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

The applicants , PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) who lodged the application on her own behalf and on behalf of her CARDINAL underage children , her daughter PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) and her son PERSON ( “ the third applicant ” ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , and live in GPE . They were represented before ORG by PERSON , an advocate practising in GPE .

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

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

On DATE the first applicant married PERSON

On DATE she gave birth to the second applicant , and on DATE to the third applicant .

The first applicant and PERSON separated in DATE when he moved out of the matrimonial home .

On DATE the first applicant instituted civil proceedings against PERSON in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking a divorce and the right to have the second and third applicants living with her ( hereinafter “ custody ” ) .

On DATE ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb DATE hereinafter “ the local social welfare centre ” ) , which participated in the proceedings as an independent intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the children ’s interests , submitted its opinion and report .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the divorce , awarded the first applicant custody of the second and third applicants , and granted PERSON access ( contact ) rights .

Following an appeal by PERSON , on DATE ORG PERSON ) quashed the first - instance judgment , except for the part granting the divorce , and remitted the case to the first - instance court .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG held hearings on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE it obtained a combined expert opinion from court experts in psychology and psychiatry , and on DATE a fresh opinion and report from the local social welfare centre .

According to the combined expert opinion from experts in psychology and psychiatry the first applicant was mentally unstable and had demonstrated signs of a personality disorder , whereas her former husband , PERSON , had shown no such signs and was sufficiently emotionally stable to take care of the children . In particular , the experts established that the first applicant lacked self - critical awareness and was unable to recognise and respond to the emotional needs of her children . They therefore recommended that custody of the second and third applicants be awarded to their father . Having regard to the importance of the role of a mother in the development of a child , and the fact that both children were very emotionally attached to her , the experts also suggested granting the first applicant extensive access rights , provided that she agree to seek psychiatric treatment .

NORP In reply , the first applicant submitted an opinion by a psychiatrist who had been treating her since DATE . The opinion , dated DATE , stated that she had been systematically abused by her former husband and , although mentally fragile , was not suffering from any mental illness , much less a personality disorder .

On DATE the local social welfare centre , acting partly upon the opinion and court experts’ recommendations and partly of their own motion , instructed the first applicant to commence psychiatric treatment and to take the second and third applicants for psychotherapy . It also imposed various supervision measures in order to monitor the exercise of parental authority by her and PERSON

By a judgment of DATE ORG awarded the first applicant custody of the second and third applicants , and granted PERSON access ( contact ) rights . Following an appeal by PERSON , on DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .

On DATE the PERSON for ORG where the second and third applicants had been receiving psychiatric treatment – informed the local social welfare centre that it suspected the second and third applicants’ mental health was being neglected and that they were being emotionally abused by the first applicant .

According to a fresh expert opinion obtained by ORG in the resumed proceedings in DATE from CARDINAL different court experts ( a psychologist and psychiatrist ) , both the second and third applicants were very traumatised as a result of their GPE DATE especially their mother ’s – behaviour , and were in urgent need of psychotherapy . The experts also established that , although both parents were responsible for the situation , the first applicant , whose behaviour they regarded as “ emotional abuse ” , was more responsible . The inefficiency of the authorities had also contributed to the situation , by making it possible for the mother to manipulate the children . The experts further found that both parents had limited parenting capacities , but that the first applicant ’s capacity was more limited . They initially could not recommend which parent should be awarded custody DATE handing the children to their father would worsen their mental state , whereas keeping them in their mother ’s custody would intensify their hostility to their father and her influence over them . Thus , they first suggested that both parents undergo counselling to try to improve their own relationship and their relationship with their children , later proposing to award custody of the children to their mother for DATE and grant the father extensive access rights .

On that basis , on DATE the court made an interim order whereby it awarded the first applicant custody of the children on a temporary basis and granted PERSON access rights , allowing him contact with the second and third applicants CARDINAL times a week for TIME , every other weekend and for CARDINAL of the school holidays .

It would appear that for DATE , the father was unable to exercise his access rights because each time he went to collect the children they refused to go with him , a behaviour which the first applicant allegedly encouraged .

The last expert opinion obtained by the court in DATE , which was prepared by the same psychologist and psychiatrist who had prepared the opinion of DATE , recommended placing the second and third applicants into care . The experts suggested that the children be removed from their mother because she was harming their emotional development . Even though their father had better parenting capacity , for the time being he could not take over custody as the children , because of their mother ’s influence , had a very negative attitude towards him , so any forced situation would have a negative impact . The experts therefore recommended placing the children into foster care , attending psychotherapy in a designated clinic , and granting each parent supervised access once DATE . It was proposed that the measures would last for DATE .

On DATE the local social welfare centre lodged a motion seeking that the second and third applicants be temporarily removed from the first applicant for DATE , the child protection measure laid down in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE it appointed CARDINAL of its employees , PERSON , to act as their guardian ad litem and represent their interests in the proceedings , as required by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG adopted a judgment depriving the first applicant and PERSON of custody of the second and third applicants for DATE and awarding custody to ORG House for ORG sv . PERSON nezbrinutu DATE hereinafter “ GPE ORG ” ) , a children ’s home run by the NORP church . S.K and the first applicant were granted access ( contact ) rights , to be exercised on the LOC of ORG in the presence of CARDINAL of its employees . PERSON was entitled to see the children DATE from TIME and the first applicant every DATE from DATE p.m. The court also decided that the judgment would be immediately enforceable , accordingly ordering the first applicant to entrust the second and third applicants to ORG immediately following service .

In making its decision the court , apart from relying on the abovementioned expert opinions , also took into account the fact that the first applicant had refused to act upon the instruction of the local social welfare centre to seek psychiatric treatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had taken the children for treatment at the designated clinic only once , and had been obstructing execution of the supervision measures imposed by the centre , by refusing to cooperate with the social worker assigned to her case .

NORP In particular , the court found that the mother ’s refusal to seek psychiatric treatment ( which was a precondition for the successful psychotherapy of her children ) , her and PERSON ’s fixation on their mutual problems and their lack of communication and unwillingness to adapt and change , were making them insensitive to the emotional needs of their children . That was harmful for the physical and mental development of the children , who had been traumatised and manipulated by their GPE attitude and behaviour . The parents had thus significantly neglected their duty to raise and educate them , as they had not taken sufficient care of their health within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The court therefore concluded that the first applicant and her former husband could not properly take care of their children and that temporarily depriving them both of custody was warranted .

The first applicant appealed against the court ’s decision , arguing that she had been undergoing psychiatric treatment , albeit in a different clinic from the one recommended by the court experts . The reason she had refused to undergo counselling with her husband , as recommended by the court experts , was because he had been convicted of domestic violence against her ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . Furthermore , she had taken her children for psychotherapy but in a different clinic from the one recommended by the experts and endorsed by the local social welfare centre .

On DATE ORG PERSON ) dismissed the first applicant ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants .

As DATE set forth in the judgment of DATE was about to expire , on DATE ORG adopted a decision containing the same custody and access arrangements as those in that judgment . The court found that the fact that the judgment had remained unenforced ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) suggested that the circumstances that had warranted the imposition of the child protection measure ordered therein still existed . It thus refused to take ( into account ) any new evidence . The decision was immediately enforceable .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the first applicant and upheld the firstinstance decision .

The applicants did not lodge a constitutional complaint against this decision .

On DATE , a day before the period of one year fixed in its decision of CARDINAL DATE was due to expire ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG adopted identical decision with similar reasoning . It again refused to take any evidence . This decision was also immediately enforceable .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the first applicant and upheld the first - instance decision .

The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging violations of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing and to respect for their family life . In so doing , they relied on LAW paragraph CARDINAL and LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) and Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing and to respect for their family life , quashed the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE and first - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case to ORG .

In particular , ORG found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to respect for family life and a breach of the principle of equality of arms in that ( a ) the first - instance court , without giving valid reasons , had not held a hearing or taken any evidence before reaching its decision ; ( b ) the ordinary courts had paid no heed to the first applicant ’s argument that CARDINAL of the court experts was her former husband ’s therapist ; ( c ) the first - instance court had not heard the children , even though their age and maturity permitted that they be heard ; and ( d ) an employee of the local social welfare centre ( the public authority that proposed the contested child protection measure , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who had assumed a rather passive role in the proceedings and had not even contacted the children , had been appointed as the second and third applicants’ guardian ad litem , thus creating a conflict of loyalty between her employer and her wards ( children under her care ) .

ORG explained that taking new evidence had been particularly warranted in the circumstances , as children grew quickly and thus it could not have been assumed , as the first - instance court had done , that there had been no relevant developments in DATE that had passed between the first - instance judgment of DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The best interests of the children required that evidence be taken to establish the current situation as regards the second and third applicants , which had been crucial for deciding whether to maintain or lift the impugned child protection measure of their temporary placement into care .

Meanwhile , as the first applicant refused to entrust the second and third applicants to the children ’s home , on DATE the local social welfare centre applied to ORG to have the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) enforced .

On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution ( rješenje o ovrsi ) ordering the first applicant to entrust the second and third applicants to ORG within DATE of service , or face a fine of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) .

On DATE ORG fined the first applicant HRK CARDINAL for disobeying the court order to entrust the second and third applicants to the children ’s home , and ordered her to do so within DATE of service , or face an additional fine of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

Since fining the first applicant with a view to forcing her to comply with the above judgment and entrust the children to the children ’s home had no effect , on DATE ORG , following an application by the local social welfare centre , issued a new writ of execution . This time it ordered an enforcement officer , with the assistance of the police , to physically remove the second and third applicants from the first applicant or a third party and place them in the care of GPE Joseph ’s House .

On DATE at TIME the enforcement officer and CARDINAL policemen attempted to remove the second and third applicants from their mother . The children resisted by screaming , crying and shouting that they did not want to go to a home and wanted to remain living with their mother . Given the children ’s reactions , the enforcement officer eventually decided to adjourn the intervention . Immediately afterwards the first applicant took the second and third applicants to a doctor , who referred them to a psychiatrist . The psychiatrist who examined them DATE found that they were suffering from shock .

On DATE , during a meeting held at the local social welfare centre , the first applicant promised to cooperate with the relevant authorities and undergo counselling with a view to improving her relationship with her former husband .

Following a motion by the centre , on CARDINAL DATE ORG postponed enforcement until DATE .

On DATE the centre lodged another motion to postpone enforcement , which ORG granted on DATE by postponing enforcement until DATE .

On DATE the centre lodged a third motion to postpone enforcement . This time ORG , on DATE , dismissed the motion , because under the domestic law it was not possible to postpone enforcement for DATE at the request of the party seeking enforcement . Furthermore , since the centre as the party seeking enforcement had not applied for a continuation of enforcement in DATE , as was required by law , the court discontinued the enforcement proceedings .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG ( Prekršajni sud u ORG ) found PERSON guilty of domestic violence , after an incident against the first applicant on DATE . He was given a DATE suspended sentence , with a probation period of DATE .

On DATE the Zaprešić State Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u ORG ) indicted PERSON on CARDINAL counts of domestic violence , a criminal offence punishable under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , relating to the incident of DATE and a separate incident on DATE .

DATE . On DATE ORG found PERSON guilty as charged and imposed a DATE suspended sentence with a probation period of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by PERSON and upheld the first - instance judgment , which thereby became final .

On DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u GPE ) indicted the first applicant before ORG ( Općinski kazneni sud u GPE ) for obstructing the execution of measures ordered to protect a child or minor , a criminal offence punishable under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG found the first applicant guilty as charged and imposed a DATE suspended sentence with a probation period of DATE .

The first applicant appealed , and it would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) as the second - instance court .

Following a petition by the first applicant , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova ) advised the local social welfare centre that in instructing her to undergo various treatment and expert assessments , it had failed to take into account the fact that she was a victim of domestic violence . In particular , the ORG noted that , by insisting that the first applicant attend counselling with her former husband , who had been convicted of domestic violence against her , the centre had treated the victim and the perpetrator equally . That constituted secondary victimisation and amounted to discrimination against her as a victim of domestic violence . The Ombudsman therefore suggested that the centre reformulate its recommendation to the court in the proceedings regarding custody and access rights , basing it on a fresh expert opinion from a different expert and bearing in mind the fact that the first applicant was a victim of domestic violence .

The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG , no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) read as follows :

“ In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him or her , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

“ Everyone shall be guaranteed respect for , and the legal protection of , his personal and family life ... ”


Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 13+10-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

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

At the material time , the applicants were members of ORG and the opposition party ORG . Mr PERSON was notary of ORG .

At a plenary session on DATE , during a pre - agenda speech , PERSON and PERSON showed a billboard in the session hall displaying the text “ GPE [ the party on government ] . You steal , you cheat , and you lie . ”

On DATE , PERSON made a speech in the general debate on PERSON . PERSON amending Certain Smoking - related Acts , accusing the government parties of corruption .

On DATE the Speaker presented a proposal to fine Mr Karácsony MONEY ( ORG ) ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) and PERSON DATE ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for having gravely disrupted the plenary proceedings , in application of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . XXXVI of DATE on ORG .

The Speaker proposed that the maximum fine as regards PERSON ( a third of his DATE remuneration ) be applied , since he was an elected official of ORG , not just an ordinary MP .

A decision approving the proposal of the Speaker was adopted by the plenary on CARDINAL DATE , without a debate .

On DATE during the final vote on PERSON . PERSON Mr PERSON and PERSON presented a billboard with the text “ Here Operates the National Tobacco Mafia ” .

On DATE the Speaker submitted a proposal to fine them ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) each , for gravely disrupting the plenary proceedings , in application of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . XXXVI of DATE on ORG . The proposal stated that an increased fine was necessary , since similar , seriously disruptive conducts had occurred before .

The plenary adopted the proposal on CARDINAL DATE without a debate .

A constitutional complaint was filed , concerning a sanction for disruptive conduct , by MP ORG , a member of the opposition party ORG , and rejected by ORG on DATE ( decision ORG . DATE . ( XI.CARDINAL . ) ORG and DATE . ( XI.CARDINAL . ) ORG , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG found that MP PERSON had been fined under sections DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) , PERSON ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) DATE rather than section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) – of Act no . XXXVI of DATE on ORG . It held in particular that the restrictions imposed on him for conduct falling under the above provisions DATE that is , “ gravely offensive expression ” – were in compliance with LAW . His complaint in respect of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was rejected because this provision , concerning “ gravely offensive conduct ” , was not applicable in that case .

ORG went on to observe that there was no remedy available to that complainant against the measure .

Lastly , ORG held that parliamentary disciplinary law concerned ORG ’s interior business and the MPs’ conduct as parliamentarians , rather than ORG rights or obligations ; and that therefore no requirement of a remedy against a parliamentary disciplinary measure could be deduced from Article XXVIII(CARDINAL ) of LAW .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Erik Møse;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE by officers of ORG of GPE ( “ the LAW ” ) on suspicion of unlawfully importing equipment for the covert surveillance of telephone networks and using it to intercept private telephone conversations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , an offence committed in collaboration with PERSON , a NORP national .

An ORG investigator lodged a request with ORG of Kyiv ( “ the ORG ” ) seeking that the applicant be remanded in custody pending the investigation . He submitted that the applicant ’s detention was necessary in order to prevent him from absconding and interfering with the investigation , given that the applicant was a foreign national , did not have a permanent place of residence in GPE and was suspected of a serious offence .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and his lawyer , remanded the applicant in custody , and ordered that he be placed in an ORG detention facility . It held that the arguments submitted by the investigator were sufficiently strong to allow the conclusion that the applicant should be detained .

On DATE ORG held a hearing to examine the applicant lawyer ’s appeal against the order of CARDINAL DATE in the presence of a prosecutor and the applicant ’s lawyer and upheld the order .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor , the applicant and his lawyer and extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It noted that there were no reasons to release the applicant and that the investigative authority needed time to complete the investigation .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG held hearings to examine , respectively , the applicant lawyer ’s and the applicant ’s own appeals against ORG decision of DATE . Only a prosecutor was present at the former hearing , whereas the latter hearing was attended by the prosecutor , the applicant and his lawyer . ORG rejected both appeals and upheld ORG decision on both occasions .

NORP On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant ’s lawyer , granted the investigative authority ’s request , and extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court noted that the charges against the applicant were serious , that there were no reasons to release him and that the investigative authority needed more time to complete the investigation .

On DATE the investigator charged the applicant with several additional offences in connection with the same events : breaching the privacy of telephone communications and unlawful transfer of equipment subject to export control , committed in a group ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s case was sent to ORG for trial .

On DATE ORG committed the applicant for trial , rejected the applicant ’s request for release and ordered his continuing detention pending trial . The court stated that the applicant was charged with a serious offence , was a foreign national and had no permanent place of residence in GPE . No time - limit was set for his detention .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s requests for release . It gave reasons similar to those given in its decision of DATE and added that there was no reason to set an end - date for the applicant ’s detention since his detention was needed to complete the trial .

On DATE , DATE , and DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s further requests for release . It gave reasons similar to those given in its decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged , sentencing him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the conviction and remitted the case for additional investigation . It ordered the applicant ’s continuing detention without giving reasons .

On DATE ORG set bail for the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was released on bail .

On DATE ORG approved the applicant ’s plea bargain , convicted him , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , which was to be considered fully served in view of the time the applicant had spent in pre - trial detention .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE in LOC of GPE .

NORP The applicant first arrived in GPE in DATE . In DATE he applied for NORP nationality using a false name and a forged NORP passport . His application was granted on DATE .

On DATE an investigator from ORG of GPE issued a decision to charge the applicant with membership of the extremist organisation ORG ( also spelled PERSON ) and possession and dissemination of extremist literature , offences under LAW ) and CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . A search warrant was issued on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG ordered the applicant ’s arrest .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and charged with using a false identity document to cross the NORP border . Once his real identity had been established , he was detained pending extradition proceedings . On DATE the ORG of LOC imposed a custodial preventive measure , which was subsequently extended on DATE and DATE until DATE .

On DATE ORG office received an extradition request from his NORP counterpart . The request stated that the applicant was wanted in GPE in connection with his membership of an extremist organisation , an offence under LAW ) of LAW .

On DATE the ORG town prosecutor lifted the custodial measure that had been imposed in the extradition proceedings . The extradition was adjourned until such time as the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charge of using a false document had been completed .

As of the date of the applicant ’s most recent submission of DATE , he was not aware of the outcome of the extradition proceedings .

On DATE , immediately after the applicant ’s release from custody , the ORG heard an administrative case against him on the charge of illegal residence in GPE , an offence under LAW . ORG found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a fine and administrative removal from GPE ( “ expulsion order ” ) . Pending removal , he was to be held in ORG for foreign nationals .

On DATE the applicant asked the ORG to apply interim measures under LAW to prevent his expulsion to GPE . The ORG granted his request on DATE .

On DATE ORG summarily rejected the appeal against ORG expulsion order of CARDINAL DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE an investigator with the border control department of ORG for ORG had the applicant transferred from ORG to the PERSON police ward in GPE pending the criminal proceedings against him on the charge of using a false passport .

On DATE ORG of LOC issued a detention order against the applicant and he was placed in remand prison ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of using CARDINAL false passports and of illegally crossing the NORP border , and sentenced him to a fine . He was released in the courtroom .

On DATE , while in custody awaiting a decision on the extradition request , the applicant applied for refugee status in GPE , claiming that he feared persecution on account of his religious beliefs .

By a decision of DATE , the GPE division of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) refused the application , finding that the applicant had waited for DATE after his first entry to GPE before asking for asylum , that he had used false names and documents in order to stay in GPE , and that he had no credible claim of a risk of persecution .

NORP The applicant lodged a hierarchical appeal , which was rejected by the central office of the ORG on DATE . The decision was notified to his lawyer by letter of DATE .

Unaware of the refusal , on DATE the applicant went to the GPE office of the ORG for a certificate of pending refugee - status proceedings , which would have allowed him to reside legally in GPE . He was arrested in the office and placed into custody pending expulsion under the expulsion order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant against the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG found that the applicant had failed to prove that he risked persecution in GPE .

An appeal against ORG judgment is pending . The applicant is now in custody in FAC .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


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

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of organising a criminal gang and placed in the ORG , which , according to the applicant , was in a poor sanitary condition .

On DATE the applicant ’s detention was authorised by domestic courts . It was regularly prolonged until his release ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the ORG to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of GPE , where he stayed until DATE . The facility was overcrowded . Thus , cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated CARDINAL inmates ; cell ORG measuring QUANTITY m was designed for CARDINAL detainees and housed CARDINAL individuals ; finally , cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m presented CARDINAL sleeping places and CARDINAL persons who occupied them .

On an unspecified date GPE commenced the examination of the case . From that date , in order to take part in the hearings , the applicant was regularly transported by prison van between the remand prison and the court LOC . While in the courthouse , he was placed in a confinement cell . The applicant alleged that both the van and the cell had been overcrowded .

On DATE GPE ordered to release the applicant and on DATE it acquitted him of all charges .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Violation of Article 18+5 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant has been involved in various political organisations and local and international non - governmental organisations for DATE . In DATE he co - founded ORG ( “ REAL ” ) and in DATE was elected its chairman . He is also Director of ORG , which is part of a network of schools of political studies affiliated with ORG . He has held that position for DATE .

The applicant maintained a personal internet blog on which he commented on various political issues . In particular , in DATE , after the enactment of a new law by ORG introducing heavy sanctions for unauthorised public gatherings , the applicant posted a comment on his blog which he claimed was meant to insult members of ORG . Without naming any names , he went on to state , inter alia , that ORG was composed of “ fraudulent people ” and compared the entire legislative body to a zoo . Those statements were quoted in the media and elicited a number of seemingly irate responses from various ORG members . The responses , also published in the media , ranged in content from retaliatory ad hominem insults to calls for punishment and threats of suing him in court . According to the applicant , the ORG “ lawsuit plans were ... temporarily dropped ” after the calls for reprisals against the applicant were condemned by CARDINAL of the ORG of ORG , who was visiting the country at the time .

At DATE REAL announced that it would consider nominating its own candidate for the upcoming presidential election of DATE . The applicant himself announced that he was considering standing as a candidate in the election . According to the applicant , his prospective presidential candidacy was widely discussed in GPE at that time .

On DATE rioting broke out in the town of GPE , located to the northwest of GPE . According to media reports quoting local residents , the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A. , the son of ORG and nephew of the Head of ORG ( “ IDEA ” ) . It was claimed that after being involved in a car accident , V.A. had insulted and physically assaulted passengers of the other car , who were local residents . On hearing of the incident , CARDINAL ( perhaps CARDINAL ) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments ( including ORG ) and other property in GPE thought to be owned by ORG family .

On DATE ORG and ORG issued a joint press statement , placing the blame for the rioting on ORG , a hotel manager , and his relative PERSON , who had allegedly been drunk and who , it was claimed , had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local ORG property and inciting people to riot .

Meanwhile , the Head of IDEA , V.A. ’s uncle , publicly denied that ORG belonged to his family .

On DATE the applicant travelled to GPE to get a firsthand account of the events . On DATE he described his impressions from the trip on his blog . The entire post read as follows :

“ DATE TIME I spent a little longer than TIME in GPE , together with [ another member ] of our GPE [ REAL ] and our media coordinator ... First , here is [ the summary of ] what I wrote on ORG during TIME using my phone :

- We have entered the town .

- There is a lot of police and their number is growing . The protesters gather TIME or CARDINAL and make speeches . We are in front of the building of the [ Ismayilli District ] Executive Authority . There are around QUANTITY police officers in this area .

- The cause of the events is the general tension arising from corruption and insolence [ of public officials ] . In short , people have had enough . We are having conversations with local residents .

- The [ ethnic ] NORP of the village of GPE are also fed up ; they tried to come to [ GPE ] to support the protest , but the road was blocked and they were sent back .

- Everybody is preparing for the night .

- We are leaving ORG , returning to GPE . The matter is clear to us . PERSON was the first call . PERSON is the second . After the third call , the show will begin .

