Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 10;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in the GPE . From DATE until her retirement in DATE she worked in the police service .

ORG In DATE PERSON was appointed to the rank of Assistant Chief Constable with the GPE police . As such she became the most senior - ranking female police officer in GPE .

ORG On CARDINAL occasions during DATE , PERSON applied unsuccessfully to be appointed to the rank of Deputy Chief Constable , in response to vacancies arising within GPE and other police authorities . In order to be considered for promotion to this rank , ORG approval was required . However , according to the applicant , this was consistently withheld on the recommendation of the Chief Constable of the GPE police , who objected to her commitment to equality of treatment between men and women .

ORG Following a further refusal to promote her in DATE , PERSON commenced proceedings on DATE in ORG against , inter alia , the Chief Constable of GPE and the Home Secretary , claiming that she had been discriminated against on grounds of sex .

On DATE , the Chairman and Vice - Chairman of ORG were designated a " Special Committee " to handle the issues arising from the discrimination case .

PERSON alleges that certain members of ORG launched a " campaign " against her in response to her complaint to ORG . This took the form , inter alia , of leaks to the press , interception of her telephone calls ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the decision to bring disciplinary proceedings against her .

ORG Thus , on DATE , ORG referred to the Senior Officers’ Disciplinary Committee a report written by the Chief Constable about an alleged incident of misconduct on the part of PERSON on DATE . ORG resolved , on DATE , to hold a formal investigation and to refer the matter to ORG and , on DATE , to press charges . PERSON was suspended from duty on full pay from DATE .

ORG She challenged the above decisions by way of judicial review in ORG . The matter was adjourned by Mr ORG in DATE in view of a possible settlement . However , the parties failed to reach agreement and the matter came back before him on DATE . He found that the Chairman and Vice - Chairman of ORG had acted ultra vires and , without imputing ill - motive to them , held that there had been an element of unfairness . He therefore quashed the relevant decisions .

ORG The hearing before ORG took place in DATE . On DATE the proceedings were adjourned pending negotiation between the parties , which led to settlement of the case . PERSON was given an ex gratia payment of MONEY ( GBP ) by the Chief Constable ( the statutory maximum which ORG could have awarded ) , together with GBP CARDINAL towards her personal expenses by the Home Secretary . It was agreed that she would retire from the police force on medical grounds ( arising out of an injury to her knee in DATE ) . In addition , ORG agreed to implement various proposals put by ORG , inter alia to update and review selection procedures for senior posts within the police force .

ORG As Assistant Chief Constable , PERSON was provided with her own office and QUANTITY telephones , CARDINAL of which was for private use . These telephones were part of the GPE police internal telephone network , a telecommunications system outside the public network . No restrictions were placed on the use of these telephones and no guidance was given to her , save for an assurance which she sought and received from the Chief Constable shortly after she instituted the proceedings in ORG that she had authorisation to attend to the case while on duty , including by telephone .

In addition , since she was frequently " on call " , a substantial part of her home telephone costs were paid by the GPE police . Her home telephone consisted of a telephone apparatus connected , through the " network termination point " , to the public telecommunications network .

ORG She alleges that calls made from her home and her office telephones were intercepted for the purposes of obtaining information to use against her in the discrimination proceedings . In support of these allegations she adduced various items of evidence before the Commission ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG ’s report ) . In addition , she informed the ORG that she was told by an anonymous source on DATE that , shortly before , the source had discovered the GPE police checking transcripts of conversations made on her home telephone .

For the purposes of the case before the ORG , the ORG accepted that the applicant had adduced sufficient material to establish a reasonable likelihood that calls made from her office telephones were intercepted . They did not , however , accept that she had adduced sufficient material to establish such a reasonable likelihood in relation to her home telephone .

PERSON raised her concerns about the interception of her calls before ORG on DATE . On DATE , in the course of the hearing , counsel for the Home Secretary expressed the opinion that it was not possible for her to adduce evidence about the alleged interceptions before ORG because section CARDINAL of the Interception of Communications Act DATE ( " the CARDINAL Act " ) expressly excluded the calling of evidence before any court or tribunal which tended to suggest that an offence under LAW had been committed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE PERSON applied to ORG ( " the ORG " ) for an investigation under LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , the ORG informed her that its investigation had satisfied it that there had been no contravention of sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the DATE Act in her case ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . In a letter dated DATE , the ORG confirmed that it could not specify whether any interception had in fact taken place ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG In a letter to Mr PERSON MP dated CARDINAL DATE , ORG Secretary explained that PERSON complaint regarding the interception of calls made from her office telephones " [ did ] not fall within [ his ] responsibilities as Home Secretary nor within the terms of the [ DATE ] LAW .

The Interception of Communications Act DATE came into force on DATE following the ORG ’s judgment in ORG v. the GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) . Its objective , as outlined in ORG which preceded it , was to provide a clear statutory framework within which the interception of communications on public systems would be authorised and controlled in a manner commanding public confidence ( Interception of Communications in GPE ( DATE ) ORG , PERSON . DATE ) .

ORG A " public " telecommunications system is defined as a telecommunications system which is run pursuant to a licence granted under LAW DATE ( " LAW " ) and which has been designated as such by the Secretary of ORG ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , by reference to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .

ORG By LAW , anyone who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a public communications system is guilty of a criminal offence .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provide CARDINAL circumstances in which a person who intercepts communications in this way will not be guilty of the offence . The only one of these which is relevant to the present case is the interception of a communication pursuant to a warrant issued by the Secretary of ORG under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW provides that no evidence shall be adduced by any party , in any proceedings before a court or tribunal , which tends to suggest either that an offence under LAW CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act has been committed by a public servant or that a warrant has been issued to such a person under LAW .

Sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the DATE Act set out detailed rules for the issuing of warrants by the Secretary of ORG for the interception of communications and the disclosure of intercepted material . Thus , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provides :

" The Secretary of ORG shall not issue a warrant ... unless he considers that the warrant is necessary –

( a ) in the interests of national security ;

( b ) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime ; or

( c ) for the purposes of safeguarding the economic well - being of GPE . "

When considering whether it is necessary to issue a warrant , the Secretary of ORG must take into account whether the information which it is considered necessary to acquire could reasonably be acquired by other means ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ) .

ORG The warrant must specify the person who is authorised to do the interception , and give particulars of the communications to be intercepted , such as the LOC from which the communications will be made and the names of the individuals concerned ( sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) .

ORG A warrant can not be issued unless it is under the hand of the Secretary of ORG himself or , in an urgent case , under the hand of a senior official where the Secretary of ORG has expressly authorised the issue of the warrant . A warrant issued under the hand of the Secretary of ORG is valid for DATE ; CARDINAL issued under the hand of an official is only valid for DATE . In defined circumstances , warrants may be modified or renewed ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides , inter alia , for the limitation of the extent to which material obtained pursuant to a warrant may be disclosed , copied and retained .

ORG The DATE Act also provided for the establishment of an Interception of Communications Tribunal . The ORG consists of CARDINAL members , each of whom must be a lawyer of not less than ten years’ standing , who hold office for DATE subject to reappointment ( section CARDINAL of and Schedule CARDINAL to the CARDINAL Act ) .

ORG Any person who believes , inter alia , that communications made by or to him may have been intercepted in the course of their transmission by means of a public telecommunications system can apply to the ORG for an investigation . If the application does not appear to the ORG to be frivolous or vexatious , it is under a duty to determine whether a warrant has been issued , and if so , whether it was issued in accordance with LAW . In making this determination , the ORG applies " the principles applicable by a court on application for judicial review " ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)-(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act ) .

ORG If the ORG determines that there has been no breach of the DATE Act , it will inform the complainant , but it will not confirm whether there was no breach because there was no authorised interception or because , although there was such an interception , it was justified under the terms of the DATE Act . In cases where the ORG finds there has been a breach , it has a duty to make a report of its findings to the Prime Minister and a power to notify the complainant . It also has the power , inter alia , to order the quashing of the warrant and the payment of compensation to the complainant . The ORG does not give reasons for its decisions and there is no appeal from a decision of the ORG ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)-(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act ) .

ORG The DATE Act also makes provision for the appointment of a Commissioner by the Prime Minister . The first Commissioner was Lord Justice Lloyd ( now Lord Lloyd ) , succeeded in DATE by Lord PERSON , also a senior member of the judiciary , who was in turn succeeded in DATE by another , Lord PERSON .

ORG The Commissioner ’s functions include reviewing the carrying out by the Secretary of ORG of the functions conferred on him by sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the DATE Act , reporting to the Prime Minister breaches of sections DATE the DATE Act which have not been reported by the ORG and making an DATE report to the Prime Minister on the exercise of his functions . This report must be laid before ORG , although the Prime Minister has the power to exclude any matter from it the publication of which would be prejudicial to national security , to the prevention or detection of serious crime or to the well - being of GPE . The report must state if any matter has been excluded ( section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ) .

