No violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant , who claims to be a revolutionary by profession , was taken into custody on DATE . He was placed under judicial investigation in connection with a series of terrorist attacks in GPE and on DATE was given a life sentence for the murder of CARDINAL police officers on DATE . He is currently in ORG .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in solitary confinement in FAC ( GPE ) and FAC .

According to his lawyer , this entailed his being held in QUANTITY cell that was run - down and poorly insulated , with an open toilet area . The applicant was prohibited all contact with other prisoners and even prison warders and was only allowed to leave his cell once his fellow inmates had returned to theirs . His sole activity outside his cell was a TIME DATE walk in a triangular area that was QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide at the base , receding to QUANTITY at the vertex . This area was walled in and covered with wire mesh . His only recreational activity was reading the newspapers or watching television on a rented set . His only visits were from his lawyers and , once a month , a priest . The prison authorities ignored his requests to be allowed visits from anyone else . Mail intended for the applicant had disappeared , although it was not officially confiscated , and he had not been given a DATE jacket that had had been brought to the prison for him in DATE until DATE .

The Government did not dispute these facts .

The documents in the case file show that the applicant has received visits from CARDINAL different lawyers during his time in prison .

His current representative , who is also his fiancée , visited him CARDINAL times DATE and DATE .

The parties have produced a series of decisions requiring the applicant to be held in solitary confinement for successive DATE periods .

The first was taken when the applicant was first detained ( DATE ) . It consists of a form on which the following boxes have been ticked : “ need to prevent communication with CARDINAL or more other prisoners ” and “ breakdown of order and discipline in the prison ” . There were no observations by the applicant . DATE , a doctor issued a medical certificate stating :

“ [ The applicant 's ] health is compatible with solitary confinement . However , he must , if possible , have complete rest for DATE . ”

A decision dated DATE to prolong the applicant 's solitary confinement from DATE to CARDINAL DATE was approved by ORG . The reasons stated were the same , but the applicant made the following observations :

“ I consider that these solitary - confinement measures , especially the disturbances at TIME , indicate a desire to harass a political prisoner . ”

In a medical certificate issued DATE , a doctor “ certif[ied ] that [ the applicant 's ] health [ was ] compatible with his continued solitary confinement . ”

A decision of DATE , which was applicable from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , cited the same reasons and was approved by ORG . The applicant refused to sign the notice informing him of the decision . In a medical certificate issued DATE , a doctor :

“ certif[ied ] that [ the applicant 's ] health [ was ] compatible with his continued solitary confinement for administrative reasons . ”

A decision dated DATE , which was approved by ORG and was applicable from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , spoke of the “ need to prevent communication with CARDINAL or more other prisoners ” and a “ security measure ” . The applicant was transferred that day to ORG .

On DATE a doctor from ORG issued a certificate stating :

“ ... health currently compatible with continued solitary confinement . ”

On DATE the measure was prolonged for a period of DATE starting on DATE .

On DATE a doctor from ORG issued a medical certificate stating that the applicant 's health was satisfactory and compatible with solitary confinement .

On DATE the measure was prolonged for DATE starting on DATE .

On DATE a doctor from ORG issued a certificate stating that the applicant 's health was satisfactory .

On DATE a doctor from ORG issued a certificate stating that the applicant 's health was compatible with his detention in the segregation unit .

On DATE the measure was prolonged for a period of DATE starting on CARDINAL DATE .

It was not until DATE that the applicant was notified of the measure applicable for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . He made the following observation :

“ I do not think it right that I should be asked to sign DATE . ”

On DATE a doctor from ORG issued a certificate stating that the applicant 's health was compatible with his detention in solitary confinement .

On DATE the applicant was notified of a measure which referred to the “ need to prevent communication with CARDINAL or more other prisoners ” and to “ international terrorism ” .

A decision dated DATE , which was applicable from DATE to DATE , referred only to the “ need to prevent communication with CARDINAL or more other prisoners ” . The applicant made the following observations on the notification slip :

“ I note that PERSON ... , the director , has already replied to these observations even before I have made them ; it is stated below : CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL before the commission responsible for the execution of sentences in the prison . Consequently , the remarks I am required to make have become superfluous . Even so , my solitary confinement is a form of torture . This measure , like those that follow , was authorised by the Head of ORG at ORG on DATE . ”

On DATE a doctor from ORG certified that he had examined the applicant and found his health compatible with solitary confinement .

Proposals that were made on DATE and DATE referred to the “ need to protect you from the rest of the prison population ” and the “ need to prevent communication with CARDINAL or more other prisoners ” . The applicant made the following remarks on the first of these proposals :

“ I note that I am increasingly subject to this base harassment and am being singled out as a political prisoner . I reject the reasons given for keeping me in solitary confinement . ”

On DATE a doctor from ORG certified that solitary confinement was not contraindicated for the applicant .

With regard to the proposal of DATE , the applicant noted :

“ I have not had a check - up , been weighed or had my blood pressure taken etc ... I note that the lower section of the questionnaire has already been filled in , thus making a mockery of the observations which I have been asked to make . Please give me a further complete medical check - up . ”

A decision of DATE referred in addition to : “ breakdown of order and discipline in the prison ” and “ potential dangerousness linked to acts of terrorism ” . The applicant made the following comments :

“ I have not had a medical certificate following a medical examination and you are using forged documents which you do not even dare to show me . I request an immediate interview with those in charge . ”

A decision of CARDINAL DATE again cited the “ need to prevent communication with one or more other prisoners ” .

On DATE a ORG doctor issued a certificate certifying that the applicant 's health was satisfactory .

The proposals of DATE and DATE were in the same terms as those of CARDINAL DATE . On signing the proposal of DATE , the applicant stated :

“ I sign under protest against an unjust repressive measure ( decision ) against a political prisoner , hostage of the NORP State . ”

It was followed by a further certificate on DATE stating that the applicant was well enough to remain in solitary confinement and a certificate of DATE stating that solitary confinement was not contraindicated . A further certificate drawn up on DATE stated that the applicant was in satisfactory health and well enough to remain in solitary confinement .

Proposals made on DATE , DATE and DATE cited the need for “ precautionary and security measures in view of the prisoner 's character and record ” . The applicant commented as follows on the proposal of CARDINAL DATE :

“ I acknowledge receipt of notice but protest against the renewal of this unjustified measure of vile political repression that has been imposed on me . Please provide me with a copy . ”

With regard to the measure of DATE , he noted :

“ The signature on this notice by the disloyal deputy director PERSON further attests to the unfairness of repressive measures imposed by a prison service that acts unlawfully against political inmates such as me . ”

On DATE a doctor from FAC issued a medical certificate in which he stated that the applicant 's “ health is currently compatible with his continued detention in solitary confinement subject to his receiving psychiatric treatment ” .

Proposals made on DATE and DATE stated :

“ The prisoner must remain in administrative solitary confinement on order and security grounds , in view of his character and record and the nature of his court cases . ”

The Ministry of Justice stated in decisions of DATE and DATE :

“ The character of this prisoner , who is a high - security prisoner and objectively dangerous , in particular because of the nature and length of the sentence he faces , justifies his continued solitary confinement on order and security grounds . ”

On DATE the senior doctor at FAC issued a certificate which read :

“ The circular of DATE on solitary confinement states that the opinion of a doctor will only be sought after a DATE 's confinement . Last certificate issued on [ illegible ] . There is therefore no need to append a certificate regarding prolongation to this note . ”

On DATE another prison doctor certified that the applicant 's health was compatible with his detention or continued detention in solitary confinement .

A further certificate dated DATE confirmed that the applicant 's health was compatible with his continued detention in solitary confinement .

A decision of DATE cited the following reasons :

“ You must remain in solitary confinement for a further period of DATE on order and security grounds , in view of your character , your classification as a high - security prisoner , and the nature of your convictions and of the cases currently pending . ”

A decision of DATE , which took effect on DATE , read as follows :

“ It is necessary to prolong your solitary confinement for a further period of DATE in order to preserve order and security in the prison in view of your dangerousness , your ability to influence fellow inmates and the risk of your escaping given the substantial aid potentially at your disposal . ”

The applicant made the following observations :

“ I note that the infamous masquerade by the NORP militant PERSON , who runs ORG Ministry of Justice on behalf of the imperialist forces that are seeking to reduce GPE to the level of a suzerain of GPE , continues . To heck with LAW itself . ORG . ”

On DATE the authorities relied on “ order and security grounds , in view of your character , your classification as a high - security prisoner and the offences for which you have been imprisoned ” .

The decisions of DATE , DATE and DATE were couched in identical terms to the decision of DATE , save that the sentence read : “ given your access to outside help ” .

On DATE the senior doctor at FAC issued a medical certificate which read :

“ I , the undersigned , ... declare that [ the applicant ] is in quite astounding physical and mental condition after DATE in solitary confinement .

However , it is not proper for a patient 's doctor to be required to issue a certificate that ought to be a matter for expert opinion . It is very difficult for a doctor to sanction solitary confinement on administrative , not medical , grounds . ”

On DATE another doctor issued a certificate in the following terms :

“ I the undersigned ... certify that I have DATE examined [ the applicant ] .

No clinical examination was carried out . However , in view of his current mental state , I am unable to give a medical opinion on whether he is fit to remain in solitary confinement . ”

On DATE and DATE ORG ratified decisions by the Governors of ORG and ORG dated DATE and DATE respectively to place the applicant in solitary confinement after previous orders had automatically lapsed following his transfer .

On DATE a doctor from FAC certified that she had seen the applicant but had not been able to carry out a physical examination . She added :

“ However , in view of his current mental state , I am unable to give a medical opinion on whether he is fit to remain in solitary confinement . ”

On DATE the applicant commented as follows :

“ I have once again filled in this form , having already done so on DATE ... I denounce ' the white torture ' of perpetual solitary confinement which , following the ' serious provocation of DATE , has been aggravated by the obstruction of the fanlight , which now only opens to an angle of PERSON ( QUANTITY ) , preventing fresh air getting in . This is on top of the ban on my receiving visits or LANGUAGE lessons , in breach of the undertakings . You are committing a crime of ' lese - humanity ' . ”

On DATE a doctor from ORG practising in FAC issued the following certificate :

“ I , the undersigned , ... state that the doctors from the medical service at ORG are not qualified to judge whether the physical and mental condition of the prisoner PERSON , who is currently being held in ORG , is compatible with his continued solitary confinement . ”

On DATE it was decided to prolong the solitary confinement “ in order to preserve order and security in the prison in view of your dangerousness , your ability to influence fellow inmates and the risks of your escaping given your access to outside help . ” The same reasons were cited in a further extension of DATE , while a decision of DATE was worded in almost identical terms .

DATE . On DATE the doctor in charge of ORG wrote to ORG FAC in these terms :

“ I have met PERSON , ... , as I was asked for an opinion on whether there is any contraindication to this patient 's remaining in solitary confinement .

Even though Mr PERSON is in reasonable physical and mental condition , strict solitary confinement for DATE and DATE is ultimately bound to cause psychological harm .

It is my duty as a doctor to alert you to these potential consequences so that you may take an informed decision .

On DATE the doctor who issued the certificate of DATE issued a second certificate in like terms .

On DATE the doctor in charge of ORG issued a medical certificate after examining the applicant “ for the purposes of the medical opinion required for continued solitary confinement ” . He stated that the applicant presented :

“ A physical and mental condition that was entirely reasonable after DATE in solitary confinement ... This opinion does not constitute an expert opinion , which I am not qualified to give . ”

The following reasons were given for prolonging the solitary confinement in a decision of CARDINAL DATE : “ It is necessary to prolong your solitary confinement in order to preserve order and security in the prison and to avoid your exerting an influence over your fellow inmates or attempting to escape ” .

In his observations , the applicant noted in particular :

“ DATE of strict solitary confinement , a ban on receiving visits or NORP lessons and a steady reduction in the amount of fresh air in the isolation cell from which even the old wooden school desk has been removed all serve to demonstrate the unfairness of the repressive measures that have been taken against a revolutionary political leader who will not be broken . ”

Decisions of DATE , DATE and DATE read as follows :

“ It is necessary for you to remain in solitary confinement in order to preserve order and security in the prison and to avoid your exerting an influence over your fellow inmates or attempting to escape . The fact that you have received a life sentence , your classification as a high - risk prisoner and the nature of the offences for which you have been prosecuted militate in favour of your remaining in solitary confinement . ”

On DATE an assistant doctor from ORG at FAC issued a medical certificate in the following terms :

“ I , the undersigned , Doctor PERSON , an assistant doctor from the OCTU at FAC in GPE certify that I have examined Mr PERSON , who was born on CARDINAL , in connection with a request for his solitary confinement to continue .

From the medical standpoint , the problem posed by prolonged solitary confinement over DATE is that it may affect the prisoner 's physical and mental health . ”

On DATE the doctor in charge of ORG at FAC provided ORG with the following summary of the medical care the applicant was receiving :

“ This patient , who , as you are aware , is in the segregation unit , receives CARDINAL mandatory medical visits from a member of the OCTU medical team DATE , as required by LAW .

He is currently in excellent somatic health . I am not qualified to express an opinion on his mental health .

In addition , Mr PERSON may on request consult members of the OCTU team independently of the mandatory medical visits to the segregation unit .

He has thus been able to consult an ophthalmologist ... and has been prescribed corrective glasses .

He consulted a general practitioner independently of mandatory visits to the segregation unit on ...

Biological tests are performed regularly . ...

The treatment Mr PERSON has been receiving can be equated to comfort treatment : ...

It should be noted that Mr PERSON has refused any psychological help from the ORG [ ORG ] .

In DATE a further decision to prolong the solitary confinement was taken “ in order to preserve security and order , which are under serious threat owing to the applicant 's implication in terrorist networks , his dangerousness and the risk of his escaping ” .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC ( département of PERSON ) , where his solitary confinement ended .

On DATE ORG wrote the following letter to ORG :

“ Mr PERSON received a somatic and psychiatric medical examination on his arrival at the prison on DATE .

He has at no stage been placed in solitary confinement in FAC .

As regards his somatic health , Mr PERSON receives the statutory care and may consult the OCTU on request .

As to his mental health , he was seen by an ORG psychiatrist as part of the standard induction procedure . No follow - up was prescribed at the time and the patient has not asked to see a psychiatrist since . He was offered an examination and this took place on CARDINAL DATE . The ORG have not recommended any follow up to that appointment . ”

In DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG , where he returned to solitary confinement .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for judicial review with ORG , arguing that the decision of DATE to place him in solitary confinement should be set aside .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which was served on the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the application , holding that the impugned decision was an internal administrative measure which the administrative courts had no power to set aside .

The relevant provisions of LAW are as follows :

“ Save in the circumstances set out in Articles D. CARDINAL to D. CARDINAL , prison staff must at all times be able to verify a prisoner 's presence .

At TIME it must be possible to light cells when necessary . Cells should be entered only for good reason or in the event of imminent danger . In all cases , intervention must be by CARDINAL staff members and an officer , if CARDINAL is on night duty . ”

“ Rounds shall be made after lights out and during TIME at set times to be changed DATE by the senior custody officer , under the authority of the prison governor . ”

“ Any prisoner in a communal establishment or unit may be placed in solitary confinement at his or her request or as a precautionary or security measure .

Orders for prisoners to be placed in solitary confinement shall be made by the prison governor , who shall inform the regional director and the judge responsible for the execution of sentences without delay . The prison governor shall also report to the commission responsible for the execution of sentences at the first meeting following the prisoner 's confinement or objection to a request for his or her confinement .

The prisoner may , either personally or through counsel , send any observations he or she has on the decision to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences .

The medical team shall be given a list of the prisoners in solitary confinement DATE . Prisoners in solitary confinement will receive a medical examination in accordance with Article D. CARDINAL . If the doctor considers it appropriate in view of the prisoner 's health , he or she shall give an opinion on whether solitary confinement should cease .

Solitary confinement may only exceed DATE if a new report has been made to the commission responsible for the execution of sentences and the regional director so decides .

Solitary confinement may only exceed DATE from the date of the initial decision if the Minister of ORG so decides on the basis of a reasoned report by the regional director after the regional director has obtained the opinions of the commission responsible for the execution of sentences and the prison doctor .

The prison governor shall keep a solitary - confinement register for consultation by the administrative and judicial authorities on supervisory visits and inspections . ”

“ Solitary confinement shall not constitute a disciplinary measure .

Prisoners in solitary confinement shall be subject to the ordinary prison regime . ”

A circular was issued on DATE to implement the decree amending LAW . It contained , inter alia , the following provisions :

“ CARDINAL . Solitary confinement as a precautionary or security measure

Orders for solitary confinement as a precautionary or security measure are made by the prison governor at the prisoner 's request or on the governor 's own initiative . Since the governor has sole power to order solitary confinement , he or she will need to take particular care in setting out the reasons .

NORP The need to state reasons

Since the PERSON d'État 's PERSON judgment of CARDINAL DATE the administrative courts have assumed jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of disciplinary decisions ' giving cause for complaint ' .

Judicial review has not yet been extended to decisions to place a prisoner in solitary confinement , which continue to be regarded in the most recent decisions as ' internal administrative measures ' that are not amenable to review .

The courts consider on the basis of LAW that ' solitary confinement does not make conditions of detention worse and is not liable to affect the legal position of the person so held ' ( PERSON d'État , DATE , PERSON judgment ; and PERSON d'État , DATE , PERSON judgment ) .

Nature of the reasons

It is not sufficient simply to repeat the succinct ' as a precautionary or security measure ' formula used in LAW .

... Orders for solitary confinement as a precautionary or security measure must be based on genuine grounds and objective concordant evidence of a risk of the prisoner causing or being exposed to serious harm .

The reasons must state whether the measure has been taken to avoid the risk of an escape , violence or coercion , concerted action liable to disrupt the prison community , connivance or conspiracy , or to protect the life or physical integrity of individual prisoners or of the person in solitary confinement .

Invalid reasons

An order for solitary confinement can not be made solely for the following reasons .

Nature of the offence

The seriousness of the offence for which the person concerned is being held and the nature of the offence of which he or she is accused can not by themselves justify solitary confinement .

II . PROCEDURE IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT CASES

Content of the decision

The decision shall be in the form set out on the printed sheet annexed hereto and shall be notified after the hearing . It contains CARDINAL sections , CARDINAL for the reasons and the other for the prisoner 's observations . Additional observations on an ordinary sheet of paper and any documents that may assist in explaining the reasons may be attached to the decision .

Copies of documents for the authorities

Lifting the measure

Solitary confinement is not intended to continue indefinitely , as it must be justified by factual and legal considerations , which may change or cease to apply .

In view of the harmful effects of prolonged solitary confinement the prison governor and regional director must closely monitor the length of the measure .

The measure will automatically lapse in the circumstances set out in LAW . Consideration should also be given on the ordinary renewal dates to lifting the measure .

The prisoner must be notified of a decision to lift the measure . If the prisoner asked to be placed in solitary confinement , his or her observations ( if any ) must be obtained .

Article D. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , subparagraph CARDINAL , of LAW requires the prison governor to inform the regional director and the judge responsible for the execution of sentences of his decision without delay .

A copy of a decision to place a remand prisoner in solitary confinement must also be sent to the judge in charge of the investigation .

Prolongation of the measure

Unless a decision to prolong the measure is made at DATE , it will automatically lapse . ...

Proposals to prolong the measure

The prolongation procedure must be set in motion DATE before the DATE period expires .

Prisoners in solitary confinement must be informed if it is intended to propose prolongation of the measure and , if they so wish , be given TIME in which to prepare their observations , which they may submit at a hearing held for that purpose . They are then notified of the proposal .

No prolongation may be proposed without a prior assessment of the prisoner 's situation made with the aid , inter alia , of the record of observation of the prisoner in solitary confinement .

If the prison governor considers it necessary to prolong the measure , he or she must compile a file containing :

( i ) The printed proposal form containing a statement of reasons , which must be up to date when the request is made . The form will contain confirmation that the prisoner has been notified of the proposal , the date of the verbal report to the commission responsible for the execution of sentences and the date of transmission to the regional director .

( ii ) NORP The liaison form .

( iii ) The report on the prisoner 's behaviour in solitary confinement based , in particular , on the record of observation .

Any report by the medical team or opinion by the doctor will be appended to the proposal file .

NORP The regional director 's investigation

The file should be sent to the regional director 's office DATE before the DATE period expires . The regional director 's office will examine the file and , if necessary , request additional documents or information . It should make sure it has a fully up - to - date statement of reasons for the proposal to prolong the measure .

The regional director must decide whether or not to prolong the solitary confinement and send the decision to the prison for notification to the prisoner before the expiry of the DATE period in all cases . The decision shall be reasoned .

If it is decided not to prolong the measure , it will immediately lapse and the prisoner will be returned to the ordinary cells .

The prisoner will be given a copy of the decision to prolong the measure on being notified of it .

The same rules apply to the preservation of evidence and the forwarding of copies to the authorities as for the initial decision .

The same procedure shall be followed if prolongation appears necessary at the end of a further DATE period . Regional directors shall consider the reasons for a further extension with particular care . In particular , they must examine whether other types of measure have been considered and satisfy themselves that no such measure would be feasible .

When a decision to prolong solitary confinement has already been taken by a regional director , then , unless it automatically lapses under LAW , the measure may be lifted during the statutory periods only by a decision of the same authority . In such cases , the prison governor will forward to the regional director a reasoned proposal to lift the measure accompanied , if applicable , by a supporting report . The prison governor will also send the regional director without delay any medical certificates the doctor has decided to issue together with his opinion on whether any action is called for .

Prolongation after DATE

Solitary confinement should be prolonged after DATE only in exceptional cases . The Minister of ORG has sole decision - making power , in accordance with LAW CARDINAL - CARDINAL , subparagraph CARDINAL .

Proposals to prolong solitary confinement

The prison governor must send the proposal to prolong solitary confinement to the regional director before DATE to allow the regional director 's office and the central authority time to examine it thoroughly .

A doctor 's opinion must be sought if it is proposed to prolong solitary confinement beyond DATE . If the doctor gives an opinion , it must be set out in writing and forwarded with the proposal . If the doctor does not give an opinion , he or she should initial at least the form containing the proposal .

The prison governor will submit the proposal to the commission responsible for the execution of sentences for an opinion , which the latter will indicate on the proposal form .

The prison governor advises the prisoner of his or her intention to propose prolonging the solitary confinement beyond DATE . If the prisoner so wishes , he or she may be given TIME in which to prepare observations to be made at a hearing at the end of the allotted time . The prisoner is then notified of the proposal .

The prison governor must append to the proposal a summary report on the prisoner 's behaviour since the initial decision was made .

Lastly , the liaison record ( III.CARDINAL ) is forwarded with the proposal to give the authority that will take the decision full details of the chronology of the measure .

NORP The regional director 's report

The regional director draws up a report on the basis of the prison governor 's proposal and gives a reasoned opinion on whether the measure should be prolonged beyond DATE .

Before doing so , the regional director may lift the measure if he or she considers that is it no longer warranted or substitute another measure within his or her powers .

He or she may also recommend other measures , such as a transfer .

The file containing the proposal to prolong solitary confinement must be sent to the head office of the prison service DATE before the preceding measure expires . The central authority must be given time to examine the file and seek alternatives .

NORP The decision of the Minister of Justice

The central authority sends ORG decision ( which will normally be taken by the director of the prison service under delegated authority ) to the regional director 's office DATE before DATE of solitary confinement expires so that the prison can be informed in time .

The prisoner is provided with a copy of the decision . An original is placed in the file .

A verbal report on the final decision is made to the commission responsible for the execution of sentences .

The head office of the prison service retains power to decide on further DATE extensions beyond DATE . The matter is again referred to the central authority in accordance with the procedure described in this paragraph DATE before the new period of solitary confinement is due to end .

Apart from the cases of automatic lapse set out in LAW , power to lift the measure after DATE is also vested in the central authority .

IV . THE SOLITARY CONFINEMENT REGIME

NORP and national recommendations

Following its visit to GPE of DATE ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment recommended that ' a balance [ be struck ] between the requirements of the case and the application of a solitary confinement type regime ' , in view of the harmful consequences that that regime could have on the prisoner . It proposed organising the segregation unit in a way that would give prisoners continued access to the better exercise areas and to activities , including outdoor activities .

These recommendations tie in with the findings of the working groups set up by or at the request of the prison service .

Implementation of the ordinary prison regime

In accordance with LAW , prisoners in solitary confinement are subject to the ordinary prison regime .

CARDINAL Prisoners must be permitted to make full use of their rights of defence , which are protected by instruments of constitutional or international rank , in accordance with the procedure set out in LAW and the distinction it makes between convicted and remand prisoners . The prohibition on communications referred to in LAW can not apply to communications with lawyers .

CARDINAL The right to relations with members of one 's family and others are exercised through prison visits . Subject to the arrangements for individual access to the visiting room , there shall be no restrictions on prison visits unless a court has ordered solitary confinement .

There must be no restrictions on the right of prisoners in solitary confinement to send or receive correspondence . However , stricter monitoring of correspondence may be justified by court - imposed imperatives , the prisoner 's classification as a high - security risk in accordance with Article D. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of Code of Criminal Procedure , or a recommendation for the prisoner to be placed on suicide watch .

Similarly , prisoners ' rights to make telephone calls in penal establishments in accordance with LAW of LAW are not suspended by solitary confinement .

CARDINAL NORP There is no general restriction on the right of prisoners in solitary confinement to access to news , subject to the normal supervision prisoners receive throughout their term in prison . Prisoners in solitary confinement retain the right to buy newspapers of their choice , or to use a radio or television subject to the usual conditions .

If the library operates a direct - access system , it must arrange special opening TIME for prisoners in solitary confinement or keep a separate stock for the segregation unit .

CARDINAL Religious observance .

Religious observance in the segregation unit shall take place in accordance with the rules set out in ORG D. CARDINAL to D. CARDINAL of LAW . Since prisoners in solitary confinement are unable to attend the services habitually open to all prisoners , they may be authorised to attend special services arranged in agreement with the chaplain .

CARDINAL ORG .

The health of prisoners in solitary confinement is dependent on their being detained in conditions that allow them a healthy lifestyle :

( i ) Cells must receive natural light through a window which also affords adequate ventilation , as required by LAW of LAW .

( ii ) The exercise yard must provide access to the open air . Consideration must be given to allocating specific times for prisoners in solitary confinement to exercise in an open yard . Exercise periods should be for the same length as for ordinary regime prisoners .

( iii ) Sporting activities should be made available in the segregation unit , for example by the provision of an exercise bike , gym mat or table - tennis table .

Activities in the segregation unit

Although access to communal activities provided for ordinary - regime prisoners is suspended during solitary confinement , prisoners in solitary confinement remain under the ordinary regime and special arrangements should be made within the segregation unit for most activities to continue , allowing prisoners to assemble in small groups at times .

Thus , whenever possible , the prison governor must permit prisoners in solitary confinement to assemble in groups of CARDINAL for exercise or activities . A room , which may be multipurpose ( sport , reading ) should be set aside for this purpose . It is for the prison governor to assess how and when such groups may be organised and to tailor the measure to individuals in the light of the reason for the prisoner 's placement in solitary confinement , the aim pursued and the character and conduct of the prisoner or prisoners concerned .

Individual educational programmes or distance teaching offered by teachers or instructors should not be discouraged , as they ensure that activities are also directed towards training .

Monitoring of and dialogue with prisoners in solitary confinement

ORG

A record of observation must be compiled for all prisoners in solitary confinement ; it will be supplemented by any relevant remarks by duty staff or the persons in charge of the unit on the prisoner 's behaviour in solitary confinement .

The record of observation acts as an early warning system if it appears that solitary confinement is having harmful effects on the prisoner .

Staff should consult it regularly and in any event if it is intended to propose prolonging the measure .

A summary of the record of observation will be sent to the regional director and the central authority with the proposal to prolong the measure or in the event of an internal appeal by the prisoner against the original decision or a decision to prolong the measure .

All prisons shall be responsible for creating , or if one already exists improving , a record of observation meeting the stated objective .

Dialogue

In order to avoid excessive social isolation , it is essential to maintain contact and encourage exchanges between staff and prisoners in solitary confinement . Not only does this reduce the degree of isolation , especially for prisoners who do not receive visits , it also assists in monitoring the prisoner 's character .

For the same reasons , senior prison officers and socio - educational staff should seek to meet prisoners in solitary confinement at least as regularly as they do ordinary prisoners . ”

In a judgment of DATE the ORG d'État departed from its previous case - law when it held :

“ The aforementioned provisions and the evidence before the tribunal of fact show that it is in the very nature of solitary confinement to deprive persons subjected to it of access to the sporting , cultural , teaching and training activities and paid work that are available to other prisoners collectively . Such a measure may be imposed for a period of DATE and may be prolonged . In these circumstances , even though LAW CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that solitary confinement is not a disciplinary measure , as the prisoners concerned are subject to the ordinary prison regime , a decision to place a prisoner in solitary confinement against his or her wishes will , in view of the effects it has on the conditions of detention , be amenable to judicial review . Accordingly , the Minister of ORG 's submission that ORG erred in law in declaring admissible an application by Mr X for judicial review of a decision by ORG to place him in solitary confinement is unfounded .

ORG did not err in law when it held that a decision to place a prisoner in solitary confinement was CARDINAL of the decisions for which the first section of the LAW DATE requires reasons to be stated . In finding that insufficient reasons had been stated in the impugned decision , ORG reached a decision in its unfettered discretion which , in the absence of any distortion of the facts , can not be challenged in this court .

It follows from the foregoing that the Minister of ORG is not entitled to an order setting aside the impugned judgment .

It is appropriate in the circumstance of this case to order the ORG to pay PERSON the sum of MONEY he claimed under Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of FAC . ”

The following extracts are taken from the reports of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , the responses of ORG and the ' guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism ' adopted by ORG DATE .

“ CARDINAL . The ORG pays particular attention to prisoners held under conditions akin to solitary confinement . It reiterates that the principle of proportionality requires a balance be struck between the requirements of the case and the application of a solitary - confinement regime , which is a step that can have very harmful consequences for the person concerned . Solitary confinement can , in certain circumstances , amount to inhuman and degrading treatment . In any event , it should be as short as possible .

The delegation visited the segregation units in ... and in the remand prisons of ORG .... It met a number of prisoners who had been held in solitary confinement for long , and , in some instances , very long , periods .

... Furthermore , the solitary - confinement cells in GPE - La Santé Prison could be described as reasonable ( cf . CARDINAL ) .

As regards the prison regime , which according to LAW is an ordinary regime , the delegation found that the activities remained limited ( reading , television , and in some instances in - cell educational or training activities ) . ... There continued to be little human contact and this took the form of any visits from close relatives or other authorised persons ( such as religious representatives ) and some daily contact with warders .

As regards outdoor exercise , the prison authorities said that DATE walk was authorised DATE , although conditions were less than satisfactory .

The ORG pointed out in its report on its first visit that particular attention had to be paid to the mental and physical condition of prisoners in solitary confinement . In paragraph CARDINAL of their interim report , the NORP authorities indicated that prisoners in solitary confinement were examined twice a week by doctors and that a doctor was called out whenever the condition of a prisoner in solitary confinement demanded . Doctors were required to inform the prison governor in writing if they considered the prisoner 's physical or mental health to be at risk .

In that connection , the NORP authorities informed the delegation that a draft decree ( which is due to come into force on DATE ) would establish new rules for gaining access to a doctor and assessing a prisoner 's condition .

As to the other safeguards , it seemed to the delegation from an examination of the relevant files that the procedure for prolonging solitary confinement was rather summary . The manner of its implementation also appears to vary from CARDINAL region to another . ... At FAC , the delegation heard allegations by prisoners in solitary confinement that this was no longer the case . These were credible allegations , since , unlike in GPE , the delegation found no trace of annotations or headings indicating that prisoners had been informed of the proposal to prolong their solitary confinement . The delegation found virtually no evidence in the files it examined of reports being sent to the commission responsible for the execution of sentences or of the commission issuing opinions as required by the relevant provisions of LAW . Furthermore , the only medical certificates relating to the renewal procedure seen by the delegation were stereotyped and extremely brief .

In the light of the foregoing , the ORG recommends that the NORP authorities :

( i ) review the arrangements for solitary confinement with a view to providing prisoners with a wider range of activities and ensuring appropriate human contact ;

( ii ) NORP ensure that solitary confinement is as short as possible ; in that connection , the DATE review of the need for solitary confinement should entail a full assessment based , if appropriate , on a medical and social report ;

( iii ) ensure that all prisoners whose solitary confinement is prolonged are informed in writing of the reasons for the measure ( it being understood that there is no obligation to communicate data which it would be reasonable to exclude on security grounds ) .

The ORG would also like to know whether the decree announced by the NORP authorities has entered into force and to receive a copy if it has . ”

“ ( i ) ' review the arrangements for solitary confinement with a view to providing prisoners with a wider range of activities and ensuring appropriate human contact ' ( paragraph CARDINAL )

The rules governing solitary confinement are being revised . Articles D. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and NORP CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the circular of CARDINAL DATE , which are currently in force , need supplementing in order to improve the procedure and to limit the duration of the measure .

Draft Article D. CARDINAL - CARDINAL accordingly places particular emphasis on the need for the medical supervision of prisoners in the segregation unit . It also makes the director of the prison service responsible for deciding whether to prolong solitary confinement that has exceeded DATE .

The entry into force of this LAW , which will be included in a vast decree amending CARDINAL articles of LAW , has been delayed , as the decree is part of a governmental programme of ORG reform .

It is intended that a draft circular will be issued when the decree enters into force . It will emphasise that prisoners in solitary confinement are subject to the ordinary prison regime and will give instructions for continued dialogue between staff and prisoners in solitary confinement , in particular through the organisation of individual teaching or training programmes .

( ii ) ' ensure that solitary confinement is as short as possible ; in that connection , the DATE review of the need for solitary confinement should entail a full assessment based , if appropriate , on a medical and social report ' ( paragraph CARDINAL )

A draft circular is being prepared

( iii ) ' ensure that all prisoners whose solitary confinement is renewed are informed in writing of the reasons for the measure ( it being understood that there is no obligation to communicate data which it would be reasonable to exclude on security grounds ) ' ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

A draft circular is being prepared . ”

“ ( i ) ' review the arrangements for solitary confinement with a view to providing prisoners with a wider range of activities and ensuring appropriate human contact ' ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The draft decree referred to in the interim report , which brings the regulatory section of LAW into line with a number of statutes that are already in force , is in the process of promulgation .

It will amend , inter alia , Article D. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW by making the director of the prison service responsible for deciding whether to prolong solitary confinement that has exceeded DATE . It will redirect the focus of medical supervision to its exclusive role of providing prisoner health care .

Pursuant to this provision , a draft circular has been drawn up confirming that prisoners in solitary confinement are subject to the ordinary prison regime , which entails , inter alia :

( a ) full compliance with prisoners ' ordinary rights to relations with their family , representatives and others ;

( b ) DATE continued dialogue between staff and the prisoner in solitary confinement through regular meetings ;

( c ) the organisation , to the extent possible , of special activities in the segregation unit and of individual teaching and training programmes .

This draft was prepared after wide consultation of decentralised services . An information and exchange procedure on the issue has thus already been set in motion and will continue with the distribution of the circular , which could be available immediately after publication of the aforementioned decree .

The draft circular establishes a mechanism for controlling the length of solitary - confinement measures : before a decision to prolong the measure beyond DATE can be taken , the regional director must examine an observation report from the prison governor based , in particular , on his knowledge of the prisoner concerned and the information provided by the various prison departments on the basis of the personal record of observation .

Any event with suspensive effect entailing release or for a period exceeding DATE will result in the lapse of the solitary - confinement measure and the prisoner 's return to ordinary detention .

The draft circular introduces an improved system for the provision of reasons and written notification of decisions to place a prisoner in solitary confinement . The prison governor will not , however , be required to disclose information to a prisoner that may put people or the prison at risk ; this has been accepted by the ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . In its reports of DATE the ORG stressed that the principle of proportionality required that a balance be struck between the requirements of the case and the application of a solitary confinement - type regime , which is a step that can have very harmful consequences for the person concerned . Solitary confinement can , in certain circumstances , amount to inhuman and degrading treatment . In any event , it should be as short as possible . Following its visits , the ORG advised of its concerns regarding various aspects of solitary confinement in GPE ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . , and CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the reports ) . Subsequently , in a circular dated DATE the Minister of ORG issued instructions concerning , inter alia , the grounds on which prisoners could be placed in solitary confinement , the procedure to be followed and the regime for prisoners in solitary confinement . These instructions address some of the concerns expressed by the ORG in its reports on previous visits .

Nevertheless , during its visits the ORG delegation found serious shortcomings in the manner in which the earlier recommendations of the ORG and the ministerial instructions had been implemented in practice .

The ORG has serious reservations about the situation of a number of prisoners in solitary confinement for administrative reasons met by the delegation during its visit . Its reservations concern both the length of the confinement ( which in some instances had been for DATE on end ) and the highly restrictive regime to which such prisoners are subject ( total lack of structured or communal activities ) .

NORP The physical conditions of detention of prisoners placed in solitary confinement for administrative reasons were globally acceptable . However , the cells accommodating such prisoners at FAC had only limited access to natural light . In addition , in the CARDINAL institutions visited , the exercise yards – which were often also used by prisoners in solitary confinement for disciplinary reasons – were uninviting .

NORP The ministerial instructions state : ' The essential features of the ordinary prison regime must , so far as possible and subject to practical constraints , be retained in the segregation unit ' ( point CARDINAL ) . They further state , inter alia : ' there shall be no restrictions on prison visits ' ( point CARDINAL ) and ' ... prisoners in solitary confinement remain under the ordinary regime and special arrangements should be made within the segregation unit for most activities to continue , allowing prisoners to assemble in small groups at times ' , that ' [ PERSON is for the prison governor to assess how and when such groups may be organised ' and ' [ i]ndividual educational programmes or distance teaching offered by teachers or instructors should not be discouraged ' ( point CARDINAL ) . The instructions further require increased surveillance of prisoners and specify : ' In order to avoid excessive social isolation , it is essential to maintain contact and encourage exchanges between staff and prisoners in solitary confinement ' ( point CARDINAL ) .

From the information obtained by the delegation , it would seem that , with the odd exception ( for instance as regards contact with the outside world ) , the vast majority of the aforementioned requirements have not been complied with . For example , the only establishment which allowed prisoners in solitary confinement for administrative reasons to associate was ORG and even there association was restricted ( to exercise outdoors and in the fitness room ) .

The ORG recommends that the authorities take measures without delay to give full effect to the Minister of ORG 's instructions of DATE concerning solitary confinement for administrative reasons – under paragraphs CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL in particular .

The ORG also has reservations on the effectiveness of the procedural safeguards on solitary confinement for administrative reasons . The files that have been examined show that it is sometimes used as an alternative to solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure ( for instance , in CARDINAL case , the measure was imposed for : ' serious damage to property belonging to the prison that put prison security at risk ' ) or to prolong such a measure and that the reasons stated for putting a prisoner in solitary confinement were often stereotyped ( ' to maintain order in the prison ' or ' risk of escape ' ) . In CARDINAL case the prisoner had been held in solitary confinement since DATE ' because of the nature of the offences of which he had been convicted ' .

In summary , it would appear that the ministerial instructions , namely ' Orders for solitary confinement as a precautionary or security measure must be based on genuine grounds and objective concordant evidence of a risk of the prisoner causing or being exposed to serious harm ' , are not always fully complied with ( cf . point CARDINAL ) .

The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities carry out a case - by - case review of compliance with the instructions issued in DATE with regard to solitary confinement for administrative reasons .

Lastly , the ORG understands that the issue of the nature and extent of available remedies has not yet been resolved ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit ) . In practice this means that prisoners in solitary confinement currently have no real means of challenging decisions to place them in solitary confinement or to renew such a measure before an independent authority .

The ORG recommends that the reinforcement of the safeguards provided for prisoners in solitary confinement in order to ensure they have an effective remedy before an independent authority , preferably a judge . Indeed , that is the spirit of the various proposals that are currently pending before the NORP authorities ( for instance , the PERSON report and the report of the ORG investigation ) . ”

“ ( i ) ' take measures without delay to give full effect to the Minister of ORG 's instructions of DATE concerning solitary confinement for administrative reasons – under paragraphs CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL in particular ' ( paragraph CARDINAL )

( ii ) ' carry out a case - by - case review of compliance with the instructions issued in DATE with regard to solitary confinement for administrative reasons ' ( paragraph CARDINAL )

Power to take decisions on solitary confinement is vested in the Minister of ORG if the confinement has exceeded one year .

There are currently CARDINAL prisoners who have been in solitary confinement for DATE . Of these , CARDINAL are in prisons for convicted prisoners and CARDINAL in prisons for remand prisoners .

The majority of these prisoners were placed in solitary confinement at their own request , either on account of the offence for which they were imprisoned , or of their occupation before they were imprisoned .

Improvements are being made to the segregation units to make them compliant with the circular of DATE . The prisons to be built as part of the ' CARDINAL programme ' will be equipped with segregation units that allow prisoners to enjoy all the advantages set out in the aforementioned circular .

Furthermore , in accordance with the circular of DATE on solitary confinement , it is the regional director of the prison service or the central authority who is responsible for reviewing the reasons given by the prison governor for placing a prisoner in solitary confinement . In addition , the prison inspectorate verifies compliance with these obligations when carrying out prison visits .

( iii ) ' reinforce the safeguards provided for prisoners in solitary confinement to ensure they have an effective remedy before an independent authority , preferably a judge ' ( paragraph CARDINAL )

Solitary confinement is one of the issues being considered in connection with the proposed legislation on prisons . ”

“ III Lawfulness of anti - terrorist measures

All measures taken by GPE to combat terrorism must be lawful .

When a measure restricts human rights , restrictions must be defined as precisely as possible and be necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued .

PERSON Absolute prohibition of torture

The use of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , is absolutely prohibited , in all circumstances , and in particular during the arrest , questioning and detention of a person suspected of or convicted of terrorist activities , irrespective of the nature of the acts that the person is suspected of or for which he / she was convicted .

XI Detention

A person deprived of his / her liberty for terrorist activities must in all circumstances be treated with due respect for human dignity .

NORP The imperatives of the fight against terrorism may nevertheless require that a person deprived of his / her liberty for terrorist activities be submitted to more severe restrictions than those applied to other prisoners , in particular with regard to :

( i ) the regulations concerning communications and surveillance of correspondence , including that between counsel and his / her client ;

( ii ) placing persons deprived of their liberty for terrorist activities in specially secured quarters ;

( iii ) the separation of such persons within a prison or among different prisons ,

on condition that the measure taken is proportionate to the aim to be achieved . ”


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . She is represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant filed a suit against ORG before the single - member first instance civil court ( monomeles protodikio ) of GPE about unfair dismissal submitting , inter alia , that her compensation had not been calculated correctly .

The case was heard on DATE .

On DATE the court found in favour of the applicant declaring her dismissal null and void and ordering the defendant to pay her MONEY , by way of salary arrears , and part of her costs and expenses . The applicant served the decision on ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG appealed . The appeal was heard on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Efetio ) of GPE upheld the appeal and considered that there was no unfair dismissal . According to the court , the applicant had changed duties before her dismissal ; as a result , ORG , when calculating her compensation , was not obliged to take into consideration a special allowance attaching to her previous duties .

On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation . A hearing was fixed for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted additional grounds of appeal . On DATE the judge rapporteur submitted his report . On DATE the court decided to adjourn the examination of the appeal at the parties’ request . The appeal was heard on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the judgment of ORG considering that the latter had ignored some evidentiary material . The case was sent back to ORG for re - examination .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to fix a hearing . The case was due to be heard on DATE but the lawyers were on strike . On DATE the applicant asked the court to fix a new hearing date . On DATE the court adjourned the examination of the case . On DATE the applicant ’s case was heard by ORG , composed of different judges from those that had issued the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG found in favour of ORG considering that the applicant had accepted that she had changed duties before her dismissal and that she was not entitled to the special allowance . Although the applicant was entitled to another allowance , ORG had not acted in bad faith in failing to take the latter into consideration when calculating her compensation . As a result , although the applicant could claim additional compensation , her dismissal was not null and void .

On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation for the second time . ORG heard the appeal on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE it quashed again the judgment of ORG on the ground that its reasoning was contradictory , vague and inadequate . The case was sent back to ORG for re - examination .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to fix a hearing . ORG heard the appeal on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE it found again in favour of ORG because the applicant , prior to her dismissal , had accepted that she should not be receiving any of the allowances in question .

On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation for a third time . ORG heard the appeal on DATE and dismissed it on DATE . The text of the jugement was finalised on DATE . It was signed by the President on CARDINAL DATE . ORG served the judgment on the applicant on DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

A shop selling fur coats in PERSON was burgled on DATE . CARDINAL men , PERSON and NORP , were charged with aggravated theft before ORG of PERSON ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) . On DATE ORG convicted them both as charged . The convictions were based on their acknowledgement of the charges .

The police investigation concerning the applicants as suspects in the above - mentioned offence began on CARDINAL DATE , when they were taken into police custody . The first applicant was arrested on CARDINAL DATE by a decision of ORG . The second applicant was arrested on DATE , but released in TIME .

The criminal proceedings against the applicants were instituted before the above ORG on DATE . They were charged with aggravated theft . They were suspected of having stolen fur coats worth MONEY ( ORG ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) as accomplices with PERSON and NORP , who had already been convicted of the same offence . The applicants denied the charges .

According to the indictment , the applicants visited the fur shop in DATE and made themselves familiar with the shop and its merchandise . The second applicant tried on headgear and promised to collect it DATE after it had been altered to fit her . The applicants did not , however , return to the shop at the agreed time , or later . During their visit to the shop , the first applicant requested to see the most expensive fur coat and the salesman showed him a rack with the most expensive furs . Later on , the first applicant proposed to PERSON to steal fur coats from the shop . At the end of February M. and the applicants contacted NORP , who lived in the GPE area , and apparently PERSON asked NORP to take part in the burglary . Having rented or borrowed a ORG Chevy van from NORP on DATE , NORP and PERSON drove to PERSON , the applicants driving ahead of them in their light coloured PERSON . PERSON and NORP spent TIME in the applicants’ home in PERSON . The following day , i.e. on DATE , the first applicant showed PERSON and NORP the fur shop by driving past it a couple of times in the above - mentioned Opel . Then all CARDINAL of them returned to the apartment . The applicants stayed at home while PERSON and NORP returned to the shop in the van , broke into the shop and stole the fur coats . Immediately after the burglary PERSON and NORP left for PERSON , a town in the GPE area . The applicants followed PERSON and NORP to PERSON in their own car . Together they hid the fur coats in a garage rented by the first applicant . Later on , the first applicant , PERSON and NORP began to market the fur coats .

M. and NORP were not present as the summons to appear before the court had not been served upon them . The public prosecutor referred in evidence to the statements given by them during their own police investigation . According to PERSON ’s statement , the first applicant had told him that the applicants had visited the shop in order to buy headgear and while there , he had got the idea of stealing the furs . The first applicant had proposed that PERSON break into the shop . PERSON had considered the proposal and eventually , DATE , accepted it as he was in need of money . According to PERSON , the applicants did not take part in the burglary . In the beginning , the first applicant had said that the money would be divided into CARDINAL parts , i.e. the second applicant would also have got her share . In NORP ’s statement to the police he said that the first applicant had told him about his plans of breaking into a fur shop , which the applicants had visited in order to buy something for the second applicant . NORP could not , however , remember whether it was PERSON or the first applicant who had asked him to join them . NORP told the police that he and PERSON had driven to PERSON in the van , following the applicants . They had spent TIME at the applicants’ apartment . DATE , the first applicant , PERSON and NORP went to have a look at the shop in the first applicant ’s car . In TIME PERSON and NORP returned to the shop , while the applicants stayed at the apartment . After the burglary they all left for GPE , but in CARDINAL separate cars . They all met twice for coffee during the journey . Having reached GPE , they went to a garage to which the first applicant had the keys . Later on PERSON and the first applicant began to market the furs . According to NORP , the burglary was the first applicant ’s idea . PERSON and NORP had not even visited PERSON before the burglary .

At this point the applicants’ counsel noted that if the applicants were to be convicted on the basis of the statements given by PERSON and NORP , they should be heard in person before the court .

The fur shop ’s salesman PERSON gave testimony before ORG . He identified the applicants as the couple who had visited his shop in DATE . DATE of the burglary he had noticed a white car driving by with CARDINAL men in it . All CARDINAL had turned their heads looking at the shop , but they had been too far away to recognize .

The lender of the van , NORP , was heard as a witness before the court . He repeated his statement given during the police investigation , inter alia , that having been questioned by the police [ on CARDINAL DATE ] he was contacted by the first applicant , who wanted to know what NORP had told the police , but before ORG D. was no longer certain as to whether it was the first applicant or NORP who had queried what he had told the police . NORP was also uncertain as to whether he had seen the applicants in NORP ’s company before lending his van or after it had been returned to him . Furthermore , NORP said that at the relevant time he was selling and buying cars and that he had discussed a car deal with the first applicant when they met . NORP also said that his van did not carry any stickers or the like .

Police officer Y. was also heard as a witness before ORG . He told the court that he had in general kept an eye on the first applicant as he was aware of his past . DATE of the burglary he had seen a van parked in the parking lot outside the applicants’ apartment . He was not certain as to whether it was the same van as the one used by PERSON and NORP in the burglary . Y. had noticed that the van carried a yellow sticker from which he had concluded that the car originated from the GPE area .

At this point the public prosecutor referred to the first applicant ’s statement during the police investigation according to which he did not remember ever visiting the fur shop , but that he might have gone there while DATE shopping . Moreover , the first applicant had told the police that he had discussed a car deal with NORP , but he had concealed the fact that he had been present when the van was returned .

NORP The public prosecutor referred to the second applicant ’s statement during the police investigation , according to which she denied having ever visited the fur shop or that PERSON and NORP had spent TIME at the applicants’ apartment in GPE . Furthermore , she told the police that she had visited a friend , PERSON , in GPE , on DATE of the burglary .

NORP The public prosecutor pointed out that I. when questioned as a witness by the police [ on DATE ] did not confirm the second applicant ’s story . According to ORG , the second applicant had rung her DATE and asked her to give her an alibi . I. was not heard before ORG during this session .

ORG adjourned the case until DATE , ordering the public prosecutor to call PERSON and NORP , who were in liberty , to be heard before the court .

On DATE , the public prosecutor requested that the case be adjourned as PERSON and NORP had not been summoned yet . ORG adjourned the case until DATE .

On DATE the case was heard before the court again . PERSON and NORP were absent even though they had been summoned . The public prosecutor noted that according to LAW ) of ORG , the applicants had a right to examine or have examined the witnesses against them , but that right was not unconditional . He referred to CARDINAL judgments of this Court ( PERSON v. GPE , judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL and PERSON v. GPE , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINALA ) . In particular , the public prosecutor referred to the principle according to which there was no violation of LAW ) , if the conviction was primarily based on other evidence submitted during the trial . In this respect , he referred to the evidence given by the witnesses and argued that the applicants could be convicted even though they had not been able to examine PERSON and NORP as witnesses during these proceedings . ORG again adjourned the case until DATE , ordering the public prosecutor to summon PERSON and NORP to be heard before the court .

On DATE M. sent a facsimile to ORG , withdrawing all his statements during the police investigation concerning the applicants as they were false . He alleged that he had personal reasons to make erroneous statements and , while in detention , had been given to understand that such statements could contribute to his release . Moreover , he informed the court that he was aware of the fact that he could not be forced to appear before ORG . PERSON ’s facsimile was communicated to the applicants and to the public prosecutor at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , ORG rejected the charges against the applicants as it found that the mere fact that PERSON had given evidence that the applicants had visited his shop as customers in DATE and that the van used in the burglary had been seen parked in the parking lot close to the applicants’ apartment did not show that the applicants had committed the offence with which they were charged .

NORP The public prosecutor appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , requesting that the applicants be convicted as charged . According to him , the evidence presented before ORG , taking into account also the statements of PERSON and NORP , was strong enough to justify a conviction .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing , in which the applicants , PERSON , NORP and NORP were reheard . NORP clarified that the applicants had been in PERSON ’s and NORP ’s company when the van was returned to him and that it was the first applicant who had queried what NORP had told the police when he was questioned .

In addition NORP was heard as a witness before ORG . She testified that the second applicant had visited her in PERSON in TIME DATE . I. was certain that the first applicant had dropped the second applicant off at the apartment and then picked her up TIME . According to ORG , the version given to ORG was the truth . When questioned by the police , she had not been able to tell the truth due to the police officer ’s unpleasant attitude towards her . At that time , she did not want to get involved in the case .

M. and NORP were not summoned and they were not heard before ORG . Nor did the applicants request that PERSON and NORP be heard .

On DATE ORG convicted the first applicant of aggravated theft and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The second applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting the above - mentioned offence by visiting the fur shop together with the first applicant . She was sentenced to a suspended term of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . ORG , having first referred to the ORG ’s judgments PERSON v. GPE and PERSON v. GPE , cited above , found that :

“ PERSON ’s and NORP ’s statements concerning the events given during their police investigation and repeated before ORG [ in their own case ] are supported by other evidence presented in the present case . PERSON observed the applicants visit the fur shop and NORP noted the presence of the applicants when the borrowed van was returned to him . Moreover , the first applicant showed an interest in what NORP had told the police . Furthermore , the statements of PERSON and NORP are supported by Y. ’s observation of NORP ’s van in PERSON close to the applicants’ apartment .

Even though the applicants did not have an opportunity to put questions to PERSON and NORP , they had an opportunity to submit arguments against their statements , both during the police investigation and also before ORG as well as ORG . The applicants have , nevertheless , denied having ever visited the fur shop , which , taking into account the certainty of PERSON as to the applicants’ identity , tends to diminish the credibility of the applicants’ statements .

ORG does not find that the changing of ORG statement - or the reasons given for the change - are credible . ORG finds it irrelevant that PERSON has , in a facsimile submitted to ORG , retracted his earlier statement . ”

The applicants requested leave to appeal from ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , arguing that they should have had a right to examine PERSON and NORP before the courts , as the other evidence was not strong enough to support their convictions . The alleged fact that they had visited a shop or passed by it did not prove that they had committed the serious offences they were convicted of . Furthermore , on DATE of their alleged visit to the fur shop they had both been at an oral hearing before ORG of Espoo , which is situated QUANTITY from PERSON , and could not even in theory have been at the shop at the time mentioned in the judgment . The applicants later submitted to ORG a copy of ORG DATE in support of their argument .

On DATE ORG refused the applicants leave to appeal .

LAW , section CARDINAL of the Judicial Procedure Code provides that a person who has earlier been convicted of an offence which is the subject of pending court proceedings may be heard in the case , but not in the capacity of a witness or party to the proceedings .

At the time of the proceedings there were , however , no provisions of law under which such a person could have been forced to appear before a court .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON are brothers . They are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and GPE .

The applicants are heirs of the owner of CARDINAL plots of land and buildings , which constituted a property called “ FAC Kolonie Fabryczne ” . The property was de facto expropriated by the ORG by virtue of the DATE ORG in DATE .

NORP However , in this particular case the relevant authorities failed to issue an appropriate administrative decision , declaring that the property had been subject to expropriation within the framework of the agrarian reform .

NORP In DATE ORG title to the property was entered in the land and mortgage register .

In respect of plots CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE , the right of perpetual use of these plots was granted by ORG to GPE . The plots were leased to certain individuals .

On DATE the applicants requested the GPE Governor to issue a decision stating that the property “ FAC Kolonie Fabryczne ” should not have been subject to expropriation under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( e ) of the DATE ORG .

On DATE the FAC Governor partly dismissed the applicants’ request , finding that a part of the property had met the criteria for expropriation set out in the CARDINAL Decree . However , the Governor declared that several plots of land with an overall area of CARDINAL hectares should not have been subject to expropriation . This decision concerned , among others , plots nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

On DATE the Minister of Agriculture dismissed the applicants’ appeal in respect of the remainder of the decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG further appeal , finding that the contested administrative decisions of the GPE Governor and the Minister of Agriculture had been lawful .

On DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings for rectification of an entry in the land and mortgage register . They requested the court to enter their ownership title to plots nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the land and mortgage register . Hearings were held on DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG gave a decision , securing the applicants’ claims by entering a caveat in the land and mortgage register . Subsequently , the court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the above administrative proceedings .

On DATE , following the delivery of the FAC Governor ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicants requested that the proceedings be resumed in the part concerning the following plots : CARDINAL ) nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL ) nos . ORG and ORG ; CARDINAL ) no . DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered a partial judgment in respect of the plots listed under CARDINAL ) nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL ) CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE , after the judgment in this part became final , ORG entered the applicants’ ownership title in the relevant land register .

On DATE of the parties to the proceedings applied for the proceedings in respect of plots nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL to be re - opened , arguing that new facts had arisen which showed that the applicants’ father had not owned the plots in question .

On DATE ORG re - opened the proceedings in respect of plots nos . CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE the court stayed the re - opening proceedings pending the outcome of civil proceedings concerning the ownership title to these plots before ORG , and subsequently , before ORG . On DATE ORG , following an appeal by the applicants , dismissed the ORG ’s ORG claim and discontinued the proceedings .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings for re - opening the proceedings terminated by the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG gave judgment in the case . It dismissed the motion for re - opening the proceedings .

On DATE the applicants lodged an action for recovery of plots nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

At the first hearing , on DATE , ORG stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings for rectification of an entry in the land and mortgage register ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicants appealed against that decision . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ interlocutory appeal .

On DATE the applicants requested that the proceedings be resumed .

On DATE the Końskie ORG resumed the proceedings .

On DATE a third party asked the court to allow her to participate in the proceedings as intervenor . She alleged that the applicants’ father had not been the owner of the plots in question since she and her husband had been in possession of the disputed plots since DATE .

On DATE the ORG stayed the proceedings , indicating that the proceedings for rectification of an entry in the land register had been re - opened in their part concerning the applicants’ claim . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ interlocutory appeal , finding that the lower court ’s decision was correct .

On DATE the applicants requested the court to resume the proceedings . On DATE the ORG resumed the proceedings and discontinued them since the applicants had withdrawn their action .

On DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings for compensation for the use of their property by ORG without valid legal title . They claimed compensation for the period from CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG gave judgment in the case . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . Following a cassation appeal lodged by ORG , on DATE ORG quashed the second - instance judgment and remitted the case .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the case . At the hearing the applicants withdrew their claim in respect of plots nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the abovementioned plots since the applicants had withdrawn their claims .

On DATE the applicants sold plots nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL party .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time ( “ the GPE ” ) . The applicants claimed just satisfaction in the amount of PLN MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) . They also requested the court to take action to resume and expedite the proceedings for recovery of the property ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG complaint . The court referred to the fact that there had been no undue delay in the proceedings on and after the date of entry into force of the LAW on DATE . The court pointed out that the proceedings had been stayed pending the outcome of other proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) in which the ownership of the property was in issue . Therefore , there had been no delays in dealing with the case .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are set out in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-V , and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII , and the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V.

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning LAW No . CARDINAL is set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VI , and PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , judgment of CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13+6-1;Violation of P1-1

Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Sverre Erik Jebens;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE .

NORP In DATE a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. , which belonged to the applicants ' father , was confiscated without compensation by the ORG , which subsequently constructed a building on the plot of land .

On DATE the NORP ORG in GPE purchased CARDINAL buildings in GPE , CARDINAL of which was situated on the applicants ' inherited plot of land . The transaction was concluded through an inter - State agreement validated by means of note verbale exchanges between the CARDINAL governments . The relevant property titles were not entered in ORG .

ORG subsequently used the income from the transaction to purchase the premises of ORG in GPE ( see also PERSON and Others v. GPE and GPE , CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE for a similar description of facts ) .

Under ORG , the applicants lodged an application with ORG on ORG and Compensation of Properties ( GPE i GPE dhe PERSON Pronave – “ the Commission ” ) claiming title to their father 's property .

On DATE the Commission recognised the applicants ' father 's property title over QUANTITY m. and acknowledged the fact that the plot of land was occupied by ORG in GPE . Since buildings had been constructed on the land , the Commission ruled that their owner , ORG , had to pay rent for the land or repurchase the land by agreement .

The applicants were also issued with a certificate of registration of property by ORG : registration no . CARDINAL , dated CARDINAL DATE .

The applicants claimed that they sent letters to ORG to enter into a lease or to sell the plot of land according to the ORG 's decision . However , ORG explained that the property had been transferred to them through the exchange of notes verbales in DATE .

The applicants filed an action on DATE to recover the property and to obtain damages from the NORP authorities .

On DATE the ORG quashed the ORG 's decision as regards the physical return of the property to the applicants , since that plot of land had been lawfully occupied by ORG since DATE . Instead , it ruled that the applicants should be compensated for QUANTITY . m in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law . ORG and ORG , by way of reasoned decisions , upheld ORG decision on DATE and DATE , respectively . On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , declared the application inadmissible .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ In the protection of his constitutional and legal rights , freedoms and interests , or in the case of a criminal charge brought against him , everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing , within a reasonable time , by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ State bodies shall comply with judicial decisions . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The Constitutional Court shall decide : ... ( f ) Final complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing , after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted . ”

The relevant domestic law as regards property restitution and compensation in GPE has been described in the judgments of ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE , ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

New and substantial legislative measures have been enacted amending the principal DATE Property Act since the adoption of those judgments . The principal amendments are as follows :

Section CARDINAL extended until DATE the time - limit for the completion of the examination of applications for the recognition , restitution and compensation of immovable properties , with the exception of payment of the amount of compensation , the time - limit for which was fixed for DATE .

Section CARDINAL established the Agency for the Restitution and Compensation of Properties ( “ the central Agency ” ) which replaced ORG on the ORG and Compensation of Properties ( “ the ORG ” ) . The central Agency , which was headed by a Director , had its seat in GPE and was made up of CARDINAL regional Agency offices .

According to section DATE , the regional Agency office was responsible for the initial examination of applications for the recognition of property rights , in response to which it decided on the restitution of property and/or compensation in lieu thereof . Section CARDINAL set the time - limit for the submission of applications for the recognition of property rights for CARDINAL DATE .

Section CARDINAL stipulated that an appeal against a decision of the regional Agency office could be lodged with the central ORG . The decision of the central ORG could be appealed against to ORG within DATE of its notification .

Section CARDINAL extended until DATE the time - limit for the completion of the examination of applications for the recognition , restitution and compensation of immovable properties , with the exception of payment of compensation .

Section CARDINAL provided for the establishment of the In - kind ORG ( NORP ) alongside ORG ( “ ORG ” ) . Within DATE from the LAW 's entry into force , the ORG had to approve the list of properties to be allocated to the IkCF .

Section CARDINAL provided that the central ORG was responsible for examining claims for in - kind and financial compensation . The central ORG was also responsible for examining appeals against the decisions of regional Agency offices .

Section CARDINAL reiterated that the regional Agency offices continued to be responsible for the initial examination of applications for the recognition of property rights . The claimant or ORG had the right to appeal against that decision within DATE to the central ORG , which was the highest administrative body . Such an administrative decision was amenable to judicial review in accordance with the provisions of LAW .

Section CARDINAL extended until DATE the time - limit for the submission of applications for the recognition of property rights and the restitution of properties by the regional Agency offices . It also provided for the possibility for a claimant to be given a new time - limit by way of a court decision .

According to section CARDINAL , the completion of the examination of applications for the recognition of property rights and restitution of properties would be finalised on DATE , with the exception of the payment of the amount of compensation , the deadline for which was fixed for DATE .

Section CARDINAL extended until DATE the deadline for the allocation of properties to the IkCF .

Section CARDINAL provided that in addition to the budgetary appropriations , the allocations obtained by virtue of this law and other donors , the ORG would also be made up of proceeds obtained through auctions of ORG properties ' which had not been the subject of a Commission decision .

Section CARDINAL abolished the regional Agency offices . It stated that the archives of those offices would be transferred to the central ORG . According to section CARDINAL , the central ORG would complete the examination of applications for recognition of property rights and restitution of properties lodged with the former regional Agency offices . The central ORG continued to examine appeals lodged with it against former regional Agency offices ' decisions .

According to section CARDINAL , the claimant or ORG had the right to appeal against the central ORG 's decision within DATE of its notification to ORG .

Section CARDINAL set the deadline for the completion of the examination of applications for the recognition and restitution of properties for ORG CARDINAL DATE .

The DATE LAW chiefly introduced the possibility of requesting a revision of decisions of former Commissions / regional Agency offices .

Section CARDINAL extended until DATE the deadline for the allocation of properties to the ORG .

Pursuant to LAW which established ORG , the Government adopted the above - mentioned decisions , DATE , in respect of the award of financial compensation to former owners .

In DATE financial compensation was awarded in respect of compensation claims arising out of ORG decisions . In DATE financial compensation was awarded in respect of compensation claims arising out of the decisions of the GPE and ORG . In DATE the group of beneficiaries was expanded to include former owners who were in possession of a Commission decision issued with respect to cities for which a property valuation map had been approved and issued . In DATE and DATE all former owners , who were entitled to compensation , following a ORG regional ORG 's decision , were eligible to apply for financial compensation .

According to the CMDs adopted DATE , a claimant was required to lodge a standard application for financial compensation with the central Agency in GPE , furnishing , inter alia , the GPE / regional ORG 's decision that recognised his right to compensation . Only those former owners who had not received previous compensation were entitled to financial compensation from DATE to DATE . The DATE ORG provided that a former owner was entitled to financial compensation on the condition that he had not benefited from : a ) previous compensation ; b ) partial restoration / restitution of the property ; c ) the right to first refusal ; d ) the implementation of the LAW on the Distribution of Land ( Law no . DATE of DATE ) .

Applications would be examined in chronological order on the basis of the ORG 's / regional ORG 's decision date and number . The amount of financial compensation , which was to be calculated on the basis of property valuation maps , was limited to a maximum of CARDINAL sq . m.

The lodging of an application entailed the payment of a processing fee . Former owners who had been unsuccessful in their application for financial compensation in DATE could re - submit their application in the following year(s ) once they had paid the processing fee .

None of those decisions provided for the award of compensation to holders claims arising out of a final , enforceable court decision .

By virtue of the above - mentioned decisions , CARDINAL of which were adopted in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE , the ORG approved and issued property valuation maps as listed above . The maps included the reference price per square CARDINAL throughout the country .

The first decision fixed the price of land for the regions of GPE , PERSON , PERSON and ORG ; the second decision fixed the price of land for the regions of ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ; the third decision fixed the price of land for the regions of ORG , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and GPE . The fourth decision contained an updated price list for certain cities . According to that decision , the reference price per square metre for the area in which the applicants ' property was located was valued at ALL CARDINAL .

The DATE LAW provided for the establishment of an In - kind ORG ( “ NORP ” ) . The Government would adopt the procedures for the allocation of properties covered by the NORP .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE the Government laid down the criteria and the procedures for the determination of ORG properties covered by the ORG ( ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) . LAW lists the types of properties , for example : a ) public immovable property which is located in tourist areas ; b ) properties of ORG which are not used by the armed forces and have been approved by the President of the Republic ; c ) available agricultural land belonging to ORG ; d ) forests , pastures and meadows ; and e ) property of ORG institutions which falls outside their intended activity .

The ORG and its regional offices are responsible for checking the legal status of each property as submitted by the respective ORG institution . The ORG submits the final list of immovable properties for inclusion in the NORP to the Minister of Justice . The Government are to approve the list and publish it in ORG .

To date , it would appear that no such list has yet been approved .