No violation of Art. 2 with regard to preventive measures;No violation of Art. 2 with regard to procedural guarantees

Gaukur Jörundsson;Luzius Wildhaber;Nicolas Bratza;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC ( GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant 's son was murdered by a criminal ( PERSON ) who had just robbed a bank with CARDINAL accomplices ( PERSON and PERSON ) . After leaving the bank the CARDINAL robbers had failed to find the fourth accomplice ( GPE ) , who was supposed to be waiting for them with the getaway car . They had therefore made off on foot with the police in pursuit . Their path had then crossed a car being driven by A.Mastromatteo , the applicant 's son . They had attempted to take control of the car , but it would appear that A.Mastromatteo had tried to get away from his attackers by accelerating , whereupon ORG had shot him at point - blank range . He died TIME .

NORP The CARDINAL criminals were subsequently identified and charged . CARDINAL of them ( GPE , GPE and PERSON ) were serving prison sentences at the material time , whereas the fourth accomplice , PERSON , was free .

From the documents in the case file it is possible to reconstruct the case history of the criminals , particularly that of GPE and GPE , both of whom were responsible for the applicant 's son 's death .

M.R. , who fired the fatal shot , was serving a prison sentence of DATE and DATE for attempted murder , armed robbery and other offences . He was due to be released on DATE and was serving his prison sentence in PERSON . When it convicted PERSON on DATE , ORG had considered him to be a danger to society .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences granted PERSON prison leave from TIME on DATE to TIME on DATE with the condition that he remain at his home in Monza ( near GPE ) .

It was the first time that GPE had been granted prison leave . The case file shows that the judge responsible for the execution of sentences relied on the reports by the prison authorities concerned stating that they were satisfied with PERSON 's behaviour , rehabilitation and willingness to reintegrate .

NORP The decision granting prison leave was communicated to the appropriate police authorities .

The information provided by Monza Police Station shows that GPE had reported to the police station at TIME on DATE . In a note drawn up on DATE the police station stated that at the time no anomaly had been recorded during ORG 's prison leave .

On the expiry of ORG 's prison leave on DATE , he failed to return to ORG and could not be found .

On DATE Alessandria Prison informed FAC that M.R. had not returned and that he should therefore be considered to have absconded .

A “ wanted ” notice was drawn up and circulated throughout the country by means of the police national computer system . The notice has not been kept in the police files .

G.M. was serving a DATE prison sentence imposed on DATE for aiding and abetting armed robbery and other offences .

Since DATE he had been subject to a semi - custodial regime , which is an alternative measure to imprisonment , pursuant to a decision of the GPE court responsible for the execution of sentences . PERSON worked in GPE and returned to the city prison in DATE .

In granting him that alternative regime to imprisonment , the court had relied on the reports by the prison authorities stating that ORG had been of good behaviour and showed a willingness to reintegrate and that nothing untoward had occurred during his previous periods of prison leave . Furthermore , on CARDINAL DATE ORG had given a favourable opinion of the work which ORG would be undertaking .

The following obligations were attached to the semi - custodial regime :

( a ) leave the prison after TIME ( subsequently TIME ) and return by CARDINAL p.m. at the latest ;

( b ) not quit the authorised job without giving notice ;

( c ) not spend money without permission ;

( d ) use public transport ;

( e ) avoid excessive consumption of alcohol ; and

( f ) spend bank holidays with his family and remain in the GPE area .

That decision was sent , inter alia , to ORG of GPE , which was the authority responsible for implementing supervisory measures . That authority carried out CARDINAL inspection , at the prisoner 's home and his place of work , during the period of DATE which elapsed DATE on which the semi - custodial measure was granted and the date on which ORG absconded .

No supervisory measure was envisaged by the police authorities .

G.M. 's criminal record shows that on DATE , which was DATE before the applicant 's son was murdered , he had committed a handling offence . He was convicted of that offence in DATE in a judgment which became final on DATE .

A.C. was serving a prison sentence for armed robbery committed jointly with ORG His criminal record shows that he had a previous conviction for murder . He was in prison in ORG .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences granted him prison leave from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . The judge responsible for the execution of sentences , relying on the reports by the prison authorities concerned , had been satisfied with ORG 's behaviour in prison . The report prepared by the prison workers responsible for monitoring ORG had stressed his good behaviour during his previous periods of prison leave .

While on prison leave ORG was subject to a number of constraints : he had to report to the police station DATE ; stay at home from TIME ; and not leave the district of PERSON ( GPE ) .

The decision granting him prison leave was communicated to the appropriate police authorities . The file shows that ORG reported to the police station DATE to sign the register .

On DATE , when his prison leave expired , ORG did not return to the prison and was deemed to have absconded . On DATE Alessandria Prison informed FAC that GPE had not returned and that he should therefore be considered to have absconded .

A “ wanted ” notice was drawn up and circulated to the various police forces throughout the country .

G.B. , the fourth accomplice , was not in prison at the material time . His criminal record shows a number of convictions for armed robbery and other offences .

The CARDINAL offenders were subsequently identified and charged .

Of the CARDINAL prisoners , only GPE and PERSON were convicted of the murder of the applicant 's son , aided and abetted by PERSON , and given long sentences .

The third prisoner , GPE , who was to have been the driver , was convicted only of armed bank robbery .

The applicant lodged an application to join the criminal proceedings against the offenders as a civil party . The defendants were ordered to pay the civil parties damages in an amount to be determined by the civil courts ; the criminal courts awarded the applicant MONEY ( ITL ) , however , as a down payment to be made immediately .

The applicant did not state whether the down payment of ORG CARDINAL had been paid to him or whether , failing payment , he had taken steps to attempt to obtain the money .

In any event the applicant has not sued the criminals for damages in the civil courts . He submitted that they would not in any case have been solvent .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG and ORG for compensation under Act no . CARDINAL of DATE , which provides for compensation for victims of terrorism and mafia - type criminal organisations .

In support of his claim , the applicant alleged that his son had been murdered by criminals who were serving prison sentences and that they were members of a “ gang ” whose criminal activities fell into the category of organised crime .

The applicant stated that the Minister for ORG had advised him , at a meeting , not to bring legal proceedings against the ORG .

On DATE the committee responsible for examining the applicant 's claim ordered a further inquiry with a view to establishing whether or not the criminals responsible for the death of the applicant 's son could be deemed to be members of a “ criminal organisation ” , which would have rendered applicable the statutory provisions on which the applicant relied .

The committee attached some weight to a report drawn up by the Prefect ( Prefetto ) of GPE stating that the bank robbery which had culminated in the murder of the applicant 's son was not an isolated episode , but the workings of a criminal organisation operating in the area .

However , on DATE , on the basis of the results of the further inquiry , the above - mentioned committee ruled out the possibility that PERSON murder could be deemed to be the workings of a criminal organisation .

Relying on that negative opinion , ORG rejected the applicant 's claim for compensation .

On DATE the applicant lodged a special appeal with the President of the Republic against the decision of ORG .

On DATE the Consiglio di Stato expressed the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed because the instant case did not involve terrorist acts or acts of a mafia - type criminal organisation within the meaning of Article CARDINALbis of the Criminal Code .

On DATE the President of the Republic dismissed the appeal .

Act no . CARDINAL of DATE ( known as the “ LAW ” after its sponsor ) modified LAW ( Act no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) in order to facilitate the return to the community of convicted prisoners .

Section CARDINALter ( CARDINAL) of FAC provides that a prisoner may be granted prison leave on condition that he has behaved well in prison and is not a danger to society . According to the seriousness of the offences , the prisoner must have served an unsuspended period of his sentence before he or she can be deemed eligible for prison leave .

It is left to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences , who must consult the prison authorities , to determine whether or not the prisoner is a danger to society .

According to a circular of ORG dated DATE on the application of the Gozzini Act , which reproduced CARDINAL notes of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , a measure facilitating reintegration could not be granted merely because no disciplinary penalties had been imposed ; it also had to be established that the prisoner was genuinely willing to participate in the reintegration and rehabilitation programme . Furthermore , the assessment of whether the prisoner was a danger to society had to be based not only on the information provided by the prison workers , but also on the information available from the police where the judge , in his discretion , deemed such clarification necessary .

Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became Act no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , introduced more stringent conditions in respect of offences committed by a criminal organisation .

The statute in question has ruled out , inter alia , the possibility of granting prison leave or other alternative measures to imprisonment where particularly serious offences ( for example , mafia - type association ) are concerned , unless the prisoner co - operates with the judicial authorities .

Where a prisoner convicted of aggravated armed robbery is concerned ( LAW of LAW ) , LAW ( section CARDINALbis of FAC ) provides that no measure facilitating reintegration can be ordered if there is evidence of a link between the prisoner and organised crime .

The judge responsible for the execution of sentences must request information from the police ; he shall in any event make a decision within DATE of requesting the information .

A semi - custodial regime is an alternative measure to imprisonment ( section CARDINAL of FAC ) which allows the prisoner to spend part of DATE outside the prison working or undertaking other activities which will facilitate his or her return to the community . The prisoner does not wear the prison uniform .

Under section CARDINAL of the Prison Act a semi - custodial regime can be granted after an unsuspended period of imprisonment has been served , the length of which will vary according to the seriousness of the offence , and if the prisoner 's behaviour has improved and the conditions for his or her progressive return to the community are met .

That measure may be granted by the court responsible for the execution of sentences . A programme is then drawn up by the governor of the prison concerned .

The statistics provided by the Government for DATE show that

( a ) the percentage of prisoners on prison leave who have taken advantage of that measure to abscond has never exceeded PERCENT ;

( b ) the percentage of prisoners subject to the semi - custodial regime who have taken advantage of it to abscond has been below PERCENT ; and

( c ) the percentage of prisoners having committed an offence while subject to the semi - custodial regime and , accordingly , having been deprived of the alternative measure was PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE and PERCENT in DATE .

Act no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL governs civil proceedings against judges . Section CARDINAL ) of that statute provides that proceedings can be brought against a judge if he or she has – intentionally or by an act of gross negligence – taken an inappropriate measure in the exercise of his or her duties .

Article DATE of the Civil Code sets forth the principle of neminem laedere , which is a general duty not to harm others . Anyone who alleges that he has sustained damage in breach of that principle may bring an action for damages .

Act no . CARDINAL of DATE makes provision for state compensation for victims of terrorism and mafia - type criminal associations .


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

On DATE , ORG ( the applicant ’s neighbour ) lodged a claim for payment against the applicant with ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) .

On DATE the court held a hearing and ordered the plaintiff to submit a copy of the statement of claim .

On DATE the court stayed the proceedings as the plaintiff failed to comply with its order .

Subsequently , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG husband ORG sued the applicant before ORG seeking payment .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court held hearings .

At the hearing held on DATE the court heard evidence from CARDINAL witness . On DATE the court held a hearing and heard evidence from PERSON

On DATE the court resumed the proceedings stayed on DATE . Later , on an unknown date it also decided to join both cases .

On DATE the court summoned the housing co - operative - “ ORG ” - to join the proceedings .

On DATE the court held a hearing and heard evidence from CARDINAL witness .

On DATE the applicant challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge . On DATE the court dismissed her challenge .

On DATE the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained . On DATE an expert submitted his report to the court .

At the hearing held on DATE the plaintiffs withdrew their statement of claim with respect to the applicant . On the same date the court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

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

In DATE the applicant left GPE as he had been invited to work as a coach for the national free - style wrestling team of GPE .

On DATE ORG of Belarus instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for aiding and abetting bribery ( maximum sentence of DATE imprisonment ) . Since his whereabouts were unknown , a warrant for his arrest was issued .

On DATE ORG received a request from ORG of Belarus to assist in arresting the applicant .

On DATE ORG of Belarus charged the applicant with participation in organised crime , abuse of authority , aiding and abetting bribery and other offences ( maximum penalty of DATE imprisonment ) .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE , GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE authorised the applicant 's detention pending a decision on his extradition .

On DATE ORG of Belarus requested the applicant 's extradition to GPE .

On DATE ORG changed the decision of DATE further to an appeal by the applicant and authorised his detention for a maximum of DATE pending receipt of the request for his extradition .

On DATE ORG of GPE authorised the applicant 's continued detention . This decision was upheld on DATE by ORG .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG stated that , if extradited , the applicant would not be subjected to the death penalty or to any treatment contrary to LAW ; that he would be provided with the necessary medical treatment ; that he would be given a fair trial ; and that he would not be persecuted for his political beliefs .

On DATE ORG of Ukraine ( “ the ORG ” ) authorised the applicant 's extradition to GPE . On DATE the decision was sent to the applicant . The applicant was also informed that this decision could be contested by him in court within DATE of its receipt .

On DATE , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , the President of ORG invited the Government of GPE not to extradite the applicant to GPE .

The applicant received the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE , but did not challenge before in ORG until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was granted refugee status in GPE by ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant 's lawyer against the court decisions of DATE and DATE since they had already been appealed against under the ordinary appeal procedure and the first - instance court was not competent to quash them . This decision was upheld on DATE by ORG .

On DATE the ORG filed an objection with ORG against the decision granting the applicant refugee status . According to the applicant , execution of the relevant decision was suspended pending the ORG 's reply .

On DATE ORG rejected a complaint by the applicant against the decision to extradite him . In particular , the court indicated that the applicant had not yet been granted refugee status when the contested decision had been taken on DATE . The applicant did not appeal .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the ORG that its objection to the decision of DATE had been rejected .

On DATE the ORG challenged the decision of DATE in court .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG 's request to quash the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE the ORG refused to extradite the applicant to GPE . On DATE the applicant was released .

The relevant international and domestic law and practice are summarised in the judgments PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and DATE , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 10

Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the public utility company ORG , basing its case on unpaid bills for water supply services , instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking payment of the debt .

On DATE the ORG issued a writ of execution ( rješenje o ovrsi ) ordering the applicant to pay the amounts sought . However , since the applicant challenged the writ by objecting to it on DATE , the court set it aside . As a consequence , the enforcement proceedings were , pursuant to the relevant legislation , transformed into , and resumed as , regular civil proceedings .

The applicant , who has a formal education as a lawyer but is not an advocate , represented himself in the proceedings .

On DATE judge J.G.F. of ORG delivered a judgment ruling for the plaintiff .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the firstinstance judgment . Section CARDINAL of LAW provides that an appeal to a second - instance court has to be lodged through a firstinstance court . Under section CARDINAL of the same Act the first - instance court conducts a preliminary examination of the appeal and may declare it inadmissible if it finds that it does not meet certain procedural requirements , for example if it finds that it was lodged outside the statutory time - limit . It is , however , not authorised to decide on the merits of the appeal . Therefore , the applicant submitted his appeal intended for ORG ( PERSON ) to ORG . In his appeal he wrote , inter alia :

“ After DATE of waiting ... on DATE the second hearing was held , at which , in substance and without hearing [ the parties ] ( apart from stating that the parties were present and that they maintained their positions ) the impugned judgment was rendered .

It is indicative to mention here that the judge , before dictating the operative provisions of the judgment , asked the defendant whether ‘ he would pay ORG to which the defendant replied ‘ where did you get that idea?’ [ ‘ PERSON na pamet ? ‘ ] and asked whether she had examined the case file .... The judge angrily turned sideways in her chair and dictated the operative provisions of the judgment in the name of GPE to the typist , using a funny expression [ navodeći komičan izraz ] that the parties were asking for a reasoned judgment – as if in adversarial proceedings judgments without reasons or instruction on remedies available against them existed . Unfortunately , the court did not record these dialogues between the judge and the defendant in TIME . What judicial professionalism this is ! [ PERSON ovo sudačka profesionalnost ! ]

It is evident from the above - mentioned that in these proceedings no hearing was held in accordance with the law , which amounts to breaches of LAW paragraph CARDINAL subparagraphs DATE and CARDINAL of LAW . Apart from this , from the contested judgment or the transcripts of the hearings it can not be discerned whether the court took any evidence ... for which reason the judgment could not be satisfactorily reasoned ...

Instead of referring to the evidence taken and assessing its evidentiary value , the court immediately ... states on what basis it arrived at the contested findings , from which it is clear that it accepted all arguments of the plaintiff ... ”

After it carried out the preliminary examination of the appeal , ORG forwarded it together with the case file to ORG .

On DATE Judge PERSON at ORG delivered a judgment dismissing the applicant ’s appeal and upholding the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the second - instance judgment . On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible . It found that even though the applicant relied in his constitutional complaint on the relevant Articles of the LAW guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing and equality before the law , he had not substantiated his complaint by any constitutional law arguments but had merely repeated the arguments raised in the proceedings before the ordinary courts . Therefore , ORG had been unable to examine the merits of his constitutional complaint .

After it had completed the preliminary examination of the applicant ’s appeal of DATE in the above proceedings , on CARDINAL DATE Judge PERSON at ORG issued a decision whereby it fined the applicant CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) for contempt of court . The relevant part of the decision read as follows :

“ I. The defendant PERSON from GPE ... is hereby fined CARDINAL [ NORP ] kunas because in his appeal of DATE he insulted the court by stating : ‘ It is indicative to mention here that the judge , before dictating the operative provisions of the judgment , asked the defendant whether ‘ he would pay ORG , to which the defendant replied ‘ where did you get that idea?’ and asked whether she had examined the case file .... The judge angrily turned sideways in her chair and dictated the operative provisions of the judgment in the name of GPE to the typist , using a funny expression that the parties were asking for a reasoned judgment – as if in adversarial proceedings judgments without reasons or instruction on remedies available against them existed . Unfortunately , the court did not record these dialogues between the judge and the defendant in TIME . What judicial professionalism this is!’

In the appeal of DATE the defendant , insulted the court by , inter alia , [ using ] the words quoted in the operative provisions of this decision .

It would follow from the quoted text that during the main hearing the court communicated with the parties in an improper way , that the judge behaved improperly and that she does not know the law . All this constitutes contempt of court and the statements quoted exceed the limits of necessary respect for the court , even attempting to call into question the knowledge and expertise of the judge at issue , which is an impermissible way for the parties to communicate with the court because it represents a direct insult to the judge as a person , implying that she is ignorant and incompetent to exercise the duty of a judge .

When imposing the fine the court took into account the fact that the defendant insulted not only the court as an institution , but also the judge as a person , on account of which he had to be fined pursuant to section CARDINAL taken in conjunction with section CARDINAL of the [ LAW ] . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision arguing , inter alia , that his statements had been arbitrarily interpreted by the first - instance court , that they had not been insulting , and that he had not had any intention of insulting anyone .

By a decision of DATE Judge PERSON at ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision . The relevant part of that decision read as follows :

“ In this court ’s view , the finding of the first - instance court that in his appeal the defendant insulted the court by making the above statements is correct ... It is to be noted that by the statements made in the appeal the defendant demonstrated disrespect for the court , which undoubtedly represents an improper way for the parties to communicate with the court , and exceeds the limits of a civilised and fair relationship with the court as an institution of a society . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the second - instance decision . On DATE ORG declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible on the ground that the contested decision did not concern the merits of the case and as such was not susceptible to constitutional review .

On DATE ORG of its own motion issued a writ of execution by garnishment of a part of the applicant ’s pension with a view to collecting the above fine . The applicant appealed and the proceedings are currently pending before ORG .

The relevant part of LAW on LAW ( PERSON o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE – “ the LAW ” ) , as amended by DATE Amendments ( PERSON o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON zakona o PERSON sudu PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , which entered into force on DATE , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that the decision of a state authority , local or regional government , or a legal person invested with public authority , on his or her rights or obligations , or as regards suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , or the right to local or regional government , guaranteed by LAW ( ‘ constitutional right’ ) ...

NORP If another legal remedy is available in respect of the violation of the constitutional rights [ complained of ] , the constitutional complaint may be lodged only after this remedy has been exhausted .

NORP In matters in which an administrative action or , in civil and non - contentious proceedings , an appeal on points of law [ revizija ] is available , remedies shall be considered exhausted only after a decision on these legal remedies has been given . ”

The relevant part of the DATE LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , ORG and CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG nos . CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE “ LAW ” ) , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ...

Unless otherwise provided by this LAW , the court shall fine a natural person CARDINAL ] kunas , or a legal entity CARDINAL ] kunas , if they commit a serious abuse of the rights they have in the proceedings .

The fine referred to in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of this section may be imposed on a party and an intervener , as well as on their representative if he or she is responsible for the abuse of rights .

The fine shall be imposed by the first - instance court . Outside the main hearing the fine shall be imposed by a single judge or the presiding judge .

NORP ...

The imposed fine shall be collected automatically [ ex officio ] as a pecuniary debt in accordance with the rules of enforcement procedure . ”

“ CARDINAL . The first - instance court shall fine a natural person MONEY , or a legal person CARDINAL [ NORP ] kunas , if in his , her or its submission they have insulted the court , a party or other participant in the proceedings . The fine may also be imposed on a representative of a party or an intervener if he or she is responsible for insulting the court .

Provisions of section CARDINAL of this Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases referred to in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of this section .

Provisions of preceding paragraphs of this section shall apply in all cases where the court imposes a fine pursuant to the provisions of this LAW , unless otherwise expressly provided for particular cases . ”

The DATE Amendments to the DATE LAW ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON o parničnom postupku , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL and GPE ( corrigendum ) , which entered into force on DATE , amended , inter alia , paragraph CARDINAL and added CARDINAL new paragraphs ( CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) to section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . The relevant part of the amended section CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the person fined ... does not pay the fine within the fixed time - limit ... the court shall ... inform the [ Tax Administration ] of the unpaid fine with a view to collecting the fine [ through tax enforcement proceedings ] ...

( CARDINAL ) ... If within DATE of service of ... a decision referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section [ ORG ] does not succeed in collecting the fine , [ it ] shall inform ... the court [ thereof ] , whereupon the fine shall be converted into a prison sentence in accordance with the rules of criminal law on converting fines into prison sentences , on which the court that imposed the fine shall issue a decision .... ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Amendments provided that they were applicable to all pending proceedings unless otherwise provided in that section .

Article CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) reads as follows :

“ A fine shall be converted into a prison sentence so that one [ average ] DATE income is converted into DATE of imprisonment , where the maximum duration of imprisonment into which the fine was converted shall not exceed DATE . ”

According to the practice of domestic courts , before taking a decision to convert the fine into a prison sentence a court has to summon and hear the person fined . An appeal always lies against such a decision .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a payment order under which the applicant was obliged to pay the equivalent of MONEY to the plaintiff .

On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , filed an objection to the order . The lawyer sent the objection to ORG by registered mail . He submitted a copy of a postal certificate according to which he had deposited the mail for despatch to ORG in PERSON at the post office on DATE . The mail had registration number R CARDINAL . The certificate , in which the addressee was indicated by the sender , did not mention the contents of the mail .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection to the payment order . The decision stated that the order had been served on DATE and that the time - limit for challenging it by means of an objection had expired on DATE . The court held that the applicant had filed the objection on DATE the date appearing on the stamp of ORG – which was out of time .

On DATE the applicant appealed . With reference to Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Code of Civil Procedure he argued that by depositing the remedy as registered mail at the post office on DATE he had respected the statutory time - limit . He submitted a copy of the postal certificate R CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG judge heard the applicant and his lawyer . The lawyer stated that the registered mail R CARDINAL was the only mail which he had deposited in person at the post office in ORG on DATE .

On DATE the judge heard an employee of ORG in charge of incoming mail . The employee , after having consulted the file , confirmed that the document in question had been stamped and signed by her and that she had received it in person . She further stated that , in accordance with constant practice , the court ’s registry would attach the envelope to the letter in case of its delivery by post and that this fact would be mentioned on the document . The employee also pointed out that the applicant ’s lawyer used to bring most of his documents to the court in person but admitted that he sometimes also sent submissions by post . In reply to a question by the lawyer the employee stated that it was impossible to determine the contents of the registered mail R CARDINAL addressed to the court and to whom it had been submitted .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE . With reference to ORG stamp of DATE on the relevant document and to the above statement of the employee of ORG , ORG established that the remedy had been filed out of time . Since the postal certificate did not indicate the contents of registered mail R CARDINAL , the applicant had not reliably shown that he had deposited the relevant document at the post office on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal on points of law . He argued that the employee of ORG could have committed an error when registering the document and that the mail register of ORG did not indicate the contents of registered mail R CARDINAL and to whom it had been transferred . He argued that it had not been reliably shown that the document had been deposited in person as the lower courts had found .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal on points of law . ORG held that ORG stamp on the document challenging the payment order indicated that the document had arrived at FAC on DATE . According to a handwritten remark which the employee of ORG in charge of incoming mail had made on it , the document had been submitted to the court ’s registry in person . These facts , taken together with the statement of the employee before ORG judge , showed that the remedy had been filed belatedly . The applicant had not proved beyond any doubt that the registered mail R CARDINAL deposited at the post on DATE had actually contained his objection to the payment order .

Under Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Code of Civil Procedure , a time - limit fixed in the context of judicial proceedings is respected when the action to be taken is effected at a court or where a submission is transmitted , on DATE on which the time - limit is to expire , to a body which is under an obligation to deliver it to the addressee .

In accordance with established practice , a timelimit is deemed to be respected where a document is deposited , before DATE on which the time - limit expires , at a post office for the purpose of its delivery to the addressee through postal services .

In a judgment given in DATE ORG of the Slovak Socialist Republic held that the date indicated on the postal certificate issued to the sender of registered mail and not the date on the envelope of such mail was relevant when considering whether an appeal was filed in time . ORG expressed the view that a court could dismiss an appeal as having been filed belatedly only where it had reliable reasons for such a conclusion . In particular , it had to establish when , where and how an appeal was actually filed ( ORG Collection , CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant , Mr Denys Oleksandrovych Plyatsevyy , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He is represented before the ORG by Mr I.A. Melnyk , a lawyer practising in LOC . The respondent Government are represented by their agent , Mr Y. GPE .

In DATE Mr PERSON complained to the police that the applicant had taken MONEY from GPE , his minor son , as well as giving GPE some forged dollar bills . On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant .

In DATE the police also received complaints from other minors , who alleged that on various occasions the applicant had extorted from them or robbed them of petty cash and various objects , such as an ice - cream cone or a school bag . Having found out about these complaints , the applicant ’s mother , cousin , and , according to contested accounts of some minors , his advocate , visited the ORG families . On several occasions the applicant ’s mother returned to the families the amounts of money claimed to have been stolen by the applicant . According to some records , she also returned the stolen school bag to ORG , CARDINAL of the minors . According to other records , she gave ORG a bag which simply resembled his .

Following these visits , in DATE S.S. , CARDINAL of the complainants , as well as parents of CARDINAL other complainants ( ORG , ORG and GPE ) informed the police that their complaints against the applicant had been written under duress on behalf of the police officers .

In spite of these submissions , on CARDINAL DATE new charges of extortion and robbery were brought against the applicant . In DATE the applicant was further charged with hooliganism . In particular , he was accused that in DATE jointly with ORG he had beaten ORG in a public place .

During the pre - trial investigation , CARDINAL minors , including those whose parents had attempted to retract their complaints in DATE , testified that the applicant had extorted from them or robbed them of their money and possessions .

On DATE the applicant and ORG were committed to LOC ( ORG міськрайонний суд ORG області , “ the ORG ” ) for trial .

On DATE ORG allowed the requests submitted by minors FAC , GPE , GPE and the parents of GPE , GPE , ORG and ORG to hold hearings in camera , in view of pressure purportedly exerted on them by the applicant ’s entourage to retract their allegations .

In the course of the hearings , ORG questioned PERSON and his father , who confirmed their earlier testimonies that the applicant had taken MONEY from GPE and given him some forged bills .

CARDINAL other minors ( ORG , GPE , ORG , ORG and GPE ) confirmed their testimonies given to the police concerning petty extortion and robbery . ORG , GPE and ORG corroborated each other ’s statements concerning some of the episodes . The parents of GPE , ORG and GPE corroborated the statements of their children and explained that the children had earlier complained to them on several occasions about the applicant ’s conduct . The mother of ORG , the seventh minor , who was absent from the courtroom , spoke before the court in support of her son ’s testimony given to the police concerning the theft of a school bag and several episodes of petty extortion . Those individuals who had earlier attempted to retract their accusations against the applicant contended before the court that they had done so under pressure from the applicant ’s entourage .

The judge further announced that another CARDINAL minors , who had been questioned by the investigation under pseudonyms , had lodged requests to be dispensed from attendance at the hearings for fear of reprisals by the applicant ’s entourage and that in these requests they had confirmed their earlier statements given to the police . The judge then read out the depositions given before the police by these minors , and other documentary evidence . According to the case file materials , the applicant , represented by the lawyer , did not question or challenge these testimonies before FAC .

Further , the ORG heard GPE ( the applicant ’s co - accused on the charge of hooliganism ) and CARDINAL other witnesses , who gave details predominantly concerning the beating of GPE and GPE ’s character .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant was guilty of CARDINAL counts of robbery and CARDINAL counts of extortion in respect of the injured parties who had been examined in the courtroom . It further found that the applicant was guilty of CARDINAL counts of robbery and CARDINAL counts of extortion in respect of the victims whose identities had been concealed . The court finally designated the applicant ’s actions as repeated robbery and extortion and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment for each of the offences . The court further found it unnecessary to add up the CARDINAL full terms and determined the final punishment as DATE imprisonment . However , in view of the applicant ’s age , other personal circumstances and the nature of his offences , the applicant was released from punishment subject to CARDINAL years’ probation .

The applicant , represented by a lawyer , appealed , seeking to be acquitted . He pleaded that the case had been falsified by the police in retaliation for his mother ’s complaints that he had been beaten during the first questioning , in DATE . Hence the victims who gave evidence against the applicant at the trial had done so under threats from the police to institute proceedings against them for their own transgressions , as they were all on the police juvenile offenders’ register . The episodes in respect of the anonymous victims had been completely falsified . Moreover , the testimony of GPE , one of these alleged victims , was improbable , as on the date of the purported offence the applicant had not attended the school in which he had allegedly committed it . No specific challenge was raised to the accounts of events contained in the testimonies of other absentee victims . The applicant further challenged various details of the testimonies obtained during the hearings as unreliable . Lastly , he complained that the hearings had been held in camera .

On DATE the ORG ( GPE суд ORG області ) upheld the judgment of DATE , having found no violation , in that the hearing had been held in camera and that the case file materials contained sufficient evidence to find the applicant guilty of repeated extortion and robbery of minors .

The applicant appealed in cassation before ORG of GPE , raising essentially the same arguments as before ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation .

On DATE the applicant and his mother instituted civil proceedings against the Kamyanets - Podilsky Police Department , seeking monetary compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage allegedly suffered as a result of their unlawful actions when investigating the applicant ’s case . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim . The applicant appealed . On DATE his appeal was dismissed by ORG .

On DATE the applicant was taken by police officers to the police department , where he was questioned in connection with the case above . The applicant was allegedly put under pressure , threatened and beaten to make him confess ; and he was released from the police only upon the arrival of his mother some TIME after his apprehension .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a court medical expert at his request . No injuries were recorded . According to the applicant , the expert refused to record injuries .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who established that he was suffering from cerebral concussion , injury to the left kidney and hepatitis . It was only then that the applicant told his mother that he had been beaten by the police officers .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers for the alleged ill - treatment of her son .

On DATE the Kamyanets - Podilsky Prosecutor ’s Office decided not to bring any charges against the police officers . It found , inter alia , that there was no evidence that the officers had committed the alleged offences , other than the applicant ’s own allegations . Furthermore , regard being had to the lapse of time between the interrogation and the date on which the injuries were discovered by doctors , the injuries could have been sustained elsewhere .

On DATE the ORG annulled this decision and ordered the applicant to undergo an additional medical assessment and additional measures to be taken to find possible witnesses .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother withdrew her complaint . She explained that she had lodged it because she had been upset about the initiation of criminal proceedings against her son .

On DATE the Kamyanets - Podilsky Prosecutor ’s Office terminated the inquiry into the incident as a result of the applicant ’s mother ’s request .

On DATE the ORG annulled this decision , having found that not all measures ordered in its previous decision had been carried out .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical expert . He found that the applicant had no injuries at the time of the assessment . As regards the injuries recorded at DATE , it was not possible to determine whether the applicant ’s version of events was probable , on account of the lapse of time between the purported ill - treatment and his first application to a doctor and the further lapse of time before the present assessment .

In light of the above , on DATE PERSON Prosecutor ’s Office dismissed the applicant ’s mother ’s request for the institution of criminal proceedings .

According to Section CARDINAL , repeated robbery is punishable by DATE imprisonment .

According to Section CARDINAL , repeated extortion is punishable by DATE imprisonment .

According to LAW , an injured party in the criminal proceedings may request security measures to prevent a real threat of harm to his life , limb or property . If this request is granted , according to Section CARDINAL , the injured party ’s personal data may be replaced by a pseudonym in all procedural documents .

According to Section CARDINAL , in exceptional circumstances the court may absolve an injured party , in whose respect security measures have been indicated , from the duty to appear for the hearings , if he submits a written statement that he confirms his earlier depositions .

According to Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the parties may request cross - examination of a witness or an injured party who is absent from the courtroom for safety reasons , via a teleconference . To reduce the risk of identification of the voice of the witness ( the injured party ) , acoustic distortion may be created . If it is not possible to organise a teleconference , the court may examine the witness ( the injured party ) in the absence of the defendant . The judge in this event is obliged to disclose his testimony to the defendant and to give him an opportunity to comment on it . The defendant and other parties to the proceedings may ask questions of the witness ( injured party ) , which are answered in the absence of the defendant .

Further relevant provisions of the LAW concerning the rights of defence in respect of examination of witnesses can be found in the admissibility decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

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

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

On DATE the applicant lodged an action for damages against the ORG , represented by ORG , with the Prague CARDINAL ORG ( obvodní soud ) , seeking payment of the sum of CARDINAL CZK ( CARDINAL ORG ) . The court transferred the case to ORG ( okresní soud ) .

On DATE ORG ( krajský soud ) decided to disqualify all the judges of ORG and , at the same time , referred the case to ORG ( městský soud ) .

It appears that the proceedings are still pending .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .