The applicants , ORG and her son PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and are currently in GPE .

On DATE the applicants ( together with S. , the husband / father of the applicants ) arrived in GPE from GPE and , on DATE , they applied to ORG ( Migrationsverket ) for asylum and residence permits . The first applicant stated that she was a trained engineer and had worked at a construction site in LOC where she had met PERSON who also worked there . In DATE the family had moved to GPE , where they had lived until the departure to GPE . According to the applicants , the first applicant had been working as an election administrator during the mayor ’s election in DATE and had revealed irregularities , for which reason she had been dismissed from work . Following this , the authorities had harassed the family in different ways , inter alia , by creating administrative problems for them ( their apartment had not been repaired , they had been prohibited from using electrical appliances in their home , their telephone had been cut off and they had not received proper medical care ) . The first applicant had complained about their problems to the authorities , the PERSON and the President but the only result had been that the local authorities had threatened them and had told the first applicant to stop complaining . In DATE the applicants had been assaulted and battered by unknown men ; they strongly suspected that the authorities were responsible . The second applicant had been granted MONEY in compensation for the battering but he had only received MONEY . He alleged that the persons who had battered him had told him that his mother should stop complaining . He still suffered from headaches and problems with his heart . The second applicant further stated that he feared being drafted for military service and being sent to GPE , where several of his friends had died .

On DATE ORG rejected the family ’s application for asylum and residence permits . It found that the difficulties which the family had endured in their home country could neither be classified as persecution nor be considered serious enough to grant the family residence permits on humanitarian grounds . With regard to the second applicant ’s fear of being drafted for military service , ORG observed that this was not a ground on which he could be granted leave to stay in GPE .

The applicants appealed to ORG ( Utlänningsnämnden ) , maintaining their claims and adding a number of examples of how the family had been treated unjustly by the authorities because of the first applicant ’s complaints to them . The applicants had , inter alia , not been given a proper apartment to live in and had also been refused housing benefits from the ORG . The first applicant further alleged that she had been threatened and harassed in GPE because she had reported a person for drug abuse . She stated that she could take no more and that both she and PERSON were receiving psychiatric help following an attempt by S. to hang himself . The second applicant claimed that he suffered from recurring headaches .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , sharing ORG reasoning and conclusion . It further found that the applicants’ mental health problems were not of such a serious nature that they could be granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds .

The applicants then lodged a new application for residence permits , relying on the same grounds as before and adding that the NORP authorities had not examined their application properly . The first applicant claimed that her life would be in danger if she were forced to return to GPE , since they had been denied all civil and human rights there . Moreover , she had written more letters to the NORP President and ORG which had led to her sister being harassed by Government representatives and local authorities in GPE . The sister had been asked questions about the whereabouts of the first applicant and threatened .

On DATE ORG rejected the new application . It observed that it had already considered the applicants’ claims in its earlier decision and found no reason to change it . In reaching this conclusion , it had regard to the additional submissions made by the applicants .

The applicants lodged another new application with ORG , adding to their earlier claims that the second applicant would face a real risk of being bullied if , upon return , he had to do his military service . Due to the family ’s very difficult situation , he had tried to commit suicide in DATE and the personnel at the hospital had had to watch over him TIME a day . He had remained in psychiatric care as an in - patient on a voluntary basis for DATE . They submitted several medical certificates concerning the entire family .

On DATE ORG also rejected this application , noting that the second applicant did not suffer from a serious mental disorder but that his poor mental health was due to the family ’s stressful and insecure living situation . It therefore concluded that neither his nor his GPE mental health was so poor that the family could be granted leave to stay in GPE

On DATE the applicants were deported to GPE .

On DATE the second applicant returned to GPE and his girlfriend ’s mother let him stay with them . However , he did not apply for asylum and a residence permit until DATE . Before ORG , he claimed that he and his parents had been detained by the police for DATE upon return to GPE and that he had been beaten with batons . When they had returned to their home town , GPE , he had once been attacked by CARDINAL unknown persons at the entrance to their apartment building . His mother had also been threatened on the phone by unknown persons . It had been impossible for him to live in GPE because of all the threats against him and his parents . If he had to return , he would not be able to study , get a job or have access to health care . Moreover , he alleged that he had been called to do his military service and that , since he had left the country , he was considered a deserter and would risk a long prison sentence . The second applicant further stated that he was depressed and feeling unwell , for which he was seeing a counsellor . Lastly , he invoked his relationship with his NORP girlfriend ( born in DATE ) and the fact that he lived with her and her family . They had met in DATE and been together since then .

On DATE ORG rejected the application . It first noted that the second applicant could not be granted asylum because he had evaded military service and it found nothing to suggest that he would receive a disproportionate sentence if he was tried and convicted of desertion . ORG then considered that it was for the NORP authorities to deal with threats and violence from unknown persons and that the second applicant had failed to show that the NORP authorities neither could nor would help him . Moreover , he could not be granted leave to stay either based on reasons of a social / economic nature or based on his alleged poor health . Lastly , the ORG noted that the second applicant ’s girlfriend was DATE and that it was normally required that both persons in a relationship were adults ( over DATE ) for ORG to consider granting a residence permit based on a close relationship . In any event , it observed that the second applicant could apply for a residence permit based on the relationship from GPE , as was the normal procedure .

The second applicant appealed to ORG , relying on the same grounds as before and adding that it would be inhumane to send him back .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision in full .

ORG then carried out a new examination of the second applicant ’s case under the interim amendments to LAW in force at the time . The second applicant submitted that he should be allowed to stay in GPE since he had been in the country for a long time and had developed strong ties to NORP society . In this respect , he referred to his girlfriend with whose family he lived , that to the fact that he was playing in a local football club and that he had been promised a job if he got a residence permit . He further stated that it would be devastating to his mental health and development if his medical treatment was interrupted . Lastly , he claimed that the NORP military authorities were looking for him because he had not yet done his military service .

On DATE ORG decided that he could not be granted leave to stay in GPE based on the interim amendments to LAW . It considered that the second applicant had not been in GPE for such a long time that he had established strong ties to NORP society . Moreover , his medical condition was not so serious that he could be granted leave to stay on this ground and he should have applied for a residence permit on the basis of his relationship with his girlfriend before having entered GPE . ORG concluded that the second applicant had not invoked any new circumstances which had not already been considered by itself or ORG and that there were no reasons to depart from their earlier conclusions . This decision could not be appealed against .

During DATE the first applicant returned to GPE and renewed her application for asylum and a residence permit . This application is still pending before ORG . It would seem that PERSON remains in GPE .

According to medical certificates , dated DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , written by PERSON , counsellor , PERSON , resident doctor , and PERSON , chief physician and specialist in psychiatry , at the child and youth psychiatric unit at ORG hospital , the second applicant had been in contact with the unit since DATE . He had contacted them for problems with recurring headaches which he claimed had been caused by the battering in GPE and for which he had also seen a neurologist in GPE . The second applicant had been very afraid , anxious and stressed by the thought of being deported and had preferred to be with his friends , playing football , instead of being at home . His insecure living situation had deeply affected him and , on DATE , he had tried to commit suicide by taking an overdose of pills . He had been hospitalised and , initially , kept under surveillance . He had left the hospital at DATE but had been hospitalised again on DATE , following another rejection by ORG . Apparently , he had threatened to kill himself using a knife but his mother had intervened . This time he had remained at the hospital for DATE , diagnosed as suffering from severe depression and post - traumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ) caused by various traumas over DATE .

After his return to GPE , in DATE , he had contacted the psychiatric unit at the hospital . He had begun to have regular contact with his counsellor , PERSON , who , in a medical certificate dated DATE , stated that , on DATE , he had tried to commit suicide by taking pills , following a rejection of his application for asylum by ORG . He had been urgently hospitalised as he had lost consciousness . He had been disappointed that the suicide attempt had failed but had been released from hospital after DATE when the treating physician considered that he was no longer suicidal . The counsellor concluded that the second applicant was in great need of care and treatment to deal with his situation and the trauma of having been an asylum seeker for DATE without any stability in his life . There was a risk that his mental health had been seriously damaged which could lead to him developing a serious mental disorder .

The last medical certificate , dated DATE , was written by ORG and stated that the second applicant suffered greatly from his insecure situation and had lost faith in the future . The doctor considered that the second applicant was on the verge of a serious mental crisis and that there was a clear risk of suicide .

On DATE the applicants requested the ORG to indicate to ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG a suspension of their deportation to GPE .

On DATE the President of the Second Section decided to apply Rule CARDINAL . He further decided to request ORG to provide information on the second applicant ’s current mental health and whether it would be an impediment to his deportation .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that , on DATE , ORG , following the ORG ’s request , had decided to stay the deportation of the second applicant until further notice . However , since the first applicant ’s application for asylum and a residence permit was still pending before ORG , no enforceable deportation decision existed against her which could be suspended .

As concerned the second applicant ’s mental health and the possibility to deport him , the Government submitted that , based on the medical evidence available , his poor mental health related primarily to his uncertain situation as an asylum seeker in GPE and the prospect of being expelled . In this respect , they noted that both his suicide attempts had been directly linked to decisions to reject his asylum applications or preparations to enforce the deportation orders . Moreover , the care offered by the psychiatric unit had focused on ways for the second applicant to cope with his situation and to support him . The diagnosis from DATE that he suffered from PTSD and severe depression had not been repeated and , in the Government ’s view , there was nothing to support such a diagnosis at the present time . On the contrary , they observed that he had only met with the counsellor CARDINAL times DATE . In any event , they found nothing in the medical evidence available to substantiate that his current state of health was so poor that he could be considered to be suffering from a serious mental disturbance . In these circumstances , and referring to the ORG ’s case - law , the ORG considered that there were no impediments to deporting the second applicant to his home country . They also expressed their confidence that a deportation would be carried out in such a manner as to minimise the suffering of the second applicant , taking into account his medical condition .

The basic provisions , applied in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE were laid down in the CARDINAL LAW ( utlänningslagen , DATE hereinafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) . However , LAW was replaced , on DATE , by a new LAW ( Utlänningslag , DATE hereinafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) . Both the DATE and DATE Acts define the conditions under which an alien can be deported or expelled from the country , as well as the procedures relating to the enforcement of such decisions .

LAW , LAW provided that an alien staying in GPE for DATE should have a residence permit . Such a permit could be issued , inter alia , to an alien who , for humanitarian reasons , should be allowed to settle in GPE ( LAW , LAW ) . For example , serious physical or mental illness could , in exceptional cases , constitute humanitarian reasons for the grant of a residence permit if it was a life - threatening illness for which no treatment could be provided in the alien ’s home country .

Further , according to LAW , an alien who was considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection was , with certain exceptions , entitled to residence in GPE ( LAW , LAW ) . The term “ refugee ” referred to an alien who was outside the country of his nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , nationality , membership of a particular social group , or religious or political opinion , and who was unable or , owing to such fear , unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . This applied irrespective of whether the persecution was at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities could not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals ( LAW , LAW ) . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” was meant , inter alia , a person who had left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW ) .

An alien who was to be refused entry , deported or expelled , in accordance with a decision that had gained legal force , could be granted a residence permit if he or she filed a new application based on circumstances which had not previously been examined , and if the alien was entitled to a residence permit under LAW , LAW , or it would be contrary to the requirements of humanity to enforce such a decision ( LAW , Section CARDINAL b ) . Regard could also be had to serious illness under this provision . Such new applications were filed with and examined by ORG ( Chapter CARDINAL , LAW ) .

As regards the enforcement of a refusal of entry , deportation or expulsion , account had to be taken of the risk of capital punishment or torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien could not be sent to a country where there were reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW ) .

In essence , LAW did not substantially amend the above provisions , except for the following .

By LAW , ORG has been replaced by ORG and ORG ( LAW , LAW ) . Moreover , it is no longer possible to renew applications but , instead , ORG shall , on its own initiative , determine whether there is any impediment to the deportation or expulsion ( LAW , LAW ) .

Furthermore , DATE and DATE , certain interim amendments to the DATE Act were in force , according to which ORG , upon application by an alien or on its own initiative , could re - determine final decisions already taken by ORG . The object of these temporary amendments was to grant residence permits to aliens who , inter alia , had been in GPE for a very long time or where there existed “ urgent humanitarian interests ” ( humanitärt angeläget ) . Special consideration was given to the situation of children .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 14+9

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Upon his baptism on DATE the applicant became a member of the recognised religious community of the Jehovah ’s Witnesses in GPE , within which he assumed the function of a preacher ( Prediger ) and , since DATE , an elder ( PERSON ) in the GPE ’s Witnesses’ community in PERSON . This function includes providing pastoral care to the community , leading church services and preaching .

In DATE the Upper Austrian Military Authority ( Militärkommando ) ordered the applicant to undergo examinations as to his ability to perform military service . The applicant appealed against the order , claiming that he should be dispensed from military service since he performed a function within the GPE ’s Witnesses which was equivalent to that of members of a recognised religious society who were exempt from military service under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Wehrgesetz ) . To restrict such a privilege to members of recognised religious societies was not objectively justified and was therefore in breach of LAW .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . On DATE the Federal Minister for Defence ( PERSON für GPE ) confirmed that decision . Both authorities refused the applicant ’s appeals on the ground that he did not belong to a recognised religious society .

Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ) , requesting it to repeal the wording “ recognised religious societies ” in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with the applicant ’s complaint for lack of prospects of success . It found that the applicant ’s obligations under LAW did not interfere with the internal rules and practices of the religious community at issue . It furthermore referred to earlier decisions dealing with the legal status of religious communities and their difference from recognised religious societies under LAW .

On DATE ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . It found that exemption from the obligation to perform military service merely applied to members of recognised religious societies and could not be extended to members of registered religious communities . This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to take no action until ORG had decided on his application . The applicant was informed that an instruction had been issued to ORG not to call him up until further notice .

Article CARDINAL a § CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :

“ Every male NORP citizen is liable for military service . Conscientious objectors who refuse to perform compulsory military service and who are dispensed from this requirement must perform alternative service . The details shall be regulated by ordinary law . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :

“ An exemption from the obligation to perform military service shall apply to the following members of recognised religious societies :

NORP ordained priests ,

NORP persons involved in spiritual welfare or in clerical teaching after graduating in theological studies ,

NORP members of a religious order who have made a solemn vow , and

NORP students of theology who are preparing to assume a clerical function . ”

For a detailed description of the legal situation in GPE in this field see GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is an interpreter and translator ( NORP / NORP ) by profession .

A.

I. Procedure relating to ORG list of registered interpreters

On DATE the applicant applied to the President of ORG ( PERSON für PERSON ) to be entered on this court ’s list of registered interpreters ( allgemein beeidete PERSON ) for the NORP language .

On DATE the President of ORG , referring to sections DATE ) of ORG LAW DATE ( Bundesgesetz über den allgemein beeideten gerichtlichen PERSON ) , dismissed this request on the ground that the applicant was entered on ORG list of registered interpreters . The President noted that the decision of the President of ORG dated DATE , namely to strike the applicant off that court ’s list of registered interpreters , had not yet become final .

On DATE the applicant again applied with the President of ORG to be entered on this court ’s list of registered interpreters for the NORP language .

On DATE the President of ORG , referring to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of ORG LAW DATE , dismissed this request on the ground that there was no need for registered interpreters .

On DATE ORG Verfassungsgerichtshof ) granted the applicant ’s request for legal aid and counsel was appointed to represent the applicant for the purposes of complaint proceedings . Counsel filed the complaint with ORG on DATE , alleging in particular discrimination and a violation of the freedom to practise a profession .

In his observations of DATE , the President of ORG stated that the need for registered interpreters was known to the President keeping the lists concerned due to his regular contacts with the judges of ORG and of ORG , and judges of other courts in the respective judicial district . Extensive inquiries were therefore not necessary . No suggestions for more registered interpreters had been made prior to the applicant ’s application . Moreover , the keeping and updating of these lists required a considerable amount of administrative work which indicated that not all persons fulfilling the statutory conditions should be entered on the respective lists . The President also noted that a registered interpreter did not have any privileges compared to an unregistered interpreter , as any competent person could be called in concrete proceedings to act as an expert or interpreter . Any person speaking a foreign language could practise as an interpreter without registration , irrespective of whether he or she were appointed , on a case by case basis , by courts or administrative authorities , or were working as a free lance translator . Moreover , the question of registration did not affect the occupation as an employed translator .

In his supplementary observations of DATE , the applicant submitted that the handling of applications for registrations in DATE disclosed arbitrariness on the part of the President of ORG . He further maintained that registered interpreters were given preference upon appointment for court proceedings and that the lack of registration also had repercussions when otherwise practising as interpreter .

On DATE , pursuant to LAW , ORG declined to accept the applicant 's complaint . It found that the bulk of the complaint related to allegations that the ordinary law had been applied incorrectly . To the extent that the complaint did touch upon questions of constitutional law , it did not have sufficient prospects of success ; moreover , the case did not lie outside the jurisdiction of ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) . At the applicant ’s request , it also decided to refer the application to ORG .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings before it as the applicant ’s application did not satisfy the substantive and formal requirements of section GPE ) of LAW ( Verwaltungsgerichtshofsgesetz ) . The applicant ’s amended submissions were received at ORG on DATE . He also applied for legal aid ; his request was to no avail .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . It observed that , in accordance with LAW , its jurisdiction was limited to applications alleging that a final administrative decision ( letztinstanzlicher PERSON ) had infringed the complainant ’s rights . An administrative decision within the meaning of this provision presupposed that the handling of an administrative matter had involved a legal ruling . This had not been the case for the impugned letter of CARDINAL DATE as , under section CARDINAL ) , in conjunction with section CARDINAL , of ORG LAW DATE , persons applying for entry on the list of registered interpreters had no right to registration . The refusal of registration could not , therefore , adversely affect the applicant ’s legal status , nor had there been a decision on the applicant ’s rights . Rather , the President had sent an informal reply ( formlose GPE ) to the applicant ’s application .

This decision was served on DATE .

II . Procedure concerning ORG list of registered interpreters

On DATE the applicant , who had been struck off ORG list of registered interpreters by the President ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE as ORG was not his regular place of residence and practice , applied to be restored to the ORG list . In his application , he mentioned that there was a need for registered interpreters for the NORP language , as , on several occasions , he had been called to act as interpreter , registered interpreters not being available .

On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the request .

On DATE , pursuant to LAW , ORG declined to accept the applicant 's complaint of DATE . It found that the bulk of the complaint related to allegations that the ordinary law had been applied incorrectly . To the extent that the complaint did touch upon questions of constitutional law , it did not have sufficient prospects of success ; moreover , the case did not lie outside the jurisdiction of ORG . At the applicant ’s request , it also decided to refer the application to ORG .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings before it as the applicant ’s application did not satisfy the substantive and formal requirements of section GPE ) of LAW . The applicant ’s amended submissions were received at ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal for the same reasons as stated in the above - mentioned decision of CARDINAL DATE .

B. Relevant domestic law

Registered interpreters

The qualifications of registered interpreters ( allgemein beeidete gerichtliche PERSON ) are specified in ORG and LAW DATE ( Bundesgesetz über den allgemein beeideten gerichtlichen PERSON , PERSON ORG . CARDINAL ) . According to section LAW , the provisions regarding experts ( sections CARDINAL ) are also applicable to interpreters , with the exception of section CARDINAL ) b and f ( requiring a minimum period of professional experience and NORP nationality ) .

Section CARDINAL lays down the conditions for registration in the lists to be kept by the presidents of the courts of first instance ( i.e. at the level of the regional courts - section CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) concerns the personal qualifications such as special knowledge ( PERSON ) , full capacity to perform legal transactions ( volle Geschäftsfähigkeit ) , physical and mental fitness ( körperliche und geistige PERSON ) , trustworthiness ( PERSON ) , regular residence or place of professional activity ( gewöhnlicher PERSON oder LOC beruflichen ORG ) in the judicial district of the court where registration is sought , and financially sound circumstances . According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , there must be a need for registered experts ( interpreters ) .

Section CARDINAL governs the registration procedure . The possibility of registration is limited to CARDINAL list . The candidate has to prove his or her qualifications and the president has to conduct all necessary inquiries and , if necessary , to question the candidate . According to the third sentence of section PERSON ) , the candidate has no right to be entered on the list .

The oath taken in accordance with section CARDINAL ) has the legal effect that the expert or interpreter , as long as he or she is registered , does not have to take any specific oath when acting in court ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

The respective lists are regularly updated ( DATE ) and communicated to the president of the superior court of appeal and subsequently to the courts in the judicial district concerned ( section CARDINAL ) . Sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL concern the expiration of registration and striking off the list .

Procedure before ORG and ORG

By LAW , ORG , when an application ( Beschwerde ) is made to it , has to determine whether an administrative decision ( Bescheid ) has infringed a right guaranteed by the LAW or has applied regulations ( Verordnung ) contrary to the law , a law contrary to LAW or an international treaty incompatible with NORP law .

By LAW , ORG has jurisdiction to hear , inter alia , applications alleging that an administrative decision is unlawful .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Verwaltungsgerichtshofsgesetz ) provides inter alia that applications upon which , on account of ORG manifest lack of jurisdiction , it is not appropriate to adjudicate , shall be rejected , without further proceedings , by a decision taken in closed sitting .


Remainder inadmisible;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was the chief executive officer of various NORP subsidiaries of ORG ( hereafter “ NORP ” , including its various subsidiaries and subdivisions ) , one of the largest private companies operating in GPE .

At TIME on DATE the applicant arrived at FAC for a business trip to GPE , GPE . When passing through customs and border controls , the applicant reported that he was carrying MONEY ( ORG ) in foreign currency , which was below the minimum threshold of CARDINAL required at the material time for a customs declaration .

Having passed through customs , the applicant waited for his flight in the VIP area for TIME . His luggage was with the VIP staff who were responsible for taking it to the aircraft . After the flight was announced , the passengers from the VIP area were taken to the aircraft in a minibus . However , when boarding the aircraft the applicant was stopped by officers of ORG , taken back to the airport customs office and informed that he was suspected of carrying a large amount of foreign currency in his carry - on luggage .

During the inspection of the carry - on luggage , CARDINAL packs of banknotes for a total amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL were found in the outer compartment of the bag . The applicant protested , claiming that it was not his money and that it must have been “ planted ” in his bag when the bag was with the VIP staff .

From TIME the applicant was detained at the airport by ORG . During this time , he was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer of his choosing . At TIME the applicant was taken to ORG of ORG . At TIME he was allowed to contact one of his brothers , PERSON , to inform him of his whereabouts .

The investigator in charge of the applicant ’s case informed him that a criminal case had been instituted against him under LAW ( contraband ; illegal transfer of large quantities of goods or other valuables through customs without a declaration ) .

At TIME the investigator attempted to interrogate the applicant in the presence of a ORG - appointed lawyer , but the applicant refused to be represented by that lawyer . An entry was made in the investigator ’s records concerning this refusal .

At TIME on DATE the applicant arrived at the airport . When the applicant passed through the customs control area , the X - ray monitor revealed some paper packets in the applicant ’s bag . A customs official asked the applicant whether he had anything undeclared with him . The applicant replied in the negative . After the applicant entered the VIP lounge , the customs official reported his suspicions to his superior . At TIME a representative of the airport ’s customs office , together with the representative of ORG and CARDINAL witnesses , searched the applicant ’s baggage and found ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL that had not been declared .

The customs officials conducted an initial inquiry , made records of the applicant ’s explanation and witness statements and took an inventory of each bank note . These procedures took TIME and lasted until TIME The customs officials then sent the relevant material to ORG .

At TIME the applicant made a telephone call to one of his brothers , requesting a lawyer . The lawyer of the applicant ’s choosing did not appear and the investigator of ORG of ORG called a lawyer at the ORG ’s expense . However , the applicant refused the lawyer ’s assistance and stated , in writing , that he would conduct his own defence until the moment the lawyer of his own choosing arrived .

At TIME the investigator drew up a record of the applicant ’s arrest as a person suspected of committing a criminal offence ( tutma protokolu ) . He was informed of his rights and questioned from TIME to TIME

On DATE CARDINAL lawyers secured by the applicant ’s family arrived . The applicant was subsequently charged and questioned in the presence of his lawyers .

On DATE , one of the applicant ’s brothers , PERSON , the then Minister of ORG , was arrested by ORG on suspicion of organising a coup PERSON ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . PERSON , DATE , for more details concerning that case ) .

According to the applicant , his other brothers were either dismissed from their jobs or arrested . PERSON , the Head of ORG of ORG , was dismissed from his job . PERSON , a CEO of a private company , was prosecuted on charges of tax evasion but was later released after agreeing to pay what was alleged to be due . PERSON , a manager of a small carpet factory , was also accused of tax evasion . PERSON , who intended to stand as a candidate for the forthcoming parliamentary elections , had his candidature revoked by a court decision . According to the applicant , a number of his colleagues were also dismissed from their positions .

According to the applicant , on DATE of his arrest , officials of ORG carried out an inspection in the offices of NORP in GPE and seized large amounts of cash from the company ’s cash register after finding some irregularities in the company ’s bookkeeping .

At the same time , officials of ORG ( hereinafter “ ORG ” ) carried out searches in the applicant ’s apartment as well as CARDINAL office buildings of NORP . According to the applicant , ORG officials seized a number of personal and household items from the applicant ’s apartment , including his children ’s computers , phonebooks , CARDINAL videotapes , and a number of valuable items including expensive watches and jewellery belonging to the applicant and his wife . From the NORP offices , they also seized certain documents and officially registered firearms used by the company ’s security personnel . Although DATE , in DATE , the applicant lodged a petition with the prosecution authorities asking for the return of personal items seized from him , this petition was rejected on DATE on the ground that under LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) the prosecution could retain physical evidence until the trial .

On DATE and DATE the official newspapers and other mass media published CARDINAL press releases with the headline “ Special Statement of ORG , ORG and ORG of GPE ” . These press releases officially informed the public about the arrest and indictment of a number of well - known current and former ORG officials and provided a summary of the evidence gathered in respect of their alleged plans for the “ forcible capture of power ” during the election period , “ under the guise of an appeal for democratic changes in the political situation in the country ” . The evidence mainly consisted of the testimony of CARDINAL of the arrested persons concerning secret meetings between them and their sources of financing , as well as large amounts of cash and other valuables found in the homes of some of them . Additionally , some of the arrested persons were suspected of embezzlement of public funds and abuse of authority . Specifically , the press releases mentioned the names of the applicant ’s brother PERSON , the former ORG Speaker PERSON , the former Minister of Finance PERSON , the Minister for Health Care PERSON , as well as other , less prominent names . It appears that all of the mentioned persons ( except PERSON ORG , who was not physically present in GPE ) had been arrested prior to the publication of the press releases .

The applicant ’s name was also mentioned in the press releases , as quoted below , together with the names of other persons suspected of an attempted coup ORG . However , none of these statements disclosed the fact that , as of the time of publication of these statements , the applicant had actually been arrested on suspicion of , and charged with , an unrelated offence .

The press release of DATE stated , inter alia :

“ It was established that former Minister of Finance PERSON was the contact responsible for obtaining large amounts of funding for the forcible capture of State power ... He was arrested as a suspect on DATE . ... MONEY and MONEY were seized from PERSON ’s flat during a search conducted in the context of the investigation ...

On DATE PERSON wrote to ORG ... and indicated his willingness to voluntarily provide information about the preparatory actions by PERSON and his supporters aimed at usurping ORG power ...

PERSON stated in his testimony that , during his visit to GPE in GPE in DATE , PERSON ... had contacted him on his mobile phone and instructed him to pass on his directions concerning the financing of the process of the capture of State power to the Minister for ORG , PERSON , and his other supporters who had the necessary financial means .

In this connection , in DATE of DATE PERSON met PERSON in the office of the latter ’s brother PERSON and informed him about PERSON directions . PERSON promised to provide any kind of assistance in this matter and to take additional measures via his contacts . At DATE Fikret Yusifov went to GPE and notified PERSON by phone about PERSON agreement .

Pursuant to another instruction by PERSON , [ PERSON ] returned to GPE on DATE and again met PERSON in the same office ... [ PERSON ] again gave assurances that he would provide any kind of assistance and that he was ready to provide funding in the amount of MONEY and to organise anything within his capability .

On DATE PERSON met PERSON in GPE . During the meeting , PERSON stated that he was planning to return to GPE in DATE and stressed that it was important that he be met by a large group of people , which would prevent his arrest , and that ORG power be forcibly seized by creating public disorder . PERSON also gave a specific instruction that PERSON should provide substantial financial assistance for implementing these plans .

Having returned to GPE , PERSON met PERSON and notified him about this instruction . On CARDINAL October PERSON personally gave cash in the amount of MONEY to PERSON for the purposes of financing the usurpation of ORG power . This money was found during the search of PERSON ’s flat on DATE and was seized as physical evidence .

During the searches conducted in the course of the investigation in houses , dachas and other properties belonging to PERSON , [ the authorities ] seized large amounts of foreign currency , jewellery , works of art and other valuable items obtained in a criminal manner .

As a result of operational measures , it was also established that PERSON , having abused his official authority and committed serious breaches of the law during the process of privatisation of ORG property , had procured documents of title to ORG property at negligible prices and formally registered the property in the name of his relatives and acquaintances , and thus de facto transferred it into his ownership .

An investigation into breaches of the law is currently under way in numerous commercial companies linked to PERSON , including PERSON . PERSON , the owner of ORG , was arrested at the airport while attempting to leave the country .

Based on the material gathered , the Prosecutor General instituted criminal proceedings under Articles CARDINAL ( embezzlement ) , CARDINAL ( abuse of official authority ) , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( preparation to organise public disorder ) and CARDINAL ( usurpation or forcible retention of ORG power ) of LAW and on DATE PERSON was arrested as a suspect in connection with these criminal proceedings . ”

NORP The press release of DATE stated , inter alia :

“ As has been notified earlier , during the searches conducted in the course of the investigation in houses , dachas and other properties belonging to the former Minister for Economic Development PERSON , arrested as a suspect in connection with the criminal proceedings under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , [ the authorities ] have seized large amounts of foreign currency , jewellery , works of art and other valuable items obtained in a criminal manner .

In particular , [ the following were seized during the searches : ] MONEY , MONEY and QUANTITY sterling from PERSON personal office in the administrative building of ORG ; MONEY and MONEY from his flat ... ; CARDINAL valuable works of art and CARDINAL privatisation vouchers from his dacha ; MONEY and CARDINAL [ old ] NORP manats , which had not been entered in accounting books , from his brother PERSON office at Azpetrol . In addition , jewellery in large amounts , CARDINAL firearms of various models , other valuable items , and documents of title to numerous items of real property have been discovered at the mentioned addresses . The investigation continues into offences of corruption and other breaches of the law within numerous commercial companies belonging de facto to PERSON . ... ”

On DATE the investigator of ORG opened a criminal case against the applicant ( case no . DATE ) and formally charged the applicant under LAW with an attempt to transfer a large amount of undeclared foreign currency through customs .

At TIME on DATE , the applicant was taken to ORG . The hearing lasted TIME . Based on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor ’s request for applying the preventive measure of remand in custody , the judge ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody ( həbs qətimkan tədbiri ) for DATE . The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure by the gravity of the alleged criminal action of the applicant and by the possibility of his absconding . This was the only court hearing at which the applicant was present himself . He was represented by his lawyers in the subsequent court hearings , but was not permitted to attend them in person .

It appears that , following ORG detention order , the applicant was taken to ORG . CARDINAL .

The applicant appealed against ORG order of DATE , complaining about a lack of evidence and the absence of any relevant and sufficient reasons for his pre - trial detention . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal , repeating the lower court ’s reasoning and finding that it was correct . ORG decision did not address any of the applicant ’s specific complaints .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . His lawyer was not informed about this . He made enquiries with the Deputy Head of ORG at ORG , requesting information as to the applicant ’s whereabouts .

On DATE the lawyer was officially informed that on DATE the applicant ’s criminal case no . DATE had been transferred to ORG and joined with PERSON criminal case no . DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer requested a copy of the decision on the joinder of the criminal cases . On DATE this request was rejected on the ground that the CCrP did not require such decisions to be made available to the applicant ’s lawyer .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , claiming that there were no legal grounds for joining the applicant ’s case to PERSON case because they had each been charged with totally unrelated offences . On DATE the Prosecutor General rejected this complaint .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG with a request to substitute house arrest for the preventive measure of remand in custody . He argued that , owing to the questionable nature of the evidence , there could be no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence , and that in any event the detention order was not justified in his personal circumstances . On DATE ORG rejected this request , finding that there were “ no circumstances excluding the possibility of the applicant ’s absconding , creating danger for society , and failing to appear before the investigating authorities without good reason ” .

On DATE ORG ( which supervised criminal case no . DATE , to which the applicant ’s original case was now joined ) extended the period of the applicant ’s remand in custody by DATE ( until DATE ) . The judge substantiated the necessity of this measure as follows :

“ ... It is not possible to complete all the [ required ] investigative steps before [ the expiry of the applicant ’s initially authorised detention period ] .

Taking into account the gravity of the actions imputed to [ the applicant ] , the circumstances in which the criminal offence was committed , and the possibility of the accused absconding from the authority conducting the criminal proceedings , the preventive measure of remand in custody chosen in his case should be extended . ”

On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

By a decision of DATE , ORG extended the period of the applicant ’s detention by DATE ( until DATE ) . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE ORG extended the period of the applicant ’s detention by DATE ( until DATE ) . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

Prior to each of the extension orders , the applicant lodged a series of applications with ORG , asking the prosecuting authorities not to lodge an extension request with the court , owing to the applicant ’s personal circumstances , which made it unlikely that he would flee from investigation . All of these applications were rejected .

In all of the hearings concerning the extension of his detention and the related appeal hearings , the applicant was represented by his lawyer ( or lawyers ) . The applicant himself was absent .

In all of its decisions extending the applicant ’s detention , ORG reasoning justifying his continued detention was the same as or similar to that cited in paragraph CARDINAL above . In his appeals against those decisions , the applicant complained that there was no reliable evidence giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence , that in any event the investigation for the rather simple charge against him was proving unreasonably long and he should already have been committed for trial , that the extension orders were based only on the submissions of the prosecuting authority and without an independent review by the court of the evidentiary material , that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or influence the investigation , and that his personal circumstances had not been taken into account when assessing the necessity of his continued detention . ORG decisions upholding the extension of the applicant ’s detention repeated the lower court ’s reasoning and did not contain any assessment of the specific arguments raised by the applicant in his appeals .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG requested ORG to impose a measure of restraint on some of the applicant ’s assets , based on the prosecution ’s discovery of evidence that in DATE and DATE the applicant , as the head of some of the companies belonging to him and with the help of a number of accomplices forming an organised criminal group , had smuggled large quantities of petroleum products belonging to the ORG out of the country across the NORP - Georgian border , evading customs control by means of forging documentation and misrepresenting the true nature of the transaction . The prosecution also claimed that they had discovered evidence of tax evasion committed by ORG , a company “ actually controlled ” by the applicant , as well as of embezzlement of CARDINAL property in large amounts . By the time of this request by ORG , no formal charges had been brought against the applicant in connection with any of the above incidents involving the alleged criminal offences of petroleum smuggling , tax evasion or embezzlement .

Following the above - mentioned injunction request by ORG , on DATE ORG issued a restraint order ( attachment order ) in respect of CARDINAL shares owned personally by the applicant in the registered capital of ORG ( PERCENT of the registered capital ) , as well as another CARDINAL shares in the same bank ( PERCENT of the registered capital ) owned by ORG , a company “ de facto owned by the applicant ” . The court noted that the illegal activities described in the prosecution ’s request for attachment of property constituted criminal offences for which the relevant provisions of LAW prescribed inter alia a sanction of confiscation of property . The court further noted that the prosecution possessed information that the applicant had acquired the shares in ORG using the funds obtained from these illegal activities . Therefore , there was a basis for attaching the applicant ’s assets under ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG in order to guarantee the sanction of confiscation of property that might subsequently be imposed by the trial court .

The applicant subsequently lodged a belated appeal against this decision , which was accepted for examination owing to the finding that the applicant had good reasons for having missed the appeal deadline . However , on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE the investigator issued a new decision bringing formal criminal charges against the applicant . Under this decision , the applicant was now charged with criminal offences under Articles CARDINAL ( contraband , committed repeatedly ) , CARDINAL ( contraband , committed by an organised group ) and CARDINAL ( forgery in public office ) of LAW . Specifically , these charges related to the alleged smuggling of large quantities of petroleum to GPE in DATE and DATE , as described in paragraph QUANTITY above , and to the original accusation of smuggling the undeclared amount of USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL through customs on DATE .

Later , on an unspecified date , the investigator lodged a request with ORG for the extension of the period of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . In addition to the new formal charges of DATE , the request also mentioned that the investigation had evidence of the applicant ’s complicity in the attempted coup ORG , an offence with which his brother PERSON and other persons had been charged .

On DATE , based on the new criminal charges against the applicant and the investigator ’s extension request , ORG extended the period of the applicant ’s detention by DATE ( until DATE ) . The court ’s reasoning justifying the applicant ’s continued detention was similar to that given in previous extension orders .

On DATE the investigator issued a new decision bringing formal criminal charges against the applicant . Under this decision , the applicant was now charged with criminal offences under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( preparation to organise public disorder ) , CARDINAL ( actions aimed at usurping ORG power ) and CARDINAL of LAW . In addition to the criminal offences with which he had already been charged , the applicant was also accused of organising , together with a number of other persons including his brother PERSON , massive unrest and a coup d’état after the parliamentary elections of DATE . More specifically , he had allegedly undertaken to provide necessary funding for preparation of the coup ORG and arranged secret meetings between its organisers in his office .

On DATE ORG extended the period of the applicant ’s detention by DATE ( until DATE ) . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the investigator issued a new decision bringing formal criminal charges against the applicant . By this decision , the applicant was now charged with criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( embezzlement by an organised group ) , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( embezzlement in large amounts ) , CARDINAL ( violation of the right of ownership to land ) , CARDINAL ( illegal commercial activity resulting in grave pecuniary damage ) , CARDINAL ( illegal commercial activity yielding a large amount of profit ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( tax evasion in large amounts ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( illegal damage to forests ) and CARDINAL of LAW .

DATE . On DATE a new criminal case ( no . DATE ) was severed from criminal case no . DATE . In the context of the new criminal case no . DATE , the applicant was charged under ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

The investigation in criminal case no . DATE was completed on DATE .

On DATE the investigator issued the final bill of indictment in criminal case no . DATE . On DATE , the bill of indictment was signed by ORG and the case was referred to ORG for trial .

Thus , criminal case no . DATE was sent for trial in ORG . There were CARDINAL co - defendants standing trial in this case , including the applicant and his brother PERSON , on charges of complicity in various offences involving embezzlement and corruption . It appears that the original criminal case no . DATE , which still carried the charges against the applicant under Articles CARDINAL ( preparation to organise public disorder ) and CARDINAL ( actions aimed at usurping ORG power ) of LAW , was not sent for trial , but was not terminated either .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyers applied to ORG , seeking his release on the ground that the latest detention order in respect of him , as well as the statutory maximum period for detention during the pre - trial investigation , had expired on DATE . It appears that CARDINAL other co - defendants also requested release pending trial , relying on various grounds .

At its preliminary hearing on CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the requests by the applicant and his co - defendants for release and authorised their continued detention pending trial . In particular , in connection with the applicant ’s specific argument that his detention was unlawful following the expiry of the relevant period on DATE , ORG noted that the criminal case had been referred to the court DATE before DATE , and that the period of the applicant ’s detention “ pending investigation ” had ended on DATE . Therefore , his detention had not exceeded the time - limits specified by law .

Furthermore , assessing the situation of all the detained co - defendants collectively , ORG decided that “ the preventive measure of remand in custody had been chosen correctly and should remain unchanged ” . The court noted that “ the accused persons detained on remand ” had sufficient financial means , as well as business and other contacts in foreign countries , which could enable them to leave the territory of GPE and thus abscond from the trial . It further noted that , using those significant financial means , the detained persons could apply illegal pressure on persons participating in the trial .

The applicant was tried by ORG together with CARDINAL other accused persons , including his brother PERSON .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of all the criminal offences he was charged with under criminal case no . DATE and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , with confiscation of property .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts’ judgments in respect of the applicant .

Starting from DATE and throughout the pre - trial and trial proceedings until his conviction on DATE , the applicant was detained in ORG . The applicant was kept in a cell which had sufficient space for CARDINAL person , although it might have been designated as a double - occupancy cell . He was detained alone for a period of DATE before the authorities offered to place a second inmate in his cell ; the applicant refused this offer . The cell was dirty and measured CARDINAL sq . m. CARDINAL sq . m of the total floor area was occupied by the furniture . The window was QUANTITY wide . However , because of the width of the window frames ( QUANTITY ) , the window pane measured CARDINAL m by QUANTITY The window was covered , with only its top part open , allowing very little natural light to enter the cell . The ventilation and heating systems did not function properly and , therefore , it was extremely cold in DATE and extremely hot in DATE . There was a wall lamp which was switched on throughout DATE and night , which constantly disturbed the applicant and made it hard for him to sleep .

The applicant was allowed TIME of out - of - cell exercise per day . The exercise area was extremely confined . The gym facilities in FAC were not freely available during the applicant ’s exercise time , as their use was dependent on a warder being available to supervise the applicant .

There was no proper laundry and the applicant had to send his dirty clothes home for washing . He was allowed to take a shower once DATE in a shower area where the temperature of the water was regulated from the outside by warders . The food was of poor quality . The applicant had no television set in his cell and had limited access to radio and literature and was provided only with “ pro - Government ” newspapers .

The applicant was handcuffed when he was taken to meet with his lawyers and to interrogations . The handcuffs were removed during those meetings and interrogations . The applicant was not allowed to make telephone calls or write to his wife and family , who were not permitted to write to him or visit him either . The applicant ’s requests to be allowed to correspond or be visited by his family during the pre - trial investigation were rejected .

In ORG , at his own request , the applicant was detained alone in a cell designed for CARDINAL inmates . The area of the cell was QUANTITY m. The cell had a window that was QUANTITY wide and QUANTITY high . The cell was connected to the MNS building ’s central heating system and was well lit and ventilated . While the electric lighting was switched on throughout DATE and night in accordance with the relevant regulations , the lamp was mounted in a manner that did not disturb inmates’ sleep .

The applicant was permitted to walk outside his cell for TIME a day and to use a gym . Food was served CARDINAL times a day . In addition , like all other detainees , the applicant was allowed to receive from home a food package of up to QUANTITY per week . The applicant was provided with clean towels and bedding , which were washed in the detention facility ’s laundry . Once a week he received clean clothing from his family , so he was always dressed according to DATE . The applicant was never handcuffed during questioning or any other investigative steps .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( CCrP ) concerning police custody , detention on remand and proceedings concerning application and review of detention on remand are summarised in the PERSON case ( cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

According to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , in order to ensure execution of a judgment in a part pertaining to a civil claim or an eventual confiscation of property in circumstances provided for under criminal law , an investigator or prosecutor can apply to a court for attachment of property of the alleged perpetrator of a criminal offence . Attachment of property prohibits the proprietor or owner from disposing of and , if necessary , using the property . In particular , Article CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Attachment of property :

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . shall be carried out with the aim of securing a civil claim or the confiscation of property in circumstances provided for under criminal law ;

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . shall consist of making an inventory of the property and prohibiting the owner or possessor from disposing of this property and , where necessary , making use of the same ;

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . where applied to bank deposits , shall prevent any further transactions on them .

Property of the accused person or property of persons who may be held materially liable , irrespective of what comprises this property or in whose possession it is , may be subject to attachment .

Attachment shall apply to the accused person ’s share in the joint property of the accused and his or her spouse or in the property owned by the accused persons jointly with other persons . If there is sufficient evidence that the property [ was an instrument of a criminal offence or constitutes proceeds of crime ] , the whole property or the greater part thereof shall be attached .

[ If the instrument or proceeds of crime has been used , disposed of or is unavailable for confiscation for other reasons ] , money or other property belonging to the accused person , which is equivalent in value [ to the instrument or proceeds of crime ] , shall be subject to attachment . ... ”

Article CARDINAL ( grounds for attachment of property ) of the ORG provides that property may be attached if this measure is justified by sufficient evidentiary material and , as a general rule , on the basis of a court order . The investigator may take a decision to attach property without a court order only in exceptional circumstances . LAW ORG contains rules for valuation of the attached property .

DATE . The following are the relevant extracts from The Commentary on LAW , Volume I ( scientific editor : Prof . PERSON , GPE DATE , p. CARDINAL ) concerning Article CARDINAL of the CCrP :

“ CARDINAL . Attachment of property with a view to guaranteeing confiscation of property can be ordered only in cases where LAW provides for a possibility of confiscation of property as an additional sanction for the criminal offence with which the accused person is charged ...

The factual basis for the attachment of property is ... the existence of a substantiated belief that the property could be hidden , disposed of or destroyed . ...

According to the annotated LAW CCrP , attachment can be ordered in respect of property of the following persons : ( a ) accused persons ; ( b ) persons who could be held materially liable . The latter refers to persons who could be liable with their property for the actions of the accused person . This category of persons includes : ( a ) the accused person ’s employer ( LAW ) ; ( b ) financial departments of the relevant authorities liable for actions of their officials ( Articles DATE of LAW ) ; ( c ) legal representatives of minors DATE legally incapacitated persons ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) ; ( d ) the owner of a source of special danger ( Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code ) . The above - mentioned persons are designated as civil defendants in the civil claim [ lodged in the criminal proceedings ] . ”

According to LAW , an accused person is an individual charged with a criminal offence by a decision taken by an investigator , prosecutor or court .


Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

In DATE , ORG and Highways ( PERSON ) , a ORG body responsible , inter alia , for motorway construction , expropriated a part of a plot of land in GPE belonging to the applicants and several other persons . A committee of experts assessed the value of the applicants’ land and the sum fixed thereby was paid when the expropriation took place .

On DATE the applicants , along with CARDINAL coowners , lodged a case with ORG , requesting increased compensation .

On DATE ORG awarded the plaintiffs additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court ’s decision , running from DATE . The amount of compensation that was awarded to the applicants was ORG ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE the administration paid the plaintiffs a total of GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The applicants received TRL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Aka v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against a certain artisan ORG in ORG ( PERSON GPE ) seeking payment .

The court held hearings on DATE ( in the applicant 's absence ) and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE .

The hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were adjourned on the applicant 's request . Those scheduled for DATE and DATE were also adjourned .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned since the parties attempted to reach an in - court settlement ( sudska nagodba ) .

At the hearing held on DATE ORG gave judgment accepting the applicant 's claim in part . The respondent appealed on DATE and on DATE his appeal was together with the case - file forwarded to ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG held hearings on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and QUANTITY DATE .

At the hearing held on DATE the court gave new judgment accepting the applicant 's claim in part .

On DATE ORG dismissed the respondent 's appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for enforcement of the above judgment by garnishment of funds from the debtor 's bank accounts . On DATE the court issued a writ of execution ( rješenje o ovrsi ) garnishing temporarily the funds on all debtor 's bank accounts . After having received the relevant information from the banks , on CARDINAL DATE the court invited the applicant to specify , within DATE , from which savings account the funds should be seized . Since the applicant did not do so within the prescribed period , on DATE the court issued a decision discontinuing the enforcement proceedings . The decision became final on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant instituted new enforcement proceedings before the same court seeking execution of the same judgment . However , in these proceedings he sought to satisfy his claim , alternatively , by garnishment of funds from the debtor 's bank account or by seizure and sale of his movable property . On DATE the court issued a writ of execution . On DATE the court scheduled the intervention of the bailiff ( sudski ovršitelj ) for CARDINAL DATE . DATE before the intervention the applicant asked for postponement of enforcement . The request was granted and the enforcement postponed until DATE . Afterwards the court continued the proceedings and on DATE served the writ of execution to the debtor 's bank with a view to seizing the funds and transferring them to the applicant 's account . Following the applicant 's request of DATE to continue with the seizure of the debtor 's movables , the court scheduled the bailiff 's intervention for DATE . The bailiff effected the in situ inspection as scheduled but found no movable property susceptible to seizure .

It appears that the proceedings are still pending .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against his former employer the company P. in ORG seeking payment of salary arrears .

Following a change in legislation governing territorial jurisdiction in DATE , on DATE the case was transferred to ORG ( PERSON ) .

The court held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE . The hearings scheduled for DATE and CARDINAL DATE were postponed because the applicant had not received the summons whereas the one scheduled for DATE was postponed at his request . The hearing scheduled for DATE was postponed because the summoned witness failed to attend .

As the applicant did not attend CARDINAL successive hearings held on DATE and DATE , the court issued a decision declaring that his action was considered withdrawn . The applicant then filed a request for restoring the proceedings to the status quo ante ( prijedlog za povrat u prijašnje stanje ) , which the court granted on DATE .

At the hearing held on DATE ORG adopted a judgment ruling in part for the applicant .

On appeal , on DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG held hearings on DATE and DATE .

On the last - mentioned date , ORG again gave judgment ruling for the applicant in part . In the absence of appeals , the judgment became final and enforceable shortly afterwards .

NORP In DATE the applicant applied for enforcement . The enforcement was completed on DATE by garnishment of funds from the debtor company 's bank account .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against the company L. in the ORG seeking payment . As ORG had no territorial jurisdiction , on DATE the case was transferred to ORG ( PERSON ORG ) .

The first hearing was held on DATE . As neither party attended the hearing scheduled for DATE , the court temporarily suspended the proceedings ( mirovanje postupka ) for a period of DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings .

The court held hearings on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE as well as on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

At the hearing held on DATE the court gave judgment for the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) dismissed the respondent 's appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for enforcement of the above judgment . On DATE the court issued a writ of execution by garnishment of funds from the debtor company 's bank account . The writ was served on the debtor company 's bank on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to continue the enforcement by seizure and sale of the debtor company 's movable property in satisfaction of his claim . On DATE the court accepted the applicant 's request and issued new writ of execution .

On DATE the bailiff effected an in situ inspection at the address provided by the applicant only to find that the debtor company was no longer doing business at that address . Accordingly , on DATE the court issued an instruction inviting the applicant to submit another address within DATE in the absence of which it would discontinue the enforcement proceedings . The instruction was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to summon the debtor company 's director with a view to disclosing the company 's assets ( prokazni popis imovine ) . The court granted the request and scheduled a hearing for DATE , which the summoned director failed to attend . After the director had failed to appear at the next hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE , the court requested the police authorities to inquire about his address . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the competent tax authority issued a decision ordering the applicant to pay CARDINAL NORP kunas of taxes .

On DATE ORG ( ORG financija ) upheld the first - instance decision . The applicant subsequently brought an administrative action .

On DATE ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE the competent tax authority issued a new decision ordering the applicant to pay a lower amount of taxes .

The applicant claimed that he had paid the requested sum , but that the tax authority had nevertheless continued sending him warning letters and had refused to unblock his bank account .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under LAW of LAW complaining about the length of the first and the second set of the above proceedings . On DATE he lodged a second constitutional complaint complaining about the length of the third set of proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's first complaint in respect of the first set of proceedings . Having regard in particular to the applicant 's conduct ( who failed to attend one hearing and asked for adjournment of another CARDINAL hearings ) , it held that the first proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time .

However , it would appear that ORG is still examining the applicant 's first complaint in respect of the second set of proceedings .

On DATE ORG also dismissed the applicant 's second constitutional complaint . Taking into account particularly the applicant 's conduct ( who brought his action in the first - instance court having no territorial jurisdiction ) , it held that the length of the proceedings complained of had not been excessive .

The relevant part of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , of DATE ; “ the LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been exhausted if the competent court fails to decide a claim concerning the individual 's rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him or her within a reasonable time ...

( CARDINAL ) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this section is upheld , the Constitutional Court shall set a time - limit within which the competent court must decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision issued under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE from the date a request for payment is lodged . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national born in DATE . When filing the application he was detained in NORP prison in GPE . He is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

As from DATE onwards , the applicant and his wife ran a children ’s home in LOC . In DATE CARDINAL girls were accepted as boarders , i.e. A , born in DATE , and the CARDINAL sisters B and C , born in DATE and DATE , respectively . In DATE , the CARDINAL girls left the home and were placed in CARDINAL different foster families .

On DATE A ’s foster parents , PERSON and PERSON , reported to the police that they suspected the applicant of having sexually abused A while she was in the children ’s home . On DATE a policewoman questioned PERSON and , in her presence , A , whereupon a criminal report was filed against the applicant , accusing him of having committed sexual acts with A from DATE . On DATE A underwent a medical examination .

The suspicion then arose that B and C had been sexually abused . On DATE a policewoman interviewed B and C. On DATE a criminal report was filed accusing the applicant of also having sexually abused B and C from DATE . The report noted that the statements of B and C coincided substantially with those of A.

The applicant was remanded in custody on DATE .

Based on the medical examination of the victims on DATE , ORG of the Canton of St. Gallen , prepared a report on DATE . On DATE , ORG ( Kinder- und PERSON ) of LOC prepared an expert opinion as to the credibility of the statements made by A , B and C during the various interviews . It concluded that A ’s previous statements could be confirmed . The statements of B and C as recorded in the minutes most probably reflected what they themselves had experienced . There was no indication of sexual abuse by any other person , and it appeared most unlikely that the children had made up the events themselves .

On DATE PERSON was appointed by ORG ) to supervise the fostership of GPE

On DATE , PERSON questioned A alone . A made various statements , pointing out the areas on her body where the applicant had hurt her , and explaining how this had happened . PERSON prepared a report on this conversation . She informed the investigating judge first by telephone , later she was questioned by him on DATE , whereby she was reminded of her duty to tell the truth .

On DATE the investigating judge interviewed A in the presence of the foster mother . A ’s statements , referring to various sexual acts by the applicant , coincided with those previously made by her . The case was referred to trial on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( GPE ) of GPE convicted the applicant of having committed sexual acts with children and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . In its judgment the ORG analysed in detail the various statements made by A , B and C during the investigations which had not been called into question by the forensic expert opinion of DATE . They had been regarded as credible by ORG , and the court considered them to be correct . The court found it established that the applicant had abused the children and did not regard it as necessary to comply with the applicant ’s request to hear further witnesses , in particular PERSON , the foster mother .

The applicant filed a plea of nullity ( PERSON ) with ORG ( Kassationsgericht ) of GPE .

Meanwhile , the applicant ordered the preparation of a private expert opinion . The expert opinion , prepared by a psychiatrist and submitted on DATE , noted deficiencies in the report of ORG DATE .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s plea of nullity on CARDINAL DATE . In its judgment it rejected various elements of evidence as being belated , including the applicant ’s private expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant filed with ORG ( PERSON ) a plea of nullity and a public law appeal ( staatsrechtliche Beschwerde ) . In the former he complained of the sentence and in the latter of the unfairness of the proceedings . Both applications were dismissed by ORG on DATE . The judgments were served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .

In its judgment concerning the applicant ’s public law appeal , ORG considered the issue of questioning victims in the absence of the accused ; the court found that “ while this had not been raised , it has however been addressed ( nicht gerügt , aber angesprochen ) ” . In the court ’s view , in such a case the accused ’s defence rights had to be ensured in other ways . In respect of the applicant ’s complaint that the questions had been put in a suggestive manner , ORG noted that this particular matter had been the decisive issue before the lower courts and had received ample consideration . Noting the extensive verbatim TIME , ORG considered that the children had explained themselves in many different ways – verbally and non - verbally . These indications militated against the conclusion that the children had been manipulated or that the questioning had followed any insinuating structure . ORG concluded that ORG could on tenable grounds and without arbitrariness conclude that the children ’s statements had been credible and correct .