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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC ( NORP pataisos namai – atviroji kolonija ) .

In DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in pre - trial detention on suspicion of several instances of trafficking drugs in very large amounts as part of an organised group .

DATE and DATE the applicant was held at FAC ( GPE tardymo izoliatorius - kalėjimas ) in cells which measured QUANTITY and which housed CARDINAL detainees .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC ( GPE tardymo izoliatorius ) . According to a document issued by that prison , the average space per prisoner in the cells where the applicant was held varied , but was sometimes QUANTITY per inmate .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( GPE departamentas ) , a body that oversees NORP prisons , about the conditions in which he had been held ( dėl buvusių prastų kalinimo sąlygų ) in FAC . In its reply of DATE , the department admitted that the applicant ’s allegations that he had been held in overcrowded cells in GPE had been partly proved .

After visiting FAC on DATE , ORG Visuomenės sveikatos centras ) found that the prison complied with general health and hygiene requirements .

On DATE the applicant started court proceedings for damages , arguing that the conditions of his detention in FAC had been abysmal .

By a decision of DATE , ORG held that the applicant had missed the CARDINAL years’ statutory deadline to lodge a claim for damages , because he had been released from FAC on DATE .

The applicant appealed , arguing that he had only learned in DATE that his rights had been breached , when he had started communicating with his current representative before the ORG , Mr PERSON .

By a final decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal , noting that the applicant could have asked for legal aid to start court proceedings for damages in a timely fashion if he had been without sufficient means to employ a lawyer .

On DATE , while he was being held at FAC , the applicant had his first myocardial infarction . He was taken DATE to a public hospital – the cardiology unit of ORG ( NORP sveikatos mokslų universiteto ligoninė – Kauno klinikos , hereinafter – “ the GPE ” ) , where he underwent a surgical intervention . The doctors noted in the applicant ’s medical file that he was a heart attack risk because he had smoked CARDINAL cigarettes a day for DATE . Another risk factor was hereditary , because the applicant ’s father had had myocardial infarction .

On DATE the GPE Clinics’ doctors concluded that the applicant ’s condition had stabilised ( būklė stabilizavosi ) . The applicant was prescribed medications for his condition ( medikamentinis gydymas ) , explained what kind of diet and health regime to follow and transferred to ORG ( PERSON atėmimo vietų ligoninė ) .

As can be seen in the documents submitted by the parties , and as was later confirmed by the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the doctors at ORG , on the instructions of the doctors at GPE , performed a number of tests on the applicant ( including urine , blood , and an ECG ) . They also prescribed a diet that was low on salt and fat . Given that the applicant ’s state of health was stable and improving , on DATE the applicant was sent back to FAC . The doctors recommended that he continue to take the medications he had been prescribed .

On DATE the applicant was again placed in ORG for an earlier scheduled consultation . He had some diagnostic tests and was treated with medications .

On DATE , while at ORG , the applicant had a second myocardial infarction and was immediately transferred to a public hospital – the Cardiology and FAC of ORG GPE ( ORG Santariškių klinikos , hereinafter – “ GPE ” ) , where he was examined and tests were performed . DATE , on DATE , the doctors in GPE held that the applicant ’s state of health was stable , and on that day he was returned to ORG .

While being held at ORG , on DATE the applicant was taken back to ORG for a consultation . The doctors recommended the applicant be treated with medications and also prescribed a diet which was low on salt and fat . The doctors also recommended that the applicant engage in physical activity for TIME a day . They also recommended that the applicant be “ brought back to LOC after DATE ( po CARDINAL mėnesių ) for a consultation , having registered in advance ” .

On DATE the ORG released the applicant back to FAC . The applicant ’s medical record indicates that he was released because his state of health “ had improved ( pagerėjo ) ” . It also states that the applicant “ could walk ( gali eiti ) ” . Among the risk factors , the doctors noted that the applicant smoked . It was recommended that the applicant have further outpatient treatment with medications ( medikamentinis ambulatorinis gydymas ) , follow a diet that was low on fat and salt and be physically active by taking exercise ( fizinis aktyvumas ) .

On DATE the applicant was issued with a certificate that he had lost PERCENT of his capacity for work . The document stated that he could not perform any work where he needed to lift QUANTITY . However , the applicant could do work that involved walking , sitting or bending .

In reply to a complaint by the applicant ’s lawyer , on CARDINAL DATE ORG noted that it had rigorously adhered to the instructions from cardiologists of category III medical care institutions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP The applicant was again admitted to ORG , staying there from DATE with digestion - related issues ( haemorrhoids ) . The doctors noted that the applicant had got haemorrhoids DATE previously . After examining the applicant , they prescribed outpatient treatment with medications , and noted that he was fit enough to be taken to a court hearing .

NORP In DATE ORG administration told the applicant in reply to a request that as of DATE he would be provided the same menu of food as women ( PERSON bus tiekiamas maitinimas pagal moterų valgiaraštį ) .

After visiting ORG DATE , ORG concluded that the hospital complied with general health - care and hygiene requirements .

The applicant was admitted to ORG from DATE for a scheduled follow - up ( planine tvarka ) of his heart condition . The applicant ’s medical record shows that a number of tests had been performed on him , the doctors concluded that his state of health was “ unchanged ( be pakitimų ) ” and “ satisfactory ( patenkinama ) ” . The medical certificate issued at the time of the applicant ’s discharge from the hospital on DATE also indicated that he smoked , which was a risk factor .

In DATE the applicant also wrote to the PERSON , complaining that he had been held at FAC , FAC and at ORG , where he had suffered great psychological stress . He argued that in those facilities his health had worsened and as a consequence he had suffered CARDINAL myocardial infarctions . He also claimed that in FAC he had not been provided with the right diet , going against the LOC recommendations . The applicant was also dissatisfied with the fact that he had not been provided rehabilitation therapy . In DATE the applicant withdrew , in writing , the part of his complaint concerning FAC , stating that he had no complaints about that facility .

On DATE the PERSON accepted the applicant ’s withdrawal of his complaint as regards FAC . The PERSON , however , established that the conditions of the applicant ’s detention at FAC , where he had been held DATE and DATE , as well as at ORG , where he had been held DATE and DATE , had been in breach of domestic legislation on overcrowding . In particular , the applicant had been held in ORG in a room where he had had QUANTITY of personal space .

The PERSON nevertheless dismissed the complaint about a lack of proper medical care . After examining the documents related to the applicant ’s treatment in hospitals , the PERSON noted that , contrary to the applicant ’s submissions , neither the Kaunas Clinics nor ORG had prescribed him a course of rehabilitation therapy after the applicant ’s first and second heart attacks respectively . On the contrary , both GPE had made recommendations for further treatment , such as the medications , tests and dietary requirements which were required , and which ORG had followed .

According to CARDINAL documents provided by the applicant ’s representative , Mr. PERSON , in DATE and DATE and in DATE the outpatient polyclinic in GPE ( PERSON ambulatorija , hereinafter – Upninkai PERSON ) , a village in LOC in GPE , gave “ the applicant ’s authorised person ” three written statements by the polyclinic ’s head doctor . They noted that the applicant had suffered from myocardial infarction and summarised his medical history . CARDINAL of those documents also stated that because of his state of health , as seen in the light of certain legal acts issued by ORG , the applicant should be released from serving his sentence .

In DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for a planned consultation with a cardiologist . The applicant spent DATE there . During that time , on DATE , he was also taken to GPE , where the doctors performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test ( veloergometrija ) and an ultrasound examination of the heart ( ultragarsinis širdies tyrimas ) . The applicant ’s heart was rhythmical , with no decompensation . The cardiologists prescribed medications to treat the applicant , said he should limit his intake of fat and salt ( as concerned his diet ) and have TIME of physical activity a day . He was to return for a further consultation , although the exact date was not indicated .

The doctors in ORG also performed a number of tests . When they released the applicant back to FAC on DATE they concluded that “ his illness was without complications ( ligos eiga : be komplikacijų ) ” . The applicant ’s state of health was “ satisfactory ( patenkinama ) ” .

As can be seen from the applicant ’s medical records , on CARDINAL DATE FAC sent him to ORG for “ a full examination , follow - up and treatment ” of his heart condition . The doctor ’s examined the applicant , including an ORG and blood tests , and concluded that his state of health was “ satisfactory ” . It was noted that the applicant smoked .

After the applicant ’s arrest on DATE , a court sanctioned his pre - trial detention for an initial duration of DATE . The detention was then prolonged a number of times .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention for DATE on the grounds that the applicant was suspected of being the organiser of a criminal group which committed drug - related crimes , that he had connections abroad , did not work and faced a heavy sentence . Moreover , there was evidence in the file that the applicant had attempted to influence other suspects , thus impeding the criminal investigation .

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed , arguing that her client had suffered a double myocardial infarction , had been operated on and treated at ORG . In addition , he had another illness , connected to the digestive system . The lawyer argued that her client would not receive proper medical assistance , as regarded his regime and diet , in ORG . She asked that a milder remand measure than pre - trial detention be ordered .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that milder remand measures would hinder the course of justice . It held that there was no information in the file preventing the holding of the applicant in pre - trial detention because of his state of health . The court noted that the applicant was being held at the time at ORG and was receiving CARDINAL-hour medical assistance .

In DATE the applicant ’s lawyer submitted several new requests asking to replace detention with a less severe remand measure owing to the deterioration of the applicant ’s health while in detention . She also relied on the Santariškės Clinics’ record of DATE , where it was stated that the applicant needed a low - salt diet , a special regime for his meals and physical activity . The lawyer maintained that such assistance could not be provided at FAC or at ORG , thus preventing the applicant from having satisfactory medical care .

On the basis of the request by the applicant ’s lawyer , on DATE ORG ordered a comprehensive forensic examination to be performed by a ORG commission , comprising a cardiologist , to answer the question whether the applicant was ill with a serious , incurable illness ( sunki nepagydoma liga ) , and , if so , whether for that reason he could be released from serving a sentence . In the meantime , the court extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision to extend the applicant ’s detention . The court observed that although the applicant had serious health problems , he had always been provided with adequate treatment at ORG or , if necessary , in a public hospital .

After examining the applicant ’s medical records from GPE and GPE , as well as from ORG , on DATE experts from ORG ( ORG teismo medicinos tarnyba ) produced report no . ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) . It read that the applicant had an ischaemic heart illness , having suffered a myocardial infarction ; he also had hypertension and ischaemic cardiomyopathy . Those ailments should be classified as serious and incurable illnesses . However , the experts concluded that the applicant ’s state of health at the time did not meet the criteria which allowed a convicted person to be exempted from serving a sentence , according to the rules set by ORG and ORG ( see paragraph DATE below ) . CARDINAL of the doctors on the commission was a cardiologist , a professor and habilitated doctor of sciences at GPE . Another doctor was a surgeon with DATE of experience .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention was then prolonged by court rulings on DATE , DATE and DATE .

The last pre - trial detention order was upheld on DATE by ORG . The applicant ’s lawyer referred to the reports from the Upninkai PERSON and claimed that neither FAC nor ORG could guarantee the necessary medical care for the applicant . ORG however noted absence of any new documents showing that the applicant ’s state of health had worsened . ORG also had regard to the practice of the ORG to the effect that the ORG should protect inmates’ physical health ( it relied on GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . GPE , ORG CARDINALXI , and Peers v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ) . However , in the applicant ’s case there was no evidence that there would be a lack of medical assistance . Furthermore , the comprehensive medical examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not ruled out keeping the applicant detained , and , in the court ’s view , its conclusions prevailed over those of the Upninkai PERSON . There was no reason to hold that keeping the applicant detained , and , if necessary , treating him at ORG or in another hospital , could be considered as inhuman or degrading .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty of a number of drug - related crimes and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment in a correctional home . The applicant was to remain detained until the judgment became final .

The applicant ’s conviction was upheld by ORG on DATE , but the sentence was changed to DATE of deprivation of liberty in a correctional home .

By a final judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the appellate court ’s verdict . ORG also relied on expert report no . EKG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and held that the lower courts had been correct in finding that the applicant ’s state of health did not prevent him from serving a prison sentence .


Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

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

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

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

The applicant has lived and worked in GPE since DATE .

In DATE the competent prosecuting authorities in GPE opened in total CARDINAL criminal cases against the applicant in connection with a suspicion that he had created a network for illegal and fraudulent offering of loans in GPE to NORP citizens . It was alleged that CARDINAL individuals had fallen victim to such criminal activities and that the applicant had also caused damage to the ORG . The total alleged pecuniary gain was estimated to be CARDINAL ( ORG ) .

In the course of the criminal proceedings against him , the applicant several times failed to appear before the competent criminal courts . He referred to reasons such as problems with his car and health issues . In connection with the applicant ’s health condition , a medical report was commissioned and on DATE a medical expert found that there had been nothing objectively justifying the applicant ’s absence from the hearings .

Owing to the inability of the NORP authorities to secure the applicant ’s presence , CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings against him were conducted in absentia . In those criminal proceedings he was convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from DATE .

NORP In DATE , on the basis of an international arrest warrant , the NORP authorities extradited the applicant to GPE . Upon his extradition , the applicant was placed in LOC ( GPE u GPE ) where he started to serve his prison sentences .

Following the granting of his application for the reopening of the proceedings conducted in absentia , service of the applicant ’s sentence was discontinued on DATE . He was , however , remanded in pre - trial detention pending the criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE , after the applicant had deposited bail in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK – approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u GPE ) , in a case pending before it ( case no . Ko-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , found that the applicant should be released if he promised that he would not go into hiding , leave his place of residence in GPE without permission , hinder the proper conduct of the proceedings or reoffend . The applicant undertook to obey the conditions of his bail and ORG released him from detention , instructing the police to supervise the applicant ’s compliance with the imposed measures .

At the time when he deposited bail the applicant was still detained on the basis of a detention order of ORG ( PERSON ) in another criminal case against him ( case no . PERSON ) . Following the applicant ’s deposit of the bail before ORG , on DATE ORG found that he should be released from pre - trial detention as his presence could be secured by the measures imposed by ORG . On DATE , the applicant was released from detention . At the time he was represented before the domestic courts by the same representative as currently before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP In connection with the applicant ’s conviction in absentia in criminal case no . Ko-CARDINAL/CARDINAL on charges of fraudulent offering of loans to several individuals in which he had been sentenced to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , on CARDINAL DATE ORG imposed an administrative travel ban on the applicant by ordering ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON ) , pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to confiscate the applicant ’s existing travel document and not to issue a new one to him .

Following the setting aside of the applicant ’s conviction in absentia and the reopening of the criminal proceedings on the basis of his application , on DATE ORG informed ORG that the applicant ’s travel ban was to remain in force pending the criminal proceedings against him . The applicant was also remanded in pre - trial detention on the grounds of a risk of absconding related to his previous conduct by which he had sought to escape trial .

On DATE the decision on the applicant ’s pre - trial detention was set aside on the grounds that the maximum period for pre - trial detention had expired .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that the applicant ’s travel ban pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG should still remain in force . The same instruction was issued again on DATE .

Meanwhile , following a retrial , on DATE the applicant was found guilty in the above criminal proceedings on charges of fraud and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . Based on the applicant ’s appeal the case was referred to ORG PERSON ) , as the competent appeal court in the case .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to have the administrative ban on him obtaining travel documents lifted , arguing that his medical condition had deteriorated and that he urgently needed heart surgery . He contended that he did not have health insurance in GPE , but only in GPE , and that he did not have sufficient financial means to pay for surgery in GPE . He therefore asked for permission to go to GPE for a short period so he could have the surgery . He also pointed out that he had been released from detention on bail and under preventive measures , which , in his view , made the administrative ban at issue obsolete .

As he received no reply from ORG , in DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( ORG pravosuđa PERSON ) and again urged ORG to examine his application . Meanwhile , his medical examination of DATE indicated that he should have the required heart surgery within DATE .

Following his complaint , the applicant received a reply from ORG informing him that the case file had been forwarded to ORG , as the competent appeal court , and that the matter would be examined .

In DATE the applicant asked PERSON to decide upon his application . On DATE PERSON replied by an email that it was not competent to decide on the application and that it should be examined by ORG , which had issued the ban .

On DATE PERSON dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the first - instance judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . His conviction thereby became final .

Following the finalisation of the applicant ’s conviction , on DATE the case was forwarded to a sentence - execution judge of ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) in order to make the arrangements for the applicant ’s service of his prison sentence .

Notwithstanding the repeated attempts by the sentence - execution judge and the police to locate the applicant , he remained unavailable to the NORP authorities . In DATE an international arrest warrant and a NORP arrest warrant were issued against him .

At present the applicant is still at large .

In addition to the above - noted administrative travel ban in case no . Ko-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , an administrative travel ban was also ordered in ORG case no . Ko-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The proceedings in that case are still pending .

The criminal proceedings against the applicant in ORG case no . K-CARDINAL/CARDINAL are still pending ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Other criminal proceedings against the applicant in a case before ORG ( case no . K-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) are still pending .

According to the applicant , on DATE he was asked to come for an interview to a police station where he was questioned about his complaints submitted to the ORG .

According to the information provided by the ORG , the police were acting upon the media reports that the applicant had effectively lived in GPE but maintained his registered residence in GPE since DATE .

In this connection the police attempted several times to find the applicant at his registered address in GPE but he could not be located . Eventually , he appeared at the police station with his lawyer and gave a statement concerning his residence .

A report on the applicant ’s interview of DATE contains his statements concerning his residence . According to the report , the applicant was neither questioned on nor did he give any statement concerning his application before the ORG .

According to a report by ORG ( ORG zdravlja PERSON ) of DATE , provided by the Government , the applicant had health insurance in GPE in the period between DATE until DATE as a person deprived of his liberty ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Thereafter he had an opportunity to apply for free health insurance within DATE of his release in accordance with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , he had an opportunity to apply for comprehensive health insurance but he would have needed to pay certain due instalments and further instalments in the amount of MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The health insurance under any of the noted grounds would also cover the heart surgery which had been indicated to the applicant . Such heart surgery could be performed in ORG in GPE and ORG , and in the PERSON and ORG .

The relevant part of ORG o putnim ispravama hrvatskih državljana , ORG nos . ORG , DATE , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads :

“ An application for a travel document shall be denied to an applicant in respect of whom there is a justified suspicion that he or she will :

Avoid his or her participation in the criminal proceedings or the enforcement of a judgment by which he or she was sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment DATE ... - upon a request by the competent court , ... ”

The Mandatory Health Insurance Act ( Zakon o obveznom zdravstvenom osiguranju , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE ) in its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that all individuals deprived of their liberty shall have health insurance . Paragraph CARDINAL(c ) of the same section provides that every individual who has been deprived of his or her liberty shall be given health insurance if , within DATE following release , he or she applies for it . LAW provides that health insurance should cover the cost of specialist treatment and hospitalisation .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti , ORG nos . CARDINAL with further amendments ) provides that urgent medical treatment for individuals residing in GPE without health insurance and sufficient means to pay for their treatment shall be paid for from the ORG budget .

Under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o prebivalištu , ORG nos . CARDINAL and ORG ) the police have the right to check whether an individual is residing at his or her registered residence in GPE , and to institute the procedure for his or her striking out from the register of residence if he or she does not live at the registered residence .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant took up the position of pastor in ORG ( ORG ) . As of DATE , he served in the parish of ORG . His rights and obligations as well as his remuneration were set out in an appointment letter ( lelkészi díjlevél ) issued by the parish presbyters .

On DATE the applicant was informed that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against him for stating in a local newspaper that ORG subsidies had been paid unlawfully to a NORP boarding school . Meanwhile , on DATE the first - instance ecclesiastical court had suspended the applicant ’s service with immediate effect until a decision on the merits , for a maximum of DATE . The applicant received a letter stating that he was entitled , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Statute no . I of DATE of ORG , to PERCENT of his service allowance during the period of his suspension .

On DATE the first - instance ecclesiastical court removed the applicant from service , as a disciplinary measure . On an unspecified date , the second - instance ecclesiastical court upheld that decision and terminated the applicant ’s service with effect from DATE .

On DATE the applicant took his case to ORG , seeking the payment of PERCENT of his service allowance and other benefits to which , in his view , he should have been entitled during the period of his suspension . Arguing that his suspension had reached its statutory maximum duration on DATE , he also sought the payment of the whole service allowance from that date until the termination of his service , that is , DATE . He argued in substance that his ecclesiastical service was analogous to employment , referring to tax rules to that effect ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG discontinued ( megszüntette ) the proceedings , holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the applicant ’s claim . It considered that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Statute no . I of DATE of ORG , ORG service with the ORG was regulated by ecclesiastical rules , whereas laymen ’s employment with the ORG was governed by ORG . Accordingly , since the dispute before it concerned the applicant ’s service as a pastor , the provisions of LAW were not applicable in the case , and there existed no judicial avenue before the ORG courts to decide on his claims .

The Pest County Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant did not apply for a review to ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil - law claim against ORG . His claim was based in the first place on sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the [ old ] Civil Code and on the agency contract he had allegedly concluded with the ORG . He maintained that for the period from DATE ( that is , the date when the suspension allegedly became unlawful ) until DATE ( that is , the date of termination of his appointment ) he was entitled to a fee for his services , which corresponded to the service allowance set out in his appointment letter . He thus sought enforcement of the contract . Alternatively , he based his claim on sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the [ old ] Civil Code and on the breach by ORG its contractual obligations under the agency contract . He argued that by not paying him the allowance due for the period DATE and DATE , the ORG had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations . He thus claimed damages , amounting to the loss of service allowances to which he would have been entitled under the contract for the above - mentioned period .

The Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant ’s claim on the grounds that no contractual relationship had been established between the parties under civil law . In the court ’s view , the claim had no basis in civil law . It therefore did not embark on an assessment of the applicant ’s secondary claims , such as liability for breach of contract or recognition of debt .

ORG upheld the first - instance decision on appeal , reasoning that ORG had no standing in the proceedings , since the applicant had been appointed by the parish of ORG , a separate legal entity .

The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG . By its decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG quashed the final decision and discontinued ( megszüntette ) the proceedings . It stated as follows :

“ ... In order to determine the rules applicable to the agreement ( megállapodás ) in question and to the implementation of the rights and obligations arising from it , it is necessary to have regard to the very purpose of the agreement underlying the plaintiff ’s actual claim as well as the elements thereof defining the parties’ rights and obligations . The first - instance court rightly stated in its assessment that the agreement serving as the basis of the applicant ’s claim was not an agency contract regulated by civil law or concluded by and between parties enjoying personal autonomy in the marketing of [ goods and services ] . The plaintiff was appointed as a pastor in an ecclesiastical procedure , and the obligations of the respondent were defined in an appointment letter by the assembly of presbyters . The parties established between themselves a pastoral service relationship , regulated by ecclesiastical law .

Under LAW ) of Act no . DATE on Freedom of Conscience and Religion and on Churches , the ORG is separated from the ORG . Under sub - section ( CARDINAL ) , no State coercion can be used to enforce the internal laws and regulations of Churches .

Relying on the above provisions , the applicant can make a claim under the ecclesiastical law before the relevant bodies of ORG . The fact that the agreement concluded under ecclesiastical law resembles a contractual agreement under LAW does not prompt ORG jurisdiction or the enforceability of the claim in a judicial procedure within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW . ( In the given case the basic elements of an agency contract and the conclusion of such a contract could not be established either . )

The labour court reached the same conclusion in the earlier proceedings when assessing the claim under the ORG labour law and dismissing its enforcement in judicial proceedings .

The first - instance court was right to point out that as the impugned agreement lacked a civil - law legal basis , the court could not examine the applicant ’s secondary claim ( compensation for breach of contract ) . On the basis of the reasoning above , there were no grounds to adjudicate on the claim on the merits .

ORG accordingly quashes the final judgment , including the firstinstance judgment , and discontinues the proceedings under sections CARDINAL ) ( a ) and CARDINAL ( a ) of the Code of Civil Procedure ... ”

This decision was served on the applicant at some point in time after DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence . Since his sentence began , he has been imprisoned in a number of prisons in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention on suspicion of murder .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

According to the information provided by ORG ( PERSON a PERSON , the “ ORG ” ) , from his arrest to DATE the applicant was mainly held in PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE Prisons . Every DATE he spent DATE in a prison hospital , in CARDINAL of PERSON , PERSON or ORG .

During the reporting period , the applicant was transferred CARDINAL times between these QUANTITY facilities ; CARDINAL of these transfers were to the psychiatric wards of prison hospitals .

The applicant alleged that in all of the prisons in which he had been held other inmates had tried to poison his food and to beat him to death , and had been encouraged to do so or even helped by the prison authorities .

On DATE , while in detention , the applicant was diagnosed with delusional disorder , a type of psychosis . Psychiatric treatment in ORG was recommended .

According to the official prison records , each time the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital the diagnosis was confirmed . DATE , each time he was discharged from prison hospital he was prescribed medication for his psychiatric disorder . It is mentioned in the official prison records that he refused to accept the diagnosis and to take his medication . For this reason , he was on each occasion discharged from hospital and transferred back to prison .

DATE the applicant spent CARDINAL periods of DATE and CARDINAL period of DATE in ORG . He was discharged from hospital each time , it being considered that no medication was needed for his psychiatric condition . Following a further period of admission to ORG in DATE , he was given medication again .

On several occasions the applicant reported to the authorities that the other inmates were trying to poison him . According to him , instead of receiving an answer to his complaints , he was transferred each time to a psychiatric hospital . He also asked to be placed in a cell alone , in order to prevent other attempts at poisoning him .

According to the information provided by the ORG , the quality of food was tested DATE , and water quality was tested periodically . The results were satisfactory . The applicant was never admitted to the infirmary with symptoms of poisoning .

NORP In DATE , in FAC , he was transferred , at his request , to the maximum security wing of that prison , where he shared a room with CARDINAL others . While he was there , the applicant nevertheless chose to sleep in a small bathtub ( measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ) in the unheated bathroom from DATE to DATE , as he feared that his cellmates were trying to poison him while he was asleep .

The applicant lodged criminal complaints against the prison guards , the doctor and the governor of ORG , whom he accused of improper behaviour . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG decided not to bring a criminal prosecution . It noted that there was no evidence that prison officers had encouraged the inmates to poison or beat the applicant . The prosecutor also noted that the applicant had never sought medical help in prison for any poison - related symptoms and that he had never been in conflict with the other inmates or with the wardens . The prosecutor took account of the fact that the applicant had been diagnosed with mixed delusional disorder and that he had been compulsorily admitted to hospital several times , but discharged DATE , because he had refused to acknowledge the illness or to receive treatment .

Upon receiving the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE , the applicant asked to be examined by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) to prove that he was not mentally ill .

In FAC , the applicant chose to sleep on the toilet seat to avoid the alleged poisoning and used to wake up in the middle of the night to rinse his mouth , being certain that he had been poisoned in his sleep . According to the official prison records , the most difficult stage of his detention in FAC was in DATE , when he repeatedly complained that the administration was promising benefits for inmates if they poisoned his food and water .

In DATE the applicant went on hunger strike to force the prison administration to place him alone in a cell . The judge delegated by the court of appeal to supervise the observance of ORG rights for the purpose of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the execution of sentences ( “ the postsentencing judge ” ) visited him and explained that his request could only be met if there were places available in individual cells , which was not the case at that time . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the post - sentencing judge determined that it was appropriate for the applicant to be kept in common dormitories but asked that he be seen DATE by a doctor during his hunger strike , to ensure that his life was not endangered .

NORP In DATE , a similar request to be placed alone was denied by ORG , as there were no individual cells available .

NORP The applicant asked to be transferred to ORG , in a single room under medical supervision , from DATE . His request was refused , as it was considered that the conditions of detention in FAC were appropriate .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the ORG administration responded to inquiries by the ORG concerning the applicant ’s allegations of poisoning , explaining the applicant ’s mental health problems . In the letter of DATE they also informed the ORG that the applicant was not “ a person in need ” who required the help of another person , as he could take care of himself , notably wash and feed himself .

At the end of its investigation , the ORG informed the applicant that his allegations remained unfounded .

The applicant lodged similar complaints with the post - sentencing judge .

On DATE such a complaint concerning the situation in FAC was dismissed as unfounded . On DATE the postsentencing judge dismissed a similar complaint concerning ORG as unfounded .

On DATE , while in PERSON , the applicant was involved in a violent incident .

According to the applicant , he was beaten up by CARDINAL inmates and stabbed in the lungs , kidneys , spleen and other organs by PERSON was only taken to the doctor DATE after the incident and never received a copy of the medical certificate . Despite the applicant ’s complaints ORG was never punished for the attack .

According to the official prison records , the applicant was found injured by a guard and immediately taken to the prison infirmary , where he refused to be bandaged . As a consequence , he was immediately taken to a civilian hospital . Later on , he was also examined by a forensic doctor , who confirmed the existence of lesions and established that the applicant needed DATE of medical care but that his life had not been endangered .

During disciplinary proceedings opened in the prison , the applicant refused to give statements or to get acquainted with the official reports . On DATE the disciplinary commission punished ORG with CARDINAL days’ isolation . On DATE the same disciplinary commission exonerated the applicant of any responsibility for the incident ; a copy of this decision was forwarded on DATE to the applicant .

No criminal complaint was filed with respect to that incident .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall

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

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

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

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against a third party seeking the cancellation of the sale contract with a maintenance clause for her apartment . During the proceedings before the first and second - instance courts , the applicant was assisted by a legal representative of her own choosing .

By an interlocutory judgment ( ȋncheiere de şedință ) of DATE ORG adjourned the proceedings to , inter alia , allow the applicant to specify the value of the object of the dispute , in order for the court to be able to determine its competence ratione materiae and the appropriate form of appeal that could be lodged against the judgment .

At a hearing on DATE the applicant submitted to the firstinstance court that the tax value of the apartment , namely CARDINAL NORP lei ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , was the value of the object of the dispute .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action as ill - founded on the basis of the available documents , submissions and testimonial evidence . The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was amenable to appeal within DATE of notification .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the firstinstance court ’s judgment without providing reasons .

On DATE the applicant also lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the first - instance court ’s judgment , for which she did provide reasons .

At a hearing on DATE before ORG the applicant argued that the market value of her apartment was PERSON CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL,CARDINAL MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE , after hearing submissions from both parties , ORG changed the applicant ’s appeal to an appeal on points of law and referred the case to a bench of CARDINAL judges competent to examine such appeals by virtue of LAW ) of LAW . It held that on DATE the applicant had expressly informed the first - instance court of the value of the apartment , which had not been contested by the third party . In addition , the relevant civil procedure rules and the principle of lawfulness did not allow the parties to choose the form of appeal they wished to lodge against a judgment .

On DATE the ORG heard submissions from both parties on whether the applicant had provided reasons for her appeal on points of law within the statutory time - limit .

On DATE the applicant submitted written observations to ORG . She reiterated her argument that the value of her apartment was PERSON CARDINAL,CARDINAL and contended that the second - instance court had wrongfully reclassified her appeal . In addition , she contended that she had submitted the reasons for her appeal within the statutory time - limit .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , declared the applicant ’s appeal on points of law invalid . It held that she had not submitted her reasons for it within the statutory time - limit . Moreover , there was no public interest justifying the invalidation of the judgment . Furthermore , the appropriate form of appeal that could be exercised by the parties was prescribed by law and not the judge examining the case . Consequently , the fact that the first - instance court had wrongfully identified the form of appeal that could have been exercised by the applicant did not exempt her from lodging the appropriate form of appeal and from submitting her reasons for it within the statutory time - limit . The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment and argued , inter alia , that at the time of initiating the proceedings against the third party the domestic legislation on judicial tax had not classified her action as a pecuniary type of action . It was only on DATE that the domestic legislation on judicial tax had been amended and the classification had changed . Also , the second - instance court could have ordered an expert report to determine the value of the apartment , given that the applicant had expressly informed the same court that the value in question was in excess of PERSON CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible . It held , inter alia , that the judgment in the interest of the law ( recurs ȋn interesul legii ) delivered by ORG on DATE had considered that the type of action opened by the applicant against the third party was pecuniary in nature and that the provisions of LAW ) of LAW therefore applied . In addition , ORG had lawfully interpreted the applicant ’s clear and repeated submissions that the value of the apartment in dispute was ORG .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provided that failure to lodge any form of appeal within the statutory time - limit resulted in the deprivation of that right , except when the law provided otherwise or the party proved that it was impeded from doing so by unforeseen circumstances . In the latter case , the right could be exercised within DATE of the date the impediment ceased to exist .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that the application to initiate proceedings had to include a description of the object of the dispute as estimated by the claimant .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL provided that first - instance court judgments were amenable to appeal within DATE of the date of notification . Reasons for the appeal had to be submitted by the parties at the time of the first hearing before the court at the latest . Failure to submit the reasons for appeal within the allowed time - limit did not lead to its invalidation , but removed the ability to raise additional issues of fact and law that had not been raised before the first - instance court .

Articles DATE ( CARDINAL ) ( amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL , which entered into force on CARDINAL May CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL provided that judgments delivered in respect of disputes where the object of the dispute was valued at less than RON CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) were not amenable to appeal . Judgments not amenable to appeal were amenable to appeal on points of law ( recurs ) . An appeal on points of law could be lodged within DATE of the judgment being notified to the parties . Reasons for the appeal on points of law had to be submitted within the same DATE period , or it would be declared invalid .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that judgments in the interest of the law had no impact on existing judgments or on the situation of the parties involved in the proceedings . The solution adopted was binding on the domestic courts .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in L.

For DATE the applicant had been under the supervision of , and had been receiving various types of financial assistance amounting to some CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) per month from , a local social care centre .

NORP In DATE , the applicant ’s family doctor submitted to the social care centre a report on her medical treatment , stating as follows :

“ With regard to your question concerning PERSON state of health and treatment and my observations on her health problems ... I confirm that she has been my patient since DATE . She is a person with polymorphic health issues , and , in terms of the somatic aspect of her state of health , abdominal sensations related to the gynaecological area ( a gynaecologist has prescribed surgery , which the patient constantly refuses ) and thereby related anaemia – of course , treated by an alternative therapy .

Because of a number of other health issues ( frequent headaches , lumbar pain ) she has been sent for specialist examinations , which attested to a sufficiency of outpatient treatment , in the form of both medication and physiotherapy .

Unfortunately , the patient has her own peculiar interpretation of her health issues , on which she insists , and therefore I consider that the best help for her would be psychological / psychiatric treatment . Of course , this requires her consent , which so far could not be obtained . The continuity of the treatment is additionally hampered by the patient ’s change of her place of residence . Her visits to the doctor are random , and so are her wishes as to the scope and area of treatment .

The particular difficulty in the medical treatment of Ms [ ORG is related to her mental [ state ] . ”

On DATE the social care centre instituted proceedings in the competent court for divesting the applicant of legal capacity , which was CARDINAL of the issues giving rise to a case before the ORG in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

Following an expert report of CARDINAL DATE indicating that the applicant had been effectively engaged in psychiatric treatment , which had been progressing well , on DATE the social care centre withdrew the request to divest her of legal capacity .

On DATE the applicant went to see her family doctor complaining of severe lower - back pain . Her doctor , after having examined her , called the emergency health service and sent the applicant for some further medical checks .

The doctor who received the applicant in the emergency service found that her general condition was good , that she was conscious and well oriented , but that she had difficulty moving . The doctor made a working diagnosis of lumbago and sent the applicant for further medical checks by a neurologist .

The neurologist in the emergency service examined the applicant on DATE and found that the information she was giving was incoherent and disproportionate to her pain , and that she had not been taking her medication . He made a diagnosis of back pain and anxiety disorder , and sent the applicant for a further examination by a psychiatrist .

The applicant was then examined by a psychiatrist in the emergency service who after interviewing her found that she was making fanciful and confusing allegations of persecution by various doctors . The psychiatrist made a diagnosis of acute psychotic disorder , systemic delusional disorder and delusional dysmorphic disorder , and prescribed hospitalisation .

The applicant was immediately admitted to the psychiatric clinic of ORG bolnički centar NORP , PERSON za psihijatriju ; hereinafter : “ the hospital ” ) , a public health - care institution . The relevant parts of the admission record , in so far as legible , indicate as follows :

“ Date of admission : CARDINAL Date and time of hospitalisation : CARDINAL

Admission diagnosis : ... anxiety disorder

Patient ’s attitude towards the examination : refused examination by a psychiatrist ; requested a somatic examination

Psychological condition : conscious and well oriented , suspicious ... tense in the psychomotor sense ... distanced , cold , with ideas of ... persecution , control ...

Neurological condition : syndrome of back pain

Patient ’s attitude towards the hospitalisation : refuses

Consent : NO

Physical intervention : physical restraint , tying to a bed

In TIME of the same day , another doctor examined the applicant . The relevant part of the examination record reads :

“ The patient was hospitalised after an examination by Dr [ PERSON , and after having been treated in the [ emergency ward ] for persistant severe back pain ( documentation in attachment ) .

She was brought on a stretcher , tied down , maintaining conscience and orientation , negative , arguing , yelling , agitated , affectively dissolute , with a mind - flow disorder , substantively paranoid ideas . ...

Diagnosis : Acute psychotic disorder F CARDINAL.CARDINAL

Delusional disorder ...

ORG . ORG . according to the list . ”

According to the applicant , following her admission to hospital she was tied to a bed with CARDINAL belts tightened around her ankles and wrists , and forcefully injected with a strong drug . She was kept in that position throughout the night and felt severe pain in her back . Her left leg was restrained in such a position that the belts caused her additional pain . The room was small and had no windows . TIME the belts were removed and she was taken to another room in the psychiatric hospital .

According to the Government , following the applicant ’s admission to hospital she was given the usual treatment for patients in a state of psychotic agitation and was then placed in an isolation room . The room had a direct connection with the adjacent staff room and was under constant video surveillance . The room measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and the height of the ceiling was QUANTITY . It was equipped only with CARDINAL bed . It had a heating and air - conditioning system , as well as access to sanitary facilities . The belts used to restrain the applicant to the bed were specially adapted so as to avoid any injuries .

The Government further explained that the applicant had been tied to the bed in the isolation room from the time of her admission to hospital at TIME on DATE until TIME . She was then taken to a regular hospital room where she was again restrained until TIME . During that time her condition and all her needs were regularly monitored . After the initial period following the applicant ’s admission to hospital until her release , she was not restrained again .

The available medical records concerning the physical restraint used on the applicant in the hospital show that this method was used in the period between TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE . The relevant medical record monitoring the applicant ’s physical restraining , in so far as legible , reads as follows :


CASE OF TRAUSTASON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND

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

Aleš Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC , the second applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON and the third applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC . At the material time the first and second applicants were on the editorial board of the newspaper ORG and the third applicant was a journalist for DV .

On DATE , an NORP private limited company , ( hereafter “ the company ” ) , was declared bankrupt . The company was established in DATE and is one of the leading industrial companies in GPE in the production of plastic packaging material .

NORP In DATE the liquidator of the bankruptcy estate hired an accountancy firm to investigate the company ’s accounts .

On DATE the accountancy firm finalised a report indicating a suspicion of criminal misconduct by the board members . The chairman of the board , A , who was also one of the owners of the company , was an assistant professor at ORG at the time .

The liquidator reported the suspected criminal misconduct to the police . A holding company and a bank also reported the company and A to the police .

On DATE DV published a picture of A on its front page under the headline “ Black report on [ the company ] : Police investigate Assistant Professor ” . An article on the matter was printed on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL . The third applicant was identified as its author . The headline of the article read “ Assistant professor entangled in police investigation ” and another picture of A appeared beside the headline . The article was based on information from the accountancy firm ’s report . It is not known how the applicants knew about the report and its contents . The article discussed inter alia A , who was a board member and CARDINAL of CARDINAL owners of the company and the former supervisor of the MBA programme and assistant professor of business studies at ORG . The article described the company´s situation with reference to the accountancy firm´s report . It stated that the report had concluded the company had paid for the CARDINAL expenditures , which were unlikely to be connected to the company´s operations . The report had also indicated that CARDINAL of his co - owners had known about the grave financial situation of the company long before it had been declared bankrupt in DATE . The report had concluded that the company´s assets had been partly expended when it was clear that it was insolvent . These assets had in fact been transferred to another company , owned by the CARDINAL co - owner . When the company was declared bankrupt on DATE the company owed approximately CARDINAL ORG ( approx . CARDINAL at the time ) to a large bank in GPE . The amount had increased significantly after the financial crisis in DATE .

On DATE A ’s lawyer received an email from a police prosecutor confirming that the liquidator ’s complaint had been received and was being “ examined ” and that CARDINAL other complaints received by the police were also under consideration . He stated that no formal decision had been taken to instigate a police investigation . A ’s lawyer sent this email to the first applicant and requested correction of the impugned statements . The first applicant refused his request .

On DATE A lodged defamation proceedings against the applicants and DV before ORG and requested that the statements published by DV , “ Police investigate Assistant Professor ” and “ Assistant Professor entangled in police investigation ” , be declared null and void and that the applicants be ordered to pay compensation , including expenses for publishing the final judgment .

The applicants and A were heard and the email of DATE from the police prosecutor to A ’s lawyer was submitted as evidence .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that both disputed statements had been defamatory and ordered the applicants to pay CARDINAL GPE ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) to A in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , plus interest , ORG CARDINAL for the cost of publishing the judgment and ISK CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ORG ) for A ’s legal costs before ORG . The statements were declared null and void .

The judgment contained the following reasons :

“ ... According to LAW ) of the LAW everybody has the right to freedom of opinion and belief . However , Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW allows certain restrictions on the freedom of expression . It states that freedom of expression may only be restricted by law in the interests of public order or the security of the ORG , for the protection of health or morals , or for the protection of the rights or reputation of others , if such restrictions are deemed necessary and in agreement with democratic traditions . In Chapter XXV of LAW , freedom of expression is restricted in the interest of the rights and reputation of others . When deciding the limits of freedom of expression , the possibility of a public debate has to be guaranteed .

[ The applicants ] claim that the statements are true and refer to the principle that they can not be held liable for true statements . It is undisputed that , before the newspaper coverage , [ the police ] had been informed by the liquidator of a reasonable suspicion of criminal acts by the company ’s board members , of which A was one . It is also clear that the information given by the liquidator was based on [ the accountancy firm ’s ] report of DATE . An email of CARDINAL DATE from [ the prosecutor ] to [ A ’s ] lawyer stated that the liquidator ’s report was being “ examined ” [ “ til skoðunar ” ] . Furthermore , it was stated that CARDINAL other entities [ had reported , inter alia , A ] to the police and that those reports “ were also being considered ” [ litið til framangreindra kæra ] . However , it is stated that no formal decision has been taken about a police investigation nor possible criminal acts defined .

[ The applicants ] base their defence on the fact that nothing in their statements , which [ A ] wants declared null and void , indicates that a formal decision had been taken to start [ a police ] investigation and that the wording of the statements should not be interpreted more widely than its general meaning indicates . Here it has to be taken into account that in general the media are required to base coverage on thorough research of the facts . Taking this into account , and having regard to [ the absence of a formal decision by the police to investigate ] [ the company ] and its board members , including [ A ] , the court can not accept [ the applicant ’s ] arguments . No police investigation had been instigated against [ A ] , thus the statements “ Police investigate Assistant Professor ” and “ Assistant professor entangled in police investigation ” were factually wrong , but both statements did in fact have the same meaning . It was not unreasonably difficult to verify whether such an investigation had in fact been opened . The wording of the statements was of such a nature as to make the reader believe that [ A ] was a suspect in a police investigation because of his criminal and punishable acts . This damaged [ A ’s ] reputation . Therefore , the court has to agree with [ A ] that [ the applicants ] violated Article CARDINAL of the Penal Code No CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( Almenn Hegningarlög ) by publishing the aforementioned statements . In the light of the aforesaid , and with reference to Article CARDINAL ) of LAW , [ A ’s ] request to declare the statements null and void is granted . However , there is no reason to impose punishment ; therefore [ A ’s ] request that [ the applicants ] be punished is rejected ... ”

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG against ORG judgment .

By judgment of DATE ORG confirmed ORG judgment and ordered the applicants to pay , in addition , ORG CARDINAL for A ’s legal costs before ORG .

As to the reasoning , ORG stated :

“ ... The aforementioned email from [ the police prosecutor ] can only be understood as meaning that no investigation had been instigated on account of the CARDINAL reports [ to the police ] which are referred to in the email . There is nothing to indicate that such an investigation was initiated later and it will not be held against [ A ] that he did not provide confirmation of that during the proceedings as requested by [ the applicants ] .

With these comments , [ and ] with reference to ORG reasoning , ORG confirms the ORG decision on declaring the statements null and void and confirms the publication of the judgment in the next issue of ORG and the next online edition of ORG after the delivery of this judgment . The annulled statements were wrong and defamatory for [ A ] . When examining the coverage and the publication of pictures of [ the company ] and its representatives in the printed issue of ORG and in the online edition of [ DV ] , [ A ’s ] reputation was attacked , at a time when there were no grounds for it ... ”

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the Special Prosecutor notified another company representative that “ the investigation ” into the complaints against him and A had been closed and the case had been dismissed .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person);Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-b - Preparation of defence)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the GPE ORG , after having served a summons on the applicant to appear at the address that he had at that time in GPE , convicted the applicant of assault and sentenced him to CARDINAL dayfines of QUANTITY ( ORG ) each and allowed him to pay his fine in instalments in the light of his economic situation . ORG had , at the applicant ’s request , authorised Mr DATE at that time still a law student DATE to act as defence counsel under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant and the public prosecutor lodged appeals . The prosecutor ’s appeal was directed merely against the sentencing . Thereafter , the applicant moved to GPE to work as a chef in a hotel and communicated his new address to the court .

On DATE ORG withdrew the authorisation of PERSON to act as defence counsel , while at the same time rejecting the application lodged by PERSON for the applicant to be released from the obligation to appear in person at the appeal hearing . This decision was served on the applicant in GPE .

Also on DATE ORG fixed the date for the oral hearing of the applicant ’s appeal to TIME on CARDINAL DATE . It decided to serve the summons on the applicant via public notification because the applicant had moved abroad . The summons was displayed on the court ’s noticeboard from DATE until CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON learned by telephone of ORG decision of DATE to overturn ORG decision in respect of his authorisation to act as counsel for the applicant and of the appeal hearing having been scheduled for TIME . He applied by fax for the hearing to be adjourned , citing the fact that he was going to be out of town DATE . He furthermore asked that documents from the case file – in particular the public prosecutor ’s appeal – be sent to him . The presiding judge ordered that a copy of that appeal and of the decision to serve the summons of the applicant by public notification be sent to the applicant ’s lawyer . This proved impossible , as the lawyer ’s fax machine had no receiving function . The lawyer was offered access to the file at the courthouse DATE at TIME ( that is to say immediately before the hearing ) , which he declined , stating that he would be out of town .

On DATE ORG refused , in a separate decision , an application lodged by the applicant ’s lawyer for the appeal hearing to be adjourned . It stated that the lawyer had waived his right to be summoned within the respective time - limit because he had known about the date of the appeal hearing ( as evidenced by his fax of DATE ) , and that the properly summoned applicant had failed to appear without providing any reason . Simultaneously , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal without an assessment of the merits , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , because he had not appeared at the appeal hearing ( without any sufficient excuse , and despite having been summoned ) , nor had he been represented by a lawyer in a permissible manner .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application for the restoration of the status quo ante . It found that the requirements for the serving of a summons by means of public notification , as set out in LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had been met . The applicant ’s lawyer had waived his right to be summoned , and his application for an adjournment had not relied on the failure to comply with the time - limit for serving a summons but had rather invoked scheduling problems , which he had not described in greater detail .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision . It considered that the applicant had been properly summoned to the appeal hearing because the requirements for service by public notification , as set out in LAW , had been met . The summons to attend the hearing before ORG had been served on the applicant ’s previous address in GPE and he had lodged the appeal in question . As regards his interest in having ORG judgment reviewed , it had been his responsibility to ensure that it was possible for the summons to appear at the appeal hearing to be served in GPE . As a result of his move to GPE it had not been possible to serve the summons at his previous address in GPE . It had thus been acceptable for the summons to be served by public notification . There had been neither an obligation to undertake an attempt to serve the summons at the applicant ’s new address abroad prior to serving it via public notification nor one to notify him at that address that the summons had been served by public notification . The applicant had also not specifically authorised ( under the first sentence of Article LAW ) his lawyer to receive summonses ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , the applicant had not convincingly shown that he had been prevented through no fault of his own from appearing at the appeal hearing , as required by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , because the applicant ’s lawyer had not provided an affidavit to support his claim that he had advised the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE , that the latter did not need to attend the hearing because he had not been summoned . As his appearance in person had been ordered ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it had not been possible to carry out the appeal hearing in his absence .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE as ill - founded , finding that the review of ORG judgment had not revealed any legal errors that had been detrimental to the applicant .

On DATE ORG declined to consider a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant , without providing reasons ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .

Following communication of the case and unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations , on DATE the Government informed the ORG of their intention to resolve the issue raised by the application . They produced a unilateral declaration , in which they acknowledged violations of LAW and/or CARDINAL ( c ) , as well as LAW ( b ) and ( c ) of the LAW and offered to pay the applicant a sum to cover any pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses . The ORG requested that the ORG strike out the application in accordance with LAW .

By a letter to ORG DATE the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration . The aim he pursued with the present application was a reopening of the criminal proceedings against him and a subsequent acquittal . He argued that , under domestic law , such a reopening could not be achieved if the ORG struck the case out of its list , but required a judgment finding a violation . Furthermore , the compensation offered was insufficient .

By a submission of CARDINAL DATE the Government confirmed that there was DATE and in fact , there still is – no case - law of the domestic courts regarding whether LAW CARDINAL of LAW , which provides for the reopening of criminal proceedings following a judgment of the ORG finding a violation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , also applies to violations acknowledged by the Government by way of a unilateral declaration . This question was for the domestic courts to assess . They acknowledged that the provision had , in practice , been construed narrowly .


Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr N. Noch , a lawyer practising in GPE . The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The applicants and another coaccused were involved in call centre businesses . They were arrested on CARDINAL DATE and remained in detention until DATE when their detention was suspended . On DATE both applicants and the other accused were indicted on CARDINAL counts of commercial fraud as members of a gang . ORG allowed the charges in a modified form and heard the applicants’ case over DATE as from DATE , hearing CARDINAL witnesses and experts . During the trial , the first applicant filed CARDINAL and the second applicant CARDINAL requests concerning the taking of evidence .

NORP In DATE the first applicant and his counsel requested the appointment of another counsel . However , the domestic courts dismissed the request and upheld the appointment of counsel for the first applicant .

On DATE the applicants were convicted . The first applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment ; the second applicant received a DATE prison sentence . All CARDINAL accused lodged an appeal on points of law .

The minutes of the hearing comprised over CARDINAL pages .

On DATE the judgment , which ran to CARDINAL pages , including CARDINAL pages specifying the details of the victims of the alleged fraud , was served on the defence . ORG held that it had been impossible to speed up the proceedings as the CARDINAL accused and counsel for the accused had made numerous applications , inter alia , CARDINAL requests to hear additional evidence , including applications to call CARDINAL witnesses . More frequent hearings had not been possible because the court had been confronted on DATE of the trial by new applications from the defence requesting termination and adjournment of proceedings , rectification of the transcript , consideration of new documents or other objections to the court ’s handling of the case . As a result , ORG saw no unreasonable delay attributable to the court , and no reason to reduce the sentences on that ground . However , in the sentencing of the applicants it took into account , in their favour , that the proceedings had been long .

On DATE counsel for the CARDINAL accused submitted their joint grounds for appeal on points of law to ORG , comprising CARDINAL pages , thus observing the onemonth timelimit prescribed by Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedures ( CCP ) ( Strafprozessordnung ) ( see domestic law , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Their submission included , among others , a complaint that the time to supply the reasons for their appeals on points of law was insufficient .

On DATE ORG made observations on the first applicant ’s appeal on points of law to which the first applicant responded on DATE . The relevant dates in the second applicant ’s case were not submitted .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeals on points of law as far as conviction and sentencing were concerned , finding them manifestly illfounded without providing further reasons .

On DATE and DATE ORG declined to consider the applicants’ constitutional complaints without providing reasons ( file FAC . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL ) .

NORP The relevant provisions of the ORG concerning reinstatement of proceedings and appeals on points of law , as in force at the relevant time provided :

“ If a person was prevented from observing a timelimit through no fault of his own , he shall be granted a reinstatement of the proceedings upon application . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The complainant shall make a statement concerning the extent to which he contests the judgment and is applying for it to be quashed ( notices of appeal on law ) and shall specify the grounds .

( CARDINAL ) The grounds must show whether the judgment is being contested because of violation of a legal norm concerning the proceedings or because of violation of another legal norm . In the former case the facts containing the defect must be indicated . ”

“ Notices of appeal on points of law including the grounds for the appeal shall be submitted to the court whose judgment is being contested DATE after expiry of the timelimit for seeking the appellate remedy . If the judgment has not been served by expiry of that timelimit , the timelimit shall start to run upon service thereof . ”

“ The notice of appeal on points of law including the grounds therefor shall be served on the complainant ’s opponent if the appeal on points of law and the notices of appeal on points of law were submitted in time and in the prescribed form . The opponent may submit a written response within DATE . ... ”

It is well - established case - law of the criminal courts that the timelimit pursuant to LAW is nonextendable , with the exception of cases in which an admissible request to rectify the judgment is lodged before the end of the timelimit ( compare judgment of ORG of DATE , file no . CARDINAL StR CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz ) provides a remedy for unreasonably long proceedings and reads , as far as relevant , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Whoever as the result of the unreasonable length of a set of court proceedings experiences a disadvantage as a participant in those proceedings shall be given reasonable compensation . The reasonableness of the length of proceedings shall be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the particular case concerned , in particular the complexity thereof , the importance of what was at stake in the case , and the conduct of the participants and of third persons therein . ...

( CARDINAL ) A participant in proceedings shall obtain compensation only if he has complained about the length of the proceedings to the court seized of the case ( censure of delay ) . ...

( CARDINAL ) ORG court action to enforce a claim under subsection ( CARDINAL ) can be brought at DATE after the filing of the censure of delay . The court action must be brought DATE following entry into final and binding force of the decision ending the proceedings , or following another manner of disposal of the proceedings . ... ”

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL , second sentence , of LAW , however , limits the leeway for the compensation court regarding unreasonably long criminal proceedings and reads , as far as relevant , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) ... Where the accused in criminal proceedings seeks compensation for excessive length of proceedings , the court of compensation shall be bound , in respect of the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings , by a decision given by the criminal court . ”

On DATE ORG , in the case of an accused who had unsuccessfully requested the extension of the timelimit under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ORG , decided by a panel of CARDINAL judges not to accept the constitutional complaint for adjudication ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It held that , in general , the statutory onemonth timelimit laid down in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG allowed ample time to supply the reasons for an appeal on points of law , even in difficult cases involving economic offences or NORP crimes . The complainant in that case had not substantiated why , in his individual case , the time available had not been sufficient . ORG further found that the complainant had not sufficiently discussed in his complaint whether , in a case in which the reasons for the appeal can not be drawn up within the statutory timelimit for reasons not attributable to the accused , redress might be found under the provisions governing the reinstatement of proceedings ( see Article CARDINAL ORG , paragraph CARDINAL above ) .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE a residential building maintenance services provider , PERSON , a limited liability company ( “ the plaintiff ” ) , brought a claim against the applicant for recovery of a debt for their services in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG – MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The DATE civil proceedings were instituted in that connection . The applicant disagreed ; she argued that she did not owe any money to the plaintiff – they had not concluded an agreement for maintenance services and she was free to choose another service provider . In those proceedings the applicant was represented by Mr S. GPE , who was not a lawyer .

On DATE a judge of ORG ( PERSON pilsētas ORG rajona tiesa DATE hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) scheduled the first hearing to take place on DATE . During this hearing the applicant ’s representative requested additional time to examine the relevant legal norms and to obtain the relevant documents from the plaintiff . ORG postponed the hearing to allow both parties to “ prepare documents ” . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the plaintiff applied to have the hearing postponed because the applicant ’s debt for services had in the meantime increased and the plaintiff had not yet settled the courts fees for the increased claim . The application was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the plaintiff increased the amount of the claim and submitted the relevant documents . The applicant ’s representative applied to have the hearing postponed so as to examine those documents . The application was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the plaintiff increased the amount of the claim to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) and submitted more documents . The applicant ’s representative submitted written observations and some documents showing some debts that had been paid . ORG admitted them to the case file and scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE the plaintiff increased the amount of the claim and submitted more documents . The applicant ’s representative requested that more detailed information be provided in this connection . ORG ordered the plaintiff to provide observations by CARDINAL DATE and scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG informed both parties that another judge was taking over the case ; the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE both parties pleaded their case . ORG ordered the plaintiff to provide more detailed information and scheduled the next hearing for CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative applied to have the hearing postponed as he had only received the relevant documents on DATE . The application was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative pleaded the case . He argued that the service charges which the applicant had been asked to settle had been unclear . The plaintiff did not have all the relevant documents at hand and thus requested time to submit additional information . ORG ordered the plaintiff to submit the specific documents and scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE the plaintiff submitted the relevant documents and the applicant ’s representative applied to have the hearing postponed to examine them . His application was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

The parties continued to plead their case in the hearing of DATE . ORG imposed a monetary fine on the applicant ’s representative for disobeying a judge ’s order . Following an application by the plaintiff the hearing was postponed because the applicant ’s debt for services had in the meantime increased ; they had not prepared the documents for the increased amount of the debt . The plaintiff was ordered to submit the relevant documents by an unknown date in DATE and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG held the last hearing in the case ; it refused a fresh application by the plaintiff to postpone the hearing once again . On DATE ORG dismissed the plaintiff ’s claim against the applicant as unsubstantiated – the plaintiff had not proved that the expenses had actually been incurred and that they had duly reflected the services provided . On DATE the plaintiff appealed against the judgment . On DATE a judge of ORG gave the plaintiff additional time to comply with the procedural requirements for lodging an appeal . On DATE the plaintiff rectified those deficiencies . On DATE the appeal was admitted and sent to ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa DATE hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) .

The first hearing before ORG was held on DATE . The plaintiff increased the amount of the claim because the applicant ’s debt for services had in the meantime increased to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and submitted the relevant documents . The applicant ’s representative disagreed with the increase of the claim . ORG admitted those documents to the case file and scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG held the last hearing in the case . The plaintiff did not attend , nor did it inform the court of any reasons for its absence . ORG decided to proceed with the case . On DATE ORG partly allowed the plaintiff ’s claim and ordered the applicant to settle the debt in the total amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . Although the parties had not concluded an agreement for maintenance services , the applicant was obliged to pay for those services in accordance with domestic law . She could contest bills provided by the plaintiff , however she had failed to do so . The applicant had selectively paid some bills , but not all of them . ORG refused the plaintiff ’s claim to receive contractual penalty ( līgumsods ) for late payment but awarded default interest of PERCENT . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON ) remitted it to ORG as the applicant had not paid the security deposit for lodging it . Those deficiencies were rectified .

On DATE the ORG of ORG , following a preparatory meeting , refused to institute proceedings on points of law .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is the mother of the late Ms Madina Eneyeva , who was born in DATE and died in DATE .

On DATE PERSON was at a local market together with Mr A , her brother - in - law . CARDINAL of the stall - holders , Ms G.Zh . , suspected that ORG was planning to steal a skirt from her market stall . The CARDINAL women started a fight and exchanged a few blows . The police arrived and arrested the applicant ’s daughter on suspicion of theft . PERSON and Mr A. were both put into a police vehicle .

The parties have presented different accounts of the subsequent events .

According to PERSON , after ORG had been put into the police vehicle , an unknown police officer with the rank of lieutenant approached the vehicle , kicked ORG fifteen times on her legs and then left . Once at the police station , Mr A. was released . According to the applicant , upon arrival at the police station , her daughter was taken to the interrogation room situated on the second floor ( in LANGUAGE referred to as the “ third floor ” ) of the police station and was beaten by the police officers until she fainted . While ORG was unconscious , unspecified police officers threw her out of the window .

In the ORG ’s submission , it was alleged that during the drive to the police station ORG had unsuccessfully tried to escape from the police vehicle . Upon arrival at the police station , she had been escorted to the office of Lieutenant A.Zh . She had refused to answer his questions and had asked for permission to use a lavatory . Since there were no female police officers in sight , PERSON . escorted her to the lavatory on the second floor of the police station himself and waited for her in the corridor outside the locked door . Being unguarded , ORG jumped out of the window in an attempt to escape from police custody .

Ms GPE was then taken to hospital by ambulance . She underwent urgent surgery . At TIME on CARDINAL DATE ORG died of complex internal injuries to her head , body and extremities .

NORP The applicant then sought an investigation into her daughter ’s suspicious death and ill - treatment . According to the applicant , her daughter had no suicidal tendencies ; she had CARDINAL young children and a good home in recently obtained social housing .

On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( “ the town prosecutor ’s office ” ) were notified that ORG had jumped out of the window of the police station and then died .

On an unspecified date the town prosecutor ’s office opened preinvestigative inquiry no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL into the circumstances of ORG death .

On DATE a forensic expert issued a post - mortem report , according to which ‒ apart from various injuries ‒ ORG had bruises and scratches on her legs , those injuries being unrelated to the fall .

On DATE the deputy town prosecutor received and examined the applicant ’s complaint , in which she alleged that her daughter had been thrown out of the window by the police officers . He stated that the investigator in charge of pre - investigative inquiry no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL had not yet carried out all requisite investigative measures , in particular , that he had not questioned a number of persons : the police officers who had arrived at the market once PERSON . had reported the theft , those who had arrested ORG , the ambulance crew members and PERSON Nonetheless , the deputy town prosecutor concluded that “ there is nothing to suggest that ORG death on CARDINAL DATE in GPE was a violent one , as suggested in the complaint ; moreover , there is no proof that the police officers of PERSON were implicated in her death ... ” and decided to dismiss the applicant ’s complaint .

After a pre - investigation inquiry , on DATE an investigator from the Nalchik prosecutor ’s office concluded that the applicant ’s daughter “ had made another attempt ” to escape from the police station , and refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to ORG death .

The above decision was later quashed by the PERSON prosecutor who considered that it was established that the applicant had sustained injuries at the hands of an unspecified police officer .

On DATE the investigator again refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s daughter ’s death . The decision was quashed by the deputy town prosecutor on DATE .

On DATE the investigator from the Nalchik prosecutor ’s office refused to institute a criminal case to investigate the circumstances of ORG death .

On DATE the NORP - Balkariya prosecutor ’s office quashed the decision of DATE refusing to open an investigation into ORG death . However , no further investigation into the circumstances of the death appears to have taken place and no further decision regarding this appears to have been taken after DATE . On CARDINAL DATE , however , Lieutenant A.Zh . was subjected to disciplinary measures for failure to comply with the procedure concerning escorting detainees .

For reasons unknown , on DATE , while quashing the refusal to investigate the death of PERSON , the NORP Balkariya prosecutor ’s office opened criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL to investigate an alleged abuse of powers by an unidentified police officer who had hit ORG on her legs inside the police vehicle at the market on CARDINAL DATE . They referred to the medical expert report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) according to which there had been bruises on Ms GPE ’s legs which had not been caused by the fall out of the window . The authorities relied on Article CARDINAL of GPE ( “ abuse of power by a public official ” ) . The circumstances of ORG death lay outside the scope of the investigation in question .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

On DATE a forensic expert carried out another examination of ORG body to establish the origin of the scratches and bruises on the legs and concluded that the injuries in question had been inflicted by blunt objects .

On DATE the investigation into the abuse of power was stayed for failure to identify those responsible . On DATE the investigation was resumed and eventually stayed again on DATE .

In view of the authorities’ failure to institute a criminal investigation into ORG death , the applicant brought court actions on DATE and on DATE . Eventually , on DATE ORG held in favour of the applicant , finding that the investigator ’s failure to investigate had been unlawful .

On DATE the applicant again complained about the investigator ’s lack of action . On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s claim and held that the investigator ’s continued failure to comply with the judgment of DATE was unlawful .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE quashed the ruling of DATE staying the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Accordingly , on DATE the investigation was again resumed .

On DATE PERSON , a police officer on duty on CARDINAL DATE , was questioned as a witness . No essential information was obtained as a result of the interview .

In DATE the investigators tried to find eye - witnesses who had seen PERSON at the market on CARDINAL DATE , but in vain . Also in DATE the certificate of death of PERSON was included in the case file .

On DATE the investigators decided to carry out a forensic medical examination of the injuries found on ORG body by a group of experts on the basis of the documents in the case file . However , no information on the results of the examination had been made available by DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON . , a police officer on duty on CARDINAL DATE , was questioned as a witness . He did not provide any relevant information .

On DATE CARDINAL shop assistants were questioned as witnesses and submitted that they had not seen the police using any force on Ms GPE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended owing to failure to find those responsible .

On DATE the investigation was resumed .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON as a witness . PERSON was the wife of PERSON , a forensic expert who had examined ORG dead body in DATE . PERSON stated that her husband had left for GPE for a lengthy period of time .

On DATE the investigation was again suspended .

On DATE the investigation was resumed . An internal inquiry was instituted by ORG GPE regarding poor supervision of the investigation of case no . DATE . The investigation appears to be still pending .

NORP The applicant stated that after DATE she had not received any update on the progress of the investigation from the domestic authorities .


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The first applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The second applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The third applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . They are all NORP nationals and represented by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in Split .

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

NORP The President of the Section decided to grant the ORG ’s request for confidentiality of the case file documents ( Rule CARDINAL of ORG ) .

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

On DATE the ORG mother , ORG , was killed in the village of GPE in GPE , then occupied by NORP paramilitary forces .

The NORP authorities regained control over that territory in DATE .

On an unspecified date , the NORP police found photographs which the police of the NORP paramilitary authorities had taken on DATE in the course of an on - site inspection concerning the killing of the ORG mother .

It appears that the NORP authorities opened an investigation into the killing of the applicants’ mother . On DATE the NORP police interviewed PERSON , ORG and DATE , neighbours of the applicants’ late mother . None of them had any relevant information about her killing .

On DATE , on the order of an investigating judge of the Šibenik ORG , the body of the ORG mother was excavated . The autopsy showed that she had been killed .

DATE and DATE the police interviewed CARDINAL people in connection with the killing of the applicants’ mother , but none of them gave any relevant information .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicants brought a civil action for damages against the ORG in connection with the killing of their mother , before ORG . In the course of the proceedings before the first - instance court , at a hearing held on DATE , in the presence of the applicants’ legal counsel and the applicants themselves , all the evidence gathered during the investigation was presented . On DATE the claim was dismissed . In their appeal of CARDINAL DATE the applicants alleged , inter alia , that the NORP authorities had failed to carry out any relevant measures in order to identify and punish those responsible for the killing of their mother . The first - instance judgment was upheld by the Šibenik ORG on DATE , ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE .