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

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

The applicant ’s late father was a member of ORG ( LOC sosvet ) of the then GPE during the Second World War , appointed by the NORP government during its occupation of GPE .

In DATE the applicant ’s father left GPE , but his family stayed there . From DATE he was based in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON narodne časti – “ the ORG ” ) of GPE ( GPE republika GPE ) sentenced the applicant ’s father in absentia on the basis of the LAW on the Punishment for Crimes and Offences against ORG ( ORG o kaznovanju zločinov in prestopkov zoper slovensko narodno čast , enacted on DATE , ORG of ORG and ORG of GPE no . DATE “ the ASNH ” ) to “ loss of national honour for DATE , to light forced labour for DATE and to the confiscation of PERCENT of all of his property ” on account of his “ intentional political cooperation with the fascist occupier ” and the corresponding “ prejudice to the good reputation and honour of the NORP nation and its resistance ” .

On DATE the applicant ’s father died .

On DATE GPE became independent .

On DATE the LAW of GPE ( “ the LAW ” ) entered into force .

On DATE the Convention and on DATE Protocol No . CARDINAL to the Convention entered into force in respect of GPE .

On DATE , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant lodged a request for the protection of legality ( zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ) with ORG sodišče ) against the ORG ’s judgment of DATE . The applicant requested that the judgment be quashed and the case be remitted to the first - instance court for re - examination owing to the violation of the applicant ’s father ’s defence rights .

On DATE the applicant amended his request , arguing that his father had not acted against the interests of the nation . He attached copies of CARDINAL documents which he claimed that his father would have submitted in his defence had he had an opportunity to attend the trial .

ORG later joined the proceedings in the applicant ’s case to the proceedings instituted by ORG , successors of PERSON , who had also been sentenced in the ORG ’s judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request and partly upheld PERSON ’s and S.B ’s request , with effect also for the applicant . By virtue of its decision , ORG quashed the penalty of confiscation of PERCENT of all of the applicant ’s father ’s property , owing to the lack of reasoning on that point . As to the applicant ’s fresh submissions of DATE , ORG found that they had been lodged out of time . As to the complaint concerning the trial in absentia , ORG held that it was not competent to deal with questions of fact and as a result could not consider the question whether the applicant ’s father had in fact been a fugitive . It added that the trial in absentia of his father would in any event have also been justified on the other grounds referred to in the ASNH , namely that he had been “ unavailable ” .

Referring to ORG ( PERSON sodišče ) decision of DATE ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) , ORG furthermore found that the ASNH did not have an unlawful retroactive effect . In the applicant ’s father ’s case , his conviction was based on sufficiently established facts , namely his membership of ORG and certain specific acts of political collaboration with the occupier . The relevant provision of the ASNH , which represented the basis for his conviction , was therefore not a lex incerta and had not been applied arbitrarily .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG .

On DATE the Constitutional Court found that it could only deal with the alleged violations relating to ORG judgment and that it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaints concerning the trial in DATE since it had taken place before the LAW had entered into force . As to the issue of lex certa , it referred to its previous decisions providing criteria for assessing laws enacted prior to the entry into force of LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . It found that ORG , applying the above - mentioned criteria , had sufficiently and convincingly explained its decision . It concluded that the applicant ’s complaints were manifestly ill - founded .

On DATE the ORG decision was served on the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) decided that the courts in GPE should not rely on the provisions of LAW DATE , which had established the jurisdiction of military courts at the material time , if they had been used , inter alia , to incriminate persons purely on the ground of their status and had not had regard to the particular acts of the accused . In the same decision ORG requested ORG to ensure that extraordinary remedies would be available in order to annul any unjust decisions delivered on the basis of legislation passed by the wartime and post - war revolutionary government .

On DATE LAW ( Zakon o kazenskem postopku , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) was passed . It came into force on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides for the possibility to lodge a request for the protection of legality against decisions which had become final before the date of its entry into force . It states , in so far as relevant :

“ ... the convicted person and persons referred to in subsection CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of the present Act [ among others also children of convicted persons ] shall be entitled , within DATE of the entry into force of the present Act , to lodge a request for the protection of legality against a judicial decision which became final before the entry into force of the present Act and against proceedings conducted before such final and binding decision was adopted . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW lays down the conditions under which a request for the protection of legality can be lodged :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A request for the protection of legality against a final judicial decision and the judicial proceedings which preceded that decision may be submitted in the following cases :

CARDINAL ) on the grounds of a violation of criminal law ;

CARDINAL ) on the grounds of a fundamental violation of the rules of criminal procedure referred to in the first subsection of section CARDINAL of the present Act [ listing such procedural violations ] ;

CARDINAL ) on the grounds of other violations of the rules of criminal procedure if such violations affected the lawfulness of a judicial decision .

( CARDINAL ) A request for the protection of legality may not be lodged on the grounds of an erroneous or insufficient establishment of facts , or against a decision of ORG ... ”

Furthermore , section CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ ORG shall by a judgment dismiss a request for the protection of legality as unfounded , if it establishes that the violation of the law alleged by the requesting party has not been committed or that the request for the protection of legality has been lodged on the grounds of an erroneous or insufficient establishment of facts . ”

Lastly , section CARDINAL provides for the various decisions which may be adopted by ORG in well - founded cases :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If ORG finds that a request for the protection of legality is well - founded it shall pass a judgment by which , depending on the nature of the violation , it shall : modify a final and binding decision ; or annul in whole or in part the decision of both the court of first instance and the higher court or the decision of the higher court only , and remit the case to the court of first instance or the higher court for a fresh decision or re - examination ; or it shall confine itself to establishing a breach of the law .

On DATE ORG , in decision no . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , considered the provisions of the ASNH . It found :

“ [ CARDINAL provisions of the LAW on the Punishment for Crimes and Offences against ORG ... were in contradiction with the general principles of law recognised at the material time by civilised nations , in so far as they represented , because of their uncertainty , a basis for arbitrary use of the [ ORG . In such a case ... their use in the proceedings would be in contradiction with the LAW . ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant 's employer went into liquidation on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his job and he received MONEY ( MONEY ) in severance pay . The applicant 's further claims against his former employer were channelled into the ongoing liquidation procedure . Ultimately , the review bench of ORG awarded him ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation in DATE , which , as far as it can be determined from the case file , was never paid to him . Because of his abovementioned pending and registered claim ( hitelezői igény ) , he remained a “ creditor ” and , therefore , a party to the proceedings .

On DATE the Baranya County Regional Court deleted the applicant 's former employer from ORG . In DATE ORG ordered the stay of the proceedings until the legal successor of the debtor joined the proceedings . The applicant appealed against this decision .

NORP In DATE ORG quashed the order and remitted the case to ORG . In DATE ORG indentified the legal successor of the debtor and continued the liquidation proceedings which are still pending .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

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

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

In DATE the applicant became a civil servant employed by ORG ( ORG , ORG ; henceforth “ the GPE ” ) where he worked until his retirement .

On DATE the Trustees of the ORG ( pankkivaltuusto , bankfullmäktige ) amended the pension rules of the ORG so that men who had entered into the service of the ORG prior to CARDINAL DATE and who continued their employment until retirement were also granted an opportunity to lower their retirement age from DATE . For DATE the retirement age was lowered , the pension accrued prior to DATE was reduced by PERCENT . At its highest the early retirement reduction was PERCENT for DATE . Under the pension rules of CARDINAL DATE the retirement age for women who had entered the service of the ORG prior to CARDINAL DATE was DATE and no reductions applied to pension accrual .

Prior to his retirement the applicant applied for a preliminary ruling on how his pension would be calculated . His application was rejected by ORG ( johtokunta , direktionen ) on DATE as giving such a decision was not considered particularly important to the applicant . On DATE the applicant was granted a pension , which was reduced by PERCENT for DATE prior to DATE on the ground that he had retired at DATE . The pension so calculated amounted to MONEY ( ORG ) per month .

On DATE the applicant petitioned ORG , requesting rectification so that no reduction should apply when his pension was calculated . He also requested that the decision of CARDINAL DATE be overturned as it had been taken by a body which was not competent and was contrary to LAW now CARDINAL ) of LAW . He underlined that his petition was not to be interpreted as an appeal to ORG , ORG ) against the decision to grant him a pension . On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's petition without examining the merits since it had no competence to review the lawfulness of the impugned decision and the issue could not be rectified .

It appears that the applicant did not appeal to ORG against any of the decisions of DATE and DATE . However , he lodged an appeal with ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) against the decision of DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It found that the decision by the Trustees of the ORG in DATE was not a decision that could be rectified . Therefore , and as there was no indication of partiality and as the NORP aspects relied on by the applicant were irrelevant for the outcome of the case , it found that there were no reasons to alter the finding of ORG .

Having received the decision , the applicant requested a copy , inter alia , of the referendary 's written proposal to the judges . On DATE the referendary sent copies of the requested documents , save for the confidential parts of her proposal which under LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) formed part of the deliberations of the court . On DATE the applicant maintained that he had a right to receive a complete copy of the latter document and demanded that his request be transferred to the chancellery 's session for decision . On DATE the applicant 's request was rejected in the chancellery 's session as he had not shown that he needed the said part of the document which formed part of the court 's deliberations and which could therefore be produced only exceptionally .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request of DATE for the said document to be sent directly to ORG as such an application for documents fell outside the scope of the LAW on the Openness of Government Activities ( laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta , lagen om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet ) . The applicant 's subsequent request for copies of the proposals underlying these decisions was rejected as no written proposals had been drawn up . On DATE the applicant requested a fresh decision , arguing that the previous one was poorly reasoned . He also alleged partiality . ORG interpreted his petition as an extraordinary appeal , which it rejected on DATE as ill - founded .

The applicant 's request for a copy of the proposal underlying the decision was granted on DATE save for those parts of the court 's deliberations which were to be kept secret under ORG ( laki oikeudenkäynnin julkisuudesta hallintotuomioistuimissa , lagen om offentlighet vid rättegång i förvaltningsdomstolar ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . On DATE the applicant renewed his request , arguing that the contents might affect the proceedings before ORG . On DATE ORG rejected his request under the said LAW .

The applicant was granted a separate old age pension as of DATE at DATE , amounting to ORG CARDINAL per month , from ORG Valtiokonttori , ORG ) due to his service in ORG during DATE . No reduction for the accrual prior to DATE was applied .

The applicant petitioned the Chancellor of ORG ( oikeuskansleri , justitiekanslern ) and ORG ( eduskunnan oikeusasiamies , riksdagens justitieombudsman ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Chancellor of ORG and the Deputy ORG respectively found no reason to take measures . On DATE the Deputy ORG found no reason to re - examine the case . On DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that his case would not be re - examined in the absence of new facts relevant to the case .

In DATE the applicant petitioned ORG in order to obtain information for the proceedings before ORG . The Bank produced certain information such as the names of employees affected by the DATE amendment . However , it refused to produce information about their retirement age , their addresses , telephone numbers , bank account details and so on . It is not known whether the applicant appealed to ORG .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG granted PERSON a pension and applied , in accordance with its practice , the early retirement reduction as described above . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the ORG 's decision in the case of PERSON without considering its merits as the decision did not directly affect him . In any event , an appeal against a pension decision lay with ORG , not ORG . On DATE ORG ( decision no . CARDINAL ) rejected PERSON arguments that the early retirement reduction was discriminatory and in breach of LAW and LAW . However , it amended the pension decision by granting PERSON a pension right amounting to PERCENT on the ground that he fulfilled the so - called pension guarantee requirement as he had completed DATE of service . ORG has ruled in a similar case also on DATE in the case of Mr PERSON

Meanwhile , following the judgment of DATE by ORG in the case of PERSON in which it was found that the fact that the applicant 's pensionable age was set higher than that of men doing the same work was in breach of the principle of equal pay laid down by LAW , ORG reached the same conclusion in its decision concerning ORG on DATE . The person concerned was a former employee of the NORP military service .

LAW NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that :

“ No one shall , without an acceptable reason , be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex , age , origin , language , religion , conviction , opinion , health , disability or other reason that concerns his or her person . ”

LAW provides that the property of everyone is protected .

Section CARDINAL of the Act on Equality between Women and Men ( laki naisten ja miesten välisestä tasa - arvosta , lagen om jämställdhet mellan kvinnor och män ; Act no . DATE ) prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination based on gender . According to its section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , direct discrimination means , inter alia , putting women or men in an unequal position on the basis of gender . LAW , subsection CARDINAL , point CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that :

“ An employer 's conduct constitutes discrimination prohibited under LAW if the employer applies the pay or other terms of employment in such a way that CARDINAL or more employees , because of their gender , find themselves in a less favourable position than CARDINAL or more other employees performing the same work or work of equal value in the employer 's service . ”

LAW on ORG ( laki PERSON , lagen om ORG ; Act no . CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that :

“ The Trustees of the ORG shall confirm ORG and issue regulations concerning the management of the ORG 's pension liability , upon proposal of the ORG . ”

The LAW does not provide any means to appeal against the decisions of the Trustees of the ORG .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW on Officials of ORG ( laki PERSON virkamiehistä , lagen om ORG tjänstemän ; Act no . DATE ) provides the following :

“ ORG shall treat all officials in its service equally to ensure that no - one is unjustifiably treated differently because of his origin , citizenship , gender , religion , age , political or union activities , or on other comparable bases .

ORG shall not forbid an official to join or belong to an association or pressure him to join a particular association , nor forbid him to resign from such . ”

Section CARDINAL , subsections CARDINAL , of the same LAW provide the following :

“ An official who considers that ORG has not rendered him the financial benefit due to him from his employment relationship may submit a written request for rectification to ORG . No request for rectification can be made in a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of ORG , unless ORG has decided not to settle the matter under section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW on ORG ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Rectification of a decision by which ORG has issued an official with a warning , laid him off or given him notice , cancelled the service relationship , suspended him from office or decided on a matter concerning his pension contribution or secondary occupation , as well as a decision referred to in paragraph CARDINAL on a request for rectification referred to in paragraph CARDINAL can be requested by appealing to ORG in accordance with the provisions of ORG ( ORG ) . A matter referred to in this paragraph shall be treated as urgent by ORG .

Decisions of the ORG concerning pension can be appealed against to ORG . Otherwise , as regards a request for rectification on pension , the applicable provisions of the Act on State Pensions ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) shall apply .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the same LAW provides that

“ [ t]he right of an employee of ORG to a pension paid from the ORG 's funds is determined , to the extent applicable , on the same grounds as state pension cover . State pension cover refers to the right to pensions , survivors ' pensions and other benefits which are payable from the state 's funds and the content of and eligibility for which are regulated by LAW and the related legislation . Pensions and survivors ' pensions are granted by ORG . ”

More detailed provisions on the payment of pensions and survivors ' pensions and pension cover in other respects are contained in ORG ( NORP pankin eläke- ja perhe - eläkesäännöt ; pensionsstadgan och familjepensionsstadgan för ORG ) . The Trustees of ORG , elected by the ORG , adopt the ORG on the basis of ORG proposals .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW with its earlier wording , as amended on DATE , read as follows :

" Eligibility for old age pension requires that the beneficiary has completed his or her service and reached DATE , or DATE if the beneficiary , immediately before retirement , has been serving ORG or its ORG for DATE , and DATE in the case of a female employee . A beneficiary who retires as a member of the ORG is entitled to old age pension irrespective of age . ”

The lower retirement DATE for women was applied until DATE , when the amendment of LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of ORG entered into force . With this amendment the retirement age of women was raised from DATE but the retirement age of men remained unchanged , that is , DATE . The amendment took effect as from its date of adoption so that it was applicable to beneficiaries whose service relationship with the ORG began on DATE or thereafter .

For the equalisation of the retirement ages , men were granted the right to opt for a lower retirement age . On DATE the Trustees of the ORG amended the entry into force provision of LAW in the following manner :

" However , as of DATE , the earlier provision is applicable both to women who have entered service in the ORG prior to CARDINAL DATE and to men who have entered service in the ORG before that date .

The beneficiary has the right to choose between the lower retirement age , based on the earlier provision , or the higher retirement age . If a man chooses the lower retirement age , the amount of his pension accrued on the basis of the duration of his service is , in respect of the service prior to DATE , reduced by CARDINAL percentage units per month of earlier retirement . "


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

The applicant was born in DATE and is presently serving a prison sentence in ORG .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced her to DATE imprisonment . The court also ordered her to pay CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in damages to the injured party . The first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG PERSON u GPE ) on DATE .

The applicant served the sentence in ORG from DATE until DATE , when she was conditionally released . Her conditional release expired on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) convicted the applicant on CARDINAL counts of fraud , sentenced her to DATE imprisonment and confiscated HRK CARDINAL from her , which it attributed to the proceeds from her criminal activity . The court also ordered her to pay HRK CARDINAL in damages to various injured parties . The sixth count of the applicant 's conviction was identical to the offence for which the applicant had been sentenced by ORG on DATE . The judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) , sitting as an appellate court .

On DATE the applicant started to serve her sentence .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for a retrial , claiming that she had been sentenced twice for the same offence . On DATE ORG granted the application . On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant on the charge of fraud in respect of which she had already been convicted by ORG and upheld her other convictions of CARDINAL DATE the court sentenced her to DATE imprisonment and confiscated HRK CARDINAL from her on account of her criminal activity .

The medical documentation submitted by the applicant shows that since DATE she has been suffering from chronic hepatitis ( Hepatitis C ) with a very high level of viremia ( presence of viruses in the blood ) . She has unsuccessfully undergone interferon treatment . Due to the effects of that disease her liver is damaged and her general health condition is very bad . People with hepatitis C usually suffer from constant exhaustion ; pain in the abdomen , joints and muscles ; general sickness and weakness ; and often depression . A low - fat diet is required in order to reduce liver damage . The disease is potentially fatal . On an unspecified date the applicant also contracted hepatitis A. In addition to that , she suffers from endometriosis .

During her first stay in ORG , from DATE , the applicant was put on a low - calorie diet as a punishment for her attempts to complain about the conditions in the prison . She was first given the job of handling dissolvent without any protection and later made to work full time on shovelling pebbles . As a consequence , she collapsed and was transferred to the prison hospital ( GPE lišene slobode , hereafter “ the hospital ” ) where she spent DATE . She was transferred in a van , accompanied by a driver , a nurse and a policewoman . The transfer took TIME and they had several coffee breaks and a lunch break , during which they left the applicant in a closed van , without food or water and with the windows shut .

In the hospital the applicant shared a hospital room with CARDINAL other inmates , most of whom were suffering from various mental disorders or epilepsy . The room had no sanitary facilities . The common sanitary facilities were shared by male and female inmates of the same floor . There were QUANTITY female and CARDINAL male inmates on the applicant 's floor . Access to toilets was allowed only in the company of a prison warden . The prison wardens were all male . Requests to be accompanied to the toilet were often ignored for prolonged periods of time . There was no access to the toilet during TIME and the inmates had to use a common chamber pot ( CARDINAL for CARDINAL inmates ) . The rooms were unlocked for TIME when the inmates were allowed to go out into the corridor , take a shower or wash their clothes . If an inmate urinated or threw up in the room , it had to be cleaned by the other inmates .

After her return to ORG , the applicant was again given the job of handling dissolvent , without any protection . After she had collapsed again , she was assigned another job .

The applicant was discharged on DATE . Her conditional release expired on DATE .

Following a fresh criminal conviction , on DATE the applicant was taken by police to ORG ( NORP za psihosocijalnu dijagnostku ORG ) , a detention centre in GPE , where she stayed for DATE .

According to the applicant , she had not been allowed to write to the ORG . The prison authorities had repeatedly questioned her as to what she had written to the ORG about her previous stay in ORG and the hospital . After she had refused to reply she had been transferred to ORG and placed in the high - security unit where she had been ever since .

Požega Penitentiary consisted of CARDINAL buildings that were old and in a bad state of repair . The walls were damp , windows broken and the heating facilities old and insufficient . As a result , it was often very cold in the cells and in the other prison areas . On DATE the water leaked through the roof into the bedrooms . The sewage and water installations often broke down and when this happened the inmates were deprived of running water for DATE .

Požega Penitentiary was divided into CARDINAL sections : an open section with the lowest security regime , a semi - open section with a medium security regime and a closed section with the highest security regime . The applicant had been assigned to the latter one . She had been put in a cell measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL other inmates . The beds were old and partly broken , and the mattresses were torn and soiled . There were CARDINAL toilets on average for CARDINAL inmates . The inmates were not allowed to use the toilets at TIME . The applicant had been put in the same cell as an inmate who took heavy sedatives and therefore soiled her bed almost every night , which created an unbearable smell in the cell . The penitentiary lacked sufficient sanitary facilities , so inmates were occasionally sent to take showers in the basement . The showers there were mouldy and there were often mice , cockroaches , rats and cats running around . The inmates were not allowed to wash their civilian clothes in the penitentiary laundry room but had to wash them by hand and dry them in a very small room , which created an unbearable smell .

Before every meal the inmates were lined up in the courtyard where , regardless of the weather conditions and often for a prolonged period of time , they waited to be allowed access to the canteen . The applicant found it increasingly difficult to bear such line - ups on account of her illness .

Inmates were made to work TIME . From CARDINAL May to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had not worked because of her health condition , but later on she had volunteered to work in order to earn at least some money to buy vitamins and some food . The applicant earned between HRK CARDINAL and CARDINAL per month , HRK CARDINAL of which she was obliged to save . She worked as a seamstress . She was allowed TIME rest in her bed per day . The bedrooms were locked for the rest of DATE . If she needed more rest she had to seek the doctor 's permission each time . The applicant found it almost unbearable not to be able to stay in her bed for longer periods during DATE since she suffered from tiredness associated with hepatitis C.

Although a low - fat diet for her liver disease had been prescribed , the applicant was served food cooked in pig fat . In general the food served to the inmates was insufficient and of poor quality . The bread was often stale and the food had often gone off . Breakfast often consisted of a spoon of bare pig fat .

She had seen a doctor once , on DATE . The medical documentation stated only that the test for hepatitis C was positive and that her viremia was CARDINAL units / ml of serum . Apart from that , the applicant had not been sent for any other medical check - ups despite having a serious disease which required regular tests and check - ups . Since her arrival at ORG the applicant had not been seen by a hepatologist . She stated that she had not asked to be sent to the prison hospital because the conditions there were even worse than in Požega Penitentiary .

All letters sent and received by the inmates were subject to censorship . On several occasions the applicant was told to shorten her letters addressed to her family and not to write about the conditions in the prison . Mail was received with DATE delay . Mail sent without a request for acknowledgment of receipt often did not reach its destination at all . The inmates had to bear all the postage costs . All telephone calls were screened . The inmates apparently had to bear the costs of the telephone calls they made . The applicant stated that she had not been informed that she was entitled to any visits .

According to the Government , the penitentiary had been built in DATE and had been adapted to the life and accommodation of inmates so as to comply with the conditions set out in the relevant legislation . It was able to accommodate CARDINAL inmates , yet on DATE there had been DATE inmates . Each section comprised bedrooms , sanitary LOC , a living room , a tea - kitchen , a smoking area , an area for leisure activities , a library with computer equipment and LOC for religious worship . The inmates were allowed to use the toilet and other sanitary facilities at any time and for an unlimited period . Each living room was equipped with a television set and a DVD or video recorder . Inmates were allowed to watch television until TIME on DATE and until TIME on DATE and DATE .

As to the applicant 's personal circumstances , the ORG submitted that after her initial DATE stay at ORG , she had been placed in the high - security unit and assigned to a non - working group on account of her health condition . The applicant had been qualified as having minor adaptability problems as most of the time she had been without any obvious occupation , just listening to music . Occasionally she had got into arguments with other inmates . She had lacked the motivation for more active participation in her individual programme , remaining passive and inert , with no insight into her own behaviour and uncritical in respect of her criminal conviction . However , with time the applicant 's attitude had altered for the better . She had expressed a higher level of motivation for completing her DATE duties and had satisfactorily participated in her counselling sessions , distancing herself from negative events in the section , and concentrating on herself . She had also expressed a wish to work and , as of DATE , had been working in the laundry service where she had been given less demanding tasks .

As of DATE the applicant had been labelled “ successful ” , which had resulted in her removal to a semi - open section from DATE . Ever since then she had benefited from the following privileges : unsupervised use of telephone in her free time ; unlimited correspondence at her own expense ; the right to receive a package once a DATE and during public holidays ; an additional package once DATE ; the right to supervised TIME visits twice a DATE and during public holidays ; and an unsupervised TIME DATE visit .

As to the medical care provided to the applicant , they submitted that CARDINAL doctor and CARDINAL nurses were employed in the penitentiary . During her second stay in the penitentiary the applicant had been allowed to stop work until she herself had asked to work again . She was also prescribed a liver and vitamin diet and offered fresh cheese and dairy products . On DATE she underwent a qualitative and quantitative test for chronic hepatitis virus and was informed of the results . Since CARDINAL DATE she had seen the prison doctor on CARDINAL occasions .

As to the applicant 's right to respect for her correspondence , they submitted that she had been able to send and receive letters at her own expense without any limitation . During her stay in the high - security section she had had to hand over her letters DATE opened – while the letters addressed to a legal representative , ORG authorities and international organisations for the protection of human rights had to be handed over sealed . Packages could be sent DATE .

It appears that the applicant complained to the prison authorities , ORG and the President of GPE . She did not submit copies of the letters she had sent to these authorities , stating that she had not made any . However , she submitted a letter of CARDINAL DATE sent to her by ORG , ORG , the relevant part of which read as follows :

“ ORG , ORG , has received your complaint of CARDINAL DATE in which you expressed your dissatisfaction with the accommodation arrangements with other inmates , the approach of the prison officials , the health care and the manner of using your free time . ”

The applicant 's complaints were declared unfounded .

Furthermore , the ORG submitted a complaint lodged by the applicant in a letter of CARDINAL DATE , lodged with ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences PERSON u GPE ) , alleging , inter alia , that she suffered from chronic hepatitis and that , on account of her illness , she was not able to comply with the prison regime . Although the judge held an interview with the applicant on DATE , he did not adopt a formal decision on her complaints . The interview and subsequent action had concentrated solely on giving advice to the applicant about applying for a retrial ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Ustav PERSON ) provides :

“ No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... ”

ORG o izvršavanju kazne zatvora , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL of DATE , and no . CARDINAL of DATE ( consolidated text ) - “ the LAW ” ) came into force on DATE , and the provisions concerning the judge responsible for the execution of sentences came into force DATE , on DATE . The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Inmates shall have the right to complain about an act or decision of a prison employee .

( CARDINAL ) Complaints shall be lodged orally or in writing with a prison governor , a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or ORG . Written complaints addressed to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or ORG shall be submitted in an envelope which the prison authorities may not open ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) An inmate may file a request for judicial protection against any acts or decisions unlawfully denying him , or limiting him in , any of the rights guaranteed by LAW .

( CARDINAL ) NORP for judicial protection shall be decided by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The accommodation of inmates shall meet the required standards in terms of health , hygiene and space , including climatic conditions .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall as a general rule be accommodated in separate rooms ...

( CARDINAL ) ORG rooms shall be clean , dry and of adequate size . Each inmate shall have QUANTITY and QUANTITY of space in the room .

( CARDINAL ) Every room ... must have daylight and artificial light ...

( CARDINAL ) ORG and prisons must be equipped with sanitary facilities allowing inmates to meet their physiological needs in clean and adequate conditions , whenever they wish to do so .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall have drinking water at their disposal at all times . ”

“ CARDINAL . The penitentiary or prison shall supply the inmates with underwear , clothes and bed linen appropriate to the climatic conditions . ”

“ CARDINAL . Inmates shall be served CARDINAL meals DATE with a caloric value of QUANTITY per day . The content and the nutritional value of the food shall be supervised by a doctor or other medically qualified person . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Inmates shall be provided with medical treatment and regular care for their physical and mental health ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Inmates shall have the right to unlimited correspondence at their own expense .

( CARDINAL ) Inmates shall have the right to correspond with their lawyer , the ORG authorities or international organisations for the protection of human rights without any restrictions or supervision of the content of such letters ... ”

The relevant part of the ORG on the Minister of ORG 's visit to ORG on DATE , published on ORG official internet page , reads as follows :

“ ... Minister of ORG was informed about the situation in the Požega Penitentiary by its director PERSON . ' Our needs are fairly high as the roof , outer walls and installations are in need of repair as well as the other things , for which we would need CARDINAL kunas ' said PERSON . ”

The relevant part of ORG on ORG , Penitentiaries and Correctional Institutions in DATE submitted to ORG on DATE ( NORP o stanju i PERSON , zatvora i odgojnih zavoda za DATE . ORG , koji je predsjedniku PERSON sabora dostavila PERSON , aktom od CARDINAL . DATE . godine ) reads as follows :

“ ... state of repair of the buildings of FAC and ORG is highly unsatisfactory as regards the mains installations ( gas , water , electricity , canalisation / sewage ) , construction of buildings ( unsafe static , woodwork falling apart , the state of repair of the roof ) ... ”


Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , her husband . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant received dental treatment during which she suffered a cerebral haemorrhage . According to her , the dentist did not provide her with the necessary medical help .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint against the dentist with ORG . On DATE the ORG ( oblastní stomatologická komora ) filed a criminal complaint against the dentist .

On DATE the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party , when her husband was heard by police officers and expressed , on behalf of his wife , a wish to join the proceedings .

On DATE the dentist was formally indicted for failure to provide medical assistance . On CARDINAL DATE his lawyer informed ORG ( okresní soud ) about a possible friendly settlement of the case . On DATE ORG conditionally stayed the criminal proceedings for DATE , ordering the dentist to pay CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) to the applicant . According to the Government , the dentist paid the sum requested .

In a judgment of DATE ORG acquitted the dentist and instructed the applicant that she may claim damages in civil proceedings .

On DATE the ORG Králové ORG ( krajský soud ) dismissed the appeals of the prosecutor and the applicant . This decision was apparently the last domestic decision taken in these proceedings .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed with ORG an action in which she claimed compensation from the dentist for alleged malpractice .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . According to the Government , the proceedings have not yet been meritoriously terminated .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .