Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion;Reasonably necessary to prevent offence);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence in FAC .

On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated concerning a burglary . On DATE they were joined to another set of proceedings concerning another burglary .

On DATE the applicant was officially declared a suspect .

On DATE , following a request from the police , an investigating judge of ORG issued a warrant for his arrest and detention . The decision reads as follows :

“ The judge , having examined the case material , the arguments of the [ investigative authority ] and the attorney ’s opinion , considers that the request is justified and should be granted .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW sets out the grounds for the application of a procedural compulsory measure , namely a person ’s resistance to the reaching of the aim of criminal proceedings in specific proceedings or to the performance of a separate procedural action , or non - execution or improper execution of his or her procedural duties .

In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW a person may be detained only if specific factual information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings creates a reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed a criminal offence , for which the law provides for a custodial sentence , and if no other preventive measure can ensure that they will not commit another criminal offence or obstruct or avoid the pre - trial proceedings , trial or execution of the sentence .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that human rights may be restricted only in cases where such restriction is required for public safety reasons and according to the nature and danger of the criminal offence .

On DATE the [ applicant ] was declared a suspect of a criminal offence proscribed by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . Information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings excludes reasonable doubt about his implication in a serious criminal offence . The only possible sanction for commission of this crime is a custodial sentence .

It follows from the case material that the [ applicant ] has declared [ to the domestic authorities ] his place of residence as [ address of Daugavgrīva Prison ] in GPE . The case material also contains [ a document from another set of criminal proceedings ] with [ his ] signature , whereby he undertakes an obligation to reside at [ a particular address ] in Daugavpils . On DATE the [ investigating authority ] sent a notice to that address for the [ applicant ] to appear at a police station on CARDINAL DATE . On a copy of that notice the investigator has made a note that the [ applicant ] failed to appear at the allotted time and did not inform [ anyone ] about the reasons for his absence . On DATE a decision was made to forcibly escort the [ applicant ] to the [ investigating authority ] on DATE , but [ this decision ] could not be executed since the [ applicant ] was not living at [ that particular address ] . Police officers verified on several occasions other possible places where the applicant might be , but it was impossible to find him or where he might be ; this is evidenced by the police ORG reports of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . Information has been obtained in the course of the criminal proceedings that the [ applicant ] is renting an apartment in the [ name of a particular street ] area of NORP , but the specific address is unknown . In the circumstances , there are grounds to consider that the [ applicant ] is hiding and avoiding participation in the investigation , thereby resisting the reaching of the aim of the criminal proceedings and obstructing the normal course of the criminal proceedings and a speedy and fair resolution of issues arising from criminal law .

Information obtained from ORG shows that the [ applicant ] has been tried on CARDINAL occasions , [ reference to various crimes , including burglary ] . Taking into account the time spent in pre - trial detention , he has served the [ custodial ] sentence imposed and ... is currently [ subject to an ] additional penalty – police control . In the circumstances , there are reasonable grounds to consider that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence .

Taking into account the aforementioned , the judge concludes that the [ investigating authority ’s ] request is justified and that the security measure [ of ] detention should be imposed on the [ applicant ] , since imposition of another security measure could not prevent him from committing another criminal offence or from avoiding the investigation . Also , given that the [ applicant ’s ] actual location is not known , it is necessary to issue a search warrant . ”

The applicant was arrested on DATE .

On DATE a judge of ORG examined an appeal brought by the applicant and upheld the initial detention order . This decision reads as follows :

“ Having assessed the reasons mentioned in the [ applicant ’s ] complaint and his request , having heard the explanations given during the hearing , having examined the case material of the procedural compulsory measures and of the [ instant ] case , [ and ] taking into account the opinion of the [ investigative authority ] , I consider that the decision of the investigating judge of ORG , to impose on the [ applicant ] the security measure of detention , should be upheld .

I exclude from the [ DATE ] decision a note to the effect that the [ applicant ] was avoiding participation in the investigation . According to the available information ... on DATE the [ applicant ] was convicted of [ various crimes , including burglary ] and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , police control for DATE and confiscation of property . Taking into account the time spent in pre - trial detention , he has served the [ custodial ] sentence imposed . That judgment took effect on DATE ... There is no convincing evidence that [ he ] received the notice to appear [ at the police station ] or [ other ] procedural documents sent [ to him ] ...

The conclusion made by the investigating judge – that detention had to be ordered for the [ applicant ] – is correct , since specific factual information obtained in the course of the criminal proceedings has created a reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime proscribed by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , [ for which ] the law provides for a custodial sentence . Imposing another security measure could not ensure that the [ applicant ] would not commit another criminal offence . These reasons correspond to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . They are confirmed by the information available within the criminal proceedings . The [ applicant ] has been sentenced on several occasions for crimes against property . He has also served sentences in prison but he has not drawn the necessary conclusions and has not reformed . He is suspected of an analogous crime committed while under police control [ in connection with his previous conviction ] . These circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could commit another criminal offence . The investigating judge has rightly concluded that imposition of another security measure could not prevent him from committing another criminal offence . The [ applicant ’s ] detention is justified . The public safety ( sabiedrības drošība ) is more important than the liberty of an individual who is acting contrary to the interests of society . ”

On DATE the investigating judge of ORG carried out a DATE review of the applicant ’s detention and adopted a decision in that regard . It reads as follows :

“ Having heard the arguments of the [ investigating authority ] , the [ applicant ’s ] explanation and the attorney ’s position and having examined the case material , the judge concludes that the security measure [ of ] detention imposed on the [ applicant ] should continue to be applied .

The security measure [ of ] detention was imposed on the [ applicant ] to ensure public safety and to prevent other criminal offences being committed . The grounds for detention have not changed . The [ applicant ] is suspected of CARDINAL burglaries ... a serious crime for which the law only provides for a custodial sentence . Previously , the [ applicant ] was tried on QUANTITY occasions ; his last conviction on DATE concerned [ various crimes , including burglary ] and he was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , police control for DATE and confiscation of property . Taking into account the time spent in pre - trial detention , he has served the [ custodial ] sentence imposed and he is suspected of an analogous , serious crime while under police control [ in connection with his previous conviction ] ; therefore , a possibility continues to exist that at liberty , he could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence , and the grounds for detention under section CARDINAL ) of LAW have not disappeared . Pre - trial investigation continues within a reasonable time and there is no unjustified delay .

It is not within the investigating judge ’s competence to examine and assess the evidence obtained ; therefore , the [ applicant ’s ] submission – that the detention [ order ] should be lifted as there is no evidence of his guilt – is not substantiated . Besides , the [ applicant ’s ] allegations that the [ investigating authority ] has ignored his requests and has not carried out additional questioning should not be taken into account as they contradict the case material .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that a person suspected of or charged with a crime may not be held in pre - trial detention for DATE .

The [ applicant ] has been detained since DATE , that is , for slightly DATE . The time - limit for detention has not been exceeded .

In the circumstances , the investigating judge considers that the [ applicant ’s ] detention should be continued . ”

NORP On DATE the applicant was officially charged with the CARDINAL burglaries . On DATE the pre - trial investigation was concluded and the case was forwarded for adjudication to ORG .

On DATE another review of the applicant ’s detention was carried out and he was retained in custody .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case , during which the applicant asked the court to change the security measure applied to him . In this respect , the court held as follows :

“ During the hearing , the [ applicant ] submitted a request that the security measure [ applied to him ] be changed as there is no evidence for his conviction ; the gathering and verification of the necessary evidence requires DATE , therefore his continued detention is not permitted . The [ applicant ] undertakes to attend all hearings .

Having heard the [ applicant ’s ] explanation [ and the ] opinions of the victim , attorney and prosecutor , the court considers that [ his ] request to change the security measure should be dismissed for the following reasons .

In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , if during the application of a procedural compulsory measure the grounds for the application of the measure disappear or change , or the provisions for the application of the measure or behaviour of the person change , or if other circumstances are ascertained that determined the choice of the compulsory measure , an [ investigating authority ] should take a decision to change or lift the measure .

It follows from the wording of the decision of DATE by the investigating judge of ORG that the [ applicant ] was detained because he was hiding and avoiding participation in the investigation ... Besides , it has been ascertained that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence .

Taking into account that the [ applicant ] has been charged with a serious crime , that the grounds for detention have not disappeared or changed , that the conditions for its application have not changed , and that the legal requirements concerning the length of detention have been met , the court considers that the [ applicant ’s ] request to change the security measure should be dismissed ” .

The second trial hearing was held on DATE . The applicant once again requested a review of his continued detention . In this respect , the court held as follows :

“ During the hearing , the [ applicant ] submitted a request that the security measure [ applied to him ] be changed due to changes in the grounds for his detention and for application of the measure . ORG excluded any reference that the [ applicant ] would avoid the investigation . LAW sets out the [ types of evidence ] allowing the suspicion that [ a person has committed a criminal offence ] . However , in the instant case there is no evidence for his conviction . The charges are not justified [ as ] the [ applicant ] has not admitted his guilt , therefore there is no reason to consider that he would continue to commit criminal offences ... Detention can only be ordered with a view to preparing a judgment , but it is clear that judgment can not be prepared for DATE as all movements and escort ( visas kustības un konvojēšanas ) needs DATE , therefore his continued detention is of a punitive nature , which is prohibited by law . The [ applicant ] asks to be released , undertakes to attend all hearings and not to commit any offences .

Having heard the [ applicant ’s ] explanation [ and the ] opinions of the attorney and prosecutor , the court considers that his request to change the security measure should be dismissed for the following reasons .

In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , if during the application of a procedural compulsory measure , the grounds for the application of the measure disappear or change , or the provisions for the application of the measure or behaviour of the person change , or if other circumstances are ascertained that determined the choice of the compulsory measure , an [ investigating authority ] shall take a decision to change or lift the measure .

It follows from the text of the decision of DATE by the investigating judge of ORG that the [ applicant ] was detained because he was avoiding participation in the investigation ... Besides , it has been ascertained that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence .

The [ applicant ] rightly points out that ORG in its decision of DATE excluded any reference to the grounds of the investigative judge ’s decision that the [ applicant ] was avoiding participation in the investigation . However , the grounds for detention – the possibility that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could commit another criminal offence – have not changed . The [ applicant ] has been convicted on several occasions , most recently on DATE . In the instant case , he has been charged with crimes committed on DATE and on TIME DATE ; therefore , another security measure could not ensure that the [ applicant ] would not commit other criminal offences .

The court has not yet started proceedings and , accordingly , [ its ] assessment of the evidence , therefore there is no reason to decide on the lack of evidence for the [ applicant ’s ] conviction ; this has to be done when preparing a judgment in the case . When applying detention , the investigating judge and judge of the appellate court found that specific factual information obtained in the criminal proceedings created a reasonable suspicion that the [ applicant ] had committed a crime proscribed by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , for which the law imposes a custodial sentence .

In the circumstances , it has to be concluded that the grounds for detention under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) have not disappeared .

Taking into account that the [ applicant ] has been charged with a serious crime , that the grounds for detention have not disappeared or changed , that the conditions for its application have not changed , and that the legal requirements concerning the length of detention have been met , the court considers that the [ applicant ’s ] request to change the security measure should be dismissed . ”

During a hearing on DATE the applicant ’s request to be released from detention was rejected for almost identical reasons .

On DATE ORG decided to release him from detention as the maximum legal length of pre - trial detention ( DATE ) was approaching .

At the time the parties to the present case finished exchanging their observations , the criminal proceedings against the applicant had not yet been concluded .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim in the ORG and ORG of GPE against PERSON , a private individual , seeking payment of a certain amount of money . It appears that before the beginning of the court ’s examination of the case the applicant and PERSON concluded an agreement to settle the debt , which envisaged , inter alia , a time - frame for payment .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment upholding the settlement . It also stated that bailiffs would enforce the judgment if it was not complied with . No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final .

As PERSON did not comply with the terms of the settlement , ORG issued a writ of execution and on DATE a bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings . According to the applicant , the bailiff found no funds or property belonging to PERSON during the enforcement procedure .

By a letter of DATE the bailiff informed the applicant that he had found out during the enforcement proceedings that PERSON had inherited a house but had not registered her ownership of it . The bailiff advised the applicant to institute proceedings against PERSON in order to have her ownership of the house recognised .

It appears that later in DATE the applicant brought a claim in the ORG and ORG to have PERSON ’s ownership of the house recognised .

On DATE ORG , relying on LAW , granted the applicant ’s claim and recognised PERSON as the owner of the house in question . There was no appeal and the judgment became final .

On DATE the bailiff , acting on a writ of execution issued by ORG , instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the bailiff requested that ORG of ORG recognise PERSON ’s ownership of the house , register it and issue a copy of the ownership certificate .

NORP In reply , ORG on DATE informed the bailiff that in order to register PERSON ’s rights to the house it needed an application from PERSON , the original of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and receipts for the ORG fee and other related payments . It also mentioned that PERSON was unlawfully occupying a plot of land whose status was unclear .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the bailiff made similar requests to ORG in which he stated , with reference to section CARDINAL of the PERSON on LAW , that an application from PERSON was not required . He also stated that the issue of registration - related payments would be decided upon initiation of the registration process and that receipts would be submitted .

In DATE the applicant brought a claim in ORG against ORG and the bailiff , seeking to oblige them respectively to register PERSON ’s ownership of the house and to confiscate it from her .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claim by ordering ORG to register PERSON ’s rights to the house and the bailiff to confiscate it from her . In particular , ORG found that both the refusal of ORG to register PERSON ’s ownership rights and the non - enforcement by the bailiff of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE owing to a lack of funds on the part of PERSON had been groundless as PERSON ’s ownership of the house had been recognised by the final court judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that no appeal was lodged against ORG judgment and it became final .

According to the applicant , none of the CARDINAL court judgments was enforced .

On DATE the applicant sought the payment of interest by PERSON via a claim in ORG . On DATE ORG accepted his claim and ordered PERSON to pay him MONEY ( ORG ) , to be converted into NORP drams . The judgment became final on DATE . The applicant sought enforcement of the judgment on CARDINAL DATE but was refused by the bailiff since he had failed to act within the time - limit of DATE starting from the final judgment . That term had expired on DATE . Moreover , the applicant had also failed to submit a power of attorney to the bailiff .

On DATE PERSON submitted a receipt for the payment of the debt to the bailiff and he terminated the enforcement proceedings on CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

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

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


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a journalist and chief editor of the local DATE magazine , PERSON .

The applicant wrote an article about ORG , the mayor of ORG , which appeared in the DATE edition of that magazine under the headline “ Resignation of honour ” , listing CARDINAL points advocating the mayor ’s resignation . The article contained references to the mayor ’s activities , with wording such as “ DATE of local dictatorship ” ; “ [ R.N. ] at the peak of the pyramid of evil ” ; “ in GPE , only those who subscribe to [ R.N. ] ’s mafia - like system can still do business ” ; “ we have been ruled for DATE by a former communist who still has the reflexes of a county chief secretary ” ; and “ [ ORG ] does not represent the interests of the [ local community ] ” .

On the same page , the applicant wrote a news piece about an investigation into the mayor ’s activities . He quoted a statement by a politician about an ongoing investigation into some of the mayor ’s activities by the prefectural standards board . The article also contained a statement by another politician and the mayor ’s point of view on the investigation .

On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint with ORG , accusing the applicant of insult and defamation . He also sought civil damages .

On DATE the court convicted the applicant of defamation and ordered him to pay a criminal fine of MONEY ( ROL ) and to pay to ORG , together with the publishing company , ROL CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . It acquitted him of the accusations of insult .

The court noted that the applicant had submitted official documents proving that there had been irregularities in the activities of the public administration , but considered that that proof alone was not sufficient to justify making those statements of fact . The court reiterated that a journalist had a general obligation to act in good faith :

“ Although irregularities have been found in the activity of ORG for ORG , this fact alone did not entitle the applicant to write that the victim was a ‘ Mafioso who received bribes from businessmen’ in order to create facilities for them , as there is no evidence to support these statements .

According to LAW the right to freedom of expression comes with duties and responsibilities , the journalists having an obligation to act in good faith , in order to provide accurate and credible information . ”

In establishing the sentence , the court took into account the applicant ’s criminal record , as he had previously been convicted of insult and defamation .

NORP The applicant appealed on points of law , arguing , in particular , that the statement that had brought about his conviction was not an imputation of a crime , as required for the existence of calumny . Moreover , he pointed out that he had not written the sentence quoted by ORG , namely that the mayor was a Mafioso who received bribes from local businessmen .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the previous decision . The court of appeal confirmed the lower court ’s finding and explained that the expression “ subscribe to ... a mafia - like system ” was defamatory of the victim . It further reiterated the journalist ’s obligation to act in good faith , and took the view that in not limiting his assertions to what was necessary to inform the public , the applicant had made value judgments intended to defame the mayor . It also noted that the applicant had failed to abide by the warnings given to him by way of previous convictions for similar facts and had persisted in his criminal behaviour .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , he was the editorin - chief of ORG , a DATE newspaper published in GPE .

On DATE an article written by PERSON entitled “ Analysing the NORP dynamic correctly ” was published in ORG . In his article , PERSON stated his views on the role of PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( an illegal armed organisation ) , a number of organisations associated with the ORG in regional and international politics and political developments in GPE . Next to the article a photograph of PERSON shaking hands with a group of armed men was published .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment , charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of ORG under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . CARDINAL ) on account of the article published on DATE . In the indictment , the public prosecutor quoted the following passage from the article :

“ ... PERSON , who has contributed to the essential dynamic of the NORP movement and the ORG , the PJA and the KONGRA - GEL , organisations which have acted as military , political and ideological leaders and which have represented his leadership , ... [ must be well understood ] ” .

The public prosecutor stated that a photograph of PERSON in which he was standing in a rural area holding a weapon had been published in the newspaper , next to the article . The public prosecutor considered as a result that the applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation inciting others to violence or other methods of terrorism . Subsequently , criminal proceedings were launched against the applicant before ORG .

During the proceedings the applicant maintained that the article in question had been a news article and had not contained propaganda inciting to violence .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG / ORG - GEL under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine . In its judgment , ORG held that the content of the article and the publication of ORG photograph amounted to dissemination of propaganda in favour of the ORG / ORG - GEL .

The applicant appealed . In his appeal petition , referring to a number of the ORG ’s judgments , the applicant claimed that he had not had the intention of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation and that his criminal conviction had been in breach of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention as he had been exercising his right to impart information . He also noted that the first - instance court had failed to examine the article in its entirety .

On DATE the principal public prosecutor at ORG returned the case file to the first - instance court and requested that the latter revise its judgment in the light of the recent legislative amendments .

On DATE ORG once again convicted the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , with the same reasoning that it had adopted on DATE . The court sentenced the applicant to a fine of MONEY ( TRY ) .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

According to a document dated DATE , signed by the President of ORG and the GPE public prosecutor , the applicant was required to pay the fine of TRY CARDINAL .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE .

DATE the applicant worked in a mine .

NORP In DATE the applicant asked the PERSON Mine ( his former employer ) and the ORG mining enterprise GPE ( the PERSON Mine ’s legal successor ) to explain to him how section CARDINAL of LAW ( “ Гірничий закон ” ) ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) was to be implemented , and to pay his electricity and gas costs in accordance with this provision . In reply he was informed that persons who were entitled to receive coal free of charge but were living in houses with central heating had the right to exemption from electricity and gas payments , such costs being borne by the mining companies . However , no appropriate legal mechanisms implementing “ the methods of calculation and the sources of financing ” had been adopted by ORG .

NORP In DATE the applicant complained to a prosecutor ’s office that his requests to have his electricity and gas payments covered had been ignored . In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE from ORG , the applicant was informed that he was entitled to exemption from electricity and gas payments . Since the PERSON Mine had refused to accept his claims owing to the lack of funds and no compensation mechanism was provided for by law , the applicant was advised to lodge his claims with the court .

NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against the ORG mining enterprise GPE and local communal heating and gas providers . He claimed that under LAW of LAW the mine should cover his electricity and gas costs by means of contributions paid into the local budget . He also claimed reimbursement of amounts already paid and asked that the ORG mining enterprise GPE settle his heating and gas debts . The applicant also claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage . He updated his claims in DATE .

On DATE the Tsentralno - Miskyy District Court found against the applicant . The court held that the applicant had worked in a mine for DATE and thus was entitled to receive free coal for everyday domestic needs . As he lived in a house with central heating , section CARDINAL of LAW should apply in his case . However , no mechanism was in place for the implementation of that provision . In particular , there was no procedure for transferring funds from mining enterprises to the local budget . The court also held that the applicant ’s request for reimbursement of the amounts already paid had no basis in law .

On DATE the ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant .

In a decision of DATE ORG ordered the applicant to settle his heating debts , noting that section CARDINAL of LAW did not exempt him from paying for heating services . That decision was upheld on DATE by ORG . On DATE ORG of GPE rejected a request by the applicant for leave to appeal on points of law .

In a letter dated DATE ORG informed the applicant that at that date no mechanism had been set up to handle the compensatory payments requested by him .

NORP In letters dated DATE and DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant that the mechanism for implementing section CARDINAL of LAW would be set up pursuant to a corresponding decision by ORG .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant that on DATE the Cabinet of Ministers had adopted the corresponding decision , which was subject to approval by ORG .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that he had no right to any compensation payments as the mine where he had been working in was in liquidation .

In DATE the applicant instituted court proceedings against ORG requesting recognition of his rights under sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW and a declaration that the GPE ’s inactivity was unlawful .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant ’s claim and informed him that it should be lodged before a court of general jurisdiction . That decision was upheld on DATE and on DATE by ORG and by ORG respectively .

LAW entered into force on DATE . Parts CARDINAL and CARDINAL of section QUANTITY that were in force before DATE read as follows :

“ Coal - mining enterprises shall provide free coal for DATE domestic needs in the amount determined by collective agreement for the following categories of persons :

pensioners who have worked in coal - mining enterprises for DATE ( men ) and DATE ( women ) ...

Persons who have the right to receive free coal but live in houses with central heating shall be exempted from paying for electricity and gas , those costs being borne by the coal - mining ( processing ) enterprises , which shall transfer the funds to cover the costs to the local budget . ”

Pursuant to the “ Transitional provisions ” LAW , the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE had to adopt the relevant legal mechanisms with a view to implementing the LAW ’s provisions within DATE of the date of the LAW ’s entry into force .

In DATE section DATE was amended as following :

“ Persons who have a right to receive free coal but live in houses with central heating shall receive compensation for electricity , gas and heating payments by way of contributions paid from the ORG budget to the local budget . ”

The procedure for granting the above compensation was determined by a decision of ORG ( no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) .


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

Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE he married PERSON The couple had one daughter , GPE , born on DATE .

On DATE the couple divorced and agreed on custody of the child and other parental rights . Their agreement , which was approved by the Szolnok ORG , placed the daughter with her mother and granted the applicant contact DATE , during DATE , GPE DATE , Whit Monday , DATE and DATE during DATE . The applicant was also to pay child allowance , amounting to PERCENT of his salary , but CARDINAL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) per month .

PERSON moved out of the former family home and took up residence in GPE .

The applicant could exercise contact on CARDINAL and DATE and DATE . However , his daughter was reluctant to stay with him during DATE and preferred to spend her holidays with her grandparents .

The applicant ’s further attempts to exercise contact failed , seemingly because in the mother ’s view it was up to the child to decide whether she wanted to see her father . The applicant applied to ORG to have the contact agreement enforced . In a decision of DATE it ordered PERSON to comply with the agreement , warning her that failure to do so could result in her being fined and ordered to reimburse the applicant ’s travel costs . Given the strained relationship between the parents , a notary initiated child protection proceedings ( védelembe vétel ) on DATE . Subsequently , on a number of occasions Ms GPE was fined for not complying with the agreement . It appears from the case file that the applicant could exercise contact between DATE and DATE .

NORP In DATE PERSON brought an action seeking to change the applicant ’s contact rights and an increase in the amount of child allowance . In a counterclaim the applicant requested that the child be placed in his custody .

NORP The applicant also filed a criminal complaint against ORG alleging child endangerment . The parties’ attempt to stabilise the relationship between the applicant and his daughter during the suspension of the custody proceedings were unsuccessful and ORG ordered that any meetings between them take place at a child protection centre .

In a judgment of DATE the NORP ORG reduced the applicant ’s contact with his daughter to DATE from TIME It held that the previously agreed form of contact was unlikely to be implemented and would only lead to further proceedings before the guardianship authority , which would be to the detriment of the child . The court based its judgment on an expert opinion finding that the child should have had an adaptation period to re - establish her relationship with her father . The court dismissed the applicant ’s claim concerning custody , stating that the child ’s wishes had to be taken into account , given that she was now DATE .

On DATE the GPE Regional Court upheld the first - instance judgment in essence but amended the applicant ’s contact rights to every other DATE TIME until DATE , and all DATE - long visits DATE as of DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant failed to turn up at numerous scheduled meetings for DATE , for which he was fined ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the applicant ’s contact rights and the amount of child allowance were subject to further litigation . On DATE the Szolnok ORG dismissed an action brought by him seeking to decrease the amount of child allowance , and a review of the way contact should be exercised . The court established that since the court decision of DATE , no contact had taken place between the applicant and his daughter and , despite a request by the applicant , the guardianship authority had taken no steps to implement the judgment on the grounds that he had made no efforts to resolve the conflict with his daughter . In particular , he had paid no heed to her request to travel by public transport instead of in his car .

The court also found that in the absence of any significant change in circumstances , there was no reason to amend the arrangements for contact .

In a final judgment of DATE the GPE Regional Court reviewed the applicant ’s parental rights , granting him contact DATE on the condition that the daughter , who was by now already DATE , be allowed to visit him by herself . The court dismissed the applicant ’s request for a decrease in the child allowance . The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG . It was dismissed on DATE .

It appears from the case file that meetings between the applicant and his daughter only took place sporadically in DATE and did not happen at all in DATE , despite the applicant lodging numerous enforcement requests with the guardianship authority .

NORP In DATE the applicant requested that the GPE and all subordinate guardianship authorities be excluded from any further proceedings for bias . On DATE ORG appointed ORG to deal with any further proceedings concerning the enforcement of the applicant ’s contact rights , noting that at that point there were CARDINAL enforcement requests pending , the oldest dating back to DATE .

The applicant lodged a number of requests seeking to end his obligation to pay child allowance , which were finally accepted by ORG and ORG on DATE and on appeal by ORG on DATE . Nonetheless , an additional request by him for the reimbursement of the child allowance he had already paid was dismissed at both levels of jurisdiction .


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant in the second case , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicants were represented before the ORG by Dr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON , Attorney General .

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the first applicant ( who was DATE at the time ) was arrested and interrogated on suspicion of trafficking ecstasy ( a drug which is regulated by ORG , LAW of LAW ) . During the interrogation , at which no lawyer was present , he gave a statement admitting to selling CARDINAL ecstasy pills and to using ecstasy and cannabis .

On DATE he gave another statement on oath before a magistrate , whereby he confirmed the contents of his previous statement and implicated some other individuals . The latter statement was given at the police headquarters shortly after he had been released , but it is unclear whether he was re - arrested and taken to the headquarters for further investigation , or whether he was asked to attend the police headquarters for further questioning by the inquiring magistrate .

On DATE the second applicant ( who was DATE at the time ) was arrested and interrogated on suspicion of trafficking and possession of ecstasy . During the interrogation , at which no lawyer was present , she gave a statement admitting to her involvement in the crime . She declared that she had been using ecstasy for DATE , that she smoked cannabis , and that she had helped PERSON to sell CARDINAL ecstasy pills for MONEY ( MTL ) each .

On DATE she gave another statement on oath before a magistrate , whereby she confirmed the contents of her previous statement . From the documents provided it is not possible to determine the time of this interrogation or whether the applicant was under arrest .

Subsequently the applicants were arraigned in ORG ( as a court of criminal judicature ) and their above - mentioned statements were exhibited as evidence against them .

On DATE during the criminal proceedings , the applicants requested the court to make a referral to the constitutional jurisdictions regarding complaints they had concerning the lack of legal assistance afforded to them during investigation and interrogation . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the court granted the request and referred the case . The applicants alleged a breach of their right to a fair trial ( LAW ) on account of the lack of legal assistance . They requested that their statements - both those made to the police and those made to the magistrate - be excluded from the prosecution ’s evidence .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence found a violation of the first applicant ’s right to a fair trial , in so far as he had not had access to a lawyer before and during the police interrogation which led to his statement of DATE . The same applied in respect of his statement under oath before the magistrate , if made while under arrest . It considered that a person had just as much a right to legal assistance before making a statement to a judicial authority as he or she did before making a statement to the police .

It ordered that any statements made by the applicant while under arrest should not be used in the criminal proceedings against him . It was for ORG ( as a court of criminal judicature ) , before which the case was pending , to make an order as to what was to be done with those statements in accordance with this decision . Since it was not clear whether the applicant was under arrest on DATE , it was therefore for that court to decide that matter .

Accepting that the case was not premature , and in the light of the criminal courts’ referral , it found that the first applicant ’s right to a fair trial had been breached only in relation to the statement given to the police , but not the statement given before the magistrate , which could thus be admitted as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him .

It considered that the right to legal assistance was not a formality which the accused could use as a further means of defence if not respected . The right served to ensure that statements are made freely , with the knowledge of the right to remain silent , without threats and promises , violence or abuse . A breach of the right to legal assistance during interrogation would occur when a statement was obtained by abuse and not solely because there was no lawyer present . There existed no right for accused persons to be found not guilty . The role of the lawyer was to ensure that the statement was taken legitimately and not to give advice as to how to hide the truth or make a limited or selective declaration . The law aimed to establish the truth and to ensure that no false statements are obtained by abuse . Fundamental rights were meant to promote the dignity of the individual , a matter which surely would not be protected by giving rights which distort or hide the truth at the expense of the proper administration of justice . The right to legal assistance was intended to protect persons in particular situations of vulnerability , weakness or fear who as a result of which made statements which led to a finding of guilt despite their innocence . Legal assistance in such cases prevented any such abuse and counteracted the vulnerability of the individual concerned .

In the present case the applicant was DATE at the time and may well have been vulnerable ; however , someone other than a lawyer could have provided for such a guarantee , such as a magistrate ( independent from the police ) , before whom the applicant made his second statement in accordance with domestic law .

For these reasons ORG upheld the LAW only in respect of the statement the applicant made to the police , which could not therefore be used in the criminal proceedings against him , but not in respect of the statement made before the inquiring magistrate , which could be used in the proceedings .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence found a violation of the second applicant ’s right to a fair trial , in so far as she had not had access to a lawyer before and during the interrogation which led to her incriminating statement being used by the prosecution as a crucial piece of evidence . The same applied in respect of a further statement she made under oath before a magistrate , if made while under arrest ( that is , while in police custody ) , since GPE case - law did not make such a distinction . It ordered that any statements made by the applicant while under arrest should not be used in the criminal proceedings against her . It was for ORG ( as a court of criminal judicature ) , before which the case was pending , to make an order as to what was to be done with those statements in accordance with this decision . In particular , it was not clear whether the applicant was under arrest or had already been released on DATE ; it was therefore for that court to decide that matter .

On appeal , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG reversed in part the first - instance judgment . Accepting that the case was not premature , also in the light of the criminal courts’ referral , it found that the second applicant ’s right to a fair trial had been breached only in relation to the statement given to the police , but not in respect of the statement given before a magistrate , which could thus be admitted as evidence in the criminal proceedings against her . It reiterated the considerations it had made in the above mentioned judgment in respect of the first applicant , PERSON PERSON .

The criminal proceedings against the applicants are still pending before ORG ( as a court of criminal judicature ) , which has suspended the case pending the outcome of the proceedings before this ORG .

The relevant domestic law concerning the case is to be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action against his former employer , ORG ( “ the institute ” , ORG « Институт природопользования Севера » ) , which was affiliated to ORG ( “ the ORG ” , PERSON государственная сельскохозяйственная академия ) , a ORG - owned educational institution . The applicant sought reinstatement in a job and work - related benefits .

On DATE ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) held in the applicant ’s favour .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) , acting on appeal , reversed the above judgment and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination .

On DATE the case file was sent to ORG .

On DATE the institute was liquidated .

On DATE the judge invited the defendant to present its objections and the applicant to specify his claims .

On DATE ORG replaced the institute by the ORG as the defendant following the applicant ’s request lodged on DATE .

On DATE ORG joined CARDINAL other persons as co - plaintiffs .

The hearing of DATE was postponed to DATE following the applicant ’s request for collection of certain documents .

The hearing of DATE was postponed to CARDINAL DATE due to the prosecutor ’s absence and the applicant ’s position according to which it was impossible to examine the case in his absence .

The hearing of DATE was postponed to DATE following the applicant ’s request to consult documents in the case file which had not been previously communicated to him .

On DATE the applicant presented additional claims which required their communication to the respondent . The hearing was thus postponed to DATE .

The hearing of DATE was postponed to CARDINAL DATE following the applicant ’s request to summon a witness and to collect additional documents .

The hearing of DATE was postponed to CARDINAL DATE due to the applicant ’s health problems .

At the hearings of DATE and DATE the applicant amended his claims . Both hearings were adjourned to enable the respondent to study the amendments .

On DATE ORG partly granted the applicant ’s action , ordering his immediate reinstatement at “ FAC affiliate ” as from DATE and awarding him PERSON and MONEY ( RUB ) in arrears and nonpecuniary damage respectively .

On DATE and on DATE respectively the respondent and the applicant appealed .

On DATE the prosecutor presented his objections on both appeals . On the same day the case was sent to ORG .

On DATE ORG , acting on appeal , affirmed the above judgment as to the reinstatement and non - pecuniary damage , reversing and remanding it for a new trial as to the arrears .

On DATE the sums due to the applicant under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as amended by ORG on DATE , were transferred to his bank account .

In the meanwhile ORG was renamed ORG of the Khanty - Mansy Autonomous Region ( “ the ORG ” ) . The applicant ’s case was assigned thereto .

On DATE an expert was appointed with a view to determining the applicant ’s benefit entitlement . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the expert presented his calculations .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant challenged the expert ’s calculations . The applicant was invited to present his own calculations based on documentary evidence and examine a possibility to conclude a friendly settlement .

The hearing of DATE was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE on account of the inconsistency of the applicant ’s calculations with LAW . The parties were invited to establish new calculations .

The hearing of DATE was adjourned pending the outcome of the supervisory - review appeal lodged by the respondent .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in arrears .

On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal .

On DATE the sums due to the applicant under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as upheld on DATE , were transferred to his bank account .

On DATE the applicant returned the writ of enforcement to ORG on the ground that the name of the debtor institution was incorrectly indicated .

On an unspecified date the bailiff applied to ORG seeking clarification of the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and of CARDINAL DATE . The bailiff argued that both judgments were impossible to execute in view of the institute ’s liquidation .

On DATE ORG examined his request in the presence of the ORG ’s representative and the applicant .

In its first decision delivered on that date ORG rectified the defendant ’s name and held that the sums awarded to the applicant be paid by the ORG .

By its second decision , ORG rejected the bailiff ’s request for clarification of the judgment of DATE as regards the applicant ’s immediate reinstatement . The court held that the procedure of dismissal of an employee in case of liquidation of a structural subdivision of the employer was governed by the relevant provisions of LAW .

These judgments were not appealed against and became final .

On DATE the ORG lodged an application for supervisory - review with the ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . The ORG alleged that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law and consequently the judgments of DATE and DATE should be quashed in their entirety .

On DATE the ORG amended the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and of DATE as to the applicant ’s immediate reinstatement . The ORG found that in accordance with LAW CARDINAL of the Labour Code in case of the liquidation of a branch of an organisation located in another territory the termination of contracts of its employees is governed by the rules applicable to the liquidation of organisations . In accordance with point CARDINAL of the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court no . CARDINAL of DATE , if it is not possible to reinstate an unlawfully dismissed employee because of the liquidation of the organisation , the court finds that the dismissal was unlawful and holds that he was dismissed in accordance with LAW as a result of the liquidation of the organisation . In view of the above , the ORG concluded that the lower courts incorrectly applied the substantive law and amended their judgments in the part concerning the applicant ’s immediate reinstatement by declaring that he should be considered as dismissed as a result of the liquidation of the employer organisation as from CARDINAL DATE and that there was no need to send the matter to a new consideration . The ORG rejected the remainder of the ORG ’s supervisory - review application .


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

The applicants are nationals of GPE . Their initials , dates of birth , the dates on which their applications were introduced , application numbers , as well as the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the Appendix .

On various dates they were charged in GPE with religious and politically motivated crimes , their pre - trial detention was ordered in absentia , and international search warrants were issued by the authorities .

Subsequently the NORP authorities took final decisions to remove ( that is to say extradite or expel ) the applicants to GPE , despite consistent claims that in the event of removal the applicants would face a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä

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

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

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

On DATE the Rīga City Vidzeme District Court authorised the applicant ’s detention on remand . The term of the applicant ’s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions .

On DATE the applicant was officially charged with large scale fraud and bribery . The charges against the applicant were subsequently amended on several occasions .

The bill of indictment was finalised on DATE and the case was transferred for adjudication to ORG . On DATE the public prosecutor in charge of the criminal case against the applicant informed the director of PERSON prison that the term of the applicant ’s detention had been prolonged . The hearings in the first - instance court took place DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG adopted judgment in the criminal case against the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants . The applicant was convicted of several crimes : repeated bribery ; abuse of an official position ; acquisition , possession and sale of cocaine ; money laundering and repeated fraud . He was acquitted of the charges of incitement to bribery , illegal acquisition and sale of a firearm as well as falsification of a criminal case against a third person .

The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment of DATE and DATE . The court also indicated that the applicant was to be continued to be held in detention .

The applicant and CARDINAL of his co - defendants appealed .

ORG started the appeal hearings on DATE . Hearings continued for DATE , after which the presiding judge postponed the continuation of the trial until DATE .

On DATE ORG , acting as an appeal court , adopted a decision by which it quashed the first - instance court ’s judgment in its entirety and remitted the case to the first - instance court . The appeal court considered that the first - instance court ’s judgment had not been adequately motivated and had furthermore relied on evidence which had not been presented during the hearing . The court also ruled on the applicant ’s detention on remand and found it necessary to prolong the term of the applicant ’s detention for DATE . The operative part of the decision of the appeal court indicated that the term of the applicant ’s detention on remand was to be prolonged by DATE “ starting from the date of entry into force of the decision ” .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint on points of law about his continued detention with ORG . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his appeal had been received on DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted an additional appeal on points of law against ORG decision to retain him in detention .

On DATE the ORG of ORG , after having examined the appeals on points of law submitted by the applicant and codefendants , and an opinion of the prosecutor , quashed the appeal court ’s decision of DATE in full and remitted the case to the appeal court . The ORG pointed out that upon identifying procedural flaws in the firstinstance court ’s judgment the appeal court itself had a duty to examine the case on the merits and adopt a new judgment .

On DATE ORG started hearings concerning the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of the firstinstance court . The appeal court refused to order the applicant ’s release from detention , arguing that his detention had been ordered by the verdict of the firstinstance court .

On DATE the applicant was released from prison after having completed his sentence .

On DATE ORG adopted a judgment . It upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court in full save for one episode of fraud , of which the applicant was acquitted . The applicant ’s final sentence remained unchanged .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG rejected the appeals on points of law that had been lodged by the prosecutor , the applicant and CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - defendants . The applicant had disputed the interpretation of evidence by the appeal court and the fairness of his conviction in general .

Section CARDINAL of the Law of Criminal Procedure ( in force from DATE and at the material time ) provides that :

( CARDINAL ) A cassation complaint or protest shall be lodged not later than within DATE after DATE when a court ’s judgment or decision becomes available .

( CARDINAL ) An appeal or protest submitted pursuant to the procedure specified in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article shall suspend the execution of a judgment or the entry into force of a decision . "

The relevant legal provisions and the domestic case - law in relation to the right to completion of the criminal proceedings within a “ reasonable time ” have been summarised in the case LAW v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . MONEY , DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations);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 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant , Mr PERSON ( PERSON . PERSON , see below ) , was born in DATE in the NORP SSR of the GPE . He claims to have lived in GPE until DATE when he left for GPE .

Since DATE the applicant has been living in GPE . In DATE , he acquired NORP nationality and changed his name to PERSON .

On DATE the ORG division of ORG determined that the applicant had obtained NORP nationality by fraud and cancelled his NORP passport . On DATE ORG upheld , in the final instance , the decision of ORG .

According to the letter from the police chief in GPE , GPE , dated DATE , the applicant forfeited his NORP nationality because of his unaccounted absence from the country for DATE .

On DATE a criminal case was instituted against the applicant in GPE on the charge of illegal crossing of the NORP State border , an offence under LAW .

On DATE further charges were levelled against the applicant under LAW of LAW ( “ Infringement of the constitutional order of GPE ” ) and LAW of a criminal enterprise ” ) . The charges related to the applicant ’s alleged participation in the religious terrorist organisation ORG ( PERSON ) ; he was suspected of meeting with its representatives during his stay in GPE and of spreading the ideas of the organisation .

On DATE ORG issued an arrest warrant .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE , GPE .

On DATE ORG issued a detention order valid until DATE . On DATE ORG extended the authorised detention period until DATE . The extension was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG approved the applicant ’s extradition in relation to the offence of organising , and taking part in , the activities of ORG , an extremist organisation ( LAW ) . It was noted that “ the [ applicant ’s ] extradition ... in relation to the extremist charges ... can not be regarded as an obstacle for extradition since no procedural decision was taken in this respect by the competent NORP authorities ” and further that the NORP authorities had provided “ diplomatic assurances that [ the applicant ] ... would not be subject to torture , violence , other cruel or degrading treatment ” .

On DATE ORG approved a further extension of the detention period until DATE . The applicant challenged the extension before ORG , claiming that the maximum detention period in case of a medium - gravity offence , for which his extradition had been approved , was set by law at DATE . By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG quashed the extension order of DATE , finding that ORG did not give any specific reasons for extending the applicant ’s detention , and remitted the detention matter to ORG . It directed that the applicant should remain in custody until DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG upheld the extradition order as being lawful and justified . The court noted that ORG provided the appropriate assurances , that ORG had no information capable of preventing the applicant ’s extradition , that ORG had no information about the applicant ’s persecution in GPE for political motives and that counsel ’s allegations of a real risk of illtreatment or torture in GPE were “ unsubstantiated ” ( голословные ) .

On DATE ORG issued a new extension order by which the applicant ’s detention was extended until DATE . The applicant challenged it on the same grounds as before . On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s complaint and released him from custody , finding that by virtue of LAW his detention could not have been extended beyond DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected at final instance the applicant ’s challenge to the decision on his extradition to GPE . It stated that the arguments about a real risk of torture and political persecution were “ unconvincing ” .

In TIME of DATE the applicant was taken away from his home by CARDINAL uniformed officers of ORG . The applicant ’s lawyer arrived immediately on the scene and attempted to follow them but was stopped by the traffic police .

When the applicant ’s wife and son arrived at the local office of ORG later on DATE , they were told that he had already been released .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative before the ORG sent a faxed letter to ORG , ORG and ORG , asking them to stop the applicant ’s unlawful transfer to GPE . She stated that she had information that the applicant was detained in a police ward in LOC and that he might be placed on the next flight to GPE .

Further to the ORG ’s request for factual information ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the Government replied that the applicant ’s current whereabouts were not known , that he had not been detained or transferred outside of the NORP territory by ORG agents and there was no information about him crossing of the State border .

On DATE ORG office advised the applicant ’s representative as follows :

“ As regards [ your ] allegation about an unlawful arrest of Mr PERSON , I inform you that on DATE the officers of the LOC regional branch of ORG conducted , in accordance with the approval plan on combating illegal migration , checks in the places where foreign nationals and stateless persons live , including the LOC of a mosque at CARDINAL , PERSON street , LOC . Following the check , QUANTITY persons , including Mr PERSON , were brought to the immigration control department . Upon identification , he was released .

According to the information provided , Mr PERSON ( PERSON ) was not arrested by the police on DATE or any other date ; the police has no information about his whereabouts . ”

On DATE ORG office additionally informed the counsel that on CARDINAL DATE ORG instituted a criminal case into the applicant ’s disappearance .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was appointed President of the Abasha ORG for a DATE term .

On DATE ORG initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)-(e ) of the Act of DATE on ORG against ORG ( hereinafter , “ LAW ” – see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He was accused in particular of having retained a criminal case file for DATE after withdrawing from the case on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE a Panel of ORG ( hereinafter , “ the Panel ” ) , composed of PERSON ( the President of the Panel and rapporteur ) , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON . ORG . , considered the case at an oral hearing . According to the transcript of the hearing , the applicant admitted to the act of negligence he had been accused of . After examining the circumstances of the case , the ORG found the applicant guilty of the misconduct in question . It considered his conduct all the more serious because the defendants in the case had been in detention at the time and because he had had a duty , LAW , to act promptly and without fault . The ORG took into account the nature of the misconduct , which it classified as serious , and the existence of another disciplinary measure against the applicant in the past , and decided to remove him from office .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( hereinafter , “ the ORG ” ) on points of fact and law under LAW ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He questioned the assessment of the circumstances of the case and the application of the legal provisions to the established facts in the decision of DATE . His appeal was examined at a plenary session of ORG composed of CARDINAL members , including the same CARDINAL , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON . ORG , who had sat at the first hearing . As before , PERSON acted as President and rapporteur in the examination of the applicant ’s appeal .

By a decision of DATE , the ORG unanimously upheld the ORG ’s decision of DATE in its entirety . The appellate instance confirmed that the lower body had correctly established the facts and applied the relevant law to the factual findings .

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG under section CARDINAL of LAW , as amended on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He argued that he had not been given notice that he could appear before the Panel and that there had been a delay in ORG examining his appeal . He also stated that under LAW the CARDINAL members of the ORG who had taken the decision of DATE had not had the right to sit subsequently in ORG appeal hearing .

NORP In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal as ill - founded . Based on the transcript , it found that he had in fact been present at the Panel hearing on DATE and had been able to state his case without impediment , contrary to his allegation . At the hearing the applicant had admitted to the act of negligence with which he had been charged . ORG rejected the allegation of a delay in the examination of the case by ORG by noting that the latter had given its ruling within the statutory time - limit of DATE . ORG also found that the presence of CARDINAL members of the ORG as participants in the subsequent ORG proceedings had not contravened the requirements of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

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

In his application to the ORG the applicant stated that at the relevant time he had been employed as a journalist by a NORP television channel . In DATE he had volunteered to cover the GCARDINAL Summit , which was being held in GPE region , for ORG ( ORG ) , disseminating press - releases and information on the Internet about protests , connecting journalists and protesters , and providing coverage about the issues raised by activists . In his comments on the third - party submissions before the ORG , the applicant added that at the time he had been “ involved with ” the Independent Media Centre ( GPE ) ; prior to the GCARDINAL summit , he had taken leave from his television assignments and had “ focused on media work ” in the framework of ORG .

According to the applicant , at TIME on DATE he happened to “ be around ” when a so - called “ anti - globalism ” march was taking place in FAC in GPE ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He was not wearing any distinctive clothing or insignia to designate him as a journalist . He did not take part in the protest ; rather , his actions were limited to observing people and taking photographs , including when the police started to disperse the gathering and to arrest some of the participants . CARDINAL of the police officers spotted him taking pictures and ordered him to switch off the camera . According to the applicant , he complied and no further order was given to him ; he did not show any resistance to the police . In his observations before the ORG the applicant said that he had presented his press - card issued by ORG , and explained his presence at the venue .

It follows from the identical reports of QUANTITY police officers that they approached the applicant and ordered him to cease his “ unlawful actions ” ; despite several warnings , the applicant refused ; he was then ordered to follow them to the police vehicle in order to be taken to the police station . Despite several warnings , he refused , grabbed their uniforms , behaved defiantly and shouted . He was then taken to the police vehicle by force .

A record of administrative escorting was drawn up under Article CARDINAL of LAW ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) . The record contained no reasoning .

The applicant was then subjected to the procedure of administrative arrest under LAW ORG . The following pre - typed text was underlined in the record : “ arrested in order to put an end to the offence , to compile the record of administrative offence , to examine the case and so on , as required by the CAO ” . According to the record , the applicant was not subjected to the procedure involving a personal search or an examination of his belongings .

According to the Government , when the applicant was arrested and held in the police station , he was in possession of an immigration card indicating “ a private visit ” to Mr T. residing in GPE as the aim of his presence in GPE , as well as photocopies of his NORP passport and ORG visa . The applicant was then interviewed and said that he was a journalist and worked as an editor for the ORG television channel . The ORG pointed out , in this connection , that the administrative case file contained no photocopies of any document confirming the applicant ’s status as a professional journalist .

Apparently , the applicant managed to contact a lawyer . In the applicant ’s submission , the lawyer arrived at the police station at CARDINAL a.m. but was not allowed to see him until TIME

At around that time , the applicant was allowed access to the administrative - offence record . The record compiled by Officer PERSON indicated that the applicant had been arrested because of his “ participation in a nonauthorised demonstration in FAC , thus creating a risk of accident threatening his own and others’ lives and limb ” . The record also stated :

“ A police officer approached [ the applicant ] , introduced himself and asked [ the applicant ] to cease his unlawful actions . Despite repeated and lawful orders to cease unlawful actions , [ the applicant ] refused . Despite repeated and lawful orders to get into the police vehicle , he also refused while grabbing the police ORG clothes and shouting . Physical force had to be used against him to make him get into the vehicle . ”

“ Witnesses , attesting witnesses , victims : Go . , [ address ] ; So . , [ address ] ... ”

TIME , a new administrative - offence record was compiled by Officer D. The applicant read and signed it at TIME According to the record , the applicant was arrested because he had “ disobeyed a lawful order from a police officer ” . The record also had the following pre - typed line with added handwritten text :

“ Witnesses , attesting witnesses , victims : Bo . , [ address ] ; ORG . , [ address ] ... ”

At TIME the applicant was brought before a justice of the peace . He was accused of disobeying CARDINAL orders from the police : ( i ) to cease his participation in the non - authorised demonstration ; and ( ii ) to get , “ voluntarily ” , into the police vehicle , as stated in the judgment of the justice of the peace .

The applicant stated before the court that while having a walk with his friend , PERSON , he had seen people running along FAC with banners and posters ; he had followed them to take some photographs .

The applicant ’s lawyer pointed out that the second record drawn up by the police was substantially different from the initial one . His efforts to have it admitted to the file , however , were unsuccessful . The judge heard PERSON , who stated that she had been taking a walk together with the applicant at QUANTITY TIME on DATE when they had seen people running along FAC ; the applicant had started to follow them ; she had lost sight of him and had eventually caught up with him when he had been placed in a police vehicle ; at that point , he had not been showing any resistance to the police .

According to the applicant , the court refused to hear the officers who had arrested him ( “ the arresting officers ” ) , the officers who had compiled the initial and the amended administrative - offence records or anyone mentioned in the record ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . According to the Government , the applicant made no request to have the arresting officers examined at the trial .

On TIME , the justice of the peace convicted the applicant under LAW ORG and sentenced him to DATE of detention , to be counted from TIME on DATE .

The court relied on ( i ) the ( second ) administrative - offence record , compiled by the authority initiating prosecution against the applicant , and ( ii ) the written statements made by the arresting officers prior to the trial .

NORP The applicant was held in a police cell for TIME and then transferred to a special detention facility to serve the sentence .

Although the trial judgment was amenable to appeal within DATE , the applicant chose to lodge an appeal without delay . He also made a written statement , which read :

“ Acting as a journalist , on DATE I took photographs during a public event . I did not think I was breaching any law . If I did so unknowingly , I am sorry about that . On DATE I was sentenced to CARDINAL days’ detention . I ask the appeal court , when examining my appeal , to grant it as regards my release . I would ask you to examine the appeal in my absence but with the participation of my counsel and a representative from ORG . ”

On DATE the applicant was visited by an official from ORG and signed a document authorising the Consul to represent him on appeal .

The Consul asked the appeal court to examine the appeal without delay .

On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE heard the representative , upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to CARDINAL days’ detention . The appeal court held as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] argued in his statement of appeal that the trial court had not taken into account that as a journalist he had not taken part in the so - called “ anti - globalist ” protest ; the trial court had not examined prosecution witnesses while the judgment was solely based on the written reports made by the police officers who had arrested him ...

The trial judge gave a proper assessment of the ORG reports and testimonies , including the testimony by PERSON who had been examined at the defendant ’s request . It followed from PERSON ’s statement that she had not observed the moment of the defendant ’s arrest . This court has no reasons to doubt the ORG reports because they had not been previously acquainted with the defendant and had no reason to commit perjury . ”

The appeal court indicated that its decision was “ subject to immediate enforcement ” .

According to the applicant , he was released at TIME on DATE . Referring to a logbook of detainees ( a copy of the relevant extract from which has not been submitted to ORG ) , the Government submitted that the applicant had been released at TIME on DATE .

The applicant sought a supervisory review of the judgments before ORG . He argued , inter alia , that he had been refused an opportunity to examine the arresting officers whose pre - trial reports had constituted the main adverse evidence . On DATE the deputy President of ORG upheld the conviction in a summary manner .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and at the material time was serving a sentence of imprisonment . The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows .

The case file indicates that in DATE and DATE the applicant was found guilty of various criminal offences , but his prison sentence was suspended for health reasons ( cardiovascular and lung disorders , high blood pressure , a left bundle branch block , and tuberculosis of the left lung ) .

NORP In DATE and DATE CARDINAL additional sets of criminal proceedings on multiple charges including armed robbery were initiated against the applicant . He was arrested on DATE and placed in pre - trial detention .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty as charged in the first set of proceedings and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The applicant did not appeal against his conviction .

On DATE , in the second set of criminal proceedings , the applicant was found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The court further decided that the aggregate term of imprisonment to be served pursuant to that judgment and the judgment of DATE should be fixed at DATE .

The judgment of DATE was altered on appeal on DATE . The prison sentence for the offences committed in DATE was reduced to DATE , but the total sentence to be served remained unchanged at DATE . An appeal on points of law by the applicant was rejected as inadmissible by ORG of GPE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was granted early release from prison .

NORP The applicant entered the prison system with a history of tuberculosis of the left lung . On DATE he was transferred to ORG medical facility ( “ the prison hospital ” ) , where an Xray of his lungs was performed . As no pathologies were revealed , the applicant was returned to ORG no . CARDINAL on DATE .

On DATE he was hospitalised again because of a cyst on his right testicle , and on DATE he underwent a surgical operation to have the cyst removed . The results of a subsequent biopsy revealed that the cyst was a benign skin cyst . On DATE additional blood tests revealed that the applicant did not have AIDS , but it was not possible at that stage to determine the presence of the hepatitis C antibody in his blood . Further tests DATE were recommended . After a trouble - free period of convalescence , the applicant was sent back to prison on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer asked for additional medical tests to be organised for the applicant . In particular , he asked for a blood test for hepatitis C. That request apparently went unanswered . On DATE the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital because of an abscess in his lower jaw . In addition to being treated by a dentist , according to the medical file , the applicant had a consultation with a neurologist and an endocrinologist because he was experiencing persistent headaches . The neurologist diagnosed him with post - traumatic encephalopathy and prescribed treatment . On DATE the applicant was discharged from the prison hospital , although his headaches persisted .

On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant applied to the prison authorities to be returned to the prison hospital “ for serious health reasons ” . He did not specify what was wrong with his health . On DATE the prison authorities forwarded the applicant ’s letters to the governor of ORG no . CARDINAL and the head of the prison administration ’s group of medical experts , so that they could be examined and appropriate action could be taken .

On DATE the applicant staged a hunger strike to obtain an examination by a neurologist . On DATE the applicant was seen in prison by a neurologist , who prescribed treatment for his post - traumatic encephalopathy .

On DATE representatives of ORG visited the applicant , who complained of headaches . The applicant alleged that during his previous stay in the prison hospital he had taken medicine for his headaches for DATE , but to no avail . He said that he had suffered from headaches before his arrest , however , the pain had become more severe , and at that point it had been constant for DATE . He also alleged that the treatment prescribed on DATE had not yielded any results . On DATE ORG sent a report on the meeting to the prison governor and requested news of the applicant ’s state of health .

On DATE , after having examined the applicant , the neurologist diagnosed neurasthenia and post - traumatic encephalopathy . Noting that the previous treatment had not worked , he considered that a more thorough examination was necessary .

On DATE the applicant staged a second hunger strike , requesting that he be transferred to the prison hospital . He maintained that , having suffered a serious head injury in the past , he was in need of a comprehensive inpatient examination of his head . He further complained that , although he was only being prescribed simple sedatives , he was not receiving them . On DATE a representative from ORG office met with the chief physician of ORG no . CARDINAL , where the applicant was staying at the material time . The doctor confirmed that the applicant was suffering from headaches and was in need of a tomography scan . He explained , however , that the applicant was only receiving pain medication , as the relevant insurance company refused to finance the required examination and treatment . According to an entry in the applicant ’s medical file , on DATE he was still on hunger strike , suffering from headaches .

On DATE ORG wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice , the head of ORG , and ORG no . CARDINAL , challenging the effectiveness of the insurance company with which ORG had concluded a contract , on the basis of , inter alia , the applicant ’s case . The Public Defender alleged that the applicant was being denied adequate examination and treatment for his post - traumatic brain condition . While discussing in detail the failures and shortcomings of the existing insurance scheme , ORG recommended that the relevant authorities annul the relevant contract .

In the meantime , an X - ray of the applicant ’s lungs taken on either CARDINAL or DATE had revealed signs of recurrent tuberculosis . His doctor recommended bacteriological analysis and an examination by a specialist . On DATE bacteriological tests revealed the presence of tuberculosis bacteria , and the applicant was immediately put on a ORG ( Directly Observed Treatment , GPE ) programme , the treatment strategy for the detection and cure of tuberculosis , as recommended by ORG .

According to an entry in the applicant ’s medical file , on DATE he was still suffering from constant headaches . The doctor treating the applicant recommended that he be transferred to the prison hospital for proper examination . On DATE the applicant was placed in the prison hospital with a diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and posttraumatic encephalopathy . There , he underwent various medical tests , including a blood test for hepatitis C markers , which was negative , and a tomography scan . He also had a consultation with a neurologist . As a result , he was diagnosed with intracranial hypertension syndrome . The applicant was prescribed relevant treatment and sent back to ORG no . CARDINAL on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was placed in a facility in GPE for prisoners with tuberculosis . On DATE he violated the internal rules of the facility . As a result , on an unspecified date he was transferred back to ORG no . CARDINAL , where , according to the latest medical examination of which the ORG was informed , he continued his treatment for tuberculosis .

On DATE the applicant underwent a serological test , which detected no active hepatitis C virus in his system .

On DATE the applicant was placed in GPE Prison no . CARDINAL , where he stayed for DATE . According to him , the conditions of detention in that prison were inhuman and degrading . In view of the severe overcrowding in prison , he had to take turns sleeping , sleeping for a maximum of TIME a day . The sanitary and hygienic conditions were appalling , and for DATE there was no opportunity for him to have proper shower . The applicant was also deprived of the opportunity to have regular outdoor exercise . Whilst in FAC no . CARDINAL , he was not allowed to see his family even once .

On DATE , following his conviction , the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL . According to him , the conditions of his detention improved there , although he was still deprived of regular outdoor exercise . Moreover , the nutrition in the prison was poor and he was deprived of basic items relating to hygiene , such as soap , bed linen , toilet paper , and towels .

According to a letter from the prison governor dated DATE , the applicant was only visited by his family once during his time in that prison , on DATE .


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

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence in a correctional colony in LOC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery . On DATE the ORG of GPE authorised his detention .

On DATE ORG extended the detention . That detention order was upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE by ORG .

Another extensions of detention followed on DATE and DATE . The applicant appealed against both detention orders .

On DATE the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The conviction became final on DATE .

On DATE , in reply to the applicant ’s complaint about the failure to examine his appeal , ORG informed him that his appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE was not received by ORG . However , by a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG forwarded the applicant ’s appeal statement lodged on DATE to ORG , requiring it to perform procedural steps necessary to initiate the appeal proceedings . ORG also informed the applicant that his appeal complaint of CARDINAL DATE was mistakenly attached to another case - file .

No further information on organisation of the appeal hearing against the detention order of DATE was provided .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant brought an enforcement action before ORG ( PERSON ) against a socially / State - owned company “ ORG a.d . Smederevo ” ( the debtor ) .

On DATE that court ordered direct enforcement of the outstanding invoice ( izvršenje na osnovu verodostojne isprave ) .

On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring .

On DATE the applicant appealed the decision to stay the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the applicant ’s appeal was rejected by the enforcement court .

On DATE the applicant urged the court to continue the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the court informed the applicant that the debtor was still undergoing restructuring and that therefore the enforcement proceedings could not be continued .

It would appear that the applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE the applicant brought an enforcement action before ORG ( GPE sud u GPE ) against a socially / ORG - owned company “ GPE a.d . Niš ” ( the debtor ) .

On DATE that court ordered direct enforcement of the outstanding invoice .

The applicant did not appeal against this decision which became final on DATE .