDINAL occasions where he had given loans to individuals at high interest rates . According to reports published in the NORP media , in DATE he was indicted and is standing trial at present .

The observance of the first applicant ’s house arrest was supervised by the police .

DATE there were no checks on whether he was complying with the measure .

On DATE the first applicant was seen by patrolling police officers in the city centre . When asked to provide an explanation , he stated that he had gone out to buy something . The police checked on him at his home in TIME .

DATE and DATE police officers visited the applicants’ home to check on the first applicant on CARDINAL occasions , once a day and almost every day . On DATE there were no checks at all , and on DATE officers did not go to the applicants’ flat , but observed for some time the building ’s entrance . On DATE the applicant was met by officers in front of the building as he arrived in his car .

On DATE officers checked on the first applicant on CARDINAL occasions , and on QUANTITY occasions on DATE On DATE they visited the flat on CARDINAL occasions , but on CARDINAL of them were not allowed in .

On CARDINAL and DATE the second applicant did not allow the police into the flat . On DATE they visited the flat CARDINAL times ; on CARDINAL of the visits nobody answered the doorbell .

DATE officers visited the applicants’ flat usually CARDINAL times a day . CARDINAL of the visits on DATE was provoked by the fact that the applicant , having received authorisation to visit a physiotherapist , had not shown up for his appointment .

During some of the visits the fourth applicant , then DATE , was present as well . Usually she was taken by her mother to another room . The third applicant , then DATE , was working full time during this period .

On DATE the first applicant was released from house arrest , by a decision of ORG , which noted in particular his grave state of health and the fact that much of the evidence in the investigation against him had already been collected .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and habitually resides in GPE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the applicant was arrested , charged and remanded in custody on suspicion of unlawful production , possession and trafficking in drugs within the meaning of LAW ( c ) of LAW , on grounds that , if left at liberty , he would continue offending .

On DATE the applicant requested release , and in support of his request he offered a pledge that he would live in accordance with the law and that he would not interfere with the course of justice .

On DATE ORG found no reasons for releasing the applicant and transmitted his request to ORG súd ) for a judicial determination with a proposal that the request be dismissed .

On DATE ORG examined the request in chambers ( neverejné zasadnutie ) , following which , on DATE , the request was dismissed . ORG observed , inter alia , that by a judgment of DATE the applicant had been convicted of theft .

Immediately after the decisions of CARDINAL DATE had been pronounced , the applicant submitted an oral interlocutory appeal ( sťažnosť ) , which he later amended with the assistance of his lawyer .

The written version of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE , sitting in chambers ( neverejné zasadnutie ) , PERSON ( PERSON súd ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , fully endorsing the reasoning of ORG , adding that , at the same time , the applicant was also being prosecuted for other drugrelated offences .

On DATE the written version of ORG decision was transmitted to ORG , which was responsible for ensuring service of that decision on the applicant .

Service was effected on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ústavný súd ) , relying on Articles CARDINAL of the LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention , challenging the length of the proceedings relating to his request for release , and claiming MONEY ( ORG ) by way of just satisfaction . In support of the latter claim , he submitted that , while his request for release had been under examination , he had been in a state of legal uncertainty , which had had a particularly severe effect on his state of mind since he had been deprived of liberty .

On DATE ORG appointed the applicant a legal - aid lawyer and , on DATE , it declared the complaint admissible .

On DATE ORG issued a judgment ( nález ) finding a violation of the applicant ’s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention within the meaning of LAW . At the same time , it awarded him LAW in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The amount was not explained by any particular reasons .

The written version of the constitutional judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .


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

All the applicants were employed by ORG PERSON grupa GPE za preradu PERSON , a socially - owned company based in PERSON ( hereinafter “ the debtor ” ) .

Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees , the applicants brought numerous separate civil suits , seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions .

The applicants obtained final court judgments ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums . The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the appended table .

Following a period during which the enforcement proceedings had been suspended , DATE the final court judgments in question were all fully enforced in respect of the applicants .

NORP Since DATE , the debtor is a company predominantly comprised of ORG or socially owned capital and is still in the process of being restructured .