Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr I. Surjan , a lawyer 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 , after obtaining all the relevant permits from the competent domestic authorities , the applicant applied to ORG ( Ured državne uprave u ORG - neretvanskoj županiji , PERSON u PERSON , hereinafter “ the Korčula Office ” ) for a permit for the construction of a house in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was granted a construction permit , and this decision became final on DATE .

During the building work , on DATE , a building inspector of ORG ( ORG zaštite okoliša , prostornog uređenja i graditeljstva , hereinafter “ the Ministry ” ) carried out an on - site inspection and , after examining the construction permit , found no irregularities in the work .

On DATE a certain PERSON asked the Ministry to carry out a further inspection of the applicant ’s construction work and her construction permit .

On DATE the construction inspector requested the Ministry to revoke the applicant ’s construction permit . He considered that the construction permit had not been properly issued , as it allowed construction in excess of the maximum limit of construction on a single plot of land . The inspector also considered that the construction of a flat roof as authorised by the construction permit would not be permissible under the relevant spatial planning regulations .

On DATE , on the basis of its supervisory review powers , the ORG revoked the applicant ’s construction permit on the grounds that the construction permit had not been issued in accordance with the relevant construction regulations .

The applicant challenged this decision before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) on DATE , arguing that she had lawfully obtained a construction permit , which had become final and enforceable . The applicant considered that the revocation of the permit was an abuse of powers by the construction inspector , and that there had been no legal grounds to revoke the construction permit for the reasons cited by ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s administrative action on the grounds that it appeared from the available evidence that the applicant ’s construction permit had been issued contrary to the relevant construction regulations .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , contending that by the revocation of the construction permit the status of her property had become precarious as , although the house could not be demolished , she could never obtain a residential use permit , which was a further permit to be obtained as a necessary condition for a fully lawful use of house . She also considered that she had been made to bear an excessive individual burden as a construction investor .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded .

On DATE , following the enactment of LAW ( Zakon o postupanju s nezakonito izgrađenim zgradama , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which provided for the possibility of legalisation of unlawful constructions , the applicant requested legalisation of the construction status of her house .

NORP In support of that request she submitted a new architect ’s plan , for which she paid CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) . In addition , ORG ordered her to pay the legalisation fees in the amount of HRK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request and authorised legalisation of her construction .

The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ The right of ownership shall be guaranteed ... “

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o gradnji , ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Construction may commence only on the basis of a final construction permit ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) If an administrative inspection or an inspection conducted by a construction inspector finds that the issuing of a construction permit ... which [ is ] final ... manifestly breached the substantive provisions of this LAW , the Ministry shall revoke that permit on the basis of its supervisory rights ... ”

“ A decision on revocation based on the [ ORG ] supervisory rights may be issued within DATE of the date of finality of the act being revoked . ”

The relevant provision of LAW ( Zakon o sustavu državne uprave , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ Damage caused to a citizen , legal entity or any other party by an illegal or improper act on the part of a ORG administration body , local administration body or any legal entity with public powers in the exercise of its authority shall be redressed by GPE . ”

The same provision is contained in section CARDINAL of the amended LAW ( ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

NORP In decision no . U - III-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG stressed :

ORG points out that ORG establishes a system of responsibility of the ORG on the basis of the principle of causality ( causa ) and not on the basis of guilt ( culpa ) .

The primary and immediate responsibility of the ORG for damage caused by an illegal or improper conduct on the part of a ORG administration body or a legal entity with public powers is an expression of the principle of rule of law as one of the highest values of the NORP constitutional order set out in LAW . ”

On DATE , in decision no . U - III-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the ORG further stated by way of clarification :

“ [ LAW ] provides for primary and immediate responsibility of GPE irrespective of the level of governance ( state , county , municipality or legal entity with public powers ) at which damage has been caused by illegal or improper conduct . Such a responsibility of the ORG , which was also accepted in judicial practice ( see ORG decision no . Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - DATE ) , is an expression of the rule of law as CARDINAL of the highest values of the NORP constitutional order set out in LAW . The Constitutional Court points out that LAW establishes a system of responsibility on the basis of the principle of causality and not on the basis of guilt ( culpa ) . ”

The Government provided a judgment of ORG ( PERSON ORG ) , no . P-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , final on DATE , by which , on the basis of ORG case - law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , a civil action was allowed and damages awarded under LAW of LAW for the local administration ’s errors in authorising a construction permit .


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

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall

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

On DATE ORG ( “ NORP ” ) charged the applicant with aggravated fraud and organising a criminal group , and placed him in police custody for TIME .

By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed a request by ORG to detain the applicant pending trial for DATE . On DATE he was detained in ORG . His pre - trial detention was subsequently extended to cover the entire duration of his trial .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and organising a criminal group , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The judgment remained final , after ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant on CARDINAL DATE and ORG dismissed an appeal by him on points of law ( recurs ) on DATE .

In his initial letters to the ORG , the applicant contended , without providing details , that during the criminal investigation opened against him in DATE he had been beaten up by police officers .

On DATE he brought civil proceedings against ORG and ORG seeking financial compensation for inadequate medical treatment during his pre - trial detention . In his written submissions he also stated that he had been subjected to violence after his arrest .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the proceedings as inadmissible on the grounds that it was not competent ratione loci to examine his claim . It referred the case to ORG .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the proceedings on the grounds that the statute of limitations for his claim had taken effect . In addition , ORG and ORG lacked the locus standi to be sued . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the judgment .

In his letters to the ORG , the applicant contended that in GPE , GPE , ORG , PERSON , GPE , PERSON and ORG he had been forced to share cells with TIME CARDINAL smokers , even though he was a non - smoker . They had been noisy and violent . Also , he would constantly be transferred from CARDINAL prison to another , sometimes for distances of QUANTITY in a vehicle with TIME detainees , who would smoke , eat and be noisy . Moreover , he had not been provided with adequate medical care during his pre - trial detention .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained on several occasions in ORG for a total of DATE , in non - smoking cells . He was afforded DATE and QUANTITY . m of living space , and was provided with adequate medical treatment for his condition .

DATE and DATE he was detained in FAC on several occasions for a total of CARDINAL and seventyfour days , in non - smoking cells . For DATE of his detention he was afforded QUANTITY . m of living space . For the remaining period he was afforded CARDINAL and QUANTITY . m of living space .

DATE the applicant was detained on CARDINAL occasions in Jilava Prison for a total of DATE , in non - smoking cells . For most of his stay he was afforded CARDINAL sq . m of living space ; however , for TIME he was afforded QUANTITY . m or more of living space .

DATE the applicant was detained in FAC for DATE , in a non - smoking cell . He was afforded QUANTITY . m of living space .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained repeatedly in ORG for a total of DATE , in nonsmoking cells . He was afforded between CARDINAL and QUANTITY . m of living space , and was provided with adequate medical treatment for his condition .

On DATE the applicant was detained in ORG for DATE , in a non - smoking cell . He was afforded QUANTITY . m of living space .

On DATE the applicant was detained in FAC for DATE . He was afforded QUANTITY . m of living space .

NORP The applicant was detained in FAC repeatedly , but only while in transit to another facility . He would only remain there for TIME , in a non - smoking cell , and would be afforded between CARDINAL.CARDINAL and QUANTITY . m of living space .

The applicant was transferred between detention facilities in twentytwo special vehicles fitted with windows , lights , heating and sunroofs . The vehicles had CARDINAL seats . The number of detainees transported would never exceed the number of available seats . Detainees were provided with food and water during transfers , and were allowed bathroom breaks and access to running water and smoking areas every time the vehicle stopped at a prison . Smoking was strictly prohibited during transfers .

During his detention , the applicant had refused to provide information on his pre - existing medical condition and had repeatedly refused treatment for his chronic and psychiatric problems .

On DATE the applicant was released from pre - trial detention under the condition not lo leave the country pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings opened against him .

On DATE the applicant was detained again following his conviction of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and was incarcerated in FAC .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

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

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

On DATE a search of the applicant ’s flat was carried out . He was then charged with drug trafficking . The applicant was kept in police custody until DATE , when he was released on undertakings of good behaviour and to not leave town .

NORP In separate proceedings , on DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of causing bodily harm to another person . On DATE he admitted the charge , allegedly under duress . According to the applicant , lawyer PERSON , assigned to represent him , was not present at the interview and signed the record later on . However , there was no mention of counsel ’s name in the list of visitors in the detention centre . On CARDINAL DATE Judge PERSON , LOC ( “ the ORG ” ) authorised the applicant ’s continued detention and stated that he “ had indeed committed a very serious offence ” . The applicant was charged with causing bodily harm resulting in the victim ’s death . On DATE , the police took him to a hospital and required him to undergo a blood test .

The applicant confirmed his earlier confession in ORG ’s presence during an on - the - spot interview , which was recorded on video . On an unspecified date , the applicant terminated ORG ’s representation of him . A new lawyer , PERSON , was appointed for the trial .

On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG convicted the applicant of drug trafficking . In DATE ORG issued a decision admitting the applicant ’s mother , PERSON , as the applicant ’s lay defender in the appeal proceedings concerning the drug - trafficking conviction . On DATE ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered a retrial .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of causing bodily harm resulting in the victim ’s death . However , on DATE ORG quashed this judgment , considering that the trial court had wrongly allowed the reading out of a pre - trial witness statement , despite the defence ’s objection and in the absence of the applicant . Thus , the appeal court ordered a retrial and that the applicant be held in custody pending it .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention , referring to the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he would continue criminal activity , if at large .

NORP In DATE ORG decided on a complaint brought by the applicant and imposed a disciplinary penalty on ORG , the applicant ’s former lawyer , apparently , in relation to the drug - related case .

On DATE ORG returned the case about drug trafficking to the prosecutor . On DATE the prosecutor joined the criminal cases against the applicant . On DATE the investigator dismissed a number of motions lodged by the defence . In particular , the investigator stated that PERSON could no longer act as the applicant ’s lay defender , since the decision to admit her to the proceedings issued in DATE had concerned only the appeal proceedings .

On DATE the joined cases were submitted for trial before ORG .

Hearings were held on DATE and DATE . On the latter date Judge PERSON stripped PERSON of her lay - defender status in the criminal proceedings against her son , because she had been interviewed as a witness in the bodily harm case .

Subsequently , the case was assigned to a trial panel of CARDINAL judges , including Judge PERSON as the presiding judge .

In the meantime , the applicant sought the withdrawal of Judge PERSON from the case , arguing bias on account of , inter alia , the judge ’s statement in the detention order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and his failure to ensure decent conditions of detention pending retrial or to issue permission for a visit from the applicant ’s mother . The judge refused to withdraw from the case , stating that the trial court was not competent to deal with the issue of conditions of detention and that the trial court ’s competence as regards visits was limited under LAW of LAW to the period following delivery of the trial judgment . While admitting that the remark in the detention order was “ unfortunate ” , the judge stated it did not contain any information to the effect that he had an “ interest in the outcome of the criminal case ” . ORG upheld the judge ’s refusals to withdraw .

In reply to a renewed challenge by the applicant , on DATE the matter was submitted to the remaining CARDINAL judges on the trial panel . They considered that there were no reasons for Judge PERSON to withdraw from or to be removed from the criminal case against the applicant . In particular , they stated that LAW required “ compelling reasons ” for refusing a visit by a next - of - kin to a detainee . They concluded , however , that there was no evidence that any such visit had been refused without valid reason in the applicant ’s case .

On DATE ORG discontinued the case against the applicant on charges of drug trafficking , because the prosecutor had dropped the charges .

As to the remaining charges of causing bodily harm , the trial panel noted the defence ’s challenge to the expert report concerning the victim ’s injuries and granted its request for another expert report .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of causing bodily harm resulting in the victim ’s death and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment . The court relied on several witness statements , the applicant ’s pre - trial confession and his on - the - spot interview .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction and sentence .

In or around DATE the applicant sought statutory compensation payable by the ORG to individuals who have been acquitted of criminal offences or in respect of whom the charges have been dropped . On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claims in part as regards pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . On DATE ORG ordered a retrial in respect of the pecuniary claims . The award in respect of the non - pecuniary claim became final . On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s pecuniary claim in part . On DATE ORG , considering that the applicant ’s presence at the appeal hearing was not necessary , upheld the judgment .

In the meantime , the applicant sought supervisory review of the above judgment , challenging the factual and legal findings made by the courts and their refusal to confirm his right to compensation on account of his prosecution on drug - trafficking charges . Having heard the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE the Presidium of ORG amended the judgments of DATE and DATE recognising his right to compensation . The court rejected the applicant ’s remaining complaints as unfounded . He received a copy of the supervisory - review ruling on DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for early release from prison . In his letter , which was sent to ORG of GPE , he asked that the necessary supporting documents be requested by the court from the prison administration . It appears that this letter reached ORG on DATE . By letter dated CARDINAL DATE , a judge of ORG informed the applicant of the refusal to examine the application . The letter read as follows :

“ Hereby I return your application for early release as it requires amendment . Certain necessary documents were not enclosed with it , namely the prison ’s reports on your personality and disciplinary penalties , as well as certificates relating to employment , your medical and psychiatric conditions ...

No court decision [ on your application ] may be issued in the absence of these documents . ”

The applicant did not appeal , as he was not provided with a copy of any formal decision .

Instead , the applicant resubmitted his application to ORG , this time with some supporting documents . During the hearing , which took place before another ORG judge , the prison administration expressed their disagreement with his application , considering it to be premature . By a judgment of DATE that ORG judge examined the applicant ’s request . While acknowledging that the applicant had already served CARDINAL of the sentence , the court rejected the application , referring inter alia to the fact that the applicant had received several penalties for violations of the internal prison regulations , including CARDINAL placement in a punishment cell . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged numerous complaints , initiated proceedings against lawyer PERSON and various public officials accusing them of criminal offences , contesting criminal proceedings against him or complaining about the conditions of his detention ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint , alleging that during the search of his house in DATE one of the officers had taken him into the bedroom and had pushed him against the wall . On DATE an investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on account of the alleged ill - treatment . In DATE the matter was examined and a new refusal was issued by a deputy prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE . By a judgment of DATE , ORG confirmed this refusal to prosecute . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

The applicant was detained in Talovskiy Temporary Detention Centre ( “ ORG ” ) , which was attached to Talovskiy police station , on numerous occasions DATE for periods at times in excess of DATE . The applicant was also held in the ORG on several occasions DATE .

According to the applicant , although he was alone in the cell , no arrangements were made for a proper bed and bedding . Neither were there any facilities for taking a bath or shower or for outdoor exercise . He was given CARDINAL meal a day . The walls were rendered with shuba , a coarse type of concrete , designed to prevent detainees from leaning on the walls . The cell windows were covered with metal shutters blocking access to fresh air and natural light .

In DATE the applicant had bronchitis and allegedly failed to receive appropriate treatment . In DATE he attempted suicide and self - harmed , being unable to stand the appalling conditions of detention and the duration of his placement in the ORG .

The applicant submitted that the conditions of detention in the ORG improved DATE , when he was allowed to take a shower and DATE outdoor exercise and was provided with CARDINAL meals a day .

DATE the applicant was also kept in FAC no . CARDINAL . According to him , at times , CARDINAL detainees were held in a cell with QUANTITY beds ; thus the cell measurements were below the required international and even national standards .

In his observations before the ORG , the applicant further argued that he had been kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY m. together with CARDINAL other detainees . On average , the cell accommodated QUANTITY or QUANTITY detainees although it only had CARDINAL bunk beds . At times , it accommodated CARDINAL detainees . The applicant enclosed diagrams of cells CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , which , according to him , measured QUANTITY m. and had CARDINAL beds each . He also provided several written statements from individuals who had been kept in the remand centre for varying periods DATE , at times in the same cell(s ) as the applicant . For instance , T. submitted that on some occasions DATE detainees had been kept in cells measuring CARDINAL sq . m. with CARDINAL beds . Another detainee stated that cell no . CARDINAL had CARDINAL beds but accommodated , sometimes , CARDINAL detainees ; they had to take turns to sleep during DATE .

Drawing on the statements from other detainees , the applicant ’s lawyer argued in the observations that the cells had lacked mandatory ventilation although many detainees smoked , and , at times , the temperature there went up to QUANTITY The toilet in the cells was separated in the main area by a metal bar of QUANTITY in height , which did not provide sufficient privacy . Sometimes , there was no water supply in the drainage system , so the use of the toilet had to be limited in order to reduce unpleasant smells . The cells were infested with flies , cockroaches and bugs .

In reply to the applicant ’s initial complaint relating to the cell sizes and insufficiency of beds , the respondent Government submitted a certificate signed on CARDINAL DATE by the acting chief officer of the remand centre . This certificate listed the cells in which the applicant had been kept for varying periods since DATE ( cells nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

The applicant unsuccessfully complained to various public authorities about the conditions of his detention in the Talovskiy ORG . These complaints were forwarded to ORG for examination . By letters of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE ORG rejected his complaints as unfounded . It indicated that the applicant ’s repeated placements in the temporary detention centre were due to logistical difficulties with transferring him between Talovskiy ORG and ORG , which were a considerable distance apart . On DATE and DATE as well as on DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s renewed complaints as unsubstantiated .

By letters of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , the President of ORG declined jurisdiction to deal with the applicant ’s complaints about his repeated and prolonged detention in the Talovskiy TDC , including his complaints about the physical conditions of detention there .

By letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that his earlier complaints had been examined by the district prosecutor , who had issued decisions dated DATE , DATE and DATE confirming unspecified violations in relation to the conditions of detention in the ORG .

NORP The applicant is now detained in prison no . CARDINAL , located in GPE in LOC . According to him , the living area of the prison measures QUANTITY and houses CARDINAL detainees ; the artificial lights in the dormitory are insufficient ; the food is bad .

DATE the applicant received visits in the remand centre from his mother , PERSON

Around DATE the applicant started to complain that he was no longer receiving visits from his mother . According to the Government , she did not come to the remand centre and did not request any visits at that time ; nor did she lodge any complaints of visits being refused .

By letter of DATE , Judge PERSON of ORG stated that LAW did not require a court decision in response to the applicant ’s complaint concerning family visits . LAW did not necessitate a request for such a visit to be granted ; the decision on whether to authorise such a visit remained within the discretion of the authority dealing with the criminal case . LAW provided that visits could be authorised following delivery of the trial judgment and before its enforcement .

By letter of DATE the President of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s renewed complaint . He indicated that family visits could be allowed under LAW after pronouncement of a trial judgment .

The applicant also complained to ORG that a police officer ( apparently , the officer in charge of ORG ) was refusing to allow visits from his mother . This complaint was forwarded to ORG for examination . In DATE the district prosecutor dismissed the complaint from the applicant , stating that while PERSON had been accepted in DATE as a lay defender in the appeal proceedings concerning the drug - trafficking case against the applicant , this case had been joined to the second case pending before ORG . The prosecutor noted that ORG had not yet issued any decision accepting PERSON as a lay defender in the joined cases .

The applicant complained to ORG about the refusal to allow visits from his mother . This complaint was forwarded to ORG . By letter of DATE , the President of ORG stated as follows :

“ I consider that section CARDINAL of LAW does not require the court “ dealing with the criminal case ” to grant applications for the authorisation of visits . Such visits may be authorised depending on the circumstances relating to the criminal proceedings . Following the quashing of the judgments [ in respect of the applicant ] on appeal and the decision to order a retrial , the retrial has not started yet . LAW requires the court to grant visits from next - of - kin following delivery of the trial judgment ... PERSON had been accepted as [ the applicant ’s ] lay defender , in addition to counsel , and was granted permission to pay visits to [ the applicant ] ... LAW does not require the court to issue any additional authorisations for visits ... ”

The applicant also complained to ORG in DATE . This complaint was forwarded for examination to ORG . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor dismissed his complaint .

The applicant tried to lodge an appeal before ORG in relation to the above letter of DATE . By letter of DATE , Judge PERSON refused to process the applicant ’s appeal against the letter . The judge indicated that a letter was not amenable to appeal .

The applicant submitted to the ORG a statement made by his mother . She affirmed that on several occasions during DATE she had been afforded the opportunity to talk for a short time with the applicant through a metal partition , because there was no meeting room in GPE TDC . DATE she had lodged CARDINAL requests before Judge PERSON ORG seeking authorisation for a meeting with the applicant in the ORG . In her requests , she referred to her next - of - kin status rather than her position as a lay defender in the criminal proceedings . The judge had dismissed her requests orally without issuing any formal decision which would be amenable to appeal . Her similar requests to the President of ORG were also dismissed . She had presented the decision of DATE to the chief officer of the Talovskiy police station but he had demanded a recent court order . Apparently , her ensuing complaints against the officers had not been processed by ORG . DATE and DATE no permission had been granted for her to visit as a lay defender ( which would have had the benefit of visits not being limited in frequency and duration , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the ORG received the applicant ’s application form dispatched , by registered mail , on DATE from ORG no . CARDINAL ( as indicated on the envelope ) . In DATE the ORG received the applicant ’s additional application form , with enclosures , sent by registered mail on DATE from the same remand centre ( as indicated on the envelope ) . In DATE the ORG received CARDINAL further packages , with numerous enclosures , from the applicant . According to the applicant , the above correspondence was , in fact , dispatched by his mother , PERSON

The ORG also received the applicant ’s letter dated DATE , which he submitted had been sent by his mother , in which he complained that prison no . CARDINAL had not dispatched his letters of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

Subsequently , the applicant also complained to the ORG that the remand centre had not dispatched his letter dated DATE . He submitted a copy of a note , apparently written by a remand centre officer , stating that his letter had been dispatched . ORG did not receive this letter .

The applicant claimed that on DATE the staff of the prison refused to dispatch a letter dated DATE to the ORG . He was then transferred to the ORG in GPE . According to the applicant , his mother then tried to dispatch the letter from there , but the staff of the postal office refused to dispatch it .

On DATE ORG received the applicant ’s letter dated DATE , apparently dispatched by the applicant ’s mother . In that letter the applicant alleged that on DATE the administration of prison no . CARDINAL had refused to dispatch his letter of DATE .

The Registry also received the applicant ’s letters of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and several letters in DATE from prison no . CARDINAL .


Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant , while serving a prison sentence , was diagnosed with lymphoma . He was admitted to prison hospital no . CARDINAL of GPE and underwent CARDINAL courses of chemotherapy .

NORP In DATE a court authorised the applicant ’s early release on health grounds . He was then monitored by an oncologist in a civil hospital , having continued with chemotherapy . The Government submitted that in DATE the applicant had undergone an in - depth examination in the oncology department of the GPE regional hospital , where he was diagnosed with lymphoproliferative disorder affecting the cervical , axillary , mediastinal and retroperitoneal lymph nodes . The applicant did not complete the medical examinations or treatment , including chemotherapy . He was arrested on DATE .

By judgments of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and QUANTITY DATE the applicant was convicted of fraud , robbery and theft respectively . He was sent to serve his sentence in detention facility no . CARDINAL . On DATE he was transferred to the prison tuberculosis hospital .

On DATE a medical panel , comprising the deputy head of the prison tuberculosis hospital and doctors from the same hospital , examined the applicant and diagnosed him with progressive non - Hodgkin lymphoma in acute III B stage , with lesions of the cervical , axillary and abdominal lymph nodes . The panel concluded that the applicant was eligible for early release as he suffered from malignant formations of lymphatic and haematogenous tissues , a disease included in the List of serious illnesses precluding the serving of sentences in correctional institutions , as provided for by Decree no . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE of DATE ( hereinafter “ the List ” ) .

On DATE , with reference to the conclusions of the medical panel , the applicant made an application for early release . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the application . Having accepted that the applicant ’s illness was included in the List , and describing his condition as “ stable [ but ] serious ” , the court , nevertheless , found that the drugs necessary for his treatment were available in the prison tuberculosis hospital , and that the applicant was undergoing the necessary medical procedures . The court further pointed out that it was not clear who would take care of the applicant in the event of his release from prison . The applicant did not appeal against the decision .

On DATE the applicant ’s sister gave a written undertaking to take care of the applicant should he be released .

According to a certificate issued by the prison tuberculosis hospital at the request of the applicant ’s lawyer , the drugs necessary for the applicant ’s chemotherapy were unavailable at the hospital .

On DATE the medical panel from the prison tuberculosis hospital again examined the applicant . The diagnosis was that the applicant had progressive non - Hodgkin lymphoma in acute IV B stage with lesions of the abdominal lymph nodes . It was once again noted that the applicant was eligible for release on health grounds .

The applicant made another application for release at DATE . He submitted that his disease had progressed to its final stage and that he had relatives who could take care of him .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . B. , a doctor from the prison tuberculosis hospital , testified that the applicant needed chemotherapy and radiation therapy , but was unable to receive such treatment in detention since the necessary equipment was unavailable at the hospital . On DATE ORG dismissed the application for release once again , noting that the applicant had a tendency to reoffend and concluding that he was receiving adequate medical care in detention .

The applicant appealed .

In DATE the applicant asked the ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG and to authorise his immediate release from detention as an interim measure . The applicant claimed that he was not receiving the necessary medical assistance and treatment in detention , despite his suffering from a life - threatening and rapidly progressing illness . He relied on a certificate from the prison hospital confirming the absence of drugs for his chemotherapy ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the ORG decided to indicate to ORG , under Rule DATE , that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant be immediately examined by medical experts , including an oncologist , independent from the prison system with a view to determining : ( CARDINAL ) whether the treatment he was receiving in detention was adequate for his condition ; ( CARDINAL ) whether his current state of health was compatible with detention in the conditions of a correctional colony or prison hospital ; and ( CARDINAL ) whether his current condition required his placement in a specialised hospital or release . ORG were also asked to ensure the applicant ’s immediate transfer to a specialised hospital if the medical experts concluded that the applicant required placement in such a hospital .

On DATE the Government responded to the ORG ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE , submitting the following documents :

- a handwritten copy of the applicant ’s medical history drawn up during his detention . The history included a form for consent to treatment , signed by the applicant . It also contained a detailed schedule showing the DATE intake of drugs by the applicant . As appears from that document , he received basic analgesic and anti - inflammatory drugs , antihistamines , sleeping pills , antidepressants , antiemetics and neuroleptics .

- certificates issued by the acting head of the prison tuberculosis hospital , indicating that the applicant had not been provided with chemotherapy for his lymphoma as he had not consented to that treatment when it had been offered to him , in DATE and DATE . According to the acting head of the hospital , the applicant had refused to make a written statement to that effect . The certificate also indicated that an oncologist had examined the applicant CARDINAL times , once in DATE and twice in DATE . At DATE the applicant ’s condition was considered to be serious : he was suffering severe pain and increasing asthenia , had coughed blood , and his lymph nodes continued to grow . In another certificate , the acting head of the hospital stressed that the applicant was suffering from a life - threatening oncological disease , particularly taking into account the advanced stage of his illness . In addition , in a separate certificate , the acting head of the hospital noted that the prison tuberculosis hospital where the applicant was detained employed an oncologist and had the necessary medicines for the applicant ’s treatment .

- copies of the applicant ’s complaints to various NORP officials , including the GPE regional ombudsman , ORG office , the regional department for the execution of sentences and the acting head of the prison tuberculosis hospital , about the poor quality of his medical care in detention . The complaints also contained a request for a medical examination and for his early release on health grounds .

The Government also answered the CARDINAL questions which , in its letter of DATE , the ORG had asked them to refer to independent medical experts . In particular , in their answer to the first question concerning the adequacy of the applicant ’s treatment , the Government stressed that the applicant had regularly undergone in - patient treatment and examinations in relation to his oncological illness . They noted that the applicant ’s condition was considered to be moderately serious and stressed that in DATE and DATE he had failed to consent to the cancer treatment . They further directed the ORG to the documents enclosed with their reply ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In their response to the second question about the compatibility of the applicant ’s state of health with the conditions of the correctional colony and prison hospital , the Government emphasised that the applicant ’s hospital employed the necessary specialists , and had the necessary equipment and drugs to treat him . They further noted that the applicant was in pain and was weak , that he occasionally coughed blood and that his lymph nodes continued to grow . The Government continued by indicating that he would be provided with chemotherapy as soon as the general blood test results allowed and the applicant consented .

In replying to the third question as to whether the applicant needed to be transferred to a specialised hospital or be released , the Government observed that the applicant ’s oncological illness was incurable and could lead to his death . They relied on the CARDINAL reports issued by the doctors from the prison tuberculosis hospital on DATE and DATE , according to which the applicant was suffering from a condition included in the list of serious illnesses precluding the serving of sentences in correctional institutions , as provided for by Decree no . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE . However , the NORP courts had refused to release the applicant on health grounds . Another examination of the applicant by the hospital medical panel had been scheduled for DATE .

NORP The applicant informed the ORG that on DATE , acting upon his appeal , ORG had quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered his release . With reference to B. ’s testimony , ORG held that ORG findings as to the adequacy of the treatment received by the applicant in the hospital were not in accordance with the established facts . It also pointed to ORG failure to comment on the undertaking by the applicant ’s sister to take care of the applicant after his release .

On an unspecified date after DATE the applicant was released .


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

A list of the CARDINAL applicants , who are all NORP nationals , is set out in the appendix ( “ the applicants ” ) .

The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

NORP This application and CARDINAL others ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) concern the regularisation of the relationship between ownership and use of real property located in the cadastral area of ORG .

Certain land in this area was expropriated in DATE by the ( then socialist ) ORG and a public sports centre was built on it . The sports centre comprises buildings and various other facilities , such as a tennis court , a grandstand , a water station and paved areas .

After the post DATE political , constitutional and legal changes , litigation took place with a view to resolving various property claims made by the original owners ( or their legal successors ) against the entities that owned or operated the sports centre or various parts of it .

The land concerned is divided into a number of plots with various owners , many of whom are linked by family relations and history , and who had the same legal representation in the above - mentioned proceedings . Their lawsuits followed a similar pattern , but sometimes had varying results . They included the following proceedings .

The applicants in the present case are all successors in title to a plot of land in the above - mentioned area . They inherited their title from the original owner , who died in DATE .

On DATE the applicants or , as the case might have been , their legal predecessors , represented then and throughout the proceedings by a laywer , lodged an action against the owner of a sports club seeking to obtain a court order for the removal of the constructions on the land .

The principal line of argument was that the expropriation decision of CARDINAL DATE was invalid in law . The applicants were therefore the lawful owners of the land in question , in particular plot no . DATE ( recorded on sheet no . CARDINAL of the “ old ” records ) , and the defendant had no lawful title to have the constructions on the applicants’ land .

The action was subsequently amended to state that , alternatively , the applicants sought a judicial ruling establishing an easement on their land for the benefit of the owner of the sports centre in return for financial compensation payable to the applicants . It was also extended to CARDINAL more defendants , a municipality and a private company , and to additional plots of land .

NORP The action was examined and determined at first instance by ORG súd ) . In its judgment ( rozsudok ) of DATE , ORG acknowledged that ( i ) the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective on account of procedural flaws ; ( ii ) the applicants were the owners of the land in question ; ( iii ) the constructions on it had been built without a valid legal title in so far as the land was concerned ; and ( iv ) the applicants were entitled to seek redress under general civil law , that is to say LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , which was not subject to any statute of limitation , unlike the special legislation on restitution , which contained specific time - limits .

As regards the options available under LAW for resolving the discrepancy between the ownership and use of the land and the constructions concerned , ORG found that , for practical reasons , it was out of the question to have the applicants established as the owners of the constructions and to order them to pay the current owners financial compensation . Furthermore , in the circumstances , it was likewise not practical to order the physical removal of the constructions in question . The establishment of an easement for the benefit of the owners of the constructions in return for compensation payable by them to the applicants was therefore an option .

NORP However , in that connection , on the basis of expert evidence , ORG observed that part of the land concerned lay under a construction that fell within the definition of a “ building ” in terms of the law , whereas the remainder of the impugned land was not underneath “ buildings ” under the said definition .

NORP However , ORG held that an easement over land could only be established for the benefit of the owner of a building in terms of civil law .

A distinction therefore had to be made between the part of the land that was under buildings , in respect of which the action was granted and an easement for the benefit of the owner of the buildings was established , and the remainder of the land , in respect of which the action was dismissed .

At the same time , ORG transferred the claim for compensation for the easement established by the former ruling to another set of proceedings .

The applicants challenged the first - instance judgment by means of an appeal ( odvolanie ) to ORG ( PERSON súd ) .

They argued in particular that ORG had failed to appreciate that the property in question was a part of a large complex serving a single purpose ; that a number of claims had been raised in respect of that property ; that the legal nature of those claims was identical to those raised by the applicants , differing only in the technical parameters of the specific plots at stake ; and that in its judgment in case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG had established an easement in respect of plots of land comprising the sports centre , without differentiating between plots that had “ buildings ” on them and those that did not ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .

On DATE , ORG , sitting in chambers , dismissed the ORG appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .

It summarised in detail the written , oral and expert evidence taken and fully endorsed the factual and legal conclusions of ORG , providing further detailed explanations of the position taken , accompanied by references to the existing judicial practice . It also observed that the applicants could have asserted their property rights by other means , for example by lodging actions aimed at obtaining declaratory rulings and orders for compensation in respect of unjustified enrichment . However , they had not done so and the courts were bound by the legal classification of the claims they had pursued in the present proceedings .

Nevertheless , ORG provided no specific answer to the arguments that the buildings and the adjacent facilities belonged to a single integrated complex and that a different conclusion had been reached in case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicants , except for the CARDINAL applicant , lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ústavný súd ) under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) .

Citing similar grounds to those mentioned above , coupled with the lack of a judicial response to what they considered to be crucial arguments , the applicants complained that the outcome of the proceedings had been arbitrary and alleged that their rights under , inter alia , LAW ( access , fairness , adequate reasoning ) and the constitutional equivalent of LAW No . CARDINAL had been violated .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill founded . It observed that it was not a court of further appeal against decisions of the ordinary courts and found no constitutionally relevant unfairness , arbitrariness or irregularity in the impugned judgments .

The decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on DATE .

NORP The position taken by the courts was subsequently fully endorsed by ORG when it dismissed the applicants’ petition for an extraordinary appeal on points of law to be lodged on their behalf in the present case .

Article CARDINAL deals with situations concerning so - called “ unlawful constructions ” , that is buildings ( stavba ) constructed on somebody else ’s plot of land ( pozemok ) without an entitlement to do so .

At the request of the owner of the land , the court has the power to order the removal of such buildings at the cost of the person who constructed them ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

However , if the removal of the building is not practical , and subject to consent by the owner of the land , the court has the power to rule that the title to the building be transferred to the owner of the land in return for compensation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The court also has the power to regularise the relationship between the owner of the land and the owner of the building by taking other measures , in particular by establishing an easement , which is necessary for the exercise of ownership rights in respect of the building , in return for compensation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In a case registered at ORG under file no . CARDINALC CARDINAL/CARDINAL a different group of claimants raised essentially the same claims as the applicants in respect of other plots of land under the same sports centre , the defendant being the respective municipality .

NORP Before the case was resolved on the merits with final effect , ORG had determined the claimants’ appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) ( no . CARDINAL PERSON ) against a previous judgment of ORG . In its judgment of DATE , ORG observed that before the action could be determined on the merits ( of the claim for an easement ) , preliminary questions had to be answered as to whether the claimants were the owners of the property concerned and , if they were , whether they had standing to sue in the case .

ORG further observed that , when dealing with those questions , ORG had noted that the land in question had been expropriated in DATE . ORG had therefore held that , even assuming that the expropriation had been flawed , it could only have been challenged by means of administrative - law remedies and within the timelimits prescribed for such remedies . That , however , had been beyond the scope of the case at hand and , therefore , ORG held that the DATE expropriation should be considered as being a matter of fact .

ORG disagreed with ORG position described above . As was found in the present case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it found that the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective . As a consequence , the courts were bound to examine the preliminary question of the claimants’ ownership independently and irrespective of the expropriation decision .

The case was finally decided on the merits by ORG on DATE . The action was granted and an easement was established for the benefit of the claimants in respect of the entire property covered by their claim , that is to say including some plots on which no “ buildings ” , in the sense explained above , were situated .

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

The ensuing question concerning the financial compensation payable by the municipality to the claimants for the easement was resolved by ORG in a judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL ) on the basis of an expert assessment .

In another similar case concerning property in the same area as in the present case , the claimants raised in principle the same claims . The court took the same position as in the present case , that is to say that the claimants were entitled to assert their property claims under the general provisions of LAW and the determinative factor was whether or not the land in question was under “ buildings ” . As that was not so , the action was dismissed . The respective judgments were given on DATE ( ORG ) and DATE ( ORG ) , and the final decision was given by ORG on DATE .

In a number of other cases concerning property in the same area and in a situation similar to the present case , the position was taken that the claimants could not assert their rights under the general provisions of LAW , as those provisions constituted a lex generalis , and their application was excluded by virtue of the special legislation on the restitution of property , as a lex specialis . However , that position does not appear to be settled .

The relevant parts of the report state that , in order for the principle of legal certainty – essential for maintaining confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law – to be achieved , the ORG must make the law easily accessible and must also apply the laws it has enacted in a foreseeable and consistent manner . As the existence of conflicting decisions within the highest courts may be contrary to this principle , it is necessary for these courts to establish mechanisms to avoid conflicts and ensure the coherence of their case - law .

The relevant parts of the Opinion read as follows :

“ DATE . While recognising the judges’ power to interpret the law , the obligation of the judges to promote legal certainty has also to be remembered . Indeed legal certainty guarantees the predictability of the content and application of the legal rules , thus contributing in ensuring a high quality judicial system .

ORG will apply the interpretative principles applicable in both national and international law with this aim in mind . ... In civil law countries , they will be guided by case law , especially that of the highest courts , whose task includes ensuring the uniformity of case law .

DATE . ORG should in general apply the law consistently . However when a court decides to depart from previous case law , this should be clearly mentioned in its decision . ”


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

András Sajó;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The first applicant was born in DATE , the second and third applicants were born in DATE , and the date of birth of the fourth applicant is unknown . The fourth applicant is the common - law wife of Mr PERSON Bazhenov ( “ the fourth applicant ’s partner ” ) . The second and fourth applicants live in GPE and GPE respectively . The first and third applicants are serving prison sentences in GPE .

On DATE the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner were arrested and taken to the police station on suspicion of murder . They were allegedly intimidated by police officers seeking to extract self - incriminating statements .

On DATE a forensic medical examination was conducted in respect of the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner . It revealed that the first applicant had abrasions on his left shoulder , and bruises on both ears and on the back of his thorax ; the third applicant had bruises on his left hip and under his jaw . The expert concluded that those injuries had been sustained DATE prior to the examination and that they had not caused any permanent damage to the applicant ’s health . The fourth applicant ’s partner was discovered to have a closed nose fracture which amounted to slight damage to his health .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) authorised the detention of the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner pending the investigation . It relied on the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might interfere with the administration of justice ( abscond , resume their criminal activity or threaten witnesses ) . They were placed in remand prison GPE in GPE .

On DATE charges of aggravated murder were brought against them .

On DATE ORG extended the detention of the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner until DATE on the same grounds . Those decisions were upheld on appeal by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) in respect of the first applicant on DATE and in respect of the third applicant and the fourth applicant ’s partner on DATE .

The first and third applicants’ detention was subsequently extended , on the same grounds , on DATE and DATE respectively , until DATE . ORG upheld those decisions on appeal in respect of the first applicant on an unspecified date and in respect of the third applicant on DATE .

According to the first applicant , CARDINAL the police subjected him to beatings , torture with electric wires , and deprivation of food and sleep .

Subsequently , for DATE starting from DATE the first applicant was intimidated by CARDINAL of his cellmates , PERSON . ( nicknamed “ the NORP ” ) , who had been instructed by the police to extract the applicant ’s confession . As a result , on DATE the applicant attempted suicide by cutting his left forearm .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who reported superficial cuts on his left forearm .

On DATE the applicant was taken to the police station . Throughout the day police officers allegedly beat him in the head , kidneys and genitals , tortured him with electric wires and threatened to kill him and to rape him . As a result , he attempted suicide by cutting his neck with a blade .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who recorded the following injuries : a QUANTITY long cut on his neck and CARDINAL superficial QUANTITY long cuts on his left forearm .

On DATE the third applicant was taken for questioning to the police station , where he was beaten up by police officers GPE . , ORG and PERSON . PERSON . For an hour and a half the police officers allegedly kicked and punched the applicant , who was handcuffed and kneeling , and beat him with a stick . Unable to withstand the torture , the applicant jumped out of a third - floor window of the police station . However , as the applicant ’s action was considered an attempt to escape , criminal proceedings were brought against him under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( attempted escape ) .

The following day , on CARDINAL DATE the third applicant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture to his right upper arm and contusions on his thorax and spinal cord , allegedly caused by the jump from the window .

As indicated above the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner were placed in remand prison GPE . The fourth applicant submitted that as from DATE and for DATE her partner was beaten up by other inmates . He was not given any food and not allowed to sleep , and in the TIME he was taken to the police station where the ill - treatment continued .

From DATE to DATE the applicant ’s partner was kept in detention facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE , where , allegedly with the tacit consent of the facility ’s officers , he was constantly ill - treated by other inmates .

From DATE until DATE the fourth applicant ’s partner was detained again in remand prison GPE in GPE . CARDINAL of the inmates DATE . and A. – deprived him of food and sleep , and threatened him with murder and rape . The chief of police , GPE , threatened him with rape . DATE the applicant ’s partner was raped by other inmates and the act was videotaped . He was then blackmailed with the tape . Finally , on DATE he confessed . On DATE the applicant ’s partner was transferred to a solitary confinement cell .

On DATE the applicant ’s partner was found hanged .

The first and the third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner complained to the prosecutor ’s office of their ill - treatment at the hands of the police . The initial complaint concerned the alleged ill - treatment on DATE . Separate complaints were brought later in connection with other alleged instances of ill - treatment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of Irkutsk Region refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers . The decision read as follows :

[ The first applicant ] submitted that on DATE he had been arrested by the police . When being brought to the police station he had been ill - treated by the police officers [ description of the beatings ] . On DATE he cut his left forearm [ because he had had a conflict with his cellmates and wanted to be transferred to a different cell ] . On DATE [ the first applicant ] cut his neck [ because he had been beaten up by the police officers ] .

[ The fourth applicant ’s partner ] submitted that on DATE he had been arrested by the police and brought to the police station where physical force had been applied to him [ description of the beatings ] . He could not describe the officers who had ill - treated him . On DATE he was again ill - treated ; the police officers tortured him with electric wires and beat him up .

[ The third applicant ] submitted that police officers ill - treated him and he was compelled to jump out of the window .

[ Chief police officer PERSON ] submitted that on DATE [ the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner ] had been arrested on suspicion of having committed particularly serious crimes . They showed active resistance during the arrest and therefore physical force and cuffing were applied to them . After the arrest [ the above persons ] were brought to the police station . The first applicant and the fourth applicant ’s partner had injuries which had been inflicted on them at the arrest . Subsequently the first applicant and the fourth applicant ’s partner were taken to the investigator for participation in the investigative actions . No physical or mental coercion was applied to them ...

Similar statements were given by police officers PERSON . , PERSON and P. [ The latter ] added that on DATE [ the first applicant ] participated in an investigative action at the police station . After the investigative action was completed , he and the [ first applicant ] remained waiting in office no . CARDINAL for the applicant to be taken back to the remand prison . [ The first applicant ] was nervous , [ he ] expressed his fears of receiving a long sentence . During the conversation he cut his neck . He was provided with medical aid and taken to the remand prison , where he was examined by a doctor .

According to the reports of the forensic medical examinations , the injuries of [ the first and third applicants ] did not cause any permanent damage to their health , and the injuries of [ the fourth applicant ’s partner ] caused slight damage to his health . The [ above ] injuries could have originated from the impact of hard blunt objects with a limited surface area , which could be a fist or a foot .

These injuries were caused to [ the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner ] at their arrest by the police officers . An inquiry was carried out in accordance with LAW which established that [ the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner ] had shown active resistance during their arrest and the police had applied physical force and special means to them pursuant to ORG CARDINAL of the PERSON on police . On DATE the institution of the criminal proceedings against the police officers was refused in the absence of constituent elements of a crime in their actions .

An inquiry was carried out in accordance with LAW into [ the first applicant ’s ] causing himself injuries on DATE . On DATE the institution of the criminal proceedings was refused .

Bodily injuries in the form of cutting wound of the neck were self - inflicted by the [ first applicant ] , which is confirmed by the latter ’s statements . No other injuries were discovered on [ the first applicant ] at his examination on DATE . This fact disproves [ the first applicant ’s ] allegation of having been beaten up by the police on DATE .

On DATE [ the third applicant ] jumped out from the third - floor window of the police station in an attempt to escape . Criminal proceedings were instituted against him under LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

No evidence was established during the inquiry to substantiate the allegations that police officers PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had applied physical and mental coercion to [ the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner ] . The submissions made in this respect by [ the latter ] are unsubstantiated and far - fetched .

On DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE and opened criminal proceedings against a number of police officers under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( Abuse of office associated with the use of violence or entailing serious consequences ) .

On DATE , however , the criminal proceedings were discontinued owing to the absence of constituent elements of a crime in the actions of the police officers . The applicants did not appeal against this decision in court .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings into the death of the fourth applicant ’s partner under LAW ( incitement to suicide ) .

On CARDINAL DATE a post - mortem examination of the applicant ’s partner was completed . It was established that he had died as a result of strangling . Apart from visible marks on his neck , the following injuries were recorded : abrasions on the neck , the lumbar region , the chest , the right forearm , the right wrist and the right hand ; bruises and abrasions on the forehead ; bruises in the soft tissues of the neck ; and a hemorrhage in the mucous membrane of the anus .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were discontinued owing to the absence of evidence of a crime . It was established that on DATE the fourth applicant ’s partner had been transferred to a solitary confinement cell after his lawyer had complained that the former had been subjected to abuse by other inmates . Thereafter , on DATE the fourth applicant ’s partner was found hung in the cell . The forensic medical expert concluded that the death had occurred as a result of strangling . It was further established that on DATE of his death the fourth applicant ’s partner had been kept in the cell alone , and that the lawyer ’s allegations that his client had been ill - treated by other inmates had not been confirmed .

The lawfulness of the above decision was challenged before the court by the father of the deceased , PERSON , who was granted victim status in the relevant proceedings .

On DATE ORG found the above decision lawful and justified . It was not appealed against to ORG .

On DATE ORG convicted the first and third applicants , along with CARDINAL other co - defendants , of banditry , aggravated murder and robbery . It sentenced the first applicant to life imprisonment and the second applicant to DATE imprisonment . The trial court examined the allegations of police ill - treatment in so far as the admissibility of evidence was at issue . It heard the applicants , examined the medical evidence , and questioned the applicants’ former cellmates and the police officers allegedly involved in the ill - treatment . Having taken into account the conclusions of the investigation , the court held that no unlawful methods of interrogation had been used against the applicants .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE the flat of CARDINAL of the victims was searched within the framework of the murder case involving the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant ’s partner . The second applicant , who was found armed inside the flat , was taken to the police station for identification and questioning . He was kept there until DATE . According to the second applicant , police officers struck him in the area of his only kidney , tried to throw him out of the window , then forced him out onto the windowsill , from where he lost his balance and fell CARDINAL floors down .

From DATE to DATE the second applicant underwent treatment in the traumatology unit of Angarsk hospital no . CARDINAL for a cerebral contusion , massive damage to the soft tissue of his body and extremities , diffused hypodermic and subfascial haematomas , multiple abrasions on the head and extremities , kidney contusion , compression syndrome and right - sided post - traumatic pneumonia .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant sought to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . However , on DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE refused to open criminal proceedings , having arrived at the conclusion that the applicant had jumped out of the window in an attempt to escape . The applicant challenged the lawfulness of that decision in court .

On DATE the ORG found the decision lawful and justified .

The applicant did not appeal against the judgment before ORG .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC , GPE Region .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and brought to ORG where he stayed until DATE .

NORP Since DATE he had been detained with CARDINAL inmates in the cell no . CARDINAL designed for CARDINAL persons and had to take turns to sleep . DATE after he had been transferred to another cell with the area of QUANTITY which he had shared with another inmate .

NORP The detention centre had no shower facilities or a place for outdoor walks . The applicant ’s cell was cold and damp , iron banks were not covered by mattresses . Toilets were not separated from the living area , and the persons using them were in full view of others . Food supply was inadequate , the applicant was served meals only once a day and had no drinking water from within the cell .

The Government submitted that ORG comprised CARDINAL cells : no . CARDINAL with the area of QUANTITY for CARDINAL inmates and no . CARDINAL with the area of QUANTITY for CARDINAL inmates . There was no overcrowding ; the toilet had been separate by a shoulder length fence . The detainees may take a shower once a week . The temperature was DATE , there were kettles with boiled water in the cells .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife , PERSON , sought to visit the applicant but was refused .

On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s wife filed complaints with ORG stating that she had not been allowed to see the applicant .

In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage , stating that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading , and that the prohibition on family visits was unlawful .

NORP On DATE the ORG dismissed his claim . Relying on the statements of a representative of the detention centre , the court held that the Internal Rules of the Administrative Detention Centres approved by LAW DATE no . CARDINAL dsp ( “ the Rules ” ) did not make provision for family visits , and that the applicant ’s right to family life had not been breached as he had met his wife during court hearings .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .