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

The applicant has a daughter born in DATE . In DATE , he divorced the mother of the child who has obtained the sole right to custody ( alleiniges PERSON ) and with whom the child is living . In DATE , both parents agreed that the applicant should have access to the child on a DATE basis . The relationship between the parents subsequently deteriorated . In DATE , the mother refused the applicant ’s access because the child suffered from headaches and bad dreams . In DATE , the child ’s mother filed a claim in order to exclude the applicant ’s access rights .

On DATE , the GPE ( Main ) ORG suspended the applicant ’s access rights to his child for DATE . ORG had heard the child in DATE in the presence of the curator ad litem ( PERSON ) . After the competent judge at ORG had changed , it heard the child again in DATE . Moreover , it considered an expert opinion and heard the expert , a psychologist , in person . On this basis , ORG concluded that the exclusion of the applicant ’s access rights was necessary for the child ’s welfare pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law , below ) . It reasoned that the child , being almost DATE and going through the period of puberty , severely suffered from the fact that her mother was unable to give her the necessary support to deal with the applicant ’s visits . ORG observed that the mother had reacted very agitated during a court hearing because of the applicant ’s presence . According to the expert , that situation was emotionally extremely difficult for , and harmful to , the child . The child had testified during the last court hearing that she wanted to decide for herself when to see the applicant , a view that was also confirmed by the curator ad litem . During the visits , the applicant would constantly talk , mostly in a derogatory way about the mother , and seek to manipulate the child ’s views , even in the presence of a neutral third person . Because of his age and his lack of understanding , the applicant could not be expected to change his behaviour , as could be seen by the content of a letter which he had sent for the child ’s twelfth birthday . Moreover , the applicant had approached the child at school on CARDINAL occasions which had been very embarrassing for her . ORG also ordered the mother to ensure that the child would write to the applicant DATE . Considering that the child did not obtain the emotional support from her , ORG ordered the mother to bring the child to a psychological clinic for juveniles in order to start a therapy with a view to teach the child that affection and sympathy was not inevitably connected with the intrusive and manipulative conduct which the applicant had shown . As results of that therapy could not be expected earlier , it was necessary to exclude the applicant ’s access rights for DATE .

On DATE , the GPE ( ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , granted the mother legal aid and refused to grant legal aid to the applicant because his appeal lacked any prospects of success . ORG found that ORG had rightly excluded the applicant ’s access rights for DATE , in particular taking into account that during the proceedings the child had clearly stated that she felt hassled and not taken serious by the applicant , that she did not want any further visits ( even in the presence of third persons ) and that she wanted the applicant to respect her decision . The present proceedings however showed that the applicant was incapable of accepting this . The applicant had paid CARDINAL uninvited visits to the child ’s school which had been very awkward for the child . Moreover , the letter which the applicant had sent to the child showed his negative attitude towards the mother and put the child under massive pressure . The content of the father ’s letter indicated that the child ’s objections had not been manipulated by the mother . ORG had rightly found that there was no indication that the applicant would show comprehension and change his behaviour . The applicant did not appear to be aware or interested in the child ’s needs . Moreover , ORG had rightly taken the view that the mother ’s behaviour had also not contributed to a normal relationship between the child and the applicant either . At the same time the mother had been willing to accept the help offered by ORG . Taking into consideration the age of the child , ORG considered it best to give the child the opportunity to reflect on her situation without the distress of the applicant ’s visits and to decide for herself about any future contacts with the applicant to whom she still had a clearly visible relationship .

ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint on DATE .

Section DATE

“ CARDINAL . The child is entitled to have access to both parents ; each parent is obliged to have contact with , and entitled to have access to , the child .

NORP The parents must not do anything that would harm the child ’s relationship with the other parent or seriously interfere with the child ’s upbringing . ...

The family courts can determine the scope of the right of access and prescribe more specific rules for its exercise , also with regard to third parties . They may order the parties to fulfil their obligations towards the child .

The family courts may restrict or suspend the right of access or the enforcement of previous decisions on access if this is necessary for the child ’s welfare . A decision restricting or suspending the right of access or its enforcement for a longer period of time or permanently may only be taken if the child ’s well - being were endangered otherwise . The family courts may order in particular that contacts may only take place in the presence of a cooperating third party . ”


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

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

In DATE criminal investigations were instituted against the applicant on charges of embezzlement and forgery of documents . After the police had repeatedly interrogated her and heard numerous witnesses on several occasions , on DATE the investigation was closed .

On DATE the GPE I / ORG ordered the resumption of the investigation . Subsequently , an expert accountant was appointed . On DATE the investigation was closed .

On DATE the ORG preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant , charging her with aggravated mismanagement .

ORG held hearings on CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . At the hearing on DATE , ORG ordered that further investigations be carried out . After further expert opinions had been obtained , the resumed investigations were closed on DATE .

Further hearings took place on DATE , DATE and DATE . On that date the court found the applicant guilty as charged , and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , its execution being suspended for DATE .

On appeal , ORG held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On the latter date it delivered a judgment and reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE imprisonment , its execution being suspended for DATE . Moreover , the applicant was granted preliminary exemption ( előzetes mentesítés ) from the unfavourable legal consequences of her conviction . In its decision , ORG explained the mitigation of the sentence as follows :

“ When imposing the sentence [ and considering those factors which are in the applicant ’s favour ] , special importance must be attributed to the fact that DATE have elapsed since the offence was committed and that [ the applicant ] has not contributed to this extraordinary delay . ...

On account of the extraordinary protraction [ of the proceedings ] , the second - instance court has likewise reduced to an important extent the duration of the probationary period .

Considering the ... circumstances of the applicant ’s having committed the offence , the second - instance court is of the view that [ the applicant ] who has been subjected to criminal proceedings for DATE is worthy of preliminary exemption ( előzetes mentesítés ) ... . ”


Violation of Art. 5-3;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE he was arrested and placed in police custody .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be detained for DATE on suspicion of having committed fraud as a result of which third parties had disposed of their property , valued at MONEY ( ORG ) , to their detriment . The court based its detention order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence and on the severity of the likely penalty , which gave rise to a fear that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .

Subsequent decisions as to the extension of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention were taken on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and on DATE .

On DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other suspect was lodged with ORG . The applicant was charged with fraud as a result of which third parties had disposed of their property , valued at ORG , CARDINAL , to their detriment .

Subsequent decisions as to the extension of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention were taken on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

In principle , in all the above - mentioned decisions the courts relied on the same grounds for detention as those given in the first detention order . In some the courts also referred to the complexity of the case , the need to conduct further investigation , the probable collusion between the applicant and other suspects ( later : the co - accused ) and the probable exertion of unlawful pressure on witnesses by the applicant . In particular , the courts indicated that a high risk of collusion existed since CARDINAL of the suspects still remained at large and his whereabouts had not yet been established .

NORP The applicant appealed against the decisions extending his detention on several occasions . All of his appeals were dismissed .

On DATE the first hearing was held before ORG . Subsequent hearings were held on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . At a hearing on DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG so that shortcomings in the investigation could be corrected .

On many occasions the applicant requested that his detention pending trial be lifted or that a more lenient preventive measure be applied . Each time his request was dismissed . The decisions to that effect were given by ORG ( on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) or by ORG ( on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) . These decisions relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence and the severity of the likely penalty , which gave rise to a fear that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings . In some decisions it was stressed that the whereabouts of all the persons involved in committing the offence had not yet been established . Many of the decisions were , however , very laconic ; for example , the decision of CARDINAL DATE included CARDINAL lines of reasoning . The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against those decisions on several occasions .

On DATE ORG decided to apply police supervision in place of pre - trial detention . It also prohibited the applicant from leaving the country . In the reasoned grounds for its decision , it stated that , bearing in mind the progress made in collecting evidence , the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proper conduct of proceedings had ceased to exist . On DATE the applicant was released from detention .

On DATE ORG again ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody from DATE until DATE . It justified its decision by a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence and the severity of the likely penalty . It also referred to the necessity to secure the proper conduct of proceedings .

The applicant remained detained until DATE as transpires from a document issued by the detention centre on the applicant ’s release .

Hearings were held on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , an unknown date in DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and ordered that payments be made to the victims on account of the damage incurred . On DATE the applicant appealed .

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

On DATE , DATE and DATE hearings were held before ORG ( which had assumed jurisdiction of the case ) .

On DATE ORG sent the case back to ORG so that the applicant ’s case could be joined to that of other defendants in the same proceedings .

On DATE ORG held a hearing .

NORP The proceedings are pending before ORG .

For a presentation of domestic law , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , judgment of DATE .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . She is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in the same city . The respondent Government are represented by their Agents , Mr PERSON , Director - General for ORG , ORG , and Mr PERSON , Director in the same Ministry .

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

The applicant resided in GPE from DATE until DATE , when she left for GPE as her visa was about to expire . On DATE she had her car – a NORP - registered Opel Senator produced in DATE – placed in a bonded customs warehouse in the harbour of GPE ( NORP sataman vapaavarasto , Helsingfors hamns frilager ) . On her return in DATE the car was no longer to be found in the warehouse and she was informed that it had already been released .

The applicant ’s petitions to the then GPE ORG ( piiritullikamari , distriktstullkammaren ) and the harbour authorities of DATE and DATE were fruitless . By registered letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to “ the ORG ” she then filed an action against “ ORG of the western harbour of GPE ” . With reference to the negligent release of her car to persons whom she had not authorised to pick it up , she claimed , inter alia , ORG CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for the total value of the car , apparently including various optional equipment . Those working at the warehouse had , so the applicant asserted , failed to inspect carefully the identity documents presented by the strangers allegedly acting in her stead . The letter , entirely in NORP , bore the title Исковое заявление ( “ statement of claim ” ) .

The applicant received no response from the GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätt ) which forwarded the letter to ORG . The ORG registered the letter on DATE . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE it informed the applicant that the customs authorities were not responsible for the operation and maintenance of bonded warehouses . This was a matter for the GPE harbour authorities , i.e. GPE . It was the duty of the warehouse keeper to ensure that the vehicle was returned to its rightful owner . According to the information obtained by ORG , the warehouse keeper had verified that the passport shown by the person wishing to pick it up had belonged to the applicant . The car had then been transferred to the PERSON checkpoint at the NORP - Russian border , where it had been handed over to that person following a second verification of the passport . ORG advised the applicant to contact the bonded warehouse in order to find out whether her car had been handed over to the wrong person .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW ( kielilaki , språklagen DATE ) , the languages to be used before NORP courts and other ORG authorities are the national languages NORP and NORP . A PERSON permanently residing in GPE may nonetheless use that language in accordance with the Act on the Use of ORG ( laki saamin kielen käyttämisestä viranomaisissa , lagen om användning av samiska hos myndigheter CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

According to chapter DATE , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a civil case shall be initiated by a written application for a summons , submitted to the registry of a district court . The case shall become pending and its preparation shall begin upon the arrival of the application to the registry .

An application for a summons shall indicate the particularised claim of the plaintiff ; the detailed circumstances on which the claim is based ; as far as possible , the evidence that the plaintiff intends to present and what he / she intends to prove with each piece of evidence ; the claim for the compensation of legal costs , if the plaintiff deems this necessary ; and the basis for the jurisdiction of the court , unless jurisdiction can be inferred from the application for a summons or the documents enclosed with it .

In addition , the application for a summons shall indicate the name of the court ; the names , occupations and domiciles of the parties ; the telephone numbers and the postal addresses of the parties , their legal representatives or their attorneys and the witnesses and other persons to be heard ; as well as the postal address where the relevant requests , injunctions and notices can be sent . If the plaintiff is unaware of the defendant ’s address , he or she shall state what has been done to discover it . The application for a summons shall be signed by the party , or , if he or she has not drawn up the application , by the person who has drawn it up . The person who has drawn up the application shall also indicate his or her occupation and domicile ( section CARDINAL , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

If an application for a summons is incomplete , the plaintiff shall be urged to supplement it before a deadline , if this is necessary in order to continue the preparation . At the same time the plaintiff shall be informed of the respect in which the application is incomplete and that the action may be found inadmissible or be dismissed , unless the application is duly supplemented ( section CARDINAL , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The court shall rule the action inadmissible without further ado if the plaintiff fails to supplement his or her application and provided it is so incomplete that it can not be used as a basis for the proceedings , or if the court , for another reason , can not examine the action . The court shall refrain from issuing a summons and immediately dismiss the action by a judgment , if the claim of the plaintiff is manifestly ill - founded ( section CARDINAL ) .

If the action has not been ruled inadmissible or dismissed in accordance with section CARDINAL , the court shall issue a summons without delay ( section CARDINAL) .

According to the LAW on Cost - Free Proceedings ( laki maksuttomasta oikeudenkäynnistä , lagen om DATE rättegång CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time ) a NORP citizen or a foreigner , who is a party inter alia to a civil case , may be granted cost - free proceedings ( in full or in part ) if he or she can not without difficulty meet all costs and expenses . No grant shall be made , however , if the case is of minor importance to the party in question . Cost - free proceedings may be granted by the competent court even before the proceedings have commenced in the actual case ( sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . If an application to that end is refused , a separate appeal may be lodged with the court of appeal which shall deal with it speedily . In the alternative , the application may be renewed when the proceedings commence in the actual case ( section CARDINAL ) .

According to the Decree on Cost - Free Proceedings ( asetus maksuttomasta oikeudenkäynnistä , förordningen om DATE rättegång CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a legal aid applicant , who is not domiciled in GPE , shall support the request for cost - free proceedings with a declaration of his or her financial situation . This declaration shall be accompanied by a certificate issued by the competent authority in the country where the applicant is domiciled . If such a certificate can not be obtained the request may nonetheless be decided ( section CARDINAL ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Mr R.M.D. , a NORP national born in DATE , currently lives at LOC in the GPE of GPE , GPE .

On DATE , at the request of the PERSON district authority ( PERSON ) in the GPE of GPE , the GPE cantonal police arrested the applicant on a warrant issued by the district prosecutor ’s office ( PERSON ) of ORG ) and held him in custody at ORG on suspicion of having committed several thefts and other offences in the cantons of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .

On DATE his counsel applied to the ORG district prosecutor ’s office for the applicant ’s immediate release . In an order issued on DATE the district prosecutor ’s office refused the application and sent it for review by the President of ORG ( Bezirksgericht ) .

On DATE the investigating judge ( Haftrichter ) at that court declared that the application had become devoid of purpose as Mr R.M.D. had that day been transferred to the GPE of GPE and that there was accordingly no need to rule on the merits .

On DATE the applicant was indeed transferred to PERSON . On DATE , the GPE district authority ordered that the applicant be detained pending trial .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel applied by telephone to PERSON ( PERSON ) to be appointed as the applicant ’s lawyer and to be allowed to visit the applicant on DATE . The ORG replied that on DATE Mr R.M.D. was to be transferred to ORG in the GPE of GPE , at the request of the investigating judge in that GPE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG to be interviewed by the investigating judge . His counsel was informed of this in writing by ORG on DATE .

NORP The applicant ’s counsel sought to challenge the decision to keep his client in detention at ORG . However , the ORG investigating judge informed him by telephone that he himself had not made any order for PERSON R.M.D. ’s continued detention pending trial as the order issued by the PERSON district authority on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was still valid .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the town of GPE , in order to be interviewed by an investigating judge in connection with a burglary committed in the canton of GPE . On DATE , the investigating judge ordered that the applicant remain in detention pending trial .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the town of GPE .

On DATE Mr R.M.D. was transferred to the town of Schwyz .

On DATE his counsel applied to the investigating judge in ORG for his release , but the application was refused on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred back to ORG .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor ’s office ordered that he remain in detention .

On DATE , the applicant ’s counsel applied to ORG for his release . That application was refused on DATE .

On DATE Mr R.M.D. was transferred to the town of ORG .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office ordered that he remain in detention .

On DATE the applicant was once again transferred to ORG .

His counsel at once made a further application for his release , and he was released DATE .

On DATE Mr R.M.D. ’s counsel appealed to ORG ( Obergericht ) against the detention order issued on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and applied for his client ’s immediate release .

On DATE ORG of Appeal struck out the appeal on the ground that it had become devoid of purpose because , as the applicant had been transferred on DATE to ORG and on DATE to ORG , the detention order made on DATE had lapsed ( dahingefallen ) .

On DATE Mr R.M.D. ’s counsel lodged a public - law appeal with ORG against the judgment of ORG .

He asked ORG to quash the judgment of ORG and to direct that court to rule on the merits and order his client ’s immediate release . In his submission , ORG refusal to consider the merits of the case had infringed the provisions of the GPE of Lucerne Code of Criminal Procedure , LAW and the LAW guaranteeing the applicant ’s right to be given a fair trial , to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a court and to be assisted by a lawyer .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s public - law appeal .

It said , firstly , that the fact that ORG had not considered the merits of the case had not entailed an infringement of the provisions of the GPE of Lucerne Code of Criminal Procedure :

“ The view can reasonably be maintained that ORG no longer needs to consider the merits of an appeal against a detention order if the detention in the GPE of GPE ends during the appeal proceedings , either because the accused has been released or because he is detained in another canton and the detention in the GPE of GPE accordingly lapses . ORG has proceeded in a similar manner : leaving aside exceptional cases , it will regard an appeal against detention as having become devoid of purpose and strike it out of its list if the applicant has been released during the ORG proceedings ... The justification it gives for this case - law is that in such a case there is no longer a live practical interest in securing a decision on the appeal against detention , even in respect of any claims for compensation and satisfaction ... These considerations are applicable also in relation to cantonal appeal proceedings . The applicant can still maintain in any subsequent compensation proceedings that he was unlawfully arrested in the GPE of GPE . ”

With regard to the procedure for “ amalgamation ” ( ORG ) of the judicial investigations in respect of PERSON R.M.D. that had been launched in various cantons , ORG held that , in order to avoid any uncertainty about who had jurisdiction to order a person ’s detention at the beginning of an investigation , it was important to establish clearly whether and when detention in a given canton came to an end so as to enable the person detained to apply to the relevant cantonal court . For that reason it would have been preferable for ORG to have indicated in writing that the applicant ’s detention in the GPE of GPE had come to an end and that PERSON R.M.D. was thereafter subject to the jurisdiction of the authorities in GPE . However , that did not alter the fact that ORG had not in its judgment infringed either the provisions of the LAW relating to personal freedom or LAW , seeing that when the applicant had lodged his appeal he was no longer in detention in the GPE of GPE .

Lastly , ORG declared the applicant ’s complaint under LAW ( c ) of the LAW inadmissible because the question whether a lawyer had officially been assigned to represent him had not been raised in ORG .

The first and second sub - paragraphs of LAW bis of LAW of ORG provide :

“ The ORG shall have the right to legislate on criminal law .

The organisation of the judiciary , court procedure and the administration of justice shall be matters for the cantons ... ”

Each canton consequently applies its own code of criminal procedure .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Where an accused is prosecuted for several offences committed in different places , the authority of the place where the offence carrying the heaviest penalty has been committed shall also have jurisdiction to prosecute and try the other offences .

If the different offences carry the same penalty , jurisdiction shall vest in the authority of the place where the first investigation was begun .

Where an accused , contrary to the rules governing multiple offences ( Article DATE ) , has been sentenced by several courts to several terms of imprisonment , the court which has sentenced him to the heaviest penalty shall , on an application by the convicted person , fix a consolidated sentence . ”

“ If there is a dispute over jurisdiction between the authorities of several cantons , the ORG shall determine which GPE has the right and obligation to prosecute and try the accused . ”

The relevant provisions of the GPE of Lucerne Code of Criminal Procedure ( Luzerner GPE ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ...

Where an order has been issued by the ORG , the prosecutor or a lower court or its president for the detention of an accused pending trial , the accused may appeal against the order to ORG . He must be informed of this right .

ORG shall rule on the appeal within DATE . ”

“ CARDINAL . An order for detention pending trial shall lapse after DATE . If the reason for keeping the accused in detention continues to apply , the authority dealing with the case must order that he remain in detention . Such detention may not exceed DATE ...

A person detained may at any time apply to the authority dealing with his case for release . The authority must rule on the application within DATE .

If the ORG , the prosecutor or a lower court or its president orders that the accused remain in detention or refuses an application for his release , the accused may appeal to ORG , which shall rule on the appeal within DATE . ”


A.

On DATE the ORG father , PERSON , was knocked down by a taxi . He died in hospital on DATE , without having regained consciousness .

On DATE the applicants met with the Procurator Fiscal who was investigating their father ’s death . On DATE ORG wrote to the applicants informing them that he was entering a verdict of “ no proceedings ” .

On DATE the applicants obtained from the police the “ Abstract of Road Occurrence Report ” , containing the names and addresses of CARDINAL witnesses to the accident , namely the taxi - driver and a DATE boy , and QUANTITY police officers who attended the scene after the accident . The applicants’ solicitor took statements from the first CARDINAL witnesses , but the applicants were unable to understand how the accident had taken place .

On DATE the Lord Advocate wrote to the first applicant ’s Member of ORG as follows :

“ I have carefully considered the report and statements which were submitted by the Procurator Fiscal in relation to the death of PERSON and I do not consider it appropriate to instruct a Fatal Accident Inquiry in this particular case . The matter has been fully investigated by the police and ORG and all eye witnesses have been precognosced by LOC .

I understand that the Procurator Fiscal spent some considerable time with your constituent ’s brother , Mr PERSON , and his wife , outlining to them the evidence of the various witnesses . The Procurator Fiscal also provided Mr PERSON with a list of the names and addresses of those witnesses to enable him to interview them personally if he wished to do so . Mr PERSON was also permitted to read the autopsy report .

As you will appreciate the police report to ORG and the Procurator Fiscal ’s report to ORG are confidential and , accordingly , your constituent can not be provided with copies of these documents . ... ”

On DATE the applicants again met with PERSON , who refused the ORG request for ORG , and also refused to grant the applicants access to all the documentation relating to their father ’s death . On DATE the applicants obtained the post - mortem report relating to their father ’s death .

On DATE the Lord Advocate again wrote to the first applicant ’s Member of ORG :

“ I understand that you telephoned ... enquiring as to the reasons for confidentiality attaching to the reports which your constituent , Mr PERSON , has requested copies of .

There is a long and unbroken line of judicial authority that reports by the police to the Procurator Fiscal and communications between the Procurator Fiscal and ORG are very highly confidential and ORG would only order their production to a third party where it is necessary for the ends of justice in view of some great and overwhelming necessity . In the circumstances of this case I can not see that there is any great necessity . Indeed ... nothing material has been withheld . ”

On DATE the applicants were informed by their solicitor that “ in view of all the facts , lack of witnesses and the policy of the authorities ” , it would not be possible for them to proceed with a civil action or force a ORG .

On DATE an adjournment debate about the issues surrounding the applicants’ father ’s death was held in ORG . On behalf of the Government , the Parliamentary Under - Secretary of ORG for GPE explained that :

“ In the case of road traffic fatalities , a fatal accident inquiry would normally be held only if it was thought that there was a need to inquire into such matters as the layout of the road , the appropriateness of any speed limits at the locus , or the adequacy of street lighting . In other words , do the circumstances of the accident give rise to concerns about road safety ? Where it is considered that the driver of a vehicle was at fault to the extent that his driving was thought to have been careless or reckless , the appropriate step is for criminal proceedings to be instituted . Where criminal proceedings are not appropriate and no issues of road safety are raised , a fatal accident inquiry will not usually be held , especially where the investigations by the police and fiscal have already clearly established the circumstances leading up to the accident . ”

He continued :

“ No material information was withheld from the family . They remained dissatisfied , however , because they had not been shown the police report or the DATE ’s report . The police report was simply a summary of the evidence , the details of which had already been provided to the family .

The DATE ’s report was accompanied by the statements of the witnesses but was itself an assessment of that evidence and a recommendation by the fiscal to ORG counsel as to whether a fatal accident inquiry should be held . The fiscal is clearly entitled to make an assessment of the evidence and offer his opinion to ORG counsel on a confidential basis . ... ”

On DATE the second applicant wrote to the Procurator Fiscal requesting the official police sketch of the scene of the accident and photographs taken by the police . The Procurator Fiscal replied on DATE , enclosing a copy of the sketch plan and advising the applicant to contact the police directly in respect of the photographs . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the photographs had been disposed of . On DATE the first applicant wrote to the newly - appointed Lord Advocate again requesting an inquiry into his father ’s death . The Lord Advocate replied on DATE stating that he had read the papers in the case and agreed with the decision not to carry out a ORG .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

ORG and Sudden Deaths Inquiry ( GPE ) Act DATE ( “ the LAW ” ) places an obligation on the Lord Advocate to hold an inquiry into any death in custody or following an accident at work , unless the circumstances of the death have been established in the course of criminal proceedings . As regards other deaths , it is at the discretion of the Lord Advocate to decide whether it is expedient in the public interest to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of the death on the ground that it was sudden , suspicious or unexplained , or occurred in circumstances such as to give rise to serious public concern .

In practice , the Procurator Fiscal investigates all sudden , suspicious , accidental and unexplained deaths , and informs ORG where there are suspicious circumstances , where it appears that a crime has been committed and there is a possibility that proceedings might be instituted , where the circumstances point to suicide , or where there has been a request by an interested person that a ORG be held . ORG then decides on behalf of the Lord Advocate whether the circumstances of the death give rise to serious public concern such as to justify the holding of an inquiry .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE CARDINAL police officers , in the course of a murder investigation , searched the applicant ’s home . They found CARDINAL hunting - gun cartridges and arrested the applicant for the unlawful possession of ammunition . On DATE the police opened a criminal investigation against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as a suspect .

On DATE the case was referred to ORG of the Zaliznychnyy ORG of GPE . The responsible investigator charged the applicant with the unlawful possession of ammunition and authorised his detention on remand .

On DATE the investigator ordered an expert ballistic examination of the cartridges found in the applicant ’s home to determine whether they fell into the category of ammunition . The expert ’s opinion was submitted on DATE .

On DATE the investigator questioned witnesses and , on DATE , the police officers who had conducted the search in the applicant ’s home .

On DATE the case file was transferred to ORG of GPE . On DATE an investigator attached to this ORG took over the case .

The investigation was completed on DATE and the applicant and his lawyer were given access to the case file . On DATE they finished studying it . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer unsuccessfully requested the investigator to terminate the proceedings for a lack of corpus delicti .

On DATE the indictment was approved by the district prosecutor and sent to ORG of Kyiv ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE the judge of ORG committed the applicant to trial . In his decision the judge also decided that the applicant ’s “ remand shall remain unchanged ” .

The court held hearings on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . CARDINAL scheduled hearings were cancelled : on DATE witnesses were absent ( the court issued compulsory summonses in their respect for the following sittings ) and on CARDINAL DATE a judge was unavailable . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court heard evidence , but had to adjourn the case due to the failure of the witnesses to appear .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested that the case be referred for further investigation . On DATE ORG granted this request , citing the lack of reliable evidence collected by the authorities . By the same decision , the applicant was released on bail ( a sum of ORG MONEY was deposited with ORG ) .

On DATE ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) , allowing the appeal of the prosecution , quashed the decision to remit the case for reinvestigation . The court held that any flaws or shortcomings in the evidence could be assessed and , if need be , rectified during the trial .

DATE the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of the applicant ’s request for supervisory review of ORG decision . On DATE ORG rejected this request .

On DATE ORG resumed the trial and , on DATE , found the applicant guilty of the unlawful possession of ammunition and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , suspended on probation . The court relied primarily on the police search record and the expert evidence that the cartridges found in the applicant ’s apartment were indeed ammunition within the meaning of LAW . The applicant and the prosecution appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for a fresh consideration .

In DATE ORG recommenced the trial . DATE the court held CARDINAL hearings ( on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ) , during which CARDINAL witnesses and an expert were heard . As on each occasion an unnamed witness failed to attend , the sittings were adjourned .

On DATE ORG , on the applicant ’s request , remitted the case for further investigation . The court established that neither the applicant nor witnesses had been present when the police officers found the cartridges in his apartment . Moreover , the warrant was issued in breach of procedural rules and the search report submitted to the court was not the CARDINAL drawn up on DATE and signed by the applicant and the witnesses . The court also indicated that the expert ballistic report could not be used in evidence as it had been produced in breach of procedural requirements .

On DATE an investigator attached to ORG terminated the proceedings due to the lack of any corpus delicti . The investigator referred essentially to the circumstances relied on by the court when remitting the case for further investigation .

The applicant alleged that he was not informed about this decision . Thus , in DATE his lawyer lodged an administrative complaint under LAW , challenging the lack of progress in the investigation .

The Government stated that the applicant had been informed in a timely manner about the termination of his case and , through his administrative complaint , he had contested the investigator ’s ruling of DATE . However , the decision of ORG of DATE , on this complaint , indicates that the applicant challenged the “ suspension ” ( зупинення ) not the “ termination ” ( закриття ) of his case . Moreover , in his complaint he requested that his case be terminated due to the absence of any corpus delicti .

In the above - mentioned decision of DATE , ORG held that it had no administrative jurisdiction to determine the applicant ’s complaints since the investigative authorities’ acts and omissions could only be reviewed within the framework of the criminal trial . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

The applicant alleged that it was not until he applied to the ORG , seeking information about the developments in his case , that ORG informed him , by a letter of CARDINAL October CARDINAL , that the proceedings had been terminated . On DATE the investigator of ORG ordered the return of the applicant ’s bail money .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a request for compensation for unlawful criminal prosecution . Its outcome is unclear , although , in view of the subsequent developments ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it was probably disregarded .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE to terminate the proceedings against the applicant as being premature , and ordered a further investigation into the purported offence .

On DATE the investigator attached to ORG terminated the proceedings due to the lack of any corpus delicti .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provides :

“ Unlawful ... possession ... of firearms ( except for smooth - bore hunting guns ) , ammunition or explosives without the relevant permission ... shall be punished by imprisonment from DATE . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code enumerates the reasons for the termination of criminal proceedings , including the absence of any corpus delicti .

Articles DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code oblige the witness , summoned by the court or the investigative authorities , to attend and give evidence . In case of his / her failure to comply with the summons , the authority concerned may issue a compulsory summons , enforceable by the police . The ORG repeated failure to appear in court without valid justification is punishable under LAW .

Chapter DATE ( ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Code governs the suspension of criminal proceedings .

Articles CARDINAL ( the general principles on the application of preventive measures ) and CARDINAL ( the conditions for a remand in custody ) may be found in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE ... ( extracts ) ) .

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code ( the application of bail ) and the relevant provisions of ORG . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG of GPE on the practice when applying bail as a preventive measure , are set out in the decision of DATE in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL provides that , on completion of the investigation , the investigator either draws up an indictment or terminates the case .

According to LAW can be closed by the investigator on both exonerating and non - exonerating grounds .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL empowers the prosecutor to quash any investigator ’s decision .

At the material time , LAW ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , which regulates the appeal against the investigator ’s decision , did not contain the defendant ’s right to challenge the decision to institute or re - institute criminal proceedings .

According to LAW , citizens are entitled to compensation for damage caused by :

CARDINAL ) an unlawful conviction , unlawful indictment , unlawful arrest and detention on remand , unlawful search , unlawful attachment of property , unlawful suspension from work and other procedural actions that affect their rights ;

CARDINAL ) an unlawful administrative arrest or correctional labour , unlawful forfeiture of property , and the unlawful imposition of fines ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the unlawful conduct of operational investigative activities .

LAW ( the ratione personae scope of this PERSON ) may be found in the judgment of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL provides that the amount of the compensation is determined by the authority which conducted the investigation or the court which tried the case . If the applicant considers the awarded amount insufficient , he / she may challenge this decision before a court or a court of appeal respectively .


Mrs PERSON is a doctor employed at the local health unit ( “ the ORG ” ) in GPE , where she lives .

On DATE she instituted proceedings in ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for judicial review of a decision of the ORG assigning her , at the time when she was recruited to a permanent post , to a staff category lower than the one to which she considered herself to be entitled .

On DATE the applicant asked for a date to be fixed for the hearing .

According to the information supplied at the hearing before the ORG by the applicant 's representative , the proceedings were then still pending .


No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 8

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other men were drinking in a bar , “ LOC ” , in GPE . Around TIME a fight broke out outside the bar . CARDINAL police officers , GPE and PERSON , saw the fight . They parked their car and approached the fighting men . They saw that CARDINAL man was lying on the ground ( later it turned out that it was the applicant ) , while CARDINAL others were kicking and beating him . As the police officers were in plain clothes they showed their police identification cards and ordered the men to stop fighting .

Subsequently , several other police cars and an ambulance arrived . There were QUANTITY police officers at the scene . The arrival of the policemen caused some persons to run away , whereas the applicant himself went into the bar . The applicant refused to go to the hospital , claiming that he was not injured . He was also verbally aggressive towards the police officers . Police officer GPE attempted to apprehend him and a struggle ensued . CARDINAL other police officers , GPE and GPE , then tried to overpower the applicant , but to no effect as he was very aggressive . The police officers resorted to the use of truncheons . The applicant was handcuffed and placed in a police car . As he refused to get in the car he was again hit with a truncheon on his legs . He was then driven to a sobering - up centre in NORP . Upon his arrival , the applicant was allegedly still aggressive and therefore was again hit with a truncheon .

ORG ( karta pobytu ) no . CARDINAL , which contains the record of the applicant 's presence at the NORP soberingup centre , provides , inter alia , the following description of his medical condition :

“ recent truncheon marks on the skin of the head and the back ”

The Detention Card also provides that at the time of the applicant 's arrival at the centre his breath test showed a blood alcohol level of CARDINAL ‰.

On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical doctor . In his report the doctor wrote :

“ Numerous bruises are observed , in particular : on both sides of the head and left part of the neck , bruises in the shape of stripes on the right of the chest , right shoulder , right shoulder blade , round bracelet bruises on both wrists , most probably from handcuffs and round bruises above wrists , single bruises in the shape of stripes on the left buttock , thigh and the lower leg . “

The applicant and CARDINAL other men ( “ GPE ” , “ FAC ” , “ FAC , “ PERSON ” , and “ PERSON ) arrested with him on TIME DATE reported the incident to the prosecution authorities . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , GPE and ORG respectively lodged complaints with ORG ( GPE ORG ) . They alleged that they had been beaten by the police officers during the arrest on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE an investigation was instituted . Subsequently , on DATE the applicant presented himself at ORG and lodged a complaint about the police . He complained that upon his arrival at the sobering - up centre he had been dragged out of the police car , pushed on the ground and beaten and kicked by the police officers . He claimed that during the whole incident he had been handcuffed . CARDINAL further victims of the alleged police ill - treatment lodged their complaints with ORG on the following dates : PERSON on DATE , ORG on DATE and PERSON on DATE .

During the course of investigation proceedings the Prosecutor heard evidence from the applicant and CARDINAL other alleged victims , from the CARDINAL police officers who took part in the intervention , employees of the sobering up - centre , the ambulance personnel , the owner of the bar “ LOC ” and his family , and other clients of the bar who were present during the intervention .

As there were discrepancies between the medical reports produced by the applicant and the other men and their detention cards from the soberingup centre , the prosecution also obtained a medical report which was submitted on DATE . It reads in so far as relevant :

“ The bruises and haematomas on the applicant 's head and neck were caused by a blow with a hard and blunt object , and they could have been caused by kicking during the incident that took place in front of the Bar “ U Rysia ” . Stripe shaped bruises were caused by blows with a hard , blunt and long object , which could have been a police truncheon . The injuries sustained by the applicant caused bodily harm lasting no longer than DATE ( Art . CARDINAL § CARDINAL criminal code ) . ”

On DATE the Suwałki District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation into the allegations made by the applicant and the CARDINAL other men and refused to prosecute the police officers involved in the incident of DATE . In its decision the Prosecutor stated that while it is true that the policeman used physical force against the applicant and CARDINAL other men , the use of force was justified under the circumstances of the instant case . The testimonies of the police officers were credible and coherent . On the other hand the victims ' testimonies were highly doubtful . In particular , except for CARDINAL , they all claimed that no fight had taken place and that the injuries that they sustained had been the result of the police intervention . CARDINAL victim , GPE , expressly stated that “ all those involved in the fight were apprehended by the police ” . Finally , the Prosecutor observed that there was not enough evidence to lead to the conclusion that the police officers had committed an offence described in LAW .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with the Suwałki Regional Prosecutor . ORG advised the applicant that he could not see any grounds for allowing his appeal and had therefore transmitted it along with the case file to ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) .

On DATE the Suwałki ORG upheld the ORG 's decision . The court held that the prosecutor 's decision was well reasoned . It further stressed that when testifying , the policemen had admitted that they had used force while arresting the applicant and CARDINAL other persons . There was no further evidence to lead to the conclusion that the police officers had lied when testifying . This decision was final .

At the time of lodging his application with the ORG the applicant was detained in the course of criminal proceedings against him . As of an unknown date in DATE he has been serving a prison sentence .

On DATE , ORG received the applicant 's first letter dated DATE . The letter was delivered in an envelope bearing a red stamp which read “ Censored on DATE , Prosecutor of the Regional Prosecution Office ” and an illegible signature ( Cenzurowano CARDINAL grudnia DATE , Prokurator Prokuratury Okręgowej ) .

On DATE , DATE , ORG received another CARDINAL letters from the applicant . They were all delivered in envelopes bearing a red stamp “ censored ( cenzurowano ) ” . They also bear a stamp “ FAC in DATE ( PERSON w ORG ) and another red stamp reading “ Censored on ... Prosecutor of the Regional Prosecution Office ” , a handwritten date and a signature .

In his correspondence with ORG , the applicant stated that all letters sent to him by the ORG had been censored by ORG in Suwałki . In this respect he submitted an envelope from ORG which was sent to him on DATE . That envelope is marked with a purple stamp which reads “ Censored ” ; it also bears a handwritten date , DATE , and an illegible signature .

NORP The relevant parts of LAW , provide :

“ § CARDINAL A person who causes bodily harm or ill health lasting no longer than DATE shall be liable to a fine , a penalty of the restriction of liberty or imprisonment for a term not exceeding DATE .

§ CARDINAL If a person who committed an act described in ( ... ) § CARDINAL acts without intent , he shall be liable to a fine , a penalty of the restriction of liberty or imprisonment for a term not exceeding CARDINAL year .

§ CARDINAL The prosecution of a crime described in § CARDINAL or CARDINAL , if bodily harm or ill health occasioned lasted no longer than DATE , shall take place under private indictment . ... ”

The relevant parts of Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If a lawful order given by a police authority or a policeman has not been complied with , policemen may apply the following coercive measures :

CARDINAL ) NORP physical , technical and chemical means of restraining or escorting persons or of stopping vehicles ;

CARDINAL ) NORP truncheons ;

CARDINAL ) NORP water cannons ;

CARDINAL ) NORP police dogs and horses ;

CARDINAL ) rubber bullets fired from fire - arms ;

Policemen may apply only such coercive measures that correspond to the exigencies of a given situation and are necessary to ensure their orders are obeyed . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Ordinance of ORG DATE on the Use of Coercive Measures by the Police provides :

“ CARDINAL . Physical force shall be used in order to restrain a person , to counter an attack or to make [ a person ] obey an order .

NORP When using physical force , no one shall hit a person , unless he has to do so in self - defence or in order to counter an unlawful attack against life , health or property of others . ”

The relevant part of paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

“ Handcuffs may be used ( ... ) in order to prevent an escape or to prevent an active assault or active resistance . ... ”

According to LAW of DATE on ORG in GPE and Counteracting Alcoholism , sobering - up centres are operated by local authorities .

The relevant parts of LAW of the PERSON provide :

“ CARDINAL . Intoxicated persons who behave offensively in a public place or a place of employment , are in a condition endangering their life or health , or are themselves endangering other persons ' life or health , may be taken to a sobering - up centre or a public health care facility , or to their place of residence .

[ Intoxicated ] persons who have been taken to a sobering - up centre or a police station shall remain there until they are sober but no longer than TIME . ... ”

NORP The relevant domestic law concerning the censorship of correspondence is set out in the ORG 's judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in FAC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody . It justified the applicant ’s pretrial detention by the gravity of the offence , the existence of strong evidence against him , the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed and by the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings .

The applicant ’s appeal against the decision to remand him in custody was unsuccessful . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , relying on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a serious offence , upheld ORG decision .

The applicant ’s pretrial detention was subsequently extended by decisions of ORG of , inter alia , DATE , DATE , DATE ( upheld by ORG on DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

Once the length of the applicant ’s detention had reached the statutory twoyear maximum laid down in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ) , the firstinstance court was no longer competent to extend it . Consequently , it was ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) which issued further extensions on , inter alia , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

The courts repeatedly justified the applicant ’s pretrial detention in the initial phase by the existence of strong evidence against him , the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed and the reasonable risk that the applicant would attempt either to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by other unlawful means . They further stressed that it would be necessary to hear evidence from a large number of witnesses and to obtain expert reports .

In the latter stages of the applicant ’s detention , the courts additionally referred to the complexity of the case and the fact that there was strong evidence against him and other defendants .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was indicted on a charge of murder allegedly committed with CARDINAL accomplices , who were also on trial .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and his codefendants as charged . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

The prosecutor and the lawyers of all CARDINAL defendants lodged appeals .

On DATE ORG upheld the substance of the firstinstance judgment concerning the characterisation of the charges and the sentence .

On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its prolongation and release from detention and the rules governing other , socalled “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Pavlina Panova;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

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

The first and the second applicants are husband and wife and the third applicant is their daughter .

NORP In DATE the first and the second applicants bought from the GPE municipality an apartment of QUANTITY , which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in GPE in DATE and DATE .

In DATE the heirs of the former pre - nationalisation owner of the property brought proceedings against the first and the second applicants under section CARDINAL of LAW .

The proceedings ended by a final judgment of ORG DATE . The courts restored the former ORG title , finding that the first and the second applicants’ title had been null and void ab initio on CARDINAL grounds : CARDINAL ) the sale contract had not been signed by the mayor , as required by law , but by another official of the municipality . Although the mayor had been authorised to delegate the power to sign contracts , he had not made a valid delegation in the case at hand ; CARDINAL ) the initial decision to sell the property had not been signed by the mayor of the region , as required by law , but by another official ; and CARDINAL ) the disputed apartment had been a part of a bigger apartment , which had on an unspecified date before DATE been divided into CARDINAL smaller ones ; this division had not been carried out in accordance with the respective construction rules .

The first and the second applicants could apply , within DATE following the judgment of ORG DATE , for compensation bonds from the ORG . Those bonds could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers . The first and second applicants did not avail themselves of this opportunity .

By DATE the CARDINAL applicants were living in the apartment . In DATE they vacated the property .

NORP In DATE the heirs of the former owner brought an action for damages against them for having used the apartment unlawfully , as they had not been its owners . The claim concerned the period from DATE as for DATE it was barred by the general DATE statutory limitation .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG allowed the claim accepting that as the first and second applicants’ title had never been valid , the former ORG title had been restored as of the date of entry into force of LAW in DATE . After that date , the applicants had had no right to use the apartment .

On DATE the ORG upheld that judgment . The applicants did not submit a cassation appeal considering that it would stand no chances of success .

NORP In DATE the first and second applicants paid to the former owners of the apartment MONEY ( ORG ) , the equivalent of QUANTITY , and the third applicant paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the equivalent of LAW .

The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice concerning the effect on third parties of the denationalisation legislation adopted in GPE in DATE have been summarised in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , and CARDINAL , DATE .

In a judgment of DATE ( judgment no . CARDINAL in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG dismissed an appeal by defendants whose title to an apartment had been found to be null and void under the terms of section CARDINAL of LAW and who had been ordered by the lower courts to pay damages to the property ’s former owners , for having used it on an invalid ground . ORG rejected an objection by the defendants that prior to the final judgment under section CARDINAL they had lawfully possessed the apartment at issue pointing out that their title had been null and void ab initio . It held that

“ [ ORG a legal category , the nullity of a legal action results in its complete incapability of producing the legal consequences sought . This incapability exists from the beginning , in other words , the contract , which has been subject to the action under LAW [ of LAW ] , was null and void , irrespective of when this nullity was declared by the courts . ”

ORG went on to conclude :

“ ... as from the date of entry of the [ Restitution Law ] into force , [ the defendants ] possessed the property on no valid legal ground and that is why this date has rightly been accepted as a starting date of [ their ] liability for damages . ”


CASE OF KONDRATISHKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 6

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and lived until their arrest and subsequent conviction in the town of GPE , GPE , except for the fourth applicant , who lived in GPE , GPE .

DATE ( on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ) the applicants were arrested . They were detained in custody and charged with robbery .

NORP In DATE the applicants were charged with further crimes which included , inter alia , aggravated theft , aggravated robbery , extortion , theft and illegal possession of firearms .

In DATE the criminal investigation was completed , and on DATE the case was submitted to ORG for trial .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for further investigation , considering that it was necessary to rectify the indictment .

Following further investigation and the amendment of the charges against the applicants , the case was resubmitted to ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG set the date for the start of the trial , which was due to begin on DATE .

DATE and DATE TIME hearings were held by ORG .

On DATE , following a request by the alleged victims , the case was once again remitted for further investigation .

DATE and DATE the case was with ORG .

On DATE the case was resubmitted to ORG for examination on the merits .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicants , along with CARDINAL other co - defendants , of robbery , unlawful deprivation of liberty , banditry , possession of firearms and theft . It sentenced them to DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL years’ imprisonment respectively . Although the trial was public , the applicants’ relatives were not allowed to attend it , except for the opening of the trial and the delivery of the court ’s judgment .

The trial record was finalised in DATE . The applicants submitted certain objections concerning the trial record , but they were dismissed .

All the applicants except for the fifth applicant appealed against their conviction .

On DATE the criminal case was sent to ORG of GPE for examination on appeal .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicants’ convictions with minor amendments . The terms of the applicants’ sentences remained unchanged . The appeal decision did not refer to the fifth applicant .

On DATE , the day of his arrest , the third applicant was at work at fire station no . CARDINAL in GPE in GPE . At CARDINAL a.m. unidentified persons wearing plain clothes handcuffed the third applicant and took him to the LOC police station in PERSON . On the way to the police station the applicant was allegedly beaten up and threatened , in order to make him confess to a number of grave offences .

At the police station the applicant was taken to room no . DATE , where the beatings allegedly continued .

Late at TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was taken to PERSON regional remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . However , the officer on duty refused to admit the applicant to the facility . The officer agreed to admit the applicant only following the latter ’s examination by the local trauma unit and upon receipt of a certificate attesting to the fact that the applicant ’s injuries were not life - threatening .

The applicant was taken to the local trauma unit . On the way to the trauma unit the applicant was allegedly threatened that he would be subjected to even worse ill - treatment , if not killed , unless he told the doctors that he had been injured by falling down a fire escape while at work . Having perceived the above - mentioned threats as real , in the light of his earlier abuse , the applicant told the doctors what the police officers had instructed him to say . The record of the applicant ’s medical examination of CARDINAL DATE by the trauma unit was not made available to the ORG .

It is unclear where the applicant was held DATE and DATE . It is clear , however , that on DATE the police officers brought him again to the PERSON regional remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The record of the applicant ’s medical examination , which was carried out upon his admission , reads , in particular , as follows :

“ ... The [ applicant ’s ] general condition is satisfactory . On the back surface of his shoulder [ there is ] a yellow - brown bruise measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY . On his left thigh [ there is ] a pale yellow bruise measuring QUANTITY . [ According to the applicant ] he was beaten up on DATE at the LOC police station . ... ”

As emerges from the documents furnished by the ORG , DATE the applicant persistently complained to the prosecution authorities about his beatings at the LOC police station .

The Government were unable to provide copies of the decisions taken in response to the applicant ’s complaints as all the documents pertaining to the respective inquiries were destroyed on DATE , following the expiry of the time - limit for their retention . The Government , however , relied on the decisions of DATE and DATE with the following conclusions .

On DATE ORG Office of PERSON refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in the absence of corpus delicti in their actions .

Following a further inquiry , on DATE ORG terminated the criminal prosecution against the police officers in the absence of corpus delicti .

In the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicants which ended with their conviction on DATE , the third applicant also complained that he had been ill - treated during police custody and submitted that his confession had been made under duress .

According to the third applicant , at some point in the proceedings the court heard his co - workers , PERSON . , the head of the fire station , and PERSON , commander of the fire guard , who submitted that no exercise had been performed at the fire station on DATE , so the applicant could not have fallen down a fire escape . They further confirmed having seen no traces of injuries on the applicant when he was changing into his uniform before starting his work at TIME DATE . The testimony of the above persons does not appear in the text of the judgment by which the applicant was convicted . The Government did not contest that the above persons made the statements in question before the court .

The court held as follows :

“ ... Analysing [ the applicant ’s ] statements about the alleged use on him of unlawful methods of interrogation ( ill - treatment by [ police officer ] PERSON ) and statements by [ witness P. ] questioned at the court hearing , the court notes a manifest discrepancy as to how and under which circumstances [ the applicant and witness P. ] met in DATE in GPE ( remand prison ) , as to what they discussed ... and what particular form of ill - treatment was applied to the [ applicant ] ; [ as well as ] a discrepancy between [ the applicant ’s ] own statements about the same circumstances made at this court hearing and at the court hearing of CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

At the court [ witness P. ] submitted that he had known [ the applicant ] only by sight , [ the applicant ’s ] last name was conveyed to him by the investigator who questioned him in the [ correctional ] facility .

It follows from the statements of [ witness P. ] read out in accordance with LAW of LAW , that he knew [ the applicant ] well before the [ latter ’s ] arrest , since they lived close to each other , although they have never been friends .

[ The applicant ] submitted at the court hearing that he was never acquainted with [ witness P. ] , and that he knew [ the latter ] only by sight .

At the same time it has been established at the court hearing that in GPE [ witness P. ] met and talked to S. [ one of the applicant ’s co - defendants ] , which the latter confirmed . On this occasion , PERSON submitted that it was [ witness P. ] who told him about [ the applicant ’s ] ill - treatment by the police officers , and that he told [ the applicant ] about [ witness P. ] when they were brought to court in DATE , after which a request was made to summon [ witness P. ] and question him as an additional witness .

Taking into account the inconsistency of the statements made by [ witness P. ] and their manifest contradiction with [ the applicant ’s ] statements , the court considers [ these ] statements as to [ witness P. ] having seen the police officer beating [ the applicant ] [ to be ] unreliable .

According to [ the certificate issued by the local trauma unit ( карточка травматика ) ] , [ the certificate of the medical department of the remand prison ( справка МЧС СИЗО ) ] and the report of the forensic medical expert , bodily injuries in the form of bruises were found on [ the applicant ] . At the same time , it is impossible to establish the exact features of the object used to cause the injuries , [ as well as ] the time that the injuries mentioned in the [ trauma unit certificate ] of DATE were inflicted . The time of the infliction of the injuries recorded on DATE at the [ medical department of the remand prison ] corresponds to DATE prior to [ the applicant ’s ] examination at [ the remand prison ] ( namely , DATE ) .

[ Police officer PERSON ] submitted that he had not been involved in [ the investigation ] of the crimes with which [ the applicant ] and [ other defendants ] had been charged , as at the material time he had been involved in investigating crimes committed by juvenile offenders .

These statements by [ police officer PERSON ] were corroborated by the head of the LOC police station .

[ The applicant ’s ] statements [ to the effect ] that he had had a conflict with [ police officer PERSON ] prior to his arrest , during which [ police officer PERSON ] allegedly swore to get even with [ the applicant ] and the reference to submissions by [ witness NORP ] , have been checked during the pre - trial investigation and have not been confirmed .

[ Investigator PERSON ] denied using physical force on [ the applicant ] or other defendants , as well as making any threats to use physical force . The defendants were in due time informed of their procedural rights . The records of the interrogations were drawn up verbatim ...

The verification of the allegations of [ the applicant ] that he had been beaten by [ police officer PERSON ] and other police officers and the allegations of defendants PERSON , B. , [ the applicant ] , ORG . , ORG . , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON regarding unlawful actions of police officers aimed at obtaining their confessions allows the court to acknowledge that the conclusions [ contained in the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers ] are well - founded ... ”

The third applicant challenged the above conclusions of the trial court in his appeal against conviction .

In its judgment of DATE ORG held as follows :

“ The alleged use on the convicts of unpermitted methods in the course of the pre - trial investigation ... has been checked by the court and has been validly declared to be unfounded as contradicting the factual circumstances and the evidence in this case , a conclusion with which the [ appeal court ] agrees ” .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was held in PERSON regional remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( учреждение ИЗ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL по PERSON области ) in cells nos . DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL .

As regards the ORG measurements , the Government submitted as follows :

( a ) cell no . CARDINAL measures QUANTITY ;

( b ) cell no . CARDINAL measures QUANTITY ;

( c ) cell no . CARDINAL measures QUANTITY ;

( d ) cells no . DATE and CARDINAL measure QUANTITY ; and

( e ) cells no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL measure QUANTITY .

The Government were unable to indicate the exact number of inmates detained in the above cells together with the applicant , owing to the destruction of the relevant prison documentation for the period in question . They asserted , however , that in each cell the applicant was afforded QUANTITY of personal space , in compliance with the requirements under domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In each cell the applicant was provided with an individual bed and bedding .

The windows in the cells , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , were not covered with sheet metal . The white - painted metal screens were removed in the course of DATE , following the instruction of ORG of DATE .

Cells nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL were each lit with CARDINAL CARDINAL-watt light bulbs , which conformed to the established legal norms . Cells nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL were lit with CARDINAL CARDINAL-watt light bulb each . At TIME time the cells were lit with CARDINAL security lights .

All cells had natural ventilation and were equipped with extractor fans . The cells were also equipped with a heating system providing an adequate temperature in line with sanitary norms . The average temperature during DATE was maintained at + CARDINAL - CARDINAL ºC , and during DATE at + DATE

The cells were equipped with lavatory pans separated from the main area by partitions QUANTITY high and a door . Such arrangements assured the GPE privacy when using the lavatory .

The applicant could take a TIME shower once a week .

He was given food CARDINAL times a day in accordance with the established legal norms . The quality of the food was monitored on a DATE basis by the medical staff of the detention facility .

The cells were equipped with dining tables enabling the inmates to eat at the same time . They were situated at a distance of QUANTITY from the lavatories .

The applicant was allowed a DATE TIME outside walk .

The authorities ensured regular disinfection and pest control in the detention facility .

In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the governor of IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL remand prison on DATE and DATE , certain documents which attested to the destruction of registration logs , following the expiry of the DATE time - limit for their retention ( dated DATE ) , statements by wardens ( undated ) and an agreement of DATE between the IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL remand prison and GPE Pest Control Station on carrying out disinfection works in the facility .

The cells were extremely overcrowded . There were CARDINAL inmates held in each cell , which implied CARDINAL or CARDINAL inmates per QUANTITY of cell space . The inmates had to take turns to sleep as the sleeping places were not sufficient for everyone .

The windows in the cells were covered with metal screens , which provided little or no access to daylight . The screens were removed after the applicant had left the facility .

The artificial light was insufficient . It was impossible to read without having to strain one ’s eyes .

The ventilation did not function . As a result , it was always stuffy in the cells . The cells could only be ventilated when the windows and the doors were flung open during DATE which was , however , very rare .

The cells were not heated enough to avoid humidity from the very beginning of autumn until DATE . The walls were dirty , scuffed , with plaster falling off them . The walls near the lavatory area were covered with fungi caused by humidity . In cells nos . DATE and DATE , where the applicant spent most of his time the roof was leaking from the corners . The corners of the cells were covered with mould . The temperatures were low and the inmates had to sleep with all their clothes on .

The floor in the cells was paved with asphalt and cement , which also caused constant humidity and filth . It was impossible to properly wash or sweep the floors .

The lavatory pans in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL were not separated from the rest of the cell . CARDINAL had to use the toilet in plain view of one ’s cellmates . In cells FAC . DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL there was a partition between the lavatory pan and the rest of the cell . The partition measured QUANTITY in width and QUANTITY in height . The lavatory pan was elevated from the floor by QUANTITY . The guards removed the curtain that the inmates had installed for privacy . Despite the partition , CARDINAL used the toilet in plain view of one ’s cellmates .

The cells were not equipped with sinks . Taps with cold water were the same ones used to flush the toilet ; as a result , the inmates had to wash themselves and to take water from the tap above the toilet .

There was not sufficient furniture in the cells to store the ORG kitchen- and tableware , bread and toiletries .

In cells CARDINAL . DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL there was CARDINAL table and CARDINAL bench which could accommodate CARDINAL inmates at a time , whereas in the other cells CARDINAL persons had to wait for their turn .

All persons detained in the same cell had to take a shower simultaneously . As there were QUANTITY shower heads , CARDINAL shower - head was used by CARDINAL inmates at a time .

NORP The food was poorly prepared . It was tasteless and monotonous . Fresh vegetables and fruit were not included in the ration .

The applicant lodged numerous complaints with the prison administration about the conditions of his detention . He was advised of the financial constraints which made it impossible to improve the conditions of detention .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , which was forwarded to ORG of GPE for GPE ( NORP исполнения наказаний ( PERSON ) Министерства юстиции ORG по PERSON области ) . After his complaint , CARDINAL of cell no . CARDINAL was whitewashed . An official from ORG visited the applicant in connection with his complaint . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant received a response to his complaint , which he found unsatisfactory . He lodged a further complaint with ORG . The second complaint was dismissed on the grounds that it contained arguments which were substantially the same as the ones previously submitted .

On an unspecified date DATE the guards entered cell no . DATE in DATE , woke up the inmates , tore down the laundry lines and left . The applicant lodged a complaint against the guards with ORG , which found no misconduct on their part . After that the applicant lodged no further complaints , believing that it would be futile to do so .

On DATE the inmates were given soup prepared with rotten fish . On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other inmates complained about this incident . The head of catering tried to convince the inmates that the soup was edible even though it smelled , but refused to taste it himself . He also refused to replace the soup . The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , which he later withdrew as the prison administration allegedly promised to follow up on his complaint . DATE , in the absence of any response , the applicant lodged another complaint , requesting the administration to follow up on the incident of DATE . The applicant was summoned to meet the administrative officers , who allegedly threatened him and transferred him to cell no . CARDINAL , where he spent DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG in relation to the incident of DATE and his subsequent intimidation by the prison officers . Following his complaint , the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was given mashed jelly – like peas . On DATE the applicant was served with yellowish water instead of soup . On DATE and DATE the applicant complained about the quality of the food .

On DATE the applicant received a reply from ORG , informing him that his allegations with regard to the quality of the food in prison were unfounded .

DATE . The applicant lodged subsequent complaints about the conditions of his detention with various administrative authorities , which all found that the statutory requirements had been complied with .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG of PERSON in respect of the substandard quality of the food in prison and his alleged intimidation by the prison officers . On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The decision read , inter alia , as follows :

“ ... LAW sets the sanitary norm of QUANTITY of personal space per detainee .

It appears from the explanation provided by the facility ’s representative and the documents pertaining to the inquiry conducted by ORG that it is not possible to provide the detainees of [ PERSON regional remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] with the established norm of personal space as the facility is currently PERCENT over its designated capacity .

The applicant was served with a copy of the decision of DATE on DATE , after the statutory time - limit for appealing had already expired .

Section CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINALFZ of DATE ) provides that detainees should be given free food sufficient to maintain them in good health according to the standards established by the Government of GPE . Section CARDINAL provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have QUANTITY of personal space in his or her cell .

The RSFSR ( NORP Federative Socialist Republic ) Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force until DATE - “ the CCrP ” ) established that a criminal investigation could be initiated by an investigator upon the complaint of an individual or on the investigative authorities’ own initiative when there were reasons to believe that a crime had been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . A prosecutor was responsible for general supervision of the investigation ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . He could order a specific investigative action , transfer the case from CARDINAL investigator to another or order an additional investigation . If there were no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation , the prosecutor or investigator would issue a reasoned decision to that effect , which had to be communicated to the interested party . The decision was amenable to appeal to a higher prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction ( LAW .

On DATE ORG of GPE held that anyone whose legitimate rights and interests had been affected by a decision not to institute criminal proceedings should have the right to appeal against that decision to a court .

The RSFSR CCrP established that within DATE of receipt of the case file ( if the defendant was in custody ) , the judge was required either : ( CARDINAL ) to fix the trial date ; ( CARDINAL ) to return the case for additional investigation ; ( CARDINAL ) to stay or discontinue the proceedings ; or ( CARDINAL ) to refer the case to a court with jurisdiction to hear it ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The trial was to begin DATE after the judge had fixed the trial date ( Article CARDINAL ) .

DATE . The duration of the trial was not limited .

The appeal court was required to examine an appeal against the judgment at first instance within DATE of its receipt . In exceptional circumstances or in complex cases or in proceedings before ORG this time - limit could be extended by DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) . No further extensions were possible .


A.

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

The applicant is engaged in the retail sale of handguns from shop LOC and by mail order in GPE . He trades in partnership with his wife . The business made a profit of £ MONEY in DATE , a profit of £ MONEY in DATE , and no profit in DATE .

The consequences of the DATE LAW legislation - LAW and the Firearms ( Amendment ) ( No . CARDINAL ) Act DATE ( “ LAW ; see below ) - are that the applicant is unable to derive handgun - related income from his business , and that the value of the goodwill and assets of the business has depreciated . The applicant claimed compensation pursuant to the legislative schemes in respect of his stock of handguns . No compensation is payable for the reduction in value of the applicant ’s business .

By DATE , MONEY had been paid to CARDINAL dealers under the compensation schemes , of a total of MONEY which had been paid to individuals , dealers and others . The ORG estimated the total costs which would be involved in paying compensation under the schemes to be MONEY .

B. Domestic law and practice

The Firearms Act DATE has been periodically amended since it was passed , and forms the basis of the current system of the control of firearms in GPE . LAW of DATE prohibits the possession , purchase , acquisition , manufacture , sale or transfer of the firearms there specified . LAW DATE ( “ LAW ” ) added large - calibre handguns to the class of prohibited firearms in section CARDINAL of the DATE Act .

Section CARDINAL of the Act of DATE , as amended by LAW , provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person commits an offence if , without the authority of ORG , he has in his possession , or purchases or acquires , or manufactures , sells or transfers -

( aba ) any firearm which has a barrel length of QUANTITY in length or is QUANTITY in length overall , other than an air weapon , a small - calibre pistol , a muzzle - loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus . ”

The Firearms ( Amendment ) ( No . CARDINAL ) Act DATE ( “ LAW ” ; together with LAW , “ the CARDINAL Amendment Acts ” ) extended the scope of the prohibition in section CARDINAL to small - calibre pistols by declaring ( in section CARDINAL ) that the words “ a small - calibre pistol ” in section CARDINAL ) of LAW as amended by LAW should cease to have effect .

LAW provides as follows , so far as material :

“ CARDINAL Surrender of prohibited small firearms and munitions

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG may make such arrangements as he thinks fit to secure the orderly surrender at designated police stations of firearms or ammunition the possession of which will become or has become unlawful by virtue of CARDINAL or CARDINAL above .

CARDINAL Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG shall , in accordance with a scheme made by him , make payments in respect of firearms and ammunition surrendered at designated police stations in accordance with the arrangements made by him under section CARDINAL above .

( CARDINAL ) A scheme under subsection ( CARDINAL ) above shall provide only for the making of payments to persons making claims for such payments in respect of firearms or ammunition -

( a ) which they had , and were entitled to have in their possession on or immediately before DATE by virtue of firearms certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers ; or

( b ) which on or before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled to have in their possession after that date by virtue of such certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers ,

and their possession of which will become , or has become , unlawful by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL above .

CARDINAL Payments in respect of ancillary equipment

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG shall , in accordance with any scheme which may be made by him , make payments in respect of ancillary equipment of any description specified in the scheme .

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of subsection ( CARDINAL ) above , ‘ ancillary equipment’ means equipment , other than prohibited ammunition , which-

( a ) is designed or adapted for use in connection with firearms prohibited by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) above ; and

( b ) has no practicable use in connection with any firearm which is not a prohibited weapon .

( CARDINAL ) A scheme under subsection ( CARDINAL ) above shall provide only for the making of payments to persons making claims for such payments in respect of ancillary equipment-

( a ) which they had in their possession on DATE ; or

( b ) which they had in their possession after DATE , having purchased it by virtue of a contract entered into before that date .

CARDINAL Parliamentary control of compensation schemes

( CARDINAL ) Before making a compensation scheme the Secretary of ORG shall lay a draft of it before ORG .

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG shall not make the scheme unless the draft has been approved by resolution of each ORG .

( CARDINAL ) This section applies to any alteration to the scheme as it applies to a compensation scheme .

( CARDINAL ) In this section ‘ compensation scheme’ means a scheme under LAW ... above . ”

The Firearms ( Amendment ) Act CARDINAL Compensation Scheme ( “ the First Scheme ” ) was laid in draft before ORG and approved by resolution of both ORG . It was made on DATE . The First Scheme provided compensation for the large - calibre handguns themselves , for prohibited expanding ammunition and for certain ancillary equipment . There were CARDINAL options for claiming compensation : Option A , a flat rate payment for individual items , Option B , a payment for an individual item at the price in the list of values annexed to the First Scheme and Option C , a payment based on the market value of an individual item at or immediately before DATE ( the date of the announcement by the Government of their response to , and legislative intention following , ORG ) .

Under Option A , a payment of £ MONEY could be claimed for each large - calibre handgun . Under Option B , a payment could be claimed which was based on average retail values on DATE , reduced by PERCENT to reflect normal depreciation in value . Under Option C , dealers were entitled to claim the “ full market value ” of the large - calibre handguns and ancillary equipment which they held in stock . The full market value was to be calculated on the basis of the cost to the dealer of the item plus PERCENT .

By section CARDINAL of LAW , the provisions of sections CARDINAL of LAW were applied to small - calibre pistols . LAW ) ( No . CARDINAL ) LAW Scheme ( “ the Second Scheme ” ) was made in DATE , after having been laid in draft before both ORG and approved by resolution of each ORG . The Second Scheme applied in relation to small - calibre pistols held on or immediately before DATE . The date for the calculation of full market value for the purposes of Option C remained DATE . The Second Scheme made provision for compensation in respect of small - calibre pistols , on materially the same terms as provided for in the First Scheme in respect of large - calibre handguns .


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

By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( rådhusrätten ) in PERSON declared that the applicant was the father of B , born in DATE . The judgment gained legal force .

However , in DATE , a DNA - test was carried out by ORG PERSON ) which showed that the applicant could not be B ’s biological father .

Based on the DNA - result , the applicant requested ORG ) for NORP Norrland to re - open the case and to annul the paternity . The mother of B consented to the annulment . On DATE ORG re - opened the case and repealed the original judgment , thereby declaring that the applicant was not the father of B. The decision gained legal force .

In DATE the applicant requested that ORG ( länsstyrelsen ) of GPE reimburse him all his expenses for child maintenance and other costs , in total SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) , that he had been obliged to pay to B and her mother DATE , with the amount up - dated according to the consumer index and with interest .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request on the ground that it had been lodged out of time as the statutory limitation period was DATE from the date of payment of the child maintenance .

The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( ORG ) in GPE , arguing that the statutory limitation period should be calculated as starting from the date of the DNA - result in DATE and not from the date of the actual payments . He argued that his claim on ORG had only arisen once he was freed from the paternity as this was the sole basis for his claim for reimbursement .

On DATE ORG upheld the ORG ’s decision and reasoning . However , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judges did not agree with the majority and , in his dissenting opinion , he stated that a claim for reimbursement of paid child maintenance could not be considered to arise until a judgment , which had gained legal force , had annulled the paternity . Thus , the DATE statutory limitation period should be counted from that point since , up until then , the man had been legally obliged to pay child maintenance and could not be said to have a claim on the ORG for reimbursement .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) , maintaining his claims and invoking the dissenting opinion in support of his position . On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal and informed the applicant of its decision without giving any reasons for it .

From section CARDINAL of the Act on Reimbursement in Certain Cases for Paid Child Maintenance ( lag om ersättning i vissa fall för utgivna underhållsbidrag , Lag CARDINAL NORP “ the DATE LAW ) , it appears that if a man , who legally has been considered the father of a child , is freed from the paternity obligation , he has the right to be reimbursed by the ORG for child maintenance which he has paid to the child .

However , according to section CARDINAL of LAW ( preskriptionslagen , Lag CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , a claim will become statute - barred DATE after it arose , unless the limitation is interrupted before its date of expiration .

In the preparatory work to LAW ( prop . CARDINAL ) , it was considered that it was not necessary to set out in the LAW a specific time - limit for lodging a claim against the ORG , but that this did not mean that there were no limits at all , since “ claims for reimbursement for child maintenance which had been paid DATE became statute - barred ” ( p. CARDINAL ) .