Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr NORP Chlapík , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

NORP The applicant , who is a lawyer , ran a property business and became involved in a dispute with the tax authorities over his tax liability in DATE . That amount depended on the amount of deductible expenses in the relevant DATE , these CARDINAL types of amount being determined by separate decisions in separate sets of proceedings .

On DATE the Trenčín tax office ordered him to pay the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in outstanding tax for DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the tax office ordered that the above amount be increased by PERCENT by way of a penalty and determined that the applicant ’s overall tax liability was the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE the tax office decided to secure payment of the applicant ’s outstanding tax by prohibiting him from selling or otherwise disposing of any of his real property .

The decision became enforceable on CARDINAL DATE , despite the applicant lodging an appeal , which was dismissed on DATE . The decision was ultimately confirmed by ORG on DATE .

The security established by the tax office had the legal form of a statutory lien and as such was registered in ORG . According to the applicant , the value of the encumbered property was the equivalent of some ORG CARDINAL .

The applicant also appealed against the tax order of DATE . Several tax audits followed . On CARDINAL DATE a decision concerning the deductible expenses for DATE was quashed by ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) , which on DATE dismissed a subsequent complaint regarding a fresh decision on the same matter .

The applicant ’s tax liability for DATE was recalculated and reduced several times . Eventually , on DATE , by a decision which became final on DATE , the tax office established that it was actually no more than the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL .

On DATE the tax office amended its decision of DATE securing payment of the applicant ’s outstanding tax and prohibited him from dealing with CARDINAL property .

On DATE the applicant paid the outstanding tax owed .

Consequently , on DATE , the tax office cancelled the decision of CARDINAL DATE in its entirety .

On DATE the applicant , assisted by a lawyer then and throughout the subsequent proceedings , brought a claim for damages against the ORG , in the person of ORG .

He relied on the DATE LAW ( Law no . PERSON . – “ the LAW ” ) and pointed out that by its decision of DATE , the tax office had encumbered his real property , which was worth CARDINAL times more than his tax liability under the decision of CARDINAL DATE . Not only that , the decision had then turned out to be based on a completely inaccurate calculation .

He claimed that because of the impugned lien , all of his real property had been encumbered for DATE , which had actually prevented him from carrying out his business activities , causing him to lose profit equivalent to some ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , an amount that he later increased to the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

The applicant also argued that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had in fact been quashed by the decision of DATE , and that the entire calculation of his tax liability had been erroneous because it had been based on amounts of tax - deductible expenses that had been contested and had later turned out to be wrong .

As to the damage allegedly caused , he calculated it as the interest he could have obtained from a bank for depositing the monetary value of the encumbered property , that value having been established by an expert .

The claim was examined and dismissed at first instance by ORG súd ) on DATE and following an appeal ( odvolanie ) by the applicant , by ORG ( PERSON súd ) on DATE .

Both courts interpreted the applicant ’s claim as being aimed at recovering damages in respect of a wrongful official decision ( sections CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ) as opposed to wrongful official action ( sections CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ) . However , under the applicable statute ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) , the first prerequisite for that type of claim to be available was that the alleged damage had to have resulted from an enforceable official decision that had been quashed or amended for being unlawful ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

ORG explained that prerequisite in further detail , holding that the unlawfulness of the contested decision could not be examined as a preliminary issue in the proceedings in the claim for damages , and had to have been established by the body that had quashed the decision precisely on account of its unlawfulness .

The courts noted that the damage asserted by the applicant had allegedly been sustained as a result of the tax office ’s decision of DATE , and found that that decision had never been quashed or amended for being unlawful . It had been cancelled on DATE for a different reason , namely because the applicant ’s tax liability had been paid in full .

Both courts concluded that in the circumstances , the principal statutory requirement for the claim to be available had not been met . In addition , ORG found the claim unfounded on several other grounds . These were , however , found by ORG to be superfluous in view of the earlier finding .

An appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) brought by the applicant made in reliance on alleged procedural irregularities was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE .

He also brought a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of his rights under LAW No . CARDINAL in the above proceedings , which was declared inadmissible on DATE .

ORG held that there was nothing to show that the ordinary courts had dealt with the case unfairly , or that their decisions had been arbitrary . As to the alleged breach of the applicant ’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions , it considered that it would only be entitled to examine that complaint if the ordinary courts had breached his rights under LAW or its constitutional equivalent .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev

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

On DATE the GPE am ORG issued an arrest warrant against the applicant as there was a strong suspicion that he had aided the commission of crimes , worth MONEY , of aggravated fraudulent conversion , corruption , corruption in commercial practice and aggravated tax evasion through an elaborate system of bribes and fictitious invoices in connection with international business undertakings by a company . The arrest warrant was based on the risk of his absconding owing to the possible heavy sentence for the offences in question . He was also married to the co - accused , who , like him , was a national of GPE , and he did not have a legal residence or other significant ties to GPE . There was also a risk of collusion . On DATE , he was arrested and ORG ordered his detention on remand . On DATE ORG included additional charges in the arrest warrant .

On DATE the GPE am GPE prosecution authorities brought criminal proceedings against the applicant , charging him with CARDINAL counts of aiding aggravated fraudulent conversion , CARDINAL count of aiding aggravated corruption and CARDINAL counts of aiding aggravated tax evasion . On DATE ORG sent the translation of the CARDINAL indictment to the applicant . On DATE he responded to the indictment and asked the court not to open the main proceedings . On DATE the prosecution authorities asked ORG to amend the proceedings against the applicant , based on the results of the investigation obtained after the criminal proceedings had been brought .

On DATE ORG decided to open the main proceedings , which commenced on DATE . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant on CARDINAL counts each of aiding fraudulent conversion and tax evasion and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The conviction has not yet become final , with appeals lodged by both the applicant and the prosecution authorities still pending at the time the ORG examined the application .

On DATE the GPE am ORG decided to set aside the arrest warrant of DATE , which since the outset had been the basis for the applicant ’s continuous detention on remand .

From DATE the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his remand detention before the GPE am ORG and the GPE am ORG without success . Following a request by the prosecution authorities , the GPE am ORG on DATE ordered the prolongation of the applicant ’s remand detention . It also ordered that the case file be re - submitted to it by DATE at the latest for the next periodic review . Until that time , it transferred the competency for further reviews to the court having jurisdiction according to the general provisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It considered that there was a risk that the applicant might abscond and that continued detention on remand was not disproportionate in light of the sentence which he risked incurring if found guilty . On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against that decision . The court refused to accept it for adjudication , without providing reasons ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a decision which was served on the applicant on DATE .

Subsequently , the applicant initiated another set of review proceedings before ORG and lodged a complaint of bias against the competent judge . The complaint was eventually rejected in accordance with the proceedings prescribed by law , as were the remedies pursued by the applicant . On DATE the GPE am ORG dismissed an application from the applicant to set aside the detention order as it had become devoid of purpose ( prozessual überholt ) because the GPE am ORG had been seized with a review of the applicant ’s detention under Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW .

On DATE the prosecution authorities submitted a statement and the case file to the GPE am ORG , requesting the extension of the applicant ’s detention on remand in accordance with Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

On DATE the applicant requested that the detention order be set aside . He also requested that ORG decide on his objection and an appeal to be heard , lodged on DATE against ORG decision of DATE , prior to the expiry of the timelimit given to him to respond to the prosecution authorities’ submission . On DATE ORG dismissed the objection and the appeal to be heard .

On DATE the names of the judges called to decide on the continuation of the applicant ’s detention were disclosed to the applicant , following his request of DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint of bias against CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judges concerned , arguing that they had repeatedly contacted the wrong authorities – either the GPE am ORG or ORG , rather than the prosecution authorities – to request the case file and had taken DATE to decide on his objection and appeal to be heard . That had amounted to an arbitrary handling of his case and the judges involved could not decide on the continuation of his detention with the necessary impartiality . The judges gave their statements on DATE and DATE . The applicant then requested additional statements from them , which was not deemed to be necessary by ORG on DATE . DATE the applicant lodged another complaint about bias , arguing that their statements in response to his first such complaint could not restore his confidence in their impartiality . The judges concerned again gave statements and the applicant ’s counsel was given the opportunity to respond . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s first complaint of bias as ill - founded , finding that there were no indications that the judges concerned were partial , even assuming that they had made a procedural mistake in connection with requesting the case file , leading to a delay in deciding on his objection and appeal to be heard . On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against that decision . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s second complaint of bias as ill - founded , also addressing his objection in its decision .

On DATE ORG asked the GPE am ORG about the current state of the criminal proceedings and what developments there had been . ORG was informed by the prosecution authorities that the criminal proceedings had been brought before ORG , rather than the GPE am ORG , so ORG made a similar enquiry to the court in question on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer sent to ORG CARDINAL comprehensive submissions which he had made in the main proceedings before ORG and asked the appeal court to take them into account when deciding on the continuation of the applicant ’s remand detention .

On DATE and on DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL applications with ORG , asking it to take a decision in the pending review proceedings without delay .

On DATE the applicant lodged another constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging that the absence of a decision by ORG in the pending detention review proceedings had violated his right to liberty and security . On DATE ORG refused to accept the complaint for adjudication without providing reasons ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant was served with a decision by the GPE am ORG , taken on DATE and issued on CARDINAL DATE , ordering the continuation of his detention on remand . It found that the risk of his absconding continued to exist . It further considered that in the light of , inter alia , the amount of evidence to be examined , the requests for legal assistance sent to several countries , and the scope and complexity of the case , there was no indication of undue delay in the conduct of the criminal proceedings , with the trial being scheduled to commence in DATE . The applicant ’s continued detention on remand was , therefore , proportionate . The court did not address the duration of the review proceedings nor provide any reasons for it .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

At the material time the applicant ’s family lived in a dwelling comprising several houses in CARDINAL courtyard in FAC in LOC of PERSON . The family included the applicant , her husband PERSON ( also sometimes written as PERSON ) PERSON , their sons , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , Ms Amnat ( also sometimes written as PERSON ) PERSON , the wife of Mr PERSON , and their CARDINAL children , including Mr PERSON . The dwelling was located CARDINAL blocks from the military commander ’s office and the LOC police station ( the ROVD ) . The area was under curfew .

On TIME ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as TIME DATE ) the applicant ’s family were at home . The applicant was not there as she had left to spend TIME at her relatives’ house in GPE .

At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL federal servicemen in uniforms and balaclavas , armed with automatic weapons , arrived in an armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) at the applicant ’s home and unlocked the gate . They then started shooting and throwing grenades at the applicant ’s house .

One of the applicant ’s sons , Mr PERSON , who was a police officer , shot back for TIME . After that he managed to leave the house and inform the police about the incident . Meanwhile , the applicant ’s family lay on the floor to avoid being hit . The applicant ’s grandson PERSON was injured in the foot and lower back by a hand - grenade explosion . Another ORG had arrived at the house in the meantime .

TIME the servicemen stormed the building . The applicant ’s son Mr PERSON stood up and started moving towards the servicemen , trying to warn them that there were women and children in the house . He was shot in the head before the eyes of his wife and CARDINAL children . His body was moved to another room where he was shot in the head again .

The servicemen then took the applicant ’s husband , Mr PERSON , outside and put him in the ORG and drove off . The applicant ’s husband has been missing ever since .

At the end of their special operation , the servicemen took the applicant ’s family outside and set the house and family car on fire .

The applicant heard of the incident at TIME and immediately went home . Upon her arrival , the applicant was told by relatives of the circumstances of her son ’s killing and of her husband ’s abduction .

In their submissions before ORG did not contest the facts as presented by the applicant . However , they denied any involvement by ORG agents in the alleged killing of her son and the alleged disappearance of her husband .

NORP In reply to a request from the ORG to submit a copy of the documents reflecting the most important steps taken by the investigation into the events of the night DATE , the Government furnished copies of criminal case files nos . DATE and DATE , running up to CARDINAL pages . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .

On DATE a group of investigators from the ORG prosecutor ’s office examined the crime scene . As a result , they collected CARDINAL spent cartridges , CARDINAL bullets and a machine gun as evidence .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s other son , Mr PERSON , a police officer at the ROVD at the time . He stated that at TIME he had been at home and had been woken up by someone opening the outside gates . He had then heard a group of men running into the courtyard . He had asked in NORP and then in NORP who the men were , but had received no reply . He had seen that CARDINAL of them was in camouflage uniform and a balaclava and was armed with a machine gun . The witness had warned the man that he was a police officer . In reply , the man had opened fire and the witness shot back . Then the other intruders had opened fire with machine guns and grenades , in an attack of TIME . The witness had been wounded by grenade splinters in the hand and the torso . He had managed to leave the house and run into the neighbouring courtyard . Meanwhile , the shooting continued . The witness had seen CARDINAL ROVD officers come out after they heard the gunfire . He had explained the situation to them and they had contacted the local military commander ’s office and the ROVD by radio . The witness and the police officers had then heard an ORG arriving at the witness ’s house , after which the shooting had intensified and had lasted for TIME . Then the CARDINAL APCs had driven off and the gunfire stopped . The police officers had left CARDINAL of their colleagues with the witness and had gone to the house . Upon their return , they had told him that his brother and father had been taken away in the APCs .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s neighbour , PERSON , who stated that on TIME DATE he had been woken up by intense gunfire from automatic firearms at the applicant ’s house , which had lasted for TIME . Then he had seen that the applicant ’s house had been set on fire . A group of men had shouted and sworn in unaccented NORP and had then driven off in an ORG .

On DATE the investigators questioned another neighbour of the applicant , PERSON , who stated that TIME before he had been woken up by intense gunfire at the applicant ’s house . When he had tried to open the door to see what was going on , he had been ordered to stay inside or be shot . He had heard men swearing in NORP .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s neighbours Mr V.A. , Mr A.Ch . and PERSON . PERSON , whose statements were similar to the CARDINAL given by PERSON . PERSON also stated that at TIME someone had demanded that she open her door and let in the wife of Mr PERSON , PERSON , and her children , including the wounded PERSON . PERSON told the witness that all of the men who had been in their house had been killed by the armed men who had arrived in the ORG . On TIME the witness had found a spent QUANTITY calibre cartridge at her home , presumably from an automatic gun .

On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicant ’s neighbour , Mr PERSON , whose statement was similar to those of the other neighbours ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In addition , he stated that the shooting at the PERSON house had continued for CARDINAL and TIME , that the armed men who had attacked the applicant ’s family had been an organised group of CARDINAL to QUANTITY men in camouflage uniforms , that they had sworn a lot in unaccented NORP and that they had driven in an ORG . After the shooting he had gone to the house and found the walls and furniture riddled with bullet holes . He had also found the body of the applicant ’s son , PERSON , who had been killed in the gunfire .

On DATE , DATE , the investigators also questioned the applicant ’s neighbours GPE . , PERSON . and Mr Ab . PERSON , whose statements were similar to those of the other neighbours ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

On DATE the investigators opened criminal case no . DATE ( in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as DATE ) in connection with the murder of the applicant ’s son PERSON PERSON by a group of CARDINAL to QUANTITY armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas who had arrived at the [ the applicant ’s ] house ” .

On DATE the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the body of the applicant ’s son Mr PERSON . On DATE the forensic experts concluded that he had died from CARDINAL gunshot wounds to the head .

On DATE the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the applicant ’s grandson PERSON . On the same date the experts concluded that he had received a perforating shrapnel wound and a gunshot wound to the torso .

On DATE the applicant ’s son Mr PERSON complained of the incident to ORG . In particular , he stated that on TIME of the events he had warned the intruders that he was a police officer , but they had opened fire . After TIME of intense shooting , the perpetrators had taken his brother , Mr PERSON , outside and executed him in the courtyard . They had then wounded his nephew PERSON , and had taken away his father , Mr PERSON . Neither the military commander ’s office nor the nearby police station had reacted to the gunfire or intervened in any way .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s daughter - in - law PERSON , whose statement concerning the events was similar to that of her brother - in - law , Mr PERSON . In addition , she stated that her husband , Mr PERSON , had been shot dead by the perpetrators , who had been in military uniform and had driven around in CARDINAL APCs . The perpetrators had also taken away the applicant ’s husband , Mr PERSON .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s neighbours Mr GPE and Mr GPE . , whose statements were similar to the applicant ’s account before the ORG . In addition , Mr M.Kh . stated that after the shooting had stopped , several military vehicles had driven down their street in the direction of the applicant ’s house . In the morning he had learned that the attack had been carried out by federal servicemen who had been driving in CARDINAL APCs .

On DATE the investigators ordered a ballistics report on the cartridges , bullets and machine gun collected from the crime scene on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ballistic experts concluded that the machine gun had been set for single shots only and that the cartridges had come from several different PERSON machine guns .

On DATE the investigators granted the applicant ’s son Mr PERSON , the status of victim in the criminal case and questioned him again . He reiterated his previous statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigators granted the applicant ’s daughter - in - law PERSON the status of victim in the criminal case and questioned her . Her statement was similar to the one given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , she stated that the perpetrators had wounded her father - in - law and taken him away in their ORG .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s neighbour PERSON . GPE . , whose statement about the events was similar to those given by the other neighbours and to the applicant ’s account before ORG .

On DATE ORG wrote to ORG asking for assistance in the investigation of the criminal case . The letter stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ... The GPE prosecutor ’s office is investigating a criminal case concerning the killing of PERSON and the wounding of Mr PERSON by a group of unidentified persons armed with automatic rifles .

CARDINAL of the theories being pursued by the investigation is that of the involvement in the crime of military servicemen from ORG ( the ORG ) . In connection with this I request that an investigator from unit no . CARDINAL of the military prosecutor ’s office be included in the ORG group to assist in solving the crime ... ”

On DATE the PERSON military commander ’s office informed the investigators that they had no information about the possible identity of the perpetrators and had not issued orders for a special operation at the applicant ’s house .

On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was suspended owing to a failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicant and her relatives were not informed of this .

On DATE the LOC prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and premature . He pointed out , among other things , that the investigators had failed to take basic steps , such as questioning the police officers whom PERSON PERSON had met after his escape from the house or questioning the officers from the military commander ’s office about the attackers’ use of ORG military vehicles . The investigation resumed on DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant complained of her son ’s killing and her husband ’s abduction to the LOC administration , which on DATE forwarded her complaint to the investigators for examination .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s neighbour Mr GPE , whose statement was similar to the applicant ’s account before the ORG .

On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was suspended owing to a failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicant and her relatives were not informed of this decision .

On DATE the investigators again took up the criminal case on the orders of their superiors after receiving a request for information from the applicant .

On DATE the investigators granted the applicant the status of a victim in the criminal case and questioned her . The applicant ’s statement concerning the circumstances of her son ’s killing and the abduction of her husband by military servicemen was similar to her account before the ORG . In addition , she stated that even though the servicemen had known that her son Mr PERSON worked in the police , they had still opened fire .

On DATE the investigators again suspended the investigation owing to a failure to identify the perpetrators . They informed the applicant of this decision .

The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG in PERSON . On DATE the court rejected the complaint because DATE the investigators had resumed the proceedings in the criminal case .

On DATE the investigations in criminal cases DATE and CARDINAL were joined under the number DATE ( see below ) .

On DATE the investigators suspended the proceedings in the joint criminal case and informed the applicant .

On DATE the investigation was resumed by the supervising body as having been unlawfully suspended and the investigators were ordered to take fresh steps .

On DATE the investigators again suspended the proceedings in the joint criminal case .

The document submitted shows that the investigation is still pending .

DATE . On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office opened criminal case no . DATE in connection with the disappearance of the applicant ’s husband , Mr PERSON .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s daughter - in - law PERSON and her son Mr PERSON . Their statements were similar to the applicant ’s account before the ORG .

On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the applicant ’s neighbours PERSON and PERSON , whose statements were similar to the applicant ’s account before ORG . In addition , they stated that the perpetrators of the abduction had been military servicemen .

On an unspecified date in DATE the investigators informed the applicant ’s lawyer that they were taking search measures to establish the whereabouts of the applicant ’s missing husband .

On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicant was not informed .

On DATE the investigation resumed and was again suspended on DATE . The applicant was not informed of either decision .

On DATE the investigators resumed the investigation at the applicant ’s request .

On DATE she was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned . Her statement was identical to the CARDINAL given in criminal case no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigators suspended the investigation on account of a failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the applicant .

The applicant appealed against the decision to suspend the proceedings to ORG . On DATE the court rejected the complaint because earlier on the same day the investigators had resumed proceedings in the criminal case .

On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was joined with the investigation in criminal case DATE under a joint number , DATE .

On DATE the investigators again suspended the proceedings in the criminal case and informed the applicant . The document submitted shows that the joint investigation is still pending ( see above ) .

The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying the application , but claimed that the applicant ’s submission was unsubstantiated and that there was no evidence proving “ beyond reasonable doubt ” that ORG agents had been involved in the killing of the applicant ’s son and the disappearance of her husband . In particular , they stated that the applicant herself had not witnessed the incident and that her application had been based “ only on the suppositions of her relatives and neighbours ” as none of the alleged witnesses had been able to say for sure that the man taken away in the ORG by the abductors had been Mr PERSON .

DATE . The applicant submitted that it had been established “ beyond reasonable doubt ” that ORG agents had been involved in the attack on her house , which had resulted in the abduction of her husband and the killing of her son . In support of that assertion she referred to the ample evidence contained in her submissions and those of the Government , as well as the contents of the criminal investigation file . In particular , she pointed out that the perpetrators had arrived as a large group in APCs , which could only have been used by the federal forces , and that they had been able to move around freely during the curfew . The local military commander ’s office had not reacted to the intense gunfire in the middle of the town during the curfew and the attack had taken place close to the local police station and lasted for TIME . She submitted that she had made a prima facie case that ORG agents had killed her son and abducted her husband and that the Government had failed to provide a plausible explanation for the events . In view of the absence of any news of her husband for a long time and the life - threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in the region at the relevant time , she asked the ORG to consider him dead .

The ORG will examine the application at hand in the light of the general principles applicable in cases where the factual circumstances are in dispute between the parties ( see PERSON v. “ the former GPE ” [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .

The ORG has addressed a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances and deaths of applicants’ relatives in GPE . Applying the above‑mentioned principles , it has concluded that if applicants make a prima facie case of abduction or killing by servicemen , this is sufficient for them to show that their relatives fell within the control of the authorities , and it is then for the Government to discharge their burden of proof , either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , among many examples , GPE and Others , cited above , § CARDINAL , and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) . If the Government fail to rebut that presumption , this will entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where applicants fail to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof can not be reversed ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and GPE and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .

The ORG has also found in many cases concerning disappearances that a missing person may be presumed dead . Having regard to the numerous cases of disappearances in GPE which have come before it , the ORG has found that in the particular context of the conflict in the region , when a person has been detained by unidentified ORG agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention , this could be regarded as life‑threatening ( see , among many others , GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . GPE , CARDINAL , ORG and ORG , DATE ) .

The ORG has made findings of presumptions of deaths in the absence of any reliable news about disappeared persons for periods ranging from DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) to DATE .

Turning to the circumstances of the present case , the ORG notes that the documents from the investigation file provided by the Government ( see , for example , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) demonstrate that the applicant ’s son Mr PERSON was shot dead on TIME by a group of armed servicemen who drove around in APCs and opened fire on the applicant ’s house during TIME . As a result of the TIME attack , which took place in proximity of the military commander ’s office and the police station , the applicant ’s husband , Mr PERSON , was taken away by the same group of servicemen and has been missing since . In their submissions to the authorities , the applicant , her relatives and neighbours , pointed out that the killing of Mr PERSON and the abduction of Mr PERSON had been carried out by the same group of perpetrators , who belonged to the federal forces ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The investigators considered this version of events and took steps to verify this assertion ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . In view of all the evidence in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that ORG agents killed her son and abducted her husband , who subsequently disappeared .

The Government neither contested the essential facts underlying the application nor provided a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Bearing in mind the general principles set out above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was killed on TIME in the applicant ’s house by a group of ORG agents and that her husband Mr PERSON was taken into custody on TIME by the same group of ORG agents . In view of the absence of any reliable news of the applicant ’s husband since DATE and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .


Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. Böcker , of ORG .

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

A. Introduction

NORP Before the events complained of , the applicants variously held shares or subordinated bonds ( the latter under diverse designations ) issued by ORG ( hereafter “ SNS NORP ” ) , a public limited company ( naamloze vennootschap , “ GPE ” ) incorporated under GPE law , or CARDINAL or more of its subsidiaries .

SNS Bank N.V. ( “ ORG ” ) was , and is , a high - street retail bank . It was a subsidiary of the holding company SNS ORG Another subsidiary of that holding company was ORG , an insurance company . ORG own subsidiaries included ORG , ORG and ORG , a private limited company ( besloten vennootschap , “ ORG ” ) .

DATE the financial position of certain companies within the ORG group deteriorated . By DATE the GPE central bank ( ORG , “ DNB ” ) was concerned about the conglomerate ’s financial health to the point that it decided to seize the Minister of Finance ( Minister PERSON ) of the situation .

Reports relevant to the case were presented on DATE by ORG , a firm of accountants , and on DATE by ORG , a real estate services firm ( a supplement to the latter was presented on DATE ) . ORG had full access to the report by ORG . Copies of the CARDINAL reports submitted by the applicants have parts blacked out . It would appear that these documents were not released to the applicants complete at any relevant time .

B. The expropriation proceedings

DNB ’s letter to the Minister of Finance

On DATE DNB wrote to PERSON in the following terms ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ CARDINAL . Introduction

On DATE DNB sent the outcome of ORG ) to ORG ( ORG ) in the form of an intended ORG decision . In this intended decision ... DNB notes a capital shortage of MONEY ( ORG ) and states its intent to impose on ORG the measure of having to supplement its core capital by CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL no later than DATE at TIME , or at least to present , no later than DATE at TIME , a final solution which , in the considered view of DNB , has sufficient prospects of success and which will , in the short term , lead to the actual supplementing of the said capital shortage . If ORG should prove unable sufficiently to strengthen its capital position in time , DNB , according to its statement of intent , will consider it irresponsible for ORG to continue banking and DNB will make use of its powers under LAW ( Wet op het financiëel toezicht ) . ORG has until TIME on DATE to state its views ; DNB will come to a final decision as soon as possible thereafter , taking these views into account . If these views should provide any new insight , then DNB will inform your ministry accordingly as soon as possible .

In the event that DNB in its final ORG decision imposes on ORG the measure referred to in its intended decision and ORG does not comply with the measure thus imposed within the time - limit set , DNB considers it irresponsible for ORG to continue banking . In addition , in the absence of a convincing and final solution it would appear impossible to publish by CARDINAL DATE provisional annual accounts drawn up on the basis of continuity . In view of the expectations raised as regards an overall solution , postponing the publication of DATE accounts without announcing an overall solution for ORG will mean further undermining confidence in SNS LANGUAGE . DNB considers this irresponsible from the point of view of financial stability , also in the light of the increasing flow of publications in the media on the vulnerable position of SNS LOC and the resulting outflow of funds .

Since ORG is a system - relevant institution ( systeemrelevante instelling ) , the threat of insolvency of ORG ( and therefore that of the entire concern ) will mean that the stability of the financial system is in serious and immediate danger . DNB therefore advises you to make preparations to enable the use of your powers under part CARDINAL of LAW immediately after the lapse of the time - limit in a final ORG - decision if and in so far as one is taken , or even sooner if the situation should so require .

In view of the seriousness of the situation and the speed of the developments , DNB considers it important to send you this informative letter – based on section CARDINAL of LAW – already now . Paragraph CARDINAL of this letter provides background information relating to the situation of the institution and the supervisory approach adopted by DNB . Paragraph CARDINAL explores financial stability as the guiding point of departure in seeking a solution . Paragraph CARDINAL provides an overview of the solutions examined and the reasons why , as it appears at present , these are not achievable . Paragraph CARDINAL makes a few closing remarks .

Background

After a broad survey of possible avenues for a solution by a joint working group , there have been intensive discussions with ORG and market parties about a plurality of ( variants of ) solutions . In its role as supervisor and co - responsible party for the stability of the financial system , DNB has played an initiating and active role in this process of negotiation . With the help of external advisors , a solution has been sought which comes as close as possible to meeting the following basic criteria :

The private sector should be involved as much as possible to limit the financial consequences for the ORG as much as possible ;

Wherever possible , losses should be borne by SNS ORG ’s current risk - bearing financiers ( burden sharing ) . This point of departure not merely limits the financial consequences for the ORG , but also serves the stability of the financial system in the long term ;

The intention to forestall an emergency situation ;

It is self - evident that any solution – involving ORG support DATE should in addition be assured of the approval of ORG ( ORG ) , be structural in character , and be proportionate .

Financial stability

In DNB ’s considered view it is not only ORG continuity which is of importance for the financial system , but also that of the holding SNS Reaal .

ORG insolvency will have serious consequences for the stability of the financial system because of ( i ) the costs involved in the implementation of the deposit guarantee scheme , ( ii ) loss of confidence in other GPE financial institutions and ( iii ) the consequences for account holders and the attending unrest . DNB has described these factors in its letter of DATE , in which it is explained that DNB considers the estimated eventual cost flowing from the implementation of the deposit guarantee scheme irresponsibly high , seen also in the light of the general scarcity of capital and the desire of the markets for the anticipated application of PERSON [ a voluntary regulatory standard on bank capital requirements , now due to enter into force in DATE ] ( argument i ) . In order to supplement these arguments , communicated to your Ministry earlier , DNB points to the following factors :

The uncertainty as to the possibility for banks to recover against the estate of ORG bank if the deposit guarantee system is implemented . Since ORG CARDINAL of the deposits guaranteed by that scheme are held by ORG , claims would be in the order of greatness of ORG MONEY per major GPE bank . A situation in which other GPE banks have major claims against the estate of ORG and in which it is uncertain to what extent these will be met in itself undermines the health of , and therefore confidence in , these banks .

Further splitting up ORG into separate parts is not a realistic option . This is caused , in particular , by the interrelation of subsidiaries ORG and ORG with their parent ORG as regards operations and IT ; these subsidiaries use the same infrastructure with their own labels . There is also considerable financial interrelation between ORG and ORG : savings from ORG are used to finance credit ( mortgages ) provided by ORG . Because of these interrelations any insolvency of the parent bank will in practice include that of the subsidiaries and vice versa . Any insolvency of ORG will in addition probably lead to loss of confidence in its subsidiaries as well .

ORG and ORG hold CARDINAL current accounts and CARDINAL savings accounts , with a total credit balance of approximately ORG MONEY . At least EUR DATE is paid into CARDINAL of the current accounts , which is an indication that these accounts play an important role in the financial transactions of individuals . Consequently all sorts of practical problems [ sic ] resulting from any insolvency of ORG , such as cashpoints breaking down or standing orders being stopped , will have enormous social effects [ sic ] .

Conclusion

... [ It would appear ] , at this moment , that nationalisation of the conglomerate as a whole is the only remaining solution for SNS LOC . For a decision to expropriate to be taken , there has to be a situation of ‘ serious and immediate danger to the stability of the financial system’ . As has been observed in the introduction to this letter , DNB considers it irresponsible for ORG to continue banking in the event that DNB in its final ORG - decision imposes on ORG the measure referred to in its intended decision and ORG does not comply with the measure thus imposed within the time - limit set . In the considered view of DNB the above - mentioned legal criterion for nationalisation will then have been met . Should you decide not to proceed with nationalisation , DNB , as the responsible supervisor , would be compelled to seek an emergency arrangement , which would mean implementing the deposit guarantee system .

An emergency situation is therefore imminent . In the introduction to this letter attention has been drawn to the danger of loss of confidence as a result of any postponement of publication of the DATE accounts without announcing an overall solution for SNS Reaal . There is already a loss of confidence , which has manifested itself in an outflow of funds in an amount of QUANTITY since the reports of CARDINAL DATE about the position taken by the ORG in this case ; actually , if it had not been for public confidence in the safety net provided by the ORG the outflow would probably have been considerably greater .

In addition to publication of the DATE accounts without announcing an overall solution DNB notes other events that could be the beginning of an emergency situation . In the first place , DNB can not allow NORP and/or ORG to increase lending to the holding SNS LOC with which to repay external financing that will end in DATE . Absent any other funding possibilities this is expected to cause the holding to be unable to make further payments . In addition , if no solution is found , then ORG , owing to its very weak capitalisation and the negative developments in this respect , would run the risk of no longer having access to ORG facilities . This , combined with the outflow of funds that has already occurred , could cause SNS immediate liquidity problems .

On the above grounds , DNB advises you to make preparations to enable the use of your powers under part CARDINAL of LAW immediately after the expiry of the time - limit in a final ORG decision if and in so far as one is taken , or even sooner if the situation should so require . ”

This letter was at the time classified confidential . It has since been made available to the public .

The ORG decision

On DATE DNB , after ORG had stated its views , gave a decision ( the “ ORG decision ” ) which , as relevant to the case before the ORG , was in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL . Decision

ORG shall supplement its core capital by no less than ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL billion no later than DATE at TIME , or in any case ORG shall , CARDINAL January CARDINAL at TIME , present a final solution which , in the considered view of DNB , offers sufficient prospects of success , it being required , at least , that all the parties involved shall demonstrably have committed themselves to the solution presented , and which solution shall lead to the actual supplementing of the said capital shortage in short order .

Final remarks

Only if the decision set out in paragraph CARDINAL has been fulfilled will it be possible for DNB to conclude that ORG established capital ( toetsingsvermogen ) guarantees controlled and durable cover of its risks . If ORG should prove unable to strengthen its capital position sufficiently and in time , DNB considers that it is irresponsible for ORG to continue banking and ORG will make use of its powers under LAW . ... ”

NORP The expropriation decree

On DATE the Minister of Finance issued the following decree ( Official Gazette ( Staatscourant ) DATE , no . CARDINAL , translation published by the Government ) :

“ The Minister of Finance , acting in agreement with the Prime Minister , Minister of ORG ;

Having regard to Sections CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , and CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ;

Having consulted [ DNB ] ;

DECREES as follows :

Article CARDINAL

NORP The following securities , issued by or with the cooperation of the public limited company ( naamloze vennootschap ) SNS ORG or , respectively , the public limited company ORG , both having registered offices at GPE , shall be expropriated for the benefit of ORG the GPE :

a. all CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINAL ) issued shares of the class Ordinary shares in the share capital of ORG , ISIN code PERSON ;

b. all CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) issued shares of the class Shares B in the share capital of ORG ;

c. all other issued shares in the share capital of ORG ;

d. all issued shares in the share capital of ORG held by others than ORG or its group companies ;

e. all QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) PERSON SNS ORG CARDINAL capital securities issued by ORG ;

PERSON all subordinated bonds issued by ORG that belong to the following series :

NORP EUR CARDINAL million PERCENT Fixed / Floating Rate Hybrid Capital Securities issued under ORG LAW Debt Issuance Programme of DATE , ISIN code XSCARDINAL ;

EUR PERCENT Fixed / Floating Rate Hybrid Capital Securities issued under ORG LAW Debt Issuance Programme of DATE , ISIN code XSCARDINAL ;

g. all subordinated bonds issued by ORG that belong to the following series :

NORP EUR CARDINAL PERCENT Resettable Tier CARDINAL Notes issued on DATE under the Debt Issuance Programme of ORG , ISIN code FAC ;

NORP EUR PERCENT Subordinated Fixed changing to Floating Rate Notes issued on DATE under the ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ORG , ISIN code ORG ;

EUR PERCENT Subordinated Notes issued on DATE under LAW of ORG and ORG , ISIN code XSCARDINAL ;

NORP EUR PERCENT Subordinated Fixed Rate Notes due DATE , issued on DATE under ORG LAW , ISIN code ORG ;

h. all non - listed subordinated bonds issued by ORG under the name of ‘ SNS ORG with a nominal value of ORG CARDINAL each , at an interest rate of ( currently ) PERCENT , issued for an indefinite period and described in the prospectus of CARDINAL DATE ;

i. all debt instruments , issued by or with the cooperation of ORG or ORG , which include subordination clauses that are similar to the subordination clauses included in the aforementioned series of bonds , or that otherwise prevent the claims of holders of such instruments from being met until after senior creditors of the issuer have been satisfied .

NORP The following capital components of ORG and ORG , respectively , shall be expropriated for the benefit of PERSON Onderhandse Schulden SNS REAAL [ “ ORG for settling the private debts of SNS REAAL ” ] , with registered office at GPE :

a. the payment obligations of ORG and ORG under the following loans :

the EUR CARDINAL , PERCENT loan of ORG dated DATE maturing on DATE extended by ORG ;

the ORG CARDINAL , PERCENT loan of ORG dated DATE maturing on DATE extended by ORG ;

the NLG CARDINAL loan of ORG dated DATE and maturing on DATE extended by GPE tot beheer van ORG aandelen ORG ;

the NLG CARDINAL loan of ORG received on DATE and maturing on DATE , extended by ORG ;

the NLG CARDINAL loan of ORG received on DATE and maturing on DATE , extended by PERSON OHRA Obligatie Fonds ;

b. all obligations and liabilities of ORG or ORG to parties expropriated under the first subsection or to former holders of securities expropriated under that subsection , to the extent that those obligations or liabilities relate to the ( former ) holdership of the said securities ;

such that all rights and obligations arising from those capital components with respect to SNS ORG or ORG shall transfer to PERSON Onderhandse Schulden SNS ORG effective as of the time of expropriation .

Any party that loses the right to claim against ORG or ORG as a result of the expropriation of the capital components referred to in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be deemed to be ‘ ORG within the meaning of Section CARDINAL:CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ... ) , for the purposes of LAW of that LAW .

Article CARDINAL

The public limited company SNS ORG shall be appointed as director of ORG Onderhandse Schulden SNS ORG .

Article CARDINAL

Notwithstanding any provision in Part CARDINAL of Volume CARDINAL of the Dutch Civil Code or the relevant provisions in ORG :

a. the members of ORG ( raad van bestuur ) of ORG , as well as the chairman and vice - chairman of that ORG , shall be appointed , suspended and dismissed by the general meeting of shareholders , without any recommendation .

b. the members of ORG ( raad van commissarissen ) of ORG , as well as the chairman and any vice - chairman of that ORG , shall be appointed , suspended and dismissed by the general meeting of shareholders , without any recommendation .

NORP The provisions set out in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be in effect for DATE starting on DATE Decree takes effect .

Article CARDINAL

This Decree shall take effect on DATE at TIME .

This Decree shall be published by means of a press release in combination with the publication of the complete text of this Decree on the website of ORG . A copy of the Decree shall be sent to ORG , ORG and PERSON Onderhandse Schulden SNS ORG .

This Decree shall also be announced in ORG [ i.e. ORG ] ( Staatscourant ) . ”

A press release was issued , in NORP and in LANGUAGE . It read as follows ( LANGUAGE - language version published by the Government ) :


Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Abuse of the right of petition)

Alvina Gyulumyan;András Sajó;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Nebojša Vučinić;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and died on DATE .

For DATE the applicant had expressed the wish to end her life . She explained that she was becoming increasingly frail as time passed and was unwilling to continue suffering the decline of her physical and mental faculties . She decided that she wished to end her life by taking a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital . She contacted an assisted - suicide association – EXIT – for support , which replied that it would be difficult to find a medical practitioner who would be ready to provide her with a medical prescription for the lethal drug .

On DATE a psychiatrist , PERSON , submitted an expert opinion in which he observed that there was no doubt that the applicant was able to form her own judgment . From a psychiatric medical point of view , PERSON did not have any objection to the applicant being prescribed a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital . However , he refrained from issuing the prescription himself on the grounds that he did not want to confuse the roles of medical expert and treating physician .

NORP By letters of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s representative submitted on her behalf a request to be given a prescription for sodium pentobarbital to CARDINAL further medical practitioners , who all declined to issue the requested prescription .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request to ORG to be provided with QUANTITY grams of sodium pentobarbital in order for her to commit suicide . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG of the GPE of GPE . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . ORG considered , in particular , that the prerequisite of a medical prescription for obtaining a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital was in accordance with LAW . The requirement to obtain a medical prescription served the aim of preventing premature decisions and guaranteed that the intended action was medically justified . It further ensured that the decision was based on a deliberate exercise of the free will of the person concerned . ORG observed that PERSON , in his expert opinion , had not considered whether the applicant was suffering from any illness which would justify the assumption that the end of her life was near . The wish to die taken on its own , even if it was well considered , was not sufficient to justify the issuing of a medical prescription . Accordingly , the content of the case file did not demonstrate that the necessary prerequisites for issuing a medical prescription had been fulfilled in the instant case . There was therefore a need for further medical examination . Under these circumstances , ORG considered that there was no sufficient reason to dispense the applicant from the necessity of a thorough medical examination and of a medical prescription .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant . It observed , inter alia , that the applicant undisputedly did not fulfil the prerequisites laid down in the medical ethics guidelines on the care of patients at the end of life adopted by ORG , as she was not suffering from a terminal illness , but had expressed her wish to die because of her advanced age and increasing frailty . Even though ORG had previously considered that the issuing of a medical prescription for sodium pentobarbital to a person suffering from an incurable , persistent and serious psychological illness did not necessarily amount to a violation of a doctor ’s professional duties , this exception had to be handled with “ utmost restraint ” and did not enjoin the medical profession or the ORG to provide the applicant with the requested dose of sodium pentobarbital to put an end to her life . ORG further noted that the issuing of the requested substance required a thorough medical examination and , with respect to the persistence of the wish to die , long - term medical supervision by a specialist practitioner who was ready to issue the necessary prescription . This requirement could not be circumvented by the applicant ’s request for an exemption from the necessity of obtaining a medical prescription .

On DATE counsel for the applicant lodged an application with the ORG .

On DATE the applicant obtained a medical prescription for QUANTITY grams of sodium pentobarbital signed by a medical practitioner , PERSON On DATE she ended her life by imbibing the prescribed substance . According to a police report dated DATE , no relatives of the deceased could be identified . The report concluded that the applicant had committed suicide with the assistance of EXIT and that no third person was found to be criminally liable in this context .

The ORG was not made aware of the applicant ’s death until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)

André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Síofra O’Leary

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

At the time of the events the applicant had previous convictions from DATE and DATE . He was released from prison in DATE .

Following his release from prison the applicant cohabited with PERSON in the village of Blahovishchenka , in GPE . PERSON ’s sister cohabited with PERSON . in the same village .

On TIME DATE Sh . visited PERSON and the applicant . A conflict arose between him and the applicant , developing into a fight which PERSON attempted to settle down . At a certain point the applicant seized a knife and stabbed PERSON . in the chest . The latter was taken to hospital , but he died shortly afterwards .

TIME the applicant was taken to the police station , where he was questioned in relation to the incident . He stated that he did not know who might have stabbed the victim . The applicant was not released and remained at the police station .

At TIME on DATE the applicant confessed that he had had a fight with PERSON . , and that during the fight he had grabbed a knife and stabbed PERSON . twice in the chest and abdominal area .

At TIME on DATE the investigator drew up an arrest report in respect of the applicant . According to the report , the applicant was suspected of murder .

On DATE the applicant was allowed to consult a lawyer for the first time . On DATE he was questioned again . He explained that he had stabbed Sh . when falling down from the blows he had received from him . The stab had been unintentional . Later on the same day , in the course of a reconstruction of the events , the applicant showed how he had been beaten by Sh . and how he had fatally stabbed him .

On DATE a court ordered the applicant ’s pre - trial detention .

On DATE the applicant was questioned again . Before the questioning , the applicant signed a waiver of his right to a lawyer . He then made statements about the incident which were similar to those which he had made earlier .

On DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated murder and questioned again in the presence of his lawyer . DATE , he stated that he had acted in self - defence , as Sh . had approached him with a glass bottle .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) commenced the trial of the applicant . During the trial , he stated that he had fatally stabbed Sh . , who had approached him with a glass bottle , while trying to defend himself .

On DATE the court found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The court relied on the material , oral , expert and documentary evidence examined during the hearings . It referred in particular to the applicant ’s self - incriminating statements made on DATE and later . His allegation that he had acted in self - defence was rejected as unsubstantiated .

The applicant and his lawyer appealed , claiming that the conviction was unfounded and that his right to a lawyer had not been properly ensured .

On DATE ORG considered the applicant ’s case and upheld the conviction . However , having regard to his behaviour immediately after the incident , namely the efforts he had made to provide the victim with medical assistance , it reduced the sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On CARDINAL occasions DATE ORG allowed the applicant to have family visits .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG , asking for permission to correspond with his relatives . His application was registered by the GPE mailing service under number CARDINAL/kCARDINAL . No reply followed .

On DATE the applicant made the same application , which was registered by the ORG mailing service under number CARDINAL/k-CARDINAL . No reply followed .

On DATE the applicant complained to a prosecutor in that regard , but received no response .


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

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

The applicants , who are brothers , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

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

In DATE the applicants’ father made them beneficiaries under his life insurance and accident insurance policies . The total amount payable in case of death as a result of accident under the accident insurance policy was MONEY ( ORG ) , or ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of each brother . The applicants’ father died on DATE as a result of an allergic reaction to a wasp sting .

In DATE the applicants were informed by the insurance company that a “ wasp sting ” was not a risk covered by the accident insurance policy , and the company accordingly refused to pay out on the claim .

In DATE the applicants , represented by counsel , brought a claim under LAW for the payment of compensation under the accident insurance policy . During a hearing on DATE , the applicants informed the court that , after their father ’s death , they had handed the original insurance policy documents to the insurance company upon its request . Although the applicants had sought to recover those documents from the company , the latter had only returned to them the “ additional conditions ” . During the same hearing , upon a request by the applicants , the court ordered the insurance company to produce the complete insurance policy file , referring to LAW , in force at the time . The company produced the file during a hearing on DATE and the court accepted it as evidence in the case .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG allowed the ORG claim . The court noted that , in so far as allergic reactions were not included in the disclaimer to the accident insurance policy signed on DATE , the applicants were entitled to benefit from the compensation payable in the event of their father ’s death as a result of an accident .

The insurance company appealed against the judgment . In its appeal it acknowledged , inter alia , that the existence of a valid contract was not disputed . However , it claimed that the allergic reaction did not fall under the “ accident ” category as defined in the insurance policy .

On DATE the ORG allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicants’parties , that did not in itself prove its existence .


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

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on charges of robbery . DATE the ORG of GPE imposed on the applicant an undertaking not to leave the place of his residence .

On DATE ORG , presided by Judge NORP , convicted the applicant of robbery and forgery , sentenced him to DATE and DATE of imprisonment and ordered his detention pending the appeal proceedings .

On DATE ORG , under the presidency of judge PERSON , quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination , ordering that the applicant should remain in custody .

On DATE ORG , in its turn , further extended the applicant ’s detention and remitted the case to ORG for the elimination of certain procedural deficiencies preventing the examination of the case on the merits .

The applicant ’s detention was once again extended by ORG , presided by judge NORP , on DATE . The applicant challenged the presiding judge on the ground that he had convicted him on DATE . Judge PERSON refused to step down . The applicant also raised that point in his statement of appeal against the detention order . On DATE ORG , presided by Judge PERSON , found no grounds for Judge NORP to step down . ORG reasoned that by virtue of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW NORP , who had already presided over the applicant ’s trial once , could not take part in the new trial proceedings , however , he was not prevented from deciding on detention matters .

On DATE ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention . The parties disagreed as to whether the applicant had been served with a copy of that detention order . While the applicant argued that he had never received it , the Government stated that the detention order had been served on him on DATE . They supported their claim with a copy of ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE by which the detention order had been forwarded to the applicant and a copy of the detention order from his personal file kept in a remand prison , bearing the applicant ’s signature and the date of receipt .

On several occasions the trial court adjourned hearings in the applicant ’s case . In particular , on DATE the hearing was re - scheduled for DATE because the applicant and his co - defendant asked to summon several defence witnesses . The hearing on DATE was also adjourned owing to the applicant ’s and his co - defendants’ counsel failure to appear . In the same decision the court , of its own motion , extended the applicant ’s detention .

NORP The applicant appealed , complaining , in particular , that the detention order of DATE was delivered in his counsel ’s absence . On DATE ORG , presided by Judge PERSON , dismissed the appeal , having noted that the counsel had failed to appear without providing any explanation for his absence . The appeal hearing was attended by a prosecutor and the applicant ’s counsel , but not by the applicant himself , despite his request to that effect .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of extortion and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( RUB ) . ORG upheld the conviction on DATE , but reduced the sentence .


András Sajó;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .

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

NORP The applicant ’s mother , PERSON , who was born in DATE , suffered from schizophrenia . She received psychiatric treatment over a period of DATE . In DATE she was diagnosed with epilepsy .

The applicant was his mother ’s carer . Since her condition had been deteriorating for some time , on DATE the applicant called an ambulance and requested that his mother be taken to a psychiatric hospital . However , she refused to undergo treatment . On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG seeking an order for the involuntary medical treatment of his mother .

On DATE at TIME the applicant ’s mother was admitted to the psychiatric ward of ORG .

According to the applicant , on DATE at TIME he brought his mother ’s personal belongings to the hospital . He was told by the hospital staff that his mother was being bathed and was asked to leave her belongings .

On DATE the applicant was given the information that his mother had died on DATE .

On an unspecified date the hospital carried out an autopsy .

A record card documenting his mother ’s death ( karta zgonu ) was drawn up on CARDINAL October DATE and signed by PERSON It did not specify the exact time of death . The stated cause of death was schizophrenia , hypertrophic cardiomyopathy ( kardiomiopatia przerostowa ) and sudden cardiac arrest .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG . The applicant submitted that his mother had been hospitalised in DATE in connection with her epilepsy but had not been diagnosed with any other condition . She had never been diagnosed or treated for any heart - related condition and medical examinations carried out by a ORG and the emergency medical service in DATE directly preceding her admission to hospital did not indicate any irregularities . The applicant claimed that CARDINAL DATE he was given contradictory information by the hospital with regard to the circumstances , timing and cause of his mother ’s death . The applicant also claimed that Dr ORG , who signed the record card , had been unsure about the cause of death stated on that document .

On DATE ORG instituted an investigation into involuntary homicide ( LAW ) .

On DATE the prosecutor ordered that a post - mortem be carried out and that a report be prepared by a forensic expert , GPE , with a view to determining the cause of death . On DATE the prosecutor ordered that forensic experts examine samples of body liquids and tissues removed from the applicant ’s mother ’s body .

On DATE the prosecutor ordered the hospital to produce the applicant ’s mother ’s medical records . On DATE , the prosecutor questioned the applicant . The applicant stated that he had received conflicting answers from several doctors regarding the cause and circumstances of his mother ’s death and it was for that reason that he had filed a criminal complaint .

On DATE a post - mortem was carried out . The forensic expert secured samples of body liquids and tissues for further examination .

On DATE the prosecutor ordered that another forensic expert should examine samples of tissues and prepare a report .

On DATE the forensic expert GPE submitted his report to the prosecutor . On the basis of the hospital records and the autopsy carried out at the hospital , the forensic expert established that the applicant ’s mother had been admitted to the hospital on DATE at TIME Shortly after , she had suffered an epileptic seizure and a cardiac arrest . A doctor was called to help at TIME The applicant ’s mother was lying unconscious in bed . Resuscitation was carried out first by nurses and then by a doctor . At TIME the doctor pronounced the applicant ’s mother dead .

The forensic expert noted that the autopsy carried out at the hospital established that the applicant ’s mother had suffered from atherosclerosis ( miażdżyca tętnic ) , hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and oedema , amongst other complaints .

On the basis of the post - mortem and other examinations , together with the hospital records , the forensic expert concluded that the applicant ’s mother ’s death had been caused by respiratory and circulatory failure . The origin of this failure could not be conclusively determined . The forensic expert found no grounds for contradicting the assumption that the failure could have been related to the epileptic seizure .

The applicant submitted that the post - mortem had been carried out too late . He also claimed that the medical records concerning his mother ’s condition contained a number of discrepancies . The hospital ’s autopsy report mentioned atherosclerosis , whereas his mother ’s medical records did not state that she was suffering from this condition . The applicant submitted that there was no mention in the medical records of the autopsy carried out at the hospital and the hospital had not sought his consent for this procedure .

The prosecutor heard evidence from several witnesses , including doctors , nurses and other hospital employees as well as the applicant ’s mother ’s former husband .

On DATE the applicant and his lawyer consulted the case file of the investigation .

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation . He found that there were no grounds for suspecting that the offence of involuntary homicide had been committed .

The prosecutor established the following facts . The applicant ’s mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia DATE . In DATE she was also diagnosed with epilepsy . On DATE , having observed his mother ’s worsening condition , the applicant called the emergency medical service to have his mother taken to hospital , but the personnel who responded to the call refused to do as he asked . The condition of the applicant ’s mother continued to deteriorate . She refused to take her medication , became aggressive , and started suffering from delusions . The same situation prevailed DATE . On DATE at QUANTITY , at the applicant ’s insistence , the emergency service transported the applicant ’s mother to ORG . At TIME on DATE the applicant brought his mother ’s personal belongings to the hospital . He was told that his mother was being bathed . On DATE the applicant learnt that his mother had died DATE .

NORP The prosecutor secured the medical records and the body of the applicant ’s mother for the purposes of forensic examination . As regards the results of the post - mortem and further medical examinations , the forensic expert did not establish any cause of death other than cardiac arrest related to the epileptic seizure . He also established that the applicant ’s mother had some broken ribs but that this injury had been sustained after her death .

The prosecutor noted that the forensic expert ’s report clearly indicated the cause of death of the applicant ’s mother and did not point to any negligence in her treatment after admission to the hospital .

The prosecutor heard evidence from medical personnel and doctors at the hospital . Those witnesses confirmed that the applicant ’s mother had been pronounced dead at TIME on DATE . She had been admitted to the hospital at TIME and was then bathed and changed . After being transferred to a hospital room , the applicant ’s mother started to have a seizure . The medical personnel immediately reacted and began resuscitation . However , the resuscitation was not successful and after TIME of efforts the applicant ’s mother was pronounced dead .

The prosecutor sought to clarify when the applicant had come to the hospital on DATE in question . The hospital staff testified that the applicant had come to the hospital before TIME Other witnesses , including the applicant , asserted that he had come to the hospital at TIME In the light of evidence provided by mobile phone traffic records , the prosecutor found that the applicant ’s assertion that he had come to the hospital at TIME when his mother was already dead − was not credible .

In conclusion , the prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation , having found no evidence to indicate that the treatment given to the applicant ’s mother was in any way inappropriate .

The applicant appealed . He argued that the evidence gathered in the investigation was not sufficient to justify the impugned decision and that a number of the prosecutor ’s findings had been incorrect .

The applicant submitted that even assuming DATE as was accepted by the prosecutor – that his mother had died from cardiac arrest related to an epileptic seizure the prosecutor had not looked into what had caused the cardiac arrest . His mother was a relatively young person ( DATE ) . She had suffered from schizophrenia but never complained of any other health issues ( in particular heart - related ) and had never been treated for anything other than her psychiatric illness . Prior to her admission to the hospital she had had CARDINAL epileptic seizures . The applicant also argued that the prosecutor did not investigate the cause of his mother ’s broken ribs . He proposed that a team of experts be appointed in connection with the case in order to investigate the cause of his mother ’s death .

The applicant argued that he had been misled by the hospital staff from the outset and that the information he had been given by the hospital had been inaccurate . He alleged that when he arrived at the hospital on DATE at TIME , his mother was already dead but he had not been informed of this .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the prosecutor ’s decision . The applicant was present at the hearing .

The court noted that the investigation had been aimed at clarifying the circumstances of the applicant ’s mother ’s death , in DATE in view of the conflicting information concerning the cause of death DATE the time at which it occurred , and the deceased ’s prior state of health .

The court found that the prosecutor had correctly established the facts and properly assessed the ample evidence gathered in relation to the case . In the court ’s view , the analysis of the evidence did not suggest that the offence of involuntary homicide had been committed .

The court agreed with the results of the post - mortem and the forensic expert ’s report , which was clear in its conclusion that the applicant ’s mother had died as a result of respiratory and cardiac failure connected to an epileptic seizure . There was no need to prepare another expert report since the initial one was comprehensive , thorough and unambiguous . In addition , the medical records indicated that the applicant ’s mother had previously suffered from epileptic seizures and that in DATE she had been diagnosed with epilepsy . As regards the forensic report , the court observed that it stated that the damage to the applicant ’s mother ’s ribs could have resulted from the resuscitation efforts .

On the basis of the medical records and the evidence provided by the medical personnel , the court found that the applicant ’s mother had been adequately treated by the hospital . It noted that the applicant ’s mother had received treatment immediately after her epileptic seizure .

The court observed that the prosecutor had investigated the question of the exact timing of the applicant ’s visit to the hospital , which was , in any event , not the most relevant factor in determining the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant ’s mother .

The court held that the death of the applicant ’s mother had not resulted from the actions of third parties . The court also found that no offence under LAW ( failure to render assistance to a person in a life - threatening situation ) had been committed .

LAW provides as follows :

“ Anyone who unintentionally causes the death of a human being shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . ”


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 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

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

The applicants alleged , in particular , that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

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

On DATE a man was murdered at a bus stop in the town of GPE , Donetsk Region . A criminal investigation was opened .

According to the applicant , on DATE he was taken by police officers to some premises where they interrogated and tortured him with the aim of extracting a confession to the murder . The torture allegedly included the administration of electric shocks and the infliction of physical injuries .

On DATE the applicant wrote a confession admitting that he had committed the murder .

On DATE the applicant was provided with a lawyer and questioned as a suspect . During the questioning , in the presence of the lawyer , the applicant submitted that on the evening of DATE he had met the victim at the bus stop and asked if he had a cigarette ; the victim responded aggressively and an argument arose between them , which developed into a fight ; when the victim attacked him with a knife , the applicant grabbed the arm that was holding the knife and , at a certain moment during the struggle between them , the knife ‒ still in the victim ’s hand ‒ caused a lethal wound to the victim ’s neck . The investigator also asked the applicant to explain why he had a swelling on the left forearm in the wrist area . The applicant disputed that it could be described as a swelling and added that it might have been caused by the handcuffs .

In TIME of DATE the police drew up a report on the applicant ’s arrest .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert who reported that the applicant had no injuries . According to the applicant , the expert had examined him superficially and he had not been required to undress .

On DATE the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the incident and , in the presence of his lawyer , explained and demonstrated how the conflict between him and the victim had developed and how the fatal wound had been caused .

On DATE the NORP ORG extended the applicant ’s preliminary detention to DATE . On DATE the NORP ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention in custody . During these hearings the applicant ‒ in the presence of his lawyer ‒ described the circumstances of the incident in the same way as he had done earlier . He also stated that he had not been subjected to pressure on the part of the police officers . The applicant then admitted that he regularly took ORG ( an opioid analgesic ) and specified that before the incident of DATE he took CARDINAL pills of Tramadol .

On DATE the applicant was charged with the murder . He was again questioned in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant repeated the details of the struggle between him and the victim and the circumstances of the victim ’s death .

On DATE the applicant was placed in ORG . CARDINAL ( “ the GPE ” ) . Upon admission he was given a medical examination , during which no injuries were found .

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged a complaint with the prosecutor ’s office , alleging that the police officers had tortured the applicant and made him confess to a crime which he had not committed .

On DATE the forensic medical expert issued a report in which ‒ referring to the results of the applicant ’s medical assessment on DATE ‒ he stated that at the time of the medical assessment the applicant had not been suffering from any injuries .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office refused to open an investigation in connection with the allegations of torture , noting that there were no indications that the police officers had committed any offence .

On DATE the applicant was questioned once again . During the questioning , he denied the charges of murder and retracted his earlier statements , claiming that he had incriminated himself because he had been afraid of the police officers .

On DATE the case was referred to the NORP ORG for trial .

On DATE the applicant submitted a written request for a medical examination to the NORP ORG . The applicant gave the names of the QUANTITY police officers who had allegedly tortured him on DATE and specified the place where that had happened . The applicant claimed that he had been hung upside down over a horizontal crowbar whilst handcuffed ; a gas mask had been placed over his head ; electric shocks had been applied to different areas of his body including his genitals . He claimed that after the continued ill - treatment he had given up and accepted the fictional story made up by the police officers ; he had then been taken to the crime scene and was told the details that he was supposed to repeat later during the investigation .

On DATE the NORP ORG ordered the prosecutor ’s office to investigate the applicant ’s allegations ; it also ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant to be carried out .

On DATE the forensic medical expert drafted a report in which ‒ relying on the results of the applicant ’s assessment of DATE and the report of CARDINAL DATE ‒ he noted that at the time of the medical assessment the applicant had not been suffering from any injuries .

On DATE , acting on the results of the pre - investigation enquiries , the ORG prosecutor ’s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers , holding that no elements of offence had been established .

On DATE the applicant was assessed by a medical expert who reported that the applicant had scars on his wrist joints , and on the left side and front of his chest . The expert noted that the scars had resulted from injuries caused by blunt objects and could have been sustained DATE prior to the examination . The expert further reported a scar on the right forearm and noted that it had resulted from an injury caused by a blunt object ; in his view the injury could have been sustained DATE before the examination . The expert classified all the injuries as minor .

On DATE ORG quashed as unsubstantiated the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE adopted by the PERSON prosecutor ’s office and ordered further pre - investigation enquiries .

On DATE , following additional enquiries , the PERSON prosecutor ’s office issued a further decision refusing to open an investigation in connection with the alleged ill - treatment . The prosecutor noted that the applicant had not complained of the ill - treatment earlier , that the police officers had denied his allegations , that the medical report of DATE had documented no injuries to the applicant and that the report of DATE stated that the applicant had some old scars which did not bear out his allegations .

On DATE , further to a request from the court , the applicant was examined by a panel of forensic medical experts . In their report of DATE , the panel stated that the applicant had scars on both ears , on the left side of his chest , on his forearms , wrists , right shin and ankle , and the pigmented area on the right side of his chest . The experts noted that the scars had resulted from injuries which could have been sustained DATE or more before the date of the examination ; some of the injuries could have been caused by shackles . The panel classified the injuries as minor .

On DATE , following a request from the court , the panel of experts also reported that it was impossible to determine on the basis of the available medical information whether the injuries found on the applicant had been sustained before or after DATE .

On DATE the NORP ORG remitted the case for additional investigation , noting that the investigator had failed to establish a number of important facts , including the time of the victim ’s death and any motive on the part of the applicant for committing the crime . The prosecutor appealed against that decision .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE as unfounded and remitted the case to the first - instance court for trial .

On DATE a forensic psychiatric expert drafted a report stating that the applicant had recovered from a temporary mental disorder .

During the trial the applicant denied the charges and maintained that he had been ill - treated by the police officers , who had made him incriminate himself . The court questioned the expert who had carried out the assessments of DATE and DATE about the discrepancies in those assessments . The expert explained that his first assessment had been concerned with the documentation of visible injuries and he had not been asked a specific question about scars . He also noted that during that assessment he had asked the applicant to undress . The applicant maintained , however , that the expert had not asked him to undress .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court established the applicant ’s guilt relying on the self - incriminating statements made by the applicant in the presence of his lawyer between CARDINAL and DATE , including the statements of the applicant which he made before the court when the issue of a preventive measure was being decided . The court also referred to the other oral , documentary , material and expert evidence .

The court rejected the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated . In that regard it referred to the results of the medical assessments of CARDINAL and DATE which found no injuries on the applicant . It also noted that there had been no suggestion by the experts as to how the injuries discovered on the applicant later could have been sustained . As to the injuries on the wrists , the court noted that they might have been caused by the handcuffs and added that DATE the applicant had regularly been handcuffed when escorted to and from the court .

The applicant appealed against that judgment claiming , inter alia , that his conviction had been unlawful and based on evidence obtained through ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It noted that the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment had been far - fetched and , in any event , they had been properly examined by the prosecutor ’s office and the trial court . It pointed out that the applicant had made the self - incriminating statements DATE in the presence of his lawyer , and that on DATE no injuries had been documented following the medical examination of the applicant .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG , claiming in particular that his conviction had been based on evidence obtained through ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as unfounded .

NORP Following his conviction , the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , in which the prosecutor had refused to open an investigation in respect of the alleged ill - treatment .

On DATE the ORG quashed the impugned decision , considering that the matter had not been examined thoroughly .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG dismissed as time - barred the applicant ’s complaint concerning the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

ORG and ORG of GPE upheld the decision of DATE on DATE and DATE respectively .

DATE and DATE the applicant underwent X - ray examinations which showed no lung pathology .

On DATE he applied to the medical unit of the GPE complaining of coughing up phlegm , weakness and fever . The applicant was examined by the general practitioner and diagnosed with chronic bronchitis in its acute phase . He was hospitalised in the medical unit of the GPE and provided with in - patient treatment .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from the medical unit in satisfactory condition . He was advised to avoid getting too cold .

DATE the applicant underwent X - ray examinations which showed no signs of pathology . He made no complaints concerning his health .

On DATE the applicant was treated in the local hospital on account of cuts to both forearms , and scratches on his neck and the front of his abdomen . He was diagnosed as having attempted suicide .

On DATE he was examined by a psychiatrist who diagnosed mental and behavioural disorder caused by taking opioids , generating a psychopathy - like syndrome . The applicant received further outpatient psychiatric treatment .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the GPE to a prison . Upon admission , the applicant was medically examined and diagnosed with chronic bronchitis .

On DATE the applicant underwent X - ray examination which showed no signs of pathology .

In DATE the applicant underwent treatment for an acute form of bronchitis .

NORP In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis of the right lung . The applicant was offered hospitalisation in the tuberculosis clinic of GPE prison no . CARDINAL for further examination and treatment . The applicant refused to be hospitalised .

DATE the applicant underwent examination in the tuberculosis clinic of GPE prison no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with post - tuberculosis residual changes and residual changes after pleurisy . He was advised to undergo sessions of anti - tuberculosis treatment for DATE . The applicant refused to undergo the proposed sessions of treatment .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with chronic bronchitis in remission and chronic maxillary sinusitis in remission . The applicant received further outpatient treatment by the general practitioner at the medical unit of the prison .