CASE OF CENTRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

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

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

NORP In DATE Dr PERSON , a psychiatrist whose name at the time was PERSON ( “ the psychiatrist ” ) , established a private practice called PERSON ORG ( GPE специјалистичка ординација по невропсихијатрија „ Д-р PERSON – “ the Practice ” ) where she treated people using PERSON analytical psychotherapy methods . The ORG was assigned an individual tax number beginning with the numbers CARDINAL .

In DATE the ORG signed a contract with ORG ( “ the Fund ” ) on the funding of treatment provided by the Practice to health insurance beneficiaries .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Inspectorate ” ) conducted an on - site inspection ( инспекциски надзор ) . It ordered the Practice to re - register as a private health institution in order to comply with amendments to LAW ( ORG за изменување и дополнување на Законот за здравствена заштита , Official ORG no . CARDINAL ) .

In compliance with the ORG ’s orders , the psychiatrist applied to ORG to have the Practice re - registered and to change its name , as required by the new statutory provisions .

On DATE ORG issued a decision on the registration of the Private health institution Dr PERSON ORG ( GPE здравствена установа – специјалистичка ординација по невропсихијатрија „ Д-р PERSON – “ the new Practice ” ) at the same address as the previous Practice . It stated that the DATE registration decision relating to the original Practice would no longer be in force ( ќе престане да важи ) after the new decision had been entered into the relevant register . The decision was delivered to several institutions , including the ORG .

The ORG conducted a fresh on - site inspection on DATE . It concluded that the ORG had fully complied with its decision of DATE , including the instructions for re - registration .

On DATE ORG recorded the registration of the new Practice as of DATE . It was given a new individual tax number , beginning with the numbers CARDINAL .

On DATE the new Practice notified the ORG about the changes in its registration , including the change of its name .

On DATE the Fund notified the new Practice that it did not intend to sign a new contract after the expiry of the previous one .

On DATE , on the basis of a request by the new Practice , ORG allowed the new Practice to change from being a private health institution to one that was a limited liability company established by a single person ( ORG ) and entered that transformation in its records . The applicant company was known officially as ORG ( NORP за развој на аналитичка психологија – ORG ) . It kept the same tax number as the new Practice . The link between the new ORG and the applicant company was not disputed in the impugned proceedings ( see below ) .

On DATE the Practice initiated compensation proceedings against the ORG in ORG ( LOC суд GPE ) for non - adherence to the terms of the contract . Both the new ORG and the applicant company continued the proceedings as the claimant .

On DATE the first - instance court granted the claim in part .

On DATE the ORG lodged an appeal against the firstinstance judgment , objecting to the applicant company ’s standing in the proceedings for the first time . It argued that the claimant was a different legal entity than the one which had signed the contract with ORG in DATE , as evident in the CARDINAL entities’ different individual tax numbers .

The applicant company submitted in reply that the re - registration of the Practice had been carried out in compliance with the ORG ’s orders and that the ORG had been aware of the changes . It also argued that the ORG had implicitly recognised the legal continuity of the CARDINAL entities as it had accepted reports submitted by the new ORG under the contract of DATE and had given notice of the termination of the contract to the new Practice .

ORG ) on DATE granted the ORG ’s appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant company ’s claim , finding that it had no standing in the proceedings ( нема активна легитимација во спорот ) . It established that the contract had been signed by the ORG and Dr PERSON ’s ORG and that the applicant company could not be considered as the ORG ’s legal successor as they had different individual tax numbers .

NORP The applicant company appealed , complaining that the first - instance court had disregarded the evidence that had shown the existence of a legal relationship between the parties and had based its assessment solely on the different tax numbers . In particular , the first - instance court had disregarded the fact that the new Practice had continued to perform its contractual obligations until the contract had been terminated by the notice of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant company maintained that those circumstances indicated that the Fund had implicitly recognised the legal continuity of the original and the new Practice . The applicant company alleged that the formalistic approach of the first - instance court had meant its claim had remained undecided on the merits .

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

On DATE the new Practice lodged a civil claim against the ORG for the payment of an undetermined sum for failing to adhere to the terms of the contract of DATE . After the new ORG turned itself into the applicant company ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the latter continued the proceedings as the claimant .

At a hearing held on DATE the ORG raised an objection that the applicant company lacked standing in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant company ’s claim , finding that it had no standing in the proceedings . The first - instance court relied in its reasoning on the difference in the tax numbers between the original Practice that had been party to the contract with the ORG in DATE and the applicant company .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant company and upheld the first - instance judgment . It stressed that a tax number was a unique attribute of a particular entity and would remain unchanged , regardless of any structural or other changes to the entity .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE . She died on DATE .

On an unspecified date the military prosecutor ’s office had opened criminal proceedings against the applicant ’s father PERSON , a naval officer , on suspicion of document forgery .

On DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG issued a warrant to search the applicant ’s flat . The parties did not submit a copy of the warrant . It is apparent from the search record of DATE that the purpose of the search was “ to find and seize objects and documents , including draft calculations in respect of the salary due to [ PERSON ] and other naval officers of the ship Argun , and other data storage media exposing [ PERSON ’s ] involvement in criminal activity ” .

The police came to the applicant ’s flat on TIME , at TIME As the applicant refused to let them in , the police broke down the door and suggested that the applicant surrender objects and documents which could be of relevance for the criminal case against her father . The applicant surrendered PERSON ’s seaman ’s passport and claimed that she had no other documents or objects belonging to her father . The police searched the flat and seized the applicant ’s seaman ’s passport , a printer and CARDINAL floppy disks . The search ended at TIME

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint before ORG of GPE , claiming that the search had been unlawful . She submitted , in particular , that TIME searches were unlawful under domestic law . She further submitted that the search had not been justified because the calculations in respect of the salary due to naval officers of the ship Argun had been submitted to the court at an earlier date and could therefore be found in the case file . She also complained that her and her husband ’s personal belongings , including their printer and floppy disks and her seaman ’s passport , had been seized .

On DATE the applicant was informed that her complaint would be examined on DATE by ORG of FAC .

On DATE ORG of FAC examined the applicant ’s complaint . The applicant did not attend the hearing . The court found :

“ [ The applicant ’s ] signature on the search warrant confirms that she had been notified of it at TIME on DATE .

It is apparent from the search record of DATE that a search was carried out in [ the applicant ’s ] flat from TIME In the course of the search the following objects were seized : seaman ’s passport in the name of PERSON no . [ ... ] , seaman ’s passport in the name of PERSON no . [ ... ] , seaman ’s passport in the name of [ the applicant ] no . [ ... ] , ORG printer no . ORG , its power module no . CARDINALTTCARDINAL and CARDINAL floppy disks . That investigative measure was carried out in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses who signed the search record and a note explaining their rights .

Before the start of the search [ the applicant ] wrote a note on the search record stating that her rights , obligations or applicable procedures had not been explained to her .

It is apparent from the questioning record of witness [ N. ] that she participated in the search of [ the applicant ’s ] flat as an attesting witness . Her rights were respected .

In view of the above , it follows that the search of [ the applicant ’s ] flat was carried out in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , without any breaches of law . [ The applicant ’s ] complaint is therefore unsubstantiated and must be rejected . ”

NORP The applicant appealed . She complained , in particular , that the search had been carried out TIME and that the personal belongings seized from her were of no relevance to the criminal case against her father . The applicant expressed her wish to be present and represented at the appeal hearing .

On DATE ORG of FAC informed the applicant that her appeal would be examined by ORG on DATE .

According to the applicant , on DATE her counsel telephoned the judge and asked for an adjournment of the appeal hearing because she – the counsel – was ill . The applicant was present during the call . According to the ORG , no record of that telephone call was found in the case file .

On DATE ORG of ORG held a hearing in the absence of the applicant and her counsel and upheld the judgment of DATE . It noted that the applicant had been informed of the date of the hearing but had not attended for unknown reasons . She had not asked for an adjournment . The court further held :

“ It is apparent from the case - file that the search [ of the applicant ’s flat ] was ordered on DATE by the acting prosecutor of ORG at the request of the investigator ... in connection with criminal proceedings against her father [ PERSON ] . It is apparent from the search record that during the search [ PERSON ’s and the applicant ’s ] seaman ’s passports , a printer and its power module were seized . There is no evidence of any breaches of procedure .

[ The applicant ’s ] complaint about the use of force during the search is not supported by any evidence in the case - file . There is no evidence that [ the applicant ] or members of her family sought medical aid . Nor did she mention the use of force when signing the search record . Domestic law allows the possibility of carrying out investigative measures at TIME in cases of urgency . Moreover , the search of [ the applicant ’s ] flat continued until after TIME because she had refused to let the police in . There is no evidence of breaches of law in seizing [ the applicant ’s ] documents and other belongings during the search . ”

The applicant received a copy of the appeal decision on DATE .


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE declared GPE , a closed joint stock company ( the “ Company ” ) , insolvent and appointed the applicant as its liquidator .

On DATE ORG of the ORG opened an investigation into the ORG ’s insolvency proceedings . On DATE the applicant was removed from office . According to the applicant , in the course of the investigation he was repeatedly questioned as a witness .

On DATE the investigator from ORG of the ORG issued an indictment against the applicant on the charges of fraudulent trading during the ORG insolvency proceedings and embezzlement . In particular , the applicant was accused of having unlawfully transferred the ORG ’s real property to a third party .

According to the materials in the applicant ’s criminal case file , he was duly asked to appear at the investigator ’s office to be served with the indictment . The investigator sent the telegram to the applicant ’s known address . When the postman tried to deliver the telegram the persons present in the applicant ’s flat did not open the door . They claimed that the applicant was not there . They also refused to sign for the delivery of the telegram . The investigator ’s subsequent summons remained unanswered by the applicant . He was not found at his place of residence either . The police questioned the applicant ’s wife and other relatives , who appeared to be unaware of the applicant ’s whereabouts . On DATE the applicant ’s name was put on the list of wanted persons .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and then transferred to GPE . The investigator asked the court to authorise the applicant ’s pre - trial detention given that ( CARDINAL ) he had absconded , ( CARDINAL ) he was charged with a serious offence ( embezzlement ) and , if found guilty , might be subjected to a custodial sentence exceeding DATE , and ( CARDINAL ) if released , he might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice .

On DATE ORG granted the investigator ’s request . In particular , the court noted as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] has provided positive references as to his character and has CARDINAL minor children . However , in the light of the severity of the charges and the fact that he might abscond , [ the court ] does not consider it possible to apply any restrictive measure other than custody . ”

NORP The applicant appealed , alleging , inter alia , that ORG could have applied a less strict preventive measure and that the investigator failed to substantiate his argument that the applicant might abscond . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE the investigator refused to extend the time - limit established for the applicant to be able to study the case file . On DATE the First Deputy Prosecutor of the GPE Region quashed the investigator ’s decision .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , stating as follows :

“ In view of the severity of the charges and [ the applicant ’s ] character , the court considers that he might abscond if released .

The grounds justifying [ the applicant ’s ] detention ... have not ceased to exist . There are no new circumstances that would allow any less restrictive measure to be applied . ”

The applicant appealed , alleging that ORG could have considered the application of a less strict preventive measure . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The applicant asked to be released , arguing that he had no prior convictions , that he had a permanent place of residence , that he was married with CARDINAL minor children and that he would not abscond . The court dismissed the applicant ’s request , noting as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] is charged , [ inter alia ] with a serious offence and , if found guilty , is liable to a custodial sentence exceeding DATE . In the light of the above , and taking into consideration the fact that [ the applicant ] had earlier been put on the list of wanted persons , [ the court ] pays special attention to the prosecution ’s argument that [ the applicant ] might abscond , if released ...

In the light of the above , the court can not release [ the applicant ] and considers it necessary to extend his detention . ”

On DATE the NORP ORG scheduled the first hearing of the case for DATE . The court refused to release the applicant pending trial , noting as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] is charged with a number of offences , CARDINAL of which is considered a serious one . This fact is sufficient to assume that [ he ] might abscond . There are no other circumstances ... that would allow custody to be replaced by another less restrictive measure ” .

On an unspecified date the prosecution dropped the charge of embezzlement against the applicant .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of fraudulent trading and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment and a fine of MONEY discharging him from serving the prison sentence . The applicant was released from custody in the courtroom .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .

“ Preventive measures ” or “ restrictive measures ” can be imposed on a defendant in order to assure the execution of the sentence , if it is subsequently imposed , or for the extradition purposes ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( the “ CCrP ” ) ) .

“ Preventive measures ” or “ restrictive measures ” include an undertaking not to leave a town or region , a personal guarantee , bail and remand in custody ( LAW CCrP ) .

The court may remand the defendant in custody provided there are grounds to believe that he might abscond , continue criminal activities , threaten a witness or other parties to the criminal proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with administration of justice ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the CCrP ) .

When deciding whether to remand an accused in custody , the competent authority is required to take into account the seriousness of the charge , information on the defendant ’s character , his or her profession , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances ( LAW CCrP ) .

The defendant may be remanded in custody if the charge carries a sentence of DATE imprisonment and it is not possible to apply a less severe preventive measure ( LAW ORG ) .


CASE OF ASANI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses)

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE . They are currently serving life sentences imposed in the impugned proceedings described below .

On DATE at TIME several persons arrived by car in front of an Internet café in GPE and opened fire with machine guns . According to an expert report admitted in the ensuing proceedings , around CARDINAL bullets were fired towards the café . In the incident CARDINAL children were killed and QUANTITY people were seriously injured ( “ the victims ” ) .

Following a criminal complaint for murder lodged against unknown perpetrators , on DATE the public prosecutor requested that an investigating judge question the victims and a certain PERSON who had allegedly been present at the scene at the time of the shooting .

DATE the investigating judge heard oral evidence from the victims and other witnesses . None of them identified the applicants as the perpetrators . Some victims , as well as other witnesses who had arrived at the scene immediately after the shooting , stated that there had been no street lighting and that visibility had been considerably impaired . The investigating judge also heard oral evidence from PERSON , who had sold the car used in the incident to CARDINAL people whom he did n’t know and “ would not recognise if I ( he ) were to see them now ” . He stated that a certain PERSON had introduced him to the buyers .

During the investigation , there were several unsuccessful attempts by the investigating judge to summons ORG from the police was also sought . Having been alerted to the summons and the police inquiry , PERSON appeared in court to testify before the investigating judge . On DATE and DATE he confirmed that he had been present at the scene at the time of the incident and that he had been shot in the upper leg . He had fainted and had spent time recovering in a private hospital outside the respondent ORG . He stated that there had been CARDINAL people in the car and that all had fired on the café . He identified a certain PERSON . as the driver of the car . He also alleged that he himself had been the most likely target of the attack owing to his alleged involvement in the killing of the applicants’ brother , which had happened at DATE . In that context , he had received threats that he would be killed .

On DATE CARDINAL people who had been eye - witnesses to the incident gave oral evidence in the presence of the investigating judge and the public prosecutor . They testified as anonymous witnesses ( сведок со прикриен идентитет ) under the pseudonyms “ PERSON ” and “ PERSON ” . The latter asked not to have his identity revealed for the following reasons :

“ the people who committed the crime are violent and have a criminal record and that ’s why I ’m afraid of their threats ; they are armed , convicted , I fear for my life and the life of my family , I fear reprisals . ”

On photographs shown in evidence , both witnesses identified one of the applicants as having fired on the café and Dz . as the driver of the car . “ Vodno ” also identified the other applicant as having fired on the café . He stated that CARDINAL people ( including the applicants ) had fired weapons in the incident of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE another individual was examined before the investigating judge and the public prosecutor under the pseudonym “ Vardar ” for the same reasons as the witness “ Vodno ” . He confirmed that Mr Ramiz PERSON ( the applicant ) had bought the car used in the accident from MONEY He also stated that after the incident Mr PERSON had told him the following :

“ what you ’ve seen and heard on television about the incident with ORG car – I did it in revenge for the killing of my brother ... ”

On DATE , the investigating judge opened an investigation against the applicants and Dz . on reasonable suspicion of murder . The applicants , who had in the meantime been arrested , were remanded in prison custody . On DATE the investigating judge suspended the investigation in respect of Dz . as he had proved to be untraceable .

In an indictment of CARDINAL DATE , the public prosecutor accused the applicants − who had no previous record , but had criminal proceedings in relation to other charges pending against them − of having fired machine guns at the Internet café with the intention of killing PERSON The prosecutor requested that the trial judge examine the victims and several witnesses − including PERSON and GPE , and the anonymous witnesses − and to admit other material evidence in evidence , including post - mortem reports and other expert reports .

At the trial , the applicants , represented by CARDINAL lawyers , unsuccessfully requested that evidence produced by the anonymous witnesses be rejected and that the written transcripts of their depositions be excluded from the case file . The trial judge , however , granted their request for witnesses “ NORP ” and “ PERSON ” to be questioned at the trial . The examination was carried out at a hearing of DATE in the presence of only the trial judge and the public prosecutor , as provided for in LAW in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Both witnesses repeated the statements they had given before the investigating judge and reiterated their fear of negative repercussions . Their statements were read out at the trial in the presence of the applicants . A written transcript of their depositions was communicated to the applicants who , at their request , obtained a DATE grace period in which to prepare written questions to be put to these witnesses by the court . The applicants formulated CARDINAL questions to be put to each witness . Both witnesses replied , again in the presence of only the trial judge and the public prosecutor . “ PERSON ” stated that CARDINAL person had fired , while according to “ LOC CARDINAL people had fired at the café . Both witnesses submitted that , despite the impaired visibility , there had been sufficient light to see the applicants . A transcript of their replies was communicated to the applicants .

The trial judge further examined ORG , who did not recognise PERSON Ramiz PERSON as the buyer of the car used in the incident . He also heard oral evidence from CARDINAL of CARDINAL witnesses proposed by the applicants regarding their whereabouts at the time when the crime was committed . All CARDINAL witnesses corroborated the applicants’ version of events , namely that they had been in another local café at that time .

Since the identity of witness “ PERSON ” had been disclosed in the proceedings ( PERSON ) , the trial judge granted the ORG request for him to be questioned again . At a hearing held on DATE in the presence of the applicants , ORG denied that he had testified as an anonymous witness . He denied that the applicants had bought the car from MONEY He alleged that he had been beaten by the police in order to tell the investigating judge that the applicants had bought the car ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the same hearing , the trial judge read out PERSON ’s pre - trial statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The judge did so after having tried on several occasions to secure his attendance at the trial and having inquired with the police about his whereabouts . It was noted that , according to official notes in the case file , PERSON was untraceable . The record of the hearing did not specify that the applicants objected to the reading of the statement .

During the proceedings , the trial judge granted the ORG request for a face - to - confrontation with the experts who had carried out the ballistic examination . He did not , however , allow an additional ballistic examination and refused to admit further evidence regarding the intensity of the street lighting at the scene at the relevant time ( the applicants alleged that the street light had been too low to allow the anonymous witnesses to see the assailants ) . In their concluding remarks , the applicants claimed that PERSON was in the respondent ORG and had been involved in incidents relating to the parliamentary elections of DATE .

On DATE the trial court delivered a judgment in which it found the applicants guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment . The applicants’ presence at the scene when the incident happened , as well as the development and dynamics of events , was established on the basis of the testimony of the anonymous witnesses “ NORP ” and “ PERSON , which the court regarded as credible and consistent despite “ small differences which were due to the intensity of the shooting and fear for their lives ” . The court also gave weight to the statement given by ORG in the pre - trial proceedings under the pseudonym “ PERSON ” . It disregarded his statement of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , finding that it had been given under duress and the threat that he or his family would be killed . In this connection it referred to a police report of DATE according to which ORG had been visited several times by unknown people who had threatened him and his family about the testimony given in the pre - trial proceedings . The motive for the crime was established on the basis of the statement given by PERSON in the pre - trial proceedings . That witness had not been examined at the trial since he had been untraceable . In that context , the trial court referred to an official note by the police of DATE informing the court that PERSON had fled the respondent ORG and that an arrest warrant ( потерница ) had been issued against him . The court did not say anything regarding the ORG allegations that ORG had in fact been in the respondent ORG and could have been located ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the court ’s view , the evidence produced by the defence witnesses was unreliable and aimed at enabling the accused to avoid criminal responsibility . For this reason it considered it irrelevant to examine the remaining witnesses proposed by the defence . The applicants’ defence that they had been at another location at the relevant time was found to be selfserving .

NORP In public hearings held on DATE and DATE ( latter judgment served on the applicant on DATE ) respectively , ORG and ORG upheld the ORG conviction and the sentence imposed on them . They dismissed appeals lodged by the applicants in which they complained inter alia that the trial court had failed to admit evidence proposed by the defence , that their conviction could not be based solely on the statements of the anonymous witnesses , which had been unlawfully obtained , and that the trial court had not examined ORG notwithstanding their claims that he would have been available for examination . In this connection they argued that it had been an issue of public record that in the election incidents of DATE PERSON had been wounded and hospitalised and later detained by the police .

The courts held that the evidence produced by the anonymous witnesses had been lawfully obtained and that the applicants’ opportunity to put written questions to them had secured their defence rights . The fact that the witnesses had only produced evidence DATE after the incident had been due to their fear . Furthermore , they stated that the applicants’ conviction had not been based solely on the evidence produced by those witnesses . In this connection they found that the trial court had admitted other evidence , both documentary and verbal . As regards the evidence produced by PERSON , the courts held that the trial court had tried to secure his attendance at the trial , but he had been unavailable for examination , as described in the police note . The higher courts also endorsed the trial court ’s finding regarding the applicants’ motive for committing the crime , as established on the basis of the evidence produced by PERSON That had been confirmed by the pre - trial statement of witness GPE given under pseudonym “ PERSON ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE Dz . was found and detained . In subsequent criminal proceedings , he was convicted of murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) ordered his detention as a preventive measure pending trial , for an initial period of DATE .

On DATE the same court extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention for DATE on the ground that there was a considerable volume of investigative measures to be carried out and there were no reasons for changing the preventive measure .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyer received access to the case file .

On DATE another set of criminal proceedings was instituted against the applicant , for infliction of grievous bodily harm .

On DATE the CARDINAL criminal cases were joined .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention to DATE .

On DATE the case was referred to ORG , which held a preliminary hearing on DATE . It ordered the applicant ’s further detention without fixing any time - limits .

ORG remitted the case for further investigation CARDINAL times ( on DATE , as well as on DATE and DATE ) . The appellate court quashed the first CARDINAL decisions ( on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , but upheld the last one ( on DATE ) . All the judicial rulings in question maintained the applicant ’s continued detention without further reasoning .

On DATE the investigation was completed and the case was referred for trial , this time to ORG as a first - instance court .

On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing , at which it decided , among other things , to remit the case for further investigation once again and to maintain the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE ORG quashed the above decision in so far as it concerned the remittal issue and rejected the applicant ’s request for release on the ground that he was accused of serious crimes .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and attempted murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE the applicant was released following the legislative amendments pertaining to the enforcement of sentences .


Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

NORP The applicant , Mr Rolandas Čiapas , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in ORG .

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

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

The applicant was detained on remand in FAC periodically on an unspecified date in DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE , from DATE to DATE , and from DATE to DATE . He was transferred to ORG on DATE after his conviction .

The applicant was married to ORG but got divorced on DATE . On DATE he married V.A.

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL FebruaryCARDINAL he wrote to ORG administration to request conjugal visits from his former spouse but was informed that under domestic law pre - trial detainees had no right to such visits .

The applicant wrote to ORG on DATE , ORG under ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE and to ORG on DATE , complaining about his inability to receive conjugal visits from his former spouse . He received similar responses , namely that the provisions of domestic law did not guarantee pre - trial detainees a right to conjugal visits . On DATE he also complained to ORG ( “ the Commission ” ) about ORG refusal to grant him conjugal visits . His complaint was dismissed on DATE .

It appears that the applicant called LAW at least CARDINAL times from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . It also appears that when the applicant was detained in PERSON police station , GPE visited him on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .

At the material time , LAW of ORG provided that parties to proceedings could appeal against Commission decisions to ORG within DATE of their receipt . A similar provision was set down in Article QUANTITY of ORG .

At the material time , LAW on Pre - trial ORG kalinimo įstatymas ) provided that remand detainees could have an unlimited number of visits from relatives and other people . Visits could not exceed TIME .

As of DATE , LAW on Pre - trial ORG provides that visits to remand detainees by spouses , cohabitants or the other parent of a mutual child can take place without the presence of a representative of the remand prison . Such visits can take place once a month , in specially equipped LOC and can last up to one day . An explanatory report of DATE , attached to the draft amendments of the PERSON on Pre - Trial Detention , stated that the PERSON v. GPE ( no . ORG , CARDINAL DATE ) judgment had obliged GPE to make sure it did not discriminate against remand detainees ( as compared with convicted inmates ) and to provide them with the possibility to receive conjugal visits from spouses ( partners ) .

At the material time , CARDINAL of ORG ( ORG izoliatorių vidaus tvarkos taisyklės ) provided that physical contact was not allowed during visits to remand detainees .

At the material time , Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and LAW ( Bausmių vykdymo kodeksas ) provided that a convicted person being held under the standard prison regime had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to TIME , including conjugal visits , DATE . Those being held under a light regime had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to TIME , including conjugal visits , DATE , while convicted inmates being held under a disciplinary regime were not allowed any visits . Similarly , convicted inmates aged DATE in the ordinary regime had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to fortyeight hours , including conjugal visits , DATE . Convicted inmates DATE being held under a light regime had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to TIME , including conjugal visits , DATE .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code for the Execution of Sentences were amended on DATE while LAW was amended on DATE . They now provide that convicted inmates being held under the standard regime can have short - term visits of TIME and longterm visits of DATE , including conjugal visits , DATE . Light regime convicted inmates have the right to CARDINAL shortterm visits of TIME and CARDINAL long - term visits of DATE , including conjugal visits , DATE . Convicted inmates assigned to a disciplinary regime have the right to a short - term visit of TIME every four months . Similarly , convicted inmates under CARDINAL being held under the standard regime can have CARDINAL short - term visits of DATE CARDINAL long - term visit of DATE , including conjugal visits , every month . Under - eighteens under a light regime have the right to CARDINAL short - term visits of TIME and CARDINAL long - term visit of DATE , including conjugal visits , every month .

Article QUANTITY § CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that a marriage is dissolved from the date of issue of the court decision .

In a case unrelated to the applicant , ORG relied on the ORG ’s interpretation in the case of PERSON , cited above , and acknowledged that the refusal on the basis of domestic law to grant conjugal visits to pre - trial detainees was not objective and reasonable grounds to treat pre - trial detainees and convicted inmates differently . As a result , ORG awarded the applicant in that case compensation of MONEY ( ORG ) ( decision of CARDINAL DATE , no . ACARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national of NORP ethnic origin , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr J. Jelić , a lawyer practising in ORG .

On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney ’s Office against unknown perpetrators on charges of terrorism , alleging that on DATE they had learned that there were CARDINAL corpses in a house in LOC . The police had visited the said house and found CARDINAL bodies , identified as PERSON and PERSON . The crime scene had been photographed .

At the request of the applicant , on DATE ORG ( PERSON ) decided that PERSON and PERSON , the applicant ’s parents , were presumed to have died on DATE .

In their letter of CARDINAL DATE the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG qualified the criminal offence as murder and asked ORG about the progress of the investigation into the deaths . The latter replied on DATE that it had been concluded that the applicant ’s parents had been killed in unknown circumstances during a military operation .

On DATE ORG interviewed CARDINAL people , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON , who all lived in LOC in DATE . They submitted that DATE Toplovica had been occupied by NORP para - military forces . At DATE the NORP forces had entered the village and taken them to another place . When they were leaving they had seen many parts of the village burning .

The witness GPE had returned to DATE and entered the house of the PERSON family , where he had seen the dead bodies of PERSON and PERSON . The next time he visited the village the house had partly burned down and the roof had fallen in .

The witness GPE submitted that he had been a member of ORG and on CARDINAL DATE when his village , ORG , had been taken over by the NORP army he had seen two copses lying on a bed in the house of the PERSON family . He had recognized PERSON and PERSON . PERSON had had no visible injuries while PERSON had been shot . His mother , PERSON , had told him that PERSON had died a natural death because he had not received his medication . PERSON had been killed by an unknown person when she had refused to leave the village with ORG .

The witness PERSON submitted that the NORP para - military forces which had controlled ORG had left at DATE . On DATE thereafter the NORP army had entered the village . CARDINAL GPE had told her that PERSON , who had been suffering from leukemia , had died because he had not received his medication .

The police interviewed ORG , the police officers who had carried out the on - the - scene inspection in the house of the PERSON family in DATE , on DATE respectively . PERSON submitted that both victims had been shot with firearms . The woman had been shot in the head and chest . He was not sure about the man , but thought that he had been shot in the chest . He had found bullet cartridges and traces of blood . He had also photographed the crime scene . No other steps had been taken owing to the ongoing war . PERSON submitted that both victims had been shot with firearms and that the house had been burned down .

On an unspecified date the applicant sought financial assistance for the reconstruction of his GPE house . His request was dismissed by the administrative authorities in DATE on the ground that he had not resided in that house at the time the damage had occurred . The applicant brought the same claim again in DATE . It was dismissed on the ground that the same request had already been decided upon .

On DATE the applicant , through his legal representative , brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of his parents and the destruction of their property . The claim was dismissed on DATE and this judgment was upheld by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE , respectively . The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired .

The applicant ’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings .

The relevant part of LAW ( PERSON , ORG nos . TIME , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , ORG , GPE , GPE , DATE and CARDINAL ) reads :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The criminal prosecution shall be time - barred after :

- DATE if the case concerns a criminal offence punishable by long term imprisonment or imprisonment of DATE ,

- DATE for a criminal offence punishable by more than CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ,

- DATE for a criminal offence punishable by more than five years’ imprisonment ,

- DATE for a criminal offence punishable by DATE imprisonment ,

- DATE for other criminal offences .

( CARDINAL ) GPE prosecution for the crime of genocide ( LAW ) , aggressive war ( LAW ) , crimes against humanity ( LAW ) , war crimes ( LAW ) and other criminal offences which are not subject to statutory limitation according to the LAW or international law .

( CARDINAL ) NORP If before the expiry of the time - limits under paragraph CARDINAL of this Article , a first - instance judgment has been passed , the statutory limitation periods shall be extended for further DATE . ”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)

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

On DATE the first applicant was arrested in connection with a drug - related offence , and on DATE he was detained in custody .

On DATE a forensic psychiatric examination found that the first applicant was suffering from schizophrenia requiring compulsory psychiatric treatment .

On DATE the ORG of Kazan ( “ the ORG ” ) extended the first applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE the ORG further extended the first applicant ’s detention until DATE . On DATE ORG ( “ the Supreme Court ” ) upheld the above extension order on appeal .

On DATE ORG relieved the first applicant of criminal responsibility , finding that he was mentally incapacitated . ORG ordered the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the applicant and his admission to a general psychiatric hospital ( психиатрический стационар общего типа ) . ORG further decided that he should remain in custody until the entering into force of its decision and his admission to the psychiatric hospital .

On DATE the first applicant was admitted to ORG ( NORP клиническая психиатрическая больница им. DATE hereinafter “ ORG ” ) .

After attempting to escape from the hospital on CARDINAL DATE , he was held for DATE , until DATE , in a ward measuring QUANTITY m , with no windows , no ventilation , around - the - clock artificial lighting , and a bucket instead of a lavatory pan , emptied CARDINAL .

On DATE the administration of ORG submitted a request for the first applicant to be transferred to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision ( психиатрический стационар специализированного типа с интенсивным наблюдением ) . The request was supported by a report of the same date drawn up following an examination of the first applicant by a panel of CARDINAL of the hospital ’s psychiatrists . The report read as follows :

“ ... [ The first applicant ] suffers from a chronic psychiatric disorder in the form of pseudo - psychotic schizophrenia aggravated by multiple drug addiction . While under compulsory psychiatric treatment , [ the latter ] systematically breaches hospital rules , surrounds himself with antisocial patients , sets them against hospital personnel , disrupts the work of the department , [ and ] refuses treatment . [ The first applicant ] escaped from hospital and incites other patients to do so ; [ he ] smuggles in prohibited items , including [ those for ] cutting . In view of the foregoing , the panel considers it necessary to recommend changing the form of compulsory medical treatment in respect of the [ first applicant ] from compulsory treatment in a general psychiatric hospital to [ treatment in ] a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . ”

Basing its decision on the report prepared by the hospital ’s psychiatrists , on DATE ORG granted the hospital ’s request . The first applicant was not taken to the hearing . His legal guardian ( the second applicant ) and his lawyer were not informed of the hearing .

On DATE the first applicant was transferred to ORG under ORG ( Казанская психиатрическая больница специализированного типа с интенсивным наблюдением – hereinafter “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE the first applicant had a dispute with another mental health patient of ORG during which he hit that patient .

On DATE the first applicant was isolated and physical restraints were used to attach him to his bed for TIME .

In the meantime , on DATE the second applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL June DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE on appeal , because the applicants had not been duly notified of the hearing . The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench . The first applicant remained in ORG .

On DATE ORG again ordered the first applicant ’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . The first applicant was not allowed to attend the hearing , but the second applicant and the lawyer were present .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE on appeal , as the hearing had taken place in the first applicant ’s absence . The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench .

On DATE ORG held an off - site court hearing at the premises of ORG . The court once again ordered the first applicant ’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . Both applicants and the lawyer were present . They submitted that the first applicant ’s confinement in the hospital had been unlawful in the absence of a final court decision and asked the court to order an independent forensic medical examination to determine the effect of intensive therapy on his mental condition , but to no avail . The court decided that there was consistent evidence that the first applicant ’s disorder persisted and that its aggravation required treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision .

In the meantime the second applicant challenged before the prosecutor ’s office the lawfulness of the first applicant ’s confinement in the specialist psychiatric hospital in the absence of a final court decision on the matter .

On DATE she received a reply from GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , acknowledging the unlawfulness of the first applicant ’s confinement in ORG since DATE in the absence of a final judicial decision on his transfer .

On DATE the first applicant was transferred back to ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench .

On DATE ORG decided not to order the first applicant ’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision , as there was insufficient evidence that he represented any particular threat to himself or society .

On DATE , however , ORG quashed the decision of DATE on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG again ordered the applicant ’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . A request for the court to order independent comprehensive medical and psychiatric examinations in respect of the first applicant was dismissed .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .

On DATE the first applicant was transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG extended the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the first applicant and his treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . The court relied on a report of a medical examination of the first applicant , carried out on DATE by ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the above decision on appeal , having noted that ORG had failed to obtain the first applicant ’s medical file and to address arguments by the second applicant as to the validity of the report drawn up over DATE .

On DATE ORG , having complied with the instruction of ORG , extended the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the first applicant and his treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision .

On DATE ORG quashed the above decision on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration , on account of the absence of a more recent medical report in respect of the first applicant .

On DATE ORG , having examined , inter alia , the newly prepared report of DATE , extended the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the first applicant and his treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . The request submitted by the second applicant for the court to order an independent forensic psychiatric examination in respect of the first applicant was dismissed .

On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .

On DATE the second applicant brought a compensation claim on behalf of her son and herself against ORG , alleging that the proceedings concerning the first applicant ’s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision had been excessively lengthy , having lasted from CARDINAL DATE until DATE ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG claim as groundless .

On DATE LAW upheld the above judgment on appeal .

On DATE the second applicant brought a compensation claim on behalf of her son and herself against ORG for damage incurred as a result of the first applicant being unlawfully confined in the hospital DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , unlawfully administered intensive therapy in the above period , and unlawfully tied to his bed from DATE to CARDINAL DATE after an incident with another patient ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . She also alleged that her son ’s correspondence had been censored , that she had been refused access to his medical file , and that the conditions of his confinement had been substandard .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG claim as unsubstantiated . The court established that until DATE the administration of ORG had not been aware that the decision of DATE , pursuant to which the second applicant had been transferred there , had been quashed on appeal . The court held that on DATE the first applicant had undergone a medical examination by a medical panel , who had concluded that he needed continued compulsory treatment in that hospital . It held that the first applicant ’s somatic state remained satisfactory and that he received medication allowed in GPE . The court further held that psychiatric patients’ medical documents had only been accessible to hospital medical staff , hospital administration , representatives of supervising health authorities , prosecution and investigation authorities and the court . The remaining aspects of the first applicant ’s confinement in ORG remained unaddressed by the court .

The second applicant appealed against the above decision , noting in particular the domestic court ’s failure to address her complaints regarding the conditions of the first applicant ’s confinement in ORG , the incident involving him being tied to his bed , and censorship of her and her son ’s correspondence by the hospital administration .

On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal , without addressing the issues which had remained unexamined by the first - instance court . The hearing was held in public , although the second applicant had not agreed to public disclosure of the first applicant ’s medical diagnoses and the contents of her correspondence with him .

On DATE ORG granted the application lodged by ORG and changed the form of the first applicant ’s compulsory psychiatric treatment from confinement in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision to outpatient compulsory monitoring and psychiatrist treatment .

On DATE the first applicant was discharged from ORG .

As indicated above , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE the first applicant was detained in ORG .

The first applicant claimed to have been confined in a ward measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL other mental health patients at one time , the majority of whom had suffered from severe psychiatric disorders accompanied with symptoms such as delirium and hallucinations . He claimed to have been confined to the ward for most of the day ( except for TIME when inmates were taken to eat , walk or watch TV ) .

The first applicant alleged that there had been no lavatory or sink in the ward . He submitted , in particular , that the inmates had had to use a bucket for a toilet which had been emptied by the hospital staff twice a day and which had caused a disgusting smell in the ward .

Shower use had been restricted to once a fortnight .

The first applicant ’s correspondence with his mother , the second applicant , had been opened and subjected to censorship by the hospital administration .

NORP Throughout his stay in ORG the first applicant had been held for treatment in CARDINAL different wards : ward no . CARDINAL of department no . CARDINAL , ward FAC . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of department no . CARDINAL , ward no . CARDINAL of department no . CARDINAL , and ward no . CARDINAL of department no . CARDINAL . The dates of the first applicant ’s stay in these wards , the size of the wards and the number of patients held with the first applicant are given in the table below :

The Government noted with regret that the measurements of the wards where the first applicant underwent inpatient treatment indeed failed to meet the statutory standards , namely a minimum of QUANTITY m per patient in wards of a specialist psychiatric facility ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The Government further noted that the number of beds per ward considerably exceeded the domestic requirement of CARDINAL per ward ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP Throughout his stay in the hospital the first applicant , like all other hospital patients , had been confined to the ward for DATE . He had been taken out of the ward to undergo medical procedures , consult a psychologist , have a bath , help out at a concert , eat , watch TV and go for a DATE walk outside ( TIME twice a day during DATE and TIME a day during DATE and DATE ) .

All the departments where the first applicant had been confined had separate lavatories , but were not equipped with shower rooms .

The Government informed the ORG that , in connection with the present application , in DATE a committee consisting of representatives of GPE , ORG and ORG had inspected ORG . Following this inspection , which confirmed the applicant ’s allegations of overcrowding in the wards , ORG granted MONEY to extend building no . CARDINAL of the hospital , so that an additional CARDINAL beds could be accommodated .


CASE OF SELMANI AND OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

The applicants were accredited journalists who were authorised to report from the national ORG . On DATE parliamentary proceedings were held on LAW for DATE . The applicants , together with other journalists , were reporting from the ORG gallery , which was situated above the plenary hall ( “ the chamber ” ) where members of parliament ( MPs ) were seated . The debate on the approval of the ORG budget attracted considerable public and media attention , owing to the conflict between opposition and ruling party MPs as to whether or not statutory procedure had been complied with . During the proceedings , opposition MPs approached the President of ORG ( “ the Speaker ” ) and started creating noise by , inter alia , slapping his table . Soon thereafter , ORG security officers entered the chamber . They pulled the Speaker out of the chamber and started forcibly removing the opposition MPs . At the same time , other security officers ( CARDINAL officers , according to the Government ) entered the gallery and started removing the applicants and other journalists . The Government stated that the security officers had informed those in the gallery that they had to leave for security reasons . The applicants denied that the reasons for their removal had been explained to them . Whereas some journalists complied with those orders , the applicants refused to leave , as the situation in the chamber was escalating and they felt that the public had the right to be kept informed as to what was going on . However , the security officers forcibly removed the applicants from the gallery .

The Government submitted that according to official records ( a copy of which was not provided ) on that occasion the first applicant had forcibly removed the identification badge from CARDINAL security officer and had injured him in his chest and leg . The applicants denied that they had injured any officer and submitted that no official document had been drawn up regarding the identity of the officer in question , the nature and severity of the injury or the alleged assailant . The ORG further alleged that the applicants had been allowed to follow the events in the parliamentary chamber via a live broadcast in the ORG ’s press room and the adjacent hall . The applicants contested that there had been live stream while the ejection of the opposition MPs had been ongoing , given that the cameras had allegedly been turned against the walls .

At the same time , CARDINAL opposing groups congregated in front of the ORG building . According to the Government , several people were injured in those protests . No further information was provided .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the media , the Speaker stated , inter alia :

“ Having regard to the announcements ( најави ) that the opposition would not allow LAW to be adopted and that there would be protests and incidents , I requested , CARDINAL of LAW , that the ORG security service ensure proper work at the session . I would like to underline that the ORG security service arranges and implements necessary measures to be taken ... having regard to the fact that the gallery is part of the plenary hall , the ORG security service considered ( донело оценка ) that the gallery should be vacated in order to avoid an incident of a larger scale .

As Speaker , I regret that such a measure regarding the journalists was taken ... ”

On DATE ORG ( represented by its president , the first applicant ) sent a letter to the ORG claiming that the forcible removal of the journalists had violated their rights under LAW . In the letter , the journalists pushed for proceedings to be brought against those responsible for authorising and carrying out their removal from the gallery .

In a letter dated DATE , the ORG informed the applicants that a group of MPs had surrounded the Speaker during the incident of DATE , and had attempted to physically confront him . They had also insulted and threatened him , whilst at the same time damaging technical equipment . Owing to the security risk , the Speaker had been removed to a place of safety . However , the disturbance in the chamber had continued . In the circumstances , the Speaker had requested , under section CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the LAW ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that the ORG ’s security service restore order so that the discussions could continue . Journalists had been asked to leave the gallery until order was restored . The letter further stated :

“ An MP who had been involved in the disturbance in the chamber and other people who could have disturbed the journalists in the performance of their tasks were in the gallery .

In the meantime , there was information that the protests [ in front of the ORG building ] could escalate and that police cordons could be violently broken . All that threatened the security in the ORG . For these reasons , the journalists were asked to leave the gallery and to continue following the events from the press room , at a designated area . Most of the journalists understood the seriousness of the situation and complied with that request . A smaller group of people in the gallery , including [ the applicants ] , confronted the security officers , disregarded their orders and resisted actively and passively . As a result , a [ security ] officer sustained an injury to his leg . ”

The ORG concluded that the law enforcement powers employed had not gone beyond the limit of what was acceptable , and that excessive force had not been used .

On DATE the President of the ORG set up an ad hoc commission of inquiry regarding the events in the national ORG of CARDINAL DATE . It was composed of CARDINAL national members , CARDINAL of whom were MPs . It further included CARDINAL non - national observers appointed by ORG . On DATE the commission drew up a report , the relevant part of which reads as follows :

The absence of appropriate guidelines on dealing with such situations , including the absence of a strategy to deal with media in crisis , led to a situation in which journalists were removed from the ORG gallery , which violated their rights to freedom of public information ( слобода на јавно информирање ) and publicity in the work of ORG . ORG should be particularly attentive and open with respect to the freedom of the press to report and to apply the best NORP practices in this matter ... ”

The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG in which they alleged a violation of their rights under LAW . They submitted that the parliamentary debate and the related events regarding the approval of the ORG budget had been of particular public interest . The intervention of the ORG security officers and the removal of the applicants from the gallery had been neither “ lawful ” nor “ necessary in a NORP society ” . With regard to the lawfulness of the measures taken , the applicants argued that section CARDINAL of the Act could not be interpreted as allowing the forcible removal of journalists from the gallery by ORG security officers . In any event , that provision had not been sufficiently foreseeable . As to the necessity of the measures , they argued that at the critical time , they had been in the gallery and had had no contact with the Speaker or MPs . Accordingly , they had not and could not have contributed to the disturbance in the chamber . Furthermore , they contested the ORG ’s arguments that there had been unauthorised people in the gallery and that the protests in front of the ORG building had justified their forcible removal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They urged the court to hold a public hearing ( јавна расправа ) in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and to find a violation of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW .

At a hearing held on DATE in the absence of the parties , ORG dismissed the ORG complaint . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :

“ On the basis of evidence submitted with the constitutional complaint and the reply of ORG , the court has established the following facts :

There was an increased interest on the part of the public and the media in ( the parliamentary proceedings ) given the importance of the ORG budget and the fact that before the proceedings , namely in DATE , there had been long , intense and sometimes tense discussions between opposition and ruling party MPs regarding the draft Budget ...

On DATE ... before the plenary debate of ORG started , there was a disturbance by a group of MPs who started destroying technical equipment in the chamber . They prevented access to the podium , surrounded the Speaker , preventing him from carrying out his duties , whilst at the same time insulting and threatening him .

Due to the security risk , the Speaker was taken out of the chamber by security personnel . The disturbance in the chamber continued .

Under section CARDINAL of LAW , the Speaker ordered police officers responsible for parliamentary security to restore order in the chamber and enable the debate to start in an orderly manner . The security personnel considered it necessary to vacate the gallery , in order to ensure the safety of those in the gallery and in the chamber .

All those in the gallery , including [ the applicants ] , were asked to leave for security reasons and to follow the events from the press centre .

Most of the journalists complied with that instruction . A smaller group of people , including [ the applicants ] , confronted the security officers , disregarded their orders , and resisted actively and passively . As a result , a [ security ] officer sustained an injury to his leg .

[ The applicants ] and other journalists , after having been removed from the gallery , remained in the ORG building and were able to follow the live broadcast of the debate from other LOC [ the press centre , in a hall adjacent to the gallery ] .

At the same time , in front of the ORG building , CARDINAL opposing groups of people gathered . Several people were injured .

The plenary debate of ORG DATE was public and it was entirely broadcast live on national television and streamed on the ORG website . When the debate was over , the video material was made available to the public on that website ...

The above provisions of LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] and the Rules of ORG [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] ... provide that the Speaker is responsible for maintaining order in the ORG . In the event of disorder , he or she can take several measures ( warning , denial of the right to speak , exclusion of MPs ) . Provisions regarding order during parliamentary proceedings concern all those participating in the session .

The court considers that the removal of [ the applicants ] from the gallery amounted to an interference with their freedom to carry out their professional duties and to inform the public about events that were of considerable interest for the citizens of GPE the events in ORG regarding the approval of the ORG budget for DATE , in which the public had significant interest in following and being informed about .

The legal ground for the impugned measure was section CARDINAL of LAW , which specified who was responsible for keeping order in the ORG building – a special security unit , and which authorised the Speaker to decide and take measures in the event of disturbance of that order by MPs and other external persons participating in the work of ORG .

As to the necessity of the measure ... it has to be examined in the light of the the events that took place inside the ORG building , namely in the chamber , as well as the disorder outside the ORG building . The strained atmosphere in the chamber , which prevented a regular and normal start of the proceedings , has to be taken into account . In this connection it is to be noted ... that a larger group of MPs assaulted the Speaker , who was immediately removed from the chamber by security officers . There were a number of incidents , including damage to furniture , which culminated in objects being thrown in the chamber – some in the direction of the gallery . In such circumstances , the ORG security service considered that in order to protect the journalists in the gallery , they should be moved to a safer place where they would not be in danger . Such an assessment should not be viewed as conflicting with the journalists’ right to attend parliamentary proceedings and report on events that they witnessed . In fact , the journalists – most of them on DATE submitted and published their reports in TIME editions of their newspapers , which implies that there was no violation of their freedom of expression .

The actions of the security officers constitute standard practice for these and similar situations in case of endangerment , i.e. protection of media representatives while reporting from places of crises , demonstrations and other potentially dangerous events ...

The fact that the journalists had been present within and outside the ORG building since TIME DATE , and were reporting on the events as they occurred , confirms that , notwithstanding the indications and expectations that discussion about the approval of the ORG would be tense , they were allowed access to the ORG building and the gallery in order to carry out their function and inform the public about the debate . Accordingly , there was no preconceived idea to prevent the journalists from reporting on the debate . After they left the gallery , [ the applicants ] and other media representatives were allowed to remain in the parliamentary press centre ... from where they could have followed the live broadcast on the ORG website and on the dedicated TV channel .

... The physical removal of journalists from the gallery required by the concrete escalation of chaos and disorder aimed to protect them and ensure order in the chamber , and not to restrict their freedom of expression or to prevent them from carrying out their function , i.e. to inform the public . ”

In a dissenting opinion , Judge PERSON of ORG stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ... My dissenting opinion mainly concerns the inability objectively to decide the case ... I consider that the written information , facts and evidence available to the court were insufficient ...

The decision [ of ORG ] contains contradictory reasons given that it ... establishes that the removal of journalists amounted to an interference with their right to carry out their function and to inform the public about an event of indisputable public interest , but it finds that such an intervention was justified ... without there being a solid factual basis in support of that finding .

I think that it is of crucial importance that ORG clarifies and explains the reasonableness of the assessment of the situation and the reason for which the journalists were removed from the gallery ...

In order to establish the facts and assess the need for [ their ] removal ... it was necessary to determine the reason which prompted the security officers to remove them , despite the undisputed fact that all the incidents and disorder in the ORG chamber were physically and clearly isolated and distant from [ the gallery ] . It is absurd that [ such a removal ] was carried out ‘ for the safety of ORG , when it is clear that they were in their seats and were completely passive ; they did not participate in the events at all , but only observed ... It is a fact that the journalists did not contribute to the conflictual situation in any respect [ not disputed by ORG ] ; they did not disturb order in the ORG building ; they were in direct contact neither with the Speaker or the MPs , nor with the events outside the ORG building ... Besides , it is clear that the journalists themselves did not feel threatened ; so they did not seek and expect any protection . ”