The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG against his employer , company PERSON and CARDINAL further defendants .

On DATE the ORG came into force in respect of GPE .

On DATE the first defendant , company PERSON replied to the claim .

On DATE the applicant was requested to supplement or amend his claim .

On DATE the applicant lodged his submissions by which he withdrew the action against the second , third , fourth and fifth defendant and proposed to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction .

On DATE the court stayed the proceedings against the second , third , fourth and fifth defendant .

On DATE ORG issued a decision by which it dismissed the applicant ’s request to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction .

On DATE the court adjourned the first main hearing at the request of both parties .

On DATE the settlement hearing and the first main hearing were held .

On DATE the second main hearing was held .

On DATE the scheduled hearing was postponed at the applicant ’s request .

Between DATE and DATE further CARDINAL hearings were held .

On DATE ORG partially upheld the applicant ’s claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim . Both parties appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals and issued a decision that an appeal on points of law would not be allowed in the present case . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision that appeal on points of law was not allowed . The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional appeal .


Armen Harutyunyan;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo

The applicants , Mr PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) and PERSON PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . PERSON ( “ the third applicant ” ) was an NORP national who was born in DATE . She died on DATE . The first and second applicants are her heirs , and expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings before ORG . They were represented before the ORG by Mr. PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

The applicants were the joint owners of various parts of different plots of building land in PERSON .

The plots in question – measuring a total surface area of QUANTITY – were recorded in the land register as Folio no . CARDINAL , parcel nos . DATE , LOC , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL .

NORP By different orders issued DATE ORG approved a project to build a residential complex on the applicants’ land .

By CARDINAL orders issued on DATE by the mayor of PERSON , through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public interest declaration , the PERSON municipality was authorised to take possession of the above - mentioned plots of land , with a view to subsequently expropriating them . The deadline for issuing a formal expropriation order was DATE .

NORP In DATE the authorities took physical possession of the land and began the building works .

By an order issued on DATE by ORG , the deadline for issuing the expropriation order was extended to DATE .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG further extended the deadline for issuing the expropriation order .

On DATE an expropriation order was issued in respect of the land .

On DATE the applicants lodged an application with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , contesting the lawfulness of the mayor ’s orders of CARDINAL DATE and the orders extending the deadline for issuing the expropriation order .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court found that the orders extending the deadline for issuing the expropriation order had been unlawful , and that the expropriation order of DATE had consequently also been unlawful .

On DATE the applicants applied to ORG for compensation for their being unlawfully deprived of their property , relying on the same court ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE . In this connection , they sought an amount equal to the property ’s market value on DATE when the land had been irreversibly altered , plus a sum reflecting an adjustment for inflation and statutory interest . They further contended that the application of the “ constructive expropriation ” rule , which was likely to be applied in their case , had been found by the ORG to be incompatible with LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .

On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land . A report produced in DATE stated that the affected surface area of the land was equal to QUANTITY , and that the market value of the land in DATE had been MONEY ( ORG ) per square metre .

By a judgment of DATE the court found that , pursuant to the constructive expropriation rule ( occupazione appropriativa ) , the applicants were no longer the owners of the land , which had become the property of the PERSON municipality following completion of the public works . It dismissed the ORG argument that the constructive expropriation rule was incompatible with LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . However , the court conceded that , as the transfer of property had been unlawful , the applicants were entitled to compensation . In this connection , it relied on the expert report which had assessed the market value of the land at FAC per square metre . However , the court did not award compensation reflecting the market value , but instead proceeded to make an award based on the criteria contained in LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . All amounts were to be adjusted for inflation and include statutory interest from the date the occupation of the ORG land had ceased to be lawful , which the court identified as DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged an application with the PERSON . They contested the lower courts’ legal classification of how they had been deprived of their property and complained that the reduction in their compensation was incompatible with their right to property . They claimed , inter alia , that they were entitled to compensation corresponding to the market value of the land , and a sum for loss of enjoyment of the land . They also complained about the fact that the award would be subject to taxation .

On DATE the PERSON municipality paid the applicants the amounts due under the judgment of ORG . The sum they received jointly amounted to ORG . Tax at a rate of PERCENT was deducted at source from these sums .

On DATE the third applicant died .

On DATE the PERSON issued a decision declaring that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the ORG claim .

The applicants lodged an application with ORG in order to settle the issue of jurisdiction .

On DATE it ruled , sitting as a full court ( ORG ) , that the administrative courts had jurisdiction to decide the applicants’ claim for compensation , as the issue at stake concerned the unlawful exercise of public authority .

On an unspecified date the applicants resumed their appeal before the Consiglio di Stato . They contested the lower courts’ legal classification of how they had been deprived of their property and complained that the reduction in their compensation was incompatible with their right to property . They asked the court to award an amount corresponding to the property ’s market value . They also complained about the fact that the award would be subject to taxation .

By a judgment delivered on DATE , filed with the registry on CARDINAL DATE , the PERSON confirmed that the applicants had been deprived of their property unlawfully . It further drew on ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , whereby LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , as amended by PERSON no . DATE , had been declared unconstitutional , and held that the applicants were entitled to compensation corresponding to the full market value of the property , minus what had already been paid to them under the judgment of ORG . The court further stated that the applicants were entitled to a sum reflecting an adjustment for inflation as well as statutory interest from DATE that they were deprived of their property . It also awarded them ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the complaint about prospective taxation .

On DATE the PERSON municipality paid the applicants the remaining amounts due to them under the judgment of the PERSON , which amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Tax at a rate of PERCENT was deducted at source from these sums .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning constructive expropriation is to be found in PERSON v. GPE ( ( just satisfaction ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

In judgments ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that national law had to be compatible with the Convention as interpreted by the ORG ’s case - law , and consequently declared LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , as amended by PERSON no . DATE , unconstitutional .

In judgment no . CARDINAL it noted that the insufficient level of compensation provided for by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE was contrary to LAW , which required compliance with international obligations .

A number of changes in domestic law occurred following ORG judgments . Section CARDINAL/CARDINAL(e ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) of DATE established that , in cases of constructive expropriation , the compensation payable had to correspond to the market value of the property in question and could not be reduced .

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ( hereinafter “ Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) was created , inter alia , to broaden the tax base and streamline , facilitate and strengthen tax administration .

The relevant parts of section CARDINAL ) provide that capital gains ( plusvalenza ) on compensation for expropriation or unlawful forms of acquisition of property ( somme dovute per effetto di acquisizione coattiva conseguente ad occupazione di urgenza divenute illegittime ) paid to individuals not operating a business are taxable under LAW ( Testo Unico delle ORG ) .

As to the practical means of enforcement of the tax , section CARDINAL ) provides that when paying the compensation mentioned in section CARDINAL ) , including , inter alia , compensation for constructive expropriation ( risarcimento danni da occupazione acquisitiva ) the authorities entrusted with making the payment ( enti eroganti ) must deduct tax at source at a rate of PERCENT from the entire sum . It is open to the taxpayer to opt for ordinary taxation in his or her DATE tax return , in which case the sum deducted at source will be considered as an advance on the final tax payment due .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a lawyer . In DATE the applicant , together with the lawyer PERSON , represented PERSON in civil proceedings before ORG .

On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG sent a complaint to the President of ORG . She alleged that the absence of the applicant and PERSON without good cause had led to delays in the proceedings . She asked the President to institute disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers and to inform them of the next hearing in PERSON case . In particular , she stated as follows :

“ I draw your attention to the conduct of the lawyers Mr PERSON and PERSON , which is not compatible with LAW . It has encroached on the rights of the person they were representing before the court ... and has led to unjustifiable delays in the examination of the merits of the case . At the same time [ they ] have systematically written complaints in PERSON name to various authorities and newspapers , attempting in that way to shift the responsibility for their own incompetence and lack of professionalism onto the judicial system , and thereby expressing contempt for the court . ”

The parties did not inform the ORG whether there was any follow - up to Judge PERSON ’s complaint on the part of ORG .

Being of the opinion that the above - cited paragraph of Judge PERSON ’s complaint tarnished their professional reputation , the applicant and PERSON brought a defamation action against her in accordance with LAW . They also sought a compensation award in respect of nonpecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant ’s claims for consideration . The court noted that current laws did not define the grounds or procedure for adjudicating that type of claim . In particular , the court noted as follows :

“ According to LAW on the Status of the Judiciary of GPE , a judge can not be held liable for an expression of opinion in the course of the administration of justice or for the judgment handed down [ by him or her ] unless he or she has been found guilty in criminal proceedings concerning the abuse of power or the adoption of an unlawful verdict , judgment or other judicial act .

Pursuant to LAW ] of GPE , ... [ d]amage caused within the framework of the administration of justice shall be compensated , provided that the guilt of the judge has been established in a final criminal conviction .

The claims lodged by [ the applicant ] and PERSON can not be considered in civil proceedings given that the issue of a judge ’s liability for actions taken in the course of the administration of justice must be adjudicated purely in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law . [ However ] , current legislation does not lay down the grounds or the procedure for compensation by the State for damage caused by a judge ’s unlawful actions ( inaction ) ( including the rules governing the jurisdiction of this type of case ) . ”

Further to an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG upheld that decision . The court noted , in particular :

“ Pursuant to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the [ Code of Civil Procedure ] of GPE , the judge must dismiss a claim [ without consideration on the merits ] if it can not be adjudicated in civil proceedings but should instead be considered and adjudicated by way of another judicial process .

Referring to LAW of the Law of GPE on the Status of the Judiciary of GPE , the [ first - instance ] court established that the claims lodged by PERSON and [ the applicant ] concerned the judge ’s liability and the compensation for damage caused by the judge ’s actions ( failure to act ) . [ It ] correctly indicated in its decision that the judge should be immune from liability for the actions taken in the course of the administration of justice unless she or he had been found guilty of criminal abuse of power in a final criminal conviction .

Being mindful of the fact that the issue of the judge ’s liability for actions taken in the course of the administration of justice can be examined only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law , the court has rightly dismissed the claims lodged by [ the applicant ] and PERSON [ without consideration on the merits ] , noting correctly that current legislation had not yet laid down the grounds or the procedure for compensation by the State for damage caused by a judge ’s unlawful actions ( inaction ) ( including the rules governing the jurisdiction of this type of case ) . ”


Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE officers of ORG were patrolling the border between GPE and GPE in GPE , by the river PERSON . At TIME the officers noticed several cars approaching the river and heard the sound of a boat in the water . The officers approached CARDINAL of the cars and found cartons of cigarettes inside , which they suspected had been smuggled from GPE . The CARDINAL individuals who had been in the car , ORG , PERSON and ORG , were arrested . During the arrests ORG received a gunshot wound and the officers took him to a hospital in Jurbarkas ( hereinafter “ the hospital ” ) .

At TIME mobile telephone began to ring and a border officer answered it . The caller stated that he would “ find and shoot ” the officer who had injured ORG subsequent forensic examination identified the caller ’s voice as probably ( tikėtinai ) that of the applicant .

At TIME the applicant arrived at the hospital and approached the border officers guarding ORG The applicant used various swearwords towards the officers , demanded that they release PERSON and said that he would beat them up or kill them . It appears that no physical altercation occurred between the applicant and the officers and that the applicant subsequently left the hospital .

On DATE ORG opened a pre - trial investigation against the applicant and several other individuals . The applicant was suspected , among other things , of threatening to murder or seriously injure law enforcement officers and obstructing and verbally abusing them in the exercise of their official duties , under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ( hereinafter “ the prosecutor ” ) discontinued the pre - trial investigation against the applicant for lack of evidence . As to the words and statements used by the applicant in his interaction with the border officers ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the prosecutor noted that the applicant could have committed the administrative offence of minor hooliganism under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor ’s decision was forwarded to ORG , instructing them to decide whether administrative proceedings against the applicant should be instituted . However , DATE a senior prosecutor annulled that decision and reopened the pre - trial investigation .

On an unspecified date administrative proceedings were instituted against the applicant ; the information available to the ORG does not indicate which authority was in charge of them . On DATE ORG held that the applicant had committed the administrative offence of minor hooliganism when he had used swearwords in the presence of border officers in the hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He was given a warning . The decision was not appealed against and became final after the expiry of the DATE time - limit for appeal .

On DATE the prosecutor charged the applicant with threatening to murder or seriously injure law enforcement officers , and insulting them in the exercise of their official duties , under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . The indictment alleged that the applicant had committed the offences in the hospital on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The case was transferred to ORG for examination on the merits but in DATE , at the prosecutor ’s request , the case was returned for additional investigation .

On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation , stating that the applicant ’s actions had not amounted to the criminal offence of threatening to murder or seriously injure the officers because there had not been any objective circumstances indicating that he could have carried out those threats . The prosecutor also held that the applicant could not be prosecuted for insulting the officers because he had already been given an administrative penalty for the same conduct ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) – continuing the criminal proceedings against him would be in breach of the ne bis in idem principle .

On DATE ORG annulled the prosecutor ’s decision and reopened the investigation , noting that the administrative penalty given to the applicant “ did not automatically preclude ” the criminal proceedings against him .

The applicant appealed against that decision to a senior prosecutor at ORG but on DATE his appeal was dismissed . The senior prosecutor held that , in line with the case - law of the domestic courts , an administrative penalty did not preclude the institution of subsequent criminal proceedings concerning the same conduct ; however , in order to comply with the ne bis in idem principle , if a person was found guilty in the criminal proceedings , the previous administrative penalty had to be annulled or , if that was impossible , it had to be taken into account during sentencing . Accordingly , the prosecutor considered that the administrative penalty given to the applicant did not preclude the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s appeal and overruled the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE . It held that criminal proceedings against the applicant could be continued only after the administrative penalty had been annulled , but since that had not been done , any further proceedings concerning the same conduct would be in breach of the ne bis in idem principle . However , on DATE ORG quashed the lower court ’s decision , reiterating the reasoning of the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . That decision was not subject to any further appeal .

