CASE OF DIKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village PERSON , PERSON , the former GPE .

On DATE a Fokker airplane , which was operated by the NORP company ORG ( “ the first defendant ” ) , crashed at GPE airport during taking off . The applicant was one of the few passengers who survived the accident . He sustained serious physical injuries .

Settlement negotiations between the applicant , the ORG , ORG ( “ the second defendant ” ) , ORG from the GPE and ORG of GPE were unsuccessful .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought a civil action before ORG ( GPE суд GPE I GPE ) requesting the court to award him compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary loss sustained as a result of the accident : in particular , he asked the court to order the defendants to compensate him for the loss of his personal belongings , medical expenses , his loss of income and loss for his mental suffering , as well as to pay him a life - time pension given his permanent incapacity .

The first hearing was held on DATE and was attended by all parties . It was adjourned on the request of the applicant to allow him to submit additional evidence .

The hearing fixed for DATE was adjourned due to the applicant 's illness .

At a hearing held on DATE , the court provided the defendants with evidence previously submitted by the applicant .

The next hearing of DATE was rescheduled on the defendants ' request for further time to examine the applicant 's submissions . Meanwhile , the applicant changed lawyers . At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the court ordered CARDINAL of the defendants to provide further evidence .

At a hearing on DATE , the court ordered a forensic expert examination to establish the applicant 's loss of income given that he had a work permit in GPE .

Hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were adjourned as the parties had not been properly summoned .

At a hearing of DATE the applicant had requested an adjournment to allow him to further particularise his claim .

At a hearing held on DATE , CARDINAL of the defendants requested a postponement to examine the applicant 's more recent submissions .

On DATE the court adjourned the hearing : there was no evidence that the forensic expert and the first defendant had been properly summoned .

On DATE the court heard the expert . The court further ordered the applicant to further particularise his financial claim and to provide information about a sum of money he had already received from the first defendant .

On DATE the applicant requested the Minister of ORG to intervene before the competent court for a speedy resolution of his case .

On DATE the applicant complained before the President of ORG that no decision had been taken although all relevant evidence and expert opinions had been obtained . On DATE he repeated his grievances before the President of ORG .

Adjournments of hearings fixed for DATE and CARDINAL DATE were afforded in the absence of evidence that the first defendant had been properly summoned .

A hearing fixed for DATE was adjourned on the parties ' request , as they were pursuing an out - of - court settlement .

A hearing held on CARDINAL DATE was postponed as the first defendant had withdrawn from the case .

Hearings fixed for DATE , DATE and DATE were adjourned again due to a lack of evidence that the first defendant had been properly summoned . The court record stated that the slip of the mail receipt had borne the signature , but not the stamp , of the first defendant .

On DATE the applicant requested to be exempted from court fees .

The court adjourned a hearing fixed for DATE as the applicant had failed to provide evidence supporting his request for exemption . Hearings fixed for DATE , DATE and DATE were adjourned due to improper delivery of the court summons on the first defendant .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to declare it incompetent ratione loci and to confer the further handling of his case on ORG . He maintained that , because of his poor financial situation , he could not sustain the travelling expenses from his place of residence to GPE to attend the court hearings .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant 's request as out of time . By a decision of CARDINAL September CARDINAL ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request to transfer his case to another court competent ratione materiae : his arguments , that the proceedings had lasted DATE and that he had scarce means of subsistence , could not be regarded as sufficient to justify that measure .

On DATE the applicant complained before ORG about the delays in the proceedings .

A hearing fixed for DATE was adjourned as none of the parties appeared at court .

On DATE the applicant requested a special delivery of the court summons on the first defendant .

The court adjourned a hearing fixed for DATE , in the parties ' presence , to allow it examine the first defendant 's legal status and the validity of the letter of authority of its lawyer . The court also undertook to secure information as to whether the first defendant had been insolvent .

On DATE the court was informed that preliminary bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted against the first defendant . As that information did not reach the court in time , it adjourned a hearing fixed for DATE . The court decided to summon the first applicant 's receiver for the next hearing .

The hearings fixed for DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE were adjourned due to improper delivery of the court summons on the first defendant or the receiver . The applicant proposed that a further summons for the first defendant be announced on the court 's notice board .

On DATE the court was notified that the preliminary bankruptcy proceedings against the first defendant had been suspended . The court adjourned a hearing fixed for DATE to confirm the validity of the letter of authority of the first defendant 's lawyer .

The court then adjourned a hearing of DATE as the first defendant had not been properly summoned . In response to the applicant 's request , it fixed the next hearing for DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG partly upheld the applicant 's claim and ordered the first defendant to pay just compensation for his non - pecuniary loss and for his pecuniary loss from DATE until DATE . It dismissed the remainder of his claim against the first defendant . The court further dismissed his claim against the second defendant given the latter 's lack of legal capacity ( немање на пасивна легитимација ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal and upheld the trial court 's decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) .

The applicant had CARDINAL different representatives during these proceedings .

LAW ( ORG за парничната постапка ) ( “ the Act ” ) provided , at the relevant time , that it was incumbent upon the court to undertake to conduct the proceedings without undue delay and economically , and to inhibit any attempt of abuse of the rights afforded to the parties concerned .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , the GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr M.P.H. Winters , a lawyer practising in GPE , the GPE .

A.

The applicant is the author of a computer programme for the calculation of amounts of maintenance to be used by national courts . The programme was published by the PERSON publishing company . The applicant ’s programme tested best in a trial in which CARDINAL other programmes participated but the authors of CARDINAL of the other programmes , PERSON , obtained an injunction when PERSON started advertising the applicant ’s programme in legal journals - the test results had allegedly been ‘ ORG at the instigation of the authors of the third programme who were attached to a regional court . PERSON then attempted to get the applicant and PERSON and PERSON to work together but the applicant refused . Subsequently , PERSON decided to publish the programme of PERSON and W.

The applicant started proceedings for damages against both PERSON and PERSON and PERSON , arguing that their actions had caused him to lose his advantage which the test results had given him from a marketing point of view . In the proceedings against ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of GPE decided on DATE that ORG actions had indeed caused prejudice to the applicant and in a separate procedure the amount of damages to be paid by PERSON to the applicant should be calculated .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) of PERSON ordered PERSON to pay a certain amount of damages ( PERCENT of what the applicant had demanded ) , rejected the applicant ’s other demands in respect of PERSON ( namely that PERSON halt its publication of PERSON and PERSON ’s programme ) and declared the applicant ’s claims on PERSON and PERSON inadmissible as it held that these claims covered the same damage as the applicant claimed from ORG On DATE ORG of GPE quashed this decision , but only insofar as the amount of damages was concerned ( ORG lowered this amount ) . It held that the applicant ’s claim on PERSON was admissible , but rejected this claim because PERSON had not acted unlawfully towards the applicant and ORG also agreed with ORG that the applicant ’s claims on PERSON were the same as those on PERSON .

The applicant filed an appeal in cassation with ORG ( PERSON ) , raising a number of complaints relating to the reasoning applied by ORG and also arguing that there was a contradiction between ORG judgments of DATE and that of DATE . According to the applicant , these circumstances created at least the impression that the lower courts , most of whose judges where also contractually connected to the Kluwer company , had not been impartial . The applicant requested ORG in writing to appoint judges to this case who had no ties with PERSON .

In the proceedings before ORG the Advocate - General at that court submitted an advisory opinion to which the applicant was able to reply . In his response he pointed out that this particular Advocate - General had had a number of written works published by PERSON in the time before he became Advocate - General .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal in cassation . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL ORG judges have had written works published by ORG or companies part of the PERSON conglomerate .

B. Relevant domestic law

Pursuant to LAW ) a party may challenge any of the judges assigned to examine a case on the grounds of facts or circumstances which might prejudice the judicial impartiality . A request to challenge a judge should be made as soon as the person concerned has become familiar with these facts or circumstances ( LAW ) .

Article XIII § CARDINAL of the Rules of Court of ORG ( Reglement van Orde van de Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ) provides that at the request of one of the parties to the proceedings the Registrar will notify to that party the names of the members of ORG who will render judgment in a particular case .

The duties and position of the Procurator - General ’s department ( openbaar ministerie ) are defined in ORG ( Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie ) . PERSON department consists of ORG and advocates - general of ORG , the procurators - general and advocates - general of the courts of appeal and the public prosecutor ’s of the regional and district courts ( LAW ) . The advocates - general of ORG act as deputies of the Procurator - General of that court and are subordinate to him ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The Procurator - General ’s department must be heard by the courts in so far as the law so prescribes ( DATE ) . The advisory opinion of the Procurator - General or an advocate - general to ORG takes the form of a learned treatise containing references to relevant case - law and legal literature and a recommendation , which is not binding on ORG , to uphold or reject points of appeal .


NORP Until DATE , when he was fired , the applicant used to work for ORG ( Δημόσια Επιχείρηση Ηλεκτρισμού , hereinafter DEI ) .

On DATE he instituted civil proceedings before the singlemember first instance civil court of GPE to challenge his dismissal and ask for non - pecuniary damages . In asking for non - pecuniary damages the applicant claimed that ORG had invaded his privacy by sending a doctor to his house , while he was on sick leave , to check the state of his health . He also claimed that ORG wished to defame him because of his “ anti - NORP ” and “ pro - GPE ” activities . The introductory writ ran in CARDINAL pages and contained CARDINAL different claims .

A hearing was fixed for DATE but was cancelled because of the elections . On DATE the applicant asked the court to fix a new hearing date . The court decided to resume the examination of the case on DATE when it ordered an adjournment until DATE . On DATE the defendant was not present in court . The court decided to adjourn the examination of the case until DATE . On DATE none of the parties was present in court and the hearing was cancelled . On DATE the applicant asked the court to fix a new hearing date . The court decided to resume the examination of the case on CARDINAL DATE when the applicant ’s action was finally heard . Judgment was delivered on DATE . The text was finalised in DATE . The court ordered ORG to rehire the applicant and to pay him salary arrears . However , the court refused to grant the applicant compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE DEI appealed . The applicant , who obtained a copy of the finalised text of the judgment on DATE , also appealed on DATE . He invoked CARDINAL grounds and submitted CARDINAL documents . ORG of GPE decided to join the CARDINAL appeals and hear them on DATE . On DATE the court allowed ORG appeal and dismissed the applicant ’s . The applicant claims that he received a copy of the decision in DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation , invoking CARDINAL grounds . ORG heard the appeal on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . The text of the decision was finalised on DATE and was filed on DATE .

According to section DATE of Law no . DATE , in labour disputes the hearing must be scheduled to take place at DATE after the institution of the proceedings and the decision must be issued within DATE from the hearing .


Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - award;Costs and Expenses award (Convention proceedings);Costs and Expenses award (domestic proceedings)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG Diyarbakır Il Özel GPE ) expropriated the plots of land belonging to the applicant in ORG . A committee of experts assessed the value of these plots of land and this amount was paid to the applicant when the expropriation took place .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG of First Instance , requesting increased compensation .

On DATE ORG of First Instance awarded the applicant additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court 's decision , running from DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE the administration paid the applicant a total sum of TRL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the ORG v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI , pp . DATE , § § DATE ) .


CASE OF GLAS NADEZHDA EOOD AND ANATOLIY ELENKOV v. BULGARIA

Violation of Art. 10;Not necessary to examine Art. 9;Violation of Art. 13+10;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , is a NORP and a follower of ORG in GPE . In DATE he decided to set up PERSON ORG , through which he would apply for a broadcasting licence for a religious radio station . He obtained support for this initiative from many domestic and foreign religious figures of various denominations , as well as from ORG at ORG .

On DATE ORG announced that a number of frequencies for local radio broadcasting would be made available to private operators in several cities . CARDINAL such licences were available for GPE .

On DATE PERSON EOOD applied to ORG ( “ the STC ” – see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) for a broadcasting licence for a radio station with NORP religious programming for GPE . In support of its application it presented , inter alia , a business plan , a programme project , a programme concept , a programme profile , and a programme scheme . It was apparent from these that it intended to broadcast mainly NORP religious programming .

NORP In line with the established procedure , the application was forwarded to ORG ( “ the ORG ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . After deliberating on the application on DATE , the ORG refused in a decision of DATE , which was not notified to PERSON ORG , to grant a broadcasting licence . It stated , without adding further detail , that although the company had submitted all the requisite documents , its programme documents did not correspond to points CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG 's criteria for licensing regional overtheair radio operators , and only partly corresponded to points CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Furthermore , PERSON ORG had no prior experience of creating programmes in the region .

In accordance with the established procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , this decision was sent to the STC .

In a decision of DATE the ORG refused to grant a broadcasting licence to PERSON ORG . It stated that its refusal was based on the ORG 's decision of DATE .

PERSON EOOD lodged an application for judicial review of the ORG 's decision with ORG . It submitted that , since it was not clear whether the ORG 's decision was subject to direct review , the court should first examine its lawfulness before ruling on the lawfulness of the ORG 's decision . PERSON ORG further argued that it had produced all of the requisite documents , each of which corresponded to the ORG 's criteria . The fact that no reasons had been given on how , in the ORG 's view , these documents failed to meet the criteria , was in breach of the rules of procedure and the requirement that administrative decisions be reasoned . On the contrary , all of the ORG 's criteria had been complied with . The decisions had also been in breach of the substantive law and did not correspond to the latter 's object and purpose . In a supplementary memorial PERSON ORG made detailed submissions in respect of each of its alleged failures to comply with the relevant ORG criteria .

NORP In a judgment of DATE , a threemember panel of ORG dismissed the application . It held that the ORG 's decision was subject to review in separate proceedings . However , PERSON ORG had not sought such review , whereas indirect review of that decision in proceedings against the ORG 's decision was impossible . The court went on to say that the ORG 's decision concerned the allocation of the radio spectrum , whereas the ORG 's decision related to the broadcasting content . It was therefore impossible to grant a broadcasting licence without a prior finding by the ORG that it would be used for broadcasting quality programmes . In issuing its decision , the ORG was therefore bound by the ORG 's decision and the latter 's refusal had effectively precluded the former from granting the requested licence .

PERSON EOOD appealed on points of law to a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG . It argued , inter alia , that while it could be accepted that the ORG 's refusal was binding on the STC , the former was bound to give reasons for its decision .

In a final judgment of DATE the fivemember panel of ORG upheld the CARDINAL - member panel 's judgment , holding , inter alia , that the STC was bound by the ORG 's decision and could not have reviewed its lawfulness . Nor could the court , in proceedings against the ORG 's decision , examine the lawfulness of the ORG 's decision . It could do so only pursuant to an application for judicial review of the latter 's decision .

Having been apprised of the tenor of the ORG 's decision in the course of the proceedings for judicial review of the ORG 's decision , on DATE PERSON made an application for its judicial review . It submitted that it had provided all necessary documents , thus establishing that it had complied with the ORG 's licensing criteria . However , that body had not pointed out any perceived deficiencies , thus failing to provide a duly reasoned decision and acting in breach of the rules of administrative procedure .

In a judgment of DATE a threemember panel of ORG dismissed the application . It held that the ORG 's assessment of whether the licence application met its criteria was not subject to judicial scrutiny , since the ORG enjoyed discretion in that respect . In the instant case it had found that the programme documents submitted by PERSON ORG did not meet its requirements for regional targeting , societal function and business perspective of the programming , and only partially met its criteria regarding the justification and uniqueness of its programme profile , conformity with the audience 's expectations and professional and technological resources . These findings fell within the exclusive province of the ORG .

PERSON EOOD appealed on points of law to a fivemember panel of ORG , reiterating its arguments .

In a final judgment of DATE the CARDINAL - member panel of ORG upheld the threemember panel 's judgment , fully endorsing its reasoning .

On DATE Mr PERSON , acting on behalf of PERSON ORG , requested the ORG to provide it with a copy of TIME of the deliberations at which it had examined its application for a broadcasting licence . He relied on ORG “ ORG за достъп до обществена информация ” ) .

As the ORG did not reply within the statutory timelimit , PERSON PERSON asked ORG to review its tacit refusal .

In a judgment of DATE the ORG quashed the ORG 's tacit refusal and ordered it to reply to the request for information . It held that TIME of the ORG 's deliberations were public information within the meaning of ORG .

The ORG did not appeal and shortly afterwards the judgment entered into force . However , at the time of the latest receipt of information from the applicants ( DATE ) the ORG had still not complied with the judgment and had not replied to the applicants ' request for information .

The relevant provisions of the LAW of DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Freedom of conscience , freedom of thought and choice of religion or of religious or atheistic views shall be inviolable . The ORG shall assist in the maintenance of tolerance and respect between the adherents of different denominations , and between believers and non - believers .

Freedom of conscience and religion shall not be exercised to the detriment of national security , public order , public health and morals , or of the rights and freedoms of others . ”

“ CARDINAL . Everyone is entitled to express an opinion or to publicise it through words , written or oral , sound , or image , or in any other way .

NORP This right shall not be used to the detriment of the rights and reputation of others , or for the incitement of a forcible change of the constitutionally established order , the perpetration of a crime , or the incitement of enmity or violence against anyone . ”

“ CARDINAL . The press and the other mass media shall be free and not subject to censorship .

Printed matter or another information medium may be stopped or confiscated only pursuant to an act of the judicial authorities , where it encroaches on good morals or incites to a forcible change of the constitutionally established order , the perpetration of a crime or an act of violence against the person . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to seek , receive and impart information . The exercise of that right may not be directed against the rights and the good name of other citizens , nor against national security , public order , public health or morals .

NORP Citizens shall have the right to information from state bodies or agencies on any matter of legitimate interest to them , unless the information is a state secret or a secret protected by law , or it affects the rights of others . ”

At the material time LAW DATE ( “ ORG за далекосъобщенията ” ) regulated all forms of telecommunication , such as telephony and radio and television broadcasting . The main regulatory body having authority under the LAW was the STC ( renamed ORG in DATE ) . At the relevant time it had the power to , inter alia , grant , amend , supplement , freeze , discontinue and withdraw radio and television broadcasting licences , following a decision by the ORG ( section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the material time ) .

The STC was a collective body attached to ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the material time ) . It had CARDINAL members , nominated by ORG and appointed by the prime minister for a term of DATE , renewable once ( section PERSON ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the material time ) . The members could be dismissed prematurely only if they resigned , seriously breached the provisions of the LAW , seriously or systematically violated their official duties , committed a wilful publicly prosecutable criminal offence , or were unable to perform their duties for DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the material time ) . The organisation and the operation of the STC and of its secretariat were laid down in regulations issued by ORG ( section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the material time ) .

Under section CARDINAL ) of ORG DATE ( “ ORG за радиото и телевизията ” ) , as in force at the relevant time , radio and television broadcasting was only allowed under a licence granted by the ORG . The application for a licence had to be filed with the STC and accompanied by , as relevant , a programme project , a programme concept , a programme profile and a programme scheme ( section CARDINAL of the Act , as in force at the relevant time ) . A STC official checked the submitted documents and , if he or she found any irregularities , advised the applicant , which then had DATE to rectify them . If the applicant failed to do so , the application was not considered ( section CARDINAL of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) . The STC was to transmit the accepted application , plus enclosures , to the ORG ( section CARDINAL of the Act , as in force at the relevant time ) , which then had to make a reasoned decision on the application within DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) . The decision was then transmitted to the STC within DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) , which issued the licence , where appropriate , within DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) .

The ORG was an independent body responsible for protecting freedom of expression , the independence of radio and television operators and the interests of the audience ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) . CARDINAL of its CARDINAL members were elected by ORG , and the remaining CARDINAL were appointed by the President of the Republic ( section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) . Alongside some consultative powers , it was entrusted with supervising the activities of radio and television operators and granting , modifying and withdrawing broadcasting licences ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) . In DATE the ORG was renamed ORG .

NORP In issue CARDINAL of its bulletin , the ORG published its “ Programme criteria for the licensing of regional overtheair radio operators ” . They read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Legal status

Conformity to the requirements of section CARDINAL of ORG DATE . Note : compliance with this criterion is mandatory for admitting the applicant to assessment under the remainder of the criteria .

Transparency and structure of the [ operator 's ] capital CARDINAL points

Experience in setting up radio programmes

Degree of legality of the previous experience CARDINAL points

Note : the assessment is made on an inverse scale ; an applicant which has received CARDINAL points is not assessed under criteria CARDINAL . , CARDINAL . and CARDINAL .

Population coverage ratio of the [ radio station 's ] communication CARDINAL points

Note : the population coverage ratio of the communication is assessed on the basis of the audience for the region in percentage points .

Uniqueness of the form of communication CARDINAL points

Societal function CARDINAL points

– information and commentary

– culture and education

– programming for disadvantaged groups

Previously established violations of the [ Radio and Television Act ] CARDINAL points

Note : the assessment is made on an inverse scale , on the basis of a report by the ORG 's monitoring department .

Programme aims

Justification of the selected programme profile CARDINAL points

Note : [ If awarded ] CARDINAL points the applicant is not assessed under the other criteria .

Uniqueness ( for the region ) of the programme profile CARDINAL points

Conformity with the audience 's expectations CARDINAL points

Regional targeting of the programme CARDINAL points

Societal function CARDINAL points

– information and commentary

– culture and education

– programming for disadvantaged groups

Capacity to produce the programme

Professional resources CARDINAL points

Technological resources CARDINAL points

Business perspective CARDINAL points

Setting up of radio networks in CARDINAL region

Programme capabilities for supra - regional communication

Regional targeting of the individual programmes

Note : the assessment under [ criteria ] CARDINAL . and CARDINAL . is from CARDINAL points and is made by multiplying the CARDINAL results .

The maximum number of points under all criteria is CARDINAL . ”

On DATE the ORG gave judgment ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по PERSON № DATE г. , обн. GPE , бр. CARDINAL от CARDINAL юли DATE г. ) in proceedings brought by CARDINAL members of ORG who considered that a number of provisions of ORG DATE should be declared contrary to LAW . The court held , as relevant :

“ Under LAW [ DATE ] , licences are granted by the ORG and approved by ORG . Whereas this licensing relates to the setting up of telecommunication networks and to the use of the radio frequency spectrum and its allocation , the ORG 's decision under the [ Radio and Television Act DATE ] relates to the content of the services which will be broadcast . The provisions of the [ Telecommunications Act DATE ] relate to licensing for the setting up of telecommunications networks and the provision of services through the radio frequency spectrum . Supervision of the preparation , creation and broadcasting of radio and television programmes ... falls outside the competence of the STC .

As regards the media , and radio and television in particular , there exists the instruction [ implicit ] in LAW that they be transformed into autonomous public institutions , freed of the tutelage of a specific government agency . For this reason the regulation of radio and television is entrusted ... to the ORG , which is not a government agency .

Over DATE NORP law has for the first time differentiated between the regimes for establishing telecommunications operators and those for establishing radio and television operators . The licensing of telecommunication operators is governed by the [ Telecommunications Act DATE ] , whereas the licensing in respect of programme content is governed by the [ LAW DATE ] . These are CARDINAL differing types of activity : the first mainly monitors compliance with technological requirements under the [ Telecommunications Act DATE ] , whereas the second monitors aesthetical and artistic qualities under the [ LAW DATE ] . At the same time , the media law does not allow the independence of the procedure for issuing radio and television licences to be called into question , because section CARDINAL of the [ LAW DATE ] instructs the ORG to make a reasoned decision on each application for a licence for electronic media broadcasting . If the ORG 's decision is to allow the application , it encloses the draft licence . The assertion ... that ' the STC is not bound by the decision of the ORG [ and that ORG may grant a licence or deny CARDINAL irrespective of the positive decision of the ORG ' is unfounded . The [ STC ] has no right to review compliance with the criteria laid down in the [ LAW DATE ] . All questions relating to the granting , modification , or withdrawal of radio and television broadcasting licences , respectively to guaranteeing freedom of expression through the media , fall within the mandate of the ORG .

This court has many times ruled on the relations between the communications rights and the regulatory bodies in the information field . The connection between freedom of speech and the powers of the STC were examined in judgment no . DATE [ ( решение № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по PERSON № CARDINAL от DATE г. , обн. , DATE , брой CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. ) ] , whose reasoning is also applicable in the instant case . This judgment states : ' As already found by [ this court ] in its judgment no . DATE [ ( решение № CARDINAL от DATE г. по PERSON № DATE г. , обн. , ДВ , брой CARDINAL от CARDINAL юни DATE г. ) ] , ORG interference in the allocation of the radio frequency spectrum is inevitable . It follows that the freedom of the electronic media under LAW does not exclude ORG interference . The underlying principles of LAW may be complied with by making the licensing conditions and procedure public , accessible and preordained . ' ”

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Telecommunications Act DATE , the decisions of the STC were subject to review by ORG .

Section CARDINAL of ORG DATE , as worded at the material time , provided that the ORG 's decisions to grant , amend or withdraw a broadcasting licence were also subject to review by ORG .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( “ ORG за административното производство ” ) , which at the material time regulated , inter alia , the procedure for judicial review of administrative decisions , the reviewing court had to verify whether an administrative decision was lawful , that is , made by a competent body in due form , in compliance with the relevant procedural and substantive rules , and in conformity with the object and purpose of the law . Similarly , section CARDINAL of ORG ( “ ORG за Върховния административен съд ” ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that the grounds for annulling administrative decisions were lack of competence of the body which had made the decision , its failure to make the decision in due form , a material breach of the rules of administrative procedure , a breach of the substantive law or nonconformity with the object and purpose of the law .

On DATE ORG Recommendation no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL to Member GPE on the independence and functions of regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector , in which it recommended that the Member GPE , inter alia , “ include provisions in their legislation and measures in their policies entrusting the regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector with powers which enable them to fulfil their missions , as prescribed by national law , in an effective , independent and transparent manner , in accordance with the guidelines set out in the appendix to this recommendation ” .

The guidelines , featuring as an appendix to the recommendation , provide , as relevant :

The rules governing regulatory authorities for the broadcasting sector , especially their membership , are a key element of their independence . Therefore , they should be defined so as to protect them against any interference , in particular by political forces or economic interests .

For this purpose , specific rules should be defined as regards incompatibilities in order to avoid that :

– regulatory authorities are under the influence of political power ;

– members of regulatory authorities exercise functions or hold interests in enterprises or other organisations in the media or related sectors , which might lead to a conflict of interest in connection with membership of the regulatory authority .

Furthermore , rules should guarantee that the members of these authorities :

– are appointed in a democratic and transparent manner ;

– may not receive any mandate or take any instructions from any person or body ;

– do not make any statement or undertake any action which may prejudice the independence of their functions and do not take any advantage of them .

One of the essential tasks of regulatory authorities in the broadcasting sector is normally the granting of broadcasting licences . The basic conditions and criteria governing the granting and renewal of broadcasting licences should be clearly defined in the law .

The regulations governing the broadcasting licensing procedure should be clear and precise and should be applied in an open , transparent and impartial manner . The decisions made by the regulatory authorities in this context should be subject to adequate publicity .

All decisions taken and regulations adopted by the regulatory authorities should be :

– duly reasoned , in accordance with national law ;

– open to review by the competent jurisdictions according to national law ;

– made available to the public . ”


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings ( CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in ORG ( Bezirksgericht ) against a former lawyer for the sum of AS PERSON . The lawyer opposed the proceedings , and a hearing was held on DATE . The court decided to adjourn the proceedings until other proceedings ( CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL ) had been determined . The latter ended on DATE , and on DATE the applicant requested the continuation of the second proceedings ( CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , increasing the amount claimed . On DATE the applicant filed an extensive request for the taking of evidence and , at the same time , reduced his claim . On DATE ORG invited the defendant to comment on the applicant ’s submissions , which he did on DATE . Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant requested ORG to join the present proceedings with other proceedings ( CARDINAL Cg CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) pending before the same court . On DATE ORG dismissed this request . From DATE the applicant was represented by a lawyer but continued to make applications to the court on his own behalf .

On DATE and again on CARDINAL DATE the judge dealing with the applicant ’s case was replaced .

A second hearing took place on DATE . The court adjourned the case pending the outcome of further parallel proceedings ( CARDINAL Cg CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) against the same defendant . The final decision in the latter proceedings entered into force on DATE , and on DATE the applicant requested the resumption of the previous proceedings . He also increased the amount claimed .

On DATE a hearing was held in the case . The applicant limited the amount claimed to AS CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and submitted further documentation . The court adjourned the hearing for the files in all parallel proceedings to be obtained .

On DATE the defendant died . On DATE the case was adjourned ( unterbrochen ) pursuant to LAW ) . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant applied for the proceedings to be continued , and on DATE the applicant purported to withdraw his action as he ( wrongly ) thought that it was statute - barred . On DATE the applicant applied for the proceedings to be “ re - opened ” on the ground that his belief that the action was statute - barred derived from misleading information given by the defendant ’s insurer . On DATE the applicant revoked his withdrawal , and again applied for the proceedings to be continued .

NORP ORG rejected the applications for continuation , and declined to re - open the proceedings as no final decision had been taken . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part , and remitted the case to ORG which , on DATE , gave judgment in the applicant ’s favour as to AS CARDINAL and against him as to AS CARDINAL . The applicant was awarded his costs . The applicant ’s appeal against the part of the judgment against him was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The latter judgment was received by the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , which has been in force since DATE , provides as follows .

" ( CARDINAL ) If a court is dilatory in taking any procedural step , such as announcing or holding a hearing , obtaining an expert 's report , or preparing a decision , any party may submit a request to this court for the superior court to impose an appropriate time - limit for the taking of the particular procedural step ; unless sub - section ( CARDINAL ) of this section applies , the court is required to submit the request to the superior court , together with its comments , forthwith .

( CARDINAL ) If the court takes all the procedural steps specified in the request within DATE after receipt , and so informs the party concerned , the request is deemed withdrawn unless the party declares within DATE after service of the notification that it wishes to maintain its request .

( CARDINAL ) The request referred to in sub - section ( CARDINAL ) shall be determined with special expedition by a chamber of the superior court consisting of CARDINAL professional judges , CARDINAL of whom shall preside ; if the court has not been dilatory , the request shall be dismissed . This decision is not subject to appeal . "


No violation of Art. 2;Violations of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 5;No violation of Art. 14+2 and 14+5;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Loukis Loucaides;Riza Türmen;Sverre Erik Jebens

NORP The applicant PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is the father of PERSON , who was born in DATE . PERSON was allegedly detained by the police on DATE and subsequently disappeared .

The facts of the case are disputed by the parties and will be set out separately .

The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below . The ORG 's submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below . The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D.

The applicant is a retired civil servant . At the time of the events giving rise to the present application he and his family lived in ORG , where his son PERSON ran the wholesale grocery shop owned by the applicant . Prior to living in GPE the applicant and his family had lived in the nearby town of ORG , where he worked as a civil servant . In DATE the applicant and his family moved to ORG after an officer threatened his son . In DATE the applicant was detained for DATE and was subjected to ill - treatment during his detention . He was subsequently acquitted of the charges against him .

At TIME on DATE the applicant arrived at the shop and saw CARDINAL men escorting PERSON out of the shop . CARDINAL of the men was blonde , tall and beardless with an “ NORP - style haircut ” . The second man was thickset , of average height and with dark skin . The men were armed and carried walkietalkies .

NORP The CARDINAL men told the applicant that they were police officers and that they were taking his son to police headquarters so that he could submit a bid for a contract to provide canteen services at police headquarters . The men also took with them a box of sugar and a kilo of tea . When the QUANTITY men told the applicant that they would return PERSON in TIME and PERSON confirmed this , the applicant decided not to intervene . The applicant saw PERSON being led to a car that contained CARDINAL other occupants . Neighbouring shop owners also witnessed the CARDINAL men taking PERSON with them .

The same CARDINAL men had previously visited the shop , stating that they had come from the canteen , and had asked PERSON to go with them . When PERSON had refused to go , the CARDINAL men had sat in the shop for TIME and had made CARDINAL telephone calls , which PERSON said he did not understand as the men had spoken in code . PERSON had been worried about the incident when he had related it to the applicant that TIME .

When PERSON did not return on TIME of DATE , the applicant thought that he had been detained in custody . The following day he applied to the governor 's office and also to the chief prosecutor 's office at ORG . He applied again to the same prosecutor on DATE and on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . On DATE the applicant applied once again to the governor 's office .

The applicant received a reply to his petition of DATE from the prosecutor at ORG , who stated that his son 's name did not feature in the custody records .

NORP In DATE the applicant was summoned before ORG in connection with his petitions . The statement and the complaint he made were filed under preliminary file number CARDINAL . In relation to his petition to the governor 's office , the applicant was told to contact the murder desk at ORG police headquarters . The applicant applied by letter to that authority but did not receive a response other than a request to identify a number of unidentified bodies found in the area .

Finally , in his observations submitted to the ORG in reply to the ORG 's observations on the admissibility and merits of the case , the applicant referred to an article published in the newspaper PERSON on DATE giving details of a purported confession made by CARDINAL Mr PERSON , allegedly a former agent of the PERSON ( PERSON GPE – anti - terror intelligence branch of the gendarmerie ) , describing the abduction and subsequent killing of his son PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The Government confirmed that the applicant had lodged a complaint with the prosecutor on DATE . In that complaint the applicant alleged that his son had been taken into custody by police officers and requested information concerning his son 's whereabouts .

Upon receipt of the applicant 's complaint , the prosecutor examined the custody records of police headquarters and concluded that PERSON ORG had not been taken into custody . The prosecutor did not initiate an investigation , on the grounds that there were neither custody records showing that PERSON had been detained nor any other evidence of his having been kidnapped or been the victim of an unlawful act .

On CARDINAL DATE a statement was taken from the applicant at the murder desk of GPE police headquarters . Following the taking of this statement , PERSON was registered as a missing person and an investigation was carried out throughout the country in order to find him .

After the ORG had declared the application admissible , it requested the ORG to provide a copy of the full investigation file concerning PERSON disappearance , together with information as to whether any investigation had been opened into LOC alleged confession relating to the abduction and killing of the applicant 's son . In reply , the Government informed the ORG that no investigation had been initiated either into the disappearance of PERSON or into the alleged confession of Mr PERSON , as the allegations had been abstract and unsubstantiated .

The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties .

On DATE the applicant submitted a petition to the governor 's office in ORG in which he stated that his son had been taken away DATE by CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers claiming to have come from the canteen of GPE police headquarters . The applicant also stated that he had not been provided with any information about his son 's whereabouts , despite the fact that he had applied to all the relevant authorities .

On DATE the applicant submitted a petition to the prosecutor at ORG in ORG in which he stated that his son had been detained by members of the security forces on DATE and that he had not heard anything from him since that date . He asked the prosecutor to inform him about his son 's fate and where he was being detained . According to a hand - written note added to this petition by the prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE , the name of the applicant 's son did not feature in the custody records .

On DATE the applicant submitted a second petition to the governor 's office in ORG , reiterating the content of his previous petition of DATE . The applicant also added that his son had no connections with any illegal organisation .

A statement was taken from the applicant on DATE at the murder desk of GPE police headquarters . The applicant reiterated the content of his previous statements and gave a description of the CARDINAL men who had taken his son away . He stated that he would be able to identify the QUANTITY men if he saw them again . He also added that the same QUANTITY men had visited his shop DATE before they had taken his son , and that after leaving his shop they had gone to a neighbouring shop . The applicant pointed out that the owner of the neighbouring shop could be questioned in order to establish the identity of the police officers .

The name PERSON does not feature in the custody records of GPE police headquarters which were submitted to ORG after the application was declared admissible .

On DATE the confession purportedly made by ORG was published in the newspaper PERSON . Mr PERSON was quoted as having stated that PERSON had been kidnapped by the GPE and that his head had been smashed with a hammer by a certain PERSON –also known as GPE – so that it would not be possible to identify the body . The body , which had later been thrown into a disused oil tanker near the town of Silopi , had been found on DATE and an autopsy report had been drawn up by the Silopi prosecutor . The file opened by the prosecutor had been given the preliminary investigation number CARDINAL/CARDINAL . According to the autopsy report , the body was that of a male measuring QUANTITY , weighing QUANTITY , DATE and with dark hair . There were a number of severe cuts to the face , and parts of the skull were broken . The body had been buried in the part of Silopi cemetery reserved for unclaimed bodies . The applicant had subsequently been shown the pictures of this body but had been unable to identify the deceased as his son .

A description of the relevant law may be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-II ( extracts ) ) .


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

The applicant and PERSON are a married couple . Their property is subject to the statutory matrimonial property regime of the community of increased assets ( PERSON ; see Relevant domestic law below ) .

PERSON was the manager of CARDINAL limited liability companies in which he had invested MONEY ( DEM ) . The companies had taken out several loans for which GPE , as well as his son and wife , had provided security .

On DATE and on CARDINAL DATE GPE pledged CARDINAL bonds ( of a total value of ORG CARDINAL ) to ORG as security for all present and future claims of the bank against him . Thereupon , the bank furnished a guarantee of ORG CARDINAL for a loan which ORG had received from a different bank and granted him CARDINAL loans .

On DATE ORG gave GPE notice of termination of the loans and claimed their repayment . However , PERSON was unable to settle his debts .

In DATE the claims arising from the CARDINAL bonds pledged by ORG became due . ORG arranged for the sum of money which had fallen due to be paid into PERSON ’s account with the bank , where it was charged with ORG debts .

The applicant and PERSON have made their living since then from a small pension , financial aid granted by others and CARDINAL low - paid part - time jobs .

On DATE the applicant , who was from then on represented by counsel throughout the proceedings , brought an action against ORG for restitution of the CARDINAL bonds or alternatively for payment of ORG CARDINAL . She claimed that the pledging of the bonds by her husband was void pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) . She argued that the companies managed by her husband had already been heavily indebted since DATE . Her husband ’s interests in his CARDINAL companies therefore no longer had any value . The defendant bank had been aware that the bonds constituted her husband ’s last property and she had not consented to his pledging the bonds as prescribed by section CARDINAL of LAW in such circumstances . As her husband did not want to claim restitution of the bonds himself , she had a right to restitution under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) .

ORG pleaded that , already in DATE , it had set off ( see Relevant domestic law below ) its claim for repayment of ORG loan against the claim for restitution of the bonds .

On DATE ORG ) dismissed the applicant ’s action .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

Contrary to a previous undertaking allegedly given orally by the judge rapporteur in the hearing , ORG subsequently dismissed the applicant ’s request for legal aid for the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant received a copy of the defendant ’s observations .

On DATE ORG , having held a hearing on DATE , rejected the applicant ’s request under section CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( see Relevant domestic law below ) to grant her an additional opportunity to reply in writing to the defendant ’s observations ( running to CARDINAL pages ) of DATE , which the applicant had received DATE before the hearing , and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

ORG noted that section CARDINAL of the Civil Code protected a spouse ’s interest in preserving the family ’s assets . However , this interest did not outweigh the interests of the other spouse ’s creditors under all circumstances . In particular , the Debtors ( Voidable Dispositions ) Act ( see Relevant domestic law below ) offered protection for the creditors of a spouse who had transferred his / her assets to the other spouse in order to exempt these assets from his / her LOC attachment . This did not mean , however , that section CARDINAL of LAW did not fully apply to heavily indebted spouses .

ORG found that the applicant could not claim under section CARDINAL of the Civil Code the amount of money the defendant had received when the claims arising from the CARDINAL bonds had become due . It left open whether the bonds had constituted GPE ’s entire or almost entire property and whether the defendant had known this as required by section CARDINAL . This being assumed , the pledge of the bonds had been void and PERSON had initially had a claim against the defendant for payment of the amount of money the bank had obtained when the bonds were redeemed . However , the defendant bank had validly set off its own claim against GPE for repayment of the loans against ORG said claim by having the money obtained from the bonds paid into ORG account with the bank and by charging it with ORG debts .

ORG , agreeing with the defendant , which had argued in its observations that it had set off its claim for repayment of the loans against the claim under section CARDINAL of LAW , considered the set - off to be valid . Section CARDINAL of LAW only allowed the applicant to enforce GPE ’s claim in her own name . Likewise , the protective purpose of sections CARDINAL and DATE of the Civil Code had not been impaired by the set - off . The said provisions did not shield a spouse from all reductions of the family ’s assets caused by the other spouse , in particular , by incurring liabilities which endangered the preservation of those assets . Creditors who had a claim for payment as a result of these liabilities could enforce their claim against the indebted spouse by execution against the debtor ’s property . Just as section CARDINAL of LAW did not give the other spouse a right to prevent compulsory execution , it did not protect that spouse from a set - off if the creditor had a claim against the spouse who had disposed of his / her property contrary to section CARDINAL . Instead of attaching the disposing spouse ’s claim for payment against the bank , the latter could set off its own claim for repayment of the loan against ORG claim .

The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . She argued that the NORP courts had interpreted sections CARDINAL and DATE of the Civil Code in a manner which disregarded her right to respect for her family life as protected by LAW . ORG had also refused to allow her an opportunity to reply in writing to the defendant ’s observations , which she had received only DATE before the hearing . Furthermore , her trial had been unfair , in particular , in that the undertaking of the judge rapporteur of ORG that she would be granted legal aid had not been fulfilled .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Sections CARDINAL of the Civil Code lay down rules concerning the matrimonial property of married couples .

The property of spouses is subject to the statutory matrimonial property regime of the community of increased assets ( Zugewinngemeinschaft ) if they have not stipulated in a marriage contract that different rules shall apply ( section LOC § CARDINAL of LAW ) . The property of the husband and wife does not become joint property . However , any increase in the assets of either spouse during the marriage is equalized on termination of the community of increased assets ( for example , by death or divorce , see section LOC § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

There are certain limitations on a spouse ’s right to dispose of his or her assets . In particular , according to section QUANTITY , a spouse may only ( agree to ) dispose of the entirety of his or her assets with the other spouse ’s prior or subsequent consent . The approval of guardianship courts may be substituted for the other spouse ’s consent to the transaction under certain conditions : if the transaction is in line with a proper administration of the assets and if the other spouse has refused his or her consent without good cause ( section QUANTITY of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that if a spouse has disposed of his or her assets without the other spouse ’s necessary consent , the other spouse is also entitled to enforce in court the claims emanating from the invalidity of the transaction .

The Debtors ( Voidable Dispositions ) Act ( Anfechtungsgesetz ) of CARDINAL DATE lays down rules for the contestation by creditors of a debtor ’s transactions which have put the creditors at a disadvantage .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of that LAW provides that a creditor may contest a transaction which has been entered into by the debtor , with the intention of putting his creditors at a disadvantage , within DATE if the other party to the transaction was aware of the debtor ’s intent at the time of the transaction . According to section QUANTITY , the creditors may , under certain circumstances , also contest a contract involving remuneration between the debtor and a person having a close relationship with him or her , if the creditors are directly put at a disadvantage by the contract .

If CARDINAL persons have obligations of a similar nature against each other ( in particular , the obligation to pay off a debt ) , each party may declare the set - off of his / her own claim against the claim of the other party under certain circumstances , in particular under the condition that the claim of the party effecting the set - off is already due ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The set - off is effected by way of a declaration to the other party ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) and results in both claims becoming extinct ( with retroactive effect ) as from the time when both claims had first become subject to setting - off ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( which is applicable to proceedings before ORG pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ) lays down rules on additional written pleadings after the hearing . If CARDINAL party to the proceedings is unable to reply to the submissions of the other in the course of the hearing because that party had not been informed in due time of those submissions before the hearing , the court may , on the party ’s request , grant that party leave to give explanations in writing after the hearing within a period fixed by the court .


The applicants are NORP nationals ; their names , year of birth and places of residence are set out in the annex . The first applicant is a secondary school teacher and also a member of the directive board of an independent trade union open to employees of public schools , called “ School basic committees ” ( GPE della Scuola - hereinafter referred to as “ Cobas”).The other applicants are secondary school teachers who are also members of the said trade union .

The applicants are all represented by Mr. PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , ORG .

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

On DATE a decree was issued by ORG which set out , pursuant to LAW paragraph LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , the trade ORG which were considered under LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , to be the “ most representative ” ( sindacati maggiormente rappresentativi ) of the school compartment and were accordingly admitted to take part in the collective bargaining . PERSON was not amongst these trade unions .

On DATE the CARDINAL most representative trade unions and ORG for the representation of public administrations in negotiations ( see below ) entered into a collective labour agreement ( contratto collettivo ) on terms of employment and work conditions of public school teachers .

ORG , which , as well as other excluded trade unions , disagreed with the content of the collective agreement , embarked on a number of protest actions such as demonstration , strikes and occupations of schools . They also organised an informal referendum , whereby the majority expressed its discontent with the adopted agreement .

Subsequent to these events , on DATE a new collective agreement was concluded , which included certain amendments urged by the dissenting trade unions .

On DATE ORG endorsed the collective agreement , which thus acquired legal force erga omnes , i.e. in respect of all employees of the compartment , including those whose trade unions were not admitted to the collective bargaining .

Framework Law on Civil Servants no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( legge quadro sul pubblico impiego n. CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , hereinafter referred to as “ the Law ” , divided civil servants into CARDINAL categories called “ compartments ” . Each compartment was regulated by its own “ compartment collective agreement ” ( contratto collettivo compartimentale ) .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW regulated the system of collective bargaining . The procedure can be summarised as follows .

DATE prior to the expiry of the collective agreement , negotiations were opened between , on the Government ’s side , a governmental delegation set up for each compartment and , on the employees’ side , the most representative trade unions on the national level . Certain other trade unions ( the most representative on the compartment level ) could be allowed to participate , whereas single employees were excluded from the negotiations .

Once an agreement was reached , within DATE ORG would have , after verifying whether the agreement is in accordance with the relevant legislation and with the estimated budget for DATE , to endorse the agreement , which would then be signed by the parties . Within DATE from the date of the signature , the collective agreement would have to be enacted in the form of a Decree issued by the President of the Republic , after approval by ORG . LAW was to be endorsed by ORG ( however , in practice , ORG carried out this task prior to the verification by ORG ) . At this stage the agreement would be valid erga omnes . The collective agreement , in the form of LAW , would be published in ORG and enter into force on DATE after its publication . It would be valid for DATE from its entry into force .

LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE set out the criteria for determining the degree of representation of the trade unions in each compartment . These criteria were : a ) the percentage of proxies for paying contributions which the trade union is given by the workers ( consistenza associativa ) ; b ) the percentage of votes obtained in the elections of different administrative organs ; c ) the presence and importance of the trade union ’s bodies in the compartment .

Law Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE assimilated civil servants ( including employees in public schools ) to private employees , thus making ordinary labour law applicable to their employment contracts . Framework collective compartment agreements are to be entered into ; an ORG for the representation of public administrations in negotiations ( GPE per la rappresentanza negoziale delle pubbliche amministrazioni - ARAN ) was created and placed under the supervision of the Presidency of ORG .

Under LAW , the degree of representation of trade unions was to be determined in an agreement between the President of ORG and the trade unions . The relevant Presidential Decree could be appealed to the administrative courts by those trade unions which were considered not to be representative enough , through an expedited procedure . Article CARDINAL was abrogated by Presidential decree No . CARDINAL of DATE .

Decree CARDINAL/CARDINAL introduced new criteria for determining the real degree of representation of workers in trade unions with a view to selecting the trade unions to be admitted to the collective bargaining . Pursuant to the new LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL , workers must be represented by trade unions whose degree of representation in the relevant compartment is PERCENT , which percentage is calculated on the basis of the average between the percentage of proxies for paying contributions the trade union was given by the workers ( dato associativo ) and the percentage of votes it obtained in the personnel elections ( dato elettorale ) .

The new procedure for negotiating collective agreements is as follows . Before commencing the collective bargaining , instructions ( atti d’indirizzo ) are issued by ORG ( comitati di settore ) of ORG . Negotiations are then carried out by the trade unions and the ARAN . Once a draft agreement has been reached , the ORG submits it to ORG of the relevant compartment , which , within DATE , has to express its opinion thereon . Upon the ORG ’s favourable opinion , DATE ORG submits the calculation of the prospective costs to ORG which , within DATE , must certify its compatibility with the budget . In case ORG does not issue its decision within the said time - limit , its approval is considered as given .

Upon ORG explicit or implicit approval , the President of ORG signs the agreement , which acquires legal force erga omnes , i.e. in respect of all employees of the compartment , including those whose trade unions were not admitted to the collective bargaining .

Upon ORG negative decision , ORG must try , if possible , to reduce the prospective costs , otherwise the negotiations are reopened .

The collective agreement can be challenged before the administrative courts by the trade unions which participated in the negotiations to the extent that it does not correspond to what had been agreed upon . It can also be challenged by the dissenting trade unions insofar as their dissenting opinions have not been taken into consideration .

Each employee can appeal to the regional administrative courts against any decision directly affecting him / her , which is taken in the enforcement of the collective agreement .


No violation of Art.2;Violation of Art. 3

The application was initially introduced by PERSON who was born in DATE and was living in GPE . Following his death on DATE , his parents , brothers and sister ( hereinafter : “ the applicants ” ) expressed their intention to pursue the application on DATE . The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national currently resident in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , Director in ORG .

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

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) of GPE convicted the applicant of an aggravated narcotics offence and sentenced him to imprisonment .

On DATE ORG ( ulkomaalaisvirasto , utlänningsverket ) ordered the applicant to be deported to GPE .

The applicant started to serve his prison sentence on DATE in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) of GPE upheld the applicant ’s conviction and fixed his sentence at DATE and DATE . This judgment was final .

In a report dated DATE the Deputy Governor of ORG took a position on the applicant ’s placement , noting that he was due to be released on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant should be transferred to GPE with a view to serving the rest of his sentence there . ORG relied on section CARDINAL , subsection LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on ORG operation in the Enforcement of Certain Criminal Sanctions , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , as well as on LAW to the Convention on ORG ( NORP Treaty Series no . CARDINAL ; Finnish Treaty Series no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The applicant ’s transfer was subject to the consent of ORG .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) of GPE , arguing that enforcing the transfer order would violate Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL . Firstly , he risked being placed in the same prison as other members of the gang in whose activities he had been involved , CARDINAL of whom he had denounced during the criminal proceedings . Secondly , the general prison conditions in GPE were worse . Thirdly , the applicant argued that in GPE he would , as a first - time offender being of good behaviour in prison , be entitled to release on parole after having served CARDINAL of his sentence . In GPE release on parole would arise only when he had served CARDINAL of his sentence and even then on a more discretionary basis . By ordering that he should serve the rest of his sentence in GPE ORG effectively prolonged his sentence beyond that which he would have served , had he been allowed to remain in GPE . This was said to be in violation of LAW .

In its opinion to ORG stated the following ( as transcribed by the court ) :

“ ... ORG has been sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , of which he will , as a first - time offender , be serving DATE and DATE . According to ORG of the NORP ORG as well as its international unit , it would be possible for ORG to obtain a conditional release in GPE on having served CARDINAL of his sentence , that is to say DATE , DATE . [ His ] possibility of being released conditionally in GPE is therefore not significantly smaller than in GPE and the NORP legislation does not in this respect differ significantly from our own . According to the NORP authorities , the possibility for ORG to obtain a conditional release depends inter alia on factors which [ he ] himself may influence by his own deeds and behaviour . ... The conditions in which the sentence [ would be ] served in GPE [ would not ] differ significantly from those prevailing in GPE . The prohibition of retroactive criminal law does not apply to the case . ... ”

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s appeal , finding that , even though he was likely to serve a significantly longer prison sentence in GPE , this in itself did not constitute a violation of LAW . Nor were the general prison conditions in the receiving country such as to subject him to a risk of treatment proscribed by LAW . The risk that he might face on account of having denounced members of the drug gang had not been substantiated . In any event , there was no reason to believe that the NORP prison authorities would be unable to curb , to the extent possible , any such violence . Nor did ORG find that LAW would be violated as a result of any transfer to GPE as the sentence he would actually be serving there would not exceed the sentence imposed by the NORP courts .

On DATE the NORP ORG requested its NORP counterpart to consent to the applicant ’s transfer . On DATE the Minister of Justice of GPE gave consent for the transfer to GPE . The applicant disputed the consent of the Minister of ORG in ORG and requested the annulment of the consent . On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings of the administrative case until the application at hand was examined .

On DATE the Governor of the GPE prison decided to release the applicant conditionally on DATE . On DATE the applicant was immediately deported to GPE pursuant to the decision of ORG DATE . According to the information provided by the applicant ’s representative on DATE the applicant is currently at liberty in GPE .

Under LAW , LAW ) of LAW ( laki rangaistusten täytäntöönpanosta , lag om verkställighet av straff ) a person sentenced to imprisonment may be conditionally released where he or she has served CARDINAL or , exceptionally , CARDINAL of the sentence , in the latter case provided the prisoner has served no prison sentence during DATE preceding the offence .

Under LAW , subsection CARDINAL of the LAW the factors to be taken into account in the decision to release a prisoner conditionally include , inter alia , the nature of and the motives for the offence , the prisoner ’s earlier life style and his behaviour in the prison , as well as the situation the prisoner would face on release .

Pursuant to LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection PERCENT ) of the LAW a prisoner may appeal to a district court inter alia against the postponement of a conditional release on his or her having served CARDINAL of the sentence ( whichever is applicable under LAW , LAW ) .

In its report of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) ORG noted the following ( on p. CARDINAL ) :

“ ... In DATE [ a conditional release ] was almost never postponed . Following the instruction issued by ORG in DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) postponements have been very rare and almost exclusively based on the prisoner ’s consent . ... ”

And further ( on p. CARDINAL ) :

“ [ The proposals now made ] would not change the existing legislation as regards the possibility of obtaining a conditional release on having served CARDINAL of a sentence . Nor would there be any change as regards those prisoners , who had served no prison term during DATE preceding their offence and who are [ therefore ] to be released on having served CARDINAL of their sentence . ... ”

The objectives of the Convention on ORG ( NORP Treaty Series no . CARDINAL ; Finnish Treaty Series no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; hereinafter “ the LAW ” ) , including its LAW no . CARDINAL ; Finnish Treaty Series no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , are to develop international co - operation in the field of criminal law and to further the ends of justice and the social rehabilitation of sentenced persons . According to the LAW , foreigners who are deprived of their liberty as a result of their commission of a criminal offence should be given the opportunity to serve their sentences within their own society .

ORG entered into force for GPE on CARDINAL DATE and LAW on DATE . GPE ratified LAW and LAW on DATE and DATE , respectively . They entered into force for GPE on DATE and DATE , respectively .

LAW enables the transfer of a sentenced person from “ the sentencing ORG ” to “ the administering State ” provided inter alia that the person in question is a national of the administering State ; that he or she ( or in some instances a legal representative ) consents to the transfer ; that the acts or omissions on account of which the sentence has been imposed constitute a criminal offence according to the law of the administering ORG or would constitute a criminal offence if committed on its territory ; and provided that the sentencing and administering GPE both agree to the transfer .

Article CARDINAL ( “ Effect of transfer for administering ORG ” ) reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The competent authorities of the administering State shall :

( a ) NORP continue the enforcement of the sentence immediately or through a court or administrative order , under the conditions set out in LAW , or

( b ) convert the sentence , through a judicial or administrative procedure , into a decision of that ORG , thereby substituting for the sanction imposed in the sentencing ORG a sanction prescribed by the law of the administering ORG for the same offence , under the conditions set out in LAW .

NORP The administering State , if requested , shall inform the sentencing State before the transfer of the sentenced person as to which of these procedures it will follow .

The enforcement of the sentence shall be governed by the law of the administering ORG and that ORG alone shall be competent to take all appropriate decisions . ... ”

Article CARDINAL ( “ Continued enforcement ” ) provides the following :

“ CARDINAL . In the case of continued enforcement , the administering State shall be bound by the legal nature and duration of the sentence as determined by the sentencing ORG .

ORG . If , however , this sentence is by its nature or duration incompatible with the law of the administering ORG , or its law so requires , that ORG may , by a court or administrative order , adapt the sanction to the punishment or measure prescribed by its own law for a similar offence . As to its nature , the punishment or measure shall , as far as possible , correspond with that imposed by the sentence to be enforced . It shall not aggravate , by its nature or duration , the sanction imposed in the sentencing ORG , nor exceed the maximum prescribed by the law of the administering ORG . ”

LAW Conversion of sentence ” ) reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In the case of conversion of sentence , the procedures provided for by the law of the administering ORG apply . When converting the sentence , the competent authority :

( a ) shall be bound by the findings as to the facts insofar as they appear explicitly or implicitly from the judgment imposed in the sentencing ORG ;

( b ) may not convert a sanction involving deprivation of liberty to a pecuniary sanction ;

( c ) shall deduct the full period of deprivation of liberty served by the sentenced person ; and

( d ) shall not aggravate the penal position of the sentenced person , and shall not be bound by any minimum which the law of the administering ORG may provide for the offence or offences committed .

If the conversion procedure takes place after the transfer of the sentenced person , the administering State shall keep that person in custody or otherwise ensure his presence in the administering ORG pending the outcome of that procedure . ”

LAW provides as follows :

“ Upon being requested by the sentencing ORG , the administering ORG may , subject to the provisions of this LAW , agree to the transfer of a sentenced person without the consent of that person , where the sentence passed on the latter , or an administrative decision consequential to that sentence , includes an expulsion or deportation order or any other measure as the result of which that person will no longer be allowed to remain in the territory of the sentencing ORG once he or she is released from prison . ”

At the time of the commission of the applicant ’s offence illegal possession of narcotics was punishable by DATE imprisonment pursuant to LAW , subsection CARDINAL of LAW of GPE .

The Penal Code replaced LAW on DATE . According to LAW criminal offences are divided into offences in the first degree and offences in the second degree . A criminal offence in the first degree are those for which LAW prescribes a maximum punishment of imprisonment for a term of DATE , life imprisonment or compulsory dissolution . A criminal offence in the second degree attracts imprisonment for a term DATE or a financial penalty .

According to LAW , which entered into force on DATE , an offence which is committed prior to entry into force of LAW and which is also punishable as a criminal offence pursuant to LAW shall be legally assessed pursuant to the corresponding section of LAW in force at the time of the commission of the offence . If , after entry into force of LAW , a punishment is imposed for a criminal offence committed prior to entry into force of LAW , the punishment shall be based on the punishment provided for in the corresponding section of LAW in force at the time of the commission of the offence , where the said section prescribes a lesser punishment .

The offence of unlawful handling of large quantities of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances was punishable by CARDINAL to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment from DATE to DATE pursuant to LAW of GPE ( thus rendering the offence an offence in the second degree pursuant to LAW of GPE ) .

As from DATE the offence has been punishable by CARDINAL to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , thus rendering the offence an offence in the first degree ( pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ) .

Conditional release ( release on parole ) is governed by section CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . According to subsection CARDINAL , if a person has been convicted of commission of a criminal offence in the second degree , or a criminal offence in the first degree through negligence , the court may release the convicted offender conditionally if he or she has actually served CARDINAL but not DATE of the term of the imposed punishment . Subsection CARDINAL provides that if a person has been convicted of intentional commission of a criminal offence in the first degree , the court may release the person conditionally if the convicted person has actually served CARDINAL of the term of the imposed punishment . Pursuant to subsection CARDINAL , in deciding on conditional release , the court shall take into consideration the circumstances relating to the commission of the criminal offence , the personality of the convicted offender , his or her previous personal history and conduct during the service of the sentence , his or her living conditions and the consequences which conditional release may bring about for the convicted offender .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP - Cypriot national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( in the “ TRNC ” ) . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the ORG .

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

The applicant was the owner of CARDINAL plots of land ( plot nos . XCARDINAL/CARDINAL ECARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) situated along the east coast of LOC ( PERSON ) . Since DATE these plots have been used by the NORP military forces for a military base .

On DATE the applicant petitioned ORG of GPE requesting compensation for his land . On DATE he was informed that the “ NORP ” authorities had commenced the procedure to expropriate the land in question pursuant to ORG .

On DATE Notice no . CARDINAL was published in ORG of the “ NORP ” , pursuant to LAW . According to the LAW , plot nos . XCARDINAL/CARDINAL ECARDINAL CARDINAL , CARDINAL and ORG were to be compulsorily acquired for national security reasons . The ORG provided that any objections should be addressed to ORG within DATE of the publication .

On DATE Notice no . CARDINAL was published in ORG of the “ NORP ” , pursuant to LAW . According to this LAW , as there had been no objections , the Government ordered the compulsory acquisition of the plots of land referred to in Notice no . CARDINAL .

The applicant claims that he learned of the existence of Notice no . CARDINAL on DATE , verbally , from an official at the ORG office .

On DATE ORG sent an offer of compensation to the applicant , amounting to MONEY ( GBP ) to be converted into GPE liras .

On DATE the applicant filed an action for compensation with ORG , sitting as ORG ( PERSON ) .

During the proceedings , the applicant claimed that the market value of property in the area was MONEY and GBP CARDINAL per dönüm . The experts called by the applicant confirmed that the market value of the land in question was GBP CARDINAL per dönüm . The court also heard from the experts called by the defendant party , who in turn alleged that the market value was GBP CARDINAL per dönüm . The evaluation by the defendant party ’s experts was based on the declarations made to the ORG office . On DATE the Girne ORG rendered its decision . It expressed its concerns about the amount stated by the defendant party ’s experts , stating that buyers tended to undervalue their property at the ORG office in order to reduce the fees and charges . As a result , it awarded the applicant GBP CARDINAL per dönüm . In sum , the applicant was granted GBP CARDINAL ( MONEY ) by way of compensation for CARDINAL dönüms of land .

On DATE , considering the amount of compensation excessive , the Attorney General filed an appeal against this decision . The proceedings are still pending before ORG .


BISERICA SFANTUL HARALAMBIE AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

PERSON ( ORG , hereinafter “ the applicant church ” ) , is a church registered in GPE . The second , third , fourth and fifth applicants ( Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON ) are NORP nationals , were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively and they live in GPE . All applicants are represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

By a decision of DATE , the ORG decided to return to the applicant church a church building together with CARDINAL auxiliary buildings and to repair the church . The restitution and repair was to be carried out within DATE of the decision . However , the authorities only partly complied : the church was returned but not repaired and none of the auxiliary houses were returned .

In DATE the applicant church addressed ORG for ORG which , in turn , requested the ORG to comply with their decision . There was no response so the applicant church took proceedings in ORG . On DATE that court rejected the action because they had failed to attempt to resolve the issue by addressing the Government directly . The applicant church appealed to ORG claiming that it had not been properly summoned to the hearing ( so it was not represented there ) and that ORG had missed the DATE deadline for summarily rejecting its application but nevertheless decided on the admissibility of the claim without giving it the opportunity to modify its application or present supporting documents or arguments . On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant was present and rejected its appeal .

The applicant church then addressed the Government directly . The latter responded that implementation of the DATE decision was the responsibility of the municipality .

The applicant church then took a new action against the Government in ORG . On DATE that court found that it was not competent but that the first instance ordinary courts were : the complaint was not about the DATE decision itself but rather about the action and inaction of the authorities implementing it . The applicant church was not represented at the hearing because , it claims , it was not properly summoned . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant church 's appeal . The applicant was represented at ORG hearing .

The applicant church did not initiate further proceedings .

The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the relevant time read as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL :

ORG :

CARDINAL ) judges as a first instance court proceedings against actions of the authorities of the central public administration and of their officials done in violation of the law or in excess of competence and which violate the rights of citizens ;

Article CARDINAL : Acceptance for examination and refusal to examine civil law suits

The judge determines whether a civil action is to be accepted for examination .

The judge shall refuse to receive an action :

CARDINAL ) if the interested person who filed the action did not complete the pre - trial settlement procedure through the use of extra - judicial means or the procedure established by law for the particular type of action ;

CARDINAL ) if the court is not competent to examine the case ;

Article CARDINAL : Powers of the court of appeal

The court of appeal has the power :

CARDINAL ) to reject the appeal and maintain the judgment , finding or decision ; or

CARDINAL ) to accept the appeal .

The relevant provisions of ORG in force at the relevant time read :

“ LAW The object of an action in administrative law

( CARDINAL ) The failure to resolve , within the period prescribed by law , a query regarding a right recognised by law may itself constitute the object of an action in administrative law .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers from ORG of ORG .

On DATE he was brought before ORG public prosecutor , where he denied the charges against him .

On DATE , the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG . In his report , the doctor stated that the applicant suffered from inguinal hernia and that there were no signs of ill - treatment on his body .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at ORG , where he repudiated the content of his police statement , alleging that it was taken under duress . On DATE , the judge ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand . The applicant was sent to ORG .

On DATE the public prosecutor of ORG filed an indictment against the applicant , accusing him of being a member of an illegal organisation , namely the ORG ( ORG ) . He requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to LAW .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG . According to the report , the applicant described pain on the inguinal region , on his shoulders , and weakness in his arms . He further complained that he had pain in his anus . The report stated that in order to be able to deliver a final report , further examinations were required . Having received further medical reports , on DATE ORG issued its final report and concluded that the applicant suffered from an inguinal direct hernia . It was stated that this hernia might have been the outcome of an infirmity of the abdominal region , or it could be the result of an external trauma . It was also noted that if the hernia had been caused by an external trauma then this finding would prevent the applicant from working for DATE . The report finally stated that the other complaints would prevent the applicant from work for DATE .

On DATE , during its first hearing , ORG heard from the applicant . In his statement , the applicant denied the charges against him and gave the details about the ill - treatment he had been allegedly subjected to during his police custody . He stated that after he had been arrested by the police officers , he was put in a car ; his head was covered with his coat , and he was beaten inside the car . After DATE half ORG drive , he was forced to lie on the ground face down . Someone stepped on his head and they shot CARDINAL or CARDINAL bullets near the left and right side of his head . He was then taken to ORG building , where he was stripped naked and suspended from his arms . Electrics shocks were administered to his toes and genitals . He was also beaten on the soles of his feet . The applicant also submitted a copy of the medical report issued by ORG . At the end of the hearing , the court concluded that the applicant ’s representative could file a complaint with the authorities about the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant was allegedly beaten by the soldiers during his transfer from ORG to FAC .

On DATE ORG , which was composed of CARDINAL judges including a military judge , found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the applicant ’s conviction on the ground that ORG had delivered its judgment without taking the applicant ’s final statement .

DATE and DATE ORG , to which the case file was remitted , held CARDINAL hearings namely on DATE and DATE , during which the judges dealt solely with procedural matters .

On DATE the constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of ORG was replaced by a civilian judge .

In the meantime , in DATE a large number of prisoners started a hunger strike to protest against the F - Type prisons . On DATE the security forces conducted an operation in several prisons to stop the protests . The applicant was allegedly beaten by the soldiers during this operation in FAC .

On DATE , after hearing the applicant in person to take his final defence submissions , ORG , composed of CARDINAL civilian judges , adhered to its first judgment . Basing itself on the leaflets and the receipt vouchers of the organisation captured from the applicant ’s residence , the ORG statements , the cartridge clips and guns seized during the investigation , the court once again sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment .

The applicant appealed against the judgment . In his petition , he maintained that the judgment of the first - instance court was based on his police statements which had been taken under duress .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer provided the Registry with a medical report of DATE , which was drafted by a commission of medical experts of ORG . The report noted that the applicant had applied to the ORG on DATE and complained about his continuing suffering as a result of ill - treatment on account of his previous detentions .

The report concluded that the finding of QUANTITY damaged tissue to the applicant ’s head was in line with the applicant ’s testimony about the operation dated DATE and that the diagnoses of a right inguinal hernia were compatible with the story of physical pressure put on the abdominal region . According to the report , the applicant suffered from physical and psychological problems .