We came back after having fully investigated the situation in GPE . I wrote that clashes would again take place in the evening , by posting ‘ everybody is preparing for the ORG [ on ORG ] . People there had been saying ‘ We ’ll give them hell in TIME ; we have procured supplies’ ( meaning the fuel for Molotov cocktails had been bought ) . People are angry . There are also those who do not care and who are afraid , but those who are not afraid are very exasperated and will continue the protest at TIME . This is no longer a political situation where we could stay there and try to change something ; this is already a situation of disorderly crisis which requires conciliatory steps by the ORG to be resolved .

No one should fool oneself or others . The events in GPE were not and are not a calm peaceful protest , it is an extremely violent but just protest and the responsibility for it lies with PERSON .

As it is with all revolutionary processes , in the beginning the political initiative is still in the hands of the President , but by not taking action he is gradually losing this initiative . When [ such leaders ] begin to react to the situation , it is usually too late and their actions have no effect . PERSON , PERSON , and all others have gone this way . ”

On DATE the applicant posted more information on his blog concerning the events , citing the official websites of ORG and ORG and publishing screenshots of those sites . In particular , he noted that , according to those sources and to information posted on GPE ’s ORG account , ORG was actually owned by V.A. This directly contradicted the earlier denial by the Head of IDEA . The information cited by the applicant was removed from the aforementioned Government websites and GPE ’s ORG page within TIME of the applicant publishing his blog entry . However , the blog entry itself was extensively quoted in the media .

On DATE ORG and ORG issued a new joint press statement concerning the events in GPE . It noted that QUANTITY people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of DATE , and had been detained pending trial . In addition , CARDINAL people had been arrested in connection with their participation in “ actions causing a serious breach of public order ” ; some of them had been convicted of “ administrative offences ” and sentenced to a few days’ “ administrative detention ” or a fine , while others had been released . The statement further noted that “ lately , biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated , distorting the true nature of the mentioned events resulting from hooliganism ” , including information about large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of CARDINAL individual . The statement refuted that information , noting that CARDINAL people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared . It further stated , inter alia , the following :

“ Following the carrying out of inquiries , it has been established that on DATE the Deputy Chairman of ORG , PERSON , and the Cochairman of ORG , PERSON , went to ORG and made appeals to local residents aimed at social and political destabilisation , such as calls to resist the police , not to obey officials and to block roads . Their illegal actions , which were calculated to inflame the situation in the country , will be fully and thoroughly investigated and receive legal assessment . ”

On DATE the applicant commented on that statement on his blog . He noted that the Government had taken a decision to “ punish and frighten ” him , and that there were several reasons for that : firstly , the applicant ’s blog posting of CARDINAL DATE , which had revealed facts embarrassing the Government ; secondly , the fact that REAL had raised a public debate on the DATE legislative amendments aimed at keeping secret information concerning shareholders in companies , creating “ a more clandestine environment for stealing the oil money ” ; thirdly , the applicant ’s earlier criticism of ORG , in which he compared it to “ a zoo ” , following enactment of the legislation placing “ severe limitations on the freedom of assembly ” by “ introducing unjustifiably high monetary penalties for attending unauthorised demonstrations ” ; and lastly , ORG “ quickly accumulating strength ” prior to the presidential election , becoming a “ serious barrier in the eyes of the traditional [ political ] players ” and threatening “ to spoil the repeat of the election farce performed DATE year ” .

On DATE the applicant received a phone call from ORG of ORG and was orally invited to the department for questioning as a witness . Although that did not constitute a formal summons , the applicant went to ORG and was questioned .

According to the record of the questioning , the applicant stated that he had arrived in GPE in a car driven by another member of REAL at around TIME on DATE . After entering the town , they stopped from time to time and spoke to local residents without getting out of the car , in order to receive first - hand information about the events that had taken place up to that time . When they arrived at the central square where the IDEA building was located , they met a number of journalists and saw a large number of police and law - enforcement officers . At the square , the applicant spoke only to the journalists ; he did not speak to any local residents . No violent clashes were happening at the square at that time . While at the square , the applicant saw PERSON , who was also visiting the town , but separately from the applicant . They stopped to greet each other and immediately went their separate ways . The applicant and his colleague from REAL spent TIME at the square . The applicant , his colleague from REAL , and CARDINAL of the journalists then spent some time in a nearby teahouse . After a while , the CARDINAL of them returned to LOC . On their way out of GPE , they again stopped a few times and , from inside the car , spoke to passers - by about the situation in the town .

During the questioning , the investigator informed the applicant that it had been established from “ the material in the criminal case file ” that at TIME , while standing near the building of ORG , the applicant and Mr PERSON had been inciting local residents to cause disorder , disobey the police , block roads and throw stones at the police . The applicant was asked to comment on that . He replied that that information was false and a calumny against him .

After the questioning had ended , the applicant went home .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant received another telephone call asking him to come in for further questioning .

In TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant voluntarily appeared at ORG . First , from CARDINAL to TIME a face - to - face confrontation was held between the applicant and ORG , described in the record of the confrontation as a resident of the PERSON village of LOC . According to a copy of that record ( submitted by ORG to the ORG as a separate document enclosed with their observations ) , ORG stated that on DATE he had been in GPE where he had seen many police officers , as well as a number of young people slowly gathering in groups of CARDINAL . He heard people discussing the events of DATE . Among them , he saw PERSON and the applicant . He did not know the applicant ’s identity until he inquired about it and someone told him . He heard the applicant and PERSON telling people to throw stones at the police and to capture the IDEA building . Following this , people started throwing stones at the police .

According to the record , in reply , the applicant stated that everything that ORG had said was false and a laughable fabrication , and that it was an attempt to frame him and pressure him for political reasons .

After the questioning ended at TIME , the applicant was not allowed to leave the building .

From CARDINAL to CARDINAL p.m. another face - to - face confrontation was held , this time with another GPE Region resident , GPE According to the record of the questioning ( also submitted by the ORG to the ORG as a separate document enclosed with their observations ) , GPE stated that on DATE he had been in GPE and had seen lots of young people gathering . There were also many police officers . Protesters were throwing stones at the police . Then he saw CARDINAL persons standing near the ORG building and telling protesters to throw stones , not to be afraid , and to capture the IDEA building . Having inquired from the bystanders who those QUANTITY persons were , he was told that they were PERSON and the applicant . Then he saw and heard QUANTITY police officers named PERSON and PERSON tell the applicant and PERSON to calm down , but to no avail .

According to the record , in reply , the applicant stated that GPE ’s statement was a fabrication and that “ everything happening in this room ” amounted to political sabotage against him and the NORP people . The applicant also noted in the record , in handwriting , that he had not been allowed to leave the building during the period of TIME between the CARDINAL face - to - face confrontations , despite his wish to the contrary .

The above face - to - face confrontations were not specifically mentioned in the official charges against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) or the prosecution ’s subsequent requests for a judicial order on the applicant ’s remand in custody or an extension of the detention period , and the names of ORG and GPE were not otherwise mentioned in either of the above or in any other official document made available to the ORG by the parties and relating to the applicant ’s pre - trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him .

After the second confrontation , the applicant was again denied permission to leave . At TIME , following the arrival of his defence lawyer , the applicant was charged with criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL ( organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order ) and CARDINAL ( resistance to or violence against public officials , posing a threat to their life or health ) of LAW . The specific acts attributed to the applicant were described as follows :

“ Beginning at TIME on DATE , PERSON ,

having taken advantage of the fact that from TIME on DATE a group of persons in the town of ORG had engaged in acts of malicious hooliganism causing a serious breach of public order , had deliberately burned , in a publicly dangerous manner , property belonging to various persons [ including ] ORG , CARDINAL cars , CARDINAL mopeds and scooters , and an auxiliary building located in the yard of a private residential house , and had committed acts of violence against Government officials ,

having , in his false way of thinking , considered [ the above events ] as a ‘ ORG ,

aiming to make the above acts develop and acquire a continuous character in order to create artificial tension and to violate the social and political stability in the country ,

being a resident of GPE , arrived in GPE and , together with Tofiq PERSON Yaqublu and with the active participation of others , [ committed the following : ]

organised , as an active participant , acts causing a serious breach of public order , by means of openly and repeatedly inciting town residents [ ORG ] , [ M.A. ] and others , who had gathered at the square near the administrative building of ORG located on the Nariman FAC opposite to the administrative building of [ the IDEA ] , [ to do the following : ]

[ i ] to enter in masses into the area in front of the building of [ the IDEA ] , which is the competent body of the executive power of GPE , and by doing so to create difficulties for the movement of traffic and pedestrians , [ ii ] to disobey the lawful demands to disperse , made by Government officials wanting to stop their illegal behaviour , [ iii ] to resist uniformed police officers protecting the public order , by way of committing violent acts posing danger to [ police ORG ] life and health , using various objects , [ iv ] to disrupt the normal functioning of [ the IDEA ] , ORG enterprises , bodies and organisations , as well as public - catering , commercial and public - service facilities , by way of refusing to leave , for DATE , the areas where the acts seriously breaching the public order were being committed , and [ v ] to stop the movement of traffic , by way of blocking the central avenue and GPE , and

was finally able to achieve that , at TIME in the town of GPE , a group of persons consisting of [ ORG ] , [ GPE ] and others had marched in masses from the mentioned square in the direction of the administrative building of [ the IDEA ] and had thrown stones at officers of the relevant bodies of ORG who were preventing [ this march ] in accordance with the requirements of the law .

By these actions , PERSON committed the criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . ”

From TIME , the applicant was questioned again , this time as an accused . During the interview he gave essentially the same statement as during the interview of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At TIME the applicant was taken to ORG . The Deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application with ORG asking it to order the applicant ’s remand in custody . The application was essentially a copy of the text of the decision to charge the applicant with the criminal offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It was followed by a note stating that it was necessary to remand the applicant in custody because of the gravity and publicly dangerous character of the offences committed , because they carried a sanction of over CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , and because there were “ sufficient reasons ” to believe that , if released , the applicant would abscond or obstruct the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings .

The court hearing commenced at TIME in the presence of the applicant , his lawyers , a member of the investigation team , and CARDINAL of the prosecutors working in ORG of ORG . According to the applicant , and not disputed by the Government , the prosecution did not submit the case file or the records of the applicant ’s questioning to the court .

At the hearing , the applicant and his lawyers submitted that the accusation against the applicant was groundless and was not supported by any evidence . As for the applicant ’s conduct , they pointed out that he had voluntarily appeared before the prosecution as soon as requested to do so and that , therefore , there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or interfere with the investigation . They argued that , for those reasons , his detention was not justified .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody for DATE ( until DATE ) . The part of the decision containing the court ’s reasoning read as follows :

“ Having examined the [ prosecution ’s ] application and enclosed documents and having heard the oral submissions of the parties , and taking into account the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that , if released , the accused PERSON would abscond from the investigation or disrupt the normal course of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the proceedings , the publicly dangerous character and gravity of the criminal offence committed , and the fact that he is charged with a criminal offence carrying a sanction of over DATE imprisonment , the court considers that the preventive measure of remanding him in custody must be applied in his respect . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , claiming that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty during the period from TIME to TIME on DATE . His complaint was rejected on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE . He argued that he had been detained in breach of the domestic law and LAW . He complained that , although the introductory part of the detention order stated that the court had reviewed preliminary evidence collected by the prosecution , no evidence or any other information giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence had been presented by the prosecution to the first - instance court . The court had issued the order solely on the basis of the decision to charge the applicant with the criminal offences and the prosecution ’s request to order his remand in custody , without independently verifying whether there was a reasonable suspicion against him . He further complained that the court had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his detention by finding that he might abscond from the investigation or attempt to obstruct the proceedings . As for his conduct prior to arrest , he had been cooperative with the authorities and , on CARDINAL occasion , had appeared for questioning after a simple phone call , even without having been formally summoned . Other factors , such as the fact that he had a wife and a small child , a permanent residence and a job in GPE , his personality , social status and professional occupation , his affiliation with ORG programmes , no prior criminal record , and so on , also showed that he was very unlikely to abscond and should have been taken into account by the court . In his appeal , as well as relying on the relevant domestic law , the applicant also relied extensively on ORG case - law and cited a number of its judgments concerning LAW .

On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG observations on the transcript of that court ’s hearing of CARDINAL DATE , to be included in the case file . The observations mainly concerned the prosecutor ’s inability and refusal to answer questions posed by the defence during the oral hearing . Those questions concerned the prosecution ’s failure to produce any evidence on which its suspicions against the applicant were based or to identify the specific circumstances which had led it to believe that the applicant , if released , would abscond or obstruct the proceedings .

ORG hearing was scheduled to be held on DATE . The hearing was delayed for TIME , awaiting ORG examination of the applicant ’s observations on the transcript of the hearing and the request to include them in the documents related to his pre - trial detention , which had been forwarded to ORG . During the delay , ORG took a decision refusing to incorporate the applicant ’s observations into the transcript of the hearing .

According to the applicant , and not disputed by the ORG , as at the first - instance hearing , the prosecution ’s case materials were not made available to the court at the appellate hearing .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal and upheld ORG detention order of CARDINAL DATE , finding as follows :

“ Taking into account the personality of PERSON , the publicly dangerous character and gravity of the criminal offences in question , the fact that [ those offences ] belong to the category of less serious crimes , that [ the applicant ] , if released , could abscond and would disrupt the objectivity of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the criminal proceedings , the court considers that ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ordering the applicant ’s remand in custody is lawful and justified and must be upheld . ...

In ORG v. the GPE [ ( DATE , § CARDINAL , Series A no . FAC ] , ORG noted that the right to a fair trial required that a court should give reasons for its decisions . This does not mean , however , that a detailed answer should be given to every argument raised by the parties . ”

Having provided the above reasoning , ORG did not address any of the specific arguments raised by the applicant against the necessity of detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG to change the preventive measure of remand in custody to house arrest . He argued that his previous conduct had showed that he did not intend to avoid the investigation . Furthermore , his personal circumstances ( his family situation , the fact that he had a permanent job and a permanent place of residence , his active political career in GPE , and so on ) made it very unlikely that he would abscond . Lastly , in his case , “ persons involved in the criminal proceedings ” lived in GPE , and not in GPE where he resided . Therefore , it was unlikely that he would unlawfully influence them .

At the hearing on CARDINAL DATE the prosecution submitted that the request was “ groundless ” and reiterated that there was a risk that if the applicant were not detained , he would abscond or disrupt the investigation . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request . The reasoning provided by the court was as follows :

“ Having examined the counsel ’s request , having heard the persons participating in the hearing , and having examined the case material , the court considers that the request can not be granted because the grounds for detaining the accused person have not ceased to exist . ”

ORG The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . On DATE his appeal was dismissed by ORG .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the prosecution requested an extension of the applicant ’s detention ( originally authorised until DATE ) , noting that , despite the fact that a number of investigative measures had been taken , the case was complex and more time was needed to complete the investigation . According to the applicant , and undisputed by the ORG , apart from that request , the prosecution did not submit to the court any other material relating to the criminal case . At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE concerning the extension request , the prosecution gave no answer to the defence ’s questions as to what specific evidence served as grounds for suspecting the applicant of having committed a criminal offence , what specific investigative measures had been taken so far and what further measures needed to be taken . Following the hearing , the applicant ’s lawyer formally requested that the judge include the above questions and the ( lack of ) answers in the transcript of the hearing , but to no avail .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention by DATE ( until DATE ) , providing the following reasoning :

“ Taking into account the fact that the accused is charged with offences belonging to the category of less serious crimes , the complexity of the criminal proceedings , the need for more time to complete the investigation , and the necessity to carry out a number of investigative measures , the court considers that [ the prosecution ’s ] request must be granted and the period of the accused ’s detention extended ... to DATE . ”

The applicant appealed , reiterating in detail all the arguments against his detention that he had previously raised before the courts . He also argued that it was not permissible , under the domestic law and the Convention , to justify prolonging his pre - trial detention on the ground that the prosecution needed more time to do its job . Again , he cited a number of relevant judgments of ORG concerning various issues relating to pretrial detention .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , upholding the extension decision of CARDINAL DATE and providing the same reasoning as the first - instance court .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for bail , reiterating his previous arguments against his detention . On DATE ORG rejected his request , finding that the grounds justifying his detention , as specified in its decision of DATE , “ had not ceased to exist ” .

The applicant appealed , reiterating in detail his arguments for release . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE .

DATE . On DATE the head of the investigation team decided to charge the applicant with new offences , this time under Articles CARDINAL ( mass disorder ) and CARDINAL ( resistance to or violence against public officials , posing a threat to their life or health ) of LAW . In essence , the charge under LAW , which carried a much heavier sentence ( DATE imprisonment ) , replaced the previous charge under LAW . No changes were made in the original description of the accusations against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

One of the effects of the new charge under LAW was that the applicant could no longer apply for bail , because the law did not permit individuals accused of deliberately committing “ serious criminal offences ” to be released on bail ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY below ) . Moreover , as a person charged with a “ serious criminal offence ” , the applicant ’s pre - trial detention could now be extended for a longer overall period ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention ( which had been authorised until DATE ) by DATE ( until DATE ) . At the hearing , the applicant ’s lawyer reiterated his specific arguments for release and further argued that there were no relevant factors justifying the applicant ’s detention . In its decision , ORG justified the applicant ’s continued detention as follows :

“ Having heard the parties , having examined the [ prosecution ’s ] request on the basis of the case material , and taking into account the scope of the investigative measures to be taken and the fact that the grounds for [ the applicant ’s ] detention have not ceased to exist , the court considers that [ the prosecution ’s extension ] request must be granted and the period of [ the applicant ’s ] detention extended ... ”

The applicant appealed , reiterating his previous arguments . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the extension order , providing reasoning similar to that given by the courts previously .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention ( previously authorised until DATE ) by DATE ( until DATE ) . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order on appeal . The arguments made before the courts and the courts’ reasoning were essentially the same as in the previous extension hearings and decisions .

No further extension decisions are available in the case file .

The applicant ’s criminal trial began in DATE . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The conviction is not yet final and the appeal is pending .

The applicant ’s case generated wide publicity . Some of the select reactions to the case are summarised below .

NORP Immediately after the applicant ’s arrest , a number of domestic NGOs , as well as international NGOs such as ORG and Article CARDINAL , condemned the authorities’ actions , assessing them as a “ politically motivated persecution ” on “ trumped up ” charges .

On DATE , PERSON and PERSON , ORG co - rapporteurs on GPE , expressed their concern at the arrest of the applicant , noting that it “ gave rise to justified doubts and legitimate concerns ” and urging the authorities to release the applicant and PERSON .

On DATE , ORG , the Secretary General of ORG , made the following official statement : “ I am concerned by ... the heavy - handed response of the police to the protests . I am particularly disturbed by the arrest on DATE of ORG and PERSON , in relation to recent events in GPE . PERSON is the Director of ORG , a close co - operation partner of ORG . DATE ’s decision of ORG not to release these CARDINAL men and its refusal to allow ORG representative to be present during the court proceedings is of particular gravity ” . In his further statement of CARDINAL DATE , ORG “ expressed his concern and disappointment ” at the new charges against the applicant .

On DATE , the spokespersons of ORG High Representative PERSON , and the NORP Commissioner for ORG , PERSON , issued a statement expressing concern over the applicant ’s arrest and urged the authorities to ensure a fair , transparent and independent investigation of the charges against him .

On DATE , ORG adopted a resolution entitled “ GPE : Case of Ilgar Mammadov ” ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL(RSP ) ) . Inter alia , the resolution assesses the applicant ’s detention as “ unlawful ” and “ an apparent attempt to keep him behind bars pending the forthcoming elections ” , “ strongly condemns the detention of Mr Mammadov , calls for his immediate and unconditional release and an end to his prosecution ” , and “ expresses serious concern over reports by human rights defenders and domestic and international NGOs about the alleged use of fabricated charges against politicians , activists and journalists ” .

The process of registration of candidates for the presidential elections started on DATE . LAW required candidates to submit their initial eligibility documents to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , which would then issue them with official signature sheets in order to collect a minimum of CARDINAL voter signatures in support of the nomination . The deadline for submission of the signatures and all other documents was DATE .

Since the applicant needed an authorised representative to deal with various matters concerning his nomination , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested ORG of ORG to set up a meeting between the applicant and a notary public in ORG , in order to prepare a power of attorney for his representative in electoral matters . The permission for a notary public ’s visit was given on DATE . The notary public visited the detention facility and certified the power of attorney on CARDINAL DATE .

Pending a response to the above request , on DATE the applicant sent his initial eligibility documents to the ORG from the detention facility ’s post office . According to the applicant , the documents were not delivered to the ORG until CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG returned the applicant ’s initial eligibility documents , having found that they had shortcomings . After rectification of the shortcomings , the applicant ’s representative resubmitted the documents on DATE .

On DATE the ORG preliminarily accepted the applicant ’s nomination as a candidate in the elections , pending the verification of the required voter signatures ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) due by DATE . The applicant ’s representatives submitted the required signature sheets .

On DATE the ORG refused to register the applicant as a candidate , finding that his signature sheets contained a number of invalid signatures and that the number of valid signatures in support of the applicant was below the minimum ( CARDINAL ) required by law .


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On an unspecified date PERSON , a member of the political party SelfDefence of GPE ( “ PERSON ) sent PERSON , a DATE newspaper , an electronic mail containing information about an alleged “ sex scandal ” in the party .

The following day the applicant , who is a journalist , contacted PERSON on the telephone . After their conversation he informed her that he had recorded the call and that he intended to use the transcript for an article .

On DATE the applicant published an interview with PERSON in the Gazeta Wyborcza . The interview , entitled “ Payment for sex , the choice is yours ” ( “ Płaca ze seks , wybór należy do pani ” ) concerned the “ sex scandal ” story which had broken in GPE DATE . Public figures , including PERSON activists , had offered and accepted sexual favours in the course of exercising public functions . PERSON told the newspaper that she had begun working with the party through her contacts with PERSON Initially , she had been unpaid and when she had demanded payment , one of the activists , ORG , had told her :

“ I will pay if you go to bed with me ”

She also said that in DATE during a party organised by PERSON a prominent PERSON activist , GPE , had offered to find a post for her in a parliamentary deputy ’s office – specifically ORG in return for sexual favours . According to PERSON , GPE was so forward that she had to ask PERSON for help . PERSON then called a taxi to take ORG home

Then the applicant asked PERSON :

“ Did you get the job ? ”

PERSON replied :

“ No , the job was given to PERSON ’s daughter ” .

On the same page , to the right of the article , the newspaper quoted CARDINAL prominent PERSON activists referred to in the interview , namely GPE , GPE and PERSON They all , denied that there had been any sexual propositions made to A.R.

Also on the same page the newspaper published a short interview with PERSON who confirmed that she knew PERSON but had never recommended her for any work . When asked about the “ sex scandal ” PERSON said :

“ What are you saying ? I have never heard of it . This can not be true . ”

On DATE PERSON , a Member of ORG , lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant . He demanded that the applicant be charged with defamation . According to the indictment the defamation consisted of the publication of the interview with PERSON in which she said that ORG could arrange a job for her in GPE ’s office in return for sexual favours . According to PERSON this suggested to readers that he had been involved in the “ sex scandal ” . He also claimed that he had been defamed in the published interview at the point where PERSON had accused him of nepotism by saying that he had employed his own daughter .

On DATE ORG ruled the indictment partially accurate : it then discontinued the proceedings for a probationary term of DATE and ordered the applicant to pay MONEY ( ORG – CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) to charity and to pay the costs of the proceedings .

ORG found the applicant guilty of the defamation of PERSON with respect to his publication of the statements made by PERSON concerning nepotism ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the court the applicant neglected his professional obligations because he did not verify that the job had been offered to PERSON ’s daughter . At the trial it became clear that this information could not be accurate because PERSON did not have a daughter . It did not accept the applicant ’s argument that he had acted with due diligence because before publication he had sent the text of the interview to PERSON who had accepted its contents and returned it to the applicant without making any objection or comment ( autoryzacja ) .

ORG did not hold that the applicant was guilty of defamation when he had suggested that PERSON had been involved in the “ sex scandal ” . It found that in this respect the applicant had fulfilled his professional obligations because he had published the statement of ORG , who had denied propositioning PERSON For the above reasons , in ORG view , the average reader should not have had the impression that PERSON was involved in the “ sex scandal ” .

The applicant and PERSON ’s lawyer appealed against the firstinstance judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld the challenged judgment , repeating in essence the same reasoning as ORG . Regarding the applicant ’s arguments concerning his right to freedom of expression under LAW , it noted that “ in the light of the journalist ’s right to publish critical comments ( prawo do krytyki dziennikarskiej ) , an individual ’s right to legal protection of good name and reputation should also be taken into account ” .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the ORG to lodge a cassation appeal on the applicant ’s behalf .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that she had found no grounds to lodge a cassation appeal .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , situated in the PERSON - Abad Region of GPE . He is currently staying in GPE , LOC , GPE , where he is subject to a measure of restraint applied in the course of extradition proceedings .

The applicant is an ethnic NORP .

NORP In DATE inter - ethnic violence between NORP and NORP groups broke out in the southern areas of GPE , including the city of PERSON and the PERSON - Abad Region . The applicant claimed not to have taken part in any violent actions . He left GPE for GPE , allegedly fleeing ethnically motivated violence . It appears that his next - of - kin remain in the country .

In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE . In DATE and DATE he did not lodge any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum . By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG ( “ the PERSON court ” ) convicted the applicant of robbery . The applicant served a prison term and was released on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG ( GPE ) charged the applicant in absentia with a number of serious violent offences committed in DATE in the course of interethnic rioting in the village of GPE .

On DATE ORG , the PERSON - Abad Region of GPE , ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody . On an unspecified date the applicant ’s name was placed on an international wanted list .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP police while he was travelling by train in the GPE region , on the basis that he was wanted in GPE .

On DATE the transport prosecutor ’s office for the ORG railway ( “ the transport prosecutor ’s office ” ) ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody pending receipt of an extradition request pursuant to LAW and on the basis of the NORP court ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG GPE sent an official extradition request to their NORP counterparts .

On DATE the transport prosecutor ’s office again ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody .

On DATE the applicant sought refugee status in GPE . He claimed , among other things , that the criminal case against him had been opened exclusively because of his ethnic origin and that he would face a real risk of ill - treatment in GPE if returned there . He referred to reports by ORG and ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer wrote to ORG of GPE , indicating that extradition should be refused on account of the substantiated risk of ill - treatment in respect of the applicant in GPE . On DATE ORG Office of GPE replied that the above submissions would be taken into account in the decision - making process on the extradition request .

On CARDINAL DATE the PERSON court extended the term of the applicant ’s detention DATE , that is to say , until DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal brought by the applicant and upheld the detention order .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG of GPE ( “ GPE migration authority ” ) refused to grant refugee status to the applicant . It held , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ Mr PERSON has based his refugee application in GPE on the allegations that in his country of nationality he would be persecuted by ORG agencies on [ the basis of ] fabricated criminal charges [ brought ] because of his ethnic origin . ...

It is evident from the available materials that PERSON left his country of nationality for reasons which fall outside the scope of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , and that he does not wish to return to his country , fearing lawful prosecution for a criminal offence ...

During his interview Mr PERSON failed to refer to any facts capable of proving his persecution on the grounds of his ethnic origin .

The NORP law - enforcement agencies ... do not have the specific purpose of persecuting Mr PERSON because of his belonging to a particular social group , ethnic origin , religion or political views . ”

On DATE the NORP authorities issued an amended list of charges against the applicant , which included illegal use of firearms and other weapons , murder , robbery , destruction of property and involvement in rioting aggravated by ethnic hatred .

On DATE the PERSON court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE for the reason that an extradition check was underway . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the detention order of DATE .

On DATE ORG GPE submitted a letter to their NORP counterparts , containing assurances that the applicant would benefit from legal assistance ; would not be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment ; and the extradition request was related to ordinary criminal offences and was not aimed at persecuting the applicant on religious , political grounds or grounds relating to his ethnic origin .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ ORG ” ) upheld the refusal to grant refugee status of DATE , without providing any detailed reasons .

On DATE the PERSON court extended the applicant ’s detention with a view to extradition until DATE . The applicant appealed on DATE . On the same date the case was transferred to ORG , which received it on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the detention order .

On DATE the GPE ORG ( “ the GPE court ” ) upheld the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE amended the extradition request , stating that following the applicant ’s extradition NORP diplomatic staff would be given an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility and that the applicant would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , as prohibited by the DATE LAW .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant ’s extradition , without making any findings on the issue of the risk of ill - treatment in the event of the applicant ’s extradition .

The applicant appealed against the extradition order , claiming , in particular , that he would face risks of torture and ill - treatment since , according to various international reports , ethnic NORP were a particularly vulnerable group following the DATE violence in the southern regions of GPE .

On DATE ORG examined the matter of the applicant ’s continued detention and extended it until DATE . The applicant appealed on DATE . On the same date the case was transferred to the appeal section of ORG , which received it on DATE . On DATE the appeal section upheld the extension order .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG upheld the LAW court ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal against the extradition order . The court heard PERSON , the applicant ’s representative before the Court , as a witness , and refused to examine a number of pieces of evidence adduced by the applicant in relation to his arguments regarding the risk of ill - treatment in GPE , in particular a number of reports from international organisations . By a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the extradition order in the following terms :

“ ... The applicant ’s arguments relating to persecution by the NORP authorities on the grounds of his nationality were examined and dismissed by the decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning his application for refugee status .

The above decision was upheld by the now final judgment of DATE ... This court dismisses the argument concerning the issuing of the extradition order before the examination of the refusal to grant refugee status . As is clear from the materials concerning the extradition check procedure , [ the applicant ] lodged an application for refugee status after his arrest in GPE . Judicial review proceedings in respect of a refusal to grant such status do not impede the issuing of an extradition order ...

ORG of GPE guarantees that [ the applicant ] would be given all opportunities to defend himself , including legal assistance ; that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ... In addition , the requesting country guarantees that following [ the applicant ’s ] extradition NORP diplomatic officers would be afforded an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility in order to be satisfied that his rights are being respected , [ and ] that the principles of the equality of arms and the adversarial nature of court proceedings are being respected ... The court dismisses as unfounded the arguments relating to inability for [ the applicant to undergo ] a medical examination or [ have ] confidential meetings with diplomatic officers ...

It follows from PERSON witness statement that she has not visited GPE since DATE and was not present during the events of DATE . Her knowledge of the current situation in LOC is based on reports by foreign human - rights organisations describing an imprecise group of people . ...

The court dismisses as unproven the references to the findings made by ORG and ORG in individual cases or the references to the reports of international organisations assessing the general human - rights situation in GPE . The above references are refuted by the real guarantees from the NORP authorities , such guarantees relating directly to [ the applicant ] and being sufficient to exclude the risk of cruel treatment in respect of him ... ”

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG of GPE against the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting as an appeal court , examined the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE upholding the extradition order . The appeal court admitted to the file a number of documents , including international reports regarding GPE . By a judgment of DATE , ORG of GPE dismissed the appeal , endorsing the reasoning of the first - instance court . It held as follows :

“ ... Judicial review proceedings in respect of a local migration authority ’s refusal to grant refugee status do not impede the decision - making process in respect of an extradition request ... The available materials do not disclose that [ the applicant ] is being persecuted on political grounds by law enforcement agencies in GPE ... The prosecution against [ the applicant ] concerns ordinary criminal offences and does not contain indications of any political motivation or discrimination on the grounds of ... social origin , nationality or race ... ORG submitted guarantees that [ the applicant ] would be provided with all [ necessary ] facilities for [ preparing ] his defence , including legal assistance ; that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ... Thus , the court accepts as correct the conclusion that GPE has fully complied with the requirements of LAW of LAW and LAW , as regards the provision of the required guarantees ... ”

The text of the appeal decision did not contain any reference to any avenues of further appeal . It appears that the extradition order became enforceable on DATE .

On DATE the GPE migration authority dismissed the applicant ’s application for temporary asylum . The applicant appealed to the ORG , which informed him on DATE that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been quashed and that his application would be re - examined . It remains unknown whether the re - examination in question has taken place .

On DATE the transport prosecutor ’s office ordered the applicant ’s release from custody for the reason that the ORG had applied interim measures pursuant to LAW in respect of the applicant , and applied a different measure of restraint on the basis that the applicant ’s lawyer , ORG , had provided a personal guarantee that the applicant would be available for questioning and other actions related to the extradition check once released .

The applicant was then released from remand .


Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

NORP The applicant ’s mother and father , PERSON and PERSON respectively , lived in PERSON ( now Lviv’ in GPE ) before the Second World War . They were not married as GPE already had a wife , a certain PERSON The applicant was born into her GPE relationship on DATE .

W.B. was indicated as the applicant ’s natural father ( pater naturalis ) in her baptism certificate of DATE .

W.B. died in GPE on DATE . Following his death , the applicant ’s mother married a certain GPE

In DATE the applicant ’s last name was changed to that of her stepfather and in DATE her birth certificate was again amended to include GPE ’s first name as the father ’s name .

On an unknown date the applicant instituted proceedings aimed at amending further her birth certificate .

On DATE ORG allowed the change and put PERSON down as her father .

On DATE the applicant instituted inheritance proceedings regarding PERSON ’s estate before ORG . On DATE the court found that ORG had jurisdiction .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . The court established that PERSON had died intestate on DATE in GPE . He had been married to PERSON , however , they had separated . Instead , GPE had been in a relationship for DATE with the applicant ’s mother . The applicant was PERSON ’s only child , he had no siblings and his parents had died before him .

NORP However , the court held that the applicant could not inherit her natural father ’s estate as she had been born out of wedlock . It found that according to the Introductory Provisions of the Civil Code , the law applicable to the proceedings was the law in force at the time of PERSON ’s death ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON had been a NORP citizen who had lived in GPE . PERSON had been part of GPE until DATE and the law in force in that province had been the NORP Civil Code of DATE ( NORP bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – “ the ABGB ” ) . Under LAW ABGB illegitimate children could not inherit ab intestato from their father or father ’s family . As the applicant was in that position , she could not inherit her father ’s property .

The applicant appealed to ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the firstinstance decision and remitted the case . The court held that ORG had failed to establish a list of all PERSON ’s potential heirs . It further instructed the lower court to set out all the heirs , including ORG .

In accordance with those instructions , ORG summoned ORG on DATE to participate as a party to the proceedings .

On DATE ORG , represented by the Minister of ORG , filed a submission that the relevant material law applicable to the proceedings was LAW ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG issued a decision and declared that ORG had acquired ORG ’s estate . ORG established that PERSON had died on DATE in GPE . He had been married to ORG but had separated from her . PERSON and the applicant ’s mother PERSON had been in a relationship but they had never married . PERSON had no siblings and had not had any children with PERSON The applicant was his only child . He had not left a will and had no other heirs .

The court further maintained that according to LAW the law applicable to the proceedings was the law in force at the time of a person ’s death . In that regard it was first necessary to establish on which country ’s territory the applicant ’s father had been at the time of his death on DATE . The court held that DATE PERSON had been part of GPE and the capital of GPE ( województwo lwowskie ) . On DATE the NORP uprising had begun , lasting until DATE . PERSON had then been occupied by the forces of the former GPE . Following the Yalta Conference , the Provisional Government of National Unity ( PERSON ) had signed a border agreement with the government of GPE on DATE . In that treaty , GPE had formally ceded its pre - war eastern territory to GPE , agreeing to the NORP - Soviet border drawn according to the so - called ORG . Consequently , PERSON had been part of GPE until DATE .

The court concluded that as PERSON had been within NORP borders at the time of PERSON ’s death , the relevant law was the ABGB , the law in force in the province of GPE . LAW ORG illegitimate children could not inherit from a father who had died intestate . Consequently , the applicant could not inherit her father ’s property and , as there were no other heirs , ORG had acquired ORG ’s estate .

The applicant appealed , submitting that while she was aware of the provisions referred to by ORG , she thought they were unfair and ran counter to the principles of community life ( zasady współżycia społecznego ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and contemporary conditions .

On DATE ORG , in a briefly worded decision , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The court referred to the reasons given by ORG and held that there was no doubt that LAW had been applicable to the proceedings . It further considered that no matter how unfair the old regulations concerning illegitimate children might seem it was not possible to disregard them . That meant that under LAW , the law applicable to the inheritance proceedings was the law in force when the father had died .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , relying in general on the case - law and provisions of LAW

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s cassation appeal . It held that it was not justified to raise the issue of a significant legal question only by making a general reference to Convention case - law . A mere statement that the intertemporal rule DATE which meant that the law in force at the time of opening the succession was the relevant law – was incompatible with unspecified Convention provisions was not enough to qualify as a legal issue . The legal issue raised by the applicant had concerned in principle the interpretation of intertemporal provisions , however , she had not specified why Article PERSON of the Introductory Provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) should not have been interpreted literally in her case . The court stated further that there were no grounds to rely on the provisions and values of the Convention as Poland had not been bound by it at the time of the opening of the succession .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings under the Law on the Realisation of the Right to Compensation for Property left beyond the present Borders of the NORP State ( LOC o realizacji prawa do rekompensaty z tytułu pozostawienia nieruchomości poza obecnymi granicami państwa polskiego ) of DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ” ) in order to obtain compensation for property left by PERSON in GPE .

On DATE the Małopolski Governor ( Wojewoda ) refused to grant her request on the grounds that she was not PERSON ’s heir .

On DATE the Minister of ORG quashed the first - instance decision on procedural grounds and remitted the case .

On DATE the PERSON Governor again refused the applicant ’s request on the grounds that she had not inherited her father ’s estate . The Governor referred to ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Governor ’s decision was upheld by the Minister of ORG on CARDINAL DATE . The Minister noted that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provided that in the event of a former owner ’s death an application for compensation should include a decision on acquiring the inheritance or on division of the inheritance . On DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal by the applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant . Referring to the decision given in the inheritance proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court held that the applicant had not inherited PERSON ’s estate .

Article PERSON of LAW of DATE ( LOC przepisy wprowadząjace kodeks cywilny ) ( “ the Introductory Provisions ” ) , provides that the law applicable to inheritance proceedings is the one which was in force at the time of death .

In case of doubt as to the relevant law , Article PERSON provides that LAW of DATE should apply .

DATE the Civil Code relates to the so - called “ principles of community life ” and reads as follows :

“ Rights may not be exercised in a manner which contradicts their socioeconomic purpose ( społeczno - gospodarcze przeznaczenie prawa ) or the principles of community life ( zasady współżycia społecznego ) . Such an act or omission on the part of a person so entitled shall not be considered as an exercise of that right and shall not be protected by law . ”

The provisions relating to inheritance are laid out in ORG DATE of the Civil Code .

Article CARDINAL , provides in so far as relevant :

“ § CARDINAL . NORP The property rights and obligations of a deceased person pass , upon his death , to one or several persons in accordance with the provisions of this Book [ Book Four , Inheritance ] .... ”

Article ORG provides :

“ The succession is opened on DATE deceased ’s death ” .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides , in so far as relevant :

“ § CARDINAL . The deceased ’s children and spouse are by law admitted first to succession ; they inherit in equal shares . ... ”

After GPE regained its independence in DATE different civil codes were in use in various regions . The ORG was in force on former NORP territory ( GPE ) . Its last applicable provisions were repealed on DATE .

Under LAW , as applicable at the material time , illegitimate children could not inherit an intestate father ’s estate .

Pursuant to LAW , as in force at the material time , the estate was to pass to the ORG if no heir was found .

The Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of PERSON , drawn up within ORG entered into force on DATE . It entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE . Article CARDINAL provides in respect of succession rights as follows :

“ A child born out of wedlock shall have the same right of succession in the estate of its father and its mother and of a member of its father ’s or mother ’s family , as if it had been born in wedlock . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW on LAW of DATE ( “ the Vienna Convention ” ) provides :

Non - retroactivity of treaties

“ Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established , its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before DATE of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party . ”