ORG In general , the reports of the Commissioner to the Prime Minister have indicated an increase in new warrants issued , but the Commissioner has been satisfied that in all cases those new warrants were justified under LAW .

ORG LAW does not apply to telecommunications systems outside the public network , such as the internal system at GPE police headquarters , and there is no other legislation to regulate the interception of communications on such systems .

ORG The LANGUAGE common law provides no remedy against interception of communications , since it " places no general constraints upon invasions of privacy as such " ( Mr Justice PERSON in NORP v. ORG , ex parte ORG , DATE , unreported ) .


The applicant is an NORP citizen resident in GPE , GPE . She is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE and Mr Douwe PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

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

On TIME DATE , PERSON and CARDINAL brothers , PERSON and the applicant 's husband , PERSON ( aged DATE ) , were in PERSON 's ORG , ORG , GPE . The CARDINAL men left ORG .

PERSON and PERSON left in PERSON 's red ORG Granada car , driven by PERSON . They drove down FAC on to FAC , turning right on FAC . As they came around the corner into FAC , a grey ORG Corolla with a GPE registration had broken down . PERSON and PERSON stopped to help the driver . They managed to get the car going and the ORG car then drove off in a southerly direction . Just as the ORG car drove off , PERSON came along in his white Rover car and stopped .

PERSON and the brothers had a conversation for TIME and decided to go to GPE . A patrol of CARDINAL NORP soldiers came along and checked the CARDINAL men out and allowed them to go on . PERSON drove off first and approached an army vehicle checkpoint ( ORG ) opposite the entrance to PERSON ORG , which was a short distance from where they had been first questioned by soldiers . A number of civilians saw PERSON drive past but none of them saw any attempts by soldiers to stop his car . Soldiers later gave evidence that an attempt was made to stop the car . Having passed the checkpoint PERSON drove his car into the car park of the Lite ' N ' Easy Public House very near to where the soldiers were stopping cars at the checkpoint , and parked his car directly facing on to the road . PERSON got out of the car .

PERSON then drove his car from the same direction and no attempt was made by the soldiers to stop his car either .

CARDINAL soldiers left the ORG and went over to where PERSON was standing in the car park . According to the applicant 's version of events , PERSON drove down the road and stopped at the edge of the car park . PERSON got out of PERSON car and went over to where PERSON was standing . PERSON drove off in the direction of the local ORG . PERSON decided to drive PERSON car which they were taking to GPE . PERSON got into the driver 's seat , and PERSON into the front passenger seat . They began to move off onto the road , turning left in a southern direction . Just as the car was on the roadway , CARDINAL soldiers knelt on the ground with their guns at their shoulders in a firing position . None of the soldiers were hit by the car and none of them were lying on the ground . As the car moved up the road , QUANTITY soldiers fired their guns with what they described as " QUANTITY well aimed shots " at the car . None of the civilian witnesses saw any attempt to stop the vehicle from leaving the car park . As a result of the shooting , PERSON was killed and his brother PERSON seriously injured . The soldiers ' versions of events , as given at the trial , was materially different ( see below ) .

CARDINAL soldiers , NORP E and ORG , were charged with the murder of PERSON , attempted murder of PERSON and wounding PERSON with intent to do him grievous bodily harm .

The case was heard at ORG before Lord Chief Justice PERSON who acquitted both on all charges .

Lord Chief Justice PERSON in his judgment of DATE identified CARDINAL main conflicts of evidence between the civilian and military witnesses , firstly , whether a soldier had attempted to stop PERSON as he drove past the checkpoint in his car and , secondly , what happened after PERSON drove into the car park where ORG came across to talk to him . In particular , the civilian witnesses refuted the version of the soldiers , in that they had denied seeing any attempt by soldiers to flag him down , and in the car park saw no altercation between the CARDINAL ORG and the soldiers ; none saw the smashing of the car window by a soldier or any soldier being hit or carried along by a car .

The judge summarised the evidence of the soldiers as follows :

Evidence of Marine E

“ After he ( < Marine E > ) had seen the white ORG pass behind him as he was checking one of the cars at the rear of the line of cars travelling toward PERSON , and thinking that the white Rover had driven through the ORG disobeying PERSON signal to stop , and seeing the white Rover turn into the car park at the Lite and Easy and stop there , he ( < Marine E > ) sent PERSON down to the car park to investigate .

He ( < Marine E > ) then noticed that the driver of the white car had got out of the car and was standing in the car park and was acting " anti " towards PERSON ( < Marine E > ) heard raised voices , and he ( < Marine E > ) then went down to the car park . He approached the driver of the white car and PERSON and asked the driver what the problem was . The driver replied that there was no problem . The driver told him that he was not scared of them ( ie . the soldiers ) and asked < Marine E > and soldier B what they were going to do .

< Marine E > could smell that the driver had been drinking and noticed that his speech was slurred . The driver told < Marine E > that he had been drinking and that he was drunk . < Marine E > asked him for his identification but the driver did not give it ...

A red ORG car then came from the same direction as the white Rover . It stopped a short distance past the entrance to the car park on the GPE side of the car park .

The passenger got out of his red car when it stopped and walked in the direction of < Marine E > , Marine B and the driver of the white car . This person appeared to be hunched over and appeared to be shouting at < Marine E > and PERSON The man also appeared to be shouting at the driver of the white car . < Marine E > did not know who this man was . < Marine E > could not make out what he was shouting , he could not understand him .

The man from the red ORG shouted CARDINAL thing which < Marine E > understood which was " Fuck this , I 'll do it " . This man then carried on to the white car and got into the driver 's seat . The other man , who had driven the white Rover into the car park , initially did nothing , and then he turned and ran and got into the front passenger seat of the white car .

At this stage < Marine E > was standing in front of the Rover car CARDINAL or QUANTITY back from the front of it and to the driver 's side of the front . Marine B was standing somewhere over his ( < Marine E > 's ) right shoulder .

When the man from the red ORG got into the driver 's seat of the white ORG he was revving the car intending to drive away . < Marine E > was not agreeable to that because he had not identified the person , ( ie . the man who had driven the white Rover into the car park , to whom he had been talking ) . < Marine E > wanted to know who he was and why initially he had driven through the ORG .

< Marine E > moved to the front of the white ORG and placed his left hand on the bonnet and shouted to the driver to stop and to get out of the car . He was holding his rifle with his right hand .

When he was standing with his hand on the bonnet , he was at the front of the car on the driver 's side .

The driver did not respond to < Marine E > 's wish and he kangarooed the car forward as if he were a learner driver trying to pull away . This movement of the car pushed < Marine E > backwards and his feet were slipping in the shingle of the car park . < Marine E > was pushed back QUANTITY .

At this stage < Marine E > was not aware where ORG was other than that he was over his right shoulder somewhere in the car park . The driver appeared to slip the clutch and the car moved forward in continual motion .

As the car surged forward it lifted < Marine E > up . His hand was still on the bonnet and he twisted himself on the driver 's wing of the vehicle as it pulled out onto the road .

As < Marine E > cleared the wing he was falling backwards in the opposite direction to the vehicle and he smashed the driver 's window of the car by striking down at the window with the butt of his rifle whilst he was falling backwards . He did not fall on the ground as he broke his fall with his left arm by putting his left arm down behind him ...

At this point < Marine E > noticed PERSON B was in front of the car which was moving at this stage . The car reached PERSON and PERSON was trapped on the front of the car . The car had struck PERSON and he was trapped by the speed and motion of the car pulling away from the car park . It was the front passenger side on the front of the bonnet which appeared to strike PERSON ( < Marine E > ) noticed this as he was smashing the window .

The car was accelerating away toward GPE . He ( < Marine E > ) formed the view that NORP B was trapped . PERSON was on the front of the car as it turned or went in the direction of GPE .

He ( < Marine E > ) then cocked his rifle , and he looked at his rifle to cock it . He was trained to look at his rifle when he cocked it . Once he cocked the rifle he brought it up on aim . This involved moving the cheek plate up to his cheek and aligning his eye with the sight . He brought the sight straight up to his eye and closed his left eye .

< Marine E > had never before fired his rifle outside the circumstances of training . As he brought the sight up to his eye he was kneeling on the road .

He looked through the sight at the car . His intention in cocking the weapon and putting the sight to his eye was to stop the car moving away down the road .

He tried to stop the vehicle by firing his rifle .

He was aware that somebody joined them from the direction of the village , and he took it to be another member of his team . This person appeared to be to his right . He told him to " make ready , fire " . He could not remember if he said this before or after he ( < Marine E > ) started to shoot .

As he saw the car through the sight it appeared to move down the road towards GPE . He thought NORP B was on the front of the car . At no stage did he see him fall from the car . He did not see PERSON or anything that might be him on the front bonnet through the windscreens of the car .

He ( < Marine E > ) fired at the driver . At no stage did he fire at the passenger .

It was put to < Marine E > that there were bullet holes at the rear of the car which were not in the position where the driver would be . < Marine E > said that he was not conscious or aware of firing at any of those positions .

He fired at the driver to stop the car . He wanted to stop the car because ORG was on the bonnet of the car .

When asked why did he think it necessary to stop the car or to fire at the driver because ORG was on the bonnet < Marine E > replied : ' Because he ( PERSON ) could have been seriously hurt or killed ' ...

It was not feasible to shoot at other portions of the car , such as the tyres , because the driver was the person in control of the car . His training did not involve being trained to shoot at the tyres of a car ...

The car travelled down the road and it seemed to lose power at some distance . He noticed that the driver 's head made a slumping movement and he concluded that the driver of the vehicle had been hit . When he saw that he stopped firing .

When he stopped firing he took the sight away from his eye and viewed the scene with both eyes . When he did that he saw PERSON B was at the GPE end of the car park on the mixture of shingle on the car park and the hard surface of the road . Marine B was sitting up from having been laid down . He ( < Marine E > ) then moved back onto the car park . He turned round and noticed that it was PERSON A > who had joined him to his right ... ”

Evidence of Marine A

" He ( < Marine A > ) continued to check cars going in the direction of Cullyhanna . He then heard a car coming from Cullyhanna . It was a red ORG . He saw the driver and passenger in this red car . As it went past his location it beeped on the horn and the driver 's passenger gave the V sign . The red car drove on in the direction of the south ...

He ( < Marine A > ) then looked at the car park . He saw Marine B signalling to him to come down . He was aware that a white ORG was there ... at the southern end of the car park . It was QUANTITY back from the road and was at an angle slightly facing the south . Marine B signalled with his arm to come to him . Marine B was at the front of the white Rover and was talking to a civilian . He ( < Marine A > ) did not see < Marine E > at that stage .

When he received the signal from Marine B he looked to the north and saw other soldiers coming down , and he shouted to CARDINAL of them to take over , and he ( < ORG > ) proceeded to the car park . He walked down towards the PERSON and Easy car park and when he got into the vicinity of the car park he noticed < Marine E > at the white car as well . At this stage he reached the north end of the car park . Marine B was at the front of the white Rover ... He was just aware of a civilian in the same vicinity as < Marine E > and PERSON

As he was walking towards the car he noticed another civilian walking from the south towards the white car . The first civilian seemed to be uncooperative with < Marine E > and PERSON This was apparent from raised voices and the body language . There were raised voices and arms were up while speaking .

As the second civilian got closer to the car he said something which he ( < ORG > ) could not make out . It was just a raised voice as though shouting something .

The second civilian just walked past the soldiers and the first civilian . < Marine E > was to the driver 's side of the car with the first civilian and PERSON was more to the passenger 's side . The second civilian got into the driver 's seat and started the engine . The first civilian was at the front of the car at first and then he ran and got into the passenger seat .

When the first man got into the car < Marine E > ran to the front of the car and put his hand on the bonnet and told him to stop the car . < Marine E > was on the driver 's side of the car . At this time he ( < ORG > ) was walking down towards the car park . PERSON was to the front of the car facing south . Marine B would have been in the car park .

The car revved loudly , a big rev , and then went forward . < Marine E > had a hand on the bonnet shouting to stop the car . The car was pushing < Marine E > back . As the car surged forward < Marine E > came off on the driver 's side , and as he came off he managed to smash the driver 's window .

Once < Marine E > smashed the window he ( < Marine A > ) ran forward . He was not aware at the time that < Marine E > had stayed on his feet . He ( < Marine A > ) saw the smashed window . As < Marine E > smashed the window the car was just coming onto the road .

As he ( < Marine A > ) ran forward he could not see PERSON , he lost sight of PERSON

When he had last seen Marine B he was at the front of the car . Marine B would have been in the line of the car as it set off .

When < Marine E > smashed the window he ( < Marine A > ) ran forward and tried to make a grab for the driver . He ( < Marine A > ) realised the car was going too fast .

He ( < Marine A > ) had lost sight of PERSON He thought he had been hit or had gone under the car .

As the car came out of the car park he ( < Marine A > ) tried to grab for the driver . He ( < Marine A > ) followed the driver out and he ( < Marine A > ) set out to the right - hand side of the road .

He ( < Marine A > ) thought that NORP B was on the bonnet or had gone under the car . He could not see PERSON He went down in a kneeling position just to the right of < Marine E > and slightly to his front . He received the order from < Marine E > " Ready , Fire " . He ( < ORG > ) had already taken the decision to fire at the driver . He thought PERSON life was in danger ...

The time between the breaking of the window and the firing of the first shot was a split second . It was CARDINAL motion , it was so fast .

He ( < Marine A > ) was in the kneeling position . < Marine E > fired the first CARDINAL shots .

He ( < Marine A > ) went down instantly , he made ready and came up on sight . He would have looked down to cock his weapon . At the stage he brought up the sight onto the target he could not see PERSON ... As he brought up the weapon his left eye closed and stayed closed . When he brought the sight up to his eye he aimed at the back windscreen and at the driver . He did not know if he was able to see through the windscreen or not . He was not able to see to the left or right of the driver .

He was concentrating on the tip of the sight which was on the driver .

At no time when he was looking through the sight did he see PERSON

When he ( < Marine A > ) fired the shots he believed Marine B was still on the bonnet or under the car .

He ( < Marine A > ) was firing at the driver to stop the car . He saw the vehicle slow down , he never saw it stop . He heard < Marine E > order " Stop Firing " ...

When he came off sight he noticed Marine B on the left to his front .

At no time did he see Marine B on the sight picture . The first time he saw PERSON was when he came off aim and opened both eyes . ”

Evidence of Marine B

" After Corporal < Marine E > nodded in the direction of the car he ( Marine B ) walked down towards the car park . He thought there was no particular danger at all in relation to the car ... His intention was to find out why the driver had driven through the ORG . As he got closer to the driver he ( the driver ) started hurling abuse . He was swearing . He did not understand what the driver was saying , he had trouble understanding the south GPE accent . The driver was unsteady on his feet and he ( NORP B ) formed the impression that he was drunk . He asked him why he had driven through the ORG . He did not understand what the driver replied .

He was aware of Corporal < Marine E > arriving . He ( Corporal < Marine E > ) appeared over his left shoulder ...

At the time that Corporal < Marine E > appeared at his left shoulder he noticed a red car coming along from the direction of Cullyhanna . The red car continued to move past the car park and as soon as it cleared the car park it stopped . There was a passenger in the front passenger seat . Before the car stopped the passenger window was opened and the passenger was shouting abuse towards them .

The passenger got out and he walked up to the car park . He was shouting when he started to walk up towards them . He ( Marine B ) did not understand what he was saying . The passenger was unsteady on his feet as well . He ( Marine B ) formed the view that he had been drinking as well . His shouting was abusive . To begin with the passenger directed his abuse at them in general in the car park .

When the red car originally appeared he left Corporal < Marine E > 's side and walked down towards the red car . When the passenger passed him he ( Marine B ) understood what he was saying . He said " Get the fuck in , and fuck them " . This was directed to the driver of the white car .

Thereafter his ( Marine B 's ) attention was focused on the red car . The red car drove off in the ORG direction ... He watched the red car until the ORG shop . He ( Marine B ) would have been facing south ... As he watched the red car drive towards ORG he could not see the white car behind him and slightly to his left .

He ( Marine B ) could hear revving from behind when the red car had gone out of his sight or just before it had gone out of his sight . He did not do anything immediately because the red car had still a little way to go . Then he turned round to his left . He saw the white car . The white car was just in front of him and it was moving towards him . He was not aware of the vehicle moving towards him . He did not expect to see the vehicle moving towards him . The front of the car was closest to him . If he could have stepped out of the way he would have done so . The car was almost on top of him and was moving towards him . He thought he was going to be hit by the car and he put himself down onto the bonnet . The top CARDINAL of his body was on the bonnet and his feet were still on the ground . His feet did not stay on the ground , he lifted them up . He thought that if his feet stayed on the ground he would be pulled under the car . He put himself onto the bonnet to avoid the car hitting him . He noticed Corporal < Marine E > on the driver 's side wing of the car . He was holding the car in the corner , he ( Marine B ) was not sure how . Corporal < Marine E > 's whole body was in contact with the wing . About the same time as he ( Marine B ) turned round Corporal < Marine E > came off the wing . After that he saw Corporal < Marine E > smash the window of the car .

When he ( Marine B ) turned and saw the car it was accelerating . As he went on to the bonnet the car continued to accelerate . He thought he was in the centre of the bonnet . The car accelerated onto the road and his ( Marine B 's ) helmet came off and then he came off . He came off on the passenger 's side of the car . The car set off in the ORG direction .

He ( Marine B ) landed on his back . He hurt his back on landing and his right elbow ... He could not say for sure what portion of the road he landed on . He had not travelled that far on the bonnet when he came off .

After he had fallen off he heard shots . He did not know what was being fired at . He sat up after a time ... then started looking for his helmet . He got his helmet . His memory was not clear from the moment he came off the vehicle . He was dazed and shocked ...

He thought that if he had not lifted his legs up he could be dragged under the car . Before turning to see the car and ending on the bonnet a long time did not elapse . It was n't seconds , it was about a split second .

Marine B was rigorously cross - examined by PERSON as were the < Marine E > and the accused < Marine A>. In the course of his cross - examination PERSON was asked ( inter alia ) why he had not heard the series of sounds and actions described by Corporal < Marine E > in his evidence , which were the passenger from the red car getting into the driver 's seat of the white car , the other man ( Mr PERSON ) running and getting into the passenger seat of the white car , the driver revving the white car , < Marine E > moving to the front of the white car and shouting to the driver to stop and to get out of the car , the kangarooing of the white car and the sound of < Marine E > 's feet slipping back QUANTITY in the shingle of the car park ... "

The judge found the forensic evidence from ORG rifle butt and clothing supported his story as to smashing the car window .

In assessing the credibility of the civilian witnesses , he reviewed the manner in which they had given their evidence to the police .

" It may well be that the civilian witnesses did not trust the police to investigate in a completely impartial way the shooting incident involving members of the security forces and CARDINAL young men from PERSON . It also appears that some time later the civilian witness gave written answers to written questions sent to them by the police . But , notwithstanding this , I am satisfied , from hearing their answers in cross - examination and from watching their demeanour in the witness box , and having regard to the precise and detailed evidence given by police officers as to what happened in GPE police station on DATE when the witnesses and PERSON gave the police the prepared statements and refused to answer questions from the police , that the civilian witnesses gave untruthful answers on oath in the witness box when they said that there was not a pre - arranged plan to give written statements to PERSON , and that some of them gave untruthful answers when they said that they did not refuse to answer questions to the police . It is quite contrary to common sense to accept that the civilian witnesses all went and gave statements to PERSON , and that he accompanied them to the police station and told the police that they would answer no questions , without some sort of plan or arrangement between them and , possibly , CARDINAL party or third parties . Therefore , when assessing the truthfulness of the evidence of the civilian witnesses as to what they saw happen in the car park between < Marine E > and PERSON and Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON and when the car drove out of the car park , I have to bear in mind that they were prepared to lie in the witness box and did lie in the witness box about the way in which they gave their statements to the police . I also think it is probable that the civilian witnesses gave their statements to the police in this way because they did not want to let slip any piece of information which would help the soldiers or would harm Mr PERSON or Mr PERSON . This consideration therefore raises a question mark about their impartiality when they described in the witness box what they saw happen in the car park ... "

As regards the significance of the evidence , the Lord Chief Justice found :

" There is no doubt that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were unarmed . It is also clear that they were not terrorists , and no suggestion was made by the CARDINAL accused that they believed them to be terrorists . However the evidence given by the CARDINAL accused clearly raised the defence ( although the onus is not on the accused to establish this defence , but the onus is on the crown to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt ) that they fired because they believed that Marine B would be killed or seriously injured if they did not fire ... "

He stated the applicable law , inter alia , as follows :

" A number of decisions of the highest courts , ORG , ORG and ORG in GPE , have made it clear that where an accused raises the defence that he killed or injured a person in self - defence or in defence of a third person , the ORG must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not acting in defence of himself or another person or that the force which he used was unreasonable . And these decisions also make it clear that in deciding whether the ORG has proved that the force used was unreasonable beyond doubt the tribunal of fact must have regard not to what actually happened , but to what the accused at the relevant time honestly believed was happening . Moreover the courts have made it clear that the tribunal of fact must assess this , not retrospectively in the calm of the courtroom , but by putting itself in the position of the accused and deciding the question taking account of the situation which the accused was in and of the pressures to which he was subjected and of the time in which he had to act ...

In the Attorney - General for GPE Reference at CARDINAL E Lord PERSON stated :

' ... The form in which the jury would have to ask themselves the question in a trial for an offence against the person in which this defence was raised by the accused would be : Are we satisfied that no reasonable man ( a ) with knowledge of such facts as were known to the accused or reasonably believed by him to exist ( b ) in the circumstances and time available to him for reflection ( c ) could be of opinion that the prevention of the risk of harm to which others might be exposed if the suspect were allowed to escape justified exposing the suspect to the risk of harm to him that might result from the kind of force that the accused contemplated using ? ... ' ”

The Lord Chief Justice concluded :

" The CARDINAL accused having raised the defence of acting in defence of ORG , the issue which I have to determine in order to decide the guilt or innocence of each accused is whether I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the ORG has proved that the firing by the accused was not the use of reasonable force to protect ORG from death or serious injury by being thrown off the bonnet of the car when it was driving away towards ORG . In the context of this case the issue is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the white Rover car drove off from the car park with NORP B on the bonnet so that the CARDINAL accused honestly believed that he was being carried away on the bonnet and that they had to fire at the driver of the car to stop the car in order to protect ORG from death or serious injury by being thrown off the bonnet of the car ...

However in a case such as this where there is a complete conflict of evidence as to what happened at the vital time , and where there are grounds for doubting the truthfulness of the evidence of both the prosecution witnesses and the accused and their principal witness , it is important for the court to remind itself of the fundamental principle of the criminal law , which is that an accused person can only be convicted if the court is satisfied of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt , and , of course , this principle applies to the trial of a soldier just as much as it applies to the trial of any other person .

Therefore , at the end of this case , when I came to look back at , and to weigh and consider , all the evidence , bearing in mind the points made by both PERSON and PERSON in their closing speeches , I found that I had a reasonable doubt whether the accused were guilty . Stating the same thing in a different way , I considered that there was a reasonable possibility that PERSON was carried away on the bonnet of the white Rover car and that , in the emergency of the moment , there was a reasonable possibility that the CARDINAL accused fired at the driver because they honestly believed it was necessary to do so to save PERSON from death or serious injury and that in the circumstances as the accused honestly believed them to be there was a reasonable possibility that this constituted reasonable force ... "

In reaching that conclusion , the Lord Chief Justice based himself on CARDINAL factors :

" CARDINAL . ... < the probability > that the civilian witnesses were deliberately untruthful ...

The clear scientific evidence of fibres on the nearside bonnet of the white Rover car which supported the proposition that the camouflage uniform of a soldier had been in contact with the nearside bonnet of the car and there were a number of scrapes and smears on the nearside front wing and bonnet of the car . These appeared to be recent and could have originated from clothing or another object moving across the surface of the bonnet and wing ...

... < the probability > that NORP B did sustain some injuries in or about the area of the Lite and Easy car park . And if he sustained injuries in that location it appears to be probable that this was due to contact with the car ...

... < The probability that > if PERSON did signal to PERSON to stop as he approached the ORG at the church and Mr PERSON failed to do so , it is clear that the soldiers did not fire at the white car at that stage just because it ignored a signal to stop at the ORG . If this is so , it seems unlikely that TIME the soldiers would have fired at the car just because Mr PERSON ignored an order in the car park not to drive off , and without something having happened in the car park quite contrary to the account given by the civilian witnesses . As I have said , it seems unlikely that the soldiers would suddenly have abandoned the restraint which they had previously shown TIME before when the car ignored a signal to stop at the ORG .

Accordingly , because I have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of each accused , I find each of them not guilty on the CARDINAL counts of the indictment . "

ORG proceedings in GPE for aggravated damages were issued by the applicant against ORG , alleging that her husband PERSON had been unlawfully killed and claiming , inter alia , negligence in the failure to give any or an adequate warning , a failure to give any or any adequate instruction or training , and causing or permitting the soldiers to act in a violent , dangerous and reckless manner . While the case was provisionally listed for hearing in DATE , due to difficulties with the attendance of witnesses it was listed for DATE . The date was moved subsequently to DATE . On CARDINAL and DATE , however , the applicant 's solicitors contacted the ORG ( acting for ORG ) informing him that they wished to amend their statement of claim , require additional discovery of documents and , in the related action brought by the brother of the deceased , served CARDINAL medical reports . ORG adjourned the case to enable the Crown Solicitor to have the brother medically examined and to deal with the other matters raised . The case was relisted for hearing on DATE .

On DATE , counsel for the personal representatives of the deceased applied to ORG for an adjournment on the grounds that the solicitors had failed to instruct senior counsel on behalf of the personal representatives . The judge agreed to the adjournment , ordering the solicitors to pay the costs of the application . The case was relisted for DATE .

On DATE , the case was settled . The terms of the settlement between the applicant as administratix to the estate of PERSON and ORG were , inter alia :

- that ORG pay the applicant the sum of £ MONEY in full and final settlement of all claims on her own behalf and on behalf of the estate and dependants of PERSON , as well as the applicant 's legal costs ;

- that ORG made no admission as to any legal liability in respect of the said payment or in respect of the death of the deceased ;

- that the applicant and her solicitors should not disclose the terms of the agreement .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) DATE provides inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime , or in effecting the arrest or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or persons unlawfully at large . "

Self - defence or the defence of others is contained within the concept of prevention of crime ( see eg . ORG .

The " Yellow Card " issued to soldiers in relation to use of fire - arms provides , inter alia , as follow :

" Instructions for opening fire in GPE . ...

You may only open fire against a person if he is committing or about to commit an act likely to endanger life and there is no other way to prevent the danger ...

The following are some examples of acts where life could be endangered , dependent always upon the circumstances : ...

( CARDINAL ) Deliberately driving a vehicle at a person and there is no other way of stopping him ...

If you have to open fire you should :

FAC only aimed shots ... "


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and , at the time of the introduction of the application , was serving a prison sentence in the GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr Hermsen , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE the body of the applicant ’s partner PERSON was found on NORP territory . As it appeared that she had been killed by strangulation , the NORP authorities opened a criminal investigation .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE , where he then resided . On DATE he was extradited to GPE , where he was placed in detention .

In the course of the criminal investigation in GPE it appeared that the victim had not been killed in GPE but in GPE and that , therefore , the NORP criminal courts were not competent to deal with the case . Consequently , the criminal proceedings against the applicant in GPE were discontinued . On DATE ORG ruled that the applicant could not be extradited to GPE . On DATE , ORG ordered the applicant ’s release from detention in GPE .

At DATE , the NORP authorities transmitted the case - file on the criminal investigation against the applicant to the GPE Minister of Justice with the request to consider the possibility of taking criminal proceedings against the applicant in the GPE in relation to the killing of PERSON The case - file was registered in DATE at the public prosecutor ’s office in GPE and , in DATE , a criminal investigation was opened in the GPE , during which new evidence against the applicant was found .

On DATE , the applicant was arrested in the GPE and placed in pre - trial detention and charged with homicide . On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) held that it was competent to deal with the case , convicted the applicant of homicide and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It rejected the argument raised by the defence that , given the time that had elapsed between the applicant ’s arrest on DATE and the hearing before ORG , the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of LAW and that , therefore , the prosecution should be declared inadmissible . ORG did , however , state that in the determination of the sentence it would take into account the time that had elapsed since the applicant ’s arrest on DATE as well as the time the applicant had spent in pre - trial detention in GPE .

The applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( Gerechtshof ) . On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG rejected the appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE .

The applicant ’s subsequent appeal in cassation – including his complaint that the prosecution should be declared inadmissible on the basis of the fact that the criminal proceedings against him had already started on DATE and should thus be regarded as having lasted an unreasonably long time DATE was rejected by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . As to the applicant ’s complaint of the length of the criminal proceedings , ORG held that the relevant period for the GPE authorities started to run on DATE , when the applicant was arrested in the GPE and , on this basis , concluded that the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the GPE had not been unreasonably long .


CASE OF SINGARTIYSKI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants were born respectively in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and live in LOC , PERSON and PERSON .

All CARDINAL of them are members and followers of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) , a political party founded in DATE and based in southwestern GPE ( in an area known as the GPE region or the geographic region of LOC ) . The party was declared unconstitutional by ORG on DATE and as a result dissolved . In a judgment of DATE this ORG found that the party ’s dissolution had been in breach of its and its PERSON right to freedom of association ( see ORG PIRIN and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . The party apparently has links with ORG ( “ FAC ” ) , an association also based in southwestern GPE and advocating similar ideas ( ibid . , § § CARDINAL , and PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

On DATE the applicants notified the Mayor of Sandanski that ORG intended to organise a rally on DATE , first at the grave of PERSON near FAC and then in front of his monument in the town of ORG . The programme of the event , which was to take place TIME , included the laying of wreaths on the grave QUANTITY and the singing of folk songs in front of the monument TIME

In a letter to the applicants of DATE the Mayor of PERSON allowed the rally , specifying that the laying of wreaths had to take place between CARDINAL and CARDINAL a.m. and the musical programme between TIME and TIME .

On DATE the Regional Governor of ORG , acting of his own motion and relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , annulled the Mayor ’s letter . He reasoned that it amounted to an administrative decision , creating legal rights for ORG PIRIN , and that it was unlawful . Firstly , the organisation was not registered ; on the contrary , in DATE ORG had upheld ORG judgment turning down its request to be registered as a political party ( see ORG PIRIN and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) . Since it was accordingly unlawful under NORP law , it had no standing to give notice of its intention to hold a rally . Secondly , the proposed rally would put public order at risk . Both ORG and ORG were places visited by many tourists , especially on DATE . It was therefore inappropriate to allow the staging of rallies there . Moreover , rallies and meetings were being organised at those locations at the same time by the local authorities and non - governmental organisations . As clashes between supporters of ORG PIRIN and others had taken place in the past , it was necessary to ban its rally . Finally , the activities of the organisation were contrary to NORP law , as they consisted in propaganda against the country ’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and aroused national and ethnic hatred . The Governor specified that his decision was to be served on the Mayor of PERSON for execution . It was not served on GPE PIRIN or on any of the applicants .

On DATE the members of the managing board of ORG PIRIN , as well as the first and second applicants , PERSON and PERSON , were summoned by the police . They were issued orders under LAW Ministry of Internal Affairs Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) not to organise or take part in the rally in front of PERSON ’s grave near LOC .

On DATE the third applicant , PERSON , was told by telephone by an employee of the local branch of ORG that no electrical power would be provided for the rally in ORG , as it had been banned by order of the regional governor .

On DATE a number of drivers of buses hired to transport the participants to the rally in ORG informed the fourth applicant , Mr PERSON , that they could not provide the requested service . PERSON then approached a number of travel agencies in ORG , all of which advised him that the police had apprised them of the regional governor ’s decision and that they would not provide transportation for fear of suffering negative consequences . Mr PERSON eventually managed to hire CARDINAL buses in a nearby village .

Similar transportation problems were experienced by persons from the towns of GPE and PERSON who wished to attend the rally .

NORP The parties’ accounts of the events of CARDINAL DATE differed somewhat .

According to the Government , on TIME the transport police carried out routine checks of some of the motor vehicles transporting people to the rally . As the police found certain irregularities , they sanctioned individual drivers and then allowed the buses to proceed to ORG . After that both PERSON and ORG were able to go ahead with the events planned by them , respectively in ORG and near FAC . As required by law , the police dispatched forces to ensure public order during the events . At TIME a group of CARDINAL supporters of ORG laid a wreath and flowers at PERSON grave . PERSON chairman made a short speech , and then the rally continued with a musical programme . No breaches of public order were noted . ORG PIRIN was not allowed to hold a rally in front of FAC . A compromise solution was reached with the organisation to hold the rally in ORG . At TIME CARDINAL members and supporters of ORG PIRIN gathered in front of PERSON monument in ORG . They laid a wreath and flowers . Then the organisation ’s leaders made short speeches about his life and work ; in the ORG ’s view , most of those speeches contained insults against the NORP people and ORG . There were also a number of negative remarks against the police , threats of violence against the Regional Governor and insults against the chairperson of ORG , the Prime Minister and other highranking politicians . The musical programme continued after the allotted time slot . The police did not allow drunk individuals to breach public order . Journalists from “ the former GPE ” interviewed the leaders of ORG and ORG and a number of supporters .

The applicants started by pointing out that CARDINAL events took place on CARDINAL DATE . The first was the one which their organisation , ORG – PIRIN , held in ORG , in front of PERSON monument . The other was the one held by ORG – a similar but separate organisation – at PERSON ’s grave near FAC . ORG PIRIN ’s members and supporters , including the applicants , were not able to approach the Monastery as originally planned because they were stopped en route by the police . They were allowed to drive only to ORG . They could not tell whether members and supporters of ORG had been allowed to hold a rally near the Monastery .

The applicants further stressed the difference between the way in which ORG intended to conduct the rally and the way in which it actually unfolded . The original plan was to proceed in the manner described in paragraph CARDINAL above . As a result of ORG decision and the ensuing actions of the police , ORG PIRIN ’s members and supporters were able to go only to ORG . On their way there , CARDINAL buses carrying participants in the rally from ORG were stopped several times by the police , who carried out lengthy checks of the drivers’ and the PERSON papers and imposed penalties for purported violations of the traffic rules . Buses with participants travelling from PERSON to ORG were also stopped by the police CARDINAL times , for TIME each time . The third applicant , PERSON , who was travelling by car , was also stopped by the police , told that the rally was unlawful , and forced to throw away a wreath which he was carrying .

Upon their arrival in ORG the applicants saw that PERSON monument was surrounded by CARDINAL police officers , who prevented the participants in the rally from laying a wreath , only allowing them to lay flowers individually . The officers also forced the participants to take away ribbons with the inscription “ For Yane – from grateful NORP ” and did not let them make speeches in front of the monument . At TIME the officers advised the bus drivers that if they did not leave ORG in TIME they would be fined .

The applicants were adamant that no agreement on how to proceed with the rally was ever made between them and the authorities , and that , contrary to what was asserted by the Government , they did not agree to any changes to their original plan . They also pointed out that the ORG ’s allegations that participants in the rally had made offensive speeches and had acted in a disorderly manner were not supported by any evidence .

The relevant provisions of the DATE LAW and the DATE Meetings and Marches Act are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON and ORG v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIX ) , in paragraphs DATE of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG and PERSON v. GPE ( no . PERSON , DATE ) and in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. PERSON ( cited above ) . For the purposes of the present case , particular mention needs to be made of section CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provides for a possibility to seek judicial review of a mayoral ban of a rally , and directs the court hearing such an application to determine it by means of a final decision not DATE after it has been referred to it .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW , regional governors ( a ) carry out governmental policy and coordinate the operations of the branches of central government in their respective regions ; ( b ) seek to achieve a balance between national and local interests and interact with the local authorities ; ( c ) are responsible for safeguarding ORG property in their respective regions ; ( d ) uphold legality in their regions and supervise the enforcement of administrative decisions ; ( e ) control the lawfulness of the decisions and the actions of local authorities ; ( f ) coordinate and control the operations of the territorial branches of ministries and other central authorities , as well as the enforcement of their decisions ; ( g ) organise civil defence ; ( h ) preside the regional security councils ; and ( i ) carry out the region ’s international contacts .

Under LAW CARDINAL Code of Administrative Procedure , all mayoral decisions may be challenged before regional governors . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , regional governors may annul unlawful mayoral decisions . Their decisions to do so are subject to judicial review ( section PERSON ) of the Act ) .

NORP Regional governors’ decisions , like all administrative decisions , are subject to judicial review by the competent regional administrative courts ( Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) , whose judgments are appealable before ORG ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides that the administrative courts must rule on each application within a reasonable time . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code requires the court to deliver its judgment not DATE after the last hearing in the case .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Ministry of Internal Affairs Act , the police may , if necessary for the performance of their duties , issue orders to individuals or organisations . Those orders are binding unless they obviously impose the commission of an offence ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that such orders , when issued in writing , are subject to judicial review in accordance with the provisions of LAW .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE ORG Caused to Citizens Act ( on DATE its name was changed to “ ORG and ORG ” – hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) provides that the ORG is liable for damage suffered by private persons as a result of unlawful decisions , actions or omissions by civil servants committed in the course of or in connection with the performance of their duties .

ORG concluded the examination of application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( ORG and PERSON v. GPE ) and application no . CARDINAL ( PERSON and Others v. GPE ) on DATE , by adopting Resolution CM / ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL , which reads , in so far as relevant :

“ ORG , ...

Recalling that the violations of the ORG found by ORG in these cases concern the infringement of the freedom of assembly of organisations which aim to achieve “ the recognition of the NORP minority in GPE ” due to prohibitions of their meetings DATE ( violation of LAW ) and the lack of effective remedies to complain against these prohibitions ( violation of LAW ) ( see details in Appendix ) ;

Recalling that a finding of violations by the ORG requires , over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments , the adoption by the respondent state , where appropriate , of

– individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

– general measures preventing similar violations ;

Having noted that CARDINAL other applications presently pending before the ORG concern allegations relating to bans or to the holding of certain meetings of the applicants initially scheduled DATE and DATE ;

Having considered , without prejudging the judgment the ORG could deliver in respect of these applications , that in view of the positive trend observed concerning the holding of the applicants’ meetings in particular since DATE and the absence of complaints from them as regards DATE , no further individual measure seemed required in these cases ;

Having also examined the general measures and in particular the awarenessraising measures taken by the NORP authorities to ensure that applicable domestic law is interpreted in conformity with the LAW and thus to prevent violations similar to that found by ORG ( see details in Appendix ) ;

Having satisfied itself that , within the time - limit set , the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments ( see details in Appendix ) ,

DECLARES , having examined the measures taken by the respondent state ( see Appendix ) , that it has exercised its functions under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases . ”


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

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

In DATE the applicant entered into a contract with ORG . Under the terms of the contract , the applicant bought CARDINAL chicks from the company which she was to raise for DATE . Subsequently , the applicant was to deliver the chickens to the company against a payment of an agreed price . In DATE the applicant purchased foodstuff from a company in ORG to feed the birds . Subsequently , PERCENT of the chicks died .

On DATE the applicant filed a compensation claim with the ORG against the company producing the foodstuff . She asserted that her chicks had died as a result of being fed the foodstuff purchased from the company . The defendant company contested its liability for the damage sustained by the applicant . On an unspecified date the applicant increased her claim .

The first hearing was fixed for DATE , but ORG adjourned it due to the applicant ’s absence . However , it appears that the applicant ’s lawyer was present at that hearing . The next hearing was held on DATE . On DATE ORG visited the site . Subsequent hearings were held on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE , DATE and DATE . On CARDINAL DATE one of the experts was heard by ORG at the Suwałki ORG request .

ORG ordered the preparation of CARDINAL veterinary reports . On DATE it ordered that a second report be drawn up . However , that report was only submitted to the court on DATE . The preparation of a third report was ordered on DATE at the applicant ’s request as she had contested the expert findings in the previous reports . The third report was submitted to the court on DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . It awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which represented PERCENT of the compensation sought , together with statutory interest . It ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL for the outstanding court fee . It also held that the applicant was not required to reimburse the litigation costs of the defendant company .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against ORG judgment . The defendant company also filed an appeal .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment for the most part . It amended it only in respect of the litigation costs of the defendant company . It ordered the applicant to cover a part of those costs ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , having regard to her difficult financial situation .

On DATE the applicant filed a cassation appeal with ORG against the judgment of ORG . On DATE , in reply to her query , the applicant was informed by ORG that due to the large number of cassation appeals pending before that court a hearing would be held DATE from the date of lodging the cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . It dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal on DATE .

On DATE the Suwałki Regional Court issued an execution warrant on behalf of the applicant . On DATE the Bailiff of the ORG stayed the enforcement proceedings at the applicant ’s request . On DATE and DATE the applicant requested ORG to amend the execution warrant due to the change of the defendant company ’s name . That warrant was issued on DATE . On DATE ORG judgment of DATE was successfully enforced .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , the President of the Suwałki Regional Court suspended until DATE the obligation to pay the court fees . On DATE the applicant paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as part of the outstanding court fees . On DATE the President of ORG agreed that the applicant could pay the remaining court fees in DATE instalments .

NORP The legal provisions applicable at the material time as well as matters of practice concerning the remedies against unreasonable length of proceedings are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment delivered by ORG DATE in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .


Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicants , who are husband and wife , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE in GPE of GPE .

The applicants receive old - age pensions . Under section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , old - age pensions were payable in DATE for which they were due . DATE and from DATE the applicants received their pensions , totalling CARDINAL and MONEY ( RUR ) per month , DATE in arrears . In particular , the pensions due for DATE were paid on DATE ; for DATE on DATE ; for DATE on DATE ; for DATE on DATE ; for DATE on DATE ; for DATE on DATE ; for DATE on DATE ; for DATE on DATE ; for DATE on DATE ; for DATE on DATE and for DATE on DATE .

According to the applicants , inflation and devaluation of the NORP rouble during this period meant that pensions paid DATE in arrears had lost a significant part of their value by the time they were paid .

According to information obtained by the applicants from the Donetsk Town Department of State Statistics , the DATE - on - DATE inflation rate ran at PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE and PERCENT in DATE .

According to information from ORG of GPE , the official exchange rate was MONEY to the GPE dollar in the period DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE .

In DATE the applicants lodged an action with ORG for damages in respect of the delays in payment of their pensions . In particular , they claimed index - linking of their pensions in line with inflation . The action was lodged against ORG which was responsible for the financing of pension payments .

On DATE ORG refused to entertain the action on the ground that it had been lodged against the wrong respondent .

NORP In DATE the applicants lodged an equivalent action against ORG , which was responsible for the calculation of pensions . During those proceedings , ORG argued that the proper respondent in the case was ORG and not the ORG . ORG rejected that objection .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ action . It confirmed that there had been delays in payment of the pensions but established no fault on the part of ORG , which had calculated the pensions and filed requests for their payment in due time . The court found that the pensions had been paid late because ORG had failed to finance the payments in time . The court also considered that the applicants had failed to substantiate the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage allegedly sustained as a result of the delays .

On DATE the applicants’ appeal was dismissed by ORG . The appeal court stated that the delays were not the fault of ORG because it merely made payments on receipt of funds from ORG , which had been delayed .

Subsequently , the applicants unsuccessfully tried to have their case re - examined by way of the supervisory review procedure . On DATE the Rostov ORG refused to re - open the proceedings .

Old - age pensions were paid at the material time on the basis of LAW of DATE ( ORG РФ от DATE г. N CARDINAL-I « О государственных пенсиях в Российской Федерации » ) .

Under section CARDINAL of the LAW , pensions were increased CARDINAL times a year in line with the increase in the average salary , which was determined by the Government on the basis of ORG statistical data .

Under section CARDINAL of the PERSON , ORG was responsible for financing the payment of pensions . It derived its resources from contributions of employers and citizens and from State budgetary allocations .

Under Part IX of the LAW , pensions were set by ORG .

Under LAW , pensions were payable in DATE for which they were due .

According to section CARDINAL of the Act , where pension debts resulted from the ORG ’s failure to pay pensions in due time , they remained due irrespective of the time that had elapsed .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

From DATE until DATE the NORP army used the applicant 's cottage in GPE , GPE , for military purposes . After the members of the army had left , the applicant found that the house had been wrecked and his possessions removed .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages against GPE with ORG ( Općinski sud ) .

At the preliminary hearing on DATE the applicant lodged an application to be exempted from payment of the court fees . The court heard the applicant , who stated that he lived with his daughter , son - in - law and grandchild in a flat in GPE which he owned . He also stated that he owned a small cottage and that his pension amounted to CARDINAL kunas ( HRK ) per month . The court rejected the applicant 's application for exemption from payment of the court fees and ordered him to pay the amount of HRK CARDINAL within DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision to ORG ( Županijski sud ) . He submitted a written copy of the appeal to ORG . In the appeal he stated that his pension was his only income and that he had to support his daughter . Furthermore , his possessions were of no great value since his cottage had been wrecked . By paying the fees imposed , he would have jeopardised his own means of subsistence and those of the persons whom he supported .

NORP However , ORG did not forward the appeal to ORG , as the appellate court , because there was no written court decision on the applicant 's application to be exempted from the court fees , which was a prerequisite for an appeal . On DATE the statutory limitation period for non - payment of court fees expired and the issue thus became irrelevant .

On DATE ORG introduced a change to LAW to the effect that all proceedings concerning claims in respect of damage resulting from acts carried out by members of the NORP army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War in GPE were to be stayed .

On DATE the proceedings were stayed .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant filed a constitutional complaint challenging the constitutionality of the above legislation . ORG has not yet adopted any decision on that complaint .

The applicant also filed a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the latter complaint , finding that the applicant 's right to have his civil claim decided within a reasonable time had not been violated as the courts had not been in a position to proceed with his case on account of the changes in legislation .

On DATE ORG passed new legislation concerning liability for damage resulting from acts carried out by members of the NORP army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War in GPE .

Section CARDINAL ( a ) of the DATE LAW ( Zakon o dopunama PERSON o obveznim odnosima , ORG no . CARDINAL ) provided that all proceedings instituted against GPE in respect of damage caused by members of the NORP army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War in GPE from CARDINAL DATE to DATE were to be stayed .

The Act also imposed an obligation on the government to submit to ORG special legislation regulating liability for such damage within DATE at the latest from the LAW 's entry into force .

The Act on the liability of GPE for damage caused by members of the NORP army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War ( Zakon o odgovornosti PERSON štetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika hrvatskih oružanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata , ORG , no . CARDINAL DATE “ the Liability Act ” ) now regulates the circumstances in which GPE is liable for damage caused by members of the army and the police during the Homeland War .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (victim);Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste

On DATE the applicant and his wife , PERSON , adopted ORG , an orphan boy born in DATE .

From DATE , due to conflicts between the applicant 's wife on one hand and the applicant and PERSON on the other , they ceased to keep a joint household and the applicant 's wife subsequently moved to their DATE house .

NORP In DATE the applicant sought annulment of his marriage with PERSON before ORG of Kyiv ( ORG ) .

On DATE the child welfare authority of ORG ( Вишгородська районна державна адміністрація PERSON області ) delivered its opinion , at the request of PERSON , on annulment of the adoption of ORG It found that the relations between the adoptee and PERSON K. were negative , while the applicant had authority over the adoptee and positive relations with him . The report also mentioned that the boy had expressed the wish to stay with his adoptive father and that the applicant was willing to take care of the boy 's upbringing . It finally recommended cancelling the adoption with respect to the applicant and his wife , as the relations between the latter had deteriorated , which had a negative effect on the boy , so that it would not serve his interests to stay in his adoptive family .

In DATE the applicant 's then wife requested ORG to annul the adoption of the child by her and her husband , on the grounds that the child had attacked her physically on several occasions and that her husband , who had been present during one of the incidents , had refused to stop the attacks . She supported her claim by the report of DATE .

In the course of the proceedings both the applicant and the child objected to PERSON request for annulment of the adoption by the applicant . The applicant did not object to the annulment of the adoption in respect of PERSON also denied that he had ever witnessed PERSON being physically attacked by ORG

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant and PERSON divorced .

On DATE the applicant married PERSON

On DATE ORG allowed the request of the applicant 's former wife and annulled the adoption of ORG by her and by the applicant . In particular , referring to LAW ) of LAW , the court held that the adoption by the applicant 's former wife was to be annulled in view of the fact that relations between her and the adoptee had worsened , rendering it impossible for them to live as a family . The court based its findings on the statements of PERSON and medical evidence of injuries sustained by her . The court also referred to the testimonies of neighbours of the family and a report on ORG 's personality of CARDINAL DATE provided by his school that stated that he behaved aggressively , insulted and threatened the neighbours and on some occasions had beaten some of his schoolmates . The report of CARDINAL DATE also mentioned that this aggressive attitude and lack of respect for others were hereditary traits and required treatment by specialists . The child welfare authority supported the claims of PERSON and submitted that annulment of the adoption would be to the benefit of the boy .

The court further held that the adoption of ORG by the applicant was also to be annulled in the best interest of the child , regardless of the child 's wish to stay with his adoptive father , which had been expressed before the court . It found that the applicant had disregarded the child 's aggressive attitude towards his adoptive mother , which had caused the child to develop a negative attitude towards women and misconceptions about normal family relationships . The court ordered the child to be transferred to the child welfare authority for subsequent placement in an unspecified specialised institution . ORG continued to reside with the applicant and has never been taken into care .

On DATE ORG divided the flat between the applicant and PERSON , his former wife . They received a room each within the flat while other facilities remained in common use .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It dismissed the applicant 's appeal and found that he had not adduced any evidence testifying that he was able to influence the boy positively and secure his normal personal development . According to the court of appeal the adoption was correctly annulled by the first - instance court on the basis of LAW ) of LAW , and the mere fact of positive relations between the applicant and the child and his desire to remain the boy 's adoptive father could not serve as a basis for reversal of the above judgment . The court of appeal concluded as follows :

“ The court correctly took into consideration that the annulment of the adoption ... could be also regarded as a sanction imposed on the boy for his disgraceful behaviour ”

On DATE ORG found no grounds to review the applicant 's case in cassation .

On DATE the ORG of Kyiv , at the request of the applicant and FAC and in the interest of the latter , appointed the applicant guardian ( піклувальник ) of V.G. As guardian the applicant was entrusted with “ protection of the rights and property interest of the child ” and with “ financial support and constant care for the boy 's upbringing and his physical growth and development ” .

On DATE the applicant 's former wife , PERSON , lodged a claim with ORG and sought annulment of the decision of ORG of Kyiv of DATE . She alleged that that decision had been taken in contradiction to the judgment of the ORG given on CARDINAL DATE and that ORG residence in the flat posed a threat to her life .

On DATE ORG assumed jurisdiction over the proceedings in the case . The parties did not inform the ORG about further developments .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ No one shall be subject to interference in his or her personal and family life , except in cases envisaged by LAW ... ”

“ ... The family , childhood , motherhood and fatherhood are under the protection of the ORG . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ ( ... ) CARDINAL . The participation of a child welfare authority is obligatory during the examination of the cases concerning ... annulment of adoption by a court .

The child welfare authority shall submit to the court an opinion as to settlement of the dispute . The opinion should be based on the information obtained after inspection of the living conditions of the child , parents , other persons that wish to reside with the child or to take part in its upbringing , and any other documents related to the case .

The court may disagree with the opinion of the child welfare authority provided it is ill - founded and does not serve the interests of the child . ”

“ CARDINAL . Parents shall bring up their child in the spirit of respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of love for one 's family , people and GPE .

Parents shall take care of their child 's health and well - being and of its physical , intellectual and ethical development .

Parents shall ensure that the child receives a full general secondary education ...

Parents shall respect the child ...

It shall be prohibited for parents to exploit their child .

It shall be prohibited for parents to apply corporal punishment to their child or any other punishment which may degrade the child 's human dignity . ”

“ ( ... ) CARDINAL . The adoption confers the same rights and imposes the same obligations on the adoptive parent in respect of the adoptee as the [ biological ] parents have in respect of their child .

The adoption confers the same rights and imposes the same obligations on the adoptee in respect of the adoptive parents as the [ biological ] child has in respect of its parents . ”

“ CARDINAL . A court may order the annulment of adoption if :

CARDINAL ) the adoption contravenes the interests of the child , or does not ensure that the child is brought up in a family environment ;

CARDINAL ) the child is mentally retarded , or suffers from a mental or other serious incurable illness , of which the adoptive parent was not aware and could not have been aware at the moment of adoption ;

CARDINAL ) relations between the adoptive parent and the adoptee , independently of the adoptive parent 's will , render it impossible for them to live together and for the adoptive parent to fulfil his or her parental obligations . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG or children deprived of parental care may be placed under tutelage or guardianship .

( ... ) guardianship is assigned in respect of a child who is DATE . ”

“ ( ... ) The child welfare authority takes into consideration personal qualities , ability to bring up the child , attitude to the child and the wishes of the child itself when nominating a person as a tutor or guardian ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The tutor or guardian shall bring up the child , take care of the child 's health and well - being and of its physical , mental and ethical development , and ensure that the child receives a full general secondary education ( ... ) ”

NORP The relevant provisions of the PERSON read as follows :

“ Children and parents shall not be separated against their will , except for cases when such a separation is necessary in the best interests of a child and is provided for by a legally valid court judgment ”

This Resolution on judicial practice in cases related to adoption , deprivation and restoration of parental rights repeats the grounds for annulment of an adoption set out in LAW .

The relevant provisions of the Convention read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . GPE Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will , except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine , in accordance with applicable law and procedures , that separation is necessary in the best interests of the child . Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as CARDINAL involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents , or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child 's place of residence ( ... ) ”

“ CARDINAL . An adoption may be revoked or annulled only by decision of the competent authority . The best interests of the child shall always be the paramount consideration .

An adoption may be revoked only on serious grounds permitted by law before the child reaches the age of majority . ”


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 8

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE , the applicant married O.L.F. The couple had CARDINAL son , born on DATE . In DATE , ORG left the couple 's home , taking her son with her , and since then both of them have been living with the maternal grandparents .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG granted the couple 's divorce and awarded the mother custody of the child . This judgment was upheld by a decision of ORG of DATE and by a final decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE . A social investigation conducted in the framework of the divorce proceedings indicated that PERSON was not working and was receiving a DATE unemployment allowance of MONEY a month .

On DATE the applicant brought an action for the establishment of his rights of contact with the child . ORG , by a judgment of DATE , granted the applicant visiting rights for DATE between certain TIME , DATE during DATE and DATE during DATE . Allowing the applicant 's appeal against that judgment , ORG , by a decision of DATE , extended his visiting rights as follows : DATE from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE , during DATE , and during DATE . By a final decision of ORG of DATE , following the mother 's appeal on points of law , the applicant 's visiting rights were limited during DATE to the period from DATE and during DATE to the period from DATE and remained unchanged in respect of the DATE .

Faced with his ex - wife refusal to allow him to visit the child during the prescribed periods , on DATE the applicant lodged an application with the bailiff for enforcement of the judgement of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the bailiff sent a request to ORG to issue an interlocutory order to have the said judgement declared enforceable . On DATE , the district court allowed the request .

Subsequently , the bailiff initiated the enforcement actions , by issuing a first summons to O.L.F. on DATE . Official records drawn up by the bailiff during the period from DATE record attempts to enforce the contact rights defined by the judgement of DATE and modified by the final decision of DATE .

On DATE the mother and the child were not present at their home and the bailiff issued a new summons for DATE . On that date the mother allowed the applicant to see the child at her home and refused to let the child leave the house , declaring that an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE was pending .

NORP On DATE and DATE , the mother was not at home and the grandparents refused to hand over the child , claiming that they had not received a copy of the final decision . On these occasions the bailiff issued a summons to the mother to comply with the judgment granting the applicant visiting rights .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant lodged a new request for enforcement of the final decision of DATE . On DATE , the district court allowed the request and declared the said decision enforceable .

A new summons was therefore issued on DATE , inviting PERSON to comply with the final decision granting the applicant visiting rights . On DATE , the bailiff took note that the mother initially refused to hand over the child , stating that he did not want to join his father . She was asked by the bailiff to bring the child to the gate and persuade him to join his father . The child was taken outside into the courtyard and the mother invited the applicant to enter the courtyard and take the child . The applicant requested that the child be brought to the gate , but then the child went back into the house when he heard his mother crying . Then the mother started to reproach the applicant and the bailiff for causing distress to the child .

On DATE , the applicant took the child from kindergarten to his home . O.L.F. lodged a civil action to have the child returned to her . By a decision of DATE of ORG the applicant was ordered to return the child . On DATE the same bailiff , accompanied by the mother , summoned the applicant to return the child . The applicant complied but he also requested that O.L.F. respect his right to maintain personal links with the child . On that occasion , the mother undertook to respect his visiting rights .

On DATE and DATE , the grandparents refused to hand over the child , on the first occasion because he was sick and on the second occasion because he was not at home . The father handed over clothes , toys and fruit for the child . The bailiff gave notice of the fact that a summons would be issued for DATE and he reminded the family of the obligation to allow the child to join his father during the period from DATE .

On DATE , the mother refused to hand over the child , claiming that he was sick and refusing to bring him outside to talk to his father and to receive the fruit that the applicant had brought for him .

On DATE , the bailiff noted that the grandparents refused to hand over the child , as ORG was not at home and the child refused to join his father . The bailiff took note that the applicant did not insist on taking the child against his will .

On DATE , the bailiff reported that the mother wanted to hand over the child but the latter refused to join his father . The child was brought to the gate , but as he was crying and refused to join his father he was taken back into the house . The applicant did not insist on forcing the child to go with him and asked the bailiff to take note of the fact that the mother had not made any effort to persuade the child to join him .

On DATE , the next date for the enforcement of the visiting rights , the bailiff drew up a report which stated that the applicant did not present himself for the appointment and did not contact the bailiff beforehand , leading the latter to assume that the parties had reached an agreement . The bailiff , also taking into account the applicant 's refusal to force the child to join him against his will , decided not to pursue the enforcement further until a new enforcement request was made by the applicant .

NORP The applicant maintained that he had subsequently made further attempts to visit his child , but in the presence of witnesses , as the bailiff refused to accompany him any more due to the allegedly aggressive attitude of the mother and the grandparents . He also maintained that the procedure with the bailiff had become financially burdensome , especially taking into account the fact that no practical result could be achieved .

The applicant further submitted that subsequently he wanted to get information about the school results of the child , but that O.L.F. prevented him from being around the child or his school teacher . He maintains that he tried to meet the child at school or at his house , he brought gifts to him on his birthday on DATE and for DATE , but he was not allowed to see the child and the presents were refused . No supporting documents were submitted to the case file in this respect .

CARDINAL Faced with the constant refusal of the mother to comply with the decisions granting him visiting rights , on DATE the applicant lodged a first criminal complaint against O.L.F. for noncompliance with measures regarding child custody and visiting rights .

On DATE criminal investigations were initiated in respect of O.L.F. By a decision of DATE , ORG attached to ORG terminated the criminal proceedings and imposed on O.L.F. an administrative fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) . This decision was based on the reasoning that during the investigations ORG had acknowledged that she had prevented the applicant from meeting his child , but had done so because the judgment awarding him contact rights was not final , since appeal proceedings were still ongoing . The fact that the child did not want to go with his father was also taken into consideration .

According to the applicant , a second criminal complaint was lodged on DATE and criminal investigations were initiated on DATE . Following the investigations , on DATE ORG attached to ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against PERSON and imposed on her an administrative fine of LAW . The prosecutor noted that PERSON admitted that the applicant could not see the child , but she submitted that this was mainly due to the child 's reluctance . Moreover , PERSON did not have a criminal record and the CARDINAL parents were in a conflict situation . All these elements led the prosecutor to consider that the attitude of PERSON did not present the danger to society that a crime would present . This decision was upheld by a resolution of the first prosecutor of DATE and by a final decision of ORG of DATE .

A third criminal complaint lodged by the applicant on DATE was dismissed on DATE by a decision of the prosecutor , taking into account that the matters invoked by the applicant had already been examined during the CARDINAL previous criminal proceedings . From the information available in the case file , it does not appear that the applicant lodged a judicial complaint against the prosecutor 's decision .

The relevant provisions of LAW and of LAW are stated in the ORG 's judgement in the case PERSON v. GPE , ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and CARDINAL , DATE ) . The role and responsibilities of the local public authorities for social assistance and child protection as well as the relevant provisions of the Law no CARDINAL/CARDINAL on child protection are described in the judgement GPE , ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .