The applicants , Mr PERSON , ORG and their son PERSON PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE . They are represented before the Court by PERSON , legal adviser of ORG in GPE , and Mr PERSON , barrister and professor of law at ORG . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , Director of ORG of ORG .

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

Mr PERSON , the first applicant , was born in GPE . At the time the application was lodged with the ORG , he was married to Ms Ljubov Mikolenko , the second applicant , who was also born in GPE . Their son , Mr PERSON , the third applicant , was born in GPE . The first and the second applicant have also another son , PERSON , who was born in DATE . He has a permanent residence permit in GPE .

The first applicant served in the NORP and NORP armed forces from DATE , when he retired as a warrant officer . From DATE to DATE he served in the territory of GPE . In DATE he was transferred to military unit no . DATE in the NORP military district . The first and the second applicants have been living in GPE since then .

Since DATE the applicants have been registered as inhabitants in the apartment at GPE puiestee CARDINAL - CARDINAL in GPE .

On DATE GPE and GPE concluded a treaty on the withdrawal of NORP troops from NORP territory .

On DATE the first applicant was assigned to the reserve forces by the decree of the commander of the military unit no . DATE . According to the transcript of the decree , he was discharged from the military unit and excluded from the provision of all types of supplies as of DATE .

As from DATE the first applicant worked as a manager in a private company . The second applicant has been working as a nurse in DATE .

On DATE the first applicant submitted an application for a residence permit in GPE . At that time his parents were living in GPE .

The first applicant applied for a flat in GPE within the framework of an aid programme provided by GPE ( GPE ) . On DATE he signed a written commitment in this connection . The form of the commitment was in LANGUAGE . In the form , signed by the first applicant , it was stated that he wished to take part in the programme for providing housing for officers of the NORP armed forces . It was further stated that if he would receive housing in the context of the programme , he and his family would vacate the dwelling that was at their disposal in the NORP country and that in the future he would be able to visit the NORP countries only as a foreigner on general basis . Furthermore , it was stated that the applicant had no housing in GPE , that he had not paid anyone for the right to take part in the programme and that he was aware that the housing in the context of the programme would be provided free of charge . It was confirmed that the dwelling he possessed in the NORP country had not been privatised or sold and that he had not received any payment for it .

On DATE the second applicant privatised ( purchased on favourable conditions from the municipality ) the apartment at GPE puiestee CARDINAL - CARDINAL in GPE . According to the data in the land register , as at DATE , this apartment was still in the ownership of the second applicant .

In the form filled out on the basis of the interview conducted with the first applicant by a staff of the aid programme on DATE concerning the grounds of participation in the programme and the amount of financing by the bank , it was noted that the first applicant was entitled to enrol in the programme . According to the document , in reply to the question how he would describe his and his family ’s feelings in connection with leaving the NORP countries , he chose the following answer from among the multiple choices : “ we are very happy about the departure ” . In reply to the question why he had chosen GPE as the possible new residence , he answered : “ relatives ” . To the question what he would miss most when moving to the new place , he replied colleagues of his military unit .

On DATE the first applicant , holder of the certificate SP-CARDINAL , issued by the aid programme , concluded a purchase agreement for an apartment at FAC CARDINAL with GPE . According to the agreement , the price of the apartment was MONEY ( USD ) , of which CARDINAL was to be paid by ORG for ORG and ORG CARDINAL by the first applicant .

On DATE the apartment purchased by the first applicant was registered as his property by the relevant bureau of GPE . According to the information from ORG of GPE , submitted by the respondent Government in the context of the proceedings concerning the applicants’ legal aid request , as at CARDINAL DATE the apartment was still in the ownership of the first applicant .

On DATE the first and the second applicants were granted temporary residence permits in GPE for DATE . The third applicant received a temporary residence permit on DATE . The date of its expiry was the same as DATE of the residence permits of his parents , i.e. DATE .

On DATE the temporary residence permits of the applicants were extended until DATE . In DATE their residence permits were further extended until DATE .

On DATE an amendment to LAW ( PERSON seadus ) entered into force so as to exclude the possibility of issuing or extending residence permits for persons who had committed themselves to leaving GPE or who had received an accommodation abroad within the framework of an international aid programme .

On DATE and DATE the Minister of the ORG issued orders by which the applicants were refused extensions of their residence permits . The refusals were based on CARDINAL grounds . Firstly , the first applicant had served as a professional member of the armed forces of a foreign country and had retired from there . This ground applied also to the second and the third applicants as family members ( spouse and minor child ) of the first applicant . Secondly , the applicants had committed themselves to leaving GPE and had received accommodation abroad within the framework of an international aid programme .

The applicants submitted a complaint to ORG ( PERSON NORP ) , which , by a judgment of DATE , dismissed the complaint . It observed that the applicants had committed themselves to leaving GPE and had received accommodation abroad within the framework of an international aid programme . According to LAW such persons could not be granted extensions of residence permits .

In an appeal to ORG ( Tallinna GPE ) the applicants contested the retroactive application of the provisions of LAW so as to refuse extensions of residence permits of persons who had committed themselves to leaving GPE and who had received an accommodation abroad within the framework of an international aid programme . LAW did not contain the disputed provisions at the time when the applicants participated in the aid programme and received accommodation in GPE . They argued that their legitimate expectation rights and the principle of legal certainty had been violated . They claimed that they should have been exceptionally granted residence permits under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE the appeal was heard at ORG . The applicants did not appear at the hearing . On DATE before the hearing the first applicant had submitted to ORG a request to adjourn the hearing due to his deteriorated health condition . ORG , nevertheless , held the hearing . It found that the first applicant had not provided a medical certificate and that he had failed to specify the reasons why he had been hindered from taking part in the hearing . The second and third applicants had not requested that the hearing be adjourned .

By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . It noted that the first applicant had served in the NORP army at the time the treaty concerning withdrawal of the NORP armed forces from GPE had been concluded ( DATE ) . Accordingly , he was subject to removal , together with his family members , under the treaty . ORG also found that it was established that the applicants had received accommodation abroad within the framework of an international aid programme and that they had committed themselves to leaving GPE .

In an appeal to ORG ( NORP ) the applicants complained that their right to take part in the hearing at ORG had been violated . They maintained that their commitment to leave the country had not been made to the NORP authorities . They also complained about the retroactive application of LAW and that they had been discriminated against , since several persons who had taken part in the aid programme had , in fact , been granted extensions of residence permits .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgments in substance , with modifications to their reasoning . ORG rejected the complaint concerning the inability of the applicants to take part in the hearing at ORG . It noted that the ORG requests to adjourn the hearing had been granted repeatedly and found that , according to LAW ORG seadustik ) , ORG could have rejected the appeal on the grounds of their failure to appear .

With respect to the substance of the appeal , ORG found that the interference with the applicants’ right to family life had been proportionate to the aim pursued by the State – to ensure that the professional servicemen of the former NORP army be withdrawn from GPE . ORG deemed the fact that GPE had not been a party of the international aid programme irrelevant to the legitimacy of the legislation prohibiting the extension of residence permits for persons who had benefited from the programme .

On DATE the third applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in GPE with validity until DATE , since he had attained the age of majority and thus could no longer be considered as a family member of a retired officer of the armed forces .

On DATE the first and the second applicants dissolved their marriage .

On DATE the Citizenship and Migration Board ( Kodakondsus- ja GPE – hereinafter “ the Board ” ) ordered the first applicant to leave the country on DATE at the latest . On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant lodged a complaint with ORG requesting that the order be invalidated .

On DATE the ORG refused to consider the second applicant ’s request for a residence permit on an exceptional basis . ORG noted that , according to the applicable legislation , a request for a residence permit had to be submitted , as a rule , to an NORP foreign representation . It established no circumstances which prevented the second applicant from doing so .

On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant submitted to ORG a request to reopen the proceedings ( teistmisavaldus ) and to quash the previous administrative court judgments . He claimed that he was a subject of the NORP - Russian agreement concerning the social guarantees to retired military personnel of the NORP armed forces in GPE and , therefore , he and his family members could have lawfully been refused an extension of the residence permit only in the event that it had been established that he posed a threat to the national security of GPE . On DATE ORG refused the request .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s request to invalidate the DATE order of ORG . He appealed against the judgment to ORG . ORG has not been furnished with information concerning the outcome of the appeal .

On DATE the police arrested the first applicant for illegally residing in GPE . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) imposed on him a fine of CARDINAL kroons ( MONEY ) . Apparently he was released after the hearing , having been kept in detention for TIME .

On DATE ORG decided , upon a request by the police , that the first applicant had to be taken to a deportation centre for execution of the deportation order . ORG authorised his detention for DATE starting from DATE , his immediate deportation being impossible , since he had not presented a valid identification document ( the applicant could not remember where his valid passport was ) .

According to a medical certificate submitted to the ORG , the first applicant was hospitalised DATE . He has been detained in the deportation centre since DATE . His detention has been extended by ORG once DATE . ORG has been , unsuccessfully , attempting to expel him to GPE . On DATE the first and second applicants lodged new complaints to the ORG , concerning the first applicant ’s prolonged detention and the conditions of detention in the deportation centre . These complaints have been registered as a separate application ( no . CARDINAL ) .

In the meantime , on DATE the ORG refused the first applicant ’s request for a residence permit . He challenged the refusal in ORG , which on DATE dismissed the complaint . The judgment was upheld by ORG .

On DATE the second applicant was served by ORG with an order to leave the country . On DATE she was refused a residence permit .

On DATE the ORG again refused the first applicant ’s request for a residence permit .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON seadus ) listed the instances in which a residence permit could not be issued or extended . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) provided that a permit could not be issued or extended , if the foreigner applying for it had served as a professional member of the armed forces of a foreign state or had been assigned to the reserve forces thereof or had retired therefrom . DATE ) provided that a residence permit could also not be issued or extended for the spouse and minor children of a person referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) . LAW ) , however , provided that , as an exception , a temporary residence permit could be issued or extended for the foreigner concerned if this was not excluded on some other grounds listed in the same provision .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Foreigners’ Act provided that a residence permit could not in any case be issued or extended , if the person concerned had , inter alia , committed himself or herself to leaving GPE or had received accommodation abroad within the framework of an international aid programme . This provision was adopted on DATE and entered into force on DATE . It was subject to an amendment in DATE , which does not appear to have relevance to the present case .

According to the Government of GPE , in DATE the President of GPE and the President of the GPE agreed to undertake a project for providing CARDINAL units of housing for NORP military officers demobilized from the NORP countries or elsewhere outside GPE .

The Government submitted to the ORG a copy of “ NORP Military Officer Resettlement Program . ORG ” and “ NORP Military Officer Resettlement Program . ORG . ORG ” . These information materials appear to have been handed out by the NORP side in ORG to the participating NORP officers .

According to the information materials , the NORP Military Officer Resettlement Programme had been set up in order to provide CARDINAL units of housing for NORP military officers demobilised mainly from the NORP countries . CARDINAL of the units of housing had to be constructed , whereas the rest of the housing units had to be provided through a housing certificate programme .

In order to take part in the ORG , the officers had to present a discharge order , passport , official verification of the family size and composition , official verification of current residence in the LOC and a signed application for participation in the programme containing declarations that upon obtaining housing under this programme , the officer and his family would vacate their present dwelling(s ) in the LOC countries and would not seek permanent residency in any of ORG , and from then on would enter ORG only as foreign guests . The officers had to declare that they and their families did not own housing in GPE nor would they own , privatise or sell any dwellings in the LOC and would not receive any payments in connection with vacating any dwelling . The officers declared their understanding that if they were found to be eligible to participate in the ORG and if all ORG ’s terms and conditions were met , they would receive appropriate apartments ( in the framework of the housing construction programme ) or financial assistance for the purchase of housing units ( in the framework of the housing certificate programme ) .

In order to obtain a registration of residence ( propiska ) in the Passport Desk for their new apartment , the officers had to present their NORP Passport and the NORP passports for all family members along with proof of cancellation of their registration of residency ( vypiska ) for all members of the family in the LOC . Officers had to move in DATE after notification by ORG or by the local administration , otherwise their apartments could be reassigned .

Participation in the ORG was voluntary ; no enrolment fee was required .

After the independence of GPE was restored on DATE , the NORP troops remained in the country . Following the dissolution of GPE , GPE assumed jurisdiction over its armed forces . On DATE GPE and GPE concluded a treaty on the withdrawal of the NORP troops from the NORP territory and on the conditions of their temporary stay in GPE . On DATE , GPE and GPE concluded an agreement concerning the social guarantees to the retired military personnel of the armed forces of GPE on the territory of GPE . LAW and the LAW entered into force on DATE , having been subject to temporary application from DATE of signing , that is , from DATE .

According to the LAW , ORG undertook to withdraw from GPE , by DATE , all military personnel who were in the active service of the NORP armed forces . Family members of the military personnel in active service who did not have a dwelling in GPE were allowed to remain in GPE for DATE .

The Agreement provided that retired military personnel , i.e. persons discharged from the army service and receiving pension , and their family members could apply for residence permit in GPE . ORG could deny a residence permit due to a threat to national security .


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

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

In DATE the applicant brought a civil action against a person who refused to pay his debt to her ( N. ) .

On DATE the ORG found for the applicant and ordered ORG to pay her CARDINAL.CARDINAL Moldovan lei .

The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the Bailiff did not enforce .

The applicant requested and obtained , on DATE , a court order for the seizure of ORG ’s apartment .

ORG requested the same court to lift the seizure and on DATE this request was granted . On DATE ORG purchased the apartment from the ORG ( in the privatisation process ) .

The applicant requested a new order for the seizure of ORG ’s apartment , which was granted on DATE . This order was annulled by the same court on DATE .

On DATE the same court issued another order for the seizure of ORG ’s apartment , which was annulled on DATE . The applicant did not appeal against any of the court decisions to annul the seizures .

On DATE the apartment was sold to a third party ; ORG left for GPE .

The applicant subsequently complained about the non - enforcement of the decision to various authorities , which responded that enforcement was not possible in view of the fact that the applicant ’s debtor lacked any assets and had left the country .

The judgment of DATE has not been enforced to date .

The relevant domestic law has been set out in this ORG ’s judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ... ( extracts ) .


Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national born in DATE . He did not communicate his current address to the ORG . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON S. Engelen , lawyers practising in GPE .


Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He has had NORP nationality since DATE , has been in business and is married to a NORP national .

On DATE the police division responsible for combating organised crime and drug trafficking ( “ the drug traffic division ” ) , of their own motion , began an investigation into allegations of drug trafficking offences being committed by CARDINAL persons – the applicant , together with GPE and GPE – with the intention of selling QUANTITY of heroin for CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) .

DATE , ORG attached to ORG authorised the use of CARDINAL undercover police agents with a view to determining the facts of the case , identifying the offenders and obtaining evidence . It also authorised them , together with CARDINAL collaborator , to procure QUANTITY of heroin . ORG justified the issuing of the authorisation on the ground that it had good reason to believe that a drug trafficking offence was about to be committed .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant and ORG met the undercover agents . According to the indictment issued in the case , ORG asked for ORG CARDINAL for QUANTITY of heroin . On DATE , the undercover agents met the CARDINAL persons again , to discuss the details of the transaction .

On DATE , the undercover police agents met the suspects again in the applicant 's apartment , where PERSON came with a bag . The agents reported later that they had been offered QUANTITY of heroin for MONEY . When they left the building together , police surrounded them and took away the CARDINAL suspects , while the undercover police agents left by car . The bag brought by PERSON was opened and a packet containing powder was found in it , along with shoes and food samples .

At the police headquarters the applicant was informed that there were drugs in the bag .

NORP The undercover agents prepared a report on the flagrant offence . The suspects denied drug trafficking ; in particular the applicant declared that he thought the money was for other merchandise and not for drugs ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The police searched the suspects ' apartments and found a pack of CARDINAL g of heroin in PERSON 's home . No drugs were found in the applicant 's home . The search reports were attached to the file .

During the investigation , PERSON confessed to the crime and explained that he had received the drugs ( CARDINAL pack of QUANTITY and another of CARDINAL g ) from a certain “ PERSON and that the other CARDINAL suspects were also aware of the drug sale .

On DATE the police separated the investigation in respect of GPE and QUANTITY other persons from that in respect of the applicant , GPE and GPE

On DATE the applicant was remanded in the custody of ORG by order of the public prosecutor ORG from ORG attached to ORG .

NORP On DATE the ORG committed the applicant for trial for drug trafficking , an offence prohibited under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ORG drafted the indictment .

On DATE the applicant gave a statement before the court . He averred that he had a company in GPE selling clothes and shoes and the CARDINAL co - defendants had been his business partners . In DATE when PERSON asked the applicant to buy some merchandise from him , the applicant told him that he was no longer doing business but could put him in contact with ORG The applicant , ORG and the buyer ( in fact an undercover police officer ) were in the applicant 's apartment when PERSON arrived with a bag containing samples of the merchandise ( shoes and food ) . The applicant noticed that PERSON kept the bag closed in his hands throughout the visit .

The applicant also described the alleged police brutality during the arrest and claimed that he was not allowed to see a doctor .

The co - defendants also denied any drug - related offence . They claimed not to have been aware that the bag contained drugs .

On DATE and DATE the court heard CARDINAL witnesses who were present at the arrest or during the searches of the defendants ' homes .

On the latter date the applicant made a written statement reiterating his position , adding details to his version of the facts and claiming that he had been forced by the police into making statements .

The Bucharest County Court gave judgment on DATE . It convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It also sentenced PERSON to DATE imprisonment and ORG to DATE imprisonment .

The court upheld the prosecutor 's description of the facts and noted that the prosecutor 's act was based on the reports from the undercover agents , the report from the arrest and from the searches of the defendants ' homes as well as on witness statements . It also noted that the defendants had alleged that they had been forced by police into confessing and had denied in their statements before the court having committed the offences . However , the court considered that they had failed to adduce evidence in support for their statements and thus discarded their declarations as being in contradiction with the other evidence in the file .

Furthermore , the court based its decision on the indictment , which in its view was supported by PERSON 's initial statement to the police , the arrest report , the confrontations between the co - defendants and the reports on the searches . It also noted that the defendants had not adduced evidence in their favour .

The applicant appealed against the judgment . He alleged that he had not been allowed by the first - instance court to adduce evidence , and asked the court to hear evidence in his defence , in particular to see the videotape recorded at the arrest and to question the undercover police officers .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal without giving any specific answer to the applicant 's complaints about evidence .

The applicant appealed again , on points of law , claiming that the entire operation was a frame - up by the police and asking again that the undercover agents and all those who participated in the operation be brought before the court as witnesses .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

The applicant requested the revision of the final decision , arguing again that the courts should hear the undercover police agents and allow the confrontation between the applicant and those agents . He also argued that in fact one of the undercover agents had brought the heroin to LOC while the other agent was the alleged buyer of the drugs .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application , on the ground that the extraordinary court could not re - examine the evidence in the file . It noted :

“ The decision under review was based on substantial evidence ; the undercover agents did not have a decisive role , they merely contributed evidence that corroborated the suspects ' statements , the report on the flagrant offence , and the home search reports . ”

The appeals lodged by the applicant were dismissed , first by ORG on DATE and then by ORG and ORG , in a final decision of DATE .

According to the applicant , he remained handcuffed during the public hearings before the judges in the ordinary proceedings on the merits . In its letter to the ORG dated DATE describing the conditions of detention in the police detention facilities , ORG mentioned that :

“ ... the detainees were handcuffed when they left the arrest centre ... When presented to the courts , the detainees remained handcuffed , unless the president of the court expressly asked that the handcuffs be removed ( [ ORG ] Regulation no . CARDINAL ) . ”

According to the applicant , while in pre - trial detention in ORG ( from DATE at the latest ) he was the victim of ill - treatment by the police . He claimed to have been dragged DATE from his cell over a period of DATE , and put in a toilet for TIME until the investigator eventually found the time to question him . He claimed to have then been stripped naked for TIME , searched and verbally abused by the police officers . He alleged that this had lasted for TIME DATE .

On DATE , the applicant was allegedly hit on the head by a police officer in the prosecutor ORG 's presence , because he had refused to sign the record of the police actions during the undercover operation which had led to his arrest .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG concerning the alleged ill - treatment suffered at the hands of police and prosecutor PERSON also alleged that he gave ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to a prosecutor , through an intermediary , to help in the proceedings ; he requested that the sum be reimbursed by ORG and the middle man . On DATE he gave a statement before the prosecutor , indicating the identity of the alleged culprits and asking that they be pursued for abuse of position , abusive behaviour and abusive investigation .

On DATE the military prosecutor transferred the file to ORG at ORG , following the demilitarisation of the police .

Several referrals between the prosecutors ' offices took place , and on DATE ORG attached to ORG dismissed the accusations on the ground that there was no evidence to support the allegations of abuse during the investigation .

According to the information from the domestic authorities , the applicant did not challenge the prosecutor 's decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The complaint concerning the alleged acts of corruption by ORG and the middle man was referred to the Prosecutor 's Anti - Corruption Office , which on DATE decided not to prosecute . On CARDINAL May CARDINAL the applicant was informed of the decision .

A similar complaint lodged by GPE , the applicant 's fellow inmate , on behalf of the applicant , alleging criminal offences committed by the prosecutor GPE during the investigations , was also dismissed by the Prosecutor to ORG and Justice ( the new ORG ) on DATE . The applicant 's objection to the prosecutor 's decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE for failure to exhaust the administrative complaint procedure set out in Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , before lodging the complaint with the court ( the decision became final on DATE when the applicant 's appeal on points of law was dismissed by ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges ) .

In DATE the applicant also lodged a criminal complaint with ORG attached to ORG against CARDINAL police officers from the drug traffic division and CARDINAL certified translators , alleging mainly that the police officers had used violence , threats and inducements in order to obtain evidence for the police report for the offence of DATE . On DATE , the Prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the complaint concerning abusive investigation against the police officers on the grounds that the allegations had already been examined by the courts in the criminal proceedings against the applicant ( which had been terminated by a final decision ) and that there was nothing in the file to substantiate the idea that the investigation had been abusive . The prosecutor sent the case to ORG to ORG for the remaining offences , regarding both the police officers and the certified translators .

The ORG has received no recent information from the parties on the development of these proceedings .

According to the information provided by the ORG from the domestic authorities , the applicant did not challenge the DATE decision .

On DATE , the applicant was remanded in the custody of ORG . He remained there until DATE , except for the period from DATE to DATE when he was hospitalised in FAC . On DATE , he was transferred again to PERSON where he remained until DATE , when he was transferred to ORG where he remained until DATE . According to the information available to the ORG , the applicant is currently being held in PERSON .

According to the applicant , in the same place of detention he was also underfed and kept in a damp cell . He claimed that he did not receive a suitable NORP diet , but had to get marmalade , butter and tea from his CARDINAL fellow inmates or biscuits and tea from the prison .

He claimed that he had tuberculosis . A medical report certifies that on DATE the applicant had tuberculosis and piles .

According to the information from ORG , the cells in the police detention facilities measured QUANTITY . m and had CARDINAL beds and QUANTITY . m windows each . The toilets and showers were situated in the cells and hot water was constantly available . The inmates had access to the windows to ensure ventilation of the cell . No concrete information about the applicant 's stay was furnished , as , according to the applicable regulations , the relevant documents are kept by the prison authorities only for DATE , which has already expired in the applicant 's case .

According to the applicant , the conditions of detention in ORG are equally inappropriate : it was extremely cold in DATE , when the heating system functioned for a short time only , there was hot water for TIME , there were CARDINAL inmates in a cell with QUANTITY beds , the food was not clean and there was almost no meat .

Since his transfer to ORG , the applicant has had some health problems : scabies , articular rheumatism and renal and abdominal pain . The existing medical reports certify left renal microlithiasis , bladder lithiasis and right basal pachypleuritis . Moreover , the applicant allegedly did not receive the medical treatment he needed .

Based on the information from ORG , the Government indicated that the applicant had been placed in cells measuring QUANTITY m with CARDINAL bunk beds , or QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL to CARDINAL bunk beds . The toilet room was attached to the cells and both had windows , to allow in air and natural light .

The Government did not provide concrete information on the occupancy rate of the applicant 's respective cells , except for the last part of his stay , when he allegedly shared a QUANTITY m cell with CARDINAL bunk beds with QUANTITY codetainees . A separate room with toilet , sinks and showers was attached to the cell . They both had windows .

Hot water in the prison was available once DATE before DATE and DATE after DATE , TIME and TIME and CARDINAL p.m. to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. Detainees received cleaning equipment from the prison administration . No information on the actual heating schedules was provided .

Lastly , the Government contended that the applicant had received food prepared in accordance with NORP dietary norms .

DATE the applicant was an in - patient in FAC , which recorded in a medical report that he had craniocerebral trauma with moderate post - concussion and an “ atrocious cephalalgia ” with consciousness disorder .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was in GPE ORG . He alleged that he did not receive proper medication because of lack of funds for medicine . The official documents issued by ORG at the ORG 's request as well as the medical register from the prison indicate that the applicant received treatment and food adequate to his medical conditions .

NORP From DATE to DATE the applicant went on hunger strike ; his condition was monitored and his health did not suffer significant deterioration .

In his statement of CARDINAL DATE given before ORG , the applicant expressly complained that he had not been taken to a doctor .

During his detention the applicant did not request early release from prison on medical grounds , nor did he request specialised medical examination , nor to be taken to a civilian hospital for investigations . According to the applicant 's medical record from prison , his treatment for his various conditions is continuing .

The relevant provisions of LAW and of the police and military prosecutor statutes are set out in PERSON GPE ( ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , § CARDINAL , DATE ) . In paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment in PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , cited above there is a description of the development of the law concerning complaints against decisions of the prosecutor ( LAW CARDINAL introduced by Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL DATE applicable from DATE , “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) .

The Government Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Ordinance no . CARDINAL ” ) regarding certain rights of convicted persons states , in DATE , that convicted persons have the right to bring legal proceedings before the court of first instance concerning the implementing measures taken by the prison authorities in connection with their rights . Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL has been repealed and replaced by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , which has restated the content of LAW mentioned above in LAW , which provides that a judge shall have jurisdiction over complaints by convicted persons against the measures taken by the prison authorities ( see also LOC v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The provisions of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the fight against drug trafficking and illegal drug use ( “ Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) are described in GPE and GPE v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and ORG , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The Ministry of the ORG 's Instruction no . CARDINAL on the organisation and functioning of preventive detention facilities under the control of ORG was not published in the Official Bulletin .

On DATE ORG issued Instruction no . CARDINAL on the rights and obligations of persons in preventive arrest which made no mention on the policy concerning the use of handcuffs and only repealed previous legislation that contradicted the new regulations . Ordinance no . CARDINAL makes no mention of it either . It is only in PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , referred to above , that the use of handcuffs is expressly forbidden save for exceptional circumstances ( LAW ) and can not be used as sanction ( LAW .

It appears that in DATE the Instruction no . CARDINAL was still in force , in so far as it concerned transport to the courts of persons in preventive detention ( see Decision no . CARDINAL by ORG and Justice ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits incitement to commit or continue committing a criminal offence with the purpose of obtaining evidence .

The relevant findings and recommendation of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) are described in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . In particular , the ORG notes that in the report on the DATE visits , the ORG expressed concerns over the limited living space available to prisoners and the insufficient space provided by the regulations in place at that date . It also noted that prisoners were sometimes obliged to share a bed and that the toilets were not sufficiently separate from the living space .

As far as ORG is concerned , ORG PERSON ) prepared CARDINAL reports regarding conditions of detention following visits to the ORG ' and ORG and to ORG in DATE , DATE and DATE . Besides case - related conclusions , the reports stated that the prison was overcrowded and that meat was almost completely absent from the meals .

ORG texts on the use of special investigative techniques are detailed in PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL- ....


Violation of Art. 5-3;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed burglary and having handled stolen goods . On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ordered that he be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question while acting in an organised criminal group , the severity of the anticipated sentence and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings . The latter ground was based on the risk that , once released , he might tamper with evidence . The applicant 's appeal against the decision was dismissed on DATE by ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant 's detention . It reiterated the grounds originally given for keeping him in custody .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL coaccused were indicted before ORG . On DATE the trial court held the first hearing .

Subsequently , the applicant 's detention was on several occasions prolonged . The relevant decisions were given on , inter alia , CARDINAL June , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE . The court considered that the proper course of the proceedings could only be secured by keeping the applicant in detention given the fact that he had been charged with membership of an organised , armed criminal group . Furthermore , the trial court had actively been taking evidence from coaccused , witnesses and expert witnesses , the process of which could have been disturbed by the applicant 's release .

During the proceedings the applicant made repeated , but unsuccessful , applications for release . He also appealed , likewise unsuccessfully , against refusals to release him and decisions prolonging his detention .

On DATE the GPE ORG informed the detention centre that it would not make an application to ORG to prolong further the applicant 's detention on the ground that it had found no exceptional circumstances under LAW to justify such a request . The applicant , however , was not released as he was still required to remain in pre - trial detention on the charge of armed robbery ( see below ) .

This set of proceedings is apparently still pending .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery while acting in an organised criminal group . The court relied in particular on the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the likelihood that a heavy prison sentence might be imposed on him if found guilty .

ORG and ORG several times prolonged his detention pending the conclusion of the investigation . The relevant decisions were given on DATE and DATE and on DATE . The last of those decisions extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . The courts considered that , given that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences , voluminous expert evidence needed to be obtained . For that reason , he should be kept in detention in order to secure the proper conduct of the investigation . They also held that that measure was justified by the severity of the sentence that might be imposed and the complex nature of the charges .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant had been indicted on charges of armed robbery , arson and burglary . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL accused . The CARDINAL main accused were charged with CARDINAL and CARDINAL offences respectively .

On DATE ORG severed the charges against the accused , holding that they should be determined in CARDINAL separate trials . CARDINAL of the reasons given was that the court did not have at its disposal a court room to try CARDINAL accused at the same time . The charges concerning burglary and arson were examined by ORG .

On DATE ORG made an application under LAW CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ) to ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) , asking that the applicant 's detention be prolonged beyond the statutory timelimit of DATE until DATE . ORG relied on the complexity of the case and the fact that , following the severance order , CARDINAL accused were to be tried simultaneously .

ORG granted that application on DATE , fully upholding the grounds given for it . It added that the applicant 's detention was particularly justified by the severity of the sentence that might be imposed .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request for release .

Subsequently , the applicant 's pre - trial detention was prolonged on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was convicted by ORG in the proceedings concerning the charges of burglary and arson and was given a DATE prison sentence . On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of armed robbery and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

Afterwards the applicant 's detention was prolonged . It appears that the he lodged appeals against both judgments . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained that a letter from the ORG , dated DATE , which included an application form , had been opened and controlled by ORG . That letter had been delivered to him at DATE . The front part of the envelope provided by the applicant bears a handwritten note : “ censored ” ( cenzurowano ) and an illegible signature .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , defines detention on remand as CARDINAL of the socalled “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the lawyer of a detained person should be informed of the date and time of court sessions at which a decision is to be taken concerning the prolongation of detention on remand .

A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law provisions is set out in the ORG 's judgment in GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . GPE , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXI , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE ( PERSON ) . She died on DATE . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE her heir , Mr PERSON ( GPE ) , informed the ORG that he intended to pursue the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings in the Benevento Magistrate 's Court , sitting as an employment tribunal , seeking acknowledgment of her right to an invalidity pension ( pensione di inabilità ) and an attendance allowance ( indennità di accompagnamento ) .

On DATE the magistrate 's court fixed the first hearing for DATE . On DATE the court appointed an expert and adjourned the proceedings to a hearing on DATE . The hearing was adjourned by the court of its own motion to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the court set the case down for hearing on DATE . In the meantime , following his mother 's death , PERSON joined the proceedings .

The hearing was adjourned by the court of its own motion to DATE . However , it was not held on that date because the lawyers were on strike . The CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE were devoted to organising new expert evidence .

In a decision of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG , sitting as an employment tribunal , dismissed the applicant 's claim .

On DATE PERSON appealed to ORG . The proceedings were still pending on DATE .

In DATE the applicant 's son lodged an application with ORG under PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , known as the “ Pinto ” Act , complaining of the excessive length of the above - described proceedings . The applicant 's son requested the court to rule that there had been a breach of LAW and to order ORG to pay compensation for the non - pecuniary damage sustained and to pay the legal costs plus those incurred before the ORG . PERSON claimed , inter alia , MONEY ( DATE ( ORG ) ) in non - pecuniary damages .

In a decision of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG found that a reasonable time had been exceeded . It awarded ORG CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , ORG CARDINAL for costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings before ORG and EUR DATE of which ORG CARDINAL were fees – for the Pinto proceedings . The decision was served on the authorities on CARDINAL DATE and became binding on DATE . The authorities were given notice to comply on DATE and PERSON lodged an application for seizure with the GPE judge responsible for enforcement proceedings in DATE . Those proceedings were still pending on DATE .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE PERSON informed ORG outcome of the domestic proceedings and asked it to resume its examination of his application .

In the same letter the applicant 's son also informed the ORG that he did not intend to appeal to ORG because an appeal to that court could only be on points of law .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .

On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of drug trafficking , committed from DATE until DATE in conspiracy with other persons . In the detention order the prosecuting authorities stressed that the testimony given during the investigations by the co - suspects strongly supported the suspicion against the applicant .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the detention order . On DATE and on an unknown later date the applicant 's requests for release were refused by ORG . On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE , invoking the complexity of the case . On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant 's appeals against these decisions were dismissed by ORG . On DATE ORG further prolonged the applicant 's detention on remand until DATE . On DATE ORG ( “ ORG ” ) dismissed the applicant 's appeal against this decision .

On DATE ORG prolonged the investigations in the case until DATE .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant 's new request for release and to have the detention on remand changed for a more lenient preventive measure . On DATE the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the investigations until DATE . On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE , considering , inter alia , that applicable domestic law did not require that the evidence in support of his detention was such as to allow a conviction . It was sufficient that there were strong indications that the applicant had committed the offence in question .

CARDINAL

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . On DATE it prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE . On DATE and DATE ORG refused the applicant 's further requests for release . The applicant appealed to the higher prosecutor . On CARDINAL and DATE ORG upheld these decisions , relying , inter alia , on the findings of the investigations that the applicant had had a leading role in the organisation of a drug trafficking network , and to the fact that the evidence included the applicant 's forged passport . This revealed a risk of absconding if the applicant were to be released .

On DATE ORG closed the investigations . On DATE ORG submitted the bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused to ORG . The indictment contained a list of CARDINAL witnesses to be interviewed and CARDINAL items of evidence to be presented at the hearing .

On DATE ORG filed a motion with ORG , requesting that the case be taken over for consideration by ORG . It was stressed that ORG and most of the witnesses to be summoned resided in PERSON . On DATE ORG dismissed the motion .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG in PERSON to carry out a thorough medical examination of the applicant , including an examination by a neurologist .

On DATE , at the applicant 's request , ORG sent the files in the case , which by then numbered CARDINAL volumes , to the PERSON prison to make them available to the applicant . From CARDINAL until DATE the applicant was reading the case - file . On DATE the applicant requested again to have the access to the case - file in order to be able to study it thoroughly . He was subsequently granted such access on CARDINAL occasions .

The first hearing in the case was held on DATE . During the hearing ORG dismissed a motion lodged by one of the co - accused to have the case returned to the prosecution to complete the investigations . The hearing was adjourned as one of the co - accused failed to comply with the summons . The court informed the applicant that it would consider his new request for release after conducting a social enquiry at his home . The court fixed dates for next hearings for DATE and CARDINAL DATE . From CARDINAL until DATE the case - file was , at the applicant 's request , sent to the prison so that the applicant could study it .

On DATE the court held a hearing at which it refused the applicant 's motion for release . Due to the absence of CARDINAL co - accused the court adjourned the hearing . On DATE the same CARDINAL co - accused again failed to attend the hearing . A warrant of arrest had been issued in respect of CARDINAL of them , a certain NORP M. The defence counsel of another co - accused , PERSON , requested that experts be appointed in order to establish her state of mental health after the suicide of her brother DATE . The hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE ORG requested the PERSON District Police to conduct an enquiry at the applicant 's home as to his family situation . As the results of the enquiry showed that the situation of the applicant 's family was not such as to require that he be released , on DATE the court refused his request of CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL and DATE the expert reports were submitted to the court , confirming the capacity of PERSON to take part in the hearings before the court .

At a hearing held on DATE the co - accused ORG failed to attend . The court did not allow the applicant 's request for release and adjourned the hearing .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested to be allowed access to the case - file . On DATE during the subsequent hearing the applicant filed a motion that the case - file be remitted to the prosecutor to supplement investigation with regard to the circumstances and conditions in which CARDINAL of the witnesses had made statements in their cases before the NORP courts . The applicant also challenged the judges of the panel examining the case and all judges of ORG . He also requested a stay on the proceedings until PERSON was arrested and that the file from GPE be sent to ORG and translated . He also requested his release . During the same hearing the court rejected all the applicant 's requests . The applicant immediately filed appeals against these refusals and requested an adjournment of the hearing in order to have the case - file sent to ORG for his appeals to be considered . The court refused to do so . The cases of the CARDINAL absent co - accused were separated from the applicant 's case .

On DATE the applicant again requested that the proceedings be stayed . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE refusing the applicant 's motion . On DATE the applicant requested to be allowed access to the case - file and filed CARDINAL new procedural motions with the court . During the next hearing held on DATE the applicant filed CARDINAL other procedural motions , including a new motion to stay the proceedings .

At DATE the applicant challenged the prosecutor conducting his case and requested that another one be appointed . On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with the court , alleging inadequate access to the case - file which had not allowed him to prepare his defence properly .

On DATE ORG upheld the refusal to stay the proceedings of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's challenge to the prosecutor , finding that it did not satisfy the applicable legal requirements . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to ORG against his allegedly insufficient access to the case - file and requested permission to consult the records of the hearings . On CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant had access to the case - file in the detention centre .

During the hearing held on DATE the applicant filed a motion for release and requested that the proceedings be stayed . He also requested that the case against ORG , which had been previously separated from his case , be examined together with his case . He further complained that his procedural rights had not been observed by the court , in particular that he had no proper access to all the volumes of the case - file at the same time and that he had not been given sufficient time for meetings with his defence counsel . His requests and complaints were dismissed by the court .

On DATE ORG upheld the refusal to stay the proceedings of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE due to the illness of CARDINAL of the co - accused GPE

On DATE ORG , at ORG request of DATE , decided to prolong the applicant 's detention until DATE . A hearing fixed for CARDINAL DATE was adjourned due to the absence of CARDINAL defendants , and the subsequent hearings were held on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . The applicant was again allowed access to the case - file from DATE until DATE .

During the hearing held on DATE , the court questioned CARDINAL witnesses . CARDINAL other witnesses failed to appear . The hearing was adjourned until DATE . During that hearing CARDINAL witnesses were interviewed and CARDINAL other witnesses failed to comply with the summons . The hearing was adjourned until for DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL witnesses were interviewed . CARDINAL other witnesses failed to attend the hearing . The court dismissed the applicant 's new request for release and decided to admit evidence from the testimony of some police officers , concerning the conduct of the investigation in the case .

Next hearings were fixed for DATE and DATE . On its session held in camera on DATE ORG decided to request ORG to prolong the applicant 's detention until DATE .

On DATE next hearing was held . CARDINAL witnesses were heard and CARDINAL failed to attend . On DATE ORG requested LOC in PERSON to establish the whereabouts of witness PERSON At the hearing held on DATE the court questioned CARDINAL witness , whereas CARDINAL others were absent . The applicant submitted a request to adjourn the questioning of the witnesses , relying on the absence of his defence counsel .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE . The ORG observed that a number of hearings had been adjourned due to the failure of certain accused and of a number of witnesses to attend the hearings as summoned . It also had regard to the applicant 's motions to take additional evidence . At the hearing held on DATE witness ORG was questioned . CARDINAL other persons summoned as witnesses failed to comply with the summonses .

At a subsequent hearing held on DATE CARDINAL of the co - accused was absent following an accident . The applicant and another co - accused requested that CARDINAL new defence witnesses be heard in the case . The court adjourned the hearing . The subsequent hearing in the case was held on DATE and CARDINAL witnesses were questioned .

At the hearing held on DATE the applicant requested access to the case - file , alleging that before the hearing his access had been insufficient to prepare his defence properly because he had never had access to all of the CARDINAL volumes of the case - file at the same time . The applicant 's counsel requested appointment of an expert in graphology in order to examine the authenticity of the signature of the co - accused PERSON on a certain document . The court adjourned the hearing .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to grant him access to the entire case - file . On DATE the court continued the hearing . CARDINAL witnesses were interviewed and CARDINAL was absent . The court allowed the cross - examination of CARDINAL witnesses and questioned another CARDINAL .

At the next hearing held on DATE CARDINAL witness failed to appear . The court appointed an expert in graphology in order to examine the authenticity of the signature of the co - accused PERSON The court allowed the applicant 's request that a new witness be interviewed and dismissed other requests concerning the taking of further evidence .

On DATE the hearing was continued and CARDINAL witness was heard . The court decided to impose fines on CARDINAL absent witnesses . It also allowed the applicant 's lawyer 's request to examine a file of another criminal case and adjourned the hearing . On DATE a lawyer of CARDINAL of the co - accused requested to have CARDINAL new witnesses questioned and the court granted that request .

At the hearing on DATE the court heard CARDINAL witnesses . On DATE the court decided to hold the hearing despite the fact that CARDINAL of the co - accused failed to comply with the summonses . The court , at the applicant 's request , called CARDINAL new witnesses since the applicant 's lawyer had not agreed that their testimony be read out in the court . The court adjourned the hearing and fixed the dates for the next hearings .

On DATE the court held the hearing , despite the absence of the co - accused PERSON witnesses summoned for that date failed to comply with the summonses . The applicant and another co - accused requested to accept as disclosed the testimony of CARDINAL witnesses living abroad without their being read out in court .

On DATE a next hearing was held . The court read out the testimony of the co - accused D. M , whose whereabouts remained unknown , and CARDINAL further witnesses were questioned .

At a next hearing , held on DATE , CARDINAL witness refused to answer questions . CARDINAL of the co - accused was absent , but the court decided to continue the hearing . The court dismissed a request to admit evidence from the file of another criminal case , related to the present case and terminated by the NORP courts . The court also refused to allow the applicant 's motion for a fresh expert report on the signature of the accused PERSON and to enclose a file of another case against persons who had been witnesses in the case against the applicant and to hear CARDINAL new witnesses .

At the hearing held on DATE ORG requested ORG to prolong the applicant 's detention until DATE so that further witnesses could be heard . ORG observed that the proceedings had essentially come to a close , but that it was impossible to hear CARDINAL witness who was detained in another case , and CARDINAL of the accused , who was ill .

A new witness was interviewed on DATE . CARDINAL co - accused , who was ill , did not attend the hearing . The court decided to summon a subsequent witness and fixed dates for the next hearings . On DATE the court adjourned the hearing due to the absence of CARDINAL of the lawyers . The presence of the lawyer was mandatory and the co - accused had not consented to the hearing being held in his absence .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE , having regard to such essential obstacles as the illness of the co - accused PERSON , new circumstances which were coming to light during the court proceedings and new evidence allowed by the court .

At a hearing before ORG held on DATE a new witness was present , but the hearing had to be adjourned due to the absence of the applicant 's lawyer . The applicant did not agree that the hearing be continued . The court fixed dates for CARDINAL subsequent hearings until DATE .

DATE . On DATE the hearing was adjourned , due to absence of the lawyers of CARDINAL of the accused , including the applicant 's . On CARDINAL DATE the court decided to continue the hearing despite the absence of the accused GPE who had submitted a sick leave certificate . CARDINAL witness was questioned . The court ordered PERSON lawyer to submit PERSON sick leave certificate issued by a physician authorised to give certificates to justify the absence before a court on medical grounds .

On DATE , at the request of CARDINAL of the lawyers , the court adjourned the oral pleadings of the parties until DATE . On DATE the last hearing was held .

On DATE the court gave a judgement in the case . The applicant was convicted of drug trafficking and forgery of documents and sentenced to DATE imprisonment and a fine of QUANTITY ORG . The court prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE and the applicant appealed against the decision .

The applicant requested that written grounds for the judgment be prepared . On DATE ORG informed him that the case - file had been sent to ORG as the complaints against the decision concerning prolongation of detention had to be considered and therefore the written grounds for the judgment could only be drawn up after the return of the case - file . On DATE ORG prolonged the time - limit for the grounds of the judgment to be prepared until DATE . The court stressed that the case was particularly complex and voluminous and that the case - file had meanwhile had to be sent to ORG .

On DATE the court informed the applicant about the new time - limit fixed for the preparation of the written grounds of the judgment . On DATE ORG again prolonged the time - limit in respect of the written grounds of the judgment until DATE , having regard to the complexity of the case . On DATE the reasoned judgement , numbering CARDINAL pages , was served on the applicant .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment with ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the second - instance judgement with ORG . He argued that the appellate court had failed to rectify errors of law committed by the first - instance court . The first - instance court had in particular failed to address correctly the complaints relating to certain refusals to take evidence and to the fact that some evidence was not taken in an adversarial manner as the court had only decided to include it in the case - file . The applicant had thus been deprived of the possibility of questioning certain witnesses . On DATE ORG in PERSON filed his reply to the cassation appeal with ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request to stay execution of his sentence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's cassation appeal and the appeals filed by the CARDINAL co - accused , the applicant 's brother GPE and GPE

The letters from the applicant to the ORG of ORG , dated DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINAL letters ) and DATE , were intercepted by prison guards . They opened and apparently forwarded them to the prosecuting authorities , who in turn later read and forwarded them to the addressee . The envelopes of these letters bear stamps of ORG , together with the stamps “ censored ” ( “ ocenzurowano ” ) .

The DATE Code of Criminal Procedure , applicable at the relevant time , listed as " preventive measures " , inter alia , detention on remand , bail and police supervision .

CARDINAL

After the bill of indictment was transmitted to the court , orders relating to detention were to be made by the court . A decision concerning preventive measures could be appealed to a higher court .

At the material time there were CARDINAL types of proceedings enabling a detainee to challenge the lawfulness of his detention . Under LAW § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure he could appeal to a court against a detention order given by a prosecutor ( see above ) . Under LAW § § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL he could appeal against a further decision by that court prolonging his detention at a prosecutor 's request . Under LAW the detainee could at any time request the competent authority to quash or alter the decision concerning the preventive measure imposed in his case . Such an application had to be decided by the prosecutor or , after the bill of indictment had been lodged with the court competent to deal with the case , by that court , within DATE .

The situation of persons detained on remand was at the relevant time governed by LAW of DATE . Under LAW , all correspondence of each detainee was to be opened , read and , if need be , subjected to censorship , unless a prosecutor or a court decided otherwise . No provision of the Code provided for any remedy to contest the manner or scope of the censorship of a detainee 's correspondence .

The rights of persons detained on remand as regards their correspondence were further set out in Rule CARDINAL of LAW . These Rules provided that the correspondence of persons detained on remand was subject to screening by the authority conducting the criminal proceedings , i.e. either a public prosecutor or a court , depending on the stage reached in the proceedings .

On DATE a new Code of Enforcement of Criminal Sentences was enacted by parliament . Article CARDINAL of this Code , which entered into force on DATE , provides that convicted persons are entitled to non - screened correspondence with the ORG authorities , including the ORG . LAW further provides that convicted persons and their lawyers may lodge complaints with the international agencies established under international treaties on protection of human rights , ratified by GPE . Prisoners ' correspondence in such cases shall be dispatched with no delay and shall not be subjected to screening .

Pursuant to LAW , the rights of persons detained on remand shall , in principle , be at least equal to those of persons convicted by a final judgment .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - award;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 DATE the applicant was issued with an occupancy voucher ( yaşayış orderi ) for a flat in a recently constructed residential building in GPE on the basis of an order of ORG of DATE .

At the same time , the applicant became aware that the flat had been occupied by PERSON and his family , who were internally displaced persons ( “ ORG ” ) from ORG , a region under the occupation of the NORP military forces following the NORP - GPE conflict over NagornoKarabakh .

According to the applicant , despite numerous demands , PERSON refused to vacate the flat , pointing out that he was an ORG and had no other place to live .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an action with ORG asking the court to order the eviction of H. and his family from the flat .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant 's claim and ordered that PERSON and his family be evicted from the flat . The court held that the applicant was the sole lawful tenant of the flat on the basis of the occupancy voucher of CARDINAL DATE and therefore that the flat was being unlawfully occupied by PERSON and his family .

No appeals were filed against this judgment and , pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time , it became enforceable within DATE of its delivery . However , PERSON and his family refused to comply with the judgment and , despite the applicant 's complaints to various authorities , it was not enforced .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant and a group of other persons who were in the same situation lodged an action with ORG complaining that ORG ( “ ORG ” ) had not taken measures to enforce the judgments .

On DATE ORG dismissed that complaint as unsubstantiated . The applicant appealed against this judgment . On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance court 's judgment and delivered a new judgment on the merits in the applicant 's favour . ORG held that ORG inaction had been unlawful and that the judgment of DATE should be enforced . Following a cassation appeal of ORG and other persons against this judgment , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case to the latter court for a new examination . It appears from the case file that the proceedings are still pending before ORG .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an action against ORG on deals of Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons , ORG and other authorities , seeking compensation for non - enforcement of the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's claim as unsubstantiated . On DATE ORG and on DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court 's judgment .

On DATE lodged a request with ORG asking for postponement of the execution of the judgment of DATE . He alleged that , as he was an ORG , he had no other place to live but the flat in question .

On DATE the Yasamal ORG granted ORG 's request and ordered the postponement of the execution of the judgment of DATE until PERSON could move to CARDINAL of the houses recently constructed for temporary settlement of IDPs . The court relied on ORG on Approval of ORG ( “ LAW of DATE ” ) , according to which the relevant ORG organs were instructed that until the return of the IDPs to their native lands or until their temporary settlement in new houses , IDPs should not be evicted from public apartments , flats , lands and other LOC , regardless of ownership , they had settled in DATE . Following a series of appeals by the applicant , on DATE ORG quashed the first - instance court 's decision and remitted the case to the lower court for a new examination .

It appears from the case file that following a series of the proceedings on DATE ORG upheld the decision on postponement of the execution of the judgment of DATE and that the proceedings are still pending before ORG .

NORP citizens are entitled to obtain the right of use of apartments owned by the ORG or other public bodies under the terms of a tenancy agreement ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . A decision to grant an apartment is implemented by way of issuing the citizen with an occupancy voucher ( yaşayış sahəsi orderi ) from the local executive authority ( Article CARDINAL ) . The voucher serves as the sole legal basis for taking possession of the apartment designated therein ( Article CARDINAL ) and for concluding a tenancy agreement ( yaşayış sahəsini icarə müqaviləsi ) between the tenant and the housing maintenance authority ( Article CARDINAL ) . The right of use of apartments is granted for an indefinite term ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Individuals residing , pursuant to a tenancy agreement , in apartments owned by the ORG and other public bodies have a right to transfer those apartments into their private ownership ( LAW . Such privatisation is voluntary and free of charge ( LAW . The right to privatise a ORG - owned apartment free of charge may be exercised only once ( DATE ) .

NORP IDPs are defined as “ persons displaced from their places of permanent residence in the territory of GPE to other places within the territory of the country as a result of foreign military aggression , occupation of certain territories or continuous gunfire ” ( LAW ) . The IDPs may be allowed to temporarily settle on their own only if the rights and lawful interests of other persons are not infringed . Otherwise , the relevant executive authority must ensure that the internally displaced persons are resettled in other accommodation ( LAW .

DATE of ORG provides as follows :

“ In order to prevent the eviction of internally displaced persons from dwellings in which they settled DATE , the legal force of the occupancy vouchers issued by the relevant authorities to individual citizens in respect of those dwellings shall be temporarily suspended ... ”

DATE of the IDP Resettlement Regulations provides as follows :

“ In cases where the temporary settling of internally displaced persons breaches the housing rights of other individuals , the former must be provided with other suitable accommodation ”

In the order , inter alia , the relevant state organs of GPE are instructed that until the return of the IDPs to their native lands or until their temporary settlement in new houses , IDPs should not be evicted from public apartments , flats , land and other LOC , regardless of ownership , they had settled in DATE .

A judge examining a civil case may , at the request of a party to the case , decide to postpone or suspend the execution of the judgment or change the manner of its execution because of the parties ' property situation or other circumstances ( Article CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of establishing a criminal organisation and committing fraud , threats and bribery . TIME after the arrest , he underwent a medical examination . The doctor who examined the applicant noted no sign of injury on his body .

On DATE , the applicant was taken to ORG , where he was allegedly subjected to ill - treatment . More specifically , he was stripped naked , beaten , subjected to electric shocks , hung by the arms , forced to sit naked on cold ground bare and hosed with water .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife lodged a complaint with ORG , claiming that her husband was being tortured .

Subsequently , on DATE ORG initiated an investigation into the matter .

On DATE , upon the request of ORG , ORG decided to prolong the applicant ’s detention in police custody for DATE .

On DATE the applicant was heard by ORG . He was then transferred to LOC of ORG to be examined . The forensic medical report noted the applicant ’s complaint as to his ill - treatment and indicated that he had CARDINAL bruises measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY on his left arm , a QUANTITY light bruise in his right armpit , a blue - coloured bruise surrounding his left eye , several parallel scabbed lesions around his penis and a scratch measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY below his right knee .

On DATE , following a request from ORG , the applicant was examined once more by another doctor , who stated that the applicant had complained of headaches , dizziness and sensitivity at the tip of the big toe of his right foot . The report drawn up by that doctor indicated that the applicant ’s general health condition was good and that he was conscious . It noted that he had bruises and hyperemia on his left and right sides , further hyperemia on both his arms , scabbed lesions of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on his penis ( which would probably heal in DATE ) and a bruise around his eye ( to heal in DATE ) . The report concluded that the injuries would not keep the applicant from DATE work .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to indicate , on the basis of its medical report dated DATE , whether the applicant was fit for work . On DATE , the ORG issued another report , reiterating the findings of the initial one and stating that the applicant would be unfit for routine activities for DATE .

Following the applicant ’s detention on remand , the prison doctor transferred him to ORG . On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with acute lumbar strain and discopathy by a doctor at that hospital . The doctor also indicated that the applicant suffered from spondylosis and sciatica on his right side . The applicant was discharged from the hospital on DATE .

On DATE ORG heard the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment during his time in police custody . The applicant repeated before ORG that he had been stripped naked and subjected to electric shocks , hung by the arms , forced to sit on cold ground and hosed with cold water every TIME during the DATE period of custody . He added that he had been blindfolded during his arrest and kept that way until he was brought before ORG for the first time .

DATE , on DATE , ORG requested ORG to list the names of the police officers who had been on duty and who had had any contact with the applicant during the time he had been held at ORG .

In the meantime , the issue was brought to the attention of ORG by CARDINAL of the Members of ORG representing ORG .

Following this event and the coverage of the issue in a local newspaper , on DATE ORG submitted an information document to ORG attached to ORG , stating that the medical reports about the applicant corroborated the allegations of ill - treatment and that he had already commenced an investigation into the matter on DATE .

Subsequently , on DATE ORG informed ORG of the names of CARDINAL police officers on duty during the period when the alleged events took place .

On DATE ORG filed an indictment with ORG , accusing all CARDINAL police officers listed of torture , pursuant to Article CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . He maintained that the ORG accounts of the events and witness statements confirmed the findings of the medical reports and concluded that the CARDINAL complainants , including the applicant , had been subjected to illtreatment in police custody .

At the first hearing on DATE , ORG found that the investigation conducted by ORG had been inadequate . The court conducted a procedure whereby the complainants identified the police officers they had accused of torture . The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party .

During the course of the QUANTITY hearings that followed , the court evaluated medical reports and documents from ORG . It also heard statements from the accused police officers , the complainants and several witnesses .

On DATE ORG acquitted CARDINAL of the officers , finding that none of the complainants , except for the applicant , had been ill - treated and that those CARDINAL officers had not been involved in the applicant ’s ill - treatment in police custody . The court found the other QUANTITY officers , who had been identified by the applicant during the hearings , guilty as charged , having regard to the consistency of the applicant ’s account of events with the medical reports . It sentenced the said CARDINAL officers to QUANTITY months’ imprisonment and banned them from public service for DATE . The court finally deferred the execution of their sentences pursuant to LAW . CARDINAL on the basis that the officers did not show any likelihood of reoffending .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court in so far as it concerned the acquittal . It quashed the part concerning the sentences , stating that the court should evaluate the case again in the light of the recent LAW ( Law no . DATE ) and LAW no . CARDINAL ) , both of which had entered into force in DATE .

On DATE ORG held that the former LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) was more favourable for the accused police officers . The court once more sentenced them to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and DATE and CARDINAL days’ ban from public service . This time , the sentences were commuted into a fine of MONEY for each officer and were suspended again .

ORG quashed that judgment on DATE , maintaining that the first - instance court should have considered whether the pronouncement of the judgment could have been suspended for DATE ( hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması ) , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG held that the officers concerned had beaten and cursed the applicant and administered electroshocks on him in order to a extract confession . The court sentenced the police officers once again to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and banned them from public service for DATE , pursuant to Article CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . Finally , it suspended the pronouncement of the judgment , having regard to the ORG lack of criminal records and finding it unlikely that they would reoffend .

The applicant objected to that decision . However , on DATE ORG rejected his objection . The final decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the Bursa Governorship assigned a chief officer to conduct a disciplinary investigation about the allegations of ill - treatment concerning QUANTITY police officers .

The investigation began on CARDINAL DATE and ended on DATE , on which date the superintendent officer drew up a report ( fezleke ) . On the basis of CARDINAL video recordings of the applicant during a search and when his statements were being taken and the statements of the police officers , the witnesses and the complainants , including the applicant , the superintendent indicated that the applicant seemed to be in good health and that the light ecchymoses indicated in the medical reports could have just as well been produced by the applicant himself . He concluded therefore that the police ORG acts did not require disciplinary action .

On DATE , having reiterated the findings of the chief officer , ORG of ORG held that there was no ground to take disciplinary measures against the CARDINAL police officers .

A description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning prosecution for ill - treatment in force at the material time can be found in GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , § § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-IV ( extracts ) .

The suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment is regulated by LAW no . CARDINAL ) , the relevant paragraphs of which read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) If the accused , who had been tried for the charges against him , was sentenced to a judicial fine or to imprisonment of DATE , the court may decide to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment ... The suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment entails that the judgment would not bear any legal consequences for the offender .

( CARDINAL ) Suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment may be decided provided that ;

a ) the offender has never been found guilty of a wilful offence ,

b ) the court is convinced , taking into account the offender ’s personal traits and his behaviour during the proceedings , that there is little risk of any further offence being committed ,

c ) the damage caused to the victim or to the society is repaired by way of restitution or compensation .

( CARDINAL) If the pronouncement of the judgment is suspended , the offender will be kept under supervision for DATE .

( CARDINAL ) If the offender does not commit another wilful offence and abides by the obligations of the supervision order , the judgment , the pronouncement of which had been suspended , will be cancelled and the case discontinued .

( CARDINAL ) If the offender commits another wilful offence or acts in violation of the obligations of the supervision order , the court imposes the sentence . Nevertheless , the court may evaluate the offender ’s situation and may decide that a certain part of the sentence , up to the CARDINAL of the total sentence , will not be executed . If the conditions so permit , the court may as well suspend the execution of the imprisonment or commute it to other optional measures .

( CARDINAL ) An objection may be filed against the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment .


Preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) joined to merits and dismissed;Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil action seeking damages with ORG ( PERSON ) against the DATE magazine ORG ( “ the respondent ” ) , claiming that it had published a libellous article about him .

The court held several hearings before DATE , the date of the entry into force of the Convention in respect of GPE .

At the hearing on DATE the court heard a witness .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned for DATE when the court heard another witness and an expert .

At the next hearing on DATE the court heard yet another witness and concluded the main hearing . On DATE , it gave judgment dismissing the applicant 's claim . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the first instance judgment . On DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) quashed that judgment and remitted the case .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , complaining about the length of the proceedings .

NORP On DATE ORG held a hearing and adopted a new judgment granting the applicant 's claim in part . The applicant appealed against the judgment and the proceedings are still pending before the second instance court .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint of DATE as ill - founded . It took into consideration the period of DATE ( between the entry into force of the Convention in respect of GPE and the filing of the constitutional complaint by the applicant ) , finding that the competent courts had acted expeditiously , while it observed that the proceedings had been somewhat complex .

The relevant part of section CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON –Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ; “ the LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant 's rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him ...

( CARDINAL ) If the constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this Section is accepted , the ORG shall determine a time - limit within which a competent court shall decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision under paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW , the Constitutional Court shall fix appropriate compensation for the applicant in respect of the violation found concerning his constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid from the ORG budget within a term of DATE from the date when the party lodged a request