The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , Attorney - General of GPE .

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

The applicant is the owner of a plot of land ( no . CARDINAL ) in PERSON , in the district of GPE . The surface area of the plot was QUANTITY .

On DATE a notice of compulsory acquisition ( no . CARDINAL ) was published in ORG concerning a number of properties including that of the applicant . In total QUANTITY were to be compulsorily acquired from his property . The purpose of the compulsory acquisition was the construction , improvement , alignment and paving of a public road .

On DATE the order of compulsory acquisition ( no . DATE ) was published in ORG .

On DATE a revocation order was published in respect of QUANTITY . Accordingly , the part of the applicant ’s property to be compulsorily acquired was reduced to QUANTITY .

As a result of the compulsory acquisition the road was diverted and cut across the applicant ’s plot dividing it into CARDINAL equal parts . Furthermore , during the road ’s construction , damage was caused to CARDINAL almond trees that had been on the part of the property not affected by the compulsory acquisition .

The applicant and the acquiring authority did not reach an agreement as regards the compensation to be granted in respect of the compulsory acquisition . The latter considered that the applicant was not entitled to any compensation for the acquisition and the damage caused to the trees but only for expenses in respect of construction works he would have to carry out as a result of the acquisition .

On DATE the applicant filed an application ( no . CARDINAL ) with ORG of GPE under LAW Law DATE ( Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) requesting an award of just and equitable compensation for the compulsory acquisition of part of his property . The applicant claimed that his property had suffered significant damage because of the compulsory acquisition . His expert assessed this damage at CARDINAL GPE pounds ( ORG ) . This amount included compensation for the compulsory acquisition ( ORG CARDINAL ) , the almond trees ( CYP CARDINAL ) and the construction works that had to be carried out ( ORG CARDINAL ) . On the other hand , the ORG ’s expert considered that there had been an increase in the value ( betterment ) of the remaining part of the property due to the acquisition and consequently , that no compensation should be granted . Furthermore , the ORG ’s expert considered that the damage to the almond trees could not be taken into account when determining the compensation since the property was located in a residential area and could be used for building purposes . Finally , he assessed the expenses to be incurred by the applicant in carrying out construction works due to the acquisition at ORG CARDINAL .

ORG carried out a local inspection of the property in the presence of the parties , their lawyers and the Government ’s expert .

On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment by which it dismissed the applicant ’s claim for compensation concerning the compulsory acquisition . In particular , the court considered that the evidence submitted by the ORG ’s expert was more thorough , accurate and credible . It stated that the applicant ’s expert had admitted making mistakes several times and that his evidence had been ambiguous and vague . He had not carried out a valuation of the whole property in order to determine any possible damage or betterment caused by the acquisition . In this connection , the court noted that it was not possible to determine whether there was betterment or injurious affection to the CARDINAL parts of the property without assessing what the value of the whole property was before it was affected by the acquisition . Furthermore , the applicant ’s expert had been unclear about the manner in which he had determined the value of the property per square metre . In addition , although the applicant ’s expert assessed the property ’s value on the basis that it constituted residential property , he then included the value of the uprooted almond trees in his valuation on the basis that the property was not within a residential area .

The value of a plot of land was assessed in monetary terms on the basis of its use and the purpose for which it was suitable . The view of the Government ’s expert that residential development was more profitable than agricultural development was reasonable and therefore this test was the starting point for determining the compensation to be awarded . The court noted that the property should be considered as residential property since it was within a residential area . Accordingly , any damage to the trees was included in the valuation which was based on the residential value of the property .

On the evidence submitted the court found that there had been an increase in value ( betterment ) to the remaining part of the property due to the construction of the new road . It held , therefore , that the applicant was not entitled to compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition or any compensation in respect of injurious affection to the remaining part . However , the court awarded the applicant the sum of QUANTITY ( ORG ) in respect of the construction works . It also awarded interest on this amount from the date of publication of the notice of acquisition at the DATE rate of PERCENT . Finally , the court awarded the applicant costs and the amount of ORG DATE which was agreed between the parties as fees for the applicant ’s expert .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal with ORG . In his appeal the applicant invoked CARDINAL grounds challenging the evidence given by the Government ’s expert and the findings of the district court that he was not entitled to any compensation for the compulsory acquisition and damage cause thereby . In the first ground of his appeal the applicant stated , inter alia , that

“ the court had been mistaken in accepting the perjured testimony of the ORG ’s expert witness absolving thus the acquiring authority from paying a sum of money as compensation which should have been paid in conformity with the LAW as just and equitable compensation in cash and promptly ... ” .

In the seventh ground of his appeal he repeated that reasonable compensation should have been granted and in the eleventh ground he argued that his human rights had been violated .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . Upon examining the applicant ’s arguments ORG considered that ORG had given satisfactory reasons in its judgment and had correctly approached the expert evidence submitted . It therefore upheld ORG findings and awarded costs against the applicant .

LAW provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Every person , alone or jointly with others , has the right to acquire , own , possess , enjoy or dispose of any movable or immovable property and has the right to respect for such a right . The right of the LOC to underground water , minerals and antiquities is reserved .

( CARDINAL ) No deprivation or restriction or limitation of any such right shall be made except as provided in this LAW .

( CARDINAL ) ORG or limitations which are absolutely necessary in the interests of public safety or public health or public morals , or town and country planning or the development and use of any property for the promotion of the public benefit or for the protection of the rights of others , may be imposed by law on the exercise of such a right .

Just compensation shall be promptly paid for any such restrictions or limitations which materially decrease the economic value of the property ; in case of disagreement , such compensation is to be determined by a civil court .

( CARDINAL ) Any movable or immovable property or any right over or interest in any such property may be compulsorily acquired by the Republic , or by a municipal corporation or by a commune for educational , religious , charitable or sporting institutions , bodies or establishments within its competence and only from the persons belonging to its respective community , or by a public corporation or a public utility body on which such a right has been conferred by law and only

( a ) for a purpose which is to the public benefit and shall be specially provided by a general law for compulsory acquisition which shall be enacted within DATE from DATE coming into operation of this LAW ;

( b ) when such purpose is established by a decision of the acquiring authority and made under the provisions of such law stating clearly the reasons for such acquisition ;

( c ) upon payment in cash and in advance of just and equitable compensation , to be determined in case of disagreement by a civil court . ”

According to LAW Law DATE ( Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , as amended by PERSON , the owner of property which is subject to compulsory acquisition , may apply to the civil courts for determination of the compensation payable , in the event that no agreement is reached with the acquiring authority in this respect . The purpose of this type of proceedings is the determination of such compensation ( PERSON v. The Attorney - General of GPE , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL of the same PERSON sets out the criteria and principles for the purposes of determining fair and equitable compensation for the compulsory acquisition of property . Paragraph ( f ) of that section provides as follows :

“ ( f ) in the case of acquisition of only part of an immovable property , on the basis of the present PERSON , account shall be taken of any possible increase or reduction accruing by reason of the acquisition in the value of another property owned by the owner together with the part that is compulsorily acquired ” .


The applicant served in ORG ( hereinafter the “ ORG ” ) and retired from service in DATE . His military pension was assessed according to his rank and DATE of service and was paid from ORG in GPE . The payments terminated in DATE , following the dissolution of ORG .

CARDINAL separate proceedings subsequently dealt with the decrease of the applicant ’s military pension .

Firstly , on DATE , ORG , ORG , assessed the applicant ’s pension , as from DATE , to PERCENT of the amount he had received until DATE . The applicant appealed against that decision and , after his appeal was dismissed , instituted administrative proceedings with ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) which dismissed the applicant ’s claim on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint claiming that the decisions of the administrative bodies and ORG to decrease the amount of his pension violated his constitutional rights . He alleged specifically that the decision to decrease his military pension was not based on legal grounds .

On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint concerning the lower bodies’ decisions to reduce his pension . It stated that these decisions were based on the laws that prescribed that the pensions of the former ORG officers would be assessed in the amount of CARDINAL MONEY of what they had received in DATE .

Secondly , on DATE , the applicant lodged a constitutional claim challenging the constitutionality of the Decree regulating the pension rights of the former ORG officers whose service in the ORG terminated prior to DATE ( ORG o ostvarivanju prava iz mirovniskog i invalidskog osiguranja osoba kojima je prestalo svojstvo aktivne vojne osobe u bivšoj JNA do CARDINAL . prosinca DATE - ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . He alleged specifically that his constitutional rights were violated insofar as his pension had been drastically decreased .

On DATE ORG passed the LAW on regulation of pensions of the former ORG officers that , inter alia , reiterated that the amount of the former ORG pensions was to be CARDINAL,CARDINAL % of what they had received in DATE ( Zakon o ostvarivanju prava iz mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja pripadnika bivše ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings concerning the applicant ’s constitutional claim of CARDINAL DATE due to the fact that the above legislation had entered into force .

Thirdly , on DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the LAW of DATE , challenging the constitutionality of that LAW as a whole .

As of DATE new legislation entered into force regulating the pension rights of all NORP citizens ( Zakon o mirovinskom osiguranju – Official PERSON DATE ) .

Consequently , on DATE ORG terminated the proceedings regarding the applicant ’s constitutional claim of DATE .

The relevant provisions of the DATE LAW read as follows :

“ Every person has a right to institute proceedings challenging the constitutionality of the laws ... ”

“ Each person whose rights have been violated by a decision based on the legislation declared unconstitutional or unlawful may ask the body that took the decision to vary it ... ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall terminate proceedings concerning the constitutionality of legislation that has been repealed or brought into line with the LAW and statute law while those proceedings are pending before ORG . ”

“ Every person , who considers that any of his constitutional right has been violated by a decision of judicial or administrative body or any other body invested with public authority , may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG . ”

“ By a decision adopting a constitutional complaint the Constitutional Court quashes the contested decision and remits a case for re - trial . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall decide upon the constitutionality of the contested legislation even in cases where that legislation is repealed or amended while the proceedings are pending before ORG . ”

“ When ORG declares the legislation contemplated in LAW unconstitutional or unlawful , each person whose rights have been violated by a decision based on that legislation may ask the body that took the decision to vary it . ”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant was arrested and placed in detention on DATE on suspicion of having stolen some mobile telephones .

According to the applicant , immediately after his arrest the police started to ill - treat him DATE during lunch breaks and in the evenings in order to try to force him to confess to numerous other offences which he had not committed . Although he was being detained on suspicion of stealing mobile telephones , he was interrogated by police officers from the homicide squad who tried to make him admit to having committed a murder . Since he refused to make any confession and denied the accusations , he was taken on DATE to an office in ORG , where CARDINAL police officers tortured him for TIME . His hands and legs were tied together behind his back and he was suspended on a metal bar . The police officers put a gas mask on his head and periodically closed the air tube . CARDINAL wires were placed under the gas mask and attached to his ears and he was given electric shocks . He was beaten on his head with QUANTITY plastic bottles filled with water and was hit on his ears . Periodically , the applicant lost consciousness . After reviving him the police officers continued the acts of torture . They attached wires to his hips and administered electric shocks to him and beat him . He was later taken off the metal bar and laid on the floor . A weight of QUANTITY was placed on his back and he was left lying on the ground for TIME . The applicant ’s hands and feet were subsequently untied ; he felt severe pain in the region of his lower back and was unable to move his feet . He was made to sit on a chair ; however , he fell down . He was put back on the chair by CARDINAL police officers , who kept telling him something , but he could not hear them . He was then taken to his cell . His cellmates put him on a bed , where he was left lying for DATE . The allegations of beatings are disputed by the Government .

NORP Since the applicant could not stand up , he was visited by CARDINAL doctors on DATE . They were accompanied by CARDINAL of the police officers who had allegedly tortured him . The police officer told the doctors that the applicant had fallen from his bed . The doctors diagnosed the applicant with hysteria and recommended that he be seen by a neurologist . The applicant was then taken to another room , where he was allegedly told by a police officer not to tell anybody about the acts of torture . He was allegedly threatened with death or imprisonment for DATE . A police officer wrote a report on behalf of the applicant stating that nobody had beaten him up and that he had fallen from his bed and had caught a cold ; he allegedly forced the applicant to sign the report .

On DATE the applicant ’s father employed a lawyer , who immediately lodged a complaint with the prosecutor ’s office alleging illtreatment .

On an unspecified date the applicant was allegedly taken again to an office at the police station . Since he could not walk , he was lifted by QUANTITY police officers . The police officers who had tortured him were in the office along with CARDINAL other police officers . He was made to sit on a chair and was kicked and punched . The police officers allegedly requested that he withdraw the complaint about ill - treatment , and threatened him with death .

The ill - treatment was allegedly repeated on several occasions . According to the applicant , he was beaten with bottles filled with water , punched , kicked and told to confess and to withdraw the complaint about ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic doctor who later wrote the following in his report ( no . DATE ) : “ Current situation : bruise on the left arm , lateral , middle third , oval shape , yellow / brown colour , size QUANTITY . In the region of both knees and below the right patella , numerous abrasions covered by dark brown scabs , partly detached from the skin at their edges , ranging in size from QUANTITY to QUANTITY in CARDINAL place ... Conclusions : the neurologist ’s findings have not reached us as at DATE , nor have the X - rays of the lumbar section of the spinal column , to which examination certificate no . CARDINAL refers .... It is therefore impossible to determine the reasons why the victim is unable to move unassisted . The abrasions visible in the patellar region of the knee joints and the bruises visible on the left arm could have been caused by a blunt instrument and are not less than DATE at the time of examination .... It is impossible to establish with greater accuracy from how long ago the bruises and abrasions date because of the delay in presentation for medical examination . Hospitalisation of the victim in a specialised medical establishment would enable a more accurate diagnosis to be made and the consequences for his state of health to be assessed . ”

On DATE , following complaints by the applicant ’s lawyer , ORG organised action in support of the applicant by publishing on their Internet site a description of the applicant ’s case and an appeal to people from all over the world to write to ORG , ORG and ORG in their country asking them to take action such as conducting a medical examination of the applicant , carrying out an effective investigation into his complaints of torture and allowing the applicant to meet his lawyer in conditions of confidentiality .

On DATE the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the NORP Minister of ORG expressing concern about the situation of PERSON and about the refusal of the authorities to transfer him to a hospital as recommended by doctors . He requested information .

On an unspecified date DATE the applicant was visited by a delegation of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) , which described his case in its report ( see paragraph DATE below ) . It appears that in their reply to the ORG ’s report the Government did not comment on the latter ’s findings .

On DATE ORG wrote to the Prosecutor General informing him about the allegations of torture against the applicant and the fact that no medical assistance had been provided to him by that date . On DATE ORG informed the ORG that the applicant ’s complaint appeared to be illfounded .

On DATE during questioning by a prosecutor CARDINAL of the applicant ’s cellmates stated that the applicant could not walk and that he had to be helped by his cellmates to go to the toilet . All the prison guards stated that the applicant could walk perfectly well and that they had not noted any signs of beatings on him . CARDINAL guard stated that the applicant was limping . CARDINAL of the applicant ’s cellmates stated that he was faking his condition . Another stated that the applicant could not stand or even sit and that he had to be helped by his cellmates to go to the toilet .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s release from detention .

On DATE the applicant was hospitalised and underwent the following medical examinations : radiography of the head and back , echoencephalography , electroencephalography , computerised tomography , ultrasound of the internal organs and functional computerised investigation . The diagnosis following the investigations was the following : consolidated fracture of the cranial bones ( skull broken , without pieces relocated ) ; a CARDINAL x QUANTITY focal cerebral contusion in the left temporal cortical area and dilatation of the ventricular system ( a contusion with augmented volume of the brain ventricular system ) ; a post - craniocerebral trauma state ; cerebral contusion of the left hemisphere ( temporal area ) ; medullar contusion FAC with flask tetraparesis , especially on the inferior limbs ( trauma of the back , CARDINALst and CARDINALnd lumbar spines , damaging the spinal cord and causing partial paralysis , especially of the legs ) .

On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case ordered examination of the applicant by a panel of forensic doctors and directed the panel to give answers to the following questions :

“ CARDINAL . Did PERSON suffer from diseases of the nervous system before his arrest ?

Is it possible that the diseases from which he suffered before his arrest were aggravated during detention ?

NORP Did PERSON have any injuries at the moment of his arrest which could have led to the worsening of his present state of health ?

Is it possible that the applicant ’s problems with his central nervous system and his capacity to move were caused by the administering of electric shocks ? If so , what are the after - effects of electric shocks and how long do they last ? ”

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL forensic doctors examined the applicant ’s medical documents and gave the following answers :

“ CARDINAL and CARDINAL . NORP The applicant ’s medical history does not contain anything to suggest that he suffered from any diseases of the nervous system before his arrest .

At the time of his medical examination on DATE he had bruises on his left arm and scratches on his knee , which are considered to be light injuries ...

During further medical investigations of the applicant he was found to be suffering from paralysis of the feet and left arm . The paralysis is not a consequence of a craniocerebral or spinal trauma or of the administering of electric shocks and its gravity is not assessable . ”

The forensic panel added that in reaching its conclusions it had not paid attention to the earlier findings concerning the fracture of the cranial bones and the cerebral contusion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because it had not been presented with the original radiographic images . The panel also added that it could not be ruled out that the applicant was simulating his condition , and that only a psychiatric investigation could exclude that possibility .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office dismissed the applicant ’s complaint concerning his allegations of ill - treatment . It relied on the statements of CARDINAL of his cellmates who had contended that the applicant was faking his condition , the statements of police officers who denied having illtreated the applicant , the medical report of CARDINAL DATE and the conclusion of the medical report of DATE to the effect that : “ the paralysis is not a consequence of a craniocerebral or spinal trauma or of the administering of electric shocks and its gravity is not assessable ... ”

Starting on DATE the applicant underwent a medical check - up at the “ LOC ORG , a non - governmental organisation financed by ORG and a member of ORG of ORG ( ORG ) . He appears to have been subjected there to detailed medical tests and examinations by various medical specialists . In a document entitled “ Extract from the medical records ” , dated DATE , issued by the ORG , it was stated , inter alia , that the applicant was suffering the after - effects of cranial trauma ( cerebral contusion of the left hemisphere predominant in the temporal area ) , organic cerebral post - traumatic syndrome , post - traumatic bilateral adhesive otitis , post - traumatic cochlear neuritis , bilateral neuro - sensorial deafness , and medullar lumbar contusion FAC with flask tetraparesis of the inferior limbs . A number of psychological conditions characteristic of victims of torture were also found . The ORG also decided to help the applicant to fund surgery in order to “ regain his hearing at least partially ” .

On DATE the Prosecutor General of GPE , PERSON , wrote a letter to ORG in which he stated , inter alia , the following :

“ Lately , ORG has been confronted with the phenomenon whereby some NORP lawyers involve international organisations specialising in the protection of human rights in the examination by the national authorities of criminal cases . These organisations are used as an instrument for serving personal interests and for enabling suspected persons to avoid criminal responsibility .

Examples of such incidents are the case of ORG , triggered by the lawyer PERSON , and the case of GPE , triggered by the lawyer PERSON . The international media coverage of these cases prompted action by the representatives of ORG with a view to safeguarding the rights of the above lawyers’ clients .

After having examined with sufficient thoroughness the complaints alleging torture and abuse on the part of the police ... the prosecutor ’s office dismissed the complaints on the ground of lack of proof that offences had been committed . ...

... In such circumstances the irresponsible attitude and behaviour of the lawyers PERSON and PERSON give rise to concern . They knew that no acts of torture had been committed against their clients . However , they complained to international organisations without first attempting to use the national mechanism for solving such problems . They presented the facts erroneously in order to win their cases ...

Such practices by lawyers will be investigated by ORG in order to determine whether they have committed the offence provided for in LAW , by making public on an international scale false information about alleged breaches of human rights which gravely prejudice the image of our country .

Accordingly , ORG is called upon to take account of the facts described above , to bring to the attention of lawyers the situation so created and to prevent as far as possible any prejudice to the authority of GPE . ”

The above letter generated a heated debate in the media . On DATE ORG issued an official statement in which it qualified the Prosecutor General ’s letter as an attempt to intimidate lawyers . In an interview to the newspaper PERSON the President of ORG declared , inter alia , that it was an attempt to intimidate lawyers so that they would no longer complain to the ORG .

It appears that the prosecutor ’s office did not inform the applicant about its decision of DATE until DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE and argued , inter alia , that the prosecutor ’s office had not examined the complaint properly . He argued that the prosecutor ’s office had not paid attention to the fact that on DATE , on DATE of his arrest , the applicant had been in good health . The prosecutor ’s office had also failed to question persons who had seen the applicant on DATE , when he was brought before a court , including the judge , prosecutor and persons present in the court . The prosecutor had not questioned the doctors who had examined the applicant , or asked the applicant to identify the persons who had allegedly tortured him and the offices where the alleged torture had taken place . The prosecutor had failed to investigate why police officers from the homicide division were questioning the applicant , who had been charged with stealing mobile telephones .

On DATE the appeal was dismissed by ORG on the ground that the applicant ’s lawyer had failed to observe the DATE time - limit for challenging the prosecutor ’s decision . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law which was upheld by ORG on DATE .

In the meantime , in DATE , the applicant was officially recognised as having a second - degree disability . In the medical documents issued by ORG it was recommended that he should not work . The reasons given for declaring him disabled were “ the after - effects of severe head trauma dating from DATE , injury to the spine and post - traumatic deafness in both ears ” .

It appears that on an unspecified date in DATE or DATE the applicant broke his hip as a result of falling down in the stairwell , and spent DATE in hospital .

On DATE the PERSON prosecutor ’s office again dismissed the applicant ’s complaint about his alleged ill - treatment . The prosecutor based his decision on essentially the same reasons as the decision of DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer appealed against this decision .

On DATE a higher - ranking prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the re - examination of the case . He instructed the lower - ranking prosecutor to examine the medical documents , to find out whether the applicant had been suffering before his arrest from any conditions which had been discovered after he was taken into detention and to question the doctors who had examined him .

On DATE a prosecutor requested ORG to establish a medical panel to verify the applicant ’s condition in view of the contradictions in the existing medical reports , namely the report of DATE and the decision recognising him as having a seconddegree disability .

On DATE a junior health minister wrote to the prosecutor ’s office informing it that a panel had been set up which had intended to conduct a medical examination of the applicant on DATE . However , the applicant had failed to appear before the panel .

On DATE the same junior minister wrote to the prosecutor ’s office informing it that the applicant had not shown up for a medical examination scheduled for the same date .

In a letter of DATE addressed to the junior health minister , the chief neurologist wrote that the applicant had been seen by him at DATE and that the applicant was in a wheelchair and had undergone hip - replacement surgery . The applicant had a severe weakness in his limbs on the right side . The doctor concluded that the applicant was suffering from severe movement dysfunction on the right side and a less severe dysfunction of the movement of the left foot . According to the doctor it was very difficult to tell the cause of the applicant ’s condition , which could either be the result of a trauma or have been simulated .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office reiterated its request to ORG for a repeat medical examination of the applicant by a panel of doctors . The prosecutor ’s office requested that the medical panel answer the following questions :

“ CARDINAL . Did PERSON suffer from any diseases of the central nervous system before [ his arrest on DATE ] ?

Is it possible that the diseases from which he suffered before his arrest were aggravated during detention ?

NORP Did PERSON have any injuries at the time of his arrest which could have led to the worsening of his present state of health ?

Is it possible that Mr PERSON ’s health problems were caused by self - mutilation ?

Does PERSON have traces of a head trauma and a spinal trauma and how are they manifested ?

Is PERSON suffering from the after - effects of electric shocks ?

What are the reasons for recognising him as suffering from a second - degree disability and what are the rules according to which this status was granted to him ?

How old are the applicant ’s injuries ?

Is there a causal link between Mr PERSON ’s state and his injury of DATE ?

Did the injury of DATE influence Mr PERSON ’s state of health ? ”

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer complained to ORG that the prosecutor in charge of the case was prolonging its examination unnecessarily .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL forensic doctors , CARDINAL of whom were members of the panel which issued the report of DATE , examined the applicant ’s medical history and gave the following answers :

At the time of his medical examination on DATE he had bruises on his left arm and scratches on his knee , which could not have any influence on the state of his health .

NORP The applicant ’s injuries are not characteristic of self - mutilation ; however , it can not be ruled out that they were inflicted by himself .

No clear clinical symptoms of head or spinal trauma can be found on Mr ORG .

NORP The panel does not have in its possession any information which would allow it to conclude that the applicant was subjected to electric shocks .

Normally , invalidity is granted after the examination of the individual ’s medical history and medical examination by specialised doctors ...

The age of the applicant ’s injuries was correctly established in the medical report of CARDINAL DATE . His neurological problems were established in the report of DATE . It is impossible to establish more precisely their age .

CARDINAL and CARDINAL . There is no causal link between the injuries and his current state . His injury of DATE is not at the origin of his severe movement dysfunction . ”

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office issued a decision dismissing again the applicant ’s criminal complaint about his alleged ill - treatment . The decision relied , inter alia , on the medical report of DATE . The applicant challenged the decision before an investigating judge . However , the appeal was dismissed and the applicant was directed to lodge his appeal with the higher - ranking prosecutor , which he did .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the prosecutor office ’s decision of DATE . It concluded that the applicant was simulating his condition . In reaching this conclusion it relied on testimonies from several of the applicant ’s former cellmates and on the medical report of DATE .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The act of forcing someone to confess to a criminal offence or to make statements during questioning , by means of threats or by other illegal means on the part of the person carrying out a criminal investigation ... shall be punishable by imprisonment of DATE ...

( CARDINAL ) The same act accompanied by :

( a ) violence ;

( b ) cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment ;

Shall be punishable by imprisonment of DATE ...

( CARDINAL ) Intentionally causing intense physical or mental pain or suffering , especially with a view to obtaining information or testimonies ... shall be punishable by imprisonment of DATE . ...

( CARDINAL ) The actions referred to in paragraph CARDINAL ... , carried out :

( c ) by CARDINAL or more persons ;

( e ) with the use of special instruments of torture or other objects adapted for that purpose ;

( f ) by an official ,

shall be punishable by imprisonment of DATE ...

The relevant findings of the ORG during its visit to GPE DATE read as follows ( unofficial translation ) :

“ CARDINAL . At the remand centre ( ORG ) of ORG for the fight against organised crime , CARDINAL detainee interviewed by the delegation alleged that , on TIME of DATE , at the LOC police station , he had been punched and kicked in a third - floor office , in order to make him confess to various offences . On DATE , he had been transferred to ORG , from where he had , during the period for which he was held ( until DATE according to the relevant registers ) , been transferred on several occasions , sometimes to the NORP police station and sometimes to ORG ( transfers confirmed by the examination of the relevant registers ) . He alleged that he had been ill - treated on these LOC . In particular , he alleged that , on DATE , in a second - floor office at ORG , he was subjected to several forms of ill - treatment : an attempt to suffocate him by placing a gas mask over his face ; suspension in what is known as the swallow position ; slaps on his ears ; electric shocks administered via electrodes placed behind his ears and on his hips ; placement of a heavy dumbbell weight on his back . As a consequence of the ill - treatment inflicted , he had briefly lost consciousness , and , furthermore , had been unable to move for DATE .

Furthermore , according to the detainee concerned , he had not been given a form informing him about his rights until DATE , which was when he said that he had met an officially assigned defence counsel . The first judge before whom he had been brought on DATE of his deprivation of liberty was said not to have reacted to his allegations of ill - treatment .

On DATE he had been brought before a judge who had served a compulsory residence order on him . In spite of this decision , he had been transferred to the ORG of ORG for the fight against organised crime on that same day , on the basis of an arrest warrant issued in DATE , after undergoing a medical examination at a hospital casualty unit . He said that he had also been beaten during this new detention in an office of this GPE , and had been threatened to make him stop lodging complaints .

The medical screening carried out on his admission to the ORG at the municipal police headquarters referred only to an injury sustained prior to his arrest . A medical examination of this detainee carried out in hospital by a neurologist on DATE recorded signs of traumatism in the region of his left arm and both knees , and put forward the diagnosis of hysteria , with a recommendation that further paraclinical examinations be carried out .

On DATE , his lawyer had asked ORG for a forensic medical examination . However , the examination took place late , i.e. on DATE [ forensic report No . DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL above ] and it is stressed that , due to this fact , it is impossible to establish precisely how old the lesions observed were , as well as that it is necessary to hospitalise the detainee for assessment and for a precise diagnosis .

The examination of this detainee by the delegation ’s doctors revealed CARDINAL small bilateral tympanic tears consistent with his allegations of slaps on the ears , as well as atypical motor deficiency disorders , highly suggestive of a major psychological trauma .

In view of this person ’s state of health , the delegation asked for action to be taken to ensure that he received the medical assistance that his condition necessitated , including psychological care . The ORG would like to receive this information within DATE .

Moreover , the ORG reiterates its delegation ’s request to be informed of follow - up action taken regarding this detainee ’s complaint and of the results of any investigation carried out in this respect .

Without prejudice to the follow - up given to this detainee ’s complaint and to the conclusions of the investigations carried out , the ORG wishes to emphasise that this case is indicative of unacceptable inertia on the part of the agencies concerned in the face of allegations of severe ill - treatment / torture , and of the flagrant failure by the authorities to implement the main recommendations of ORG intended to prevent ill - treatment ( set out in DATE and CARDINAL of its report on the DATE visit ) and in terms of providing the fundamental safeguards ( set out in DATE , DATE and DATE ) .

It is crucial for these recommendations to be implemented immediately , and there is no convincing argument which could justify any delay whatsoever in taking action . Only their implementation can give clear indication as to the willingness of the NORP authorities to put an end to the phenomenon of ill - treatment .

The ORG therefore calls upon the GPE authorities to take decisive steps , at every appropriate level , to ensure that all the recommendations relating to the prevention of ill - treatment by the police and to compliance with fundamental safeguards made by ORG in its report on the DATE visit are implemented without further delay ... ”


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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings before ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) against her former employer , ORG ( Poljoprivredni kombinat Zelina ) , challenging her dismissal from work and seeking payment of her salary for the period of her unemployment . The first - instance judgment of DATE , granting the applicant 's claims , awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) together with statutory default interest .

The judgment was upheld by ORG PERSON ) on DATE .

Meanwhile , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Trgovački sud u GPE ) opened bankruptcy proceedings against the applicant 's former employer and invited all creditors to submit their claims to the bankruptcy administrator , appointed to the case by the GPE commercial Court , within DATE . This was published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE .

Examination hearings before ORG were held on DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged her claim , recognised by a final judgment , with ORG before which the bankruptcy proceedings against her former employer had meanwhile been opened . The applicant argued that , since the civil proceedings she had instituted against her former employer before the ordinary courts ( that is to say the competent municipal and county courts ) had been pending , she considered that her claim had been adequately secured . In this connection she pointed to the provision obliging the regular courts to discontinue civil proceedings concerning any debtor against whom bankruptcy proceedings had been opened in the meantime .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant 's request inadmissible as lodged out of time . It found that the examination hearing ( ispitno ročište ) had been held on DATE and that after the expiry of DATE from that date no further claims could be lodged in the bankruptcy proceedings . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ In the bankruptcy proceedings against ORG ... examination hearing was held and concluded on DATE .

The above - mentioned creditor submitted her claim on DATE , outside the DATE period following the first examination hearing .

Since the claim was submitted too late , that is to say after DATE following the first examination hearing , it is to be dismissed pursuant to section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW . ”

In her appeal lodged on DATE the applicant stressed , inter alia , that the bankruptcy administrator had failed to comply with her duty under LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW to include the applicant 's claim in the list of claims of all the current and former employees of the debtor company and to submit it for her signature .

On DATE the High Commercial Court ( ORG trgovački sud PERSON ) upheld the first - instance decision . In so far as relevant it held as follows :

“ Under LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , in a decision on opening of bankruptcy proceedings a bankruptcy panel is obliged to invite all creditors to submit their claims to the administrator within a fixed time - limit , in accordance with the provisions of LAW . The time - limit for submission of claims has to be fixed to DATE and no longer than DATE .

Claims submitted after the fixed time - limit may be examined at an examination hearing on the initiative of the administrator .

Claims submitted after the fixed time - limit which have not been examined at the examination hearing , as well as claims submitted within DATE of the first examination hearing but not after the call for the final hearing has been published may be examined at CARDINAL or more additional examination hearings which are to be scheduled by the administrator pursuant to a proposal made by the creditors who have failed to submit their claims on time , and on condition that they pay in advance and within DATE the costs of such a hearing .

Claims submitted after the expiry of the time - limit fixed in CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW are to be declared inadmissible ( argument under LAW CARDINAL paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The first - instance court acted exactly as described above , in compliance with LAW , when it declared inadmissible as being lodged out of time the claim submitted by the creditor ORG from GPE . The appellant does not dispute that the examination hearing in the bankruptcy proceedings against debtor ORG based in PERSON was held and concluded on DATE . The conditions for submitting creditors ' claims then ceased to exist and it is therefore of no significance whether the appellant submitted her claim on DATE or DATE . In any event it was submitted out of time .

The only decision that a court could have adopted in such circumstances is the CARDINAL pursuant to section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW that the claim had to be declared inadmissible .

Therefore , there has been no wrongful application of LAW provisions to the appellant 's detriment and the impugned decision ought to be upheld in accordance with section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL ) of LAW in conjunction with section CARDINAL of LAW . ”

NORP In her subsequent constitutional complaint the applicant argued that the administrator had failed to comply with her duty to inform her of the bankruptcy proceedings and allow her to lodge her claim against her former employer and had thus prevented her from securing the payment of her claim . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint as being ill - founded . The relevant part of its decision reads as follows :

“ The impugned judgment and the case file show that [ the first ] examination hearing in the bankruptcy proceedings against ORG based in PERSON was held and concluded on DATE and that the applicant as a creditor submitted her claim after the first examination hearing , on DATE .

Since the applicant submitted her claim after the time - limit fixed in LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , the first - instance court declared her claim inadmissible as being lodged out of time pursuant to CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW .

ORG , in its decision on the applicant 's appeal , stressed that the appeal was unfounded and that ORG had correctly applied substantial law when it had declared the applicant 's claim inadmissible as being lodged out of time . ”

LAW ( Stečajni zakon , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , as applicable at the relevant time ) in the relevant parts provided as follows :

“ [ After the bankruptcy proceedings have been opened ] the bankruptcy administrator [ assigned to the case ] shall represent the debtor . ”

“ In a decision on opening of the bankruptcy proceedings creditors shall be invited to submit their claims to the administrator , within a fixed time - limit . The time limit shall be fixed to PERCENT fifteenCARDINAL days and no longer than a month . ”

“ All claims [ against a debtor in bankruptcy proceedings ] become payable when the bankruptcy proceedings are opened . ”

“ The administrator [ assigned to the case ] shall intervene on behalf of the debtor in all pending civil proceedings concerning disputes about the debtor 's assets . ”

“ Bankruptcy creditors shall enforce their claims against the debtor in bankruptcy proceedings only . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Bankruptcy creditors shall submit CARDINAL copies of their claims to the bankruptcy administrator together with supporting documents confirming the existence of their claims .

( CARDINAL ) The bankruptcy administrator shall make a list of all claims which have become due before the opening of the bankruptcy proceedings of the present and former debtor 's employees and submit the list to then be signed and the claims approved by the employees concerned ...

“ ( CARDINAL ) At the examination hearing the claims submitted shall be examined according to the amounts claimed and their rank .

( CARDINAL ) The administrator shall expressly state whether he accepts or contests each of the claims submitted .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Claims submitted after the fixed time - limit may be examined at a request of the bankruptcy administrator .

( CARDINAL ) Claims submitted after the fixed time - limit which have not been examined at the examination hearing , as well as the claims submitted within threeCARDINAL DATE of the first examination hearing , but not after the call for the final hearing has been published , may be examined at CARDINAL or more additional examination hearings , which shall be scheduled by the bankruptcy administrator pursuant to a proposal made by the creditors who have failed to submit their claims on time , and under the condition that they pay y advance of the costs of such a hearing in advance and within DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Claims submitted after the expiry of the above time - limits shall be declared inadmissible .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku ) obliges a civil court to stay the proceedings pending before it where the insolvency bankruptcy proceedings have been instituted against any of the parties to the civil proceedings .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Ms Lidija PERSON

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

The applicant was born in GPE , at that time part of ORG ( hereinafter “ SFRY ” ) , where he had lived until DATE when , together with his family , he allegedly left for GPE . As he did not obtain permission to stay in GPE , in DATE he moved to GPE . DATE he returned to GPE and lived in different parts of the then occupied territories .

In DATE ORG passed a law governing temporary use of the property of persons who left GPE - Temporary Takeover and Managing of LAW ( Zakon o privremenom preuzimanju i upravljanju određenom imovinom - hereinafter the “ LAW ” ) , which allowed municipalities to give such property for the use of other persons .

It appears that , pursuant to that LAW , the GPE temporarily accommodated PERSON in the applicant ’s house in NORP .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings with ORG seeking re - possession of his house .

On DATE the court pronounced judgment by default in the applicant ’s favour .

Subsequently , PERSON filed an application to return the proceedings to the status quo ante and at the same time lodged an appeal against the judgment . On DATE ORG dismissed the application to return the proceedings to the status quo ante .

In DATE ORG adopted the Programme for ORG povratka i zbrinjavanja prognanika , izbjeglica i raseljenih osoba - hereinafter the “ Programme for Return ” ) , regulating the principles for their return and the re - possession of their property .

In DATE ORG passed LAW of LAW ( Zakon o prestanku važenja PERSON o privremenom preuzimanju i upravljanu određenom imovinom ) .

The applicant sought , and on DATE obtained , an eviction order from ORG . The eviction with the assistance of the court organs was scheduled for DATE , but was not enforced due to PERSON above mentioned appeal against the judgment by default of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first instance judgment , and remitted the case to ORG for re - examination . It found that ORG had failed to assess whether PERSON was given a permission to use the applicant ’s property according to LAW , or without any legal basis , as that was a decisive fact concerning the application of ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . It found that the applicant wrongly filed his action with a municipal court . Instead , he should have filed a request for re - possession of his property with a housing commission , as provided by LAW of LAW . The court also stated that that LAW was a lex specialis in relation to LAW ( Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima ) , which regulates property rights . As neither party appealed against that decision , it became final on DATE .

According to the documents submitted by the applicant , it appears that in the meantime he had lodged a request for re - possession of his property with ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE ORG decided to annul the previous decision by which PERSON had obtained the right of use of the applicant ’s property .

Subsequently , upon PERSON appeal , on DATE ORG upheld its previous decision . It found that PERSON was the illegal possessor of the applicant ’s property .

On DATE ORG ordered PERSON to vacate the LOC within DATE . It appears that he failed to comply with that order .

On DATE ORG filed an action for eviction of PERSON from the applicant ’s property with ORG . It appears that these proceedings are currently pending .

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act on Termination of the Temporary Takeover and ORG ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provide that the proceedings concerning temporary use , management and control of the property of persons who left GPE are to be conducted by the housing commissions in the first instance and by the municipal courts in the second instance . They shall apply provisions of LAW .

Section CARDINAL of the Programme of Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provide as follows :

“ Persons with NORP documents , who are the owners of property in GPE where other persons are temporarily accommodated , may apply to the municipal housing commissions and seek re - possession of their property . The commission shall inform the owner within DATE about the status of his property . Relying on the proof of the ownership , the commission shall annul previous decision allowing temporary accommodation of other persons and order the persons accommodated to vacate the LOC . The commission shall serve a written decision to the owner and the temporary occupier within DATE . The decision shall contain a time limit for eviction and an offer of an alternative lodging for a temporary occupier in a house or a flat in the state ownership .

“ In case that a temporary occupier does not vacate the premises within the fixed time , the commission shall institute eviction proceedings with a competent municipal court within DATE . The court shall apply provisions concerning the civil summary proceedings . The court ’s decision is immediately enforceable . An appeal does not interfere with the enforcement proceedings or the re - possession of the property by the owner . "


The case originated in an application lodged by CARDINAL applicants , namely , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON ( “ the applicants ” ) . On DATE the ORG declared the application partly inadmissible as regards the first CARDINAL applicants , but retained the case concerning the third . In this connection , it decided to communicate the complaint concerning PERSON PERSON ’s detention on remand to the Government . The applicant PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE PERSON was arrested and taken into custody by police officers from ORG . The applicant , together with CARDINAL others , was suspected of setting CARDINAL vehicles on fire by throwing Molotov cocktails , with the aim of protesting the arrest of the ORG leader PERSON .

During his questioning by the police he confessed to having taken part in some of the incidents , but denied any involvement with the illegal organisation .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG office where he refuted his statements given in police custody . Later , he was taken before the investigating magistrate at ORG where he confessed to having participated in some of the incidents . The court ordered his detention on remand .

On DATE the ORG filed an indictment with ORG , accusing the applicant and CARDINAL others , of damaging other ORG property , under LAW . On DATE ORG at ORG also filed an indictment , accusing the applicant and CARDINAL others of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation , and charging them under LAW and LAW . The CARDINAL cases were later joined before ORG .

At the hearings held on DATE and DATE the ORG examined the case file on its own motion and , in view of the state of evidence and the seriousness of the charges , decided to prolong the applicant ’s detention on remand .

On DATE the court held a hearing in order to decide on the applicant ’s detention on remand . Following the opinion of the public prosecutor and in view of “ the nature of the offences charged , the state of evidence and the content of the case file ” , the court ordered the applicant ’s continued detention .

On DATE the public prosecutor submitted his opinion on the merits of the case that the applicant ’s involvement in the fire bomb incidents was established beyond reasonable doubt . He further proposed to the court to continue to detain the applicant on remand in view of the nature of the offences charged and the length of the probable imprisonment . The court ordered the prolongation of the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG .

On DATE the case was resumed before ORG . Pointing out the age of the applicant and the length of the period which he had already spent on remand , the applicant ’s lawyer requested the court to release her client pending trial . The court dismissed her request and ordered the prolongation of the applicant ’s detention on remand considering the nature of the offences , the state of evidence and the content of the case file .

At the hearings of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer repeated the request for the applicant ’s release pending trial . The court dismissed the motion for the same reasons as before .

On DATE , subsequent to the enactment of Law no . DATE on the suspension of proceedings regarding offences committed before DATE , ORG postponed the trial regarding the charges under LAW . However , it convicted the applicant under LAW and sentenced him to imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG , holding that ORG had to develop further the facts concerning the applicant ’s involvement in the incriminating incidents .

The case was resumed before ORG . On DATE , the court convicted the applicant of being a member of an illegal terrorist organisation and sentenced him to imprisonment . Moreover , in accordance with Law no . DATE , it decided to suspend the prosecution against the applicant concerning the offence of damaging property .

On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

According to Law no . DATE on conditional release , the suspension of proceedings or the execution of sentences in respect of crimes committed before DATE , proceedings could be suspended and subsequently dropped if no crime of the same or more serious kind was committed by the offender within DATE .