NORP In DATE the case was transferred to ORG for examination on the merits . The amended indictment alleged that the applicant had committed the offences set out in GPE CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW because of the words and statements which he had used when speaking to the border officers on the telephone ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and in the hospital on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant as time - barred . That decision was not appealed against and became final .


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

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

The applicants complained under LAW inadequate conditions of their detention . They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the LAW .


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON , and subsequently by PERSON .

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

The applicant was arrested on DATE .

DATE and DATE he was held in the GPE wing of ORG ( GPE cietums ) .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was subjected to strip searches . In particular :

- on DATE owing to his being escorted from the ORG wing to NORP wing in FAC ;

- on DATE because he was being escorted from FAC to a court in GPE ;

- on DATE for the purposes of being escorted from the court in GPE to FAC ; in his letter to ORG the applicant submitted that on DATE he had not been escorted anywhere ; and

- on DATE twice , prior to being escorted to a court in GPE and upon his return from the court . In their additional observations , the Government specified that the first search had been partial and that the second search had taken place on the premises of the courthouse .

The applicant submitted that on CARDINAL DATE he had been searched a further CARDINAL times , when being taken from the holding cell to the courtroom and back on CARDINAL occasions , and prior to his return to the prison . As a result , on CARDINAL DATE he had been searched on a total of CARDINAL occasions , on CARDINAL of which he had been directed to strip naked . In response to the ORG ’s observations , he averred that on CARDINAL DATE he had been searched CARDINAL times and each time had been told to undress .

According to the Government , body searches in FAC were conducted in a special room in the prison admissions unit , by CARDINAL prison warders , CARDINAL of whom carried out the search while the other filled out the forms . During the search on CARDINAL DATE on the LOC of the courthouse the applicant had been asked to squat once .

The applicant , however , stated that he had been searched in the presence of other inmates and , while naked , had been told to squat CARDINAL times or to lie down on the floor . As CARDINAL or CARDINAL inmates had been searched at the same time , CARDINAL prison warders had been present .

The applicant submitted that for DATE on DATE , when he was taken for a court hearing to PERSON , he had not been provided with food .

Referring to the escort log of FAC , the Government contended that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had left the prison at MONEY a.m. and had returned DATE at CARDINAL a.m. They stressed that according to the order issued by the governor of Daugavgrīva prison on DATE , breakfast was served TIME and lunch TIME The applicant had been removed from his prison cell at TIME had returned to the cell at TIME .

NORP The applicant disagreed . Replying to the Government ’s observations , he stated that , owing to the length of the various procedures prior to leaving the prison LOC , it was not even theoretically possible that on the critical day , CARDINAL DATE , he could have had breakfast . Furthermore , breakfast was served to inmates in their cells , which the applicant had left at TIME He had returned to his cell at TIME , after lunch had been served . In addition , during the journey to the court in Daugavpils and his time there he had had no access to drinking water .

The applicant submitted that when he had been placed in FAC the temperature in the cells had been low , CARDINAL . A member of the prison staff , however , had refused to issue him with DATE clothing , stating that he already had his own clothing . In the applicant ’s submission , he had indeed been wearing a leather jacket , but it had been for DATE only and had subsequently been taken away from him . Furthermore , during the search on DATE the applicant ’s DATE jacket had been taken away . He had been left with a DATE jacket without any lining .

The applicant submitted that on certain dates in DATE he had been required to shovel snow in the prison yard . In his application to the ORG the applicant specified CARDINAL sets of dates , namely CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE . He could not refuse to perform that work . If he had , he would have been liable to a penalty of CARDINAL days’ confinement in a disciplinary cell for disobeying prison orders . The temperature outside had been CARDINAL and QUANTITY Celsius and the applicant had suffered greatly from the cold . Furthermore , he had not been in good health .

As a result , he had once again started having problems with his heart . On DATE he had been placed in the prison hospital .

On DATE the applicant ’s hospital cell had been inspected by CARDINAL officers . At their request the applicant had also relayed to them his complaint about the jacket confiscated on DATE . Although the officers promised to clarify the matter , the applicant had not received any response .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from the prison hospital .

According to the applicant ’s submissions in his application to the ORG and his comments in reply to the Government ’s observations , on several occasions he had raised the issue of the cold conditions in the prison and the lack of DATE clothing . In DATE he had submitted a written complaint to the authorities in FAC . On DATE he had written a letter to ORG and in DATE he had complained to prison staff . In DATE he had complained to the commission during their inspection of his prison cell . He had also complained verbally and in writing at other times but had not recorded those complaints .

The Government furnished a copy of a handwritten complaint by the applicant dated DATE , addressed to ORG . The stamp on the complaint indicated that it had been received at ORG on DATE of DATE . In his reply to the ORG ’s observations the applicant stated that he had written to ORG on DATE .

In the complaint he stated that during the search on DATE his DATE jacket had been taken from him . The prison warders had explained that he had CARDINAL jackets but that by law he could keep CARDINAL . The applicant had tried to explain that the other jacket was in fact a DATE pullover , but to no avail . As a result , he had been prevented from taking walks during DATE .

In the same complaint he stated that in DATE he had raised the issue of the jacket with prison staff . He had been told that he needed to write a request to the prison governor and that “ maybe [ he ] would be given the jacket ” . In reply to the applicant ’s question as to how soon his request would be reviewed , he had been told “ within DATE ” . In his complaint to ORG the applicant criticised the fact that he would therefore receive his jacket in DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the matter of appropriate clothing fell within the competence of ORG , to which it had accordingly been transmitted for examination . ORG advised the applicant that the conduct of a member of prison staff could be the subject of a complaint to the head of ORG and subsequently to a court .

In the course of examination of the applicant ’s complaint , ORG requested information from FAC on DATE . On DATE the prison replied that the applicant could request permission in writing to retrieve his personal items from the stores . The applicant however had made no such request . Daugavgrīva Prison further stated that on DATE that procedure had been explained to the applicant .

On DATE ORG replied to the applicant , stating that , according to its information , he had been provided with clothing appropriate to the season . On DATE when the procedure for retrieving items from the stores had been explained to the applicant , he had refused to write any request . The possibility of retrieving clothing from the stores could be considered on submission of the relevant request by the applicant .

In his reply to the ORG ’s observations the applicant disputed the assertion that the procedure for retrieving his clothes had been explained to him on DATE . He further maintained that by law he was not required to submit a written request asking the prison to provide him with clothing . That duty had to be fulfilled by the prison of its own initiative . Furthermore , he was entitled to submit such a request verbally .

In his letter to the ORG dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that on DATE he had submitted a written request to the governor of ORG , indicating that he lacked seasonally appropriate clothing and that anyone who had informed ORG to the contrary had been a liar .

The applicant indicated that in response to that request he had been summoned on DATE to the office of his prison unit inspector . Because the applicant had accused a source of information of lying he had been threatened with placement in an isolation cell and with beating . The inspector had then examined the applicant ’s belongings . Having found no DATE clothing he had questioned the applicant ’s cellmates . The applicant had then been taken to the stores and given all his clothes .

The applicant submitted that on DATE he had written a letter to ORG in connection with its reply of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , because he considered that the ORG had been misinformed about the matter of his clothing . On DATE the letter was returned to the applicant with a request to place it in an envelope and pay for the postage . The letter was accompanied by a note citing LAW ( ORG izpildes kodekss ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant exchanged CARDINAL days’ worth of white bread rations for an envelope and a stamp and eventually managed to dispatch his letter on DATE .

It appears that on DATE ORG responded to a further request by the applicant dated DATE regarding the issue of warm clothing . It referred back to its earlier reply of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It indicated that the applicant ’s personal items were in the prison stores and that they could be obtained if the applicant sent a written request to the prison governor .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG replied to the applicant ’s request of DATE in which he had criticised its response of DATE . ORG did not address that part of the request as it had already responded on the matter .

The Administrative Procedure Law ( Administratīvā procesa likums ) took effect on DATE . It provides , among other things , for the right to challenge administrative acts ( administratīvais akts ) and actions of the public authorities ( faktiskā rīcība ) before the administrative courts ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW makes a ORG fee ( valsts nodeva ) payable for the lodging of a complaint or an appeal in proceedings before the administrative courts . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A court or a judge , in the light of a natural person ’s financial situation , may fully or partly exempt the person from the payment of the ORG fee at the person ’s request . ”

Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW reads as follows :

“ A convicted person ’s correspondence with ORG institutions shall be paid for out of the funds of the custodial institution , provided the person concerned does not have funds on his or her own card and he or she is challenging an administrative act or the action of a public authority issued by those institutions or is sending a request for the receipt of ORG - provided legal aid . ”


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicants are NORP nationals . Their particulars are set out in the appendix . The applicants were represented by PERSON and PERSON GPE , lawyers practising in GPE . CARDINAL of the applicants passed away in DATE and her heirs , whose names are also indicated in the appendix , expressed the wish to continue the proceedings in her stead .

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

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

An ancestor of the applicants owned agricultural land on the outskirts of GPE , which was collectivised in DATE . It was initially managed by an agricultural cooperative , but was subsequently , together with other land , allocated to ORG - owned film studios and became part of what was known as “ the Boyana National Film Centre ” . At DATE the ORG enterprise managing these facilities was transformed into a ORG company , initially named ORG and , after its privatisation in DATE , ORG .

Following the adoption of LAW in DATE , which , under certain conditions , provided for the restoration of property titles to agricultural land , on DATE the competent body dealing with restitution – the local agricultural land commission – held that the applicants were entitled to restitution in kind of their ancestor ’s entire plot , measuring CARDINAL sq . m in total .

In DATE the applicants brought rei vindicatio proceedings against ORG . On DATE the ORG allowed the action in part and ordered the company to hand over possession of CARDINAL sq . m of the plot ; it found that the company did not hold the remainder of the land , which had been taken by a street . The domestic court observed that the applicants’ property rights had been restored by virtue of the decision of DATE , whereas the company , which had made no submissions before it , had failed to show that it possessed the land on any valid legal grounds .

The judgment of ORG , not having been appealed against , became final on DATE .

On DATE the agricultural land commission issued another decision , restoring the applicants’ property rights in respect of CARDINAL sq . m of their original plot , and refusing restitution as regards the remainder . The applicants did not appeal against that decision .

In DATE they brought enforcement proceedings against ORG ORG , seeking enforcement of the judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL occasions , in DATE , a bailiff formally handed over possession of the plot to the applicants , tracing its borders with poles inserted into the ground , and evicted the company . However , on each occasion the company removed the poles and continued to use the land , which remained within the film GPE fenced territory .

In a decision dated DATE the local mayor ordered that the plot described above be registered in the cadastral plans as the property of the applicants . In DATE ORG challenged that order before the courts . The ensuing proceedings continued until DATE , with the courts rejecting the company ’s challenge , finding in particular that , as the judgment of DATE had already recognised the applicants’ property rights to the plot at issue , the proposed amendment to the cadastral plan was lawful .

NORP In DATE the company , already named ORG , brought court proceedings against the applicants , seeking a declaration that it was the owner of the disputed plot . Having satisfied itself on the basis of expert reports that the plot claimed was identical to the one which had been the subject of the previous proceedings between the same parties , the ORG found , in a decision of DATE , that the claim was inadmissible because the matter had already been settled with res judicata effect . That decision became final on DATE .

NORP In DATE the body tasked with maintaining cadastral plans , the ORG , ORG and ORG , adopted a new plan for the area , naming the applicants as the owners of the plot at issue . ORG applied for the plan to be amended to say that ownership of the plot was “ in dispute ” . Its application was allowed , by order of the head of the ORG on DATE . The applicants challenged that order successfully , with the national courts pointing out in their judgments that ownership of the plot was not “ in dispute ” , particularly as the proceedings regarding amendments of the cadastral plan described in paragraph CARDINAL above were not determinative of any property rights of the parties . The final judgment in that series of proceedings was given on DATE . In DATE the ORG representative was informed that the cadastral plans had been amended in accordance with the ORG findings .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Code of Civil Procedure , in force until DATE , provided that , in the context of enforcement proceedings , where a person had been ordered to hand over immovable property , a bailiff would evict that person from the property , if necessary forcibly , and formally transfer possession to the claimant . Under Article CARDINAL , if the person who had been removed from the property retook possession of it , he or she was to be evicted again . It was expressly noted that , in such a case , the person responsible for unlawfully taking possession could also incur criminal liability under LAW .

Similar provisions are contained in LAW of the current ORG .

Under LAW , it is an offence for any person to take possession of immovable property from which they have been lawfully removed . The offence is punishable by up to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and a fine . The offence can also be committed by a representative of the relevant person ( ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. на ORG по н. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG н. о. , GPE ) .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that LAW , an owner may request the cessation of any unjustified action which hinders him or her in the exercise of his or her property rights .

In a DATE interpretative decision ( ORG CARDINAL г. от CARDINAL.II.CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG ) the former ORG explained that such a claim ( actio negatoria ) provided protection against unjustified interference – whether direct or indirect DATE which might prevent an owner from using his or her property to the fullest extent . It pointed out that the claim could be used to declare such interference unlawful and enjoin the persons concerned to stop it and remove its effects .

In a number of cases the domestic courts , examining actions under section CARDINAL ) , have ordered the defendants to remove fences constructed by them , obstructing the PERSON access to their own properties ( for example , ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. на ORG по гр. д. № DATE г. , I г. о. , ORG ; ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. на ORG по гр. д. № MONEY г. , I г. о. , ORG ; and ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. на ВКС по гр. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , II г. о. , ГК ) .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW is the general provision on unlawful enrichment . It has been relied on in a number of cases concerning unlawful hindrance of the effective enjoyment of a claimant ’s right of property , with the courts , as a rule , awarding in damages what has been shown to be the “ market rent ” for a property for the period at issue ( among many others , ORG № DATE от CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № ORG г. , PERSON г. о. ; ORG № DATE от CARDINAL.XI.CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № GPE г. , IV г. о. ; ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. на ORG по гр. д. № DATE г. , II г. о. ; ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. на ORG по т. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , I т. о. ; and ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. на ORG по гр. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , IV г. о. ) .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)

Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev

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

On DATE ORG of PERSON convicted the applicant of massive fraud , an offence punishable with up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , and sentenced him to DATE in prison .

During the trial the applicant was represented by his counsel .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . It follows from the appeal judgment that the applicant could follow the appeal hearing by video link from the PERSON remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Counsel and prosecutor did not attend the hearing .

On DATE the applicant was placed in PERSON remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and was held there until DATE . According to the applicant , conditions of detention there were inhuman and degrading because of overcrowding .


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

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE . When lodging his application , he was detained in FAC . He was released on DATE .

On DATE the GPE ORG authorised criminal investigations against CARDINAL other persons ( not including the applicant ) to be conducted by CARDINAL undercover police officers , in accordance with LAW § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL and LAW § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Criminal investigation proceedings on suspicion of drug trafficking had previously been instituted against the CARDINAL suspects . Prior to ORG order , the police ’s suspicion against the suspects had been confirmed , in particular , by information obtained via telephone tapping and police surveillance of the suspects .

NORP The police decided to attempt to establish contacts between S. and the undercover agents via the applicant , a good friend of S. and business partner for real estate transactions . The applicant , who had no criminal record , was not , at that time , suspected of any involvement in drug trafficking .

From DATE , CARDINAL undercover police officers , PERSON and NORP , established contacts with the applicant . They visited him in the restaurant he ran and pretended to be interested in purchasing real property for running a club . In DATE the applicant made a number of offers of real property to the undercover agents and visited the estates with them .

The applicant subsequently established contacts between the CARDINAL undercover agents and S. for organising an international contraband trade in cigarettes after CARDINAL of the undercover agents had pretended to have a suitable lorry at hand for transporting the cigarettes abroad . PERSON refused , however , to communicate directly with undercover agent P. by telephone and proposed to further communicate via the applicant . When undercover agent NORP disclosed to the applicant on DATE that he considered that the risk of being caught with smuggling cigarettes was too high compared to the possible profits , the applicant disclosed that they ( that is , PERSON and others and himself ) would also traffic in cocaine and amphetamine . He stated that he did not want to be involved in the drug trafficking itself , but would only draw commissions . The undercover agents showed interest in transporting and purchasing drugs .

NORP However , on DATE the applicant , having been telephoned by undercover agent PERSON , explained to P. that he was no longer interested in any business other than the restaurant he ran .

On DATE the GPE ORG , having regard to the applicant ’s submissions to undercover agent NORP on DATE , extended the court order of CARDINAL DATE authorising investigations so as to cover also the applicant .

On DATE undercover agent P. visited the applicant in his restaurant and dispersed the applicant ’s suspicions against the undercover agents as well as his fear of having to serve a prison sentence in case the drug deal was discovered . The applicant thereupon continued arranging CARDINAL purchases of drugs ( cocaine and amphetamine ) by the undercover agents from S. on DATE ( QUANTITY of amphetamine paste and QUANTITY of cocaine ) and on DATE ( QUANTITY of amphetamine paste ) . On DATE , the applicant and PERSON were arrested after the delivery of the drugs to the undercover agents . The applicant would have received a commission of more than LAW from S. for having arranged the second contract between PERSON and the undercover agents .

On DATE the GPE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

ORG , having established the facts as described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) , noted that the applicant had confessed to the offences in the hearing . It had further read out in the hearing the written reports of undercover agents NORP and PERSON , drawn up throughout the undercover measure , with the consent of the parties . It noted that the applicant had accepted that these reports were essentially correct . It considered that the applicant ’s allegation that it had been undercover agent NORP and not himself who had first come up with the possibility of drug trafficking on DATE , and that he had only responded to that proposal , had not been proven . It noted in that context that the undercover agents had been careful throughout the investigations not to propose illegal business transactions or specific types or amounts of drugs first , but had waited for their respective counterparts to make the first step before becoming more concrete themselves .

In fixing the sentence , ORG considered the considerable quantities of drugs trafficked as an aggravating factor . However , there were considerable elements leading to a mitigation of the sentence , which had to be considered as relatively mild in view of the amount of drugs trafficked . The applicant had in essence confessed to the offences and did not have any prior convictions . He had further trafficked mainly amphetamine , which was not a hard drug . In view of the undercover agents’ involvement , there had also not been a risk that the drugs would freely circulate on the market .

The GPE ORG further stated that it was a particularly weighty factor mitigating the sentence that the applicant had been incited ( verleitet ) by a ORG authority to commit offences . Prior to the undercover measure concerning him , there had not been any suspicion of involvement in drug trafficking against the applicant , who did not have a criminal record . The police had only known that the applicant was a friend of S. , against whom there had been strong suspicions of involvement in drug trafficking , and that the applicant had already arranged the sale of real estate together with ORG considered that , nevertheless , the applicant had not been instigated ( angestiftet ) to commit the offences at issue . The undercover agents had waited for the applicant to raise the possibility of arranging an international contraband trade in cigarettes when the arrangement of a real estate transaction had not been successful . The agents had again waited for the applicant to raise the possibility of drug trafficking after the undercover agents had made him understand that they considered that the risk of being caught with smuggling cigarettes was too high compared to the possible profits .

NORP Moreover , ORG stressed that the applicant had then renounced any drug business on DATE for fear of punishment . However , the undercover agents nevertheless contacted the applicant again on DATE , when the court order authorising recourse to undercover agents had been extended so as to cover also the applicant , and dispersed his doubts . ORG considered that the way in which the undercover measure had been organised , that is , by contacting the applicant , a person not suspected of an offence , in order to establish contacts with suspect PERSON , had entailed a risk , from the outset , that the applicant became implicated in drug trafficking .

ORG further found that the applicant ’s involvement in the offences had been less important than that of S. , as he had only arranged contacts between PERSON and the undercover agents and had shielded off LOC against them . The applicant obviously did not have any contacts with the drug scene apart from his contacts with S.

The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment . He complained , in particular , that he had been incited by the police to commit the offences he had later been found guilty of . This had breached the rule of law . There was , therefore , a bar to the criminal proceedings against him , which should have been discontinued .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as ill - founded . The decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . Relying , inter alia , on LAW and on the corresponding provisions of LAW , the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial . He argued that the undercover agents had incited him to commit drug offences which he would not have committed otherwise . The use of the evidence obtained thereby in the criminal proceedings against him had rendered these proceedings unfair .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint against the judgment of ORG and the decision of ORG without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s conditional release on DATE after the applicant had served CARDINAL of his sentence .


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

Dmitry Dedov;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in the town of GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder committed in a drunken rage . He was placed in temporary detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

On DATE ORG found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The judgment became final on DATE and the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in correctional colony no . CARDINAL .

