Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by Mr I. NORP , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant ’s sister , ORG , was granted a specially protected tenancy of a flat in PERSON . The flat was a studio , measuring QUANTITY . The applicant , who was at that time employed in GPE , registered her residence in the flat and was recognised as a household member .

The applicant ’s sister died some time in DATE and the applicant continued to occupy the flat when she was in GPE and since DATE , when she retired , she has been living permanently in the flat .

On DATE the applicant asked the GPE , as the owner of the flat , to make a lease agreement on the said flat . The request was refused and on an unspecified date the GPE brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ORG ) seeking the applicant ’s eviction .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s eviction within DATE on the ground that the applicant had no legal basis to occupy the flat since she had not lived with her sister in the same household for DATE preceding her sister ’s death , that being a condition of acquiring a specially protected tenancy on a flat . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :

“ Regardless of her possible strong emotional attachment to her late sister and the unselfish assistance that the plaintiff provided to her sister in various forms by caring for her [ during ] unpaid leaves and holidays , the plaintiff , owing primarily to the distance [ of their places of ] living , did not live with her sister for DATE the latter ’s death , and thus did not acquire a specially protected tenancy on the basis of law . ”

The judgment was upheld by ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) on DATE . A subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicant of DATE was dismissed by ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on DATE .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o stambenim odnosima , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Members of the household of the holder of a specially protected tenancy are ... persons who have lived with him or her in DATE , including : ... [ his or her ] brothers and sisters ... ”

ORG ( Official Gazette nos . DATE , DATE , CARDINAL CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) regulates the conditions for the sale of flats let under specially protected tenancies . In general , the LAW entitles the holder of a specially protected tenancy on a publicly owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions of sale .

The relevant provision of the LAW provides as follows :

“ Every holder of a specially protected tenancy ( hereinafter ‘ the tenant’ ) may submit a written application to purchase a flat to the ... owner ( ‘ the seller’ ) ... and the seller shall be obliged to sell the flat .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the police arrested him on suspicion of violent robbery and unlawful possession of weapons .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention pursuant to LAW ORG ” ) until DATE on the ground that , if the applicant remained at liberty , he might abscond and obstruct justice . On DATE it remanded the applicant in detention for the maximum period of DATE on the grounds of the gravity of charges against him , possibility of absconding and negative character references . On DATE the court extended the maximum period of the applicant ’s detention for DATE on the grounds of the gravity of charges and possibility of absconding .

On DATE , following the completion of the pre - trial investigations , the case was referred to the court for trial .

On DATE the court ruled , inter alia , that the applicant should remain in detention , without giving any reasons .

On DATE the case was transferred to ORG , which on DATE found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property .

On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration . It did not rule on the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for additional investigation . It ordered the applicant to remain in detention , without giving any reasons .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case for fresh court consideration . It did not rule on the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for release because of the gravity of charges against him .

On DATE the same court convicted the applicant for violent robbery and unlawful possession of weapons and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment with confiscation of property .

On DATE ORG ruled , inter alia , that the applicant should remain in detention , without giving any reasons .

On DATE the case was transferred to ORG , which on DATE ruled , inter alia , that the applicant should remain in detention , without giving any reasons .

On DATE and DATE the above court rejected the applicant ’s and CARDINAL other co - defendants’ requests for release , holding that the detention as a preventive measure had been chosen with regard to the GPE personality , age and the gravity of charges against them as well as other circumstances provided by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , without any further specification . On DATE the court examined the GPE yet another request for release and rejected other co - GPE request , without specifically addressing the applicant ’s own request .

On DATE the court convicted the applicant on the same charges as in the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment with confiscation of property .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention , having served his term of imprisonment . The applicant states that his health deteriorated in detention , in respect of which he did not provide any further details or supporting evidence .

On DATE ORG refused to grant leave to the applicant ’s appeal in cassation .

According to the Government , in the course of the proceedings the investigators and the courts interrogated and heard CARDINAL other co - defendants , CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL aggrieved parties . This took them DATE in total . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned mainly due to the absence of the witnesses , the aggrieved parties or the co - defendants’ representatives , because the defendants were not escorted to the court and due to the absence of the judges . CARDINAL times the courts applied compulsory summonses on the witnesses and the aggrieved parties .

According to the applicant , he had difficulties in obtaining copies of all documents necessary for the substantiation of his application before the ORG . Eventually , he provided all necessary copies .

Provisions of the ORG of CARDINAL DATE on preventive measures are set out in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE ( extracts ) ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Ehingen ( GPE ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , a partnership of lawyers practising in GPE ( GPE ) . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of LAW at ORG .

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

On DATE officers of ORG ( PERSON ) carried out speed controls on FAC . DATE in the course of which the applicant 's car was found to be speeding . ORG was informed accordingly of the offence .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to disclose pursuant to LAW of LAW ( GPE ) the full name and address of the person who had driven her car DATE at a specified time on ORG . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG issued a provisional penal order against the applicant in which it sentenced her under sections CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW to pay a fine of ORG CARDINAL ( with TIME imprisonment in default ) as she had failed to give the requested information within the set time - limit .

The applicant , assisted by counsel , filed an objection ( PERSON ) against this decision . She submitted that she should be given the photo taken when the speeding offence was committed as she could not remember who drove her car at the relevant time . In any event , she could not be convicted of the offence under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW as this offence - like all administrative offences - could only be committed in GPE whereas she was residing in GPE .

On DATE ORG issued a penal order ( PERSON ) confirming its previous decision and sentenced the applicant to a fine of ORG CARDINAL ( with TIME imprisonment in default ) . The ORG found that the applicant had failed to give the information requested and that NORP administrative law , including administrative criminal law , was applicable because the place where the offence had been committed was in GPE since the applicant had to give the requested information to ORG .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) . She reiterated the arguments made in her objection .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal . Referring to ORG case - law it found that ORG had been right when stating that NORP administrative criminal law was applicable as the offence at issue ( failure to disclose information ) had been committed in GPE . Furthermore it had not been necessary to send the photo taken when the speeding offence was committed as the applicant , under LAW , had been under the obligation to record who had been using her car , possibly with the help of a “ car user diary ” ( Fahrtenbuch ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against ORG decisions with ORG and requested the court to hold a hearing . She complained , inter alia , that the administrative criminal proceedings violated her right not to incriminate herself as guaranteed by LAW . She also complained that her conviction violated her property rights as guaranteed by LAW CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with the applicants ' complaint for lack of prospect of success .

On DATE ORG , upon the applicant 's request , transferred the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with the applicant 's complaint pursuant to section CARDINALa of LAW ( PERSON ) since the amount of the penalty did not exceed ATS CARDINAL , and no important legal problem was at stake .

This decision was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW as amended in DATE ( ORG ) provides as follows :

's right to require such information shall take precedence over the right to refuse to give information . ”

The ultimate sentence of this provision was enacted as a provision of constitutional rank after ORG had , in its judgments of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , quashed previous similar provisions on the ground that they were contrary to LAW which prohibits , inter alia , that a suspect be obliged on pain of a fine to incriminate himself .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( GPE . CARDINAL ) ORG found that the first to third sentences of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW as amended in DATE were , like the previous provisions , contrary to the right not to incriminate oneself which flowed from LAW and from LAW , but were saved by the ultimate sentence of that provision which had constitutional rank . In reaching that conclusion ORG examined whether the ultimate sentence of LAW was contrary to the guiding principles of the LAW , but found that this was not the case .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , in the version in force at the material time , provided that a fine of up to ORG CARDINAL with DATE imprisonment in default could be imposed on a person who violates the regulations of this Act .


The first applicant was born in DATE . The second applicant was born in DATE . They live in GPE , MA , GPE .

On an unspecified date the applicants sued ORG of LOC of GPE - on - PERSON ( “ the social security office ” ) for pension arrears for the period from DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG of PERSON - on - PERSON granted the applicants ' claims . The court awarded MONEY ( RUB ) to the first applicant , and RUB CARDINAL to the second applicant .

On DATE ORG ordered that the social security office pay RUB PERSON to the first applicant and RUB PERSON to the second applicant in respect of pension arrears for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgments of DATE and CARDINAL DATE on appeal . The judgments became enforceable .

On an unspecified date the President of the Rostov ORG lodged an application for supervisory - review of the judgments of CARDINAL October and DATE , as upheld on DATE .

On DATE the ORG of the Rostov ORG found that ORG had incorrectly applied domestic law , quashed the judgments of DATE and DATE , as upheld on DATE , and dismissed the applicants ' claims .


Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

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

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

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

NORP The applicant is a judicial enforcement officer ( súdny exekútor ) . In this capacity , he acted on behalf of a number of creditors , with a view to enforcing their claims . The relevant details concerning the enforcement proceedings in question are set out in the Appendix to this decision .

NORP In all instances the commencement of the enforcement proceedings was authorised by judicial decisions and the enforcement proceedings were eventually discontinued on the grounds specified below .

At the same time , for various reasons that are also specified below , the courts ruled that the applicant was wholly or partly not entitled to remuneration ( odmena ) , refund of costs ( náhrada hotových výdavkov ) and compensation for lost time ( náhrada za stratu času ) .

In the enforcement proceedings referred to under numbers CARDINAL to CARDINAL in the Appendix , the applicant acted on behalf of CARDINAL individuals , ORG ( Sociálna poisťovňa ) and other corporate creditors for the enforcement of their claims against corporate debtors and CARDINAL individuals .

All of these enforcement proceedings were discontinued on the ground that , without legal successors , the corporate debtors had been struck out of ORG ( PERSON register ) , whereby they legally ceased to exist , and the individual debtors had died .

In the context of these enforcement proceedings , the applicant requested that , in the circumstances , his compensation be paid by the creditors .

In particular , the applicant claimed remuneration in amounts ranging from CARDINAL to CARDINAL ( ORG ) , plus ORG , and a refund of his costs ranging from some ORG DATE , in the total net amount of some LAW .

When dealing with the applicant ’s claims , the courts applied Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as in force until DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL in “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) , pursuant to which it was at the ORG discretion to order a creditor to pay the enforcement costs in the event of a discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings , taking into account whether the creditor could have envisaged the discontinuation of the proceedings .

In all of the proceedings in issue the courts dismissed the applicant ’s claims , finding that the creditors could not have envisaged the discontinuation of the proceedings . Furthermore , it was noted by ORG in some of those proceedings that the applicant ’s status as a judicial enforcement officer placed him in a privileged position as regards the power to enforce adjudicated claims and that this privilege outweighed expenses such as those he had incurred in the present case(s ) .

In the enforcement proceedings referred to under numbers CARDINAL in the Appendix , the applicant acted on behalf of corporate creditors enforcing their claims against corporate debtors .

All of these enforcement proceedings were discontinued on the ground that both the creditors and the debtors had been struck out of ORG without a legal successor .

In the context of these enforcement proceedings , the applicant requested that his compensation be paid by the ORG .

In particular , the applicant claimed remuneration in amounts ranging from some ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL , plus ORG , and a refund of his costs ranging from some ORG DATE .

In the proceedings referred to under number CARDINAL in the Appendix , the applicant also claimed some EUR CARDINAL by way of compensation for the time spent travelling in connection with the enforcement .

In total , the applicant made some ORG CARDINAL worth of net claim .

The courts dismissed the applicant ’s claims , finding that , as the parties no longer existed , they could not be ordered to pay the applicant ’s costs . At the same time , there was no legislative basis for the applicant ’s costs to be born by the ORG .

In the enforcement proceedings referred to under numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the Appendix , the applicant acted on behalf of corporate creditors , enforcing their claims against a corporate debtor and an individual debtor .

These enforcement proceedings were discontinued on the ground that the corporate debtor had been struck out of ORG and the individual debtor had died , without legal successors .

In the circumstances , the applicant requested that his remuneration be paid by the creditors . As to its amount , the applicant applied a statutory TIME fee for TIME spent on the individual enforcement steps that he had taken , including TIME commenced but not completed .

The courts allowed the applicant ’s claims as to the substance . However , as to the scope , the courts calculated the actual time spent on all the enforcement steps together , and applied the TIME rate to that total .

In the enforcement proceedings referred to CARDINAL of the Appendix , the calculation method referred to in the precedent paragraph was applied by ORG on DATE when , following an appeal by the creditor , it overturned the firstinstance decision of ORG that had relied on the calculation method advocated by the applicant .

In the decision of DATE , ORG relied , inter alia , on a previous judgment of ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) ) dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL in “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) .

NORP The applicant challenged the decision of DATE by way of a complaint under LAW arguing , among other things , that that decision was contrary to an even earlier decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL in “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . It held that it was neither a court of appeal nor a court responsible for harmonising case - law of the ordinary courts , the latter task falling within the remit of ORG . ORG also found that the interpretation of the relevant law by ORG was CARDINAL possible interpretation and that it was not vitiated by any unfairness , irregularity or constitutionally relevant arbitrariness .

In the enforcement proceedings referred to CARDINAL of the Appendix , the applicant acted on behalf of an individual , enforcing his claim against a corporate debtor . The enforcement proceedings were discontinued on the ground that the debtor did not even have sufficient assets to cover the costs of the enforcement proceedings .

In the circumstances , the applicant claimed that his costs be covered by the creditor . In particular , the applicant claimed remuneration in the amount of some ORG CARDINAL , plus GPE , and a refund of his costs in the amount of some EUR CARDINAL .

Ordinary courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction examined the applicant ’s claim under the law as applicable at that time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) and concluded that the creditor could not have envisaged that the debtor would become destitute . There was therefore no basis for ordering him to cover the applicant ’s costs and neither was there any legal basis for the applicant ’s costs to be born by the ORG . Therefore , in the circumstances , the order for costs was made against the defendant .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) provides :

“ CARDINAL . The Constitutional Court shall decide complaints by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .

NORP If ORG finds a complaint justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that a person ’s rights or freedoms as set out in paragraph CARDINAL have been violated by a final decision , specific measure or other act and shall quash such decision , measure or act . If the violation that has been found is the result of a failure to act , ORG may order [ the authority ] which has violated the rights or freedoms to take the necessary action . At the same time it may remit the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order such authority to refrain from violating the fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order those who have violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL to restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation .

NORP In its decision on a complaint ORG may grant appropriate financial compensation to the person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL have been violated . ”

According to the established case - law of ORG , neither Article CARDINAL nor any other provision of the LAW provides a basis for individuals to challenge legislation for being incompatible with the LAW or international instruments , including LAW see , for example , decision of DATE , file no . PERSON . ORG ) .

The statutory basis for enforcement of adjudicated claims is laid down in Articles CARDINAL et seq . of ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended – “ ORG ” ) .

NORP Until DATE , if a judgment debtor failed to comply with his or her adjudicated obligation , the creditor had CARDINAL essentially equipollent options of seeking enforcement , by a court under the ORG and by a judicial enforcement officer under LAW .

With effect from DATE Article CARDINAL and other related provisions of the ORG were amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . in that , apart from some exceptions that are not relevant to the present case , enforcement of adjudicated claims is to take place under LAW .

The status of judicial enforcement officers and the procedures for enforcement by judicial enforcement officers are governed by LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) .

Under LAW , in order to be appointed a judicial enforcement officer , an individual has to have ( a ) unrestricted legal capacity to act , ( b ) obtained a law degree , ( c ) a faultless criminal record , ( d ) completed DATE of enforcement training , ( e ) passed a professional exam .

Judicial enforcement officers are appointed by the Minister of ORG ( “ the Minister ” ) ( LAW ) upon their own request and further to recommendation of ORG ( PERSON komora exekútorov DATE “ the Chamber ” ) ( LAW ) .

Under LAW , upon appointment , a judicial enforcement officer makes the following solemn declaration in front of the Minister :

“ I promise on my conscience and civic honour that I shall follow LAW and other Acts of ORG , as well as other generally binding statues and I shall apply them as a judicial enforcement officer according to my best knowledge and conscience , in carrying out enforcements I shall proceed independently , impartially and fairly and I shall respect confidentiality in respect of all facts that I learn in connection with carrying out activities under LAW ” .

Under LAW ( g ) , the enforcement court is to discontinue enforcement proceedings if it has declared the enforcement improper ( neprípustná ) on other grounds for which it can not be carried out .

In respect of enforcement carried out under the Code , the judicial enforcement officer is entitled to remuneration , a refund of costs and compensation for lost time . Should the judicial enforcement officer be liable to pay value - added tax , the compensation should be increased by the amount of that tax ( LAW .

The expenses listed in LAW are to be born by the debtor ( LAW ) . The judicial enforcement officer can , however , request the creditor to make an appropriate advance payment for remuneration and costs ( LAW ) . As a general rule , should the creditor fail to make the advance payment within the time - limit specified by the enforcement officer , on the latter ’s request the enforcement court may discontinue the proceedings ( LAW ) .

Under Article CARDINAL , as in force until DATE , in the event of discontinuation of enforcement proceedings , the court could order that the costs of the enforcement be paid by the creditor . In resolving that matter , the court was to take into account which costs had been necessary for ensuring efficient enforcement as well as whether the creditor could have envisaged the ground for the discontinuation , if exercising due diligence .

On DATE an amendment ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) entered into force , pursuant to which , if the creditor causes the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings , the court can order him or her to cover the necessary costs of the enforcement ( amended Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

NORP The amended Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL implies a possibility , not a duty , for the court to make an order for costs against the creditor . Such an order presupposes an analysis of procedural responsibility ( zavinenie ) for the discontinuation . The provision confers discretion on the part of the court based on an assessment of the actions of the creditor and the degree and seriousness of the creditor ’s responsibility should it be established ( a decision by ORG of DATE in a case no . I. ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Should the enforcement be discontinued on the ground that the debtor does not have sufficient property to cover the costs of the enforcement , such costs are to be born by the creditor ( amended Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

In a decision of DATE , in an unrelated but similar case brought by the applicant under no . PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG held that the mere fact that both the creditor and the debtor had ceased legally to exist and that they could accordingly no longer be ordered to pay the enforcement costs could not have the consequence of the costs being born by the ORG . This was so because in none of its provisions did LAW provide for a possibility or statutory modalities from which one could infer a transfer of the duty to pay the enforcement costs to the ORG .

Articles CARDINAL et seq . govern the disciplinary liability of judicial enforcement officers .

This liability pertains to disciplinary offences ( disciplinárne previnenie ) and serious disciplinary offences ( závažné disciplinárne previnenie ) .

The former consists of culpable breach of duties in the course of carrying out a judicial enforcement officer ’s activities , breach of the solemn declaration , acting in a way which compromises the dignity of the officer ’s role and carrying on an activity that is incompatible with the role of a judicial enforcement officer despite a previous request not to do so ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

An action envisaged in LAW becomes a serious disciplinary offence if its harmfulness is increased on account of the nature of the breached duty , the manner in which it has been breached , the degree of culpability , repetition of the breach or other aggravating circumstances .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL , disciplinary offences are punishable by reprimand ( paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) ) , written reprimand ( paragraphs CARDINAL ( b ) and CARDINAL ( a ) , a fine of up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( paragraphs CARDINAL ( c ) and QUANTITY ( b ) ) and stripping of office ( paragraph CARDINAL ( c ) ) .

Details concerning compensation of judicial enforcement officers are laid down in Decree of the Ministry of Justice no . PERSON . , as amended , on LAW .

In the event of discontinuation of enforcement proceedings , the remuneration of the judicial enforcement officer for carrying out the enforcement was to be determined on the basis of the number of hours purposefully spent on the enforcement . The basic rate was SKK CARDINAL per each commenced hour ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) and ( CARDINAL ) , as in force at the relevant time ) .

In a judgment of DATE , following an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie ) by ORG in an unrelated case , no . CARDINALMCdo CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG held that the remuneration under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Decree should be calculated on the basis of the enforcement steps taken and the time spent on such individual steps , including any hour commenced . The adding up of the exact time spent on individual enforcement steps , taken together , was contrary to the applicable rules .

A similar interpretation was adopted by ORG in decisions of CARDINAL and DATE on the applicant ’s appeals in unrelated cases ORG . ORG DATE CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , following an extraordinary appeal on points of law by ORG in an unrelated case , no . DATE CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG held that the remuneration of a judicial enforcement officer under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Decree should be calculated on the basis of the real time spent on the enforcement steps taken , added up . This interpretation was upheld by ORG in a decision of DATE on an extraordinary appeal on points of law by ORG in an unrelated case no . PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL .


Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 25;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , is currently in custody in FAC ( county of Alba ) , serving a DATE sentence for murder imposed on DATE by the Târgu - ORG .

On DATE , when the applicant was in custody at GPE ( county of GPE ) , his wife wrote to the Commission to complain that her husband had not had a fair trial in ORG . She also reported that he had encountered difficulties in sending letters from prison .

On DATE the applicant himself sent the ORG a letter posted by his wife and asked that correspondence should be sent to him at home . On DATE the ORG asked the applicant for additional information and documents in support of the application .

On DATE and DATE Mr ORG wrote to the Commission through his wife , reporting that the prison authorities would not allow him to fill in the application form .

On DATE he sent the ORG a letter from FAC that was received on DATE . Written on regulation prison paper , it bore a registration number and had been sent from GPE in a ORG envelope . Although mentioned as an enclosure , the judgment of DATE was missing . This letter was written in a different hand from the earlier ones .

NORP On DATE the Commission sent the applicant an application form .

The form was filled in by the applicant on DATE and sent to the ORG by ORG ( Direcţia Generală PERSON ) on DATE . No mention was made in it of any hindrance of correspondence .

On DATE , in response to a question from the Commission concerning the different handwriting in the letters it had received , Mr ORG indicated that he had been assisted by a friend “ wholly unconnected with the case , a man who is discreet and disinterested ” . He added that the prison authorities had informed him that the documents requested by the ORG had been dispatched . However , the ORG never received any of them .

Referring also to the right to respect for his correspondence , the applicant said that the prison governor , although very “ flexible ” , could not be of any greater assistance to him as the authorities were required to apply PERSON no . CARDINAL on the execution of sentences and its “ secret ” implementing regulations . In his view , it followed that there was a violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

The applicant has stated that he never received the letter of CARDINAL October DATE in which ORG informed him , among other things , that his application had been communicated to the Government .

On DATE Mr ORG sent a letter through his wife to the Commission , informing it that on DATE he had been transferred to ORG and that when he had sought permission to communicate his change of address , the reply had been “ ORG is at GPE and nowhere else ” and that if he persisted , he would be put under the special prison regime .

On DATE PERSON informed the ORG that her husband had asked her to enquire about his application and to complain about the prison authorities’ systematic interference with his correspondence with the ORG . On DATE the Commission sent a reply to ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife wrote to the Commission to complain about the conditions in which her husband was being held , stating that he shared a QUANTITY . m cell with CARDINAL other prisoners and that the warders subjected him to inhuman treatment . The applicant had refused to give her the names of the warders who beat the prisoners , because he was too afraid .

Mr Petra did not learn that his application had been communicated to the Government until DATE , when he received a copy of the letter of DATE and relevant documents .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE posted by his wife the applicant again complained that his correspondence was being censored and stated that he was obliged to give his letters to the prison governor , who forwarded them to ORG in GPE and that he was never certain that his letters were actually sent to GPE .

On DATE the ORG submitted to the ORG all the documents concerning the court proceedings that had resulted in the applicant ’s conviction .

On DATE the ORG received CARDINAL further letters sent from GPE in a ORG envelope . The first of these , written by the applicant on regulation prison paper , was dated DATE , was stamped and bore a registration number . The second was a covering letter from the Head of ORG , ORG

CARDINAL other letters from the applicant , dated DATE , each stamped and bearing a registration number , were sent together from GPE by ORG on DATE , again with a covering letter from ORG

In a letter of DATE posted by his wife PERSON informed the ORG that he had received the decision on the admissibility of his application . He added that his correspondence with the ORG was being routinely opened and that his letters were being sent to the Commission through ORG . He said that he had written the letter secretly for fear of being denounced to Lieutenant - Colonel V.C. , who had threatened him in the following terms : “ I ’ll give you ORG ! ” ( PERSON aranjez eu pe tine cu PERSON ) .

On DATE the Commission received another letter written from prison on regulation prison paper on DATE , which was stamped , bore a registration number and had been sent from GPE in a ORG envelope on DATE . No mention was made in it of any hindrance of correspondence .

On DATE the registry of the ORG received the applicant ’s memorial written on regulation prison paper ; it was stamped , bore a registration number and had been sent from GPE in a ORG envelope .

The relevant provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL on the execution of sentences provide :

“ Convicted prisoners shall be entitled … to receive and send mail and sums of money . ”

“ A convicted prisoner ’s right to receive … and send mail shall be granted according to the nature of the offence he has committed , the length of his sentence , whether he is a reoffender , whether he is doing work , his conduct and his willingness to undergo rehabilitation measures .

“ Any mail , books , newspapers or magazines whose content the prison governor considers unsuited to the process of rehabilitating a prisoner shall be withheld and kept at the prison . They shall be returned to the prisoner when he is released .

Mail whose content is unsuitable shall , if need be , be forwarded to the competent authorities . ”

The relevant regulations of the implementing regulations of PERSON no . ORG , which were not published , provide :

“ Convicted prisoners shall be entitled to submit petitions and written or oral requests to the prison governor , the public prosecutor , the President of ORG for the area in which he is being held or other bodies .

The prison authorities shall provide convicted prisoners with writing materials . ”

“ Requests and complaints addressed to central or local authorities shall be sent direct to those authorities by the prison authorities . Unsuitable requests shall be sent to ORG so that the measures prescribed by law may be taken .

“ Prison governors shall dispatch requests and complaints within DATE of the day on which they receive them . Convicted prisoners shall be informed of the outcome of their requests and complaints as soon as the replies have been received and shall sign to that effect . ”

According to the table annexed to the implementing regulations , prisoners convicted of murder are entitled to receive and send CARDINAL letter DATE if they are working in prison and CARDINAL letter DATE if they are not .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Eppendorf . He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Gertner , a lawyer practising in Bad Ems .

A summary account of historical events in which the present application originated can be found in the ORG ’s decision on admissibility in the case of ORG . PERSON GPE ( see ORG . PERSON GPE DATE . ) , no . ORG , DATE , § § DATE , ECHR-CARDINAL- ... ) .

The applicant submits that he and his family were forced to leave their QUANTITY farm in GPE ( at present GPE in GPE ) . Each person was allowed to take only the barest personal essentials that they could hold in their hands .

This region before and during the Second World War belonged to ORG . After the defeat of GPE at the end of the war , when the border between GPE and GPE was drawn along the PERSON - Neisse line , it was included in the territory of GPE ( see ORG . PERSON , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

Afterwards , they were interned in GPE where they were required to perform forced labour and seriously ill - treated by the NORP militia . Finally , they were expelled from GPE . On DATE they reached the NORP occupation zone . The family ’s property was confiscated by the NORP .

The applicant has still not been allowed to return to his home and has been refused restitution of his family ’s property .

A detailed description of the relevant international and domestic law is set out in the above - mentioned case of ORG . PERSON GPE ( ibid . § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 2;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE in Gubadly and currently lives in PERSON .

The applicant and his family are internally displaced persons from Gubadly . In DATE , during the occupation of the region by NORP military forces , they fled their permanent place of residence and came to PERSON .

After their flight from Gubadly , the applicant 's family of CARDINAL ( himself , his wife , CARDINAL children and the applicant 's mother - in - law ) resided temporarily in various places in PERSON . Immediately prior to the events outlined below they lived in a room in a ORG - owned hostel .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant 's wife , PERSON , underwent in - patient treatment in GPE with a diagnosis of “ closed craniocerebral injury , brain concussion ; contusion of soft tissues of the crown of the head ; hysterical psychosis ” .

In DATE the applicant discovered that there were CARDINAL vacant rooms in an old administrative building that belonged to ORG ( the army recruitment office ) , which , however , no longer occupied the building . Part of the building was occupied by an association of war veterans , but the rooms that the applicant was interested in were abandoned and in a state of neglect . The rooms were located in auxiliary LOC which had a separate entrance from the rear side of the building . The applicant occupied these rooms and conducted substantial repair work there for DATE . According to him , the other occupants of the building were aware of his activities but did not object to them . Likewise , according to the applicant , there were no objections by any public authorities to the repair works carried out by him .

After completing the repair works , at DATE the applicant left his hostel room and moved into the new dwelling together with his family .

On DATE CARDINAL officials ( E.G. and CARDINAL ) of ORG ( “ the SCEA ” ) , an employee of the local housing maintenance and utilities board ( K.A. ) and a number of police officers arrived in the applicant 's new dwelling . They had no court order for his eviction .

At an unspecified time after the arrival of the above - mentioned officials , the applicant 's wife , PERSON , poured some kerosene on herself and ignited it , apparently in protest at what she perceived as the authorities ' intention to evict her family . It appears that CARDINAL of the police officers helped put out the fire on her body , using a blanket he found inside the applicant 's home . PERSON brother , who arrived slightly later , took her to hospital by taxi .

Following this incident , the police loaded the possessions of the applicant 's family onto a lorry and transported them back to the hostel where the applicant 's family had previously resided .

The applicant 's wife suffered multiple second- and third - degree burns affecting PERCENT of the body surface . On DATE she died in hospital of complications resulting from her injuries . The results of the autopsy released on DATE confirmed that the death had been caused by the extensive burns to her body surface .

According to the applicant , prior to CARDINAL DATE he was summoned several times to meet the ORG officials , who orally demanded him to vacate the rooms in the old ORG building and even asked him for a bribe in order to allow him to stay there . He refused their demands .

On DATE E.G. , ORG and a large number of police officers arrived in the applicant 's new dwelling and demanded that he and his family immediately vacate the LOC . The applicant estimated the total number of police officers at CARDINAL , noting that most of them were equipped with batons . When the applicant and his family members refused , the police used force on the applicant and his mother - in - law .

At this time PERSON experienced a state of shock and psychological anxiety . She poured some kerosene on herself and threatened to set fire to herself if the police officers did not leave immediately . However , the ORG officials and police officers did not take her threats seriously . E.G. even offered her a box of matches , mockingly encouraging her to keep her word and set fire to herself .

At that moment , the applicant was outside trying to help CARDINAL of his children , who had fainted TIME from fright . Therefore , the applicant could not immediately rescue his wife . According to the applicant , none of the police officers made an attempt to rescue her , because they were all busy carrying the applicant 's possessions and loading them onto a lorry .

Only PERSON sister , who was also in the vicinity , came to her rescue and extinguished the fire . Only one police officer offered some belated assistance . By this time , PERSON had already suffered serious burns . Her brother , who arrived shortly after the incident , took her to hospital by taxi .

According to the Government , at TIME on DATE CARDINAL ORG officials , accompanied by CARDINAL police officers , visited the LOC occupied by the applicant 's family . The aim of the visit was merely to explain to the applicant that his family was occupying these LOC illegally . The applicant immediately left , together with a child of his , and went to a post office to send a complaint against the ORG officials and the police . After the applicant had left , his wife supposed that her family would be evicted by force . She became anxious and set fire to herself in protest . None of the ORG officials present had provoked her to do so . TIME her close relatives took her to hospital .

Following this , the officials decided , on the spot , to move the applicant 's family 's belongings back to the hostel where they had previously resided .

An investigator of ORG carried out a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances of PERSON death .

It appears that the investigator questioned a number of witnesses , including the applicant , his mother - in - law , his sister - in - law , the municipal employee ORG , the ORG officials ORG and ORG , and CARDINAL police officers ( PERSON , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE and FAC ) ( see summaries of the relevant witness testimonies in section F. below ) .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE an investigator of ORG decided not to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the death of the applicant 's wife .

Based on the witness testimonies , the investigator concluded that there was no proof supporting the applicant 's allegations that ORG had entered the applicant 's dwelling , that ORG had offered matches to PERSON , that ORG had ever asked the applicant for a bribe , or that any police officers had used force against PERSON . As there were no indications that any third persons had been in any way responsible for the fact that the applicant 's wife had attempted suicide , there were no grounds to institute criminal proceedings .

Following this decision , the applicant sent a number of letters to ORG asking for a new investigation into the circumstances of his wife 's death with a view to determining the responsibility of the ORG officials and police officers involved in the incident . ORG Office replied , with similarly worded letters , on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . It was noted in these letters that PERSON death had been suicide and that the preliminary inquiry could not establish any responsibility on the part of the ORG officials in her death . It was also noted , however , that :

“ ... during the investigation into the circumstances of the death of PERSON [ ORG ] , it was revealed that officials of ORG and certain officers of ORG had committed a number of errors [ in performing their official duties . The matter has been referred ] to the senior management of ORG and ORG with a view to eliminating such errors and ensuring that they are not repeated in the future , as well as taking relevant measures against the persons who have committed these errors . ...

... moreover , a report was submitted to ORG in respect of the officers of ORG who exceeded their authority by participating , without a relevant court order , in an operation to evict you from the building where you had settled illegally ; the officers responsible for the misconduct have been punished under the disciplinary procedure . ”

In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG against the decision of ORG Office of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint and upheld the decision of DATE . It noted that the inquiry did not reveal any evidence that a criminal offence had been committed and that , therefore , the decision of CARDINAL DATE was lawful .

On DATE the Prosecutor General quashed ORG Office 's decision of CARDINAL DATE on the refusal to institute criminal proceedings . On DATE the case was forwarded to ORG for an additional inquiry .

In the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the investigator of ORG questioned a number of witnesses ( mostly the same ones as those who had been questioned before ) and obtained written testimonies from them ( see section F. below ) .

On DATE the investigator requested an expert opinion on PERSON mental condition prior to her death and how it might have affected her actions leading to the suicide . In an expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE an expert psychiatrist , having studied PERSON medical records and comments by people who had known her , concluded as follows :

“ No symptoms of a psychogenic - depressive reaction potentially causing her suicide can be observed in PERSON personality and mental traits . However , in the period preceding PERSON death , she had experienced a state of emotional stress of a degree capable of influencing her behaviour . ”

On DATE the investigator issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings . The decision stated , inter alia :

“ [ According to the expert opinion of DATE , ] the act of self - immolation by PERSON was carried out in an attempt to prevent [ her family 's eviction ] . During the incident , she found herself in the extreme circumstances of facing eviction from the rooms that [ her family ] had occupied , and reacted inadequately by selfimmolating in an ostentatious manner , having decided that it would attract the attention of those who were around her , evoke in them feelings of compassion towards herself , and help her resolve the conflict situation she encountered . In the period preceding her death , PERSON had experienced emotional stress of a degree that could have influenced her subsequent actions .

... the additional inquiry revealed that no other person had incited PERSON to commit suicide by means of either ill - treating her , debasing her dignity or intimidating her .

The claims of [ the applicant ] have not been confirmed during the additional inquiry ... It was established that the [ ORG and police ] officials had carried out their official duties in a lawful manner , had given lawful instructions and had not committed any breaches of law when implementing those instructions , and that there had been no corpus delicti in [ their ] actions .

Therefore ... the institution of criminal proceedings should be refused . ”

It appears that , following this decision , the applicant sent a number of letters to ORG , complaining that the investigation into the circumstances of his wife 's death had been inadequate . In letters of DATE and DATE ORG responded that the inquiry by ORG did not reveal any criminal elements in the actions of the ORG officials and that the applicant could challenge the decision of ORG Office of CARDINAL DATE in the courts . The applicant did not lodge a judicial complaint .

On DATE the First Deputy to the Prosecutor General quashed the decision of ORG Office of CARDINAL DATE on the refusal to institute criminal proceedings . Having regard to the contradictory testimonies of key witnesses and indications of possible breaches of law by the ORG and police officials , the First Deputy to ORG found that the inquiry had been incomplete and instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( incitement to suicide ) of LAW . ORG was instructed to carry out the investigation .

On DATE the applicant was given the procedural status of a “ legal successor to a victim of crime ” . In DATE the applicant submitted to the investigator a number of petitions requesting him , inter alia , to summon certain additional witnesses and to remove certain ORG and police officials from their official posts during the investigation period . On DATE the investigator rejected these petitions .

It appears that the investigator again questioned mostly the same group of witnesses who had been questioned before ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above and section F. below ) .

On DATE the DATE investigation period was extended for DATE .

On DATE the investigation was suspended . On DATE it was resumed . No documents are available in the case file in respect of these procedural events .

On DATE the investigator from ORG again suspended the investigation , owing to the inability “ to determine the perpetrator of the criminal offence ” of incitement to suicide .

The applicant lodged a judicial complaint against the investigator 's decision of CARDINAL DATE to suspend the investigation . On DATE the ORG quashed the impugned decision and instructed ORG to resume the investigation . The court noted , inter alia :

“ It appears from the material in the case file that the criminal investigation has not been full and comprehensive , and there was no basis for suspending the criminal proceedings as no face - to - face confrontations between witnesses have been held , and it has not been determined whether there were lawful grounds for the [ ORG and police ] officials to enter the residential LOC and remove the victim 's belongings from there , whether the police officers indeed went to the scene of the incident with the aim of carrying out prophylactic measures , whether such prophylactic measures were lawful , whether any physical force were used against the residents of the LOC , and whether the [ ORG officials ] at the scene of the incident abused their official authority . ”

NORP On DATE the investigation was resumed . However , on DATE the investigator of ORG decided to suspend the investigation again . In his decision he noted that , after the resumption of the investigation on DATE , “ a number of investigative steps ha[d ] been carried out ” ; however , it was still impossible to determine the perpetrator of the offence of incitement to suicide . The nature of such investigative acts was unspecified .

The applicant lodged a judicial complaint against the investigator 's decision of DATE to suspend the investigation . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint and upheld the investigator 's decision . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision .

On DATE the investigator of ORG issued a decision terminating the criminal proceedings on account of the absence of corpus delicti for the purposes of LAW in the actions of any of the persons involved in the incident resulting in the applicant 's wife 's self - immolation . The decision contained , inter alia , the following findings :

“ From DATE the [ ORG ] became aware of the fact that [ the applicant and his family ] had changed , of their own free will [ without authorisation ] , their place of residence and were illegally residing in a ORG - owned non - residential building . Despite several early warnings given by [ ORG and police ] officials , [ the applicant and his family ] continued to illegally reside in those non - residential LOC .

At TIME on DATE , pursuant to an instruction by the [ ORG 's ] senior administration , [ ORG officials ORG and ORG ] , police officers [ GPE , ORG , ORG ] , and the Deputy Head of ORG J.M. went ... to the above address to have a prophylactic conversation with [ the applicant and his family ] .

During the prophylactic conversation ... PERSON became anxious and , having presumed that [ her family ] would be evicted from the LOC , poured kerosene on herself and ignited it ; a state of tension ensued at the scene of the incident ; PERSON was taken to hospital by her relatives ; her husband [ the applicant ] had left the scene prior to PERSON self - immolation to send a complaint by telegram ; as a result , a process of eviction was started in accordance with an instruction given on the spot by [ ORG and CARDINAL ] ; the police officers loaded [ the applicant 's ] belongings onto a lorry and transported them to [ the hostel where the applicant 's family had previously lived ] and delivered them to [ R.N. ] , the superintendent of the hostel .

It has been determined that the senior administration of [ the ORG ] sent [ E.G. and Y.A. ] with the purpose of carrying out prophylactic measures in respect of the internally displaced persons who were illegally occupying the ORG - owned nonresidential premises in order to ensure that [ the latter ] vacated the LOC voluntarily , and that the senior management of [ the ORG ] did not instruct its officials to evict the internally displaced persons by force . However , after [ the applicant 's ] wife PERSON , who was suffering from a mental illness , had set fire to herself , [ E.G. and DATE ] instructed the police officers to move out the [ applicant 's ] belongings , organised the transportation of those belongings to the hostel ... , delivered them to the superintendent [ ORG ] and signed a deed of delivery . ...

It has been determined that , pursuant to an oral instruction from [ the ORG ] , the police officers were sent to the above - mentioned address by the administration of ORG in order to participate in carrying out the prophylactic measures and , after the act of self - immolation by PERSON , received an instruction directly from [ ORG and DATE ] to move [ the applicant 's ] belongings .

[ Summaries of witness testimonies and forensic evidence follow . ]

Pursuant to LAW DATE , the relevant local executive authorities are responsible for temporary housing of internally displaced persons . Internally displaced persons may be allowed to settle temporarily on their own only if the rights and lawful interests of other persons are not infringed . Otherwise , the relevant executive authority must ensure resettlement of the internally displaced persons to other accommodation ...

Pursuant to clause CARDINAL of the Regulations on Resettlement of Internally Displaced Persons to Other Accommodation , adopted in ORG . CARDINAL of DATE , in cases where the temporary settling of internally displaced persons breaches the housing rights of other individuals , the local executive authorities must provide the former with other suitable accommodation .

According to a statement received from ORG , there has been no judicial order for the eviction of [ the applicant ] from the LOC where he had settled .

[ A summary of the expert opinion on PERSON mental state follows . ]

The investigation did not reveal evidence in support of [ the applicant 's ] allegations that [ the ORG ] officials demanded a bribe from him , abused or exceeded their authority , or unlawfully evicted [ the applicant 's family ] , or that the police officers ... abused or exceeded their authority , or used force against [ the applicant ] and his family members or his mother - in - law . The decisions and actions of [ the ORG and police ] officials taken in connection with the LOC illegally occupied [ by the applicant 's family ] were lawful and did not transgress the limits specified by the legislation [ in force ] . The actions of [ the ORG and police ] officials did not contain any elements of offences under ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW or any other criminal offences .

Moreover , the investigation revealed no indications that PERSON was driven to commit suicide by way of ill - treatment debasing her dignity or threatening her , and found no person guilty of such acts . No elements of an offence under LAW of LAW have been established in the actions of any person [ in connection with this incident ] . ”

Below are summaries of testimonies of the witnesses questioned at various times by the investigation authorities in the course of the abovementioned proceedings . The summaries have been derived either from copies of the witness depositions submitted by the Government in their observations or from the texts of the investigation authorities ' decisions , or both . It appears that a number of the witnesses were questioned more than once ; in such cases , the summary includes the content of all their testimonies .

The applicant testified that , prior to CARDINAL March CARDINAL , he had been called to the ORG several times and had been demanded to vacate the LOC in FAC . On CARDINAL occasion , he had been accompanied to the ORG by a police officer , ORG The applicant claimed that , during these meetings with the ORG officials , he had been asked for a bribe .

At TIME on DATE K.A. knocked on the applicant 's door and did not tell him the real reason for her visit when he asked . When he opened the door , ORG entered the dwelling with ORG , followed by police officers GPE , ORG and PERSON ( whom the applicant identified by their first names ) , and several other police officers unknown to him . A “ large number ” of other unknown police officers remained outside . GPE , FAC and ORG used force on the applicant immediately after they had gone inside . The applicant 's wife , who witnessed this , asked the police officers why they were doing this and threatened to set fire to herself . In reply , E.G. mockingly challenged her to do so . At that moment , the applicant was able to escape from the police officers and go outside in search of a phone to call his relatives for assistance . When he came back , he saw a burnt blanket at the entrance of the dwelling and found out that his wife had performed selfimmolation and had been taken to hospital . He went to the hospital to see his wife . From the hospital he went to a post office to send telegrams to various authorities complaining about the incident . When he came back to his dwelling from the post office , he saw that his possessions had been removed .

The testimony of the applicant 's mother - in - law mostly corroborated the applicant 's statements . Unlike him , she was inside the dwelling during the entire incident . She estimated that there had been CARDINAL officials and police officers during the incident and noted that they all had entered the dwelling . She also noted that , at CARDINAL point , police officer GPE had used force on the applicant by twisting his arms . She further submitted that E.G. had gone inside the dwelling and provoked PERSON by offering her a box of matches . Following this , PERSON went into another room and emerged from it burning . CARDINAL of the police officers helped put out the fire by throwing a blanket and a carpet on PERSON .

The applicant 's sister - in - law was in accord with her mother 's testimony .

E.G. stated that the applicant and his family members had been notified earlier about the illegality of their actions and had been asked to vacate their dwelling in the ORG building . On DATE S.R. , a head of department at the ORG , instructed him and another colleague of his ( F.K. ) to participate , as “ observers ” from the ORG , in the “ prophylactic measures ” that would be taken DATE in connection with the applicant 's illegal occupation of part of the FAC building . On DATE he went to that address together with ORG , while PERSON joined them much later . There were already an unspecified number of police officers there . An unspecified number of unidentified relatives and friends of the applicant were also there . The latter verbally insulted him and MONEY The Deputy Head of ORG ( PERSON ) was also there and spoke to the applicant about vacating the LOC .

E.G. specified that ORG had knocked on the applicant 's door and , immediately after it had been opened , several policemen had gone inside and spoken to the applicant . E.G. himself was standing , together with GPE , outside the building , QUANTITY away from the entrance to the applicant 's dwelling . “ A little while later ” , he heard screams from inside the applicant 's dwelling and saw the police officers bring out PERSON , who was badly burnt and was then taken to hospital . The applicant was not there at this time , as he had gone away somewhere . After PERSON had been driven away , the premises occupied by the applicant and his possessions were left unattended by his family members , so they were loaded onto a lorry and taken to a more “ secure place ” , that is , the hostel where the applicant had lived before .

E.G. denied speaking to the applicant prior to the incident and asking for any bribe from him . He also denied offering any matches to PERSON and repeatedly insisted that he had been standing outside when she had immolated herself . He noted that the police officers had not used any force against the applicant or his family members . He also denied issuing any instructions to move the applicant 's possessions out of the dwelling and stated that the police officers had decided to do so by themselves .

Y.A. testified that , on DATE , his colleagues ORG and GPE had asked him to accompany them to the LOC that the applicant had illegally occupied . When they arrived , there were already an unspecified number of police officers and an unspecified number of the applicant 's relatives and friends . He and E.G. were standing outside the building , a significant distance away from the entrance to the LOC occupied by the applicant . A little while later , they heard a commotion inside the LOC and saw several police officers run inside . The latter brought out a badly burnt woman and sent her to a hospital . CARDINAL of the police officers , ORG , helped put out the fire and , as a result , suffered a burn injury to his hand . ( However , in another deposition Y.A. slightly changed his recollection of the above events and specified that , after PERSON and several police officers had knocked on the applicant 's door , they had all gone inside . A little while later , GPE heard screams from the inside and heard the police officers bring out PERSON . )

The applicant , by this time , had gone away somewhere else and there was a state of confusion and disarray at the scene of the incident . Therefore , the applicant 's possessions were loaded onto a lorry and taken to a more secure place ( the hostel ) for “ temporary storage ” . Subsequently , the applicant reclaimed his possessions and took them back to the same LOC in the FAC building that he had illegally occupied .

Y.A. insisted that he and ORG had been standing outside when PERSON had immolated herself and that ORG had never offered any matches to her . He submitted that the police officers had not used any force against the applicant or his family members .

F.K. testified that ORG , a head of department at the ORG , had instructed him and ORG to participate , as “ observers ” from the ORG , in the “ prophylactic measures ” that would be taken DATE in connection with the applicant 's illegal occupation of the LOC in the FAC building . However , in TIME of CARDINAL March CARDINAL he was away on another assignment and arrived at the scene of the incident only after PERSON had immolated herself . He had assisted in the transportation and delivery of the applicant 's possessions to the hostel 's superintendent .

S.R. testified that , in DATE , he had received information that a family of internally displaced persons had illegally settled in the administrative building of LOC . Thereafter , the applicant came to the ORG to meet him personally and asked him to allow his family to stay in that building . However , ORG refused , stating that the applicant 's actions were illegal .

He further noted that , on DATE , he had instructed ORG and DATE to go to the applicant 's LOC and have a “ prophylactic conversation ” with the latter . He also requested ORG to send some police officers there in order to “ avoid any incidents ” . However , ORG insisted that he had not instructed either ORG and ORG or the police officers to evict the applicant 's family by force . The applicant 's possessions were moved out of the LOC only after the act of selfimmolation by PERSON pursuant to a decision taken on the spot by the ORG officials , in order to preserve the possessions from possible theft in the atmosphere of confusion which ensued at the scene of the incident .

J.M. testified that he had received an oral instruction to carry out a “ prophylactic conversation ” with the applicant 's family and to protect public order at the site during such “ prophylactic ” measures . For this purpose , he sent police officers ORG and GPE to the FAC building . He himself also went there at TIME on DATE and talked to the applicant and the ORG officials who were already there . TIME after his arrival , he heard screams from inside the applicant 's dwelling and saw FAC and GPE go inside . The latter helped to put out the fire on PERSON body and to send her to hospital . Thereafter , he called more police officers to the scene in order to restore order and preserve the applicant 's possessions .

C.V. testified that on DATE he and his colleague ORG had been told that the authorities would carry out a “ prophylactic conversation ” with the applicant and had been instructed to go to the ORG building with the aim of protecting public order . When they arrived at the site , there were CARDINAL other police officers ( GPE , GPE , GPE and FAC ) , as well as ORG , ORG Then ORG knocked on the door and the applicant came out . The applicant and PERSON engaged in a conversation . The other police officers , including himself , were standing nearby . E.G. and Y.A. were standing QUANTITY from the entrance to the dwelling . While PERSON and the applicant were talking , PERSON heard screams from inside . He and CARDINAL other police officers ( ORG and ORG ) went inside and saw PERSON on fire , coming out of a back room . The police officers , including himself , put out the fire on her body by throwing blankets on her . At this time , the applicant went away somewhere , possibly to a post office . TIME , CARDINAL of PERSON relatives arrived and took her to hospital . Out of the applicant 's family , only the applicant 's elderly mother - in - law remained at the scene and she was in a state of shock because of her daughter 's suicide attempt . The applicant 's home possessions were essentially left unattended at TIME , so they were loaded onto a lorry and taken to a more secure place .

C.V. denied applying any force or pressure on the applicant or his family members . He did not assist in moving out the applicant 's possessions .

N.A. testified that on DATE he had received an instruction from his superiors to go to the FAC building with the aim of protecting public order during the eviction of the applicant 's family . He went there together with ORG , another police officer . At an unspecified moment , he heard screams from inside the applicant 's LOC , and he and other police officers ran inside and saw PERSON on fire . They helped put out the fire and took her to hospital . He returned to the scene around TIME later and saw that the applicant 's possessions had been loaded onto a lorry . He denied applying any force or pressure on the applicant or his family members . According to him , E.G. was standing outside when PERSON immolated herself , never went inside the applicant 's premises and never offered her matches .

ORG testified that on DATE he had been told that the authorities would carry out a “ prophylactic conversation ” with the applicant and had been instructed to go to the FAC building with the aim of protecting public order . The aim of the “ prophylactic conversation ” was to persuade the applicant to vacate the illegally occupied LOC voluntarily . There were a total of QUANTITY police officers at the site ( including himself , PERSON , ORG and GPE ) . E.G. and ORG were also there and were standing some distance away from the LOC , because the applicant 's relatives and friends kept insulting them . During PERSON 's conversation with the applicant , ORG heard screams from inside the premises and immediately ran there . He saw a woman on fire . He took a blanket and extinguished the fire on her body . While doing this , he himself was injured , suffering a burn to his hand .

E.N. denied applying any force or pressure on the applicant or his family members . He also did not assist in moving out the applicant 's possessions , as he had to leave the scene to receive medical treatment for his injury .

N.G. testified that on DATE he had been told that the authorities would carry out a “ prophylactic conversation ” with the applicant and had been instructed to go to the FAC building with the aim of protecting public order . He went there together with ORG , his colleague . While CARDINAL of the police officers engaged in conversation with the applicant , ORG , ORG and all the police officers ( including himself ) were standing outside . At this moment , he heard screams from inside the LOC . He and PERSON went inside . ORG extinguished the fire on PERSON body and , while doing this , suffered an injury to his hand . He accompanied ORG , who needed medical treatment , to hospital . PERSON was taken to hospital by her relatives . When he returned TIME , he saw that the applicant 's possessions were being loaded onto a lorry by the applicant 's own relatives and friends . Police officers were occasionally assisting them .

N.G. denied applying any force or pressure on the applicant or his family members . He insisted that all the police officers had been standing outside the applicant 's LOC when PERSON had set fire to herself inside the LOC . E.G. and Y.A. were also outside , further away from the building . Police officers GPE and FAC were not at the scene of the incident at the time of PERSON suicide attempt and arrived only after the incident .

N.I. was a police officer whom the applicant and his mother - in - law specifically identified by first name in their statements , alleging that GPE had used force against the applicant .

N.I. testified that at TIME on DATE he had received information that a woman had immolated herself at the FAC building and that a large crowd of people had gathered there . He went to the FAC building and saw a lorry loaded with various household items . He enquired of the officials who were there what had happened . He then left the site .

N.I. insisted that he had not participated in this operation , that he had not been at the scene of the incident at the time when PERSON had attempted suicide , that he had not met the applicant before , and that he was unaware of any reasons why the applicant had specifically mentioned his name in his complaints .

DATE . S.S. was a police officer whom the applicant identified by first name in his testimony , alleging that ORG had used force against him .

S.S. testified that at TIME on DATE he had received an instruction by portable radio to go to the FAC building . When he arrived there at TIME , he found out that a woman had committed an act of self - immolation and had been taken to hospital . Other police officers told him the entire story . After he arrived , he only witnessed how the applicant 's possessions were being loaded onto a lorry by the applicant 's own relatives and friends . Police officers were occasionally assisting them . Out of the applicant 's family , only his elderly mother - in - law was there . The applicant and his child had gone .

S.S. insisted that he had not been at the scene of the incident at the time when PERSON had attempted suicide and that neither he nor any other police officer had used any force against the applicant or his family members .

K.A. stated that on DATE her colleague at ORG , LAW , had requested her to go to the applicant 's dwelling following an instruction received from the ORG . When she arrived there , she saw ORG , CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers . E.G. and Y.A. told her that they needed a female to knock on the applicant 's door and asked her to do it . When the door was opened , both the police officers and the ORG officials quickly entered inside . Before she knocked on the door , ORG had also instructed her to procure a lorry . Therefore , she immediately left the scene after knocking on the door . For this reason , she did not witness the act of self - immolation by the applicant 's wife . When she returned to the scene of the incident TIME , she heard that PERSON had attempted suicide and had been taken to hospital . PERSON was then asked to enter the applicant 's dwelling and write an itemised list of the applicant 's household items that were being loaded onto the lorry . She did not want to do this , but did so under forceful orders from the ORG officials .

B.I. stated that he had gone to the applicant 's dwelling together with ORG , but had left before all the events had happened because of other urgent business . During the short period when he was there , he saw CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers standing near the FAC building and ORG and DATE standing a little further away .

PERSON testified that at TIME on DATE she had heard about the incident in the FAC building . She immediately went there together with a camera operator . However , when they arrived , everything was over and they could not get any video footage of the relevant events . Thereafter , she went to the hospital where PERSON had been taken , but was not able to interview her .

R.N. was the superintendent of the ORG - owned hostel where the applicant 's family used to live before they moved to the new dwelling at the ORG building . According to him , the applicant 's family lived in his hostel from DATE . The applicant 's wife suffered from a “ nervous disease ” and was “ mentally unstable ” . In DATE the applicant 's family left the hostel . On DATE the ORG officials and police officers brought the applicant 's household possessions back to the hostel for “ temporary storage ” ( as they explained ) . He signed the list of items and locked the applicant 's possessions in a separate room . On DATE the applicant reclaimed his possessions .

N.Q. testified that , prior to the applicant 's eviction from his dwelling , he had gone to the ORG together with the applicant with the purpose of obtaining permission for the applicant to stay in the dwelling . He noted that , during that meeting , the ORG officers had explained to the applicant that he was occupying the dwelling illegally . They had not demanded any bribes from the applicant in return for permission to stay there .

DATE . S.B. was a member of an association of veterans which occupied part of the LOC in the FAC building . He described in general how the applicant had carried out repair works in his dwelling . He noted that there had been no objections from any ORG authorities during the time when the applicant had carried out the work .

Article CARDINAL of the Law on Social Protection of Internally Displaced Persons and Individuals Equated to Them of CARDINAL DATE ( “ the IDP Social Protection Act ” ) provides as follows :

“ Persons displaced from the place of their permanent residence in the territory of GPE to other places within the territory of the country as a result of foreign military aggression , the occupation of certain territories or continuous gunfire shall be considered internally displaced persons subject to the provisions of this PERSON . ”

DATE provides as follows :

“ The relevant executive authority [ the Cabinet of Ministers , ORG and local executive authorities , within the scope of their respective competence ] shall deal with the housing of internally displaced persons . Residential , administrative and auxiliary buildings , as well as other buildings , shall be used for such housing purposes . Where there is no possibility of housing internally displaced persons in such buildings or where the population density in a specific settlement does not allow such a possibility , they shall be settled in camps specially set up for internally displaced persons . ...

Internally displaced persons may be allowed to temporarily settle on their own only if the rights and lawful interests of other persons are not infringed . Otherwise , the relevant executive authority must ensure resettlement of the internally displaced persons to other accommodation ... ”

Clause CARDINAL of the Regulations on Resettlement of Internally Displaced Persons to Other Accommodation , adopted by ORG . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ the ORG Resettlement Regulations ” ) , provides :

“ In cases where the temporary settling of internally displaced persons breaches the housing rights of other individuals , the former must be provided with other suitable accommodation . ”

Article CARDINAL ( “ Incitement to suicide ” ) of LAW provides as follows :

“ Incitement of a person who is dependent on the inciter for material , service - related or other reasons to commit or attempt suicide by means of cruel treatment of this person , or by means of systematic denigration of his dignity , or by means of threats

shall be punishable by restraint of liberty for a term of DATE or by imprisonment for a term of DATE . ”

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code deal respectively with the criminal offences of abuse of official authority , excess of official authority and bribe - taking .

By Article CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) , a person recognised as a “ victim of crime ” has , inter alia , the following procedural rights : to submit material to the criminal case file ; to request the status of a private prosecutor at any pre - trial stage ; to object to actions of the criminal prosecution authority ; to lodge petitions ; to have access to transcripts and documents in the case file ; to be informed about and to obtain copies of the procedural decisions of the criminal prosecution authority ( including a decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings ) ; and to lodge appeals against procedural steps or decisions . In contrast , a person participating in the proceedings as a witness is entitled to have access only to those transcripts and documents which are related to him or her ( LAW ) .

On being informed about acts of a criminal character that are planned or have been carried out or on discovering a criminal event by himself or herself , a preliminary investigator , investigator or prosecutor must take the necessary steps to preserve and obtain the relevant evidence and must immediately begin an investigation ( Article CARDINAL ) . The initial grounds for instituting criminal proceedings may be either statements about a planned or committed criminal offence submitted by individuals , or information received from companies , officials and the mass media , or direct discovery of a criminal offence by a preliminary investigator , investigator or prosecutor ( Article CARDINAL ) .

NORP Parties to criminal proceedings ( and other persons involved in such proceedings in cases specified in the CCrP ) are entitled to complain about procedural steps or decisions by the criminal prosecution authority . Procedural steps or decisions by the preliminary investigator or the investigator may be appealed against to the supervising prosecutor and the procedural steps or decisions of the latter may be appealed against to the hierarchically superior prosecutor ( Articles CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . Certain types of procedural steps or decisions ( of the preliminary investigator , investigator or supervising prosecutor ) specified in LAW ORG may be appealed against directly to the supervising court ( LAW ) .

A decision not to institute criminal proceedings is taken by a preliminary investigator , investigator or supervising prosecutor when there are no lawful grounds for instituting criminal proceedings ( Article CARDINAL ) . Within TIME after its issuance , this decision is sent to the supervising prosecutor as well as to the person who had informed the law - enforcement authorities about the alleged criminal offence ( Article CARDINAL ) . A decision not to institute criminal proceedings may be appealed against to the supervising prosecutor , or a prosecutor hierarchically superior to the supervising prosecutor , or to the supervising court ( Article CARDINAL ) . If an appeal is lodged with the supervising court , the latter may either ( a ) quash the decision and draw the supervising prosecutor 's attention to any breaches of the ORG 's provisions concerning the procedure for criminal inquiries and requirements for instituting criminal proceedings , or ( b ) uphold the decision not to institute criminal proceedings ( LAW ) .