No 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 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Otwock .

The applicant was arrested on DATE .

On DATE the Jarosław ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody on suspicion that , together with CARDINAL accomplices , he had attempted to extort money from GPE and PERSON by depriving the alleged victims of their liberty and threatening to kill them .

Subsequently , the applicant ’s detention on remand was extended by the Jarosław ORG on DATE and DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . ORG appeals brought by the applicant against those decisions were rejected .

The Jarosław ORG justified its decisions to impose and , later , to extend the preventive measure with reference to the strong evidence against the applicant , the severe punishment which was likely to be imposed if he was convicted and the risk that he would abscond or go into hiding if released . In the domestic court ’s opinion , the latter risk was real in the light of the fact that in the past , the applicant had rarely lived at his permanent address .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The period which he had already spent in detention , namely DATE , DATE ( from DATE until DATE ) , was deducted from his sentence .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court .

The applicant ’s detention was continued by ORG on DATE and the ORG on DATE and DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

At this stage of the proceedings the domestic courts referred to the original grounds for the applicant ’s detention . They also noted that the trial was pending and that delays had occurred for reasons not attributable to the court .

ORG appeals against those decisions were rejected , as were requests for release lodged by the applicant and his lawyer .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The time which he had already spent in detention , namely DATE , DATE and DATE ( from DATE to DATE ) , was deducted from his sentence .

On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment in respect of the applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal .

NORP Throughout the entire proceedings the applicant was represented by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice .

The applicant did not lodge any complaint about the length of these proceedings under LAW of DATE on complaints of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “ the CARDINAL Act ” )

On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody on the grounds that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery and deprived the victims of their liberty . The court also considered that the measure was justified by the severity of the punishment which was likely to be imposed if he was convicted and the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings . The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal . On DATE the ORG upheld the detention order .

The applicant lodged several applications for release . He claimed that his mother suffered from a “ back illness ” and required his personal care . All those applications were dismissed , both at first instance and on appeal .

On DATE the ORG ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) lodged an indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused , charging them with armed robbery and false imprisonment . At that stage the prosecutor ordered that CARDINAL witnesses be heard .

Subsequently , the applicant ’s detention on remand was extended by ORG on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and on DATE . CARDINAL of these decisions were upheld by ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

The domestic courts referred to the same grounds as previously , noting that prior to his arrest the applicant had not lived at his permanent address and that his whereabouts were unknown . It was also observed that the trial had still not begun because the applicant had challenged the judges who would be hearing his case .

On DATE ORG dismissed a request by the applicant for release .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant ’s case was severed from that of his coaccused , to be dealt with in a different trial .

The first hearing was scheduled for DATE but was ultimately adjourned . The subsequent hearing was likewise adjourned .

Subsequently , ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention on DATE and DATE . The earlier decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

The courts reiterated the grounds previously given for the applicant ’s continued detention , also noting that there was a real risk that he would obstruct the proceedings if released in the light of the fact that many of his alleged accomplices were still at large .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the trial court held the first CARDINAL hearings in the case and on DATE it ordered that the applicant undergo psychiatric observation .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on remand . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . Both courts referred to the original grounds , also noting that the applicant ’s case had not yet reached the trial stage since proceedings against him before a different criminal court were pending at the time and there was a need to obtain an expert report which , in turn , required him to undergo psychiatric observation in a specialist institution .

On DATE the ORG rejected an application by the applicant to have his detention on remand replaced with a different preventive measure .

On DATE , as the period of the applicant ’s detention on remand was approaching DATE , the trial court lodged an application with an appellate court under LAW of LAW ( Kodeks postępowania karnego hereinafter , “ the LAW ” ) , seeking to extend the preventive measure for DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) declared that it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the applicant ’s remand file to ORG .

The appellate court referred to the uniform and well - established line of interpretation given to LAW by ORG . It reiterated that the statutory time - limit of DATE for detention on remand was considered to run only in so far as a person had been effectively deprived of his or her liberty in the particular case in the framework of which the preventive measure had been applied ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

The appellate court concluded that since the applicant had been deprived of his liberty , either on remand or after conviction , from DATE in the first criminal case , the term of his “ effective detention on remand ” in the second criminal case had not yet begun .

On DATE ORG once more extended the applicant ’s detention . On DATE the ORG upheld that decision . Both courts held that the CARDINAL original grounds for the applicant ’s detention and the need for him to undergo psychiatric observation were sufficient to extend the preventive measure in question even though the proceedings had not yet reached the trial stage . In addition , the second - instance court addressed the arguments which had been raised in an interlocutory appeal brought by the applicant against ORG decision . To that effect , ORG reiterated the view of ORG that the applicant ’s detention on remand was not effective because he had been first deprived of his liberty within the framework of the first criminal case . It also considered that only the most severe preventive measure and not bail , as the applicant had suggested , could ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pending the enforcement of the court ’s decision of DATE ordering the applicant to undergo psychiatric observation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal brought by him against this decision . It was observed that he could not at that stage be placed under psychiatric observation because his presence was necessary in the court before which his other criminal case was pending and because that court had not authorised the measure .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG once again extended the applicant ’s detention on remand , referring to the risk that he might attempt to obstruct the proceedings if released .

On DATE the ORG quashed that decision and ordered the applicant ’s release from custody . The court found that the grounds for his detention were no longer valid in the light of the fact that the proceedings had been stayed .

The Government submitted that on DATE the applicant had actually been released to his home . He on the other hand maintained that he had remained in custody as he had concurrently been in detention on remand in connection with his first criminal trial , pending at the time before GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG barred the applicant from leaving the territory of GPE .

On DATE the ORG ordered that the applicant undergo psychiatric observation in the psychiatric wing of ORG .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings in the applicant ’s case in view of that decision and the fact that the psychiatric observation could be scheduled to start in DATE . On the same date the court again remanded him in custody on the grounds that the evidence showed a significant probability that he had committed armed robbery . It also had regard to the severity of the punishment that could be expected and the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal brought by the applicant against this decision . The appellate court acknowledged that the applicant had not to date attempted to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings . Nevertheless , the likelihood that a severe punishment would be imposed if he were convicted was considered to be sufficient reason for his continued detention .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for the preventive measure to be changed . On DATE the court dismissed his request .

On DATE ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention on remand . The court gave the argument that strong evidence had been obtained against him , that it was likely that a severe sentence would be imposed in the case , and that , if released , he would attempt to persuade witnesses to give false evidence or would , by other unlawful means , try to obstruct the proceedings , especially in the light of the fact that the psychiatric observation was underway .

Appealing against the latter decision , the applicant ’s lawyer argued that his client had already been detained for DATE and that ORG did not have jurisdiction to decide on the preventive measure . Moreover , it was argued that since the applicant had never attempted to obstruct the proceedings , there was no risk that he would try to do so in the current stage of the case .

On DATE the ORG dismissed that appeal . It was observed that the actual period of the applicant ’s detention on remand in the case in question had not reached DATE because he had been concurrently deprived of his liberty in the framework of the first set of criminal proceedings . As to the grounds for extending his detention on remand , the appellate court held that , even though he had not attempted to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings , the likelihood that a severe punishment would be imposed if he were to be convicted was sufficient reason to uphold the preventive measure in question .

On DATE ORG again decided to extend the applicant ’s detention on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery and the severity of the punishment that could be expected . This decision was upheld on DATE by ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected a request by the applicant for release , relying on the same grounds as in the decision described above .

Subsequently , the applicant ’s detention on remand was extended by ORG on DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE . The decisions were upheld by ORG on DATE , on an unspecified date and on DATE and DATE respectively .

All the decisions in question were based on the grounds that there was strong evidence against the applicant , that a severe punishment would be imposed if he were convicted and , since the court proceedings were only at the initial stage , that if released , he would attempt to persuade witnesses to give false evidence or , by other unlawful means , obstruct the proper course of the proceedings . It was also stressed in the earlier decisions that the trial court had not yet started its examination of the applicant ’s case on the merits .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The period he had already spent in detention on remand , namely DATE and DATE ( from DATE until DATE ) , was deducted from his sentence . The remainder of his incarceration was considered to have comprised the prison sentence which had been imposed by the Jarosław ORG in the separate criminal case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

It appears that the first - instance court held DATE and adjourned CARDINAL hearings . It decided applications by the applicant challenging the judges , opposing the psychiatric observation and requesting a fresh examination of the case .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case to the first - instance court , ordering it to gather additional evidence .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention . That decision was upheld on DATE . The domestic courts considered that the actual period of detention on remand in the framework of the second case had only started running on DATE , when he was no longer deprived of his liberty in connection with the first criminal case . The courts also referred to the CARDINAL original grounds for the applicant ’s continued detention , namely a reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery and the severity of the punishment that could be expected . In the courts’ view , the latter element in turn created a presumption that the applicant would attempt to obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings if released .

On DATE the ORG fully adhered to the reasoning of the first - instance court and upheld the above - mentioned decision .

DATE . On DATE the case was transferred to ORG as the competent court because , in the meantime , the charges against the applicant had been modified .

Pending trial the applicant ’s detention was extended by ORG on DATE and DATE , on an unspecified date and on CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The decisions were upheld by ORG .

The domestic courts reiterated the original grounds for the applicant ’s detention on remand and stressed that the preventive measure in question had not lasted DATE , regard being had to the fact that from DATE to DATE he had been serving a prison sentence imposed in the first set of criminal proceedings .

The first hearing took place on DATE .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It appears that the court held CARDINAL hearings in the case . The period the applicant had already spent in detention on remand , namely DATE , DATE and DATE ( from DATE until DATE ) was deducted from his sentence .

On DATE ORG quashed that judgment , lifted the preventive measure and remitted the case to the lower courts . The following day the applicant was released from the remand centre . He has remained at liberty ever since .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant on a number of charges and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It held CARDINAL hearings in the case . DATE of the applicant ’s detention on remand ( from DATE to DATE ) were deducted from his sentence . It appears that he was not ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On an unspecified date before DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .

The applicant did not wish to take his case to ORG , believing that a cassation appeal would not have any prospects of success .

He did not lodge a complaint about the length of the second set of criminal proceedings under the CARDINAL Act .

On DATE the applicant made a constitutional complaint ( skarga konstytucyjna ) under LAW , read in conjunction with LAW of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , asking for Article CARDINAL § § DATE of the Code ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to be declared unconstitutional ( ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . He alleged that the provision infringed , inter alia , the right to personal inviolability and security under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . On DATE the applicant finalised his complaint .

The applicant challenged CARDINAL aspects of Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

Firstly , he alleged that Article QUANTITY and CARDINAL were unconstitutional in so far as , under the legal principle ( zasada prawna ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , they concerned only effective detention on remand , that is to say only the actual period of deprivation of liberty on the basis of a detention decision issued in a particular case because they denied a detainee sufficient protection of his liberty if he had earlier been convicted or otherwise deprived of his liberty on the basis of decisions issued in another set of proceedings .

Secondly , the applicant challenged Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL in so far as it defined a maximum statutory period for the length of detention on remand only until the delivery of a first judgment by the trial court . Consequently , people such as him who remained in detention while their criminal proceedings were pending de novo after the quashing of the first judgment of the first - instance trial court , were not protected against unreasonably lengthy detention on remand . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code was silent in that respect and because of that , the authorities could extend the preventive measure for an indefinite period following the quashing of the first judgment of a trial court .

On DATE the ORG joined the proceedings , asking that LAW of the Code be declared unconstitutional in so far as it left a legal loophole which was filled in by an erroneously developed wellestablished court practice not to include in the calculation of the statutory DATE period of detention on remand ( prior to the first judgment of the first - instance court ) periods of the detainee ’s concurrent deprivation of liberty on the basis of a criminal sentence .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the application under section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , which provided for such a possibility in the event a ruling was considered to be redundant ( zbędne ) .

It was observed that , despite the obvious differences in scope , the essence of the first part of the applicant ’s complaint , concerning Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had already been examined on the merits by ORG in case no . ORG CARDINAL . The provision had been declared unconstitutional in so far as it was interpreted to the effect that the statutory maximum period of DATE allowed for a person ’s detention on remand prior to the first judgment of the first - instance court had not comprised the term of the prison sentence the detainee was serving in another case , concurrently to his detention on remand , thus allowing for an extension of the preventive measure beyond DATE by a first - instance court on general grounds ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

In connection with the second part of the complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG held that the applicant did not have the standing to challenge LAW of the Code because this provision had not been applicable to his detention in the relevant period . The preventive measure in question had been extended during the proceedings which had been pending before the first - instance court de novo , after the original judgment had been quashed by the appellate court . In these circumstances , the legal basis for extending the applicant ’s detention was Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant informed the NORP prosecutor ’s office about an offence allegedly committed by staff of ORG . He claimed that they had been selling alcohol , cigarettes and drugs to prisoners . On DATE the Przemyśl prosecutor ’s office discontinued the criminal investigation against the alleged culprits . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

When , on DATE , the applicant lodged his application with the ORG he had been detained on remand in relation to the first and second sets of criminal proceedings against him . On DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL and DATE he sent letters to his defence lawyer , PERSON The envelopes bear the stamp “ LOC ” and a handwritten note stating “ censored on ... ” ( ocenzurowano dn . ) .

DATE . On DATE ORG discontinued criminal proceedings against several judges of ORG who , in the applicant ’s view , had monitored his correspondence with his lawyer . The court held that none of the individuals concerned had opened and read the applicant ’s correspondence . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . The court found that the applicant ’s correspondence had not been read and the words “ censored ” had been automatically stamped on the applicant ’s letters .

On DATE , ORG received its first letter from the applicant , dated DATE . The envelope bears the stamp “ GPE ORG ” and a handwritten note stating “ Censored on CARDINAL DATE ” ( ORG dn . DATE ) .

On DATE ORG received another letter from the applicant , dated DATE . It was delivered in an envelope bearing the stamp “ GPE ORG ” and a handwritten note stating “ Censored on DATE ” ( ORG dn . CARDINAL VII CARDINAL ) .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON , a legal person , concluded a lease contract concerning the property of the latter party .

The applicant apparently breached his contractual obligations and failed to pay the DATE rental fees between DATE and DATE .

After several unsuccessful deadline extensions and requests for payment , PERSON terminated the lease contract with immediate effect on DATE .

NORP In DATE Pápa és PERSON lodged a compensation claim with ORG against the applicant .

The first - instance court found for the plaintiff and ordered the applicant to pay the overdue rental fees ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and accrued interests to the plaintiff .

On appeal , ORG upheld the judgment on DATE .

The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG , which rejected it on DATE . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

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


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 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

André Potocki;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority;Reasonable suspicion;Reasonably necessary to prevent offence);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)

Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

An GPE - GPE summit was scheduled for CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE to take place in GPE . On DATE the applicant was travelling to PERSON to take part in the opposition rally “ DATE of Dissent ” which had been organised to coincide with the summit . He was accompanied by several activists who were also travelling to the rally . At TIME the applicant and his fellow activists arrived at Terminal CARDINAL of PERSON airport , GPE , and attempted to check in for a flight to PERSON ( flight no . PERSON ) . The parties have submitted different versions of events as to what then happened . Each version is set out below .

ORG The applicant submits that , when he presented his passport for identity check , police officer A. seized the passport and the ticket . The applicant was required to leave the check - in area and to follow officer PERSON was taken to a police office on the second floor of the airport . CARDINAL other persons from his group were escorted from the check - in hall in the same manner .

At TIME the applicant and the CARDINAL others were ordered to remain on the second floor of the airport and were informed that they would have to be questioned as to how they had purchased their allegedly forged tickets .

At TIME the operative duty police officer from ORG ) , Captain PERSON , questioned the applicant as to where he had bought his ticket . The applicant replied that his ticket had been purchased lawfully and refused to give any further explanation , relying on his constitutional right to remain silent . He maintains that he was under orders not to leave and that he was prevented from leaving the police office by an armed policeman who was guarding the doorway . The applicant remained at the police station until TIME

The applicant has submitted CARDINAL documents in support of his version of events .

The first is a copy of the record ( протокол ) of search and confiscation completed by Captain PERSON It records that the applicant was searched and his aeroplane ticket confiscated , in accordance with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences ( see relevant domestic law at CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . At the bottom of the record , the applicant has written that it had been explained to him that the search and seizure could be appealed to a higher authority and that , while the record had been handed to him at TIME , the actual seizure of the ticket by officer A. had taken place at TIME at the check - in desk .

The second is a pro forma statement ( объяснение ) , filled in by Captain PERSON In it , he records that he began filling out the statement at CARDINAL p.m. and finished at TIME , and that , when asked , the applicant refused to given an explanation for the ticket . On the statement the applicant has written that the ticket was obtained legally and that , relying on LAW ( the right against self - incrimination ) he refused to give any further explanation because he had been detained illegally in the departure hall without explanation . He has also written that , from TIME until TIME , he had been deprived of his freedom of movement , and that no documents had been provided to him until then .

The third is a handwritten declaration made by the applicant and CARDINAL others while at the airport . It reads :

“ We , the undersigned , state that DATE , CARDINAL DATE , at FAC [ terminal ] CARDINAL we were prevented from taking flight CARDINAL to PERSON because [ officer PERSON ] seized our tickets at the check - in desk .

At present we are at the airport building under the surveillance of the police officers , with our passports confiscated .

At CARDINAL police officers [ A. ] , [ C. ] and [ S. ] categorically prohibited us to leave the second floor of the airport .

At the same time , they indicated that we have to provide an explanation to the police officers because some tickets were allegedly forged .

As of CARDINAL we are still detained in the hall of the airport without any documents being provided to us .

( signed ) ”

The Government submitted that , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG ’s PERSON airport branch received information on forged tickets being sold for DATE PERSON flight . On DATE , officers from the branch , acting on that information , were present at checkin and examined the tickets of all passengers on the flight . In the course of their checks , CARDINAL tickets bearing signs of forgery were found : they had worn spots and the forms on which the tickets were printed appear dubious . Those tickets were confiscated and the passengers who had presented them were prevented from boarding . The tickets were subsequently sent for forensic examination , which showed CARDINAL tickets with signs of writing on top of the original text .

As regards the applicant ’s allegations , the Government commented that their records indicated that his ticket for the flight had been seized but there was no record of his passport also being seized . If it had been , the applicant would have been able to make a written comment to that effect in the search record which had been drawn up by the police , but he had not done so . Under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the police had the right to seek an explanation from the applicant regarding the ticket , and he had been invited to provide one . The applicant ’s allegation that he was questioned from TIME to TIME was not supported by the police records .

The applicant complained to ORG about having been unlawfully detained by the police and requested that those responsible be prosecuted .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office decided not to open criminal proceedings against the policemen . The decision stated , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ... on DATE the [ police ] together with the PERSON airport security service carried out a check of the passengers leaving on the flight no . CARDINAL , GPE – PERSON . During the check [ they ] discovered QUANTITY tickets with traces of forgery , which were seized . Later [ the police ] conducted an inquiry under Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

When questioned , [ officer A. ] stated that on CARDINAL DATE at TIME he received operative information that some forged tickets had been sold for the GPE - Samara flight leaving on DATE [ ... ]

On DATE he verified this information by checking all ORG tickets [ ... ] for that flight .

... CARDINAL plane tickets were found to have traces of forgery , such as scuff marks , and also the ticket blanks used for printing the tickets were suspicious .

[ The police ] seized the tickets and removed the passengers from the flight . [ A. ] wrote a report concerning these facts ... after that , the materials were sent to the [ PERSON police unit ] .

When questioned , the Head of the Operational - Search Unit of ORG , [ S. ] , stated that , on DATE , on the occasion of the high - profile summit in PERSON the policemen of ORG of the GPE branch of ORG , together with its subordinate units in the airports of the GPE region , carried out operational search activities to identify persons of an extremist nature intending to organise mass riots .

In this connection , the police carried out checks on persons leaving for PERSON . On DATE [ S. ] , together with [ the operative officer PERSON ] arrived at the PERSON airport , where , at TIME , check - in began for flight no.CARDINAL GPE – Samara . Together with the [ airport security screening service ] they checked all passengers , which included screening their luggage with special equipment and checking their documents . During the check some [ officers ] noticed that tickets of certain passengers had additional non - standard notes , and , when inspected , these tickets raised doubts as to their authenticity . Because of that , CARDINAL suspected forged tickets were seized and the passengers were questioned about the circumstances of their purchase . Moreover , several passengers decided not to fly , without explaining why . On DATE similar checks were conducted for other flights to PERSON .

The [ sales director of the airline ] confirmed that the tickets were issued and sold [ in a normal manner ] .

An expert examination of the CARDINAL seized tickets ... revealed that CARDINAL tickets had no corrections of the original content . For CARDINAL of the tickets , the examination revealed that secondary text had been added on top of the original text in the fields ‘ flight ORG and ‘ time’ .

Therefore , the inquiry has established that [ the policemen ] had acted within their powers and with sufficient grounds when seizing the tickets of the passengers for flight no.CARDINAL GPE – Samara .

Held :

To refuse the institution of criminal proceedings further to the complaint about the commission of criminal offences of [ abuse of powers ] and [ exceeding official powers ] by the [ CARDINAL policemen involved ] for absence of corpus delicti . ”

The applicant challenged this decision before a court under the procedure set out in LAW . He requested that the decision dispensing with criminal proceedings be declared unlawful and that the prosecutor ’s office be ordered to remedy the shortcomings in it .

On DATE the ORG of GPE examined and rejected the applicant ’s appeal . It noted that the applicant had complained to the prosecutor ’s office about his TIME detention and about the seizure of his ticket to PERSON . It also observed that the applicant had challenged the prosecutor ’s refusal to open criminal proceedings claiming , inter alia , that the police had unlawfully restricted his liberty and in violation of his right to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly . It also noted that the applicant had claimed that he had been deprived of his constitutional rights by the prosecutor ’s office .

The court considered that the prosecutor ’s office had taken its decision in accordance with the procedure provided for by law and remained within its competence while doing so . It upheld the finding that no criminal offence could be imputed to the police officers in question . The court found the applicant ’s allegations about the unlawfulness of the ticket seizure to be unsubstantiated , finding that the seizure had been carried out in accordance with ORG and CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court further found that the applicant had been taken to the airport police quarters to provide an explanation for the purchase of his ticket . He had not been “ isolated ” at the police station . Therefore , there had been no grounds for applying the TIME time - limit for the application of preventative measures in administrative offences cases ( as provided for by LAW ) , or for the drawing up of a detention report ( протокол о задержании ) .

NORP The court concluded that the prosecutor ’s decision was lawful and well - founded .

The applicant brought a cassation appeal against that decision . He claimed that the measures applied to him were contrary to LAW , and that there had been violations of his constitutional rights to liberty , freedom of expression and freedom of assembly .

On DATE ORG examined and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It noted that the subject matter of the applicant ’s appeal to court had been the lawfulness of the prosecutor ’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the officers who had allegedly violated his constitutional rights . It upheld the decision not to institute criminal proceedings as correct in substance and form . It further held that the alleged breach by the police offices of statutory detention limits were outside the scope of the first - instance court ’s [ power of ] review .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);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 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Lakha - Varanda , GPE .

On DATE P. caused a traffic accident while driving and damaged the applicant ’s car . According to P. , the applicant threatened him , asking for cash for his car ’s repair .

On DATE P. reported the applicant to the regional police department for combatting organised crime . The police decided to run a special operation to arrest the applicant . They gave P. CARDINAL,CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) and MONEY ( RUB ) in marked notes . At TIME several police officers arrived at a car market where PERSON worked . At TIME the applicant entered ORG ’s office . P. met the applicant and gave him the money he had received from the police . Immediately thereafter , the policemen arrested the applicant . According to the police officers , the applicant resisted the arrest and they had to handcuff him . The applicant was then taken to the regional police department for combatting organised crime . At TIME the policemen searched the applicant and found heroin on him . Lay witnesses PERSON and NORP were present during the search . The applicant alleged that it was the police officers who had planted the drug on him .

At TIME on DATE police captain PERSON drew up an administrative arrest record , according to which the applicant had “ failed to comply with the policemen ’s legitimate request to present his identification document , resisted them and tried to abscond ” . No legal assistance was made available to the applicant .

On DATE at TIME investigator PERSON from the town police department opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of illegal drug possession . At TIME she drew up a criminal arrest record .

On DATE the ORG authorised the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . The court noted as follows :

“ As is apparent from the evidential material submitted , [ the applicant ] is suspected of having committed a serious offence and he has a prior criminal record . If released , he might abscond and interfere with [ administration of justice ] . ”

The applicant appealed , noting that he had been arrested by the police DATE before the record of his arrest was prepared and that ORG had failed to take his fact into consideration . He also argued that ORG had ignored the fact that he had a permanent place of residence in GPE , that he had been the sole provider for CARDINAL minor children and his wife , that he was in DATE of study by correspondence at a higher educational establishment and that he had employment . Nor had the prosecutor furnished any evidence disclosing the applicant ’s intent to abscond or to interfere with the administration of justice . Lastly , he noted that the arrest order did not indicate a time - limit for his detention .

On DATE ORG upheld the arrest order of DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :

“ As is apparent from the evidential material submitted , [ the applicant ] is charged with a serious offence and has a prior criminal record . Accordingly , if released , he might abscond and interfere with [ administration of justice ] . ”

“ Taking into account the fact that [ the applicant ] is charged with a serious offence which he committed whilst on parole , that he has a prior criminal record and that he might abscond , continue his criminal activities , and interfere with the administration of justice , it is necessary that [ the applicant ] remain in custody . ”

On DATE ORG set the trial - date for DATE . The court also ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending examination of the case and noted as follows :

“ ... According to the material submitted by the prosecutor , [ the applicant ] had been previously convicted . He is charged with ORG ] ... offence classified as particularly serious ... . ... The court considers that , if released , [ the applicant ] might abscond . Furthermore , [ the applicant ’s ] release might interfere with the comprehensive and objective examination of the evidence . Accordingly , the measure of restraint previously imposed on [ the applicant ] can not be lifted . ”

On DATE ORG opened the trial .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE noting as follows :

“ Having heard the parties’ arguments , the court concludes that , in view of the fact that [ the applicant ] is charged with a ... grievous offence ... which he committed whilst on parole , the court considers that , if released , he might abscond or continue criminal activities . Furthermore , the [ applicant ’s ] release might interfere with the comprehensive and objective examination of the case . Accordingly , ... the detention imposed on [ the applicant ] can not be lifted . ”

On DATE ORG returned the case file to the prosecutor ’s office for rectification of certain omissions and extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and noted that the latter was charged with having committed a serious offence whilst released on parole .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On an unspecified date the prosecutor ’s office returned the case file to ORG .

On DATE ORG opened the trial . On DATE the applicant studied the material in the case file at the court - house . He tore several pages out of the case file and burnt them .

During the subsequent hearings the court heard evidence from a certain PERSON , police officers And . , Rom . , GPE , PERSON , and PERSON who had taken part in the applicant ’s arrest − the head of the police unit PERSON . , lay witness NORP − who had been present when the applicant was searched on DATE − and forensic expert PERSON , who had run a laboratory test on the heroin found on the applicant .

On DATE and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant received repeated reprimands from the presiding judge for making threats and insulting persons present in the courtroom . The judge warned the applicant that he might be removed from the courtroom for continuing with such disruptive behaviour .

On DATE the director of the company that provided the interpreters for the trial complained to the court that the applicant had threatened the interpreters who had earlier taken part in the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant refused to leave the remand prison to attend a trial hearing . The hearing was adjourned .

On DATE the court held the last trial hearing . The presiding judge confirmed the presence of the parties and witnesses . L. , a police officer who had been in charge of the operation leading to the applicant ’s arrest on DATE , appeared for questioning . The applicant insulted the witness . The presiding judge reprimanded the applicant and warned him that he would be removed from the courtroom if he persisted with his disruptive behaviour . The applicant started talking in GPE . The interpreter refused to interpret and asked the court to relieve him of his duties . The presiding judge informed the parties that the interpreters who had earlier taken part in the proceedings had decided to refuse further engagement in view of the insults and threats made by the applicant . The applicant talked back to the judge in NORP . The interpreter refused to interpret into NORP . The presiding judge again reprimanded the applicant and warned him about his possible removal from the courtroom . The presiding judge presented the report from the remand prison management stating that on DATE the applicant had refused to be transported from the remand prison to the court - house for the hearing . The presiding judge asked the prosecution and defence whether it was possible , in the circumstances , to remove the applicant from the courtroom . The prosecutor did not object . The applicant stated that the presiding judge ’s conduct clearly demonstrated that he was being pressurised by high - ranking law - enforcement officials to deliver an unlawful judgment in the applicant ’s case and that his decision to remove the applicant from the courtroom would be unlawful and in contravention of the LAW . The court ruled as follows :

“ ... the court decides to remove [ the applicant ] from the courtroom ... for the following reasons . [ The applicant ] has repeatedly been disruptive in the courtroom in the course of the trial , including the current hearing . In particular , ... while studying the material in the case file , [ the applicant ] destroyed CARDINAL pages thereof . He repeatedly refused to appear in the courtroom referring to his needs to pray , eat , wash and go to the bathroom . On several occasions he refused to appear before the court alleging that he was ill . However , the emergency response doctors summoned did not confirm his allegation . He has insulted witnesses and other participants in the proceedings and shown disrespect for the judges participating in the trial by making negative comments about the judicial system in GPE . He claimed to know the home address of [ a witness ] and one of the judges . He has made statements and comments unrelated to the trial . During this hearing , [ the applicant ] insulted a witness ... . After [ the applicant ] said something in the NORP language , the interpreter asked the court to [ relieve him of his duties ] ... . The head of the ORG agency reported that [ the applicant ] spoke NORP [ in the courtroom ] with the sole intention of insulting and threatening the interpreters . ”

The trial continued in the applicant ’s absence . The court questioned PERSON , who , at the time , had been in charge of the special operation conducted in response to P. ’s complaint about the applicant extorting money from him . The applicant ’s lawyer was present and put questions to the witness . The court also established that witness PERSON had failed to appear and decided that the statement he had made earlier to the investigator should be read out . The court also read out statements made by witnesses PERSON . and ORG earlier during the trial as those witnesses had also failed to appear . Lastly , the court granted a request from the applicant ’s lawyer and read out several earlier statements made by the applicant and several witnesses for the defence who had failed to appear . According to the record of the court hearing , the applicant refused to return to the courtroom to participate in the closing arguments . The judgment was read out in the applicant ’s absence .

ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court based its findings on statements made by witnesses questioned by the investigator and the court , police reports and other material in the case file , and forensic evidence . The court accepted the prosecution ’s version of events , namely that the applicant had been arrested by special police forces in the course of an operation targeting him as a racketeer as alleged by PERSON and that heroin had been found on him during the search conducted immediately after his arrest .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG reviewed the applicant ’s conviction and reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE DATE the applicant was taken to the PERSON police station . According to applicant , at the station he was assaulted by CARDINAL police officers . They throttled him and pulled his arms behind his back causing him enormous pain .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by a paramedic . According to the official report , the applicant complained about chronic stomach pain .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer complained to the police and the prosecutor ’s office about the incident of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the police completed an internal inquiry into the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment . It was established that CARDINAL police officers had had to subdue the applicant during a body search . They had pinned him to the ground and handcuffed him .

On DATE investigator PERSON refused to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators . On CARDINAL DATE his superior quashed the said decision and remitted the matter for further inquiry .

On DATE investigator NORP dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as unsubstantiated and refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . Relying on the evidential material obtained in the course of the inquiry , he concluded that the police officers had acted in accordance with the law . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

Following communication of the application to the ORG , on CARDINAL DATE the Acting Head of ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter for further inquiry . The parties did not disclose the outcome of the proceedings .

On DATE , remand prison director PERSON ordered the applicant ’s placement in a disciplinary cell .

According to the applicant , on their way to the disciplinary cell PERSON repeatedly hit the applicant against the wall , administering blows to his head and body . The applicant ’s nose and lips began to bleed . Then the guards handcuffed the applicant and continued beating him .

According to the ORG , the applicant refused to enter the disciplinary cell . Instead , he threw a punch at PERSON ’s face and PERSON hit his head against the wall . PERSON tried to subdue the applicant by pulling his right arm behind his back . The applicant resisted and kicked PERSON came to PERSON ’s rescue and pulled the applicant ’s arm behind his back . The applicant fell to the floor and his nose bled . The guards handcuffed the applicant and took him to a cell where he calmed down . The guards called an ambulance .

On DATE the prison director and the guards reported the use of force against the applicant . According to the reports , PERSON pulled the applicant ’s right arm behind his back using a combat technique and guard PERSON handcuffed the applicant to put an end to his resistance .

On an unspecified date the applicant underwent a medical examination . According to the medical report the applicant had sustained the following injuries : bruises on the right forearm and shoulder , left shoulder , left armpit and left calf ; a bruised wound on the lower lip .

On DATE the applicant complained that he had been beaten up by PERSON On DATE investigator DATE dismissed the applicant ’s allegations as unsubstantiated and refused to institute criminal proceedings against M.

On DATE a medical forensic expert examined the applicant and his medical case history . The expert concluded that the applicant ’s injuries could have resulted from impact by blunt and solid objects and that the applicant might have sustained the injuries on DATE as a result of blows or a fall . The expert concluded that the injuries were not serious and had not caused any harm to the applicant ’s health .

On DATE the expert issued an additional forensic report , noting that it was impossible to determine the exact date on which the applicant had sustained the injuries . It could have been on DATE or some time before or after that date .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal investigation into the incident of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was charged with the use of force against a ORG agent .

On an unspecified date ORG received the file and opened the trial . During the trial , the applicant maintained his innocence . He claimed that the remand prison director and the guards had beaten him up on DATE and he had then been prosecuted on trumped - up charges to cover up for the beatings .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court dismissed the applicant ’s version of events as unsubstantiated , relying on the prosecution and defence witnesses’ statements and forensic evidence . On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal . The court also re - calculated the applicant ’s sentence . It took into account that the applicant had CARDINAL previous convictions and sentenced him cumulatively to DATE imprisonment .

DATE . On DATE the Presidium of ORG reclassified the charges against the applicant by way of supervisory review , reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment and sentenced him cumulatively to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant was detained in remand prison no . ORG in GPE . According to the applicant , the prison guards beat him and CARDINAL other inmates . According to the Government , the applicant was inciting other inmates to disobey the guards . He also threatened the guards and insulted them . The guards used rubber truncheons and handcuffs to subdue the applicant .

On DATE the applicant took part in a hearing at ORG of GPE by means of video link . The applicant demonstrated to the judges extensive bruising on his stomach , chest and lower back and claimed that he had been beaten up by guards of the remand prison .

On DATE ORG informed ORG of the applicant ’s injuries and forwarded the applicant ’s complaint about the beatings in the remand prison .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE an investigator completed the inquiry into the incident of CARDINAL DATE and refused to institute criminal proceedings against the prison guards . On DATE the district prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter for further inquiry . The Government did not disclose the outcome .

According to the applicant , on DATE he was beaten up whilst in detention in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE . According to the Government , the applicant had an altercation with inmate Ur . As a result , the applicant sustained bruises and a bone fracture on the right side of the face and concussion . On an unspecified date the authorities instituted criminal proceedings against Ur . The parties did not disclose their outcome .

On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE .

According to the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE some time after TIME a group of young and strongly - built men entered his cell and beat him up . They were led by inmate O.

According to the applicant , on CARDINAL October CARDINAL a man wearing the uniform of a major and accompanied by several medical orderlies entered the applicant ’s cell . The major started beating the applicant , who was lying on the bed . The major then told the orderlies to pull the applicant off the bed and continued the beatings , administering multiple blows to the applicant ’s head and other parts of the body .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE . Upon arrival , he underwent a medical examination . The medical practitioners recorded a wound on the applicant ’s head and a bruise near the hip bone . The applicant explained that he had sustained the injuries as a result of the beatings to which he had been subjected in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL . The management of correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL forwarded the relevant report to the regional investigation committee but it was never received by them . According to the Government , the authorities’ inquiry into the loss of the report is still pending .

According to the ORG , the inquiries into the incidents of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL October CARDINAL are still pending .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in identical conditions in the temporary detention centre in PERSON , in remand prison no . IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL in PERSON and in remand prison no . GPE in GPE . The cells were overcrowded , dirty , poorly ventilated and insufficiently lit . The toilet offered no privacy . The use of a shower was limited .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in remand prison no . ORG in PERSON .

On numerous occasions DATE and DATE the applicant was held in the temporary detention centre in PERSON . According to the Government , the centre comprised CARDINAL cells measuring QUANTITY m in total . The centre had an outdoor area where the inmates were able to exercise . The inmates were able to take a shower at least once DATE . They were provided with CARDINAL meals per day and an individual sleeping place , bed linen , toiletries , a bowl , a mug and a spoon .

According to the applicant , at all times the cells in the temporary detention centre were overcrowded and the personal space available to the inmates fell short of the statutory minimum standard of QUANTITY m. The cells were dirty and there was no ventilation . The lighting was poor and insufficient for reading . The access to shower facilities was limited . The applicant received CARDINAL meal a day . On DATE of the court hearings , the applicant did not have any meals at all .

The applicant did not provide a description of the conditions in which he was detained in remand prisons nos . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in PERSON and IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE , beyond alleging that they were identical to the conditions of his detention in the temporary detention centre in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL in remand prison no . ORG in PERSON . The cell measured CARDINAL sq . m and was equipped with CARDINAL beds . CARDINAL inmates were held in the cell , together with the applicant .

From DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL . The cell was constantly overcrowded and housed DATE inmates .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL . It measured QUANTITY . m and housed CARDINAL inmates .

DATE . According to the applicant , on DATE of the court hearings and on DATE when there was a change of the applicant ’s place of detention , he was woken up early and placed in an overcrowded holding cell . He was then taken to the place of his destination ( a court - house or a detention facility ) in a prison van . On each occasion the number of the persons transported with the applicant exceeded the van ’s capacity of CARDINAL persons . The vans were dirty and unventilated and had no heating . The trip lasted TIME . The van compartments were stiflingly hot in DATE and very cold in DATE .

According to the Government , the applicant was transported in ORG vans which comprised CARDINAL compartments measuring QUANTITY . m and QUANTITY . m respectively , in strict compliance with the vans’ design capacity . The vans were equipped with ventilation and heating . The trips from the temporary detention centre in PERSON to the Odintsovo Town Court lasted DATE to TIME . The trips from the same detention centre to the courts in GPE lasted DATE .

According to the applicant , at the court - house he was placed in a holding cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m together with CARDINAL other inmates . He was held in such conditions for TIME awaiting the hearing . He was allowed to use the toilet only once . The cell was not ventilated . All the other detainees smoked and the applicant , a non - smoker , was exposed to the others’ tobacco smoke .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transported to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE . The trip lasted from DATE .

According to the applicant , he was held with CARDINAL other inmates in a train compartment of which the capacity was a maximum of QUANTITY persons . During the stops , the applicant was housed in remand prisons in GPE , GPE and PERSON . All the cells there were overcrowded . The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place .

According to the ORG , the applicant was transported in a train compartment measuring CARDINAL x CARDINAL x CARDINAL cm . At no time did the number of inmates transported in CARDINAL compartment together with the applicant exceed QUANTITY persons , the compartment ’s capacity being QUANTITY persons . It was equipped with QUANTITY sitting and QUANTITY sleeping places . The applicant was provided with dry food rations and drinking water .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant was married in DATE . In DATE his wife gave birth to P.

NORP In DATE the applicant filed for divorce with ORG . In his petition he requested that the child should reside with his mother and that she should be given custody . He submitted that he was not PERSON ’s biological father .

At the same time the applicant instituted a separate set of proceedings challenging his paternity in respect of P. In a subsequent decision his claim was dismissed as it had been established by DNA tests that the applicant was in fact the boy ’s father .

On DATE the applicant requested the court conducting the divorce proceedings to give him custody of the child , to rule that the child ’s place of residence should be with him , and that the mother should be divested of her parental rights . The Government submitted that he had further requested that the child be placed in a public care institution . The applicant contested this . He argued that his intentions had been misconstrued .

On DATE the court dissolved the applicant ’s marriage . It found that both parties had been at fault in the breakdown of the marital relationship . It held that parental authority was to be exercised by both parents , and stipulated that the place of residence of P. was to be with the boy ’s mother . The applicant was allowed to visit the child at his mother ’s address and in her presence on every third Sunday of the month between TIME .

In the written grounds of the judgment the court observed that the applicant ’s conduct was open to criticism . It referred to the unsuccessful paternity challenge he had brought before the courts and expressed the view that he was not really interested in maintaining meaningful contact with his son .

NORP The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal . The divorce judgment became final .

Subsequently difficulties arose as to compliance with the access order , as the mother persistently refused to respect it .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings seeking to have the access arrangements specified by the divorce judgment enforced . On DATE the court questioned him in connection with these proceedings . He did not remember when he had last seen his son .

The mother was questioned on CARDINAL DATE . She told the court that the applicant had come to see his son for the first time in DATE , just after she had requested an increase in the amount of the DATE maintenance payments . She was of the view that the applicant was not interested in the child .

By a decision of DATE ORG fixed a onemonth time - limit for the child ’s mother to allow the applicant contact with P. on the terms stipulated by the divorce judgment . It held that she was to pay a fine of MONEY ( PLN ) in the event of continued failure on her part to comply with the access arrangements .

In DATE the applicant again requested the court to take measures to oblige the mother to cooperate and allow him contact with his child . On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees in respect of this request .

In DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the mother ’s conduct . He was informed in reply that issues of compliance with decisions of civil courts did not fall within the jurisdiction of the prosecuting authorities .

On DATE ORG imposed a fine on the mother in the amount of ORG for her failure to allow the applicant contact with P. , and set another DATE time - limit for her to comply with that order on pain of a fine in the amount of PLN CARDINAL .

On a further complaint by the applicant , by a decision of DATE the same court ordered the mother to pay the fine of ORG CARDINAL and set another DATE time - limit for her to comply with the access arrangements on pain of a further fine of PLN CARDINAL .

On DATE the ORG appointed a court guardian ( kurator ) to supervise the execution of the access arrangements determined by the divorce judgment . It held that the guardian should accompany the applicant on each and every visit to his child under the schedule determined by that judgment .

On DATE P. ’s mother requested the court to restrict the applicant ’s parental authority and to change the access arrangements by banning the applicant from contact with his son .

On DATE the court ordered the mother to pay a fine of PLN CARDINAL for her continued refusals to allow the child to see his father and set a new DATE time - limit for her on pain of a further fine in the amount of ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to rule that the child should move to his home and for the mother to be granted access rights .

On DATE the court refused to examine the applicant ’s new request for a fine to be imposed on the mother , having regard to its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , finding that the child had good living conditions at his mother ’s home and felt safe with her . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant requested ORG to take more vigorous enforcement measures . He submitted that he could not see his son and that the measures applied so far had failed .

On DATE P. ’s mother requested ORG to divest the applicant of parental authority . She submitted that the applicant had for DATE not been interested in the child and that the child was afraid of him as he had provoked a brawl at the school .

On DATE the ORG authorised the courtappointed guardian to take the child from the mother to ensure compliance with the access arrangements so that his father could see him .

On DATE the court - appointed guardian went with the applicant to the mother ’s apartment to visit the child . No one answered the door . On DATE the guardian complained to the prosecuting authorities about her failure to cooperate .

In DATE the applicant again requested the court to take more vigorous measures to ensure that he had effective enjoyment of his access rights . In reply on DATE ORG informed the applicant that the enforcement order of DATE remained valid and that it was operational in respect of every new attempt he made to see his son .

On DATE and DATE the court - appointed guardian attended at the scheduled times to assist the applicant for the purposes of his DATE visits to see his son but the applicant failed to turn up for the visits .

On DATE the applicant informed the court that on DATE the court guardian had gone with him to the mother ’s apartment . She had refused to open the door or let him see the child . The applicant submitted that the guardian had remained passive in the face of the mother ’s defiance . Afterwards , the head of the court - appointed guardians had informed the applicant that no new attempts to assist him in seeing his son would be made , as the previous attempt had failed . He had also informed the applicant that he regarded his case as closed and that he had forwarded the case file to the court .

On DATE the same court refused to hear a request by the applicant for enforcement of his access rights , referring to the valid decision given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . An identical decision was given by the same court on DATE in respect of a fresh request by the applicant for assistance in the execution of the access arrangements . On DATE ORG refused to amend the access arrangements by deciding that the applicant ’s son should live with him .

On DATE the guardian accompanied the applicant . Again , no one answered the door to the mother ’s apartment . The guardian called the police . They attended , but their intervention was to no avail as no one answered the door . The guardian again informed the prosecuting authorities about the mother ’s conduct .

On DATE the applicant made a new request for assistance .

On DATE the court made a new enforcement order , identical to that of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the written grounds for this order the court emphasised the mother ’s uncooperative behaviour in respect of the access arrangements , and stated that the execution of the access arrangements necessitated close cooperation on the part of both parents , who were obliged to act in the child ’s best interest .

On DATE and DATE the applicant again requested the court to assist him . On DATE he failed to turn up for another visit , scheduled on that date . On DATE the mother did not answer the door when the applicant , assisted by the court guardian , came to see the boy . The guardian again informed the prosecution about her obstructive behaviour .

On DATE the mother again failed to open the door to the applicant , accompanied by the guardian and ultimately by the police .

NORP On DATE the applicant again requested the court to assist him . In reply , the court asked him whether his request was to be understood as a new request for assistance by court - appointed guardians in the execution of the access arrangements . The applicant replied that he had simply sought the court ’s advice as to how he could deal with his situation , which remained unchanged as the mother remained uncooperative .

On DATE the guardian determined that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the order of CARDINAL DATE were to be closed , as the DATE period of validity of that period specified in LAW ( a ) of LAW had expired .

In DATE the applicant twice complained to ORG about his situation .

On DATE the applicant again sought unsuccessfully to see his son . The court - appointed guardian was not present , apparently because the applicant had failed to lodge a new request with the court for his assistance and the previous execution order had expired ( see paragraph CARDINAL before ) . The applicant called the police . They attended , but he did not succeed in seeing his son , because the police officers refused to assist him , having regard to the fact that the child was not at home at that time . The applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against them on charges of abuse of official authority . His complaint was subsequently investigated . The internal enquiry was closed on DATE as the ORG conduct had not been aggressive or inappropriate . Subsequently , on DATE ORG discontinued the investigation against the officers , having noted , inter alia , that the applicant ’s son had not been at home on the material date .

On DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicant again requested the court and the court guardian to assist him in the enforcement of the access arrangements . He reiterated his request on CARDINAL DATE . In reply , on CARDINAL October CARDINAL the court issued another order authorising the guardian to assist the applicant in the execution of the access arrangements with a view to addressing the mother ’s defiance .

On DATE ORG dismissed the mother ’s application for the applicant to be deprived of parental rights . It further amended the access arrangements specified in the divorce judgment . It limited the mother ’s parental authority by assigning a guardian to supervise her in the exercise of her parental rights . The court further ordered the mother to attend family therapy in order to improve her communication with the child ’s father .

In the written grounds of that decision the court noted that DATE the applicant had shown no interest in his son and had failed to pay maintenance in the amount of ORG CARDINAL per month . The mother had requested the bailiff to institute enforcement proceedings in respect of the maintenance . This decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the guardian failed to attend to assist the applicant , as she was ill . On DATE the applicant went to see his son accompanied by the guardian but no one answered the door . The guardian informed the prosecutor about the mother ’s behaviour .

On DATE the applicant again requested the court to ensure the mother ’s compliance with the access arrangements , and requested the court to assist him .

DATE . On DATE the guardian discontinued the enforcement proceedings , referring to the provisions of LAW ( a ) of LAW .

On DATE the court again ordered a court guardian to take the child from the mother to ensure compliance with access arrangements .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the guardian accompanied the applicant to the visits planned for these dates . No one answered the door and the guardian informed the prosecutor about the mother ’s conduct .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG gave new decisions authorising the guardian to take the child from the mother to ensure compliance with the access arrangement on terms specified in those arrangements .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to divest the mother of her parental rights , referring to her persistent refusal to respect the access arrangements . ORG requested an assessment by the RODK ( Regional Family Consultation Centre ) of the family ’s emotional skills and their communication and parenting situation .

In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant again complained to the court about the mother ’s failure to respect the access arrangements . On DATE the court refused to impose a fine on her , having regard to the amendments to LAW which had entered into force in DATE .

On DATE ORG imposed on the mother an obligation to pay ORG MONEY to the applicant in punitive damages for each failure to comply with the access arrangements .

On DATE ORG submitted its opinion to the court about the emotional ties between the mother , the father and the child , prepared for the purposes of the proceedings in which the applicant had requested the court to envisage that the mother be divested of her parental rights . The experts were of the view that the child ’s father was focused on the enforcement of his rights . He was not taking into account the needs and expectations of his child . The experts pointed out the negative consequences for the child ’s development of the father ’s actions aiming at depriving the child ’s mother of parental authority . They stressed the existence of strong emotional ties between the child and the mother and the lack of such ties between the father and his son . They noted the lack of willingness and readiness of the child to maintain contact with his father . The experts noted that the father had taken various steps to deprive the child ’s mother of parental authority without taking the child ’s feelings into consideration .

On DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE the applicant requested PERSON to order the mother to pay damages to him for her failure to respect the access arrangements . He subsequently withdrew the first request . The second was rejected for his failure to comply with the applicable legal requirements . Subsequently , the applicant supplemented his request of DATE by referring to the mother ’s failure to let him see his son during his DATE attempts to see his son in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

During the applicant ’s visit in DATE , PERSON asked his father to leave the apartment and told him that he was not wanted and not liked there .

The Government submitted that on DATE , during a hearing before ORG , the applicant had stated that he had seen his son at the child ’s mother ’s residence in DATE and DATE . The applicant contested this statement , arguing that he had seen his son only for TIME on each occasion .

On DATE ORG , in reply to the applicant ’s request of DATE , ordered the mother to pay ORG CARDINAL to the applicant , consisting of PLN MONEY for each previous failure to comply with the contact arrangements . The court pointed out that she had prevented the father from having contact with his son CARDINAL times ( in DATE , DATE and DATE ) and obstructed contact CARDINAL times ( in DATE and DATE ) . The applicant appealed . Following his appeal , on an unspecified later date the court amended its own decision and imposed on the mother an obligation to pay ORG MONEY to the applicant in damages for her failure to comply with his access rights ( PLN CARDINAL for each occasion of noncompliance ) .

On numerous occasions the applicant and later also the court - appointed guardian , acting on the basis of LAW , repeatedly informed ORG about the child ’s mother ’s obstructive behaviour and about her non - compliance with the access arrangements .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE the LOC police and on DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the investigation , finding that the mother had no case to answer , as her failure to answer the door and allow the applicant to see his son did not amount to a criminal offence of unlawful restriction of liberty of a minor ( brak znamion czynu zabronionego ) . The refusals were upheld by the competent court on , inter alia , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG brought a bill of indictment before the ORG against the mother on charges of unlawful restriction of liberty against a minor . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , holding that a parent who exercised her or his parental authority could not be regarded as a perpetrator of an offence of unlawful detention of a minor DATE , even if that parent was acting contrary to the wishes or without the consent of the other parent .