Medical certificates submitted by the applicant indicate that in DATE he was admitted to the neurological department of the LOC hospital for in - patient treatment as he was suffering frequent seizures and loss of consciousness . He was diagnosed with episyndrome with vascular malformation in the right parietal lobe . In DATE he was again admitted to the hospital with severe headaches and seizures . Doctors confirmed the previous diagnoses of vascular malformation of the brain accompanied by episyndrome , and designated the applicant as category CARDINAL disabled . The applicant was not allowed to perform any physical activity or work other than “ light managerial work in a specially designated environment ” .

On admission to detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL the applicant complained to a prison doctor of frequent headaches . An examination resulted in his being diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia , encephalopathy with complex genesis , and chronic alcoholism . On DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist , who recorded his complaints of regular and lengthy epileptic seizures and prescribed treatment with anticonvulsants . Clinical blood tests and an X - ray examination showed that the applicant was not suffering from any infectious diseases .

In DATE a prison psychiatrist and medical assistant saw the applicant CARDINAL times in response to his complaints of insomnia , extreme irritability and disturbed emotional state . Having noted that close supervision was necessary , the doctor amended the applicant ’s treatment to include another anticonvulsant , a strong neuroleptic and a sedative .

A prison paramedic attended the applicant on QUANTITY occasions in DATE . The applicant ’s complaints intensified , to include not only severe headaches but insomnia and frequent and uncontrolled mood swings , with a depressed emotional state being quickly replaced by aggressive behaviour . The paramedic recorded that the applicant was making continual demands for a large number of drugs , in particular strong tranquillisers to fight insomnia , as the headaches only disappeared when the applicant was asleep . He introduced another anticonvulsant to the applicant ’s drug regimen and prescribed a strong tranquilliser .

NORP In DATE the applicant was seen DATE , by a psychiatrist or the head of the facility medical unit . The doctors registered extremely negative changes in the applicant ’s behaviour , numerous complaints , refusal to take medication and subsequent persistent demands for drugs , in particular neuroleptics and tranquillisers . Each time this was done a discussion on the negative consequences of interruption of the treatment followed . The side effects of the treatment with neuroleptics and tranquillisers were also explained to the applicant . Following these “ educational ” talks , as the psychiatrist called them , the applicant complained of severe headaches and requested an in - depth examination in a specialised prison hospital by medical specialists competent to deal with his medical condition , in particular a neurosurgeon . He also asked for a magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) brain scan . The applicant was notified that the penal institutions in the GPE region did not employ a neurosurgeon and that MRI scanning was not available free of charge . He continued to insist , however , on a transfer to a hospital and an MRI scan every time he saw a medical specialist . The officials’ response was to amend his drug regime , switching him from one neuroleptic to another and replacing one anticonvulsant with another one .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to detention facility no . CARDINAL in GPE . Having examined the applicant on his admission to the facility , a prison doctor recommended regular consultations with a psychiatrist and a drug addiction specialist . He also made recommendations in view of the applicant ’s emotional state , and prescribed injections with a new neuroleptic and a spasmolytic .

The applicant was examined by a psychiatrist and a drug addiction specialist during DATE following his admission to that detention facility , and the previous drug regime was reinstated . At the same time the drug addiction specialist noted the applicant ’s dependence on tranquillisers , particularly those which had served as the basis for his chemotherapy regime since his arrest . The drug addiction specialist recommended the applicant be admitted to a correctional colony medical facility for treatment .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the ORG prison hospital , where he remained until DATE . The applicant underwent a number of clinical blood and urine tests , X - ray examinations of the head and chest , an electrocardiogram ( ECG ) and ultrasound scanning of the abdominal area and kidneys . The tests and examinations did not reveal any pathology . He was also seen by a neurologist and an oculist . He was treated with piracetam , a neurometabolic stimulator , vitamins , analgesics , spasmolytics , sedatives and an antihypertensive drug . The applicant was discharged from the hospital in what the doctors considered a satisfactory condition .

Following his treatment in the hospital , the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . CARDINAL to serve his sentence . His first consultation with a psychiatrist took place DATE after his arrival in the colony . Following the applicant ’s complaints of severe headaches , insomnia , anxiety and irritation , the doctor recommended transfer to a prison medical facility for treatment for his alcoholism . That transfer was effected at DATE .

On DATE the applicant was seen by the head of the prison medical facility , to whom he stated that he refused to have treatment for his chronic alcoholism . The applicant insisted on being transferred back to the correctional colony , and asked for a medical expert examination .

DATE the applicant was examined by a medical panel comprising the head of the prison medical facility , a drug addiction specialist , a psychiatrist and a physician . The panel ’s conclusion was that the applicant required mandatory treatment for his chronic alcoholism , given that the illness was negatively affecting his behaviour , as well as his psychological state . In particular , the doctors recorded the applicant ’s continual attempts to obtain additional doses of tranquillisers as a sign of his dependency . The doctors lectured the applicant about the consequences of “ simulation and addiction ” . The applicant ’s medical record showed that he was seen by a number of specialists and underwent a number of clinical tests . He was released from the in - patient facility with a drug regime comprising tranquillisers , analgesics , neuroleptics and a hepatoprotector . He was discharged on the condition that he would be under close supervision by a psychiatrist and a drug addiction specialist .

The applicant continued to receive the psychotherapy , with prison officers and medical staff recording positive effects of the treatment , and noting that the applicant was adjusting rapidly to the conditions of the correctional colony and was complying with the detention regime .

NORP In DATE a prison psychiatrist reduced the applicant ’s drug regime to CARDINAL anticonvulsive drug and multivitamins . While his condition was considered moderately satisfactory , he continued to complain of headaches and occasional loss of consciousness . At the same time the applicant acknowledged that he had had no epileptic fits during the entire period of his treatment in the prison medical facility . In DATE the applicant ’s condition worsened and his complaints intensified , leading to the reintroduction of the drugs that he had been treated with in the prison medical facility . At the same time the colony authorities refused the applicant ’s requests to be transferred to the regional prison hospital for examinations , in particular an MRI brain scan , and treatment , considering that his condition could be appropriately treated with outpatient treatment in the colony . The only request from the applicant which was granted concerned the reintroduction of a tranquilliser into his drug regimen .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s complaints , which he had been making DATE , of a loss of consciousness , loss of appetite and very severe headaches , were heard in a consultation with a prison paramedic , who prescribed pain relief for the headaches , vitamins , an anticonvulsive drug and a herbal sedative . While it was noted that there were injuries on the applicant ’s face and body which could have supported his account of loss of consciousness and a resultant accidental fall , the paramedic described his behaviour as an attempt to manipulate and attract attention . In response , the rules of behaviour in penal institutions , the internal regulations of the facility he was in , and the aims of the medical treatment were all explained to him . In DATE the applicant was prescribed work and psychotherapy in addition to a course of medication .

The applicant suffered a relapse of his chronic pancreatitis and was sent to the regional prison hospital on DATE , where he underwent a series of clinical tests and examinations identical to those he had already had during his previous stay in the hospital . The applicant ’s diagnosis when he was discharged from the hospital on DATE was as follows : encephalopathy with a complex genesis with cephalgia syndrome , chronic pancreatitis , cholecystitis in remission , and alcohol dependency syndrome , aggravated by uncontrolled use of psychotropic drugs .

After he was transferred back to the medical correctional facility on his discharge from the hospital the applicant continued to complain of headaches , nausea , loss of consciousness , numbness in the arms and legs , fatigue and insomnia . The following DATE consisted of new rounds of complaints when the applicant demanded additional doses of tranquillisers , admission to the regional prison hospital and an MRI scan of the head , and the facility authorities treated his requests as coming from a drug addict and a manipulator . The doctors also concluded that he no longer needed treatment for alcohol addiction as he had been cured and had shown a clear intention to continue with a sober life . In the authorities’ opinion , that intention should have been strengthened through the prescribed work therapy and psychotherapy .

NORP In DATE the administration finally acceded to the applicant ’s request and sent an official letter to the GPE regional hospital requesting that he be admitted and receive an MRI scan . While waiting for a response , paramedics , on the recommendation of a psychiatrist who had seen the applicant at least once DATE , continued to amend his drug treatment , given that he was not responding well to treatment and his condition appeared to be deteriorating .

DATE and DATE the applicant suffered several epileptic fits , which again led to changes in his drug regimen . On DATE he was taken to the regional prison hospital for a complex expert examination . The hospital doctors , who employed identical methods of clinical examination and consultations with the same specialists as on the CARDINAL previous occasions , confirmed the diagnosis and recommended treatment with neurometabolic stimulators , piracetam and vitamins .

After he was discharged from hospital at DATE , the appliсant was seen at least once DATE by a prison medical officer or a psychiatrist ; following every consultation there was a change in his treatment , consisting either of the removal of a drug or the introduction of a new drug .

At DATE the applicant ’s condition deteriorated , and he was prescribed bed rest and increased doses of anticonvulsive drugs , sedatives and analgesics . With no sign that the prescribed treatment was working , he was sent back to the prison regional hospital at DATE . In addition to the usual procedures , treatment and examinations he had received in the hospital on previous occasions , he underwent an MRI brain scan . The MRI scan report was as follows : “ the ventricle system of [ the applicant ’s ] brain was moderately enlarged ; the outline of the sulci in the cerebral hemispheres was drastically sharpened ( degeneration ) ; extensive arterial venous malformation in the left side of the parietal lobe with the draining veins in the sagittal sinus ; frontal sinusitis on the right side ” .

DATE and DATE the applicant had a recurrence of his chronic pancreatitis , for which he received effective treatment in the correctional colony . He also did not cease to complain of headaches , emotional disturbance , fatigue and insomnia . His readmission to the regional prison hospital was the authorities’ response to his increasing complaints about his health . In the hospital the applicant received the usual medical attention and was released in “ a satisfactory state ” with the recommendation that treatment be continued with piracetam and neurometabolic stimulators . A short stay in the correctional colony was followed by his admission to the GPE ORG prison hospital at DATE . The applicant did not complete his examinations and treatment in that hospital , as he had broken the rules of the detention regime and had therefore been discharged from the hospital . At this time doctors recommended that the applicant be monitored and treated by a psychiatrist and that he also be treated with neurometabolic stimulators , vascular medication , vitamins , and behaviour modifiers .

On the recommendation of a colony psychiatrist who had seen the applicant DATE since his return from the GPE hospital , the applicant was admitted to the prison hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL , where he remained until DATE . The applicant was readmitted to the hospital slightly over DATE after being discharged . The usual medical procedures and examinations he had had on other occasions were supplemented by rheoencephalography , which showed negative changes in his cerebral blood flow . DATE after the applicant was discharged from the hospital at DATE , a colony psychiatrist recorded a deterioration of the applicant ’s condition . In DATE the applicant suffered an epileptic fit during a consultation with a psychiatrist . The latter described the fit in the applicant ’s medical record as accompanied by a lengthy loss of consciousness , convulsions and foaming at the mouth . The applicant was immediately taken to the medical unit of the correctional colony , where he received increased doses of sedatives , anticonvulsive drugs , hepatoprotectors , vitamins and neuroleptics . The applicant was discharged from in - patient care in the unit in DATE . The head of the colony medical unit discussed with the applicant the possibility of his being admitted to the NORP prison hospital in GPE for surgery .

The following DATE featured complaints by the applicant of deteriorating health and inability to stand the severe headaches he was suffering , and attempts by colony staff to give him relief with the range of drugs which had been included in his regimen since his arrest and first complaints of health problems .

In DATE the applicant ’s medical record , including the results of the MRI scan in DATE , was studied by the head of the medical unit of the correctional colony . His findings confirmed the rapid deterioration of the applicant ’s condition , which could no longer be addressed by medication alone . The head of the unit recommended the applicant be admitted to the regional hospital for an assessment as to whether he would benefit from surgery . DATE of treatment in the hospital with the usual chemotherapy regimen led , according to the medical record , to the applicant ’s condition becoming “ satisfactory ” . A rheoencephalography performed in the hospital showed further progress of the illness , with concomitant serious disturbance of the cerebral blood flow . The applicant was again admitted to the regional hospital , slightly over DATE after he was discharged . The hospital doctors changed his treatment , introducing new medication for relief of the headaches and for his emotional disorder and insomnia . When he was discharged from the hospital the applicant ’s condition was no longer described as “ satisfactory ” although the only recommendation was to maintain treatment of his symptoms .

During DATE the applicant made a very large number of complaints of headaches , stomach pain , nausea , insomnia and extreme emotional disturbance , to which the colony medical staff responded by conducting visual examinations , which were carried out by the head of the colony medical unit , a prison physician or a prison paramedic , and by prescribing drugs to arrest the negative symptoms of the illness . The drugs were alternated so as to switch between CARDINAL anticonvulsant and another , and new sedatives and neuroleptics were introduced . On DATE the applicant had to take CARDINAL different drugs at a time . The medical officers made notes in the applicant ’s records , detailing , in addition to his complaints , the results of the visual examinations , stating that he was “ slow ” , and that his reactions and responses were “ sluggish ” . On several occasions he was prescribed bed rest .

In DATE the applicant suffered an epileptic fit and was taken immediately to the colony medical unit , carried there by his cellmates . A prison medical assistant who examined him recommended continuing with the treatment . She also found it necessary for the applicant to be seen by a psychiatrist . DATE the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital in the correctional colony . For the first time the applicant was subjected to an electroencephalogram ( EEG ) . He was treated with the CARDINAL usual drugs , including an anticonvulsant and a strong neuroleptic , and was prematurely discharged from the hospital . According to the medical record , the discharge was a consequence of the applicant ’s behaving “ incorrectly ” towards a hospital official .

On DATE he lodged a request with ORG for suspension of his sentence in view of the state of his health . The applicant argued that he was suffering from extremely severe headaches and that his seizures were becoming more and more frequent . He also complained that he was unable to receive the medical assistance he needed , including brain surgery , in detention , and asked the court to authorise a forensic medical examination to “ determine the nature and severity of the brain damage ” in preparation for subsequent surgery , as well as to call a neurosurgeon from a civilian hospital to interpret the MRI scans of his head .

On DATE the parties were heard in ORG , which ruled that it was necessary to send the applicant to a prison hospital for a medical examination to determine whether the state of his health warranted his release .

On DATE the applicant was readmitted to the hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL , where he was assessed by a medical expert panel to determine whether he was suffering from an illness which was serious enough to warrant his early release . The panel concluded that the applicant could not be released on health grounds as he was not suffering from an illness on the List of Illnesses Precluding the Serving of Custodial Sentences , as adopted by a Government decree in DATE .

ORG received the medical panel ’s report and on DATE dismissed the applicant ’s request for suspension of the sentence . It held as follows :

“ The opinion of the special medical panel on the medical examination of [ the applicant ] performed on DATE ... establishes the following diagnosis : organic emotionally labile personality disorder connected with mixed illnesses ( dyscirculatory vascular malformation , epilepsy with rare seizures , moderate alcohol dependence syndrome in the stage of forced remission ) . By virtue of paragraph CARDINAL of the List of Illnesses Precluding the Serving of Custodial Sentences ... [ the applicant ] can not be relieved from serving the remaining part of his sentence .

Having considered the opinion of the special medical panel on the medical examination of [ the applicant ] , [ and ] the nature of his illness , the court finds that treatment of the illness can be ensured in detention . Moreover , taking into account the information provided on [ the applicant ’s ] personality , the nature of the criminal offence of which he was convicted and which is considered particularly serious , [ and ] the references given [ on the applicant ] at the place of his former residence , the court considers that at the present time the aim of [ the applicant ’s ] improvement has not been reached and , if his sentence is to be suspended and he is to be released from detention he would present a danger to society [ and ] may reoffend . ”

On DATE ORG upheld that decision , finding ORG reasoning convincing and well - founded .

In the meantime , the applicant was discharged from the hospital and sent back to the correctional colony , only to be returned to the hospital DATE , in DATE . When the applicant was discharged from the hospital it was with the recommendation that an MRI scan of the head be arranged by his correctional colony . That recommendation was complied with in DATE . Medical specialists noted negative developments on the scan and stated that the applicant should consult a neurosurgeon .

NORP For DATE of his stay in correctional colony no . CARDINAL after his return from the hospital the applicant continued to complain of severe headaches , epileptic seizures , nausea and insomnia . Those complaints were heard by a prison paramedic or a prison psychiatrist and amendments were made to his chemotherapy regimen .

In DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG asking for medical assistance . He provided the ORG with an extract from his medical record issued by ORG and a letter from the acting director of ORG . The first document showed that the applicant required permanent supervision by a neurologist and regular MRI scans of the head . The letter from the acting director of ORG indicated that the applicant was in need of “ surgery in a specialised federal centre ” and that the medical facilities in GPE were not equipped to perform such an operation . The acting director also noted in the letter that he had informed ORG ( hereinafter “ the Service ” ) about the applicant ’s state of health and that the surgery was required .

In response to the applicant ’s request to be sent to the NORP prison hospital in GPE where he could have brain surgery , on DATE the director of the ORG informed him that there was no medical need for surgery .

On DATE the director of the NORP hospital sent a letter to the head of correctional colony no . CARDINAL , the relevant part of which read as follows :

“ In response to your request ... of CARDINAL DATE [ I ] inform you that [ the applicant ] ... can not be transferred to [ the NORP hospital ] for in - patient treatment , as the surgery in the present case is of a high - tech nature and [ the hospital ] does not have the necessary equipment to perform it at the present time . ”

The applicant was admitted to the prison hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL , where he was again seen by an oculist , a neurologist and a psychiatrist , underwent clinical blood and urine tests , ultrasound scanning of the abdominal area , ORG and ORG testing , and received the usual course of drug therapy . The ORG test showed a further negative dynamic in the applicant ’s condition in comparison to the results of the previous ORG test in DATE . He was discharged from the hospital at DATE but was readmitted in DATE . He was provided during his stay with the same range of medical services as before .

In DATE a medical panel stripped the applicant of his disability status , considering that his vital functions were not affected by his illness .

In DATE the applicant submitted another request for suspension of the sentence on the grounds of his state of health . He insisted that his health was continuing to deteriorate and that the prison facilities did not have the capability to perform the brain surgery which he needed .

Having studied the medical evidence , including the reports by the medical panel and the applicant ’s medical history , on DATE ORG concluded that the applicant ’s state of health did not warrant his release and that his treatment could be ensured by prison medical staff . ORG also noted that “ an issue pertaining to surgery is at the discussion stage ” .

On DATE the ORG confirmed ORG conclusions in its decision of DATE . ORG reasoning was as follows :

“ The material in [ the applicant ’s ] case file indicates that he had the same health problems before he committed the murder , so [ the state of his health ] did not prevent him from committing a particularly serious criminal offence .

The conclusions of the medical panel indicate that [ the applicant ’s ] illness does not preclude him from serving the sentence . He receives the required treatment in detention . As regards the surgery , this question is at the decision stage and , if agreed to , [ the applicant ’s ] request [ for the suspension of the sentence ] will be examined again in compliance with the requirements of the law in force . ”

In DATE the applicant ’s treatment consisted of a combination of consultations with colony medical staff and provision of drug treatment for his symptoms , during which time he made a large number of complaints of poor health . Until DATE the consultations took place DATE with a prison paramedic . In DATE the applicant was seen once by the head of the colony medical unit , once by a psychiatrist , and once by a physician from the prison hospital .

In the meantime , in DATE ORG sent the applicant ’s record , including the record of the MRI brain scan performed in DATE , to the director of ORG in GPE . Specialists from that institute were asked to develop a plan for the applicant ’s treatment . Having examined the applicant ’s medical file , a doctor from the ORG concluded that the applicant was in need of supervision by a neurologist and required amendments to the anticonvulsive treatment he was receiving . He also noted that the applicant did not need radiotherapy . The applicant was not seen by a neurologist or neurosurgeon in DATE .

In DATE a neurologist invited by the applicant ’s mother visited the applicant . He recorded the applicant ’s complaints of a severe “ burning ” pain in the left temporal region of the head and a general continuous pressing ache in the entire head , dizziness , nausea , fatigue , numbness in the legs , occasional loss of consciousness , insomnia , irritation , memory loss , feelings of fear , and panic attacks . Having confirmed the progress of the illness following a visual examination and a number of tests , the neurologist recommended consultations with a neurosurgeon and an angiosurgeon to draw up a schedule for his surgical treatment . He expanded the applicant ’s drug regimen to include various sedatives , anticonvulsive drugs and neuroleptics , and recommended a number of examinations and tests , including an MRI heart scan and ORG tests .

There is no evidence in the applicant ’s medical record that any of the neurologist ’s recommendations were complied with . The medical record indicates that colony staff provided the applicant with only some of the drugs prescribed by the neurologist . He continued to be supervised by prison paramedics at the correctional colony .