Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

In DATE , shortly after the establishment in GPE of the communist regime , the applicant was administratively detained in a labour camp for a period of DATE . The order for his detention ( no . CARDINAL ) , issued by the Director of ORG of ORG on an unknown date in DATE , read as follows :

“ Bearing in mind that the regional head of ORG in GPE has reported , in letter no . DATE , that [ the applicant ] , who is DATE and lives in GPE , rapes women by threatening them with murder [ and ] talks openly against ORG , I order that he be placed in a labour camp ... for a period of DATE . ”

On DATE the order was sent to the GPE militia for enforcement . The applicant was arrested on DATE and sent to a labour camp DATE after that . He was released from there on DATE .

In DATE , after the communist regime had come to an end , the legislature enacted the Political and Civic Rehabilitation of Persecuted Individuals Act ( “ the DATE LAW ) , granting certain rights to compensation to individuals who had been subjected to repression during the regime ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

As the applicant wished to avail himself of the opportunities created by the LAW , he asked ORG to issue him a certificate concerning his detention . He intended to use it as proof that he had been subjected to repression within the meaning of the LAW and was thus entitled to compensation . On DATE the ORG issued a certificate which said that the applicant had been detained “ for criminal reasons ” on the basis of “ order no . CARDINAL ” . On an objection by the applicant , the competent services of the Ministry carried out a second check . In a letter of DATE they informed the applicant that he had been detained “ without a conviction or sentence , on the basis of order no . CARDINAL of ORG , for ‘ the rape of a girl’ ” , and that the Ministry did not have any other information on file concerning the repression against him . The letter further advised the applicant that , if unsatisfied by that reply , he could clear his name through the courts .

In DATE the applicant brought proceedings against ORG and ORG of the Interior , seeking a declaration that his detention in DATE had been repression due to his origin and political views . On DATE ORG ( PERSON районен съд ) allowed his claim and found it established that he had been detained because of his origin and political views . On an appeal by ORG of the Interior , on DATE ORG ( Пловдивски окръжен съд ) set that decision aside , holding that the applicant was trying to establish a legally relevant fact , which , according to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , was possible only if specifically provided by law , which was not the case . The applicant could instead assert his rights under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant ’s ensuing appeal was rejected by ORG ( NORP съд ) on DATE ( опр. № CARDINAL от DATE г. по д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ) . The court noted that neither the DATE Act nor any other statute made provision for the judicial establishment of the fact of repression , as required under LAW DATE Code . That was indeed a legally relevant fact , but it could be established in special administrative proceedings .

On DATE the applicant again asked ORG to issue him a certificate concerning his detention . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG ’s archive department informed him that , according to their records , the reasons why the authorities had ordered his detention in DATE were that he had been “ rap[ing ] women by threatening them with murder [ and ] talk[ing ] openly against the Fatherland Front ” .

In DATE the applicant once again brought proceedings against ORG and ORG of the Interior , seeking declarations ( a ) that the order for his detention was incorrect inasmuch as it relied on criminal grounds and ( b ) that the official of ORG who had drawn up the order had recorded a false statement of fact in order to provide justification for the detention . In a bench ruling of CARDINAL DATE the ORG discontinued the examination of the second claim , holding that a ruling that an official of ORG had made a false document would not protect the applicant ’s right to good reputation and honour . The first claim , which aimed to establish that the order had been incorrect , also made it superfluous to make findings in respect of the individual who had drawn it up . The applicant did not appeal against that ruling .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings , finding that the applicant ’s first claim was inadmissible as well . It held , by reference to the established caselaw of ORG under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that the existence of a concrete legal interest in pursuing the claim was a mandatory prerequisite for its examination . Therefore , the applicant had to show that a judicial declaration that the detention order was incorrect would have an impact on his relations with the defendant and that there was no other procedure to establish such incorrectness . The order had not been a document purporting to certify the reasons for which the applicant had been detained or to establish that the events it mentioned – “ rapes women by threatening them with murder ” – had indeed occurred , but to compel the applicant to endure a sanction . Therefore , the only thing that it proved was that the applicant had been detained on such grounds . The applicant ’s criminal record , which was the only legal means of establishing conviction for criminal conduct , was clean . There was therefore no dispute between the applicant and the defendants about whether he had engaged in criminal conduct . In so far as the applicant claimed that the content of the detention order had prevented him from obtaining compensation under LAW , he could have recourse to the special procedure under that LAW .

The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that , in as much as it mentioned the grounds for his detention , the order was purporting to certify a fact .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It conceded that the reasons for the detention order certified a fact . However , the order referred to a letter by the head of the GPE militia , and that was the only thing which it certified . Therefore , a declaration that the order was incorrect would be of no benefit to the applicant , because that letter would still prevent him from obtaining compensation under LAW . The court went on to say that a judicial declaration that the official who had drawn up the order had recorded a false statement of fact would have no direct effect on the applicant ’s legal sphere .

The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that his legal interest in obtaining a declaration that the detention order was incorrect was based on his right , enshrined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW , to protect his private life against false and defamatory information . He argued that his case was identical to LAW ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALV ) .

On DATE ORG ( NORP касационен съд ) upheld the lower court ’s decision ( опр. № CARDINAL от DATE г. по гр. ч. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ) . It held that the detention order could not presently be challenged as to the authenticity of its reasoning . Such a challenge had been possible only at the time when the order had been made , by appealing against the sanction that it had imposed . Inasmuch as the applicant sought to nullify the order ’s effects , he could do so in the manner prescribed by LAW . That was the proper way of vindicating his reputation and honour .

On DATE the applicant requested that the social security services supplement his pension on the basis of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine below ) . On DATE they turned down the request , reasoning , on the basis of the result of the DATE proceedings and the DATE certificate ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , that there was no indication that the repression against the applicant had been political . It does not seem that the applicant appealed against or sought judicial review of that decision .

On DATE , DATE , the applicant asked the regional governor of GPE to pay him compensation under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , in respect of his detention in DATE . On DATE the governor turned down the request , saying that the certificate issued by ORG in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) showed that the applicant had not been detained on grounds falling within the ambit of the CARDINAL Act . He was therefore not entitled to compensation . It does not seem that the applicant sought judicial review of the governor ’s decision .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the special commission set up under section CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) advised the applicant that , according to section ORG ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it could act only on the basis of referrals by regional governors or the social security authorities , not on the basis of requests by individuals .

On an unspecified date ORG handed all documents concerning the applicant ’s detention in DATE to the commission set up under LAW on access to documents revealing the collaboration of NORP citizens with the former ORG security and the former intelligence agencies of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the commission sent copies of those documents to ORG .

The relevant provisions of the DATE LAW read as follows :

“ The private life of citizens shall be inviolable . All citizens are entitled to be protected against unlawful interference with their private or family life and against infringements of their honour , dignity and reputation . ”

“ Everyone has the right to seek , receive and impart information . The exercise of that right may not be directed against the rights and the good name of other citizens or against national security , public order , public health or morals . ”

The Political and Civic Rehabilitation of Persecuted Individuals Act ( DATE ) ( ORG за политическа и гражданска реабилитация на репресирани лица ) was adopted for the purpose of providing redress to persons subjected to repression during the communist regime on account of their origin , political views or religious convictions ( section CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL of the forms of repression covered by the LAW is detention in labour communities , camps or similar places ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( former CARDINAL ) ) , those so detained can apply for a oneoff sum by way of compensation in respect of any pecuniary or nonpecuniary damage sustained . If they die before receiving compensation in respect of pecuniary damage sustained , it is to be paid to their surviving children , parents or siblings ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . In DATE a new section CARDINAL was added , providing that persons subjected to repressions could also request a supplement to their pensions .

Initially the request for a oneoff payment of compensation was to be made to ORG ( section CARDINAL ) , as in force until DATE ) . In DATE that competence was transferred to the governor of the region where the person lives ( section CARDINAL ) , as in force since DATE ) . The governor must rule on the request after gathering evidence about the type , severity and duration of the repression , as well as about the applicant ’s entitlement to compensation ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . He has to request applicants to present written evidence in support of their claims ( section CARDINAL ) ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , added in DATE , provides that if there is no written evidence about the type , character or duration of the repression , the governor must of his own motion obtain a ruling by a special factfinding commission ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the wellestablished case - law of ORG , the governor ’s failure to do so is a serious breach of the rules of administrative procedure and constitutes grounds to invalidate his or her decision and refer the matter back to him or her with instructions to make a referral to the commission ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL май DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL септември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , петчленен състав ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL март DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL май DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/ DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL юли DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG , ORG ) . The governor ’s refusal to grant compensation is subject to judicial review ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

The request for a pension supplement must be made to the social security authorities ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . They have to follow the same evidencegathering rules as the regional governors ( section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . Their failure to obtain a ruling by the special commission in the event of a lack of written evidence is a serious breach of the rules of administrative procedure and constitutes grounds to invalidate their decisions and refer the matter back to them with instructions to make a referral to the commission ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG ) .

Under section CARDINAL ) , if there is no written evidence about the nature and the character of the alleged repression , the relevant facts are to be established by a special commission to be set up under regulations adopted by ORG . In unclear cases the commission has to determine the political – or not – character of the repression by a simple majority vote ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . To assist that determination , all authorities must provide the commission with the relevant documents in their possession ( ibid . ) .

NORP The commission ’s work is governed by regulations issued by ORG . Such regulations ( ORG за прилагане на чл. CARDINAL от Закона за политическа и гражданска реабилитация на репресирани лица ) were first adopted in DATE , setting up both a central commission and regional commissions subordinate to it ( regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that those concerned could make applications for the establishment of past repressions to the regional commissions . All sorts of evidence , including witness statements , were allowed ( regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The regional commission had to rule by means of a reasoned decision ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) , which could be challenged before the central commission ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) . The central commission could uphold the decision , quash it , or determine the point de novo , and could gather evidence ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) . Its decision also had to be reasoned ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) . It was not subject to judicial review ( regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Those regulations were repealed with effect from DATE .

New regulations were adopted in DATE . The main change which they introduced was that there were no regional commissions , only a central one ( regulation CARDINAL ) . From the wording of regulation ORG ) it seems that the commission could act both on the basis of applications by the persons concerned and on referrals by the competent authorities . It could act if there was a complete or partial lack of written evidence of the repression , and that lack had been certified by the authorities supposed to hold such documents ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) . The rules of evidence and procedure were similar to those under LAW ( regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . The commission ’s decisions were not subject to judicial review ( regulation CARDINAL ) .

Those regulations were in turn superseded by new regulations adopted in DATE ; those are still in force . LAW ) provides that the commission acts on the basis of the applications by those concerned . It can act if there is a complete or partial lack of written evidence of the repression , and if that lack has been certified by the authorities supposed to hold such documents ( ibid . ) . It can also act on the basis of referrals by the competent authorities ( regulation ORG ) ) . The rules of evidence are the same as in the previous regulations ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) . The commission ’s decisions are not subject to judicial review ( regulation CARDINAL ) .

Access to the documents of the DATE ORG security agencies has been the subject of fierce debate in NORP society ever since the regime ’s demise in DATE . DATE , the matter was raised in ORG CARDINAL times , with no results .

On DATE the legislature enacted the Act on access to documents of the former ORG security agencies and the former ORG of ORG ( ORG за достъп до документите на бившата Държавна сигурност и бившето ORG управление на GPE щаб ) . The LAW created a special commission whose chief task was to gather information about and make public the names of individuals who had collaborated with the communistera security services ( section CARDINAL ) . The commission ’s first meeting took place on DATE . In addition , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , any NORP citizen could ask the commission to check whether information had been gathered about him by those services . He or she could then access the information ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , and request that documents or parts of documents be made secret if they contained “ personal or family secrets ” ( section CARDINAL ) . “ Personal or family secrets ” meant information which was not of a public nature and pertained to the persons concerned or their relatives in the direct line or their spouses ( paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ’s transitional and concluding provisions ) . Classification requests could be turned down if , inter alia , the documents contained information about violence towards others ( section CARDINALa(CARDINAL ) in limine ) . Section PERSON ) specifically prohibited the destruction of originals or the only remaining copies of documents created by the former security services .

A group of members of ORG challenged the LAW in its entirety before ORG . In a decision of DATE , to which were appended CARDINAL separate opinions ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL септември DATE г. по к. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. ) , that court allowed the challenge in respect of CARDINAL provisions relating to the publication of the names of individuals who had been affiliated with the communistera security services , but did not touch any of the abovementioned dataaccess provisions .

A DATE amendment to the LAW was likewise challenged in its entirety before ORG . In a decision of DATE , to which were appended CARDINAL separate opinions ( реш. № CARDINAL от DATE г. по к. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL от DATE г. ) that court allowed the challenge in respect of CARDINAL provision which was unrelated to the dataaccess provisions .

The Act was repealed in DATE with the enactment of ORG ( DATE ) ( ORG за защита на класифицираната информация ) . On DATE a group of members of parliament challenged the repealing provision , paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that Act ’s transitional and concluding provisions , before ORG as being contrary to , inter alia , LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG could not reach a majority , an equal number of judges having voted in favour of the challenge and against it , and , in accordance with its practice that in such situations the request for a statutory provision to be struck down is considered as dismissed by default , rejected the challenge ( реш. № CARDINAL от DATE г. по к. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. ) .

To fill , at least partly , the gap left by the repeal of the LAW , on DATE the Minister of the ORG issued an Instruction governing the manner of accessing information held in the Ministry ’s archive ( Инструкция № ICARDINAL за реда за достъп до информация , съдържаща се в документите от архивните фондове на Министерството на вътрешните работи ) . It gave everyone the right to access information which was not classified ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , even for research and journalistic purposes ( section CARDINAL ) , but provided that personal data could be accessed only by those to whom it related ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) specifically entitled everyone to access personal information which related to them or their close relatives . Information about third parties could be accessed only on the basis of a notarised authorisation signed by those third parties or their heirs ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . If a person wished to access documents containing information about others , such documents could be made available only after the personal information had been taken out ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , unless those requesting access provided a notarised authorisation ( section DATE ) ) . ORG has justified restricting access to information CARDINAL parties on the basis of those provisions ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG , петчленен състав ) .

On DATE the legislature enacted the LAW on access to documents revealing the collaboration of NORP citizens with the former ORG security and the former intelligence agencies of ORG ( ORG за достъп и разкриване на документите и за обявяване на принадлежност на български граждани към Държавна сигурност и разузнавателните служби на Българската народна армия ) . It was based on CARDINAL separate bills , put forward by different political parties , which were merged . All CARDINAL of them referred to the need to reveal the truth about the activities of the communist regime ’s security apparatus and to comply with ORG Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) “ on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The Act came into force on DATE and is still in force . It created a special commission whose main task is to gather information about and make public the names of individuals who collaborated with the communistera security services and who occupied or continue to occupy public posts ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The commission ’s members were elected by ORG on DATE . The commission ’s other task is to provide individuals or their close relatives access to information which the former security services have gathered about them ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , and to organise access to the documents contained in those services’ archives , which had to be handed over to it within DATE after the LAW came into force ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Act ’s transitional and concluding provisions ) . However , that did not happen within the prescribed timeframe , partly because the commission did not have anywhere to store the archives . On DATE ORG decided to provide a building in which to house them . It seems that the documents then started to be gradually handed over to the commission by the various authorities previously in charge of them . It seems that this process is still continuing . Those documents were to be stored in a centralised archive managed by the commission ( sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) . Under paragraph CARDINAL of the Act ’s transitional and concluding provisions , the commission also took over the archives of the commission set up under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . After the commission completes its task , all its materials are to be stored in accordance with ORG ( DATE ) ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Act ’s transitional and concluding provisions ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) provides that any person has the right to access information gathered by the former security agencies about him or about deceased relatives of his in the direct line , including the second degree of kinship . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , any person has the right to access the documents contained in the archive of those agencies for scientific , journalistic or research purposes , under the conditions and in line with the procedure laid down in ORG ( DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Access means the right to read the documents and receive copies of them ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . Where the contents of the documents may seriously infringe the rights of individuals whose names are mentioned in them , and those individuals or their heirs have not given their express written consent , the sensitive data must be taken out of the copies given to the persons requesting access ( section ORG ) ) . They also have to sign a nondisclosure declaration ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( DATE ) ( ORG за защита на личните данни ) provides that the LAW does not apply to information contained in the national archives . It is , however , unclear whether it applies to information contained in the archive managed by the commission set up under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( DATE ) ( ORG за достъп до обществена информация ) , an authority which has received a request for access to information which relates to a private person must seek that person ’s express written consent . If that person gives such consent under certain conditions , the authority is bound to restrict access to the information in line with those conditions ( ibid . ) . If that person does not give consent , the authority must provide access to the information in a way that does not reveal the bits of information relating to that person ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . A lack of consent amounts to grounds for refusing access to the information ( section CARDINAL ) ) . Consent is not necessary if there is an overriding public interest in the information being revealed ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The authority ’s decision to give or refuse access to information is subject to judicial review ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE Code of Civil Procedure , superseded by LAW , provided that claims for judicial declarations that legally relevant facts ( as opposed to legal relations ) exist or do not exist could be brought only where specifically provided for by law .

The new Article CARDINALb § CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , added pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL ) of the transitional and concluding provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , makes it an offence to destroy , conceal , forge or damage a document created by the communistera State security agencies .

On DATE ORG adopted LAW ( DATE ) “ on measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems ” . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ ... CARDINAL . The ORG recommends that the prosecution of individual crimes go handinhand with the rehabilitation of people convicted of ‘ GPE which in a civilised society do not constitute criminal acts , and of those who were unjustly sentenced . Material compensation should also be awarded to these victims of totalitarian justice , and should not be ( much ) lower than the compensation accorded to those unjustly sentenced for crimes under the standard penal code in force .

The ORG welcomes the opening of secret service files for public examination in some former NORP totalitarian countries . It advises all countries concerned to enable the persons affected to examine , upon their request , the files kept on them by the former secret services . ... ”


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial awards;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were respectively born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE .

E.G. , the first applicant 's husband and the second applicant 's father , was the owner of a flat in GPE , which he had let to R.M.

In a registered letter of DATE , the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on DATE and asked him to vacate the LOC by DATE .

In a writ served on the tenant on DATE , the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before ORG .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was made enforceable on DATE , ORG upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by DATE .

On DATE , the owner served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises .

On DATE , he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on CARDINAL DATE .

Between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession . Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as , the owner was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession .

On DATE , the owner died and the applicants inherited the flat and became part of the proceedings as heirs .

DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession . Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession .

On DATE , the tenant died and the applicants recovered possession of the flat .

The relevant domestic law and practice is described in the ORG 's judgment in the case of ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE ) .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC . When introducing the application , he was detained at FAC .

The applicant was arrested on DATE . From DATE on he was detained on remand at FAC on charges of trafficking in goods subject to excise tax . On DATE the ORG found him guilty as charged . Pursuant to the final judgment of DATE of ORG , he served a prison sentence of DATE in a strict regime at FAC . His pre - trial detention was credited against his imprisonment .

Szeged Prison is comprised of CARDINAL separate parts : ORG , a strict- and medium - regime facility for sentenced prisoners , and ORG , a facility for remand prisoners . The applicant ’s pre - trial detention , which is the subject matter of his complaints , took place in various cells of Unit II , and the remainder of his detention , as from DATE , in Unit I.

The applicant submitted that he had shared cells with an average of CARDINAL sq metres’ ground surface with CARDINAL persons , not counting furniture , and could stay outside the cell TIME DATE . He also stated that he could receive visitors for TIME every month ( an exception being his brother , who was granted CARDINAL extra visits , lasting TIME on each occasion ) ; however , he had not been at all allowed to touch his family members during these visits . Moreover , despite his requests , the prison administration had not provided him with toiletries free of charge , nor had it authorised him to possess , with a view to preparing his defence , a personal computer in his cell , although it would have had no access to internet . Lastly , he submitted that the prison had not provided him with free stationery so that he could post submissions to the authorities in charge of his criminal case pending at that time .

He submitted that his requests and complaints concerning the above matters and also the catering at the prison , to various instances of the penitentiary administration were to no avail . He availed himself of a formal remedy with regard to the refusal by the prison administration to authorise him to possess a personal computer in his cell . Whilst the Government submitted that ORG had been inspected by the penitentiary prosecutor once DATE , the applicant stated that no such visit had taken place in Unit II during his detention .

According to ORG statistics available on its website , the average occupancy rate of NORP prisons was PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE and PERCENT in DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) d ) of LAW no . DATE on the Execution of Sentences and Measures provides that a remand detainee is entitled to CARDINAL visit per month .

Rule CARDINAL of ORG provide that a detainee is entitled to a visit of TIME every month .

According to Rule CARDINAL , no physical contact is allowed between a detainee and his / her visitor , unless a so - called family visit takes place in a dedicated room .

Rule CARDINAL provides that family visits can be initiated by an inmate ’s warden , rather than the detainee himself .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE , respectively and live in GPE , GPE .

In DATE the second applicant ’s vehicle was requisitioned by ORG .

In DATE she was informed that the vehicle had been destroyed .

On DATE she instituted civil proceedings before ORG ( PERSON ) seeking damages from GPE for her damaged vehicle .

Pursuant to ORG ( LAW Act DATE ( Zakon o dopunama PERSON o obveznim odnosima , ORG no . CARDINAL , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW , ORG stayed the proceedings on DATE .

The proceedings resumed on DATE pursuant to the “ Damage Caused by Members of ORG and Police during the Homeland War Act DATE ” ( Zakon o odgovornosti PERSON štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata , ORG no . CARDINAL , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) .

The applicants claimed that members of ORG damaged their house in GPE , GPE , in DATE .

On DATE they instituted civil proceedings before ORG ( PERSON ) seeking damages from GPE for their damaged house .

On DATE ORG rejected their claim .

The applicants appealed against that judgment .

Pursuant to LAW , ORG stayed the proceedings on DATE . The applicants appealed against that decision . On DATE the ORG ( Županijski sud u PERSON ) rejected their appeal .

The proceedings resumed on DATE pursuant to the CARDINAL Act .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for a retrial .

The Civil Obligations ( Amendments ) Act DATE ( Zakon o dopunama PERSON o obveznim odnosima , ORG no . CARDINAL , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) entered into force on DATE . It provided , inter alia , that all proceedings instituted against GPE for damage caused by members of the army and the police during the war were to be stayed until the matter has been regulated by special legislation . The LAW also imposed an obligation on the Government to submit to the ORG such special legislation no later than CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provides :

“ Proceedings shall be stayed :

( CARDINAL ) where another statute so prescribes . ”

The “ Damage Caused by Members of ORG and Police during the Homeland War Act DATE ” ( Zakon o odgovornosti PERSON štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika Hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata , ORG no . CARDINAL , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) entered into force on DATE . It provides that proceedings which were stayed pursuant to LAW will resume and defines circumstances in which GPE is liable for damage caused by the army and the police during the war .


CASE OF TAYLOR-SABORI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

DATE and the applicant ’s arrest on DATE , he was the target of surveillance by the police . Using a “ clone ” of the applicant ’s pager , the police were able to intercept messages sent to him . The pager system used by the applicant and intercepted by the police operated as follows : The sender , whether in GPE or overseas , would telephone the pager bureau in GPE via the public telephone network . The pager operator would key the message into a computer and read it back to the sender to confirm its accuracy . The computer message was transmitted via the public telephone system to the pager terminal , from where it was relayed by radio to CARDINAL of CARDINAL regional base stations and thence , again by radio , simultaneously to the applicant ’s and the police ’s clone pagers , which displayed the message in text .

The applicant was arrested and charged with conspiracy to supply a controlled drug . The prosecution alleged that he had been CARDINAL of the principal organisers of the importation to GPE from GPE of CARDINAL ecstasy tablets worth MONEY CARDINAL . He was tried , along with a number of alleged co - conspirators , at ORG in DATE .

Part of the prosecution case against the applicant consisted of the contemporaneous written notes of the pager messages which had been transcribed by the police . The applicant ’s counsel submitted that these notes should not be admitted in evidence because the police had not had a warrant under section CARDINAL of the Interception of Communications Act DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) for the interception of the pager messages . However , the trial judge ruled that , since the messages had been transmitted via a private system , LAW did not apply and no warrant had been necessary .

NORP The applicant pleaded not guilty . He was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant appealed against conviction and sentence . CARDINAL of the grounds was the admission in evidence of the pager messages . ORG , dismissing the appeal on CARDINAL DATE , upheld the trial judge ’s ruling that the messages had been intercepted at the point of transmission on the private radio system , so that LAW did not apply and the messages were admissible despite having been intercepted without a warrant .

By DATE ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , anyone who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a public communications system is guilty of a criminal offence , unless the interception is carried out pursuant to a warrant issued in compliance with the LAW .

At the time of the applicant ’s trial there was no provision in NORP law governing the interception of communications on a private system .


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , Mr Spas Spasov Kaburov , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , of ORG .

NORP The applicant is the son of PERSON , who died on DATE . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

According to the applicant , in TIME of CARDINAL DATE his father , PERSON , was stopped by a police officer in front of his house . The officer wanted to seize Mr Kaburov ’s car on suspicion that it had been stolen .

Mr Kaburov refused to surrender the car , as the police officer did not present any seizure order or other relevant document . He got into the car and drove away , with the police chasing him .

Shortly thereafter more police cars joined the chase . The policemen signalled PERSON to stop but he failed to do so . They fired shots at his car , shooting its tyres flat . PERSON got out of the car . Allegedly , after the police officers had caught him , they beat him , punching and kicking him , as a result of which he lost consciousness .

According to the ORG , in the evening of CARDINAL DATE a police officer , acting with the consent of the district prosecutor , went to Mr ORG home to seize his car on suspicion that it had been imported and registered with false documents . He informed PERSON that the car was being seized and requested the registration documents and the keys of the car . Mr Kaburov refused to comply with the instructions , threatened the police officer and drove away in the car . The police officer called for help and started chasing PERSON . CARDINAL patrol cars joined the chase . The policemen shot the tyres of PERSON car flat and stopped it . Then PERSON Kaburov resisted the policemen and they had to use physical force and other means of restraint in order to arrest him , thereby causing him minor bodily harm . His car was seized .

After the incident the policemen called an ambulance and Mr Kaburov was taken to the hospital in GPE , where he was examined by a doctor and the wounds on his head were stitched . He discharged himself from the hospital TIME .

On DATE PERSON was examined by a forensic doctor , who found wounds on his forehead and nose , abrasions on his face and thighs and many bruises on his back . The doctor found that these injuries could have been inflicted at the time and in the way PERSON alleged and that the allegations that he had lost consciousness had to be proved by witnesses .

On DATE PERSON went to the hospital in GPE , where he stayed for DATE , as it was established that he had broken ribs .

On DATE and DATE the police took written statements from the policemen who had been involved in the chase . The policemen , PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr T. and PERSON , stated that after PERSON tyres had been shot flat , he had got out of the car and had stumbled and fallen . He got up and cursed and threatened them . According to PERSON , his resistance lasted TIME , after which he was handcuffed and put in the patrol car .

The road traffic policemen Mr S.B. and Mr NORP stated that they had been called after PERSON arrest and requested to test him for alcohol . However , when they arrived , PERSON condition did not permit the use of a breath alcohol test , and therefore a physician took a blood sample from him .

On DATE PERSON lodged a criminal complaint with the military prosecutor . He enclosed written statements from CARDINAL individuals , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE , who had allegedly observed his arrest from a nearby café . According to their statements , after PERSON tyres had been shot flat , he had got out of the car and was standing next to it . CARDINAL policemen had started beating him and kicking him . He had lost consciousness . Then the policemen had handcuffed him and put him into the police car .

On CARDINAL DATE the GPE regional military prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings . He reasoned that PERSON car had been registered with false documents and that during the police check he had refused to comply with the policemen ’s orders and had tried to escape in his car . Therefore the policemen had shot at its tyres and subsequently had used physical force against him . He further stated that it had not been proved that the policemen had abused their power .

On an appeal , on CARDINAL DATE the military appeals prosecutor quashed the refusal and remitted the case for further inquiry . He instructed the regional military prosecutor to question the policemen and Mr ORG wife .

In a letter to the military appeals prosecutor of CARDINAL DATE Mr Kaburov insisted that the inquiry should not be carried out by the policemen ’s superiors , because they had an interest in the outcome of the case . He again requested that eyewitnesses PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr S.T. be questioned and enclosed written statements from CARDINAL other individuals who had allegedly seen policemen shooting at PERSON car during the chase .

On DATE the military appeals prosecutor forwarded Mr Kaburov ’s letter to the regional military prosecutor . There is no information as to whether the latter responded to his requests .

NORP In DATE the regional military prosecutor questioned Mr ORG wife and CARDINAL policemen and took written statements from several other policemen . On DATE he again refused to open criminal proceedings , reasoning , without elaborating further , that he could not reach an unequivocal conclusion that the policemen had used excessive force against PERSON .

In a letter to the regional military prosecutor ’s office in DATE PERSON requested that the prosecutor working on his case be replaced . It appears that his request was dismissed .

On DATE the regional military prosecutor opened an investigation into PERSON allegations of ill - treatment .

DATE the regional military prosecutor and the military investigator questioned CARDINAL witnesses .

NORP The policeman PERSON confirmed his earlier statement that PERSON Kaburov had stumbled and fallen down while getting out of his car ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He further stated that after PERSON had stood up , he had insulted and threatened the policemen . Then CARDINAL of the officers had knocked him over and PERSON had managed to handcuff him and put him into the car . PERSON also stated that the purpose of calling an ambulance was to carry out an alcohol test on PERSON .

NORP The policeman PERSON stated that after PERSON car had been stopped , PERSON had attacked him and had shouted threats at him , after which they had grappled and fallen to the ground . Then another policeman had managed to handcuff PERSON . Other policemen had arrived and Mr Kaburov had been put into the police car .

Eyewitnesses Mr M. and Mr S.T. stated that CARDINAL policeman had grabbed PERSON and another had hit him with his pistol . Then other policemen had kicked him . The witnesses stated that they would not be able to recognise the policemen .

On DATE PERSON was killed . His widow and another individual were convicted of the murder .

NORP In DATE the eyewitnesses PERSON and PERSON were questioned again . They confirmed their previous testimony .

On DATE the military investigator suggested that the criminal proceedings be discontinued . He reasoned that it had not been established which officer had hit PERSON , and again concluded that it had not been unequivocally proved that the policemen had used excessive force against him . He further stated that after PERSON death it was no longer possible to hold a confrontation between him and the police officers .

On DATE the regional military prosecutor terminated the criminal proceedings , giving similar reasoning .

On DATE the military appeals prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case with instructions for a thorough investigation .

On DATE the regional military prosecutor remitted the case to the investigator .

On DATE eyewitness Mr S.T. was questioned again . He stated that he had previously been addicted to drugs but had undergone successful treatment . He further stated that on DATE Mr Kaburov had not resisted the policemen . He also stated that he was not sure if any of the policemen had hit PERSON .

On DATE the investigator organised an identity parade at which eyewitnesses Mr M. and Mr H.P. could not identify any of the individuals presented as the policemen who had beaten PERSON .

On DATE the military investigator suggested that the proceedings be terminated , finding that there was no indication of any unlawful conduct on the part of the policemen during PERSON arrest .

On DATE the regional military prosecutor terminated the proceedings . He stated that PERSON had resisted the policemen and that therefore the use of physical force against him had been justified .

On DATE the military appeals prosecutor upheld the decree of DATE with similar reasoning .

In a final decision of DATE ORG upheld the decree of DATE . It reasoned that PERSON had resisted the policemen , which had prompted them to use “ physical force and other means of restraint ” against him , thereby inflicting wounds and bruises on his face , back and both thighs .

On DATE the GPE district prosecutor opened an investigation in respect of PERSON , on suspicion that during the incident of DATE he had insulted a police officer and threatened him with murder , and had refused to comply with the orders of police officers . During the investigation she questioned the individuals who had participated in the events of CARDINAL DATE . Following PERSON death , she terminated the proceedings on DATE . In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the termination .

During the incident of CARDINAL DATE PERSON car was seized in connection with the alleged document fraud . It is not clear whether any proceedings were instituted against him . Eventually , on DATE the car was returned to him , as the prosecution authorities found that its seizure was no longer necessary for the purposes of the investigation . Apparently , it turned out that the car had not been stolen .

On DATE PERSON brought an action against ORG and the prosecution authorities under the ORG and ORG . The applicant presented his version of the events of DATE and submitted medical certificates in support of his allegations that he had been beaten by police officers . He sought CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in damages , stemming from the suffering , anguish and anxiety that he had undergone because of the shooting and the beating . He also claimed that the seizure of the car had been unlawful as the seizure procedure had been breached , and claimed initially ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , later increased to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damages , stemming from the impossibility to use his car for the period of its seizure DATE and DATE .

In the course of the proceedings , on DATE PERSON died . The applicant , then aged DATE and represented by his mother , intervened in the proceedings as his son .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the claim . Relying on the documents gathered in the course of the criminal investigation against the police officers ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and against PERSON ( see paragraph DATE above ) , on medical expert opinions and on witness statements , ORG established that in TIME DATE a police officer had visited Mr Kaburov ’s home to seize his car in connection with a police inquiry . Mr Kaburov had refused to surrender the car , had threatened to kill the police officer and had driven away . The police officer and CARDINAL patrol cars had started chasing PERSON . The policemen had shot the tyres of Mr Kaburov ’s car flat and had stopped it . ORG further established :

“ ORG arrest followed , [ he ] resisted the policemen and [ they ] had to use physical force and other means of restraint , whereby minor bodily harm was caused to Kaburov ... ”

ORG noted that PERSON had wounds on the head , skin abrasions and bruises on the face , back and both thighs as well as a closed thoracic trauma . However , it found that it had not been proved that Mr Kaburov had experienced any pain or suffering as a result of those injuries . It also noted that the policemen had fired shots at his car because he had tried to escape , and concluded that the force used during his arrest had been necessary within the boundaries allowed by the relevant legislation . It further noted that the plaintiff had not proved that PERSON had been frightened by the shots .

ORG held that the seizure of the car had been lawful . It also found that no damages were due , as the applicant had claimed compensation for lost rental income but had failed to prove that he would have rented out the car .

On appeal , the judgment was upheld in a final judgment of ORG of DATE .

The applicable provisions of LAW and the ORG and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) concerning ill - treatment by the police are set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the ORG , if the alleged victim dies , their right to compensation for pecuniary damage is inherited . However , the right to compensation for non - pecuniary damage is inherited only if such an action has been brought by the alleged victim before his or her death . In the latter case the heirs may intervene in the pending proceedings in the alleged victim ’s stead .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (length);Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in LOC . She was a shareholder of a private company

In DATE the company ’s board initiated bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the company and sold the company ’s property .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action before ORG against the company ’s receiver seeking payment of the value of her share .

The first hearing was listed for DATE because the courthouse of FAC was not heated .

On DATE the bankruptcy proceedings in respect of the company were closed and the company wound up .

In DATE ORG adjourned the hearing because the parties did not attend .

The next hearing listed for DATE was adjourned upon the applicant ’s request because she had to leave Belogorsk . She asked to schedule the hearing for DATE . ORG listed the hearing for DATE . However , it was also adjourned because the applicant was ill .

In DATE the applicant amended her claims and asked the court to annul the sale contract in respect of the company ’s property and the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim .

The ORG quashed that judgment on DATE . The case was remitted for a new examination .

DATE , ORG listed CARDINAL hearings of which CARDINAL were adjourned because the defendant did not attend or the judge was involved in other proceedings .

On DATE ORG transferred the applicant ’s case to ORG of LOC .

On DATE ORG of the LOC discontinued the proceedings because it did not have subject - matter jurisdiction over the applicant ’s claim .

The decision of DATE was upheld on appeal on DATE by ORG of the Amur Region .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG , by way of supervisory - review proceedings , quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case for a new examination to ORG .

In DATE the applicant withdrew her claims , save for CARDINAL concerning the annulment of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . She argued that the decision of CARDINAL DATE should be quashed because the company still had assets to pay her the value of her share .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the withdrawn claims and on DATE it discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claim for annulment of the decision of DATE . The court held that the claim should be examined by a commercial court .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and referred the case for a new examination by ORG . ORG also issued a “ special finding ” concerning the excessive length of the proceedings in the applicant ’s case . It found that the case had not been dealt with diligently . In particular , it noted the delays DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE and after DATE . The appeal court also held that transfer of the case to the commercial court amounted to “ unjustified delays and postponement of hearings on various pretexts , as well as to the [ presiding ] judge ’s reluctance to examine the claims ” .

ORG received the case - file on DATE and listed a hearing for DATE .

All of the hearings listed in DATE were postponed upon the applicant ’s request because she wanted to obtain additional evidence . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

DATE and DATE the proceedings were stayed because the judge was on leave .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

In DATE the applicant was a party to a labour dispute . She sought reinstatement and payment of wage arrears .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim because the employer company had been declared bankrupt and had wounded up .

The applicant did not appeal against the judgment of DATE .


CASE OF APEH ULDOZOTTEINEK SZÖVETSEGE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége ( Alliance of ORG 's Persecutees ) is an unregistered association with its head office in GPE . ORG is the commonly used abbreviation for ORG ( Adó- és FAC – “ ORG ” ) .

PERSON , born in DATE and residing in GPE , GPE , is a manager and a vice - president of the applicant association . PERSON , born in DATE and residing in GPE , is a lawyer and a vice - president of the applicant association . Mr PERSON , born in DATE and residing in GPE , is a free - lance writer and the president of the applicant association .

In DATE several private persons , among others PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , founded the applicant association . Its articles of association , dated DATE , state that the purpose of the association is , in particular , to promote the general interests of NORP taxpayers .

On DATE the President of ORG , having learnt about the founding of the applicant association from the press , complained to the GPE public prosecutor and the President of ORG that the choice of name was defamatory for ORG . He requested that particular attention be paid to the proceedings concerning the association 's registration and that his office have access to the documents relating to the proceedings . These letters of the President of ORG reached the addressees on DATE , but were not communicated to the applicants in the subsequent non - contentious proceedings aiming at the applicant association 's registration .

On DATE Mr PERSON requested ORG to register the applicant association .

On DATE ORG returned the request for registration , ordering that ORG 's approval for the use of its name be obtained , that the expression “ persecutees ” in the applicant association 's name be altered to a neutral term and that provisions regulating the method of voting within the applicant association 's bodies be added to its articles of association .

ORG obtained a copy of this order from ORG before it was served on the applicants and , in a television programme on DATE , its spokesman presented it .

By a letter dated DATE the public prosecutor 's office intervened in the registration proceedings under LAW no . DATE on the Code of Civil Procedure ( “ the Code of Civil Procedure ” ) . ORG received this letter on DATE . The applicants were not notified of this intervention .

Following some delays in the service of the order of DATE , the applicants submitted their reply to ORG on CARDINAL DATE . They refused to obtain ORG 's approval for the use of its name or to alter the impugned expression . Moreover , they stated that the information on the method of voting by the applicant association 's bodies was available from their original submissions requesting the registration .

Simultaneously , the applicants challenged the judge in charge of the case , as well as the entire ORG , for bias on the ground that , inter alia , they had not been informed about the intervention by the public prosecutor 's office in the registration proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' challenge for bias . ORG found that ORG procedure had been in compliance with the relevant legal provisions and there was nothing to support the applicants ' allegations as to any bias on the part of ORG .

On DATE the public prosecutor 's office proposed to ORG that the applicant association 's request for registration be rejected , as the association had not met the requirements in the court order of DATE . This submission was received by ORG on CARDINAL DATE and was ordered to be sent to the applicants on DATE .

In their submissions dated DATE , but filed with ORG only on DATE , the applicants confirmed that they had meanwhile adopted an amendment to the articles of association , reflecting ORG requirements as to the voting methods . Moreover , they argued that the requirement that they seek ORG 's approval for the use of its name was legally “ absurd ” .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant association 's request for registration . It observed that the applicants had not obtained ORG 's approval for the use of its name . In this respect , ORG relied on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE on freedom of association ( “ the Associations Act DATE ” ) , according to which the name of an association should not give the impression that the association in question carries on its activities in a manner linked to those of another legal person , unless approved by the latter . Moreover , it held that the expression “ persecutees ” was defamatory for ORG as a ORG organ and was contrary to the standards of naming an association , as laid down by ORG in its ORG Legal Opinion no . CARDINAL . Finally , ORG found that the applicant association had only partly met the requirements as to the method of voting by its bodies .

The applicants appealed to ORG . Simultaneously , they complained about the dismissal of their challenge for bias .

On DATE the Attorney - ORG intervened in the appeal proceedings and proposed that ORG uphold the refusal of the request for registration . The applicants did not receive a copy of these submissions .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant association 's appeal . In addition to the reasons given by ORG , it held that the applicant association 's name did not correspond to its objectives , namely to reform the NORP taxation system , and that it could therefore not be registered under that name . The decision did not deal with the applicants ' complaint about the dismissal of their challenge for bias .

The applicants lodged a petition for review by ORG .

On DATE the Attorney - ORG requested that ORG uphold the second - instance decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the petition for review . The decision was served on the applicants on DATE .

The review bench of ORG held that the association 's intended name was contrary to LAW guaranteeing the right to bear a name . It held this provision to imply that a legal person 's name should not give the false impression that its activity was linked to that of another legal person , namely , to that of ORG in the instant case . It also found that the unauthorised use of ORG 's name contravened LAW , according to which it was a breach of the right to bear a name if anyone used , without authorisation , a name identical with or similar to another person 's name . Moreover , it considered that the expression “ persecutees ” , used in association with ORG 's name , was contrary to LAW protecting one 's good reputation .

Furthermore , ORG held that any procedural shortcomings committed by the lower courts , in particular those concerning the handling of the submissions of ORG and of the public prosecutor 's office , had not influenced the courts ' decisions on the merits of the case . It also stated that , throughout the proceedings , the applicants had been in a position to exercise their rights effectively and , in the course of the second - instance and the review proceedings , they could have made any comments which they had not been able to advance previously .

Finally , ORG pointed out that the applicants ' complaint about the dismissal of their challenge for bias could not be examined in review proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of the Associations Act DATE provides that freedom of association is a fundamental freedom for everyone . It guarantees that everyone shall have the right to form , together with other persons , organisations and communities or to participate in the activities of such associations .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that the exercise of the right to freedom of association may not violate the rights and freedoms of others .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) prohibits the founding of associations primarily for economic or business purposes .

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as in force when the applicant association 's request for registration was examined , subsequent to the founding of an association , its registration must be requested before a court . Registration must not be denied unless the founders have failed to comply with the conditions specified in the LAW ; associations acquire legal capacity through registration .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that the name and the objectives of an association must not create the impression that the activity it carries on is linked to the activity of another legal person , unless consent thereto is given by that legal person .

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the courts must decide on requests for registration in non - contentious proceedings ; such requests must be given priority . The courts ' decisions must also be served on the public prosecutor 's office .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of Government Decree no . PERSON ( DATE ) provides that in non - contentious proceedings the provisions of LAW must be applied , mutatis mutandis , unless the legal provisions governing certain non - contentious proceedings provide otherwise or the non - contentious nature of the proceedings excludes that .

Article CARDINAL § § DATE of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE on LAW provide that everyone shall have the right to bear a name ; it is a violation of this right if anyone unlawfully uses a name identical with or similar to the name of another person .

According to LAW , protection of personality rights includes protection of the right to a good reputation ; making or disseminating false or defamatory allegations against other persons or portraying real facts in a false way is deemed to be an infringement of the right to a good reputation .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , as in force in the relevant period , provides that , to ensure compliance with the law , the public prosecutor may intervene in civil proceedings at any stage .

According to LAW , when intervening in civil proceedings , the public prosecutor enjoys all the procedural rights which the parties enjoy , save the rights to negotiate settlements , to waive rights or to acknowledge rights .

An extract from ORG Legal Opinion no . CARDINAL reads as follows : “ Before a decision is taken on the registration of an association , it must be examined whether the association 's choice of name meets the requirements of the exclusivity , genuineness and correctness of names . ”


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal)

The applicant , the owner of real property which she had been renting , filed a civil action for damages against the tenant . On DATE her action was dismissed by a judgment of the ORG . The applicant appealed against the judgment . On DATE her appeal was dismissed by a judgment of ORG . Judge PERSON was the judge rapporteur in the case .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment through a panel of ORG . On DATE her cassation appeal was rejected by a decision of that panel . In its written grounds for the decision , the panel stated that the cassation appeal did not comply with a procedural requirement set out in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in that it did not include “ arguments showing that its examination [ by ORG ] would be justified ” within the meaning of this provision ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The mere fact that the cassation appeal contained arguments to show the grounds on which it had been lodged was insufficient for the appeal to be declared admissible . The panel further stated that this shortcoming was serious and as such could not be remedied .

Judge PERSON presided over the panel which gave this decision and also acted as the judge rapporteur on the admissibility issue .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision of DATE , challenging inter alia the composition of the court . She submitted that the fact that the same judge had sat on a panel giving a second - instance judgment on the merits and subsequently on a panel rejecting a cassation appeal against that judgment rendered the proceedings unfair .

On DATE her appeal was dismissed by a decision of ORG . The court first noted the case - law of ORG on the interpretation of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW . It referred to its numerous judgments to the effect that a shortcoming in a cassation appeal which took the form of a failure to enumerate the circumstances justifying its examination was of a serious and irreparable character , which could not be remedied by requesting the appellant to rectify it . It further noted that this requirement was closely linked to the examination of the grounds on which ORG could refuse to entertain a cassation appeal , as listed in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , namely if it considered that no significant legal issue arose in the case or where there were no legal issues involved which would give rise to serious doubts or to discrepancies in the case - law .

It referred to the applicant ’s objection in CARDINAL sentence only :

“ The fact that the judge , who took part in the judgment against which the cassation appeal was subsequently lodged , participated in a decision by which this appeal was found inadmissible is of no significance ” .

DATE LAW , insofar as relevant , reads :

“ Everyone shall have the right to a fair and public hearing of his case , without undue delay , before a competent , impartial and independent court . ... ”

Article CARDINAL reads in its relevant part :

“ § CARDINAL . A judge is ex lege excluded from dealing with the case : ( ... )

CARDINAL ) in cases where he participated in a contested decision of a lower instance . ”

The Supreme Court decision of CARDINAL DATE ( II CZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads in its relevant part :

“ A judge who participated in a judgment is not excluded from giving subsequent decisions in the course of so - called “ inter - instance proceedings ” .

The Supreme Court decision of DATE ( V ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) states , inter alia , that LAW sets out formal requirements which a cassation appeal has to satisfy . It is for the second - instance court to examine whether these requirements have been met .

The provisions of the Code determine when a judge is ex lege excluded from dealing with the case . It does not follow from these provisions that a judge who has given a second - instance judgment is to be excluded from participation in a subsequent examination of whether a cassation appeal complies with the formal requirements provided for by the LAW .

ORG reached the same conclusion in its decision of DATE ( IPZ CARDINAL ) . It considered that the examination of the admissibility of the cassation appeal could not be said to have anything in common with the examination of the merits of the case , because the former has a purely formal character .

A party to civil proceedings could , at the material time , lodge a cassation appeal with ORG against a final judicial decision of a second - instance court which has terminated the proceedings .

Article CARDINAL of the Code as applicable at the material time listed the grounds on which a cassation appeal could be lodged . It read as follows :

“ The cassation appeal may be based on the following grounds :

CARDINAL ) a breach of substantive law as a result of its erroneous interpretation or wrongful application ;

CARDINAL ) a breach of procedural provisions , if that defect could significantly affect the outcome of the case . ”

Article CARDINAL , as applicable at the material time , specified the requirements of a cassation appeal . It read in its relevant part :

“ § CARDINAL . A cassation appeal should include :

CARDINAL ) an indication of the decision under appeal together with information as to whether the appeal is lodged against this decision in its entirety or in part only ;

CARDINAL ) an indication of the grounds for the cassation appeal ;

CARDINAL ) arguments showing that its examination would be justified ;

CARDINAL ) a motion to have the decision under appeal quashed or amended , specifying also the scope of the motion . ”

Article CARDINAL , as applicable at the material time , read as follows :

“ A second - instance court rejects in a hearing held in camera a cassation appeal lodged after a prescribed time - limit or which is inadmissible on other grounds ( ... ) . ”

The reasons justifying the examination of a cassation appeal by ORG can be inferred a contrario from Article CARDINAL of LAW of Procedure which , as applicable at that time , read , in its relevant part :

“ CARDINAL . ORG may refuse to entertain the cassation appeal , if :

i ) there is no appearance of any significant legal issue in the case ;

ii ) there is no need for the interpretation of provisions raising serious doubts or giving rise to discrepancies in the courts’ case - law ;

iii ) the appeal is manifestly ill - founded .

Paragraph CARDINAL shall not apply if the judicial decision challenged manifestly breached the law or where the proceedings are invalid in law . ”

Pursuant to LAW , an appeal to ORG was available against a decision of the appellate court rejecting a cassation appeal .

NORP Under the provisions of LAW DATE a cassation appeal is available against judgments of ORG to ORG . As an appeal on points of law , it has the same character as a cassation appeal in civil proceedings .

On DATE ORG , in reply to a legal question put to it by its .President , adopted an explanatory resolution . It observed that serious difficulties had arisen in the judicial practice of the administrative courts as to whether a judge who had given a second - instance judgment had to be excluded from participation in a subsequent examination of the compliance of a cassation appeal with the formal requirements provided for by LAW .

The court referred to the fair hearing standard established by LAW . It noted that the case - law of ORG emphasised the importance of judicial impartiality . However , the examination of whether a given court satisfied this requirement should always be carried out with reference to the facts of an individual case and the modalities of a given type of judicial procedure .

The court observed that under the applicable laws an appeal on points of law to ORG was available against a judgment of a regional administrative court . Hence , it was obvious that the parties had a right to have their administrative case heard by CARDINAL impartial judicial instances . The need to secure such impartiality served as a ratio legis for the exclusion of a judge from the examination of the same case in CARDINAL judicial instances . However , the court stressed that the requirement of impartiality was complied with if the same judge was prevented from examining twice the merits of the same case .

The court further observed that the examination of the admissibility of a cassation appeal in administrative proceedings could be identified neither with the examination of the merits of such an appeal , nor with the examination of whether the impugned first - instance judgment was well - founded . A distinction had to be made between the examination of the admissibility and the latter CARDINAL types of examination which essentially related to the substance of the first - instance judgment . It held that there were no grounds on which to consider that a judge involved in the examination of the merits of the case should not be allowed to sit on a panel examining the admissibility of the cassation appeal .


Violation of Art. 2 with regard to the applicant's death;Violation of Art. 2 with regard to the lack of effective investigation;Violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 14;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

NORP The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and residing in GPE . At the relevant time she lived in GPE , a village in the district of GPE .

In TIME of DATE , the man with whom the applicant had lived for about twelve years , Mr GPE , DATE , belonging to the ethnic group of the Romanies ( NORP ) , died after he had spent TIME in police custody following his arrest and detention on charges of cattle theft .

On DATE at TIME the LOC police received a telephone call from the village of GPE informing them of the theft of CARDINAL cows . Police PERSON and his colleague PERSON were immediately dispatched to the village , where they met PERSON , the person who had been tending the cattle . Mr DATE was brought to the police station in GPE .

There he initially stated that the cows had been stolen by unknown persons who had sprayed him with nerve gas , but then explained that , at TIME , Mr PERSON , accompanied by a CARDINAL-year - old boy , had taken away the CARDINAL cows through the use of threats and had warned him that if asked about the incident he should maintain that someone had sprayed him with nerve gas . Mr N. affirmed that he was afraid of Mr PERSON , who had been drunk at the time of their encounter .

In his testimony given later , PERSON relayed the following : “ We were told that the perpetrator was PERSON [ GPE ] – a Gypsy from the village of GPE whose nickname was GPE . We knew this person as he was from our criminally active contingent . ”

It transpires from all testimonies that Mr PERSON 's relatives , who were later questioned in relation to the investigation into his death , also knew the police officers and their nicknames .

The same police patrol drove back to the village of GPE , where they were joined by CARDINAL of the cattle owners and all CARDINAL started searching the village for Mr GPE . They found him at TIME at his aunt and uncle 's house . According to ORG testimony , PERSON was “ drinking alcohol in the company of other NORP ” .

According to the testimonies of Mr PERSON 's cousin and PERSON , an elderly woman who was a neighbour of Mr PERSON 's relatives , he had spent TIME and TIME of DATE digging a ditch at the house of PERSON During this time Mr GPE drank CARDINAL beers . He had apparently also drunk alcohol before that . According to the same testimony and that of Mr PERSON 's uncle and aunt , he came to their house in the early afternoon , TIME before the arrival of the police . The uncle further testified that Mr PERSON had not complained of any medical problem and had behaved normally .

The police officers invited Mr PERSON to come with them . He answered that he wished to finish his beer , to which the police officers agreed . Mr PERSON was then placed in the back seat of the police car , between the CARDINAL cattle owners . The car first drove for TIME to the home of the cattle owners . According to the statement of CARDINAL of the police officers , during this short drive the persons in the back of the car “ had an argument with the Gypsy but ... did not beat him . They only talked ” . The car arrived at the home of the cattle owners , where a crowd of CARDINAL persons had gathered . According to police officer PERSON they wanted to beat up Mr PERSON , but he and his colleague did not allow this to happen . The police car then drove to the LOC police station where not later than CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. Mr PERSON was handed over to PERSON , the officer on duty .

Sergeant Kostadinov stated in his testimony to investigator PERSON that he had locked PERSON in the arrest cell , as he had been too drunk to be questioned . PERSON , the person who had reported the cattle theft and who had been waiting at the police station to give evidence , claimed that PERSON PERSON had been seated on a couch in the hallway .

Both Sergeant Kostadinov and Mr N. testified that Mr PERSON had been very drunk . According to Mr N. at some point , while seated , Mr PERSON had defecated into his trousers .

It appears that Mr PERSON had some verbal exchanges with others while at the police station . An internal police note of DATE concerning the death of PERSON ( see paragraph DATE below ) stated that he had denied having stolen the cows . The source of this information was not mentioned in the note . Mr N. on his part relayed in his testimony that at some point Mr GPE had been asked questions about the cattle theft , but had replied that he had slaughtered CARDINAL of the cows .

At TIME Sergeant Kostadinov contacted by telephone police officer PERSON who arrived at the police station and started questioning the witness , Mr N. According to officer PERSON , Mr PERSON was too drunk to be questioned .

Police officer PERSON issued an order for the detention of PERSON after having consulted the prosecutor on duty , PERSON . The order stated that it was issued on DATE at TIME

According to the testimony of police officers LOC and PERSON , at TIME Mr PERSON “ complained that he was not feeling well ” whereupon PERSON contacted the emergency unit of the local hospital for an ambulance .

At the police station were present PERSON and CARDINAL of the owners of the stolen cattle , who had arrived at TIME to report that the cows had been found TIME . The CARDINAL men left shortly after TIME , Mr N. apparently having spent TIME at the police station . The testimony of Mr N. does not contain any reference to the fact that Mr GPE had displayed signs of ill - health . Apparently , the other person present was not questioned in the course of the investigation , as no such testimony has been submitted by the Government .

According to the internal police note of DATE , all the above events , including Mr PERSON 's complaint that he did not feel well and the arrival of an ambulance , happened at TIME and not at TIME The note did not specify the source of this information .

According to the testimony of officers NORP and PERSON , a physician and a paramedic arrived at the police station shortly after the call for an ambulance and examined Mr PERSON briefly . The physician allegedly pressed and touched Mr PERSON 's body , but said that the latter was too drunk to be examined and that he would examine him when he sobered up .

No written record of this medical examination is to be found among the documents in the files , as submitted by the Government , of all authorities which had dealt with the case . During the investigation into the death of PERSON GPE apparently no questions were put to the police officers about the identity of the members of the medical team and no further detail was established .

At TIME a Mr I.P. , who had been arrested for violent behaviour , was brought to the police station and detained there .

According to the internal police note of DATE , Mr I.P. had testified that Mr PERSON was drunk . No such testimony can be found in the material submitted by the Government .

According to the testimony of PERSON , the officer on duty , at a certain point during TIME Mr PERSON started vomiting in the cell where he had been placed . He was allowed to go to the toilet and was not locked up afterwards , but sat on a couch in the hallway . After TIME Mr PERSON went to the toilet again . On his way back to the couch , he fell on the floor . Police officer PERSON instructed the detained Mr GPE to help to get Mr PERSON seated on the couch . Officer PERSON noticed that Mr PERSON was sick and he called the hospital emergency unit again . At that point Mr GPE was released and left the police station .

The internal note of DATE specified that PERSON had seen Mr PERSON lying on the ground at QUANTITY on DATE . The source of the information TIME was not mentioned .

According to the police officers ' testimonies , the same physician and paramedic , whose identities have not been disclosed , arrived at TIME and found Mr PERSON dead . The doctor did not draw up a death certificate . This was done later by PERSON , the forensic expert who visited the site with the investigator , PERSON , and who also conducted the autopsy .

NORP Immediately after PERSON was found dead , the police informed the investigator on duty , PERSON , who arrived at TIME to inspect the scene .

According to the written record of the inspection , the dead body of Mr PERSON was found in the hallway of the first floor , southern section , of the LOC police station . He was seated on a couch , with CARDINAL hands hanging on both sides of the couch , and the head hanging back . The victim was dressed in a white shirt , wide open at the chest , with unbuttoned trousers and no underwear . The report further states that “ [ o]n the right side of the face there was a bruise . Because of the dark colour of the skin , there were no other visible injuries on the body ” . The investigator finished the inspection at TIME The inspection record states that a forensic expert , Dr PERSON , and CARDINAL other persons were present during the inspection . None of them signed the record , which was only signed by the investigator .

Photographs of the scene were taken during the inspection . The Government have not submitted copies thereof .

Dr PERSON issued death certificate no . CARDINAL on DATE indicating “ acute anaemia , fat embolism and haematomas on the trunk and the limbs ” as the causes of death . He also marked the option “ accident ” in the column requesting information about the possible circumstances . He left blank the space provided to indicate the time of death .

On DATE Mr Enchev , regional investigator , issued an order for the opening of a criminal investigation into the death of Mr GPE .

On DATE , after TIME , investigator PERSON questioned CARDINAL of the police officers involved , officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The documents in the files of the authorities which investigated the death of PERSON , as submitted by the Government , contain no trace of any questioning of police officer PERSON , who had been together with PERSON during Mr PERSON 's arrest and his transfer to the police station .

NORP The investigator also ordered a biochemical report and a forensic medical report . The forensic medical report was assigned to PERSON , who had been present at the inspection of the corpse . He was requested by investigator PERSON to answer the following questions :

“ CARDINAL . What traumatic injuries are to be found on the corpse [ of Mr GPE ] ?

NORP What was the cause of his death ?

How were the injuries inflicted ? ”

The forensic expert carried out a post - mortem examination TIME on DATE . He found a haematoma of purple - blue colour under the lower right eyelid ; oval bruises of a red - brown colour measuring CARDINAL by CARDINAL to QUANTITY beneath the lower eyelid and on the opposite side of the face under the cheek bones ; CARDINAL bruise of the same colour on the left side of the lower jaw measuring CARDINAL by CARDINAL cm ; CARDINAL bruise of a red - brown colour , oblong , measuring CARDINAL by CARDINAL cm on the centre of the chin ; symmetrical haematomas of a strong purple - blue colour measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the front side of both armpits and the upper part of the arms ; and CARDINAL haematomas of purple - blue colour on the left buttock and on the upper back of the left thigh , perpendicular to the femur , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY .

The laboratory analysis of the blood and the urine of Mr PERSON revealed an alcohol content of CARDINAL per thousand .

The report concluded :

“ The inspection and the autopsy of ORG corpse discloses a state of acute loss of blood DATE pale post - mortal spots , anaemic internal organs , massive haematomas on a large surface of the upper limbs and the left buttock , a bruise on the left eyelid , scratches on the face .

The cause of Mr PERSON 's death was the acute loss of blood resulting from the large and deep haematomas on the upper limbs and the left buttock , as it appears from the autopsy .

The injuries are the result of a blunt trauma . The injuries described as double stripped haematomas on the left buttock resulted from the impact of CARDINAL or more long hard objects , QUANTITY wide . The haematomas in the upper limbs resulted from the impact of DATE blows by or collision with – a hard , blunt object . They do not have a characteristic shape and it is therefore not possible to identify the object which had caused them . The injuries on the face could have been caused by blows , or could have been the result of falling , as they are located on the protruding parts of the face .

The analysis of the corpse did not disclose any ailment which could be related to the death [ of Mr PERSON ] . No injuries from sharp objects or firearms were found . ”

The report placed the time of the death at TIME prior to the autopsy . The report expressed no opinion as to the timing of the injuries which had caused the death . No such question had been put by the investigator .

On TIME the applicant , who went to the police station to wait for the release of Mr PERSON , was informed that he was dead . When later that day his body was transported to the applicant 's house in the village of GPE , the applicant allegedly observed numerous bruises and injuries . Upon her request neighbours called journalists from local newspapers . Mr PERSON was buried that evening .

On DATE the investigator questioned Mr PERSON 's uncle , aunt and cousin , PERSON , their neighbour , and Mr N. , the person whose cows had been stolen .

On DATE a colonel from ORG ( PERSON на националната полиция ) in PERSON drew up a note on the death of PERSON , apparently in the framework of an internal inquiry conducted within the police department . The note described the events and concluded that the case was within the competence of the investigation authorities . No other document in respect of this police inquiry can be found among the material submitted by the Government .

On DATE an expert in chemistry issued a report on the analysis of samples of stomach contents as well as liver , kidney and brain tissue taken from the corpse . The purpose of the analysis , as defined by the investigator , had been to search for traces of toxic substances . No such substances were found . Insignificant quantities of aspirin , pain killers and codeine were detected .

The material submitted by the Government in response to the ORG 's request for “ all documents contained in the files of all authorities which [ had ] dealt with the investigation into the death of Mr PERSON ” does not show any investigation activity after DATE .

In DATE following the death of Mr GPE , the applicant regularly visited the office of investigator PERSON to ask for information about the progress of the investigation . In DATE counsel for the applicant allegedly visited Mr PERSON 's office on several occasions and spoke to him on the telephone several times . Mr PERSON allegedly refused to release any specific information . Also , according to the applicant , those of the documents in the investigation file to which counsel was permitted access contained no information concerning any investigation proceedings which may have been conducted after DATE .

On DATE counsel for the applicant requested ORG ( PERSON прокуратура ) to expedite the investigation . As no response was received , on DATE counsel filed a request with ORG ( ORG прокуратура ) .

On DATE regional prosecutor PERSON issued an order suspending the criminal proceedings in the death of Mr PERSON . The order stated , inter alia :

“ PERSON 's death [ was ] caused by a number of internal haemorrhages and acute loss of blood , as a result of deliberate beating . The deceased PERSON was detained under a police order for [ a maximum period of ] TIME pursuant to LAW [ ORG за националната полиция ] , for the theft on DATE of CARDINAL cows in the vicinity of the village of GPE , GPE ...

In the course of the investigation , it proved impossible to determine whether PERSON was beaten up in the LOC police station or outside it . Nor was there any evidence demonstrating whether it was the cattle owners or police officers who did the beating . ”

In her ensuing appeal of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , the applicant argued that the investigation had not been thorough and that there had been significant omissions . She suggested that all evidence indicated that the injuries resulting in the death had been inflicted after the victim had been taken to the police station . She also objected to the significant delays in the investigation .

By an order of DATE prosecutor PERSON of ORG granted the applicant 's request for the reopening of the investigation . The order stated , inter alia :

“ [ A ] careful reading of the file demonstrates that the investigation [ was ] not thorough and complete . Not all possible investigations were carried out , for which reason the decision to suspend the investigation is unfounded ...

... it is necessary to establish PERSON PERSON 's particular health problems during his stay at the police station and the findings of the emergency medical team on his state of health . The physician and the paramedic of the emergency unit who examined [ Mr PERSON ] should be found and questioned , and the relevant documents recording the examinations be requested . The reasons why no medical care was offered to the victim should be established ( there is no evidence in that respect , at least up to this moment ) and , depending on the findings , a conclusion should be drawn as to whether a crime , under LAW [ Наказателен кодекс ] , was committed . The health condition of Mr GPE prior to his arrest should be ascertained . An additional medical report should be ordered , to be carried out by CARDINAL forensic experts , which should establish in particular the cause of the death , the manner in which the injuries were inflicted and the time at which the injuries occurred . [ This ] should be used to identify the person who inflicted the injuries on DATE or on DATE . The death certificate of PERSON PERSON should be requested and attached to the file , and [ the applicant 's ] allegation of incorrect documents should be investigated . After all these issues , as well as others that may come up during the investigation , are clarified , a decision on the merits should be taken . ”

According to the applicant , during DATE following the order of ORG , her counsel spoke by telephone , on CARDINAL occasions , with investigator PERSON . In both conversations investigator PERSON allegedly declined to provide any information concerning the investigation . On DATE counsel filed a complaint with ORG , asserting that no investigation was taking place in defiance of the order of ORG , and requested that investigator PERSON be taken off the case .

Counsel for the applicant received no reply to his written complaint for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE counsel PERSON allegedly spoke to investigator PERSON over the telephone . Investigator PERSON informed counsel that he was still the investigator responsible for the case . During the conversation it allegedly became apparent that no investigation had been undertaken since the order of ORG of DATE . Following this conversation , counsel for the applicant filed another complaint with ORG renewing his request for investigator PERSON to be taken off the case and to expedite the proceedings .

On DATE counsel received a copy of a letter signed by regional prosecutor PERSON and dated DATE , addressed to ORG . In apparent response to counsel 's complaint of DATE , the letter stated that no further investigation was possible , and that in prosecutor PERSON 's opinion the investigation should be suspended . According to the prosecutor , “ there are no clues as to the identity of the offender and this precludes any further investigation ” . She also refused to remove investigator PERSON and expressed her frustration with the numerous complaints raised by counsel PERSON .

The investigation has apparently not been suspended as there is no formal order to that effect . In DATE , in a telephone conversation with counsel PERSON , investigator PERSON allegedly confirmed that he was still working on the case .

Under NORP law , criminal proceedings can be brought only by the decision of a prosecutor or an investigator ( LAW процесуален кодекс ) ) .

In accordance with the law as in force at the relevant time and until DATE , a decision to terminate pending criminal proceedings was subject to appeal by the victim to the higher prosecutor ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code as in force until DATE ) . In practice , as in the applicant 's case , appeals to the higher prosecutor were also possible against a decision to suspend criminal proceedings ( Article CARDINAL of the Code as in force until DATE ) . No further remedies existed under the relevant law .