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

The applicant is the mother of a son born out of wedlock on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant , who had full parental authority , raised the child until DATE . Subsequently , the child was placed in the care of foster parents .

On DATE the Büdingen ORG ( ORG ) withdrew the applicant ’s parental authority over her son and transferred it to ORG . Following expert opinion , that court considered that the applicant was permanently unable adequately to raise her child as she suffered from borderline - syndrome or a comparably serious personality disorder .

Since DATE the child lives with the foster parents PERSON and PERSON , who have special pedagogical training .

The applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a request with the DATE ORG to be granted DATE access rights to her son .

On DATE ORG , following an oral hearing , granted the applicant DATE visits of a duration of TIME within the premises of a social institution and in the presence of a staff member of that institution .

On the basis of the expert opinion submitted in the custody proceedings and of the result of the oral hearing , that court considered that the applicant was permanently unable to take care of the child and that the child was to remain permanently with the foster family . It was presently of eminent importance that the child formed bonds with the foster parents which came close to those existing between parents and their natural children . An extension of access rights would seriously disturb the formation of such bonds and would be contrary to the child ’s best interests .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) with the aim of being granted more extensive access rights . She argued that the DATE access rights were not sufficient to maintain the parental relationship to her son . Conversely , the foster parents opposed further access rights on the grounds that the child was very much disturbed following contacts with the applicant and that they could not cope with further visiting contacts having regard to the problems which were likely to arise .

ORG held CARDINAL hearings in the presence of the applicant , the foster parents and a representative of the social institution supervising the exercise of access rights .

On DATE ORG ordered the preparation of an expert opinion as to which extent of access rights were in the child ’s best interests .

On DATE the psychological experts submitted their expert opinion . Having examined the applicant and attended CARDINAL meeting between the applicant and her son , they considered that the applicant ’s psychological disorders had been confirmed by their examination . According to the experts , the applicant displayed erratic behaviour and lacked , in particular , the capability adequately to react on a social and emotional level . There was no evidence of an emotional bond between the applicant and her son . The child did not seem to feel at ease with his mother and was relieved to return to his foster parents .

Having regard to the applicant ’s psychological disorder , the experts considered that intensive contacts with his mother would jeopardise the child ’s development . More frequent visiting contacts would disturb and destabilise the child . Conversely , it was presently important for the child to build a stable relationship to his foster parents .

It followed that the present regulations on access rights best served the child ’s interests . Having regard to the child ’s further development , an extension of access rights could be envisaged in the future .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . Referring to the written expert opinion and the statement given by one of the experts during the oral hearing , ORG considered that an extension of access rights was not completely excluded , but should not be envisaged before the child had reached DATE . Following the expert recommendations , ORG considered that the child was too young to cope with the applicant ’s rapid mood swings , which also became apparent during the court hearing , and her inability adequately to respond to her social counterpart . This did not mean that the present access rights had to be further restricted . While the meetings between the applicant and the child could be described as harmonious during TIME , the child was content to say good - bye after the visits and looked forward to see his foster parents . As had been confirmed during the oral hearing , the applicant was much better able to concentrate during TIME . Under these circumstances , it was understandable that the visiting contacts took place in a harmonious way within the given time - frame , while further contacts would presently not be favourable to the child ’s development .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for adjudication . This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

According to section DATE of LAW , a child is entitled to have access to his or her parents ; each parent is obliged to have contact with , and entitled to have access to , the child . The family courts can , however , restrict or suspend that right if such a measure is necessary for the child ’s welfare .

A decision restricting or suspending that right for a lengthy period or permanently may only be taken if otherwise the child ’s well - being would be jeopardised ( section DATE ) .


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

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

In DATE the applicant married PERSON , a national of GPE ( GPE ) who was born in DATE . Together the couple got CARDINAL sons , A. and T. , who were born respectively in DATE and DATE . Since the couple separated in DATE the relation between the applicant and S.M.L. has been characterised by tense conflict , lack of cooperation and mutual distrust which they had sought to have solved by GPE and NORP courts . This involved disputes about such matters as parental responsibilities , DATE care and access with respect to the children and prohibition on the parents to travel with the children abroad .

In DATE ORG concluded that , in view of the high level of conflict , S.M.L. should be the sole holder of parental responsibilities . It decided that the children should live permanently with her and granted the applicant certain access rights . In DATE , while an appeal was pending before ORG , the parties concluded a judicial settlement agreement according to which the parents should share the parental responsibilities , the mother should continue to assume the DATE care and the father should have certain access rights .

Both the applicant and S.M.L. had a difficult upbringing . At DATE the applicant moved from his mother to live with his father . S.M.L. started abusing drugs at DATE .

In DATE the applicant met and started cohabiting with PERSON and together they got CARDINAL children , born respectively in DATE and DATE . He has access to them DATE . In DATE the applicant married PERSON , a marriage that was turbulent and lasted only for DATE . Since DATE he has been living with PERSON and her QUANTITY boys from CARDINAL earlier relationships . The boys have had access to their respective fathers .

Since DATE the applicant has been occupied full time at home , except for periods when he worked in a support home for mentally disabled persons . He has also worked with computer programming .

In DATE S.M.L. met PERSON and they married DATE . They got CARDINAL children , PERSON ( born in DATE ) and C. ( born in DATE ) . PERSON was educated as engineer and was formerly employed in the off shore oil industry . Because of his back problems and S.M.L. ’s drugs abuse , he stayed at home as from DATE . They lived together with their CARDINAL common children and with the applicant ’s and S.M.L. ’s CARDINAL children .

S.M.L. ’s drugs abuse had involved most types of narcotic substances from hashish to heroin . She had been off drugs for shorter and longer periods , notably for DATE before PERSON was born in DATE . As from DATE her drugs abuse resumed , involving injections of heroin . In DATE S.M.L. was hospitalised for detoxification but left after DATE . After DATE she continued to intoxicate herself . In DATE she was again hospitalised for detoxification , for a period of DATE . From DATE S.M.L. was again hospitalised for the same reason . In DATE the police caught S.M.L. in possessing drugs and she was imposed a fine . When she was absent from home it was PERSON who looked after the children , including PERSON and NORP when they were not with the applicant .

At some time during the DATE or DATE S.M.L. found it necessary because of her drugs abuse problem and pregnancy with C. to transfer the DATE care of T. and A. to the applicant . The boys then moved to the home of the applicant and PERSON and her CARDINAL children . According to the applicant this happened in DATE ; according to S.M.L. it occurred in DATE .

S.M.L. had several relapses with drugs abuse , the latest in DATE . In DATE she was compulsorily committed to a detoxification centre for DATE until she gave birth to C. so that she should avoid taking drugs during the last part of her pregnancy . Thereafter she stayed at home under supervision by the child welfare services , involving CARDINAL home DATE by those services and her giving several urine samples per week to them for monitoring .

Both A. and ORG had special care needs . A. was alert , somewhat serious and pensive , and had over DATE experienced difficulties at school in terms of adaptation and social relations with other children . He had been seriously burdened by the parental conflict , disruption in contacts with key persons , his mother ’s drugs abuse problem and the negative focusing by CARDINAL parent on the other . He was struggling with concentration and performance at school . He had a need for security , stability and freedom from involvement in the parental conflict . As from DATE received regular counselling from a psychologist .

ORG was a multi handicapped child , who had a brain damage and was diagnosed as suffering from the Lennox - Gastaut Syndrome ( one of the most serious forms of epilepsy ) and who since DATE had had epileptic fits . He also suffered from serious mental disability , had great deficiencies in his functional and cognitive development and his mental faculties corresponded to those of a child DATE . He was totally unable to assess the consequences of his acts and therefore had to be followed constantly . At times ORG had been attached or tied and equipped with a helmet in order not to cause injury to himself or to others . The support apparatus had provided S.M.L. ’s home with a sprinkle bed so that T. needed not be secured or attached . He went to a specialised school and spent DATE and DATE at a support centre with specialised personnel .

In DATE S.M.L. wished to resume the DATE care for T. and A. A returned to S.M.L. but T. continued to live with the applicant . On DATE the applicant collected PERSON at his school and objected to them moving back to NORP .. From the same date until DATE , respectively , the applicant kept PERSON and ORG from going to school and refused S.M.L. to have access to them .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant made a request to ORG for an interlocutory injunction to the effect that A. and ORG should live permanently with him and that S.M.L. should be granted a right of access under supervision . On DATE S.M.L. requested an interim decision for the daily care and the parental responsibilities in respect of the children to be granted solely to her and for the applicant to be accorded access rights . On DATE ORG held a preparatory meeting without the parties succeeding in reaching an agreement on temporary arrangements . On DATE the applicant claimed the DATE care and joint parental responsibilities and suggested that S.M.L. be granted access rights . After several writs had been submitted , S.M.L. filed a new request for an interim decision on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued an interim order that S.M.L. should assume the DATE care until a decision had been taken in the main proceedings and that , until such time , the applicant should not have access to GPE and T.

ORG held an oral hearing from DATE , during which both parties represented by a lawyer and CARDINAL witnesses were heard . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , sitting with one professional judge and CARDINAL expert lay judges ( both psychologists ) ordered that S.M.L. should be the sole holder of parental responsibilities and should assume the DATE care in respect of GPE and T. It granted the applicant access rights at the ordinary level .

By way of introductory note , ORG remarked that both parties appeared genuinely fond of their children and wishing them well . As a starting point , both parents seemed able to care for the children in a satisfactory manner .

ORG further found it established that on the whole both children had had regular contacts with both parents after their separation except for certain periods when the mother and the father had denied CARDINAL another access to the children . The children were also well attached to the applicant even though it was mainly the mother who , except for a period in DATE , had assumed the DATE care for them since the break - up of the GPE relationship in DATE . The children were familiar with both GPE housing environment , their new partners and step brothers and step sisters . A risk of change of environment could therefore not be a decisive consideration .

It was difficult to predict who of the parents would contribute to giving the children the greatest possibility to have contact with both parents . Each of them had at periods refused the other to have access to the children . The level of conflict between the parents had made it difficult for them to communicate and cooperate . The conflict , which could be attributed to both parties , had had damaging effects on A. , for which they both were responsible , according to Psychologist PERSON ’s witness statement . Both parents were responsible for reducing the level of conflict .

ORG considered that S.M.L. was just as able as the applicant to take care of ORG ’s special needs resulting from his brain damage and epilepsy . It attached weight to the fact that the children for most of their lives had lived with their mother , expect for a longer period in DATE when they had lived with their father according to an agreement between the parents .

ORG observed inter alia that witnesses of the child welfare services and ORG had stated that there was no suspicion that S.M.L. currently abused drugs and that it was considered that she was able to assume the care in a satisfactory manner . ORG found established that her urine samples had proven negative and she had not abused drugs for DATE . At present it did not appear that S.M.L. had a drug abuse problem that could have a decisive effect on her ability to assume the care . There was however uncertainty as to whether she in future would manage to refrain from taking drugs . Until DATE the child welfare services would continue to supervise the conditions in her home .

ORG noted that A. had clearly stated to the presiding judge a wish to live with his mother together with T. Since A. was DATE his opinion should carry great weight . T. , on the other hand , had a brain damage and it had therefore not been possible to hear his views .

ORG further noted that from DATE the applicant had kept the children back from school and their mother for DATE . It found it particularly unfortunate that he in this way had interfered with their right and duty to receive education . ORG did not accept his explanation that he did not want the children to be used as a weapon in the parental conflict ; his conduct suggested that he was unable to put his children ’s interests before his own interests .

Considering the case as a whole , and having regard to the best interests of the children , ORG held that they should live permanently with S.M.L. In addition to the applicant ’s above - mentioned conduct in DATE , ORG attached decisive weight to A. ’s wish to live with his mother and to the fact that , with the exception of DATE , for most of the time since the couple ’s separation in DATE she had assumed the care for the children .

As regards the applicant ’s access to the children , ORG found no special reasons pertaining to the applicant suggesting that he should not have access to them . After conversations with A. , witness expert , PERSON had stated that access to the other parent would not be negative for him provided that he had a foreseeable and secure care environment . A. had also said to the presiding judge that he wished to have access to his father .

Against this background , ORG granted the applicant access to GPE and ORG at the ordinary level from DATE TIME to DATE TIME DATE , DATE every summer , every other DATE and GPE , every other DATE and DATE . It found no grounds for making supervision a condition for access .

Finally , ORG held that it would be in the children ’s best interests that S.M.L. be the sole holder of parental responsibilities . In this connection it placed weight on the GPE inability to communicate and cooperate due to the very tense and deadlocked conflict between them . Such cooperation was absolutely necessary especially in relation to the medical treatment and school education of T. , who suffered from severe brain damage . It also had regard to the fact that the applicant as late as DATE had changed ORG school without the mother ’s agreement and had kept both children away from school for a longer period in DATE .

Following ORG judgment , the applicant ’s access to GPE and ORG was implemented accordingly until DATE . In view of CARDINAL reports of concern , one made by A. ’s school on DATE and another by ORG ’s school on DATE , S.M.L. and her lawyer asked for a meeting with the applicant and requested an explanation . The applicant responded that he did not wish to have any such meeting before the appeal hearing , whereupon S.M.L. denied him access . No access took place until ORG judgment . The precise contents of these reports of concern have not been disclosed to ORG . According to the applicant ’s appeal submissions to ORG , S.M.L. ’s refusal to let him have access to GPE and NORP after DATE was essentially due to his alleged failure to follow - up adequately an episode concerning damage to CARDINAL of A. ’s teeth during his stay at the applicant ’s home . A little corner of the tooth had broken off and this the applicant had incidentally mentioned to S.M.L. once he met her in the local grocery .

The applicant appealed against the above judgment to ORG . After holding an oral hearing from DATE , ORG , sitting with CARDINAL professional judges and CARDINAL expert lay judges ( CARDINAL psychologist and CARDINAL psychologist specialist ) , by a judgment of DATE upheld ORG judgment with regard to daily care and parental responsibilities and reduced the applicant ’s access rights ( applying the relevant provisions of LAW DATE ( barneloven ) ) . ORG saw no reason to hear anew ORG ’s views on where he should live and on access while noting that neither of the parties had wished it to do so .

In its reasoning , ORG pointed out that an assessment ought to be made of the best interests of the children in light of the case as a whole . This assessment ought to take into account such factors as who of the parents would be most able to provide the best physical and psychological care for the children , including their following - up in the short term and long term , draw limits , shield them against the parental conflict and contribute to the best possible parental contact . Regard should also be had to any risk of change of environment and the need to ensure stable conditions of upbringing . Since both children had special care needs , especially ORG who would need public support measures , it would be of particular importance who of the parties was able to understand the children ’s needs , to cover those needs and to do so in cooperation with the public services .

Since in the present there was a judicial settlement agreement of DATE , whereby S.M.L. should assume the DATE care , the parents would jointly assume parental responsibilities and the applicant would have access rights basically at an ordinary level , the question was whether concrete and demonstrable reasons for departing from this arrangement .

Since they were born , the children had mainly lived with S.M.L. , apart from a period in DATE .

ORG found that there were no decisive reasons for altering the children ’s place of residence . Since S.M.L. had got her drugs abuse problem under control , her willingness and ability to provide the children with the best possible care and follow - up did not leave much to be desired . She had cooperated well with the social support apparatus and did all she could in order to provide the best possible conditions for the children ’s upbringing . An additional positive factor was her husband .

As regards the applicant , ORG had doubts about his abilities to assume the care for the children . There was no doubt that he was very fond of his children and wished to give them the best he could , both emotionally and materially . But it was clear that his cooperation with public institutions had not been of the best and that this had led him to act in a somewhat rash manner . In this connection ORG referred to the fact that , without having conferred with S.M.L. and without having sought professional advice , he had changed school for T. because of his disagreement with the school . This had been especially unfortunate for ORG , who due to his handicap had special needs for stability and security . Thereafter , he had kept both children away from school .

The applicant ’s cohabitation with PERSON and her children was a positive factor . PERSON appeared to be a caring person both able and willing to contribute positively to the applicant ’s children . However , in view of the historical background , it would be premature to say anything about how stable this relationship was .

Both parties had refused CARDINAL another access to the children and were in this respect on an equal footing . In conferring the DATE care of the children to S.M.L. , ORG presupposed that she would actively contribute to the access arrangements being implemented in the best possible manner for the children . In the interest of the children she ought to comment on their access with the applicant in a positive manner in their presence . The level of access fixed below would make it difficult for her to refuse access at her own whim . This was so especially for as long as the applicant was cohabiting with PERSON , who in the worst case scenario would represent a safety valve for the children ’s welfare .

What militated particularly against S.M.L. being a care person for the children was her very negative attitude towards the applicant , both in her conduct vis - à - vis him and the way she had commented on him vis - à - vis the children . She had in addition contacted persons closely related to the applicant and had made very derogatory remarks about him . Her conduct in this regard could not be justified by her negative experiences of the applicant .

ORG further had regard to A. ’s wishes and found no reason for separating the brothers who had a close contact . As regards housing conditions , family and social network , there was no information permitting to distinguish between the parents .

In light of the above considerations , ORG upheld ORG conclusion that the children should live permanently with their mother .

As regards parental responsibilities ORG observed that it seemed unlikely that the GPE ability and willingness to cooperate would improve . Both children , especially T. , had particular needs and the parent assuming the daily care would to a large extent have to cooperate with different instances of support .

As to the further question regarding the applicant ’s access to the children , the High Court unanimously agreed that the arrangement under the DATE judicial settlement agreement and ORG judgment ought to be amended .

With respect to T. , the High Court observed that support measures by the child welfare services had been granted involving him spending DATE in a support centre . In view of his need for stability and foreseeability , it would be a burden to him if he were to have access to the applicant at the ordinary level . Because of T. ’s mental condition , it could be questioned to what extent he was able to understand and enjoy this . Moreover , the parents were unable to cooperate about T. and to agree on how he should be treated . When staying with the applicant , T. would experience a different regime from that of S.M.L. and the support centre . This he would perceive as being very negative . Therefore the High Court considered that the applicant ’s access should be reduced to CARDINAL DATE from TIME every four DATE . Since he would stay DATE at the support centre , the applicant ’s access should take place on DATE after so that he would spend DATE at S.M.L. ’s home .

With respect to A. , ORG was divided ( CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL ) . The majority considered that in view of PERSON ’s particular need for stability and foreseeability after the long standing parental conflict , his access to the applicant would be so damaging that it ought to be restricted . In this connection ORG referred to the applicant ’s having been unable to care for DATE needs in an adequate manner . It decided that he should have access to A. from DATE TIME to Sunday TIME DATE .

The minority ( one of the professional judges ) did not consider ORG ’s access to the applicant as being negative for A. S.M.L. ’s negative focussing on the applicant made it necessary to enable NORP to get the opportunity to know his own father . That the applicant currently lived with M and her CARDINAL children would also be an asset for A. , who in addition would get the opportunity to know his CARDINAL - siblings whom the applicant had got with PERSON and to whom the applicant had access every other DATE . As to the argument that ORG had been tired after spending DATE - ends with the applicant , the minority considered that access should end on DATE at TIME but should continue to start on DATE after school and otherwise follow the ordinary arrangement provided for by law .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal . In so far as the appeal concerned the application of the law on the issue of daily care , the ORG found it obvious that the appeal had no prospects of success . As for the remainder , the ORG did not consider that a different conclusion could be reached without hearing oral evidence anew on a potentially decisive point or that hearing the appeal was warranted by the general interest or other special reasons .


Violation of Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings

PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE , lives at FAC .

In the course of a judicial investigation into offences of theft , burglary , handling the proceeds of theft and aggravated theft , and unlawful possession of Class CARDINAL weapons and ammunition , an investigating judge at PERSON issued a warrant on DATE instructing the gendarmerie to arrange for the telephone line of a certain PERSON to be tapped until DATE .

By means of standard - form written instructions ( “ soit transmis ” ) dated DATE , DATE and DATE , the investigating judge extended the duration of the telephone tapping until DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

As a result of this tapping and the interception of some of his conversations , the applicant was charged with handling the proceeds of aggravated theft ; he was held in custody from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , when he was released subject to judicial supervision .

In an application of DATE the applicant ’s lawyer applied to ORG of ORG for a ruling that the extensions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE were invalid , arguing that they had been ordered merely by standard - form written instructions without any reference to the offences which justified the telephone tapping , and that the DATE period which could have been authorised in the warrant of CARDINAL DATE had expired on DATE .

NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed PERSON application on the following grounds :

“ … by Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] taken together , decisions to intercept telecommunications messages must be in writing and contain all the information necessary for identifying the link to be monitored , the offence that justifies the interception and the duration of the interception , which must not exceed DATE but may be extended subject to the same formal requirements and maximum duration .

In the instant case it is beyond doubt that the warrant of CARDINAL DATE complies with the requirements of the above - mentioned ORG in so far as it specifies the number of the link to be monitored , a duration of DATE and the offences that justified interception , the criminal penalties for which were greater than DATE imprisonment .

It is also clear that the decisions to extend the duration of the interception , which were issued in standard - form instructions , were in writing and mentioned the number of the link concerned ; that they are an extension of the original decision of DATE and necessarily referred to it ; and that the duration of their validity was DATE . They thus comply with the requirements of LAW . ”

The applicant appealed on a point of law against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , arguing , as his only ground of appeal , that LAW seq . of LAW had been infringed because the extensions of the duration of the telephone tapping in issue , by means of standard - form written instructions , did not contain any reasons .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG affirmed the decision appealed against and held that the applicant had “ no locus standi to challenge the manner in which the duration of the monitoring of a third party ’s telephone line was extended ” and that accordingly “ the grounds of appeal , which contest[ed ] the grounds on which ORG [ had ] wrongly considered it must examine [ the ] objections of invalidity and subsequently dismissed them , [ were ] inadmissible ” .

The relevant provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE on the confidentiality of telecommunications messages ) read as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ In the case of a serious crime or other major offence attracting a sentence of DATE imprisonment , the investigating judge may , where necessary for the investigation , order the interception , recording and transcription of telecommunications messages . Such operations shall be carried out under his authority and supervision .

Decisions to intercept shall be in writing . They shall not constitute judicial decisions and no appeal shall lie against them . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Decisions made pursuant to LAW shall contain all the information necessary for identifying the link to be monitored , the offence that justifies the interception and the duration of the interception . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Such decisions shall be valid for a maximum duration of DATE . Their validity may be extended only subject to the same procedural requirements and maximum duration . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The investigating judge or a senior detective ( officier de police judiciaire ) acting on his instructions may call upon any qualified official of any department or body under the authority or supervision of the Minister for Telecommunications , or any qualified official of an authorised network operator or provider of telecommunications services , for the purpose of installing monitoring equipment . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The investigating judge or the senior detective acting on his instructions shall draw up a report on each of the interception and recording operations . This report shall give the date and time of the beginning and end of each operation . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The investigating judge or the senior detective acting on his instructions shall transcribe messages useful for establishing the truth . A report of the transcription shall be drawn up and the transcription placed in the case file .

Any messages in a foreign language shall be transcribed in NORP with the help of an interpreter called upon for this purpose . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ ORG or ORG shall ensure that the recordings are destroyed when prosecution becomes time - barred .

A formal report of the destruction shall be drawn up . ”

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL

“ The telephone line of a member of ORG or senator shall not be tapped unless and until the Speaker of the relevant ORG has been informed by the investigating judge .

The home or office telephone lines of a member of the Bar shall not be tapped unless and until the chairman of the Bar has been informed by the investigating judge .

Any interception carried out in breach of the requirements of this Article shall be null and void . ”

Mr PERSON applied to the Commission on DATE . He alleged that the interception of certain telephone conversations which were used against him amounted to interference with his private life and correspondence , contrary to LAW ; he also maintained that he had not had an effective remedy in ORG , contrary to LAW .

The Commission declared the application ( no . CARDINAL ) admissible on DATE . In its report of DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) , it expressed the opinion by QUANTITY votes to QUANTITY that there had been a violation of LAW and by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL that it was unnecessary to consider the case under LAW also . The full text of the ORG ’s opinion and of the CARDINAL dissenting opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment .

In their memorial the Government submitted that “ the application lodged by PERSON should be dismissed ” .

The applicant asked the ORG to

“ hold that there has been a violation of LAW ;

award him MONEY by way of just satisfaction ” .

Mr PERSON submitted that ORG decision to refuse him any standing to complain of the interception of some of his telephone conversations , on the ground that it was a third party ’s line that had been tapped , had infringed LAW , which provides :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life , his home and his correspondence .

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a NORP society in the interests of national security , public safety or the economic well - being of the country , for the prevention of disorder or crime , for the protection of health or morals , or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . ”

The ORG points out that as telephone conversations are covered by the notions of “ private life ” and “ correspondence ” within the meaning of Article CARDINAL , the admitted measure of interception amounted to “ interference by a public authority ” with the exercise of a right secured to the applicant in paragraph CARDINAL of that Article ( see , among other authorities , the following judgments : PERSON v. the GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ; ORG v. GPE and PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-A and B , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , and p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ; PERSON v. the GPE , DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL–CARDINAL , § DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Reports CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , § MONEY ) . In this connection , it is of little importance

that the telephone tapping in question was carried out on the line of a third party .

The Government did not dispute this .

Such interference will contravene LAW unless it is “ in accordance with the law ” , pursues CARDINAL or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph CARDINAL and furthermore is “ necessary in a NORP society ” in order to achieve them .

The expression “ in accordance with the law ” within the meaning of LAW requires , firstly , that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law ; it also refers to the quality of the law in question , requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned , who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him , and compatible with the rule of law .

The ORG notes that the investigating judge ordered the telephone tapping in question on the basis of Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The interference complained of therefore had a statutory basis in NORP law .

The second requirement which derives from the phrase “ in accordance with the law ” – the accessibility of DATE does not raise any problem in the instant case .

As to the “ foreseeability of the law ” , the ORG maintained that following the ORG ’s judgments in the ORG and PERSON cases ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) , the NORP legislature had remedied the omissions and weaknesses of domestic law on telephone tapping by adopting safeguards in respect of the persons whose telephones could be tapped , the duration of interception , the requirements for drawing up reports , and the communication or destruction of recordings .

The ORG considers , as the ORG did , that Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure , inserted by the PERSON of DATE on the confidentiality of telecommunications messages , lay down clear , detailed rules and specify with sufficient clarity the scope and manner of exercise of the relevant discretion conferred on the public authorities ( see the PERSON and PERSON judgments cited above , pp . CARDINAL–CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL–CARDINAL , and p. CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL–CARDINAL , respectively , and , as the most recent authority and mutatis mutandis , the PERSON judgment cited above , pp . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL–CARDINAL ) .

The ORG shares the opinion of the Government and the Commission and considers that the interference was designed to establish the truth in connection with criminal proceedings and therefore to prevent disorder .

It remains to be ascertained whether the interference was “ necessary in a NORP society ” for achieving those objectives . Under the ORG ’s settled case - law , GPE enjoy a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the existence and extent of such necessity , but this margin is subject to NORP supervision , embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it , even those given by an independent court ( see , mutatis mutandis , the Silver and Others v. the GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL–CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , and the PERSON v. GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

When considering the necessity of interference , the ORG stated in its PERSON and Others v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL–CARDINAL , § § DATE ) :

“ The ORG must be satisfied that , whatever system of surveillance is adopted , there exist adequate and effective guarantees against abuse . This assessment has only a relative character : it depends on … [ among other things ] the kind of remedy provided by the national law .

It therefore has to be determined whether the procedures for supervising the ordering and implementation of the restrictive measures are such as to keep the ‘ interference’ resulting from the contested legislation to what is ‘ necessary in a democratic society’ .

… In addition , the values of a NORP society must be followed as faithfully as possible in the supervisory procedures if the bounds of necessity , within the meaning of LAW , are not to be exceeded . CARDINAL of the fundamental principles of a democratic society is the rule of law , which is expressly referred to in the LAW to the Convention … The rule of law implies , inter alia , that an interference by the executive authorities with an individual ’s rights should be subject to an effective control … ”

The applicant said that he had wished to complain of the circumstances in which the investigating judge had ordered the extensions of the duration of the telephone tapping ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but ORG decision had deprived him of any practical possibility of using the remedies provided by law to penalise irregularities committed by the authorities .

In the ORG ’s submission , the interference complained of had been “ necessary in a NORP society ” . In the instant case the telephone tapping had been one of the principal means of investigation contributing to the establishment of the truth and , in particular , to proving the involvement of various individuals , including the applicant , in large - scale illicit dealing in furniture . Furthermore , PERSON had been able to avail himself of a remedy in ORG , and a further remedy in ORG was quite unnecessary to satisfy the requirement of “ effective control ” .

The ORG must accordingly ascertain whether an “ effective control ” was available to PERSON to challenge the telephone tapping to which he had been made subject .

It notes , firstly , that ORG in its judgment of DATE held that the applicant had “ no locus standi to challenge the manner in which the duration of the monitoring of a third party ’s telephone line was extended ” and that accordingly “ the grounds of appeal , which contest[ed ] the grounds on which ORG [ had ] wrongly considered it must examine [ the ] objections of invalidity and subsequently dismissed them , [ were ] inadmissible ” .

In its ruling ORG therefore went beyond the ground relied on by the applicant concerning the extension of the duration of the telephone tapping and held that a victim of the tapping of a telephone line not his own has no standing to invoke the protection of national law or LAW . It concluded that in the instant case ORG had been wrong to examine the objections of invalidity raised by the applicant as the telephone line being monitored had not been his own .

Admittedly , the applicant had been able to avail himself of a remedy in respect of the disputed point in ORG , which held that the investigating judge ’s extension of the duration of the telephone tapping had been in accordance with Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and it is not the ORG ’s function to express an opinion on the interpretation of domestic law , which is primarily for the national courts to interpret ( see the PERSON and PERSON judgments cited above , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , and p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , respectively ) . However , ORG , the guardian of national law , criticised ORG for having examined the merits of PERSON application .

As the ORG has already said ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the provisions of the PERSON of DATE governing telephone tapping satisfy the requirements of LAW and those laid down in the PERSON and PERSON judgments . However , it has to be recognised that ORG reasoning could lead to decisions whereby a very large number of people are deprived of the protection of the law , namely all those who have conversations on a telephone line other than their own . That would in practice render the protective machinery largely devoid of substance .

That was the case with the applicant , who did not enjoy the effective protection of national law , which does not make any distinction according to whose line is being tapped ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG therefore considers , like the Commission , that the applicant did not have available to him the “ effective control ” to which citizens are entitled under the rule of law and which would have been capable of restricting the interference in question to what was “ necessary in a NORP society ” .

There has consequently been a violation of LAW .

The applicant also alleged a violation of LAW , which provides :

“ Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [ the ] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity . ”

In view of the preceding conclusion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG does not consider that it need rule on the complaint in question .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides :

“ If the ORG finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention , and if the internal law of the said ORG allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure , the decision of the ORG shall , if necessary , afford just satisfaction to the injured party . ”

Mr PERSON sought MONEY ( FRF ) for non - pecuniary damage .

The Government considered that any finding of a violation would constitute sufficient just satisfaction .

The Delegate of the Commission expressed no view on the matter .

The ORG considers that the applicant undeniably sustained non - pecuniary damage and awards him the sum of FRF CARDINAL under this head .

The applicant also claimed ORG CARDINAL in respect of the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before the ORG .

The Government considered that the amount claimed was not unreasonable and wished to leave the matter to the ORG ’s discretion .

The Delegate of the Commission did not express a view .

Making its assessment on an equitable basis and with reference to its usual criteria , the ORG awards the sum claimed .

According to the information available to the ORG , the statutory rate of interest applicable in GPE at the date of adoption of the present judgment is PERCENT per annum .

Done in LANGUAGE and in LANGUAGE , and delivered at a public hearing in FAC , GPE , on DATE .

Signed : PERSON

President

Signed : PERSON

Registrar

In accordance with LAW , the concurring opinion of PERSON is annexed to this judgment .

PERSON : PERSON

PERSON : PERSON


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

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

The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicant in relation to charges of assault and threats allegedly committed against his cohabitant , PERSON , on DATE .

The same day PERSON reported the incident to the police . According to PERSON , the relationship between her and the applicant had deteriorated over a period of time . The applicant had also started to drink during DATE preceding the incident . During TIME of DATE E. began to pack her belongings because she had decided to leave the applicant . The applicant became aggressive and put his finger in her mouth . He then pulled her to the floor , injuring the back of her head and her shoulder . E further stated that the applicant slapped her in the face and threatened to kill her .

The applicant admitted that they had quarrelled during TIME , but denied that he had assaulted or threatened E Instead , he alleged that E had fallen on the floor by accident . He also stated that he placed his hand over her mouth in order to prevent her from screaming .

The applicant was charged with the offences of “ assault ” and “ unlawful threat ” against E , who also joined her claim for compensation to those proceedings .

The applicant denied the charges at the hearing before ORG trying the case , as well as civil liability to pay compensation , though he had already paid E certain sums totalling MONEY ( SEK ) . E was heard before the court and maintained the statements she had made during the police investigation . The prosecutor also relied on a medical certificate and a photograph attesting to E ’s injuries .

In its judgment of DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL - months’ imprisonment , and made him liable to pay compensation to E , not to exceed the amount ( SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) already paid .

The applicant appealed to ORG .

The main hearing before ORG was first scheduled to take place on DATE . On DATE , when an official of ORG called the applicant at the apartment which used to be his and E ’s home , E was present in the apartment and was informed of the date and place of the hearing . E was , however , not formally summoned to the hearing . In any event , E failed to appear at the main hearing on DATE and the hearing was cancelled .

The trial hearing was postponed until DATE . However , PERSON was not notified of the hearing and it was cancelled . The parties were invited to give their views on whether it was necessary to take evidence from her again or whether the audio - tape recording of her testimony in ORG could be played back . Both the prosecutor and the applicant were of the opinion that it was essential to take evidence from her also in ORG .

DATE was then fixed as the new date for the hearing and E was notified of the summons . However , as she failed to appear and her testimony was deemed necessary , the hearing was cancelled . PERSON was ordered to pay a fine of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL and it was decided that next time she should be brought to the hearing by the police .

On DATE , as the attempt to fetch PERSON failed ( she had not been notified of the hearing ) , ORG cancelled the hearing since it was deemed necessary to take evidence from her . A new hearing was scheduled for DATE . The court ordered that PERSON be fetched and taken into custody TIME in advance of the hearing in order to secure her attendance .

Subsequently , a hearing scheduled for DATE was cancelled as it had not been possible to fetch PERSON and her renewed testimony was considered necessary . A new hearing was scheduled for DATE . ORG ordered once again that E was to be fetched and that she could be taken into custody prior to the transportation to the court .

A sixth attempt to hold a hearing , on DATE , was also in vain since the police had failed to find PERSON The hearing was cancelled even though the prosecutor now claimed that E ’s absence was no longer an impediment to holding a hearing . It was then decided to hold the hearing on DATE and that the police should secure E ’s attendance by fetching her and keeping her in custody TIME before taking her to the court room .

ORG finally held the appeal hearing on DATE , in E ’s absence , as the police had not been able to fetch her . Under the LAW , LAW CARDINAL , the ORG decided to go ahead with the hearing since all legal possibilities to secure E ’s attendance had been exhausted and impediments therefore existed to her giving testimony once more .

The prosecutor invoked the audio - tape recording of her testimony previously given before ORG . Defence counsel was of the view that E should be heard in person and that a new attempt to bring her to ORG should therefore be made . However , counsel left it to the ORG to decide whether E ’s absence was an impediment to the holding of the hearing .

ORG heard the applicant and an audio - tape recording of E ’s testimony to ORG . The evidence also included CARDINAL letters that E had addressed to the defence counsel , the public prosecutor and ORG respectively on DATE and DATE and DATE .

In her letter to defence counsel of CARDINAL DATE , which was only submitted by counsel to ORG on DATE , E offered to take back all of what she had claimed previously against the applicant . She did not know how matters would evolve between them and thought that this was unimportant . In her view , the applicant had suffered enough by being detained on remand . She stated in addition that " I know , as he does , what he has done to me " . E finally asked defence counsel to lodge an appeal against ORG judgment and stated that she waived damages .

In her letter to the prosecutor of DATE , E stated that she had made a big mistake , had lied about what had happened , that her motive had been revenge and that she retracted everything she had stated in court .

Her letter addressed to defence counsel on the same date stated that her afore - mentioned letter to the prosecutor had not been worded in the right manner . When the event took place and the applicant " took hold of her " , she had relived a rape that she had experienced as a girl . She had become very uncertain about what had actually occurred and thought that she might have mixed up the situations .

In her letter of DATE to ORG , E explained that she had lacked the financial means to attend its hearing on DATE . In her view , the police report was incorrect and this she had pointed out during the previous trial . Moreover , she claimed not to remember events that took place DATE in her and the applicant ’s apartment .

In its judgment of DATE ORG upheld ORG conviction and sentence of the applicant and , because of E ’s statements , quashed the compensation order . It observed that ORG had heard E extensively , for TIME , and that the prosecutor , E ’s counsel and the applicant ’s counsel had asked her a large number of questions . The court went on to state :

“ .... [ E. ] maintained during the hearing the information that she had first given to the police and she did not give any contradictory answers . Her testimony in ORG was full of details and gives the impression that she is talking about something that she indeed experienced . [ E ] had been eager not to exaggerate what happened . She had also pointed out that [ the applicant ] had not been violent previously and she also tried to give an explanation as to why he had acted as he did on the occasion in question . There is nothing to indicate that [ E ] should have any reason to tell lies about [ the applicant ] .

[ E ] has stated in one of her letters that she sought revenge against [ the applicant ] . Nevertheless , she did not state why . [ The applicant ] has declared that he thinks that she would like to seek revenge on the ground that he called her a whore and that the relationship was over . It does not appear very likely that [ E ] would give false information deliberately for that reason .

As to the rest of the information given by [ E ] in the case , it is to be observed that her statements remained substantially the same , from her report to the police until her testimony before ORG . Further , as regards the reliability of her statements , this must be considered as being strengthened by the medical certificate and the photograph . It appears unlikely that the injuries accounted for in the medical certificate had been caused by the course of events described by [ the applicant ] .

The letters from [ E ] do not contain any information about what happened on the actual TIME , but only the allegation that she had lied . In CARDINAL of the letters she only stated that she had been uncertain about what had happened and that she could not remember the incident DATE after . Her letters are vague and lacking in detail . In the light of these facts the court attaches no weight to [ E ’s ] statements in the letters . ”

The applicant appealed to ORG . On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 2;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed

The applicants all live in the town of GPE ) . QUANTITY away is the Enichem agricoltura company ’s chemical factory , which lies within the municipality of ORG .

In DATE the factory , which produced fertilisers and caprolactam ( a chemical compound producing , by a process of polycondensation , a polyamide used in the manufacture of synthetic fibres such as nylon ) , was classified as “ high risk ” according to the criteria set out in Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( “ ORG CARDINAL ” ) , which transposed into NORP law Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC of ORG ( the “ Seveso ” directive ) on the major - accident hazards of certain industrial activities dangerous to the environment and the well - being of the local population .

The applicants said that in the course of its production cycle the factory released large quantities of inflammable gas – a process which could have led to explosive chemical reactions , releasing highly toxic substances – and sulphur dioxide , nitric oxide , sodium , ammonia , metal hydrides , benzoic acid and above all , arsenic trioxide . These assertions have not been disputed by the Government .

Accidents due to malfunctioning have already occurred in the past , the most serious CARDINAL on DATE when the scrubbing tower for the ammonia synthesis gases exploded , allowing several tonnes of potassium carbonate and bicarbonate solution , containing arsenic trioxide , to escape . CARDINAL people were admitted to hospital with acute arsenic poisoning .

In a report of CARDINAL DATE a committee of technical experts appointed by ORG established that because of the factory ’s geographical position , emissions from it into the atmosphere were often channelled towards PERSON . It was noted in the report that the factory had refused to allow the committee to carry out an inspection and that the results of a study by the factory itself showed that the emission treatment equipment was inadequate and the environmental - impact assessment incomplete .

In DATE the factory restricted its activity to the production of fertilisers , and it was accordingly still classified as a dangerous factory covered by ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In DATE ORG issued an order jointly with ORG prescribing measures to be taken by the factory to improve the safety of the ongoing fertiliser production , and of caprolactam production if that was resumed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the factory permanently stopped producing fertiliser . Only a thermoelectric power station and plant for the treatment of feed and waste water continued to operate .

On DATE CARDINAL residents of PERSON ( including the applicants ) applied to ORG ( pretore ) complaining that the air had been polluted by emissions of unknown chemical composition and toxicity from the factory . Criminal proceedings were brought against CARDINAL directors of the impugned company for offences relating to pollution caused by emissions from the factory and to non - compliance with a number of environmental protection regulations .

Judgment was given on DATE . Most of the defendants escaped a prison sentence , either because the charges were covered by an amnesty or were time - barred , or because they had paid an immediate fine ( oblazione ) . CARDINAL directors were sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY and ordered to pay damages to the civil parties , for having had waste dumps built without prior permission , contrary to the relevant provisions of ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL on waste disposal .

On appeals by the CARDINAL directors who had been convicted and by ORG ( ORG ) and ORG , which had both joined the proceedings as civil parties claiming damages , ORG acquitted the directors on DATE on the ground that the offence had not been made out but upheld the remainder of the impugned decision . The court held that the errors which the directors were alleged to have made in the management of the waste were in fact attributable to delays and uncertainties in the adoption and interpretation , particularly by ORG , of regulations implementing ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Consequently , there was no damage that gave rise to a claim for compensation .

A joint committee of representatives from the ORG and GPE was set up within ORG to implement the ORG directive .

The committee ordered a technical survey , which was carried out by a panel established by an order of the Minister for the Environment of DATE . The panel had the following remit :

( a ) to report on whether the factory conformed to environmental regulations as regards discharge of waste water , treatment of liquid and solid waste , emissions of gases , and noise pollution ; to report on safety aspects ; and to check what authorisations had been granted to the factory to those ends ;

( b ) to report on whether the factory site was compatible with its environment , having particular regard to the problems of protecting the health of the local population and the fauna and flora and of making appropriate use of the land ;

( c ) to suggest what action should be taken to obtain any missing data required to complete the reports under ( a ) and ( b ) above and to identify measures to be taken to protect the environment .

On DATE the factory submitted the safety report required by LAW ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE the panel presented its report , which was sent to ORG . The latter published its conclusions on DATE and fixed CARDINAL DATE as the date on which the report required by LAW ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the risk of major accidents should be submitted to the Minister for ORG . It also recommended :

( a ) commissioning studies of the factory ’s safety and compatibility with its environment , additional analyses of disaster scenarios and of the preparation and implementation of emergency procedures ;

( b ) introducing a number of changes designed to reduce the atmospheric emissions drastically and to improve the treatment of waste water , making radical alterations to the production cycles for urea and nitrogen and carrying out studies on the pollution of the subsoil and on the hydrogeological structure of the factory site . These steps were to be taken within DATE . The panel also referred to the need to solve the problems of liquid combustion and the reuse of sodium salts .

The panel further called for a public industrial - pollution monitoring centre , to be set up by DATE , to carry out periodic checks on the factory ’s practices in relation to public health and environmental protection and to act as an epidemiological observatory .

On DATE the problems relating to the operation of the factory were raised in a parliamentary question to the Minister for the Environment . On DATE , in ORG , a question on the same point was put to ORG . Replying to the latter question , the relevant Commissioner stated that ( CARDINAL ) Enichem had sent ORG the safety report requested pursuant to LAW ; ( CARDINAL ) on the basis of that report the Government had opened an investigation , as required by DATE ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL to check safety at the factory and , if appropriate , to identify any further safety measures needed ; and ( CARDINAL ) so far as the application of the ORG directive was concerned , the Government had taken the requisite measures with regard to the factory .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL require the relevant mayor and prefect to inform local inhabitants of the hazards of the industrial activity concerned , the safety measures taken , the plans made for emergencies and the procedure to be followed in the event of an accident .

On DATE ORG gave its opinion on the emergency plan that had been drawn up by the prefect of GPE , in accordance with LAW of ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL . On DATE the plan was sent to the relevant committee of ORG . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the under - secretary of ORG assured the prefect of GPE that the plan would be submitted promptly to ORG for its opinion and expressed the hope that it could be put into effect as quickly as possible , given the sensitive issues raised by planning for emergencies .

On DATE ORG and ORG jointly adopted conclusions on the factory ’s safety report of DATE , as required by LAW ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Those conclusions prescribed a number of improvements to be made to the installations , both in relation to fertiliser production and in the event of resumed caprolactam production ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and provided the prefect with instructions as to the emergency plan for which he was responsible and the measures required for informing the local population under LAW ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

In a letter of DATE to ORG , however , the mayor of ORG indicated that the investigation for the purpose of drawing up conclusions under LAW was still continuing and that he had not received any documents relating to them . He pointed out that ORG was still awaiting direction from ORG before deciding what safety measures should be taken and what procedures should be followed in the event of an accident and communicated to the public . He said that if the factory resumed production , the measures for informing the public would be taken as soon as the conclusions based on the investigation were available .

As regards the obligation to inform the public on matters of environmental and public safety , LAW provides that any undertaking carrying on dangerous activities must submit a report to ORG and ORG giving details of , among other things , its activities , emergency procedures in the event of a major accident , the persons responsible for carrying these procedures out , and the measures taken by the undertaking to reduce the risks to the environment and public health . Article QUANTITY of ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL provides that anyone in charge of an undertaking who fails to submit the report required by LAW may be sentenced to up to DATE imprisonment .

At the material time LAW of ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL provided that mayors were under a duty to inform the public of

( a ) the nature of the production process ;

( b ) the nature and quantities of the substances involved ;

( c ) the potential risks to employees and workers in the factory , members of the public and the environment ;

( d ) the conclusions on the safety reports submitted by the factory pursuant to LAW additional measures referred to in LAW ; and

( e ) the safety measures and procedures to be followed in the event of an accident .

LAW provided that , in order to protect industrial secrets , any person responsible for examining reports or information from the undertakings concerned was forbidden to disclose any information that he had thereby obtained .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided that data and information on industrial activities obtained pursuant to ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL could be used only for the purposes for which they had been requested .

That provision was partly amended by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . LAW of that decree provides for an exception to the ban on disclosure of industrial secrets in the case of certain information , namely that contained in an information sheet which the undertaking must complete and send to ORG and the regional or inter - regional technical committee . Mayors’ duties with regard to informing the public are unchanged and now appear in paragraph CARDINAL .

Article CARDINAL of ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL also lays certain obligations on the prefect in the matter of providing information . In particular , paragraph CARDINAL of that provision ( now paragraph CARDINAL bis ) requires the prefect to draw up an emergency plan based on the information supplied by the factory and ORG . That plan must be sent to ORG and ORG . Paragraph CARDINAL goes on to provide that , after drawing up the emergency plan , the prefect must adequately inform the population concerned of the hazards of the activities , the safety measures taken to prevent a major accident , the emergency procedures planned for the area outside the factory should a major accident occur and the procedures to be followed in the event of an accident . The amendments made to LAW in the aforementioned legislative decree include a new paragraph CARDINAL , to the effect that ORG must establish reference criteria for emergency planning and the adoption of measures for the supply of information to the public by the prefect , and repeal of paragraph CARDINAL , which provided that the information referred to in paragraph CARDINAL had to be sent to ORG , ORG and the regional authorities concerned .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , by which ORG was created and the first legal provisions on environmental damage introduced , provides that everyone has a right of access to the information on the state of the environment which is , in accordance with the law , available at the offices of the administrative authorities and may obtain a copy on defrayment of the authorities’ costs .

In a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Consiglio di PERSON amministrativa per la Regione siciliana DATE which in GPE replaces ORG ) held that the concept of “ information on the state of the environment ” included any information about human GPE physical surroundings and concerning matters of some interest to the community . On the basis of those criteria , ORG held that a district council was not justified in refusing to allow a private individual to obtain a copy of analyses of the fitness of water in the district in question for use as drinking water .

Of particular relevance among the various ORG documents in the field under consideration in the present case is ORG DATE ) on the consequences of the GPE disaster , which was adopted on DATE ( at DATE Sitting ) . Referring not only to the risks associated with the production and use of nuclear energy in the civil sector but also to other matters , it states “ public access to clear and full information ... must be viewed as a basic human right ” .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE .

He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with the burglary of a house in the GPE area on DATE . The arrest followed the discovery of fingerprints at the scene which were later found by ORG at ORG to match those of the applicant . The responsible fingerprint officer , Mr S. Harris , concluded that he had no doubt about the fact that the fingerprint evidence provided a correct positive identification of the applicant having regard to the number of concordant ridge characteristics between the applicant ’s fingerprints and those found at the scene .

The fingerprint evidence was the only evidence linking the applicant to the burglary . The applicant maintained that he was innocent of the offence .

On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody by ORG . He was eventually released on bail on DATE .

While on bail the applicant ’s solicitor commissioned an independent fingerprint expert , PERSON , to consider the evidence against the applicant and to prepare a report . The expert attended at different police offices to examine various aspects of the fingerprint file in relation to the fingerprint evidence . PERSON concluded that he was unable to agree with the findings of PERSON . On DATE PERSON arranged a meeting with PERSON PERSON and another fingerprint officer from ORG . At that meeting the fingerprint officers demonstrated how PERSON had reached a positive identification of the applicant by comparing the fingerprints . Being dissatisfied with the explanations PERSON sought confirmation of his findings from another independent expert . The latter agreed with PERSON view that the positive identification was incorrect .

The applicant ’s trial was listed for DATE despite the concerns being voiced by the applicant ’s lawyer about the shortcomings in the fingerprint evidence . The trial was in fact adjourned when the applicant failed to attend court . On DATE the prosecution notified the applicant ’s lawyer that it would be offering no evidence . On DATE before ORG the prosecution formally offered no evidence , explaining that the police fingerprint officer had made an error of judgment when comparing the fingerprints . The charges against the applicant were dropped .

In a further expert report commissioned by the applicant ’s lawyer in a letter dated CARDINAL DATE and submitted on DATE , PERSON stated that this was the only case known to him where an attempt has been made to produce an erroneous identification to a court as evidence of identification . In his view , it should have been apparent to an experienced fingerprint officer that there could have been no genuine identification of the applicant on the strength of the fingerprint evidence . He concluded that there had been a serious flaw in the checking procedure . Had the procedure been rigourously adhered to , a false identification would have been excluded at an early stage . In his view , there was compelling evidence of gross negligence and incompetence on the part of members of ORG . However , from the information available to him he was unable to find anything to suggest that the mistake had been made with any malicious intent towards the applicant .

On DATE counsel advised the applicant ’s solicitor that an action for false imprisonment would be unlikely to succeed and that the facts did not give rise to a cause of action in negligence under domestic law , either with respect to the police or the fingerprint officer .

The applicant has applied to the Secretary of ORG for ex gratia payment of compensation for the time spent in custody . There is no information as to whether his request was successful .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a stateless NORP who was born in DATE . He currently lives in GPE in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Ms S. Blomqvist , a lawyer practising in PERSON . 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 .

NORP On DATE the applicant applied for asylum in GPE . He was not in possession of any identity papers . He claimed that he came from GPE on GPE and that his mother and sister still lived there . He invoked the general situation on GPE as his motive for seeking asylum .

Following a leading decision by ORG ( Migrationsverket ) in which he considered that stateless NORP should be granted residence permits in GPE on humanitarian grounds due to the serious situation in the region , on DATE ORG granted the applicant a temporary residence permit until DATE to give him an opportunity to prove his identity .

Upon expiry of his temporary residence permit , the applicant applied for a permanent residence permit or , in the alternative , a prolongation of his temporary permit . Without submitting any kind of documentation , he maintained that he was from GPE , where he risked persecution by the authorities because , DATE , he had written some critical articles about corruption among high - ranking persons on ORG . On DATE ORG rejected the application . It noted that the applicant had failed to establish his identity and his place of residence before entering GPE . A language analysis had shown that the applicant spoke an LANGUAGE dialect spoken by persons originally from GPE but living in GPE . Thus , although the applicant could originate from GPE , it was quite possible that he had lived in GPE before leaving for GPE . Accordingly , the ORG found that the applicant could be deported to GPE , GPE or the GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Utlänningsnämnden ) which , on DATE , upheld ORG decision not to grant the applicant a residence permit . It found , however , that the applicant should be deported to GPE , and not alternatively to GPE or the GPE . This decision was final and the applicant was ordered to leave GPE within DATE .

Subsequently , on CARDINAL occasions , the applicant requested ORG to stay his deportation . On DATE and again on DATE , the ORG rejected these requests as it found that there were no impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order .

In DATE the applicant was apprehended in GPE and transferred back to GPE in accordance with ORG . Upon his return to GPE , in DATE , he renewed his application for asylum and a residence permit in GPE . He maintained that he was from GPE and invoked the situation there as his motive for seeking asylum . Moreover , he stated that he had a serious relationship with a NORP woman with whom he had been living since DATE and that he had strong ties to GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the application . It first noted that the applicant had still not proved his identity but that it was probable that he was from GPE or GPE . It then observed that he had invoked no grounds on which he could be considered as a refugee and that the general situation in the region was not so serious that he could be granted leave to remain in GPE solely on that basis . Moreover , as concerned his relationship , the ORG noted that the applicant could apply for a residence permit on that basis from his home country as prescribed by LAW . Lastly , it considered that the applicant had not been in GPE legally for such a long time that he could be deemed to have a closer connection to GPE than to his home country . ORG also noted that he had not invoked any health reasons . Thus , in conclusion , he could not be granted leave to remain in GPE and he was to be deported to GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and repeating that he risked persecution by the authorities on GPE because , DATE , he had written some critical articles about corruption among highranking persons on GPE . These articles had been published in various newspapers on GPE and therefore the authorities in his home country were searching for him . He further stressed that he had a very good relationship with his girlfriend and that they were planning to get married . He also submitted that he felt depressed and had been in contact with a doctor for DATE , and that accordingly it would be unreasonable to demand that he apply for a residence permit based on his relationship from his home country . Lastly , he alleged that he had no connections whatsoever to GPE and that , therefore , any plans to deport him to that country should be ruled out .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG rejected the appeal . It first noted that the applicant had still not established his identity but that it was probable that he came from GPE . However , it could not be ruled out that he had lived in GPE and the examination should therefore include both countries . ORG then observed that the applicant had not been politically active in any way . Moreover , although he may have had written some critical articles in DATE about corruption among high - ranking persons on GPE , he had been able to remain in the area for DATE after the alleged articles were published without having encountered any problems . Thus , ORG found it highly unlikely that he would risk persecution for having written those articles upon return . With regard to his relationship , the court considered that he could return to GPE to apply for a residence permit on this basis from there . The court further found that the applicant 's health problems were not so serious that he could be granted leave to remain in GPE on this ground . GPE .

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and adding that he and his girlfriend had married on DATE . His wife had CARDINAL grownup children from a previous relationship .

On DATE , ORG refused leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG transferred the case to ORG for enforcement of the deportation order to GPE , or alternatively to GPE , should the former option not be possible for some reason .

Furthermore , on DATE , ORG rejected a request from the applicant to re - open the proceedings on the basis of a medical certificate stating that the applicant suffered from depression and that there was a risk of suicide . ORG found that he had invoked no new circumstances of importance as all his claims had , in essence , already been examined .

In DATE the applicant lodged yet another request that the proceedings be re - opened . He claimed that he was in very poor mental health and had made several suicide attempts . He was receiving treatment for his mental problems which was beneficial for him . However , if the treatment was interrupted , there was a substantial risk that he would again try to commit suicide . Moreover , his wife , who was a nurse , gave him much care and support and it was unreasonable to demand that he apply for a residence permit on the basis of their relationship from his home country . He submitted a medical certificate confirming his very poor and unstable mental health . He also invoked a judgment , delivered on DATE , by ORG ( tingsrätten ) in ORG according to which the applicant had been convicted of illegal driving and aggravated drunken driving and sentenced to probation . It appeared from the judgment that he had tried to commit suicide by getting drunk and driving his wife 's car into a road railing .

On DATE ORG decided to stay the enforcement of the applicant 's deportation since it was uncertain whether it was medically possible for him to travel to his home country .

On DATE , the ORG decided not to grant the applicant a residence permit in GPE and lifted the stay of enforcement . It first noted that it had a very limited margin to take into account factors such as an asylum seeker 's failed expectations , anxiety about returning to his or her home country and social and financial problems . Moreover , it was not the degree of severity of an illness that was decisive but whether the medical condition rendered the enforcement of a deportation order practically impossible . The ORG then considered , on the basis of several medical certificates ( see below ) , that the applicant 's state of health was serious but that he remained at home and had declined to be committed to hospital for treatment as he considered that he could cope at home . Moreover , his problems emanated from his insecure situation and wish to remain in GPE and not from a life - threatening illness . Thus , there were no practical impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order . No appeal lay against this decision .

According to medical certificates dated DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , written by PERSON , psychiatrist in ORG , the applicant had been a patient of hers since DATE due to depression and had been prescribed antidepressants ( ORG ) . During their meetings , the applicant had kept stating that he felt disappointed and badly treated by the various NORP authorities as he had failed to find a job or get a residence permit . He had stated that he had been a successful businessman in the “ NORP world ” and wanted to get back into business . During his periods of depression , he had lost his appetite , had been unable to sleep and had been apathetic . He had become very depressed and suicidal because he considered his situation hopeless and himself worthless . Following a suicide attempt in DATE ( when he had driven his wife 's car into a road railing ) , the psychiatrist had prescribed stronger antidepressants ( PERSON ) . His wife had been a great support to him , taking care of him and watching over him .

In another medical certificate , dated DATE , by Mr PERSON , physician at ORG in GPE , it was stated that the applicant had made an emergency visit DATE to the clinic because of his depression . He had been apathetic and had suicidal thoughts due to his situation and his fear of being deported .

NORP In CARDINAL other medical certificates , dated DATE and DATE , by PERSON , chief physician at ORG in ORG , it was stated that the applicant had visited him in DATE and again in DATE . On both occasions , the applicant had been depressed , apathetic , very anxious and with constant suicidal thoughts . On the second occasion , he had also showed signs of paranoia . However , on both occasions , he had rejected an offer to be committed to a clinic for treatment as he had considered that he could cope at home even though , according to the chief physician , he had been close to being psychotic and almost eligible for being committed to compulsory psychiatric care . The chief physician concluded that , at that time , the applicant was not in a fit state to be deported .

On DATE the ORG decided to indicate to ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG a suspension of his deportation to GPE or GPE .

Consequently , on CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to stay until further notice the enforcement of its decision to expel the applicant .

The basic provisions mainly applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in the DATE LAW ( Utlänningslagen , DATE hereafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) which replaced , on DATE , the old LAW ( Utlänningslagen , DATE ) . Both the old Aliens Act and the DATE Act define the conditions under which an alien can be deported or expelled from the country , as well as the procedures relating to the enforcement of such decisions .

Chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , of the CARDINAL Act stipulates that an alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE . According to LAW , LAW , of LAW , the term “ refugee ” refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted on grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW , of the DATE Act ) .

NORP Moreover , if a residence permit can not be granted on the above grounds , such a permit may be issued to an alien if , after an overall assessment of his or her situation , there are such particularly distressing circumstances ( synnerligen ömmande omständigheter ) to allow him or her to remain in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ) . During this assessment , special consideration should be given to , inter alia , the alien 's health status . In the preparatory works to this provision ( Government PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL:CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ) , life - threatening physical or mental illness for which no treatment can be given in the alien 's home country could constitute a reason for the grant of a residence permit .

Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has gained legal force . This applies , under LAW , LAW , of LAW , where new circumstances have emerged that mean there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced . If a residence permit can not be granted under this provision , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not doing so . Should the applicable conditions not be met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , LAW , of LAW ) .

NORP Under LAW , matters concerning the right of aliens to enter and remain in GPE are dealt with by CARDINAL instances ; ORG , ORG and ORG ( LAW , LAW , and LAW , LAW , of LAW ) . Hence , upon entry into force on DATE of the DATE Act , ORG ceased to exist .

Where a rejected asylum seeker suffers from ill - health the enforcement of the deportation will occur only if the authority responsible for the deportation deems that the medical condition of the individual so permits . In executing the deportation , the authority in question is also able to ensure that the measures taken will be appropriate with regard to the circumstances of the particular case . For instance , if considered necessary , a special aeroplane can be chartered for the journey and arrangements can be made for medical staff and any necessary equipment to be available on board during the flight . On condition that the individual concerned consents to such measures being taken , arrangements can also be made for his or her assistance in the country of origin upon return . For example , medical records and other medical documentation can be sent in advance so that proper care can be prepared and arrangements be made for the individual to be met and taken care of by medical staff upon arrival .

Should an enforcement of an expulsion order lead to serious psychological health problems necessitating treatment in compulsory psychiatric care , the expulsion can not , under any circumstances , take place without the approval of the chief physician responsible for the care ( see , LAW of LAW ( lagen om psykiatrisk tvångsvård , DATE ) .

The provisions on family reunification relating to a spouse , registered partner or cohabiting partner etc . of a person who is resident in GPE are set out in LAW , LAW , of LAW and were given their present wording on DATE in connection with the implementation of the E C Directive on the right to family reunification ( Directive CARDINAL of DATE , hereinafter " LAW " ) .

Under LAW , LAW , first paragraph of the LAW , unless otherwise provided in LAW , a residence permit shall be granted to an alien who is a spouse or cohabiting partner of someone who is resident in GPE or who has been granted a residence permit to settle in GPE . The provisions hence provide for a right to obtain a residence permit unless there are special grounds against granting a residence permit . An alien who wants a residence permit in GPE on account of family ties must have applied for and been granted such a permit before entering the country ( LAW , LAW , of the LAW . This rule was also stipulated in the CARDINAL LAW ) . An application for a residence permit may not , as a general rule , be approved after entry . However , exemptions from this rule can be made for example if the alien has strong ties to a person who is resident in GPE and it can not reasonably be required that he or she travel to another country to submit an application there ( LAW , LAW , second paragraph , point CARDINAL ) . An exemption may also be made if there are some other exceptional grounds ( LAW , LAW , second paragraph , point CARDINAL ) . The requirement that , in principle , residence permits for family members have to be granted before entry into GPE was introduced as CARDINAL of a number of measures aimed at reducing the possibilities of obtaining a residence permit by means of marriages or relationships of convenience . Subsequently , ORG and ORG have underlined on several occasions that the requirement that residence permits be obtained before entry into GPE is an important part of measures to maintain regulated immigration . Moreover , the preparatory works to LAW state that it is important that aliens staying in GPE illegally do not enjoy a better position than those who comply with decisions by the authorities to return to their country of origin in order to apply for a permit from there ( Government PERSON ) . The same requirement is found in LAW , LAW , by which most ORG countries are bound . Many NORP countries hence require that a residence permit on account of family ties be granted before entry into the country . The Directive has been incorporated into NORP law ( Government PERSON ) .

As regards the exemptions that can be made according to LAW , LAW , second paragraph , point CARDINAL of LAW , the preparatory works to the provision ( Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL et seq . ) state that the main emphasis should be placed on the question of whether it is reasonable to require that the alien return to another country in order to submit an application there . Relevant elements , which may be favourable for the alien , may be whether he or she can be expected , after returning home , to encounter difficulties in obtaining a passport or exit permit and this is due to some form of harassment on the part of the authorities in the country of origin . It may also be whether the alien will be required to complete a long period of national service or service under unusually severe conditions . It may also be relevant whether the alien has to return to a country where there is no NORP foreign representation and where major practical difficulties and considerable costs are associated with travelling to a neighbouring country to submit the application there . Relevant elements , which may count against the alien , may be that he or she is staying in the country illegally , that their identity is unclear or if there are strong ties to the country of origin .

According to information from the NORP Consulate - General in GPE , its average processing time for investigating cases concerning ties to GPE is from DATE to DATE depending on where the applicant is living . In the event that the applicant is not able to come to GPE , staff from ORG can go to GPE and conduct the interview at ORG of GPE in GPE . According to information from ORG , people living in GPE and other towns on GPE are generally able to go to GPE for an interview . If instead the applicant is deported to GPE , he can apply for family reunification at ORG in GPE , where processing time for investigating a case concerning ties to GPE is DATE . Furthermore , ORG has stated that the total average processing time in such cases from the filing of an application at a NORP representation abroad to ORG decision is DATE . A decision from ORG may be appealed against to ORG and ORG .

The GPE ORG , ORG on GPE from DATE stated in so far as relevant :

CARDINAL The situation in GPE remained tense with continuing strain on the NORP / ORG cease fire ...

CARDINAL In its ORG : On Israeli Human Rights Violations in LOC dated DATE ; the NORP ORG ( PCHR ) stated that :

“ ... NORP Occupation Forces ( ORG ) have continued to impose severe restrictions on the movement of NORP civilians throughout GPE , including occupied GPE . CARDINAL of NORP civilians from GPE and GPE continue to be denied access to GPE . ”

According to a report from ORG , GPE , GPE and GPE , DATE ; hereinafter " OGN DATE " ) , ORG reported in DATE that GPE is providing ambulatory , outpatient and inpatient services to NORP patients who access care in ORG ( PA ) hospitals , at the request of ORG . At times these services are provided in conjunction with NORP and international NGOs . GPE also provides public health laboratory services , as well as providing training programmes to NORP physicians , nurses and other health professionals . Furthermore , in DATE CARDINAL permits were granted to NORP patients and their companions to receive treatment in GPE . In addition to the public health services available and those provided by charitable and voluntary organisations , the NORP population is provided with health care by ORG and other NORP non - governmental organisations and by ORG . As regards the availability of mental health care , the following may be noted . There is one psychiatric hospital on GPE with CARDINAL beds as well as CARDINAL general hospitals with psychiatric units in GPE and Tulkarm with CARDINAL inpatient beds .

The health care system in GPE is considered to be good . According to ORG , PERCENT of the inhabitants have access to public health care , although principally primary health care ( see for example ORG report on the Situation of Human Rights in GPE , DATE , p , CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL of the inhabitants of GPE are originally NORP , the great majority of whom now have NORP citizenship , which means that they have the same rights and obligations as the “ NORP ” ( ibid . pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . ORG ( GPE ) confirms that GPE has one of the best health care systems in the region , However the GPE further notes that GPE 's resources are strained by a massive refugee population ( PERCENT of its CARDINAL citizens are NORP or of NORP descent ) and that the needs of destitute NORP put a large burden on the country 's resources . The GPE further states that NORP and their NORP host population suffer from limited access to medical care , especially secondary and mental health care services . However , to address the needs of the NORP refugees and other vulnerable populations in GPE , the GPE is implementing assistance programmes that aim to improve the quality of primary health care , including mental health services ( see information at the GPE web site ; GPE . As regards the availability of mental health care in GPE , it should be noted that there are CARDINAL to CARDINAL clinical psychologists , CARDINAL psychiatrists ( plus CARDINAL working for the army ) and a few counsellors available in GPE . Psychosocial services offer a total of CARDINAL beds and CARDINAL outpatient clinics ( see ORG , “ Assessment on Psychosocial Needs of Iraqis Displaced in GPE and GPE ” , DATE , p , CARDINAL ) . PERSON 's public health care system is state - subsidised , but the public health care system is overburdened and provides only basic care . Many NORP citizens are enrolled in a national health insurance programme not open to foreigners , who must rely on private insurance to cover health care costs . Private insurance is expensive and frequently excludes costly treatment and surgical operations . According to the NORP authorities , NORP refugees can benefit from emergency health care regardless of their legal status . However , to receive further treatment in public hospitals they need to be residents . For this reason the majority of NORP rely on private hospitals whenever they can afford to pay . The ORG report primarily concerns the possibilities for NORP refugees in GPE to obtain mental health care . It may be assumed that the information it contains has a bearing also on the availability of mental health care for NORP living in GPE who are not NORP citizens .