CASE OF KOZYYAKOVA AND GUREYEV v. RUSSIA

The applicants were born in DATE and lived in GPE .

At the relevant time the applicants were in receipt of a pension from the pension authority ( “ the authority ” , PERSON по социальной защите населения администрации Железнодорожного района г. PERSON ) .

It appears that in DATE and DATE there were delays in payment of their pension and in DATE the applicants brought a court claim against the authority in this connection .

By judgments of CARDINAL and DATE ORG of the town of GPE granted the applicants ' claims and ordered the authority to pay the first applicant MONEY ( RUR – MONEY ) in damages . The second applicant was granted a compensation of RUR CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL euros ) .

The judgments came into force on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .

On an unspecified date ORG issued the writs of enforcement and directed them to the bailiffs for enforcement .

According to the applicants , in DATE the bailiffs returned the writs without enforcement with reference to the lack of funds .

It appears that the court award in respect of the first applicant was enforced on DATE . As regards the second applicant , the award was received on DATE .

According to the Government , the awards in respect of both applicants were enforced in full on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides that a bailiff 's order on the institution of enforcement proceedings shall fix a time - limit for the defendant 's voluntary compliance with the writ of execution . The time - limit can not exceed DATE . The bailiff shall also warn the defendant that coercive action will follow , should the defendant fail to comply within the time - limit .

Under LAW of the LAW , the enforcement proceedings should be completed within DATE upon receipt of the writ of enforcement by the bailiff .


ACCURACY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND 13 OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The applicants appear to be engaged in the wholesale distribution of firearms . A list of applicants is annexed to the present decision . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON , ORG , GPE . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants refer to , and adopt , application no . PERSON brought by PERSON ( ORG ( “ PERSON ” ) , without providing any factual material to support their individual claims .

Controls on firearms in GPE , including controls on the possession of pistols , revolvers , rifles and the ammunition for them , were introduced for the first time in DATE . In DATE , fully - automatic weapons were prohibited , and in DATE , airguns and shotguns were made subject to restrictions for the first time . The controls were consolidated in the Firearms Act DATE . In DATE , semi - automatic and self - loading rifles were prohibited , and in DATE , disguised firearms were prohibited .

In DATE , an individual entered a primary school in GPE and shot dead a teacher and CARDINAL children , and wounded CARDINAL others . He had with him CARDINAL handguns and CARDINAL rounds of ammunition . The Government subsequently established a public inquiry chaired by the Hon . Lord PERSON , which presented a report to ORG in DATE ( “ the LOC ” ) .

Following the presentation of ORG , legislation was passed in DATE prohibiting the possession of handguns , and schemes were set up for the payment of compensation to private individuals and to dealers in firearms in respect of handguns the possession of which was prohibited .

By DATE , MONEY had been paid out to CARDINAL dealers under the schemes , of a total of MONEY which had been paid out to individuals , dealers and others . The ORG estimate the total costs which will be involved in paying compensation under the schemes to be MONEY .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that , acting in an organised group , he had committed fraud . The applicant appealed against this decision , but on DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that his detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , to which the case was in the meantime transferred , further prolonged the applicant ’s detention . The court relied in particular on the complexity of the case , the need to obtain expert opinions and the seriousness of the charges against the applicant . In addition , the court considered that there existed a danger that the applicant , if released , would obstruct the process of collection of evidence .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the appeal .

By a decision of DATE ORG further prolonged the applicant ’s detention on remand . The court considered that the reasons for which the detention had been ordered still existed and that the prosecuting authorities continued the process of obtaining evidence . The applicant ’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on DATE by ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) relying on the strong suspicion against the applicant and on the complexity of the case .

In DATE the applicant was indicted before ORG . The bill of indictment , directed against the applicant and one coaccused , concerned CARDINAL counts of fraud allegedly committed by them DATE .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s pre - trial detention relying on the strong suspicion against the applicant and the severity of the anticipated sentence . The court further stated that there was a risk of absconding , in particular , with regard to the second co - accused . The applicant appealed but his appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG further prolonged the applicant ’s detention . The court found that the grounds for the detention given in previous decisions were still valid . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against this decision .

At an unspecified later date the applicant requested his release . By decisions of DATE and of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , rejected his requests , considering that the grounds for detaining the applicant still remained valid .

By a decision of DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court repeated the reasons given previously . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal against this decision finding that the period of his detention was not excessive .

The first trial hearings scheduled for CARDINAL and DATE were adjourned as the applicant ’s lawyer failed to appear before the court . The court appointed another lawyer for the applicant . The trial started on DATE .

At the hearing held on DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court stated that the reasons justifying the applicant ’s detention remain valid . The trial court held the hearings on DATE and DATE .

By a decision of DATE , upheld by ORG on DATE , ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , finding no grounds on which to order his release under LAW . The trial court further established that the process of hearing witnesses was incomplete and consequently retaining the applicant in custody was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings . The court also held that the measure was justified by the severity of the anticipated sentence and the danger that the applicant would interfere with the course of the proceedings .

The court held hearings on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . From DATE till DATE the court heard over CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG rejected other requests for the applicant ’s release .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE repeating the grounds given on the previous occasion . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal and upheld the contested decision .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of fraud and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The applicant lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the appellate proceedings , at which the applicant ’s lawyer was present . The court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the contested judgment .

NORP The applicant lodged a cassation appeal but on DATE ORG dismissed his cassation appeal as unsubstantiated .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE ( “ CARDINAL Code ” ) , which entered into force on DATE , defines detention on remand as CARDINAL of the socalled “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) . The other measures are bail ( poręczenie majątkowe ) , police supervision ( dozór policji ) , guarantee by a responsible person ( poręczenie osoby godnej zaufania ) , guarantee by a social entity ( poręczenie społeczne ) , temporary ban on engaging in a given activity ( zawieszenie oskarżonego w określonej działalności ) and prohibition to leave the country ( zakaz opuszczania kraju ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL sets out the general grounds for imposition of the preventive measures . That provision reads :

“ Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings and , exceptionally , also in order to prevent an accused committing another , serious offence ; they may be imposed only if evidence gathered shows a significant probability that an accused has committed an offence . ”

Article CARDINAL lists grounds for detention on remand . It provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Detention on remand may be imposed if :

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when his identity can not be established or when he has no permanent abode [ in GPE ] ;

( CARDINAL ) there is a justified fear that an accused will attempt to induce [ witnesses or codefendants ] to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means ;

NORP If an accused has been charged with a serious offence or an offence for the commission of which he may be liable to a statutory maximum sentence of CARDINAL CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , or if a court of first instance has sentenced him to CARDINAL CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , the need to continue detention to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings may be based on the likelihood that a severe penalty will be imposed . ”

The Code sets out the margin of discretion as to the continuation of a specific preventive measure . Article CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Detention on remand shall not be imposed if another preventive measure is sufficient . ”

Article CARDINAL , in its relevant part , reads :

“ CARDINAL . If there are no special reasons to the contrary , detention on remand shall be lifted , in particular if depriving an accused of his liberty would :

( CARDINAL ) seriously jeopardise his life or health ; or

( CARDINAL ) entail excessively harsh consequences for the accused or his family . ”

The DATE Code not only sets out maximum statutory time - limits for detention on remand but also , in LAW , lays down that the relevant court – within those time - limits – must in each detention decision determine the exact time for which detention shall continue .

Article CARDINAL sets out time - limits for detention . In the version applicable up to DATE it provided :

“ CARDINAL . Imposing detention in the course of an investigation , the court shall determine its term for a period not exceeding DATE .

whole may not exceed DATE .

The whole period of detention on remand until the date on which the first conviction at first instance is imposed may not exceed DATE .

Only ORG may , on application made by the court before which the case is pending or , at the investigation stage , on application made by ORG , prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the periods referred to in DATE , when it is necessary in connection with a stay of the proceedings , a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused , a prolonged preparation of an expert report , when evidence needs to be obtained in a particularly complex case or from abroad , when the accused has deliberately prolonged the proceedings , as well as on account of other significant obstacles that could not be overcome . ”

On DATE paragraph CARDINAL was amended and since then the competence to prolong detention beyond the time - limits set out in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL has been vested with the court of appeal within whose jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed .


The applicant , ORG G-CARDINAL GPE , is a company from GPE . It is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant company was sued before ORG . The plaintiff , ORG , sought payment for her lawyer ’s fees .

On DATE ORG awarded the claim .

On DATE the applicant company appealed against the judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld the first instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant company filed a request for revision on points of law before ORG .

On DATE amendments to the LAW were enacted that , inter alia , introduced a guarantee of fair trial .

On DATE ORG rejected the request .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW , enacted on DATE provides , inter alia , that in determination of his civil rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a fair hearing by a tribunal .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that every person , who considers that any of his constitutional rights has been violated by a decision of a judicial or administrative body or any other body invested with public authority , may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG .


The applicant , born in DATE , is a citizen of GPE . He is currently staying in GPE . He is a kitchen helper by profession .

The applicant entered GPE on DATE . On DATE he filed a request for asylum . In the course of his questioning by ORG für die ORG ) , he submitted that in DATE his house had been destroyed by the armed forces . He also stated that in DATE ( later corrected as DATE ) he had been arrested by the armed forces and detained DATE on the - false - suspicion of having supported ORG ( ORG ) . He had allegedly been tortured in the course of his detention . His release had been arranged by a friend who had subsequently brought him to an office of ORG . He feared that upon his return he would again be arrested by the armed forces or , if he returned to his home town , he risked to be forced to support the ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for asylum and ordered him to leave GPE voluntarily , warning him that he would otherwise be expelled .

On DATE ORG ( Verwaltungsgericht ) dismissed the applicant 's action challenging the decision of DATE .

In its detailed judgment , the court found that the applicant had failed to show that he had left GPE on account of political persecution or that he risked to be exposed to such persecution in case of his return . The court considered in particular that the applicant 's submissions regarding his personal situation in GPE was not credible , as there were major contradictions in his statements . In this respect , the court noted the contradictions in his indications as to exact dates , varying even in DATE , which could not be explained by alleged disturbances of memory . Furthermore , his explanations concerning his release and his leaving the country were incredible . Finally , his statements about his activities in support of the NORP were contradictory .

The court had regard to case - law and reports of ORG Auswärtiges Amt ) relating to the general situation in GPE . It noted that on the GPE peninsula the total number of interferences with liberty and security of NORP , by security forces , did not justify the conclusion that any NORP faced a real risk of being subjected to such action . In the court ’s view , similar considerations applied to the region of GPE and the southern and western parts of GPE . The court noted that in GPE the security forces regularly carried out ‘ cordon and search ORG and , on a random basis , arrested NORP in order to find NORP activists and supporters . Cases of lengthy detention , ill - treatment in the course of the detention or disappearance had occurred . However , the number of such cases , considering the number of NORP living in this area , did not justify the conclusion that every GPE faced a real risk of persecution . The applicant ’s submissions as to his personal situation did not disclose any special circumstances . There were no reasons to assume that the applicant would face a real risk for life , limb or liberty in the whole territory . In this respect , the court took into account that the security forces , by means of administrative measures , attempted to avoid that NORP originating from the northern parts of GPE would take a lawfully residence in GPE . They thereby intended to make these persons move back to their home towns . Taking into account the increasingly stable control of LOC in large areas of the NORP peninsula and the reconstruction measures , there was no risk of death or serious injuries even if the applicant , upon his return to GPE , were to take residence in the north .

On DATE the North - Rhine Westphalia Administrative Court of Appeal ( Oberverwaltungsgericht ) refused to allow his appeal . ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint that his submissions about his alleged activities for the ORG had not duly been taken into account . In this respect , ORG noted that ORG had regarded these statements as incredible .

The applicant did not lodge a constitutional complaint ( ORG ) with ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL)(a ) of LAW ) in conjunction with sections CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ( Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz ) .


Violation of Art. 14+8;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Respondent State to take measures of a general character

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a serviceman in military unit no . DATE .

On DATE his wife PERSON gave birth to their third child . On DATE a court granted their application for divorce .

On DATE the applicant and PERSON entered into an agreement under which their QUANTITY children would live with the applicant and PERSON would pay maintenance for them . DATE PERSON left for GPE where she has been living ever since .

On DATE the applicant asked the head of his military unit for CARDINAL PERSON parental leave . On DATE the head of the military unit rejected his request because CARDINAL PERSON parental leave could be granted only to female military personnel . The applicant was allowed to take CARDINAL months’ leave . However , on DATE he was recalled to duty .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against his military unit claiming CARDINAL PERSON parental leave . He also challenged the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant was disciplined for systematic absences from his place of work .

On DATE ORG of FAC annulled the decision of DATE and upheld the applicant ’s right to the remaining DATE working days of his CARDINAL months’ leave . On DATE ORG of ORG quashed the judgment and rejected the applicant ’s claims .

On DATE ORG of FAC dismissed his claim for CARDINAL PERSON parental leave as having no basis in domestic law . The court held that only female military personnel were entitled to CARDINAL GPE parental leave and that the applicant was entitled to CARDINAL months’ leave , of which he had made use . Moreover , the applicant had failed to prove that he was the sole carer for his children and that they lacked maternal care .

In his statement of appeal the applicant complained , in particular , that the refusal to grant him CARDINAL PERSON parental leave violated the principle of equality between men and women guaranteed by LAW .

On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the judgment . It endorsed the reasoning of the first - instance court and added that the applicant ’s “ reflections on equality between men and women ... can not serve as a basis for quashing the first - instance judgment , which is correct in substance ” .

On DATE the applicant was for a second time disciplined for being absent from his place of work .

By order of DATE the head of military unit no . DATE granted parental leave to the applicant until DATE , the third birthday of his youngest son . On DATE the applicant received financial aid in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the head of military unit no . DATE informed the applicant that the financial aid was granted to him “ in view of [ his ] difficult family situation , the necessity of taking care of CARDINAL minor children and the absence of other sources of income ” .

On DATE ORG of FAC issued a decision ( “ частное определение ” ) in which it criticised the head of military unit no . DATE for granting the applicant CARDINAL GPE parental leave , and thereby disregarding the judgment of DATE in which it had been found that the applicant was not entitled to such leave . The court drew the attention of the head of the military unit to the unlawfulness of his order .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG , claiming that the provisions of LAW concerning the DATE parental leave were incompatible with the equality clause in the LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected his application . It held as follows :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP ... military service is a special type of public service which ensures the defence of the country and the security of the State , it is therefore performed in the public interest . Persons engaged in military service exercise constitutionally important functions and therefore possess a special legal status which is based on the necessity for a citizen of GPE to perform his duty and obligation in order to protect the ORG .

When establishing a special legal status for military personnel , the federal legislature is entitled , within its discretionary powers , to set up limitations on their civil rights and freedoms and to assign special duties ...

... by signing a military service contract a citizen ... voluntarily chooses a professional activity which entails , firstly , limitations on his civil rights and freedoms inherent in this type of public service , and , secondly , performance of duties to ensure the defence of the country and the security of the ORG . Accordingly , military personnel undertake to abide by the statutory requirements limiting their rights and freedoms and imposing on them special public obligations .

... by voluntarily choosing this type of service citizens agree to the conditions and limitations related to the acquired legal status . Therefore , the imposition by the federal legislature of limitations on the rights and freedoms of such citizens is not in itself incompatible with [ the LAW ] and is in accordance with ORG Convention no . CARDINAL of DATE which provides that any distinction , exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements thereof shall not be deemed to be discrimination ( LAW ) .

CARDINAL Under LAW of [ LAW ] parental leave is granted to female military personnel in accordance with the procedure specified in federal laws and regulations of GPE . A similar provision is contained in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Regulations on military service , which also provides that during parental leave a servicewoman retains her position and military rank .

A serviceman under contract is entitled to leave of DATE if his wife dies in delivery or if he is bringing up a child or children DATE ( handicapped children DATE ) left without maternal care ( in the event of the mother ’s death , withdrawal of parental authority , lengthy illness or other situations where his children have no maternal care ) . The purpose of such leave is to give the serviceman a reasonable opportunity to arrange for the care of his child and , depending on the outcome , to decide whether he wishes to continue the military service . If the serviceman decides to take care of his child himself , he is entitled to early termination of his service for family reasons ...

The law in force does not give a serviceman the right to CARDINAL GPE parental leave . Accordingly , servicemen under contract are prohibited from combining the performance of their military duties with parental leave . This prohibition is based , firstly , on the special legal status of the military , and , secondly , on the constitutionally important aims justifying limitations on human rights and freedoms in connection with the necessity to create appropriate conditions for efficient professional activity of servicemen who are fulfilling their duty to defend the ORG .

Owing to the specific demands of military service , non - performance of military duties by military personnel en masse must be excluded as it might cause detriment to the public interests protected by law . Therefore , the fact that servicemen under contract are not entitled to parental leave can not be regarded as a breach of their constitutional rights or freedoms , including their right to take care of , and bring up , children guaranteed by LAW . Moreover , this limitation is justified by the voluntary nature of the military service contract .

By granting , on an exceptional basis , the right to parental leave to servicewomen only , the legislature took into account , firstly , the limited participation of women in military service and , secondly , the special social role of women associated with motherhood . [ Those considerations ] are compatible with LAW . Therefore , the legislature ’s decision can not be regarded as breaching the principles of equality of human rights and freedoms or equality of rights of men and women , as guaranteed by LAW and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE .

It follows from the above that LAW of [ LAW ] , granting the right to parental leave to female military personnel only , does not breach the applicant ’s constitutional rights ...

CARDINAL As servicemen having minor children are not entitled to parental leave , they are also not entitled to receive DATE child - care allowances payable to those who take care of children DATE ... ”

ORG concluded that the provisions challenged by the applicant were compatible with LAW .

LAW guarantees the equality of rights and freedoms of everyone regardless of , in particular , sex , social status or employment position . Men and women shall have equal rights and freedoms and equal opportunities ( Article QUANTITY CARDINAL ) .

The LAW also guarantees protection of motherhood and the family by the ORG . The care and upbringing of children is an equal right and obligation of both parents ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

The Labour Code of DATE provides that women are entitled to a so - called “ pregnancy and delivery leave ” ( maternity leave ) of DATE before the childbirth and DATE after it ( LAW . Further , women are entitled to a DATE “ child - care leave ” ( parental leave ) . Parental leave may be also taken in full or in part by the father of the child , his / her grandmother , grandfather , a guardian or any relative who is actually taking care of the child . The person on parental leave retains his / her employment position . The period of parental leave is counted for seniority purposes ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The Federal Law on Obligatory Social Insurance of Sick Leave or Maternity Leave ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) provides that during maternity leave the woman receives a maternity allowance , payable by ORG , amounting to PERCENT of the salary ( section CARDINAL ) . During DATE of the parental leave the person who is taking care of the child receives DATE child - care allowances , payable by ORG , amounting to PERCENT of the salary , but no less than RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the first child and RUB CARDINAL for each of the subsequent children ( section CARDINAL ) . During DATE of the parental leave no social - insurance payments or allowances are available .

The Federal Law on the Status of Military Personnel ( no . CARDINAL-FZ of CARDINAL DATE , “ the Military Service Act ” ) provides that female military personnel are entitled to maternity leave and to parental leave in accordance with LAW ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . There is no similar provision in respect of male personnel .

Under the Regulations on military service , enacted by Presidential Decree No . CARDINAL on DATE , a servicewoman is entitled to maternity leave , to CARDINAL GPE parental leave , and to all related social benefits and allowances . A serviceman under contract is entitled to CARDINAL months’ leave in CARDINAL of the following cases : ( a ) his wife has died in childbirth , or ( b ) he is bringing up a child or children DATE ( handicapped children DATE ) left without maternal care ( in the event of the mother ’s death , withdrawal of parental authority , lengthy illness or other situations where his children have no maternal care ) ( section DATE ) .

The relevant parts of ORG ( ORG ) Report “ Maternity at work : A review of national legislation ” ( DATE ) read as follows :

“ While maternity leave aims to protect working women during their pregnancy and recovery from childbirth , parental leave refers to a relatively long - term leave available to either parent , allowing them to take care of an infant or young child over a period of time usually following the maternity or paternity leave period .

ORG , DATE ( No . CARDINAL ) and ORG , DATE ( No . CARDINAL ) ... only included provisions on maternity leave and only women ’s need to reconcile work with family responsibilities were considered . CARDINAL important change in the policy of the ORG with the adoption of the current Recommendations [ and ORG , DATE ( No . CARDINAL ) ] was the recognition of ORG involvement in family responsibilities in general and in this case especially with regard to parental leave . This was an important step towards the creation of effective equality of opportunity and treatment for men and women workers ...

Contrary to the other regions , all the countries analysed in LOC provide a period of parental leave to take care of a newborn or young child , even if the length of the leave differs from country to country ...

A major difference between maternity and parental leave is the scope of the provisions . While maternity leave is available only for women , parental leave provisions normally are also available for men . In some countries , it is a shared entitlement , where either the mother or the father has the right to take parental leave [ for example in GPE ] . In other countries , each parent has an individual right to parental leave , which can not be transferred to the other parent [ for example in GPE and GPE ] . As mentioned above , according to the ORG Directive on parental leave [ ORG DATE ] , it should be available to both parents as an individual entitlement . To promote equal opportunities and equal treatment between men and women , parental leave should , in principle , be granted on a non - transferable basis ( ORG , DATE ) ...

The introduction of parental leave provisions available to both fathers and mothers can be an effective tool for promoting gender equality . It recognizes the fact that fathers also have caring responsibilities . But even if parental leave by definition is available to both mothers and fathers , women are most often the ones who take parental leave , once maternity leave is finished . Generally , men ’s take - up rates are very low ( ORG , DATE ) . For this reason , some countries have introduced a paternity quota that can only be taken by the father and is lost if he does not use it ... ”

With respect to maternity leave the ORG states , in particular , as follows :

“ In many countries , various categories of workers are explicitly excluded in the scope of labour legislation and/or social security legislation or of the corresponding law regulating cash maternity benefits ...

In ORG ... the ORG Directive applies to workers in all fields and occupations , with no exceptions . Nevertheless , ... in GPE , the armed forces , the police and domestic servants are not covered . In DATE , ORG noted that the exclusion of these groups is contradictory to Community law , leading to infringement proceedings against [ GPE ] ( Commission of ORG , DATE ) . ”

A report entitled “ ORG ” published in DATE by ORG describes leave entitlements for workers with dependent children in CARDINAL countries ( CARDINAL NORP countries , GPE , GPE and GPE ) . According to that report GPE is the only country where there is no statutory right to parental leave . In contrast to maternity and paternity leave , which are by definition gender - related , parental leave can be taken by either parent in all countries under examination except CARDINAL ( in GPE only the mother is entitled to take parental leave during DATE ; during the child ’s DATE , however , parental leave may be taken by either parent ) .

Parental leave is a family entitlement in CARDINAL countries , to be divided between parents as they choose ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) ; an individual entitlement in another CARDINAL countries , with each parent entitled to a certain portion of parental leave ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the GPE and GPE ) ; and mixed ( part family , part individual entitlement ) in CARDINAL countries ( GPE , GPE and GPE ) . Various measures have been introduced to encourage fathers to take parental leave . Mostly these take the form of wholly or partly individualised entitlements , whereby fathers not using their ‘ ORG will lose it , since unused leave can not be transferred to a partner . Another approach is to offer bonus leave DATE to fathers who take some parental leave ( as , for example , in GPE , GPE and GPE ) .

Parental leave may be unpaid ( as , for example , in GPE , GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE and GPE ) . A majority of countries ( CARDINAL ) , however , provide some element of payment to the parent on leave . In CARDINAL cases ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) the payment is rather low , whether a flat rate or means - tested , or is paid for only part of the leave period , or a combination of these . CARDINAL countries pay an earnings - related benefit set at CARDINAL of normal earnings . In some cases – notably GPE , GPE and GPE DATE parents on leave receive a general ‘ child - GPE benefit that is paid to all parents with young children , not just those taking leave .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant association is the NORP branch of the animal rights organisation ORG ( People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ) . It pursues , inter alia , the aims of preventing animal suffering and of encouraging the public to abstain from using animal products .

In DATE the applicant association planned to start an advertising campaign under the head “ The Holocaust on your plate ” . The intended campaign , which had been carried out in a similar way in GPE , consisted of a number of posters , each of which bore a photograph of concentration camp inmates along with a picture of animals kept in mass stocks , accompanied by a short text . CARDINAL of the posters showed a photograph of emaciated , naked concentration camp inmates alongside a photograph of starving cattle under the heading “ walking skeletons ” . Other posters showed a photograph of piled up human dead bodies alongside a photograph of a pile of slaughtered pigs under the heading “ final humiliation ” and of rows of inmates lying on stock beds alongside rows of chicken in laying batteries under the heading “ if animals are concerned , everybody becomes a NORP ” . Another poster depicting a starving , naked male inmate alongside a starving cattle bore the title “ The Holocaust on your plate ” and the text “ DATE , CARDINAL human beings were killed in the Holocaust . As many animals are killed TIME in LOC for the purpose of human consumption ” .

In DATE , QUANTITY individual persons , GPE , PERSON and PERSON , filed a request with ORG to be granted an injunction ordering the applicant association to desist from publishing or from allowing the publication of CARDINAL specified posters via the internet , in a public exhibition or in any other form . The plaintiffs were at the time the president and the CARDINAL vice - presidents of ORG in GPE . All of them had survived the Holocaust when they were children ; PERSON lost her family through the Holocaust . They submitted that the intended campaign was offensive and violated their human dignity as well as the personality rights of PERSON dead family members .

On DATE ORG granted the injunction . By judgment of DATE , that same court confirmed the interim injunction . The court considered that the plaintiffs had a claim to be granted injunctive relief under section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL in conjunction with section CARDINAL of LAW , sections CARDINAL et seq . of LAW and LAW § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see relevant domestic law , below ) . According to ORG , the plaintiffs were concerned by the impugned statements in their capacity as former victims of the Holocaust .

ORG further considered that the impugned representations constituted expressions of opinion and were thus protected under LAW . This right protected expressions of opinion even if they were formulated in a polemic or offensive way . The depictions were particularly disturbing and drew a high degree of media attention because the pictures combined on the posters showed seemingly similar situations , which could only be discerned by the fact that one side showed coloured photographs of animals and the other black - and - white photos of humans , both alive and dead . Seen from the point of view of an ordinary spectator , the impugned posters had to be interpreted as putting the fate of the depicted animals and of the depicted humans on the same level .

There was no indication that the applicant association ’s primary aim was to debase the victims of the Holocaust , as the posters obviously intended to criticise the conditions under which animals were kept and to encourage the spectator to reflect upon these conditions . It followed that the expression of opinion related to questions of public interest and would thus generally enjoy a higher degree of protection when weighing the competing interests . However , in the instant case it had to be taken into account that concentration camp inmates and Holocaust victims had been put on the same level as animals . In the light of the image of man conveyed by LAW , which put human dignity in its centre and only marginally referred to the protection of animals , this comparison appeared arbitrary because the Holocaust victims were confronted with their suffering and their fate of persecution in the interest of animal protection . The debasement of concentration camp inmates was thus exploited in order to militate for better accommodation of laying hens and other animals .

ORG finally considered that the decision of the instant case did not depend on a weighing of competing interests , as the expression of opinion violated the GPE human dignity . The comparison offended the plaintiffs in their capacity as Holocaust victims by violating the respect for their human dignity . This violation was aggravated by the fact that the depicted persons were shown in a most vulnerable state .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG , in the main proceedings , confirmed its injunction . Further to the reasons given in the interim proceedings , ORG considered that it was not its task to determine from a philosophical or ethical point of view whether the suffering of highly developed animals could be compared to human suffering , as LAW put human dignity in its centre .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s constitutional complaint . ORG considered that the interpretation of the impugned pictures given by the civil courts was coherent and met the requirements imposed by the right to freedom of expression .

ORG expressed its doubts as to whether the intended campaign violated the human dignity of either the depicted persons or the plaintiffs . There was no doubt that the photographs depicted Holocaust victims in situations in which they were highly degraded by their torturers . However , this did not necessarily imply that the use of these pictures also amounted to a violation of the represented ORG human dignity . Having regard to the specific circumstances of the instant case , the court considered that the intended campaign did not deny the depicted Holocaust victims their personal value by putting them on a par with animals . Even though the applicant association might generally be convinced of the equality of human and animal suffering , the intended campaign did not pursue the aim to debase , as the pictures merely implied that the suffering inflicted upon the depicted humans and animals was equal .

However , ORG did not find it necessary to decide whether the intended campaign violated the GPE human dignity , as the impugned decisions contained sufficient arguments which justified the injunction without reference to a violation of the plaintiff ’s human dignity . It was , in particular , acceptable that the domestic courts based their decisions on the assumption that LAW drew a clear distinction between human life and dignity on CARDINAL side and the interests of animal protection on the other and that the campaign was banalising the fate of the victims of the Holocaust . It was , furthermore , acceptable to conclude that this content of the campaign affected the GPE personality rights . Referring to its earlier case law , ORG considered that it was part of the self - image of the NORP living in GPE that they belonged to a group which had been sampled out by their fate and that a special moral obligation was owed to them by all others , which formed part of their dignity .

ORG did not find it necessary to remit the case for re - examination to the lower courts , as there was no indication that the lower courts would come to a different conclusion in case of a remittal . When weighing the competing interests , the GPE legal position could be granted preference over the applicant association ’s right to freedom of expression even without relying on a violation of the LOC human dignity . The lower courts had put forward sufficient reasons to allow this conclusion . In particular , the courts had begun to weigh the competing interests . Furthermore , they had based their assumption that the impugned campaign violated the LAW human dignity on the fact that they considered the violation of the plaintiff ’s personal honour as particularly serious . As these considerations applied in a similar way to a violation of the GPE personality rights , it had to be assumed that these principles would also guide the courts in case of a remittal .

The relevant provisions of the German Basic PERSON read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Human dignity shall be inviolable . To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority .

( CARDINAL ) NORP people therefore acknowledge inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every community , of peace and of justice in the world . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech , writing and pictures , and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources . Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed . There shall be no censorship .

( CARDINAL ) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws , in provisions for the protection of young persons , and in the right to personal honour . ”

Protection of the natural foundations of life and animals

“ Mindful also of its responsibility toward future generations , the state shall protect the natural foundations of life and animals by legislation and , in accordance with law and justice , by executive and judicial action , all within the framework of the constitutional order . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of GPE read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person who , intentionally or negligently , unlawfully injures the life , body , health , freedom , property or another right of another person , is liable to make compensation to the other party for the damage arising from this .

( CARDINAL ) The same duty is held by a person who commits a breach of a statute that is intended to protect another person ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the ownership is interfered with by means other than removal or retention of possession , the owner may require the disturber to remove the interference . If further interferences are to be feared , the owner may seek a prohibitory injunction . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads as follows :

“ Insult shall be punished with imprisonment for not DATE or a fine ... ”

According to the constant case - law of the NORP civil courts , section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL in conjunction with section CARDINAL ( in analogous application ) of LAW and LAW grants any person whose personality rights concretely risk being violated by another person a claim to compel that other person to refrain from performing the impugned action .

In DATE the applicant association organised an exhibition in GPE , where the same posters which form the subject matter of the instant proceedings were publicly displayed . A number of NORP citizens of NORP origin , who had allegedly survived the Holocaust and who were not identical with the plaintiffs in the proceedings before the NORP courts , filed a request with ORG to be granted an injunction ordering the applicant association to desist from publishing the CARDINAL specified posters .

On DATE ORG ( no . CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL/CARDINALf ) rejected the request . That court expressed its doubts as to whether the plaintiffs were directly affected by the impugned poster campaign . It considered , in any event , that the impugned campaign was justified by the right to freedom of expression . The poster campaign did not debase the depicted concentration camp inmates . The court further considered that the poster campaign , besides addressing an important subject of general interest , had the positive effect of rekindling the memory of the national - socialist genocide . The concentration camp pictures documented the historic truth and recalled unfathomable crimes , which could bee seen as a positive contribution to the process of dealing with the past ( PERSON ) . The plaintiffs had only been affected to a limited degree by way of a collective insult . Conversely , the applicant association had a legitimate interest in publicly addressing its subject even in a drastic way .


André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The application was lodged on DATE in the name of Mr Mykola PERSON , a NORP national who was born in DATE , by his widow , PERSON . Subsequently , in her letter of DATE , she informed the ORG about the death of her late husband on DATE , expressing , at the same time , her wish to pursue the application .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON GPE , of ORG .

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

On DATE Mr Bulakh instituted civil proceedings in the Makarivsky ORG against his employer seeking compensation for his occupational disability .

Following repeated reconsiderations of the case by the courts of CARDINAL judicial levels , on DATE ORG partly allowed the claim and awarded Mr ORG in compensation .

On DATE the court of appeal upheld the first instance judgment .

On DATE Mr Bulakh died .

On DATE the cassation instance , upon the parties’ appeal on points of law of DATE , confirmed the lower courts’ decisions .

PERSON did not take part in the proceedings .


CASE OF BATI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY [Extracts]

Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, six month period);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to the length of the custody;Violation of Art. 5-3 with regard to the length of pre-trial detention;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

Mr PERSON was born in DATE , PERSON in DATE , Mr Müştak Erhan İl in DATE , Mr PERSON in DATE , Mr PERSON in DATE , Mr PERSON in DATE , Mr PERSON in DATE , Mr NORP in DATE , Mr ORG in DATE , PERSON in DATE , Miss PERSON in DATE , Miss PERSON in DATE , Miss PERSON in DATE , Miss PERSON in DATE and Miss PERSON in DATE . All are NORP nationals and live in GPE .

In DATE and DATE , as part of a police operation against an illegal NORP organisation , ORG of ORG ) , the GPE police arrested the applicants and held them for questioning at the headquarters of the anti - terrorist branch of the GPE security police ( “ ORG ” ) for questioning .

The facts in each individual case may be summarised as follows :

Mr PERSON was arrested on DATE .

On DATE he informed the public prosecutor during an interview that he had been ill - treated by the police while in custody . He was later brought before a judge of ORG ( “ the judge ” ) , to whom he repeated the statement he had made to the public prosecutor . The judge ordered his detention pending trial .

Mr PERSON says that his ill - treatment at ORG took various forms : he was beaten , forced to remain standing , deprived of sleep , and threatened with death , rape and sexual assault with a truncheon .

He was given only one medical examination . In his report of DATE , the forensic doctor , a member of ORG , found partly healed bruising measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY in the sternal region . He noted that PERSON had complained of pain in his shoulders and certified him unfit for work for DATE .

Mr PERSON was arrested on DATE .

On DATE he informed the public prosecutor during an interview that he had been coerced into making a statement which he had signed without reading . He subsequently repeated this account to the judge , who ordered his detention pending trial .

Mr PERSON says his ill - treatment in custody included suspension by the arms , death threats and electric shocks .

He was given CARDINAL medical examinations :

( a ) In a report of DATE , a forensic doctor noted scab - covered lesions measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY to the rear of the thighs and an old bruise measuring QUANTITY in the upper scapular region . He certified PERSON PERSON unfit for work for DATE .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor found bruising with scabs to the left arm and a leg . He noted that Mr PERSON complained of pain in various parts of the body and referred him to a forensic doctor for a final report .

( c ) Mr PERSON was re - examined by a forensic doctor on DATE . The doctor recorded his complaints of pain in the left shoulder in the medical certificate . However , he considered that a final report could only be drawn up once PERSON had been examined by a hospital neurology service . It appears from the case file , however , that the additional examination was never carried out .

Mr Erhan İl was arrested on DATE .

On DATE he was interviewed by the public prosecutor , before whom he denied all the offences he was alleged to have committed . Subsequently he was brought before the judge , to whom he complained of ill - treatment by police officers while in custody . The judge ordered his detention pending trial .

Mr PERSON says that he was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment while in custody at ORG : suspension by the arms , blows , threats and insults .

( a After examining PERSON PERSON , a forensic doctor drew up a medical report in which he noted reduced extension and impaired supination and pronation in both arms . He said that a final report could be drawn up once Mr PERSON had been examined by a hospital neurology service .

( b ) In his report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted that Mr PERSON had complained of pain in his shoulders , thorax , back and respiratory tract , and numbness in both arms and hands . He referred him to a forensic doctor for a final report .

( c ) On DATE , in the light of the medical certificate issued on DATE , the forensic doctor ordered Mr PERSON 's transfer to hospital for neurological examination . It appears from the case file , however , that no such additional examination was ever carried out .

Mr PERSON was arrested on DATE .

On DATE , after being interviewed by the public prosecutor , he was brought before the judge to whom he complained of ill - treatment by police officers while in custody . The judge ordered his detention pending trial .

Mr PERSON says that he was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment while in custody , including suspension by the arms and beating of the soles of the feet ( falaka ) .

( a ) According to a medical certificate issued on DATE , the forensic doctor initially did not find any marks of violence on PERSON body . He noted that PERSON had complained of pain in his thigh , labial mucosa and internal or lateral walls of his mouth . He certified him unfit for work for DATE .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted that PERSON had a tear to the mouth that had been caused by the use of force , pain in various parts of the body and difficulty breathing . He referred him to a forensic doctor for a final report .

( c ) In a report of DATE , the forensic doctor confirmed the findings in the reports of CARDINAL and DATE .

Mr Kaya was arrested on DATE .

On DATE he was brought before the judge after being interviewed by the public prosecutor . He complained to the judge of ill - treatment by police officers while in custody . The judge ordered his detention pending trial .

Mr Kaya says that he was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment while in custody : suspension by the arms , blows , threats and insults .

( a ) The first was performed by a forensic doctor on DATE , who found that Mr Kaya presented scab - covered lesions measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY to the side of the right armpit , bruising measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY to the mastoid , and pain in the shoulders and arms . He certified him unfit for work for DATE .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor found loss of movement in the arms , cramps in the shoulders , breathing difficulties and cuts and bruising to the right foot . He referred him to a forensic doctor for a final report .

( c ) In a report of DATE , the forensic doctor noted scab - covered lesions measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY on the side of the right armpit , bruising and grazing to the mastoid , and pain in the shoulders and arms . He certified him unfit for work for DATE .

Miss Kaya ( who is PERSON sister ) was arrested on DATE .

On DATE she was brought before the judge after being interviewed by the public prosecutor and complained of ill - treatment by police officers while in custody . The judge ordered her detention pending trial .

Miss PERSON says that while in custody she was subjected to falaka , sprayed with water , threatened with rape and undressed .

She was given CARDINAL medical examinations :

( a ) In a report dated DATE , a forensic doctor found old bruising to the soles of the feet measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY that was in the process of healing , bruising to both palms and pain in the shoulders and arms . He certified her unfit for work for DATE .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted bruising , swelling and tenderness to the sole of the left foot , and loss of movement and deformity to the little finger of the right hand . He referred her to a forensic doctor for a final report .

( c ) In a report of DATE , the forensic doctor noted scab - covered lesions measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY to the soles of both feet , bruising to both palms and pain in the shoulders and arms . He certified PERSON unfit for work for DATE .

Mr PERSON was arrested on DATE .

He was interviewed by the public prosecutor on DATE and complained of ill - treatment by police officers while in custody . He was subsequently brought before the judge , to whom he repeated the statement he had made to the public prosecutor . The judge ordered his detention pending trial .

Mr PERSON says that he was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment : he was suspended by his arms ( which were tied together ) , beaten , sprayed with cold water and deprived of sleep . He further complains that he was blindfolded and his testicles were wrung .

He was given CARDINAL medical examinations :

( a ) In a report of DATE , a forensic doctor noted that Mr PERSON was suffering from headaches and pain in his arms .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted bruising below the eyes , scab - covered lesions measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY on the upper right ear , pain running from the neck to the anus , restricted movement of the thumb of the right hand , scab - covered lesions on the back of the left foot , grazing on the back of the right foot , bruising measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY to the anterior left leg ( tibia ) and pain in the chest and respiratory tract .

( c ) In a report of DATE , the forensic doctor confirmed the findings set out in the report of CARDINAL DATE .

PERSON ( who is PERSON wife ) was arrested on DATE .

On DATE , after being interviewed by the public prosecutor , she was brought before the judge , who ordered her detention pending trial .

PERSON says that she was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment while in custody : she was beaten , suspended by the arms , undressed and sprayed with water . She also alleges that she suffered a miscarriage as a result of the ill - treatment .

( a ) In a report of DATE , a forensic doctor said that he had found MONEY on PERSON body that were consistent with assault . Noting that she alleged that she had miscarried as a result of ill - treatment in police custody , he said that a final report could be drawn up once she had been examined by a hospital obstetrics service .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted a bruise measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY on PERSON left leg , and pain in the soles of her feet and kidneys . He referred her to a forensic doctor for a final report .

( c ) In a report of DATE , in the light of the information contained in the aforementioned medical certificates , the forensic doctor ordered her transfer to a hospital obstetrics service .

( d ) In a report of DATE , a gynaecologist from ORG noted bleeding and particles in the region of the uterus and diagnosed post - abortive endometritis .

( e ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted a QUANTITY by QUANTITY swelling to the occipital region and pain in the back . He referred her to a forensic doctor for a final report .

( f ) On DATE a gynaecologist from ORG informed ORG that the hospital register showed that PERSON had been examined on DATE and that no genital pathology in the region of the uterus had been found . However , in view of her allegation that she had suffered a miscarriage , she had been given appropriate treatment .

( g ) PERSON 's medical file was examined by a team of CARDINAL gynaecologists , who , in a report of DATE , concluded that she had suffered a miscarriage while in police custody . However , since there were MONEY on her body consistent with assault and she had not had a full medical examination , they said that it was impossible to confirm a causal link between the miscarriage and the alleged ill - treatment .

Miss PERSON was arrested on DATE .

On DATE she was interviewed by the public prosecutor . She complained of ill - treatment by police officers while in custody and denied all the offences she was alleged to have committed . She was subsequently brought before the judge , who ordered her detention pending trial .

Miss PERSON was given CARDINAL medical examinations :

( a ) On DATE a forensic doctor noted that there were MONEY on her body consistent with assault .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted a QUANTITY by QUANTITY bruise on her leg , and bruising to the neck , shoulders and rib cage . He referred her to a forensic doctor for a final report .

( c ) On DATE , in the light of the aforementioned medical reports , the forensic doctor made an order for her to be examined by ORG . However , the file shows that that examination did not take place .

Miss PERSON was arrested on DATE .

On DATE she stated before the public prosecutor and the judge that she had been ill - treated by police officers while in custody . The judge ordered her detention pending trial .

( a ) In a report of DATE , a forensic doctor noted CARDINAL old bruises measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY on the anterior left arm and an old bruise measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY on the same arm . He did not certify her unfit for work .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted a QUANTITY by QUANTITY bruise on the neck and cuts to the shoulders .

( c ) In a report of DATE , the forensic doctor confirmed the findings in the report of CARDINAL DATE and certified Miss PERSON unfit for work for DATE .

Miss PERSON was arrested on DATE .

Miss PERSON says that she was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment while in custody : she was beaten , suspended by the arms , sprayed with water and deprived of sleep for DATE .

She was given CARDINAL medical examinations :

( a ) In a report of DATE , a forensic doctor noted that she complained of pain in the back and arms . He found a QUANTITY by QUANTITY bruise in the middle of the outer left leg , and an old bruise measuring QUANTITY by CARDINAL cm on the lower leg . He certified her unfit for work for DATE .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted a bruise on the left ankle and pain in different parts of the body . He considered an examination by a forensic doctor necessary .

( c ) In a report of DATE , the forensic doctor confirmed the findings in the report of CARDINAL DATE .

Mr PERSON was arrested on DATE .

On DATE he stated before the public prosecutor and the judge that he had been ill - treated by police officers while in custody . The judge ordered his detention pending trial .

Mr PERSON says that while in police custody he was beaten DATE CARDINAL times , threatened with death , sprayed with water and deprived of sleep for DATE .

On DATE a forensic doctor found no visible marks on Mr ORG 's body on examination that were consistent with assault . He noted , however , that Mr PERSON complained of pain in his shoulders and certified him unfit for work for DATE .

Mr GPE was arrested on DATE .

Mr GPE says that he was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment while in custody : suspension by the arms , blows and sleep deprivation .

He was examined CARDINAL times :

( a ) In a report of DATE , a forensic doctor noted old bruises measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY on his right leg . He certified Mr GPE unfit for work for DATE .

( b ) In a report of DATE , the ORG doctor noted a bruise on the right leg , bruising to the axillary region , reduced movement in both arms and pain in various parts of the body . He referred Mr Kablan to a forensic doctor for a final report .

( c ) In a report of DATE , the forensic doctor noted that PERSON was suffering from a problem with his ears entailing unfitness for work for DATE .

Miss PERSON was arrested on DATE .

She was interviewed by the public prosecutor on DATE , following a medical examination which did not disclose any marks consistent with assault . She was then brought before the judge , who ordered her detention pending trial .

Mr PERSON was arrested on DATE .

He was interviewed by the public prosecutor on DATE , following a medical examination which did not disclose any marks consistent with assault . He was then brought before the judge , who ordered his detention pending trial .

On DATE the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against CARDINAL people , including the applicants , under both LAW of LAW , which makes it an offence to attempt to change or modify LAW in whole or in part , to attempt a coup d'état against ORG or to use force to prevent ORG from carrying out its functions , and LAW , which makes it an offence to be a member of an armed group . The applicants were accused of various acts of violence , including voluntary homicide , attempted homicide , throwing explosive devices , taking part in an illegal and violent demonstration and armed robbery .

The case is still pending in the domestic courts .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON , PERSON ORG , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , lodged a complaint of ill - treatment against the police officers who had been on duty while they were in custody .

They also lodged a complaint against ORG ( the GPE police commissioner ) and PERSON ( the deputy director of the GPE anti - terrorist branch ) . They argued that these CARDINAL senior police officers were the hierarchical superiors of the police officers who had subjected them to torture . This complaint was dismissed on DATE for lack of sufficient evidence . That decision was upheld by the President of ORG on DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor questioned CARDINAL police officers ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG ) in connection with the complaint that had been lodged on DATE . All CARDINAL officers had been on duty while the applicants were in custody . They denied having ill - treated the applicants concerned .

DATE . Meanwhile , on DATE that has not been specified by the parties , a complaint was lodged by PERSON , PERSON and ĺsmail PERSON . They alleged , inter alia , that CARDINAL police officers PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG ) had ill - treated them while they were in custody . On DATE the GPE public prosecutor 's office decided not to take any action on the complaint . However , the applicants say that on DATE the President of ORG set aside that decision following an appeal by the applicants ' representative .

By an indictment that was lodged on DATE , the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings in ORG against CARDINAL police officers ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) for an offence under Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The first hearing in the case took place on DATE in ORG , in the absence of the CARDINAL police officers . ORG heard the applicants , who complained in particular of the decision not to prosecute PERSON . In addition , PERSON testified that she had suffered a miscarriage after being assaulted and subjected to repeated blows to the abdomen while in custody . With the exception of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ĺsmail PERSON , the applicants applied to be joined to the criminal proceedings as civil parties under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . That application was granted .

On DATE a brawl broke out between the applicants and members of the security forces as CARDINAL of the applicants ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , NORP , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) were being taken to the hearing room in the GPE court - house . ORG proceeded with the hearing , which it began by hearing evidence from the CARDINAL defendant police officers who were present , namely PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

At the hearing the applicants formally identified those police officers . ORG decided that it was unnecessary to remand the accused in custody and adjourned the question of whether PERSON should be prosecuted to a later date .

At a hearing on DATE , PERSON ( the father of PERSON and PERSON ) and Miss PERSON gave evidence . The latter said that she was unable to identify anyone , as she had been kept blindfolded throughout her time in police custody .

The testimony of CARDINAL of the accused , PERSON , was obtained on commission and placed in the case file of ORG on DATE .

At a hearing on DATE , ORG sought to establish the addresses of CARDINAL of the victims , PERSON and Ay . GPE , so that their testimony , which was not on the case file , could be obtained .

At a hearing on DATE , PERSON gave evidence .

On DATE a supplementary indictment was lodged by the public prosecutor , accusing police officer PERSON of ill - treatment with a view to extracting confessions .

On DATE evidence was taken from PERSON on commission and placed in the case file .

DATE and DATE ORG held TIME hearings , at which it sought , inter alia , to establish the addresses of a witness and of a victim with a view to serving them with witness summonses . Although the applicants ' representatives urged ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE to dispense with the evidence of the CARDINAL people concerned , it did not accede to their request until DATE .

At a hearing on DATE , the representative acting for PERSON , PERSON and ORG informed ORG that he was withdrawing from the case . The court was also informed that PERSON had died .

On DATE the applicants ' representatives asked ORG to expedite the proceedings , as there was a danger that the prosecution of the offences would become statute - barred .

At a hearing on DATE , ORG sought an adjournment to enable him to obtain legal representation . PERSON lodged a medical certificate excusing his absence . ORG granted the defendants an extension of time . From the case file it would seem that PERSON never in fact appeared before ORG .

At a hearing on DATE , the public prosecutor made his submissions . He sought an order dismissing the criminal proceedings against PERSON , who had died , and against PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG under the statute of limitations . As regards PERSON , he sought a conviction only on the count of torturing PERSON . He submitted that PERSON should be acquitted on the other charges .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings against the defendants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON by virtue of the statute of limitations and against PERSON on the ground of intervening death . It found PERSON guilty of torturing PERSON and PERSON and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It also made an order prohibiting him from holding public office for DATE . However , it acquitted him on the other charges .

The case is currently pending before ORG .

At the material time section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on procedure in the national security courts provided that any person arrested in connection with an offence within the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts had to be brought before a judge within TIME at the latest or , if the offence was a joint one committed outside the region under emergency rule , within DATE , not including the time needed to convey the detainee to the judge .

Under LAW , it is an offence for a public official to subject a person to torture or ill - treatment ( Article CARDINAL in relation to torture and Article CARDINAL in relation to ill - treatment ) . The authorities ' obligations in respect of conducting a preliminary investigation into acts or omissions capable of constituting such offences that have been brought to their attention are governed by ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW . Offences may be reported to the authorities and the security forces as well as to the public prosecutor 's office . Complaints may be made orally or in writing . If a complaint is made orally , the authority must keep a record ( LAW .

By Article CARDINAL of LAW , any public official who fails to report to the police or a public prosecutor 's office an offence of which he has become aware in the course of his duties is liable to imprisonment . A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged to investigate the facts in order to decide whether or not there should be a prosecution ( LAW ) .

Under LAW of LAW , taken in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL , a prosecution for an offence of ill - treatment or torture by a public official must be brought within DATE .

LAW also contains a provision allowing victims of crime to join the proceedings as “ intervening parties ” alongside the prosecution . As a direct victim , an intervening party may also claim reparation for any loss sustained as a result of the offence provided that he or she has not previously brought an action in the civil courts . The admissibility of applications to join the proceedings as an intervening party is determined by the judge , after hearing representations from the public prosecutor 's office ( LAW ) . A person who has been given leave to intervene in proceedings may , like the public prosecutor , appeal to ORG against the verdict ( LAW ) .

Under LAW , anyone who suffers damage as a result of an illegal or tortious act may bring an action for damages for pecuniary loss ( Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) and non - pecuniary loss ( Article CARDINAL ) . The civil courts are not bound by the findings or the verdict of the criminal court on the issue of the defendant 's guilt ( Article CARDINAL ) .

However , under LAW no . CARDINAL on ORG employees , anyone who has sustained loss as a result of an act done in the course of an official 's duties under public law may , in principle , only bring an action against the authority for whom the official concerned works and not directly against the official ( LAW and LAW ) . This is not an absolute rule , however . When an act is found to be illegal or tortious and , consequently , is no longer an “ administrative act ” or deed , the civil courts may allow a claim for damages to be made against the official concerned , without prejudice to the victim 's right to bring an action against the authority on the basis of its joint liability as the official 's employer ( LAW ) .

The Manual on ORG and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( LAW ) was submitted to the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights on DATE . The “ GPE Principles ” subsequently received the support of ORG through resolutions of ORG Human Rights and ORG . It is the first set of guidelines to have been produced for the investigation of torture . The LAW contains full practical instructions for assessing persons who claim to have been the victims of torture or ill - treatment , for investigating suspected cases of torture and for reporting the investigation 's findings to the relevant authorities .

The principles applicable to the effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are to be found in LAW of the Manual , the relevant parts of which read as follows :

“ The purposes of effective investigation and documentation of torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment ( hereafter referred to as torture or other ill - treatment ) include the following : clarification of the facts and establishment and acknowledgment of individual and ORG responsibility for victims and their families , identification of measures needed to prevent recurrence and facilitation of prosecution or , as appropriate , disciplinary sanctions for those indicated by the investigation as being responsible and demonstration of the need for full reparation and redress from the ORG , including fair and adequate financial compensation and provision of the means for medical care and rehabilitation .

States shall ensure that complaints and reports of torture or ill - treatment shall be promptly and effectively investigated . Even in the absence of an express complaint , an investigation should be undertaken if there are other indications that torture or ill - treatment might have occurred . The investigators , who shall be independent of the suspected perpetrators and the agency they serve , shall be competent and impartial . They shall have access to , or be empowered to commission , investigations by impartial medical or other experts . ...

The investigative authority shall have the power and obligation to obtain all the information necessary to the inquiry . ... Those potentially implicated in torture or ill - treatment shall be removed from any position of control or power , whether direct or indirect , over complainants , witnesses and their families , as well as those conducting the investigation .

Alleged victims of torture or ill - treatment and their legal representatives shall be informed of , and have access to , any hearing as well as to all information relevant to the investigation and shall be entitled to present other evidence .

A written report , made within a reasonable time , shall include the scope of the inquiry , procedures and methods used to evaluate evidence as well as conclusions and recommendations based on findings of fact and on applicable law . On completion , this report shall be made public . It shall also describe in detail specific events that were found to have occurred and the evidence upon which such findings were based , and list the names of witnesses who testified with the exception of those whose identities have been withheld for their own protection . The ORG shall , within a reasonable period of time , reply to the report of the investigation , and , as appropriate , indicate steps to be taken in response .

Medical experts involved in the investigation of torture or ill - treatment should behave at all times in conformity with the highest ethical standards and in particular shall obtain informed consent before any examination is undertaken . The examination must follow established standards of medical practice . In particular , examinations shall be conducted in private under the control of the medical expert and outside the presence of security agents and other government officials .

The medical expert should promptly prepare an accurate written report . This report should include at least the following :

( a ) The name of the subject and the name and affiliation of those present at the examination ; the exact time and date , location , nature and address of the institution ( including , where appropriate , the room ) where the examination is being conducted ( e.g. detention centre , clinic , house ) ; and the circumstances of the subject at the time of the examination ( e.g. nature of any restraints on arrival or during the examination , presence of security forces during the examination , demeanour of those accompanying the prisoner , threatening statements to the examiner ) and any other relevant factors ;

( b ) A detailed record of the subject 's story as given during the interview , including alleged methods of torture or ill - treatment , the time when torture or ill - treatment is alleged to have occurred and all complaints of physical and psychological symptoms ;

( c ) A record of all physical and psychological findings on clinical examination , including appropriate diagnostic tests and , where possible , colour photographs of all injuries ;

( d ) An interpretation as to the probable relationship of the physical and psychological findings to possible torture or ill - treatment . A recommendation for any necessary medical and psychological treatment and further examination should be given ;

( e ) NORP The report should clearly identify those carrying out the examination and should be signed .


CASE OF TALIADOROU AND STYLIANOU v. CYPRUS

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 6-2;Violation of Art. 8

Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Effie Papadopoulou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Loukis Loucaides;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

The applicants were , at the material time , senior officers in ORG in which they served until retirement . They both served continuously with an interruption of DATE and DATE under the conditions set out below .

On an unspecified date in DATE , criminal proceedings were initiated against them in relation to their alleged involvement in the ill - treatment and torture of suspects . The prosecuting authorities failed to prove a prima facie case against them and they were acquitted on DATE . The court considered that the testimony of the principal prosecution witnesses - the victim and CARDINAL of his relatives who had been arrested with him- “ had been so obviously unreliable that no reasonable court could rely on it and convict the accused ” . It also considered that the prosecution had committed a series of improprieties which had tainted the evidence to such an extent that the case against the applicants should be discontinued in the interests of the proper administration of justice .

Subsequently , on DATE , ORG appointed an ORG ( ORG ) to examine this matter further . The ORG 's findings were delivered on DATE . It found that the applicants , together with CARDINAL other police officers , had engaged in torture practices against certain suspects in order to obtain confessions . On the basis of the ORG 's findings , on DATE , ORG terminated the applicants ' employment with ORG for the protection of public interest . CARDINAL other police officer was also dismissed by virtue of the same decision , while CARDINAL junior officers who were also found to have been involved in acts of torture and ill - treatment of prisoners were not dismissed . The applicants ' dismissal was widely reported in the national press .

The applicants challenged the legality of the said decision before ORG , exercising its administrative judicial review jurisdiction .

ORG delivered its judgment in a plenary session on DATE . It unanimously annulled the decision of ORG which was found to have violated the constitutional rights of the applicants . In particular , it found that their right not to be tried twice for the same offence had been breached and that their right to be presumed innocent , especially in the light of their acquittal , had been prejudiced . It further found that the applicants had effectively been dismissed without trial or disciplinary proceedings and , as such , they had been deprived of any opportunity to defend themselves . Moreover , the decision of ORG was found to be ultra vires .

On DATE , the applicants requested reinstatement to their former posts . On DATE they returned to duty .

Subsequently , the applicants brought an action under LAW before ORG of GPE requesting fair and equitable compensation .

Judgment was delivered on DATE by ORG , which refused the applicants ' request for exemplary damages . Concerning their request for payment of the difference in their DATE salaries , corresponding to the period in which their service had been interrupted , the court observed that the applicants had received a higher amount upon their dismissal than the requested difference in salaries . This amount had been held by the first applicant throughout the period following his return to duty and until his retirement and it was still held by the second applicant . As regards the first applicant , the amount he had received upon his dismissal had been deducted from the amount to which he was entitled by virtue of his retirement and the difference had been paid to him . The request was accordingly refused .

NORP However , CARDINAL Cypriot pounds ( ORG ) , plus MONEY interest as from DATE that the action was lodged , was awarded in compensation for moral damage . The court pointed out that , as observed by ORG in the case of PERSON v. The Republic ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL , an award of damages under LAW was not subject to the common - law rule for quantifying damages aimed at restitutio in integrum , but was governed by the principles of equity . It considered that the applicants had suffered injury to their psychological and moral integrity which was directly caused by the annulled decision . In particular , the following was noted :

“ Within this framework of criteria ( established in the domestic case - law ) , I do not see any good reason why the court should rule , in a case similar to the present one , where , by the exclusive behaviour of the administration ( ORG ) the plaintiffs have been expelled from their positions with characterisations that have definitely affected them psychologically as they themselves have maintained , that they should not be entitled to certain compensation for that injury to their psychological integrity . I consider such injury as damage emanating directly from the annulled administrative decision ” .

NORP Moreover , it was acknowledged that the decision had serious defamatory effects for them . As such , the relevant award was seen as required by equity to redress the unlawful act of the administration .

The applicants lodged an appeal with ORG and contended that the award of damages was manifestly insufficient . The Attorney - General lodged a cross - appeal requesting the annulment of the first - instance ORG judgment .

“ Such moral damage did not constitute a direct consequence of the annulled administrative act and that , therefore , such an award was not covered by the provisions of LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate finally on a recourse made to it on a complaint that a decision , an act or omission of any organ , authority or person , exercising any executive or administrative authority is contrary to any of the provisions of this LAW or of any law or is made in excess or in abuse of powers vested in such organ or authority or person .

Such a recourse may be made by a person whose any existing legitimate interest , which he has either as a person or by virtue of being a member of a ORG , is adversely and directly affected by such decision or act or omission .

Such a recourse shall be made within DATE of the date when the decision or act was published or , if not published and in the case of an omission , when it came to the knowledge of the person making the recourse .

Upon such a recourse the ORG may , by its decision-

( a ) confirm , either in whole or in part , such decision or act or omission ; or

( b ) declare , either in whole or in part , such decision or act to be null and void and of no effect whatsoever , or

( c ) declare that such omission , either in whole or in part , ought not to have been made and that whatever has been omitted should have been performed .

Any decision given under paragraph CARDINAL of this Article shall be binding on all courts and all organs or authorities in the Republic and shall be given effect to and acted upon by the organ or authority or person concerned .

Any person aggrieved by any decision or act declared to be void under paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW or by any omission declared there under that it ought not to have been made shall be entitled , if his claim is not met to his satisfaction by the organ , authority or person concerned , to institute legal proceedings in a court for the recovery of damages or for being granted other remedy and to recover just and equitable damages to be assessed by the court or to be granted such other just and equitable remedy as such court is empowered to grant . ”

In PERSON v. The Republic ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL at p. CARDINAL , Mr Justice PERSON , as he then was , observed the following :

“ The cause of action conferred by LAW , is a cause sui generis , in the sense that it bears no relationship to a common law action for damages , or , in fact , to any other cause of action known to the law ( PERSON v. The Attorney - General ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL ) . It is a right to be evaluated in the context of Article CARDINAL and the system of review of administrative action created thereby . It is ancillary to judicial review , as a measure necessary for its effectiveness . Primarily it entitles the injured party to recover damage not remediable by proper administrative action . If the proper administrative action is not taken , the remedy is to go to the administrative court again . If notwithstanding this step the injured party is left to shoulder damages , then he has a right to recover them from the Republic . The right to damages under Article CARDINAL is distinctly independent from any other cause of action , as ORG held in Attorney - General v. PERSON and another ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL . Not only its juridical basis but also the manner of quantifying damages is different from a common law action . ORG emphasised the equitable character of the relief as well as the damages recoverable , stressing that they are not strictly compensatory . Consequently , it is legitimate for the ORG to have regard , not only to the extent of the material damage suffered , but also to the conduct of the parties and the degree to which the successful party contributed to the production of the wrongful administrative act . In the case of ORG , supra , ORG derived guidance , inter alia , from NORP case law , establishing that the conduct of the parties and their blameworthiness , if any , is of crucial importance to the determination of the quantum of the damages . ”


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

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

The applicant contended that his house , along with some other houses in his village , had been destroyed as a result of a military operation carried out on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the mayors of PERSON and Balıcalı villages drafted CARDINAL reports confirming that the applicant ’s house and belongings had been burnt .

Shortly after the alleged incident , the applicant applied to ORG requesting to be compensated . On DATE ORG received the applicant ’s petition but did not respond within the DATE statutory period .

The applicant also filed a petition with ORG in GPE . He requested that an investigation be carried out to identify the perpetrators .

The public prosecutor conducted an investigation and commissioned an expert report on the applicant ’s losses . By the time of the present application , the investigation was pending .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for compensation . ORG concluded that the applicant , along with the other villagers , had voluntarily abandoned the village and that the applicant ’s property had gotten ruined due to lack of care throughout DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG requesting compensation for his losses . On DATE the court rejected the request on the ground that the applicant had failed to comply with the time - limit for challenging the decision of ORG . The court pointed out that the applicant applied to ORG on DATE and did not receive a reply within DATE thereafter . The court pointed out that ORG had tacitly rejected the request by not responding within the statutory period of DATE . The court concluded that the DATE time limit began to run from CARDINAL DATE and ended on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The investigation carried out by the authorities indicated that the applicant had left his village of his own will . The security forces had not destroyed the applicant ’s village or forced him to leave their homes .

The official records indicated that there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgment of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI )