Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE .

On DATE ORG ordered the ORG company PERSON to pay the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) in compensation for the non - pecuniary damage caused by the company 's failure to provide him with an apartment .

On DATE ORG initiated enforcement proceedings in respect of the above judgment .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated in accordance with the Law of GPE on Measures to ensure GPE and ORG .

The judgment given in the applicant 's favour remains unenforced .

The PERSON of DATE on Measures to ensure GPE and ORG ( ORG заходи , спрямовані на забезпечення сталого функціонування підприємств паливно-енергетичного комплексу ” від CARDINAL червня DATE року ) introduced a new mechanism for the payment and amortisation of companies ' debts for energy resources . It also introduced a special register of companies concerned by debt payments and amortisation under its provisions . A company 's inclusion on the register suspends any enforcement proceedings against it . The domestic courts will also dismiss any request to initiate insolvency or liquidation proceedings against the company in question . By the most recent amendment to the PERSON , enacted on DATE , the effect of the debt payment and amortisation programme was extended until DATE .

The remainder of the relevant law is summarised in the judgment of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


CASE OF MEMBERS OF THE GLDANI CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or belief);Violation of Article 14+9 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicants are CARDINAL members of ORG of GPE ’s Witnesses ( “ the NORP ” ) , together with Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON , who are also members of the said congregation and live in GPE . It appears that Mr PERSON is also the ORG ’s spokesperson .

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

During a religious meeting on DATE , the ORG , composed of QUANTITY persons , was attacked by a group of NORP believers led by Mr PERSON ( “ Father PERSON ) . Father PERSON had been a priest in the autocephalous ORG of GPE prior to being defrocked by that denomination on DATE following his adhesion to ORG . The ORG also accused him of various acts of physical aggression against members of ORG , and of insulting the PERSON - Patriarch of All GPE .

Towards TIME on DATE CARDINAL of the applicants , Mr PERSON , saw Father PERSON ’s group , made up of CARDINAL individuals , arriving at the service entrance of the theatre in which the ORG was holding its meeting .

Ms Nunu PERSON , an applicant , has described the fear experienced by members of the Congregation who had previously seen television broadcasts showing acts of aggression by Father PERSON and his supporters against ORG .

NORP The attackers , some of whom wore cassocks , were shouting and advancing with large iron crosses and sticks in their hands . CARDINAL of the attackers ( PERSON , according to the applicants ) was filming their progress . When the attackers reached the back door of the meeting room , several FAC , including Mr PERSON , tried to hold the door closed until the other participants could leave the room by the main entrance . In the meantime , however , some of Father PERSON supporters had also arrived at the building ’s main entrance , and the GPE ’s Witnesses found themselves trapped between CARDINAL groups of attackers . Only a few were able to take refuge in the cellar and called the police from their mobile telephones .

In the meeting room , CARDINAL Jehovah ’s Witnesses were beaten and struck with crosses , sticks and belts .

Mr DATE was also beaten and , when he fell to the ground , his attacker ( Mr PERSON , according to the applicants ) told him that he was “ going to die for GPE ! ” . The recording of the attack ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) shows that several stick - wielding men surrounded the applicant , who immediately covered his head with his hands but fell to the ground under their blows . He was subsequently kicked in the head and back .

PERSON , applicant , was struck on the face , head and back . PERSON , applicant , was struck on the face and her lips started bleeding . She also sustained a sprained thumb . PERSON , applicant , was struck and pushed in the stairs . Having fallen to the ground , she saw PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , applicants , lying on the ground unconscious . PERSON , applicant , was attacked by QUANTITY women and a young priest , who kicked her , tore her clothing and pulled her by the hair . The same priest used a cross and a stick to beat applicant PERSON , who fainted . Her daughter , PERSON , was dragged along the ground , kicked in the face and flogged with a belt until she lost consciousness . Mr PERSON , applicant , was hit with sticks and punched . Having fallen to the ground , he was kicked and his clothing was torn . ORG , applicant , was struck on the head with a belt . Mr PERSON , applicant , was also beaten ruthlessly by CARDINAL men . Nonetheless , he successfully negotiated with Father PERSON and his right - hand man , PERSON , to obtain permission for QUANTITY women and children , who were locked inside the theatre director ’s office , to leave the building . They were allowed to leave but were followed and attacked in the street .

Mr PERSON , applicant , was beaten , then trampled on when he fell to the ground . His glasses were broken . The recording of the attack ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) shows that several men held this applicant upright and shaved his head while pronouncing “ in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ! ” Having been unable to shave him completely , the exasperated attackers continued to insult and strike him . The applicant , who could hear his mother screaming in the distance as she was attacked by a group of women , lost consciousness .

The blood - spattered men , women and children ran from the building . CARDINAL victims were immediately admitted to hospital .

Applicant Ms Patman Tabagari sustained permanent damage to the retina of CARDINAL eye on account of the kicks she received to the head . She was kept in hospital from CARDINAL to DATE . On admission to hospital she was bleeding from the eye . According to the medical report drawn up CARDINAL October and DATE , she was suffering from concussion and had sustained bruising and injuries as well as contusion of the right eye .

Extracts from the medical records of certain applicants , updated during their hospitalisation , were submitted to the ORG . They contain the following observations :

- Mr PERSON – pain in the forehead and left eye ;

- Mr PERSON – a cranial injury , subcutaneous haematoma on the forehead and contusion on the chest ;

- Mr PERSON DATE subcutaneous haematoma on the back and chest ; his back was bleeding on admission to hospital ;

- Ms Nino Lelashvili – a cranial injury and subcutaneous haematoma on the neck ; headaches and backache ;

- Ms Ia Chamauri – a cranial injury , swollen left side of the head , subcutaneous haematoma and headaches ;

- Mr Mirian Arabidze – a cranial injury , contusion on the right hand , contusions on the upper lip , headaches and congestion around the eyes ;

- PERSON DATE a cranial injury , subcutaneous haematoma and headaches ;

- Mr Merab Zhizhilashvili – a cranial injury at facial level , swollen eyes and headaches ;

- PERSON – a cranial injury , subcutaneous haematoma around the eyes and congestion of the right ear .

CARDINAL of the CARDINAL applicants mentioned in paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE above ( with the exception of PERSON ) , and CARDINAL others have described the facts surrounding the attack against them on DATE .

Their witness statements indicate that Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , Ms PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were also beaten .

As to the other applicants , PERSON was pulled along by the hair ; PERSON was struck on the back and , like her children , pulled along by the hair ; Mr PERSON was struck on the head and sustained a nose injury ; PERSON was elbowed violently and began tottering in the stairwell ; she was also struck on the head ; PERSON was pulled along by the hair ; PERSON was pulled along by the hair and her attackers twisted her arm behind her back before striking her ; meanwhile her son was seriously injured and pushed into the stairwell ; PERSON was dragged by the hair and struck ; PERSON was pulled by the hair and fainted after the attack ; PERSON was struck and received violent blows to the head ; PERSON , surrounded by QUANTITY women , was dragged by the hair and beaten ; Mr PERSON was beaten by several men .

The vast majority of witness statements indicate that PERSON , the son of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was severely beaten in the head and stomach and lost consciousness . The doctors at ORG no . CARDINAL subsequently noted that ORG had an injured skull and broken ribs .

According to PERSON , PERSON , PERSON GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , applicants , they escaped physical aggression . However , PERSON and PERSON children were beaten by the attackers .

Without claiming that she herself had been physically attacked , Ms PERSON complained that her DATE daughter had been dragged along by the hair , her DATE son had been slapped and punched in the head and her DATE disabled son had been attacked .

Mr DATE claimed that , when the attack began , he managed to leave the building and went to the police . PERSON stated that , after escaping from the attack , she and her husband went to the police in PERSON micro - district III and informed the police officers that the Jehovah ’s Witnesses were being subjected to a violent attack in the theatre building . The police merely recorded this statement but chose not to intervene . PERSON also claimed that she had gone to the same police station with several other ORG . The head of the police station replied that “ in the attackers’ place , he would have given the GPE ’s Witnesses an even worse time ! ” While escaping from the site of the attack , Mr PERSON met CARDINAL police officers on the road ; after listening to his request to take action , they replied that they “ did n’t get involved in that type of incident ” .

NORP However , according to PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , it was only when the police arrived on the scene that the Jehovah ’s Witnesses who were still trapped in the theatre were able to escape . According to PERSON , one of the victims rushed up to a police officer , showing him the hand which Father PERSON had wounded with a blow from a cross , and said : “ Look what PERSON has just done to me ! ”

All the applicants testified that when the victims managed to escape from the building they were confronted by a cordon of Father PERSON ’s supporters , gathered in front of the exit . These women had been instructed to restrain the victims and push them back inside the building , where the attacks were continuing . In addition , they carried out body - searches of the victims , emptying their pockets and bags . Bibles , religious literature and tracts were then confiscated and thrown into a nearby fire . The victims were forced to remain in front of the fire and watch it . During the search , handbags were torn and thrown on the ground . PERSON , applicant , had her handbag taken from her : it contained money , the keys of her flat , a Bible and her watch . These objects were never returned to her . The attackers allegedly also stole other personal effects belonging to the victims , such as jewellery and cameras .

Without exception , all CARDINAL applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) complained that they were mocked , insulted , called every name imaginable - including “ traitors ” - and accused of “ selling out the motherland for a bag of rice ” . The majority of applicants claimed that the attackers smelled of alcohol .

The above - mentioned applicants ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) confirmed the acts of aggression against the CARDINAL of their companions who had been attacked with the greatest violence , listed in paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE above .

The police who arrived at the scene decided to take Mr PERSON to the police station , where he was insulted by police officers . Father PERSON and his supporter PERSON , who were also at the police station , attempted to attack the victim again .

The recording of the Gldani attack was broadcast on the national television channels Rustavi-CARDINAL and GPE on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . Father PERSON and other members of their group were clearly identifiable from these recordings . Their names were also submitted to the relevant authorities by the victims .

The recording of the news broadcast of DATE on the Rustavi-CARDINAL channel , submitted to the ORG by the applicants , illustrated the facts of the attack as set out above . It does not appear that the applicants responded to the acts of violence to which they were subjected . The recording shows a fire containing burning books , and Father PERSON and his supporters praying and singing . It also includes an extract from an interview with Father PERSON who , standing with the fire in the background , explains the validity of his actions and expresses satisfaction at their outcome .

In several subsequent interviews Father PERSON claimed that , before going to a particular place , he would alert the police and the State security services , so that the latter would not intervene . This complicity was also noted by the non - governmental organisations which issued a joint statement on DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

Interviewed after the attack on the applicants , the NORP President stated that he condemned any form of pogrom and that an investigation should be conducted to ensure that the perpetrators of the attacks were prosecuted in criminal proceedings .

DATE , CARDINAL victims of the Gldani attack , including the CARDINAL applicants listed in paragraphs CARDINAL ( with the exception of PERSON ) , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above , lodged a complaint with ORG and asked that their attackers be punished .

Criminal proceedings were instituted by the investigation unit of LOC of ORG , but the proceedings were suspended , initially on DATE and again on DATE , on the ground that the perpetrators of the attack had not been identified . When the proceedings resumed for the last time in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the investigating officer , PERSON , indicated to the victims that they should not expect an outcome anytime in DATE . In spite of CARDINAL reminders addressed to the NORP Procurator General , the last of which was dated DATE , no action was taken on these complaints .

NORP The applicants set out the proceedings in chronological order .

By orders of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE , CARDINAL applicants were recognised as civil parties by LOC of the ORG ’s investigation unit ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) – Mr PERSON and PERSON for physical and non - pecuniary damage , Mr PERSON for physical and pecuniary damage , PERSON for pecuniary damage , PERSON for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and PERSON for physical damage and Mr PERSON for physical , non - pecuniary and pecuniary damage .

On DATE the case was referred back to the GPE police for further investigation . On DATE it was referred to the public prosecutor ’s office in LOC . On DATE it was submitted to the GPE public prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the lawyer for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , ORG , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG complained to the GPE prosecutor , alleging that their case had been unnecessarily sent from CARDINAL department to another . He also complained that the public prosecutor ’s office had not kept him , as their lawyer , informed of developments .

On DATE the same lawyer submitted a complaint to the GPE city prosecutor and to the Procurator General about the failure to bring criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of the attack . He claimed that this impunity was encouraging other acts of violence .

On DATE the GPE city prosecutor ’s office referred the case to the city police . The police investigator , PERSON . stated that he was an NORP believer and could not be impartial in the case .

Nonetheless , on DATE Mr Kh . proceeded with identification and cross - examination of CARDINAL individuals , including Mr PERSON , applicant PERSON presumed attacker . During questioning , PERSON again threatened this applicant , who identified PERSON and another individual as the persons who had attacked him .

On DATE Mr Kh . informed Mr DATE that , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE , he himself had been placed under investigation on a charge of participation in the attack .

On DATE , CARDINAL of Father PERSON ’s supporters ( Ms PERSON and PERSON ) were also placed under investigation on suspicion of having burnt religious literature .

On DATE the criminal proceedings instituted following the PERSON attack were suspended by the LOC investigation unit on account of a failure to identify its perpetrators . This decision was not served on the applicants , which meant that it was impossible for them to challenge it before the courts

DATE . On DATE , the lawyer mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL sent a letter to the Procurator General complaining that the perpetrators of the attack had still not been punished , DATE after proceedings had been instituted .

On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was set aside by the GPE prosecution service and the criminal proceedings were resumed . The applicants were not informed .

On DATE the proceedings were again suspended , on the ground that it had proved impossible to identify the presumed perpetrators . The applicants were not informed . On DATE that decision was approved by ORG .

In the meantime , having been placed under investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , Mr PERSON was accused of having committed acts endangering public order during the attack in question . In particular , he was charged with having “ used an object as a weapon ” against another person .

On DATE the criminal trial of Mr DATE and CARDINAL of Father PERSON ’s supporters ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) began at ORG in GPE . CARDINAL of the defendants confirmed that she had burned books , as her faith and Father PERSON had directed her to . She asserted that she was prepared to kill on behalf of the NORP faith .

In TIME a group of believers led by Father PERSON burst into the courtroom . They assaulted the Jehovah ’s Witnesses , journalists and the foreign observers who were present in the courtroom . The attackers were equipped with iron crosses and used them as weapons . They took control of the courtroom . The court imposed no penalties on the believers who had occupied the courtroom by force .

This attack was filmed and the recording was broadcast on the LOC and GPE channels . The recording of a television news programme , broadcast on DATE ( and submitted by the applicants to the ORG ) shows that , on DATE , the attacks took place within the courtroom . Father PERSON can be seen entering the court during the hearing with CARDINAL of his supporters ( CARDINAL , according to the reporter ) , who are carrying a large white cross , icons and a bell which one of the attackers ( Mr PERSON , according to the applicants ) is pealing , while the others attack the GPE ’s Witnesses , their lawyers and the foreign observers . The victims are punched out of the courtroom . On DATE Mr D.P. and PERSON , CARDINAL human rights activists , were kicked outside the courtroom and Mr PERSON lawyers were attacked .

At the close of this trial on DATE , Mr DATE was found guilty of having committed acts endangering public order during the attack against the ORG on DATE and given a suspended sentence of CARDINAL PERSON imprisonment for having caused minor injuries to Mr PERSON and to another member of Father PERSON ’s group .

On DATE , the judge decided not to determine the guilt of Father PERSON ’s CARDINAL supporters and to return the part of the case which concerned them for further investigation , particularly with a view to determining the ownership and value of the literature which was destroyed , and the legal status of the entity which had assembled the GPE ’s Witnesses for the meeting on DATE .

On DATE ORG overturned the judgment convicting Mr PERSON and sent the case back for further investigation .

On DATE ORG quashed the appeal court ’s judgment and acquitted Mr PERSON . In its judgment , ORG considered it “ established ” that , on DATE , Father PERSON ’s group had gone to the Gldani premises on its own initiative and that a confrontation had taken place between “ persons of differing religious convictions . During that confrontation , several individuals had been injured and religious literature belonging to the Jehovah ’s Witnesses had been burnt ” . ORG found that the PERSON meeting had not represented any danger to public order . It established that the authorities had not imposed any restrictive measure in that connection and that , consequently , Father PERSON had had no grounds for interfering with Mr NORP Arabidze ’s exercise of his right as guaranteed by LAW .

In the meantime , on DATE , CARDINAL volumes of petitions demanding protection for ORG were delivered to the administration of the NORP President . The attack against the applicants and other acts of religiously - motivated violence were brought to the attention of the Head of ORG . By an order of DATE , the President ordered PERSON , ORG and ORG to take special measures to put an end to religiouslymotivated crimes , identify their perpetrators and punish those responsible .

On DATE , after examining the complaints concerning acts of violence perpetrated “ for years ” by Father PERSON , ORG decided to join them and ordered that the case file ( no . CARDINAL ) be investigated . On DATE Father PERSON was placed under investigation on a charge of organising collective actions which endangered public order and of participating in such actions ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) , and on a charge of illegally preventing the conduct of religious rites ( LAW ) .

On DATE the investigator responsible for the case applied to the Vake - Saburtalo Court of First Instance seeking to have Father PERSON placed in pre - trial detention . The court did not allow this application and imposed a less onerous preventative measure , namely judicial supervision .

Following a letter of DATE in which the ORG lawyer requested information as to which department held the case file and what progress had been made with the case , the ORG lawyer was informed on DATE that the proceedings had again been resumed . He learned at this point that they had been suspended on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE , PERSON and PERSON PERSON , applicants , were also informed in writing that the proceedings had been resumed .

On DATE the investigator informed the GPE lawyer that he would not have time to examine the case before DATE .

On DATE several cases were severed from case file no . CARDINAL in order to be investigated under file no . DATE ( an attack in the ORG ’s office , an attack against the newspaper Rezonansi and others ) . Father PERSON and PERSON were charged by the GPE prosecutor ’s office in connection with those cases .

The applicants stated that , in the programme “ QUANTITY ” , broadcast on “ Rustavi-CARDINAL ” in DATE , a journalist interviewed Father PERSON and commented that he had been seen entering the building of ORG on several occasions . Father PERSON replied :

“ ... No , not the ORG ... Except in connection with an attack against ORG . They thought I was going to do something else , so I went to explain that it had been to go to PERSON to attack the Witnesses . That was the only time ... I always warn them in advance . Of course I do , and if they are brave enough , they join me . If they do n’t support me , they will get what they deserve . ”

On DATE , in an interview broadcast on “ Rustavi-CARDINAL ” , Father PERSON stated :

“ I categorically warn the entire population of GPE , and especially the representatives of the GPE ’s Witnesses sect , that they must not meet together and hold their NORP meetings . Although I have been forbidden from going to see them as I did in the past in order to prevent their meetings , I declare publicly that I myself will not appear , but the members of my parish will come and that , starting DATE , terrible pogroms will begin . We will do this because they have been parachuted by unsavoury and anti - NORP foreign forces in order to destroy GPE . For that reason , they can no longer be tolerated . ”

DATE . In addition to the Gldani attack at the centre of these proceedings , the applicants described several other attacks carried out by Father PERSON and his group , with a view to illustrating the general context in which the GPE ’s Witnesses were obliged to live . In particular , they referred to the attacks of CARDINAL and DATE in GPE and PERSON in which , according to the applicants , representatives of the ORG played a direct role ( see PERSON and CARDINAL Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , application pending ) ; the attack in the office of the PERSON of the Republic on DATE ; the attack on a meeting of ORG , held on DATE in a private individual ’s home on the PERSON alley , GPE ; the attack on FAC on DATE during their meeting in a private home in the LOC district of GPE ; the attack on GPE ’s Witnesses meeting on CARDINAL and DATE in a private residence in GPE ; the attack on DATE against the GPE ’s Witnesses’ new site on Verkhana alley , GPE ; the setting alight , in TIME of CARDINAL DATE , of a house belonging to a family of GPE ’s Witnesses , of which there remained only a large pile of ashes and rubble , etc .

Father PERSON stated in connection with certain of those attacks that he had warned the police in advance . Each attack involved the destruction of LOC and of religious literature .

The applicants considered that these acts of violence were the direct result of the authorities’ negligence regarding the attack carried out against their ORG on DATE . In their opinion , by permitting this dangerous precedent of religiously - motivated aggression to occur with no response from the relevant authorities , the ORG had permitted the situation to become accepted as the status quo and repeated acts of violence to take place with impunity . The applicants alleged that on several occasions ORG had confiscated religious literature arriving for the Jehovah ’s Witnesses from abroad and that landlords refused to rent out meeting rooms for fear that their property would be ransacked in the event of an attack .

NORP In total , the GPE ’s Witnesses alleged that they had been subjected to CARDINAL attacks DATE and that CARDINAL complaints had been lodged with the relevant authorities . No careful and serious investigation had been carried out into any of those complaints .

Resolution DATE ) of FAC of ORG :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG ... is also strongly concerned about repeated cases of violence by NORP extremists against believers of minority religious groups , such as ORG and NORP .

The ORG urges the NORP authorities to conduct a proper investigation into all cases of human rights violations and the abuse of power , to prosecute their perpetrators irrespective of their functions , and to adopt radical measures to bring definitively the country into line with the principles and standards of ORG . ”

Conclusions and recommendations of ORG , dated DATE :

“ The ORG expresses concern about ... the instances of mob violence against religious minorities , in particular , GPE ’s witnesses , and the failure of the police to intervene and take appropriate action despite the existence of the legal tools to prevent and prosecute such acts and the risk of this apparent impunity resulting in such acts becoming widespread ; ... ”

The Chair of the delegation of ORG between ORG and GPE , Ms PERSON , stated on CARDINAL DATE :

“ On behalf of ORG delegation I wish to express my consternation of the latest incident in the series of violent attacks on journalists , human rights activists and ORG which occurred in a courtroom in GPE on DATE . I regard this kind of act as an outrageous attack against the fundamental human rights to which GPE is committed as a signatory of ORG . May I reiterate the position of the GPE - Georgia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee of DATE condemning religious intolerance and nationalist extremism which are incompatible with the long tradition of religious and cultural tolerance in GPE . ”

According to the DATE Annual Report by the PERSON for GPE :

“ ... freedom of conscience is among the rights which are most brutally violated in GPE . We are talking about the non - traditional religious organizations , which are dismissed as sects in GPE and assailed and persecuted every way ... I am not dismissing or diminishing the role and influence of ORG in our country . ORG has always been and will continue to be the fundament on which NORP statehood and , so to say , the very existence of the nation , rest . However , GPE has always taken pride in her religious tolerance . It has become a typical example that the temples of different confessions stand and operate almost side by side in the capital of GPE . Another shining example of tolerance specific to the NORP nation – the good neighbourly relations and friendship that exist between the NORP and the NORP have DATE . Against such seemingly tolerant background , it is really intolerable to put up with the current tide of extremism against religious minorities . We mean the multiple acts of violence to which the members of such unconventional religious groups as GPE ’s Witnesses ( above all ) , NORP , PERSON followers , and others fell victim ... ”

NORP In its DATE Annual Report , ORG stated :

“ The NORP authorities allowed organized groups of civilian militants to conduct a sustained campaign of violent assaults and intimidation against members of several non - NORP religious faiths , chiefly GPE ’s Witnesses , PERSON , and NORP . The assailants broke up religious services , beat congregants , ransacked or looted homes and property , and destroyed religious literature . PERSON , a defrocked NORP priest who led most of the attacks , justified them by claiming that charismatic faiths were defiling GPE ’s nationhood and religious tradition . He boasted of receiving assistance from the police and security services . Emboldened by inaction or complicity of prosecutors and police , and by a DATE ORG decision to deregister the GPE ’s Witnesses as a legal entity in GPE , the frequency of mob attacks rose in DATE ... ” .

DATE . On DATE several non - governmental organisations – ORG , ORG of GPE , ORG , ORG , ORG , Former ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG of ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG – GPE issued a joint declaration stating :

“ During DATE we are evidencing massive infringement of freedom of religion and persecution of religious minorities . The Government of GPE is completely unable to protect human rights and minorities . Moreover , violation of human rights take place with the silent consent of the ORG , very often with its inspiration and sometimes with active participation of ORG officials , especially those of law enforcement agencies . On the basis of the aforesaid , it should be noted without exaggeration that religious minorities in GPE face permanent danger , intimidation and terror ... , GPE ’s Witnesses ... have suffered attacks , persecution , bodily insult and harassment . Frequent pogroms take place in their offices and churches . Their literature , holy objects of worship and other belongings were destroyed ... The most significant pogroms took place in GPE , GPE and PERSON . Police were aware of these actions without any reaction or were participating in them , while prosecutors and judges convicted the victims . PERSON has openly confirmed on TV that he notifies police and security in advance of carrying out his pogroms . Deputy Minister of ORG declared at a Parliamentary hearing that the ORG should restrict the activities of non - traditional religious sects . Similar declarations have been made by other senior government officials DATE for example , the GPE police chief ... ”

“ The ORG recognises the special role of ORG in NORP history . Simultaneously , however , it declares complete freedom of religious belief and confession , as well as the independence of the church from the ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to freedom of speech , thought , conscience , religion and belief .

It is prohibited to persecute an individual for his or her thoughts , beliefs or religion and to oblige an individual to express his or her opinions about them .

The rights provided for in this Article may not be restricted unless their exercise infringes upon the rights of others . ”

“ Public prosecution shall be conducted with regard to all categories of criminal offences .

Public prosecution shall be conducted by an investigative body , a prosecutor and an investigating officer , who shall institute proceedings on the basis of information provided by natural or legal persons , notification from the authorities and nongovernmental organisations and information imparted by the mass media .

The investigative body , prosecutor and investigating officer shall be obliged to institute proceedings in all cases where there is evidence of a criminal offence , to take the measures necessary to establish the truth and identify the perpetrator of the offence , and prevent an innocent person from being placed under investigation . ”

“ With regard to the criminal offences provided for in ORG CARDINAL [ intentional minor damage to health ] , CARDINAL [ physical violence ] and CARDINAL [ false accusation ] ... , criminal proceedings shall be instituted only on the basis of a complaint by the victim and , in the event of a friendly settlement between the parties , this complaint must be dropped . ”

“ Prosecution may be suspended if ... the person to be placed under investigation can not be identified , and shall remain suspended until such time as that person is identified or the prosecution is time - barred . ”

“ The investigating body is a ORG body or a senior representative of the civil service which shall have jurisdiction to conduct the initial investigative measures and to carry out , in the context of the pre - trial investigation and at the instruction of the investigating officer or the prosecutor , an investigative measure or any other act or to participate in the conduct of such acts .

The investigating bodies are : ( a ) the departments of ORG and its sub - directorates in respect of all criminal cases , except where DATE within the jurisdiction of other investigating bodies ; ... ”

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL

“ The complaint is to be lodged with the body responsible for criminal proceedings or the state employee who , in accordance with the law , has jurisdiction to examine it and to reach a decision ... ”

A complaint against an action or decision by the investigator , investigating body , investigating office or head of the investigating body is to be submitted to the relevant prosecutor . A complaint against an action or decision by the prosecutor shall be submitted to the prosecutor who has hierarchical superiority ... ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ The parties to the proceedings may apply to a court against an action or decision by the investigating officer or investigator if the prosecutor dismisses their complaint or submit that complaint directly to the court ... ”

“ In all cases where evidence of an offence occurs , the investigator , with the agreement of the prosecutor , is obliged , as far as their powers permit , to institute criminal proceedings . ”

“ Information concerning the fact of a criminal offence having been committed may be submitted in writing or orally .

Information thus submitted shall be examined promptly . Where the presumed perpetrator of an offence has already been arrested , verification of the truth of the information alleging that a criminal offence has been committed and institution of prosecution must be carried out within TIME following the person being apprehended by the police or another investigating body . In other cases , institution of proceedings may also be preceded by verification the truthfulness of the information received , but this must not last DATE . ”

ORG and CARDINAL of LAW provides for sanctions , including prison terms , for offences such as unlawfully preventing the performance of religious rites using violence or the threat of violence , and for unlawfully preventing the activities of a religious organisation using violence or the threat of violence .

In accordance with LAW ( a ) of this LAW , the limitation period for the offences set out in ORG CARDINAL [ intentional minor impairment of health ] , CARDINAL [ physical violence ] , CARDINAL and CARDINAL is DATE .


Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano

Following the financial crisis in the former ORG , as well as the subsequent collapse of the banking system in DATE , in DATE , DATE and DATE GPE , as well as the respondent ORG itself , adopted specific legislation accepting the conversion of foreign currency deposits in certain banks , including the PERSON in GPE , into a public debt . The legislation set the time - frame ( DATE ) and the amounts , including interest , to be paid back to the LOC former clients ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The applicants are Mr PERSON ( the first applicant ) , at the time a national of ORG and GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG , and Mr PERSON ( the second applicant ) , a LOC national , who was born in DATE and has a registered residence in GPE . The second applicant was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a retired lawyer from GPE .

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

On a number of separate occasions the applicant deposited a certain amount of his foreign currency savings with the PERSON in GPE ( GPE ) , the Inos bank in GPE ) and the NORP bank in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant was informed that his savings , including interest , had been converted into a public debt pursuant to the DATE and DATE legislation and that the method of its payment would be further regulated by LOC law , which was to be adopted shortly ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE GPE passed the LAW on the Citizens’ Foreign - Currency Savings , envisaging that the savings would be released gradually , in DATE instalments , by DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

As of DATE the applicant appears to be receiving regularly his savings in specified DATE instalments .

On an unspecified date the applicant sought the release of his funds deposited with the Inos bank . In DATE the insolvency committee of the bank contested the debt and instructed the applicant to initiate civil proceedings in order to have the debt established . There is no information in the case file as to whether the applicant actually did so .

There is no information in the case file as to what happened to the funds deposited with the ORG bank .

In DATE the applicant deposited CARDINAL NORP PERSON in total with the PERSON in GPE with the stipulated interest rate of PERCENT .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the ORG seeking the release of his funds .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ruled against the applicant stating that his funds were being released gradually in DATE instalments as specified in the Act on the ORG DATE .

On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG ( ORG ) and ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE upheld this judgment .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL provided that all foreign - currency savings deposited with the “ authorised banks ” , including the GPE in GPE , before DATE were to become a public debt .

Under LAW responsibility in that respect was to be fully honoured by DATE through the payment of specified amounts , plus interest , and according to a certain time - frame .

Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL the banks’ clients could make use of their deposits converted into Government bonds in order to pay taxes or , in advance of the said time - frame , for a number of purposes such as buying ORG property or taking part in the privatisation of ORG - owned businesses and banks . The former clients of the banks in question could also sell the said bonds , such trading being exempted from taxation .

This Act repealed the LAW described above . It modified the time - frame for honouring the debt in question ( from DATE to DATE ) and specified amended amounts , plus PERCENT interest , to be paid DATE . The DATE amounts were ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL in DATE , while the exact amount of the remaining instalments was to be calculated applying a geometrical progression rate of PERCENT and a corresponding coefficient for DATE , the coefficients themselves also increasing DATE . The minimum such amount could not be less than LAW .

Pursuant to LAW , the ORG clients could make use of their deposits converted into Government bonds in order to pay taxes or , under LAW and DATE , in advance of the said time - frame , for a number of purposes such as buying ORG property , taking part in the privatisation of ORG - owned businesses and banks , as well as , under certain conditions and up to a specified amount , for the payment of medical treatment , medication and funeral costs . In accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the former clients of the banks in question could also sell the said bonds , such trading being exempted from taxation .

This Act was subsequently amended on CARDINAL occasions , but these amendments concerned peripheral issues unrelated to the ORG above - described status .

Article CARDINAL , inter alia , defines “ foreign - currency savings ” as all foreign currency deposited by natural persons with one of the “ authorised banks based in the territory of GPE ” as recognised as a public debt of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL provide that GPE shall honour this debt by DATE , and specify the amounts , plus PERCENT interest , to be paid DATE in CARDINAL . The DATE amounts were ORG CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL in DATE , while the exact amount of the remaining instalments shall be calculated applying a geometrical progression rate of PERCENT and a corresponding coefficient for DATE , the coefficients themselves also increasing DATE . The minimum such amount may not be less than LAW should the instalment be less than that .

Pursuant to LAW , the banks’ clients may , in advance of the said time - frame and under certain conditions , make use of their deposits converted into Government bonds in order to pay taxes , buy ORG property or take part in the privatisation of ORG - owned businesses .

Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL former clients of the banks in question can also sell the said bonds to other natural or legal persons . Such trading is exempt from property taxation and capital gains taxation .

Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL LAW provide that the Government of GPE shall adopt additional technical regulations concerning the bonds in question .

This Act entered into force on DATE and its amendments on DATE .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that this LAW shall regulate the reimbursement of foreign - currency savings deposited by individuals residing in GPE with the authorised banks based outside GPE , which funds were then further deposited with ORG ( ORG banka GPE ) .

Article CARDINAL provides that GPE shall honour this debt by DATE , and specifies the amounts , plus PERCENT interest , to be paid DATE in CARDINAL . The first instalment , to be paid within DATE as of this Act ’s entry into force , was ORG CARDINAL , the second instalment due in DATE was ORG CARDINAL , while the exact amount of the remaining instalments shall be calculated by multiplying the foreign - currency deposits with a corresponding coefficient for DATE , the coefficients themselves increasing DATE . The minimum such amount may not be less than LAW , except for DATE .

DATE explicitly provides that the foreign - currency sums deposited with , inter alia , the Inos bank in PERSON and “ other private banks ” are not considered foreign - currency savings within the meaning of this Act .


CASE OF KRONE VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG (No. 3) v. AUSTRIA

Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG , a limited liability company with its registered office in GPE , is the owner of the DATE newspaper ORG published by ORG Zeitungs- und ORG ( “ the publisher ” ) .

On DATE and DATE the GPE edition of the PERSON published an advertisement for subscriptions to the newspaper in which it compared its DATE subscription rates with those of another regional newspaper , ORG . According to the advertisement , the PERSON was “ the best ” local newspaper .

On DATE ORG applied to ORG ( PERSON ) for a preliminary injunction ( einstweilige GPE ) under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON gegen den unlauteren PERSON ) against the applicant company and the publisher . It requested that the applicant company and the publisher be ordered to refrain from publishing the advertisement .

On DATE ORG issued a preliminary injunction against the applicant company and the publisher to preserve the status quo during the proceedings . On appeal by the applicant company and the publisher , ORG ( ORG ) quashed ORG decision . The court stated , inter alia , that the CARDINAL newspapers were competitors in the same market and for the same readership . On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) , on appeal by ORG , issued a preliminary injunction . The court found that the advertisement was misleading . It considered that ORG was a “ quality newspaper ” and the PERSON was not , and that this difference was not necessarily known to readersNeue GPE “ the best ” local newspaper amounted to disparagement of ORG .

In the main proceedings which followed , ORG ordered the applicant company and the publisher to refrain from publishing the advertisement as long as it did not provide at the same time information which made it possible to avoid any generally pejorative value statement or any other risk of misleading readers . Secondly , it ordered them not to refer to the sales price of ORG as “ expensive ” . Thirdly , it ordered them to refrain from comparing the sales prices of the CARDINAL newspapers unless they indicated at the same time the differences in their respective reporting styles , in particular as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics , economy , culture , science , health , environmental issues and law , and referred also to the PERSON as an entertainment - orientated communications medium and ORG as a medium mainly geared to information . Lastly , it ordered them to publish the decision .

On DATE ORG , allowing in part an appeal by the applicant company and the publisher , confined the third branch of the injunction to the order that the applicant company and the publisher refrain from comparing the sales prices of the CARDINAL newspapers without indicating the differences in their reporting styles as regards coverage of foreign or domestic politics , economy , culture , science , health , environmental issues and law . It confirmed the lower court 's decision as to the remaining branches of the injunction . The court considered that it was a matter of common knowledge that both newspapers were competing in the same market . As to the differences in quality between the newspapers and the argument that readers were not familiar with these differences , ORG referred to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant company and the publisher lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision , relying on LAW .

On DATE ORG declared their appeal on points of law inadmissible . The decision was served on the parties on DATE .

The relevant sections of LAW read as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ Any person who in the course of business commits , for purposes of competition , acts contrary to honest practices , may be ordered to desist from further engaging in those acts and held liable for damages .

Section CARDINAL

Any person who in the course of business , for purposes of competition , makes declarations that could be misleading about commercial conditions , especially on the quality , origin , method of production or calculation of the prices of single goods or services or the whole stock , on price - lists , about the manner and sources of supply , about the possession of awards , about the occasion or purpose of the sale or about the quantity of the stock , may be ordered to desist from further making those declarations and , if he knew or must have known that they were likely to mislead , held liable for damages . However , comparing prices in advertisements is authorised , if it is not contrary to this section or LAW . ”


CASE OF BECVAR AND BECVAROVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Violation of Art. 6-1;Inadmissible under P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

NORP In DATE the applicants bought from the ORG a house , which had been seized after the emigration of the former owners . The applicants made an initial payment of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL by DATE , the remaining sum of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid in CARDINAL DATE instalments . However , the purchase was without risk of forfeiture if such an instalment remained unpaid .

Pursuant to the Extra - Judicial Rehabilitation Act ( hereinafter “ the LAW ” ) , in DATE the former owners brought an action against the applicants for the restitution of their property . In DATE the applicants were ordered to restore the property to the former owners . In DATE the applicants were ordered to vacate the house within DATE of the coming into force of the first instance judgment without receiving compensatory accommodation .

NORP In DATE ORG ordered the execution of its judgment for the applicants ' eviction . In DATE ORG upheld the order . In DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' request to suspend the execution . In DATE ORG upheld ORG dismissal .

On DATE the applicants were informed that the eviction would take place on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed their request to suspend the eviction . On DATE , the applicants ' lawyer was served with ORG dismissal of DATE and , on DATE , she filed an appeal which is still pending before ORG .

Apart from the CARDINAL aforesaid proceedings , the former owners instituted proceedings against the applicants for the illegal use of the house since DATE , seeking payment of outstanding rent in the amount of CZK CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ORG ) . In these proceedings , which have been pending since DATE , the applicants sought to recover damages to compensate for expenditure invested in material improvements to the house , filing a counterclaim ( kompenzační námitka ) for CZE CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) on DATE , apparently under section DATE ) of the LAW . This provides that , if the value of the property has increased so that its price , as assessed on DATE of the submission of the written request by the entitled person , substantially exceeds the original purchase price of the property , it is left to the discretion of the entitled person whether he or she will request financial compensation or the return of the property . If he or she insists on the surrender of the property , the entitled person must compensate the person obliged to return the property for the difference between the CARDINAL prices .

In DATE the applicants lodged with ORG a request for reimbursement of the purchase price , pursuant to LAW , which entitles physical persons who are under an obligation to restore property to recover the price they had paid when acquiring such property from the ORG . On DATE , upon the ORG 's request of CARDINAL DATE , they submitted additional documents . On DATE their lawyer informed the ORG that , on DATE , she had obtained the document of the ORG ( městský úřad ) confirming that the applicants had so far paid CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) of the purchase price . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the applicants ' lawyer that they would deal with her clients ' request for reimbursement of the purchase price on reception of the restitution agreement ( dohoda o vydání věci ) which , together with other documents , had not yet been adduced by the applicants . They were further requested to provide evidence of the amount of the purchase price which they had already paid . The applicants ' lawyer replied on DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged an action for damages against ORG and ORG ( okresní úřad ) , seeking compensation in the amount of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) for damage caused by the allegedly erroneous action of a public authority by virtue of LAW , no . TIME . The damages which they requested corresponded to the difference between the original purchase price ( CZK PERSON CARDINAL ) and the price which should now be paid for a house of the same standard . By instituting this action , the applicants further sought to recover damages to compensate for the second applicant 's loss of business LOC and customers ( she is a dressmaker ) , for the betterment of the land on which the house had been built and for the loss of accommodation .

On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and ORG presented their comments on the action .

On DATE the applicants ' lawyer sent documents issued by the ORG on DATE proving that the applicants had already paid CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicants ' lawyer sent an additional document to ORG concerning their request for reimbursement of the purchase price .

On DATE the applicants extended their action , also directing it against the Town of Svoboda nad Úpou and ORG . The CARDINAL new defendants commented upon the action on DATE and DATE respectively .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicants ' lawyer informed ORG that the property at issue had been restored to the former owners in accordance with the judgment . She said that her clients did not agree with the judgment and would continue to pay DATE instalments towards the purchase price . She stated that she would inform the ORG whether she wished to have the purchase price reimbursed or whether she would wait .

On DATE the applicants were invited to submit observations on the arguments of ORG . They did so on DATE .

By a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicants ' lawyer that , inter alia , it had all the documents necessary for the settlement of their request for reimbursement of the purchase price under LAW of the LAW . Nevertheless , it asked the lawyer to submit an additional document and to specify whether the sum of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , corresponding to the part of the purchase price which the applicants had paid so far , had to be reimbursed and , if so , to which bank account .

At a hearing of DATE , ORG invited the applicants to rectify certain shortcomings in their action and to specify which of the CARDINAL defendants in fact represented the interests of the ORG . On DATE the court urgently reminded the applicants to submit this information .

On DATE ORG , upon the applicants ' request received on DATE , adjourned the proceedings pending ORG decision on the applicants ' appeal on points of law concerning their eviction from the house .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings for damages , the decision of ORG of DATE rejecting the applicants ' appeal having become effective on DATE .

On DATE the court invited the applicants to rectify , within DATE , certain shortcomings in their action , to specify who of the CARDINAL defendants in fact represented the ORG , and to quantify their claim for damages . On DATE ORG requested the court to take a decision in this respect .

On DATE the applicants rectified their action . However , on DATE , they were requested to rectify further shortcomings and supplement their action .

On DATE , upon ORG invitation of DATE , the applicants specified their arguments on which they based their action for damages . On DATE they adduced further documentary evidence , proposing that ORG ensure the submission of certain additional documents .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that the applicants had requested to have the purchase price reimbursed but that , according to their lawyer , they had not complied with the court judgment to return the house , had continued to pay the DATE instalments and , therefore , had not insisted on the settlement of the case , i.e. on the reimbursement of the purchase price . ORG assured the court that it was ready to reimburse the amount due to the applicants .

On DATE a hearing was held by ORG , and was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the applicants submitted their supplementary observations on the merits of their action for damages .

The hearing held on DATE was adjourned to DATE , when ORG decided that the proceedings concerning the payment of the purchase price , with interest for the delays in payment since DATE , would be considered separately . It dismissed the remainder of the applicants ' claim for damages .

On DATE , ORG reimbursed the whole purchase price of CZK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to the applicants who , on DATE , withdrew the relevant part of their action for damages .

On DATE ORG , upon the applicants ' appeal of DATE , upheld the merits of ORG judgment .

On DATE the applicants filed an appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) in ORG ( PERSON ) . These proceedings are still pending .

On DATE ORG , after having held a hearing on DATE , stayed the proceedings as to the payment of the purchase price . It ordered ORG to pay interest for the delays in payment since DATE within DATE of the coming into force of the judgment .

The defendant lodged an appeal against this judgment . The appellate proceedings are still pending .


Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - award

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

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The second applicant was born in DATE and was resident in GPE at the time of his death . The applicant company is based in GPE . The first applicant is a journalist and the second applicant was the editor - in - chief of the newspaper called Ilta - Sanomat which was published at the time of the events by the publishing company GPE . On DATE GPE transferred all its business relating to the publishing of GPE , including court cases , to the applicant company . The newspaper has a circulation of CARDINAL .

On DATE , during the presidential election campaign , the applicant company published a short article , written by the first applicant and approved by the second applicant , entitled “ The ex - husband of [ GPE ] and the person in charge of communications for the PERSON campaign have found each other ” .

The article stated that ORG , who had separated from his wife , had found a new partner , PERSON wife was known as a political reporter in the election - related TV debates and previously as a news reader . It was mentioned in the article that ORG was in charge of communications for the PERSON campaign and that , in her civilian life , PERSON was the communications manager in a specified pension insurance company and a mother .

The article went on to state that , before joining the campaign , ORG had been active in the same political party as ORG and that she had been involved in some “ insider committees ” . The article continued to note that PERSON worked as a director for ORG , the company promoting NORP exports , and that in DATE he had been posted in GPE , where his wife had followed him , taking leave from her own job . The article stated that PERSON and his wife had CARDINAL children and that they had separated in DATE . Pictures of ORG and ORG 's wife were included in the article .

On DATE O.T. asked the police to investigate the matter . She requested compensation for suffering and distress and for financial losses .

On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicants under LAW , section CARDINAL(a ) , of LAW . PERSON concurred with the charges and pursued a compensation claim against all the applicants , which was joined to the criminal charges .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the applicants for having violated ORG 's private life . The first applicant was sentenced to a fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) and the second applicant to a fine of LAW . The applicants were jointly ordered to pay damages to O.T. for suffering amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and her legal fees and witness costs amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , both sums with interest .

NORP The court found that O.T. , despite her position in the presidential campaign , was not a public figure and that her relationship with ORG was not such that the applicants would have been allowed to write about it without her consent . The information published , however accurate , was not necessary for examining any matter of interest to society .

The applicants appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) claiming that , due to her position in the presidential campaign and as a local politician , PERSON was a so - called public figure , that the facts in the article were true and that the issue was important for public discussion since one of the main focuses of the presidential campaign was family values . PERSON worked for a candidate who was a married father of CARDINAL children , in contrast to the other candidate , who was a single mother cohabiting without being married . Hence , PERSON 's extramarital affair was of importance to the public . The affair had been public , thus information about it could not be private . The information was connected to ORG 's public function and was necessary in order to discuss an important matter for society .

Following an oral hearing on DATE , ORG upheld ORG judgment on DATE . It found that the information published had had no importance for society but only served the general curiosity of the public .

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .

On DATE ORG granted the applicants leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment as far as the applicants were concerned and ordered them jointly to pay ORG 's legal fees amounting to ORG interest . It found , inter alia , the following :

“ ... ORG states that information concerning emotional relationships , dating and family life undoubtedly fall within the scope of private life and even its core areas .

Evaluation of the content of the article

ORG states that the contents of the article do not support the defendants ' allegation that the purpose of the article was to describe the political co - operation between PERSON and PERSON The expressions used in the article , according to which ORG and ORG “ found each other ” and “ ORG has found a new partner ” , together with the disclosure in the same connection of ORG 's divorce and that O.T. was a mother , are not conducive to creating a conception of political co - operation , but it is obvious that the intention was to refer to a personal love affair . Even though the article does mention PERSON 's and ORG 's political affiliations and ORG 's function in the presidential election campaign , there is nothing else political in the article . Nor when viewed as a whole , the article does not give an impression that it aimed to tell about a relationship that was politically important . Its crucial aim had clearly been to spread information about an intimate relationship of public persons .

Significance of ORG 's function

ORG states that ORG has served at the relevant time a politically important function which involved publicity and because of which her person as an official in the presidential candidate 's inner circle has attracted justified interest . Another question is , however , whether ORG 's position has been such that also issues relating to her private life could have been revealed in public without her consent .

O.T has served the campaign as a hired expert without herself pursuing political office or other public function . As put forward by the defendants , ORG 's appointment as the person in charge of communications had probably been affected , in addition to her professional merits , by considerations of a political nature . This does not , however , change the fact that in spite of some other former political positions of trust occupied by her , PERSON was not known as a politician prior to being employed in the electoral campaign nor has she , after having become a temporary campaign assistant , stood as a candidate for any political office . ..... PERSON was not a civil servant but an assistant to a political candidate . Nor does it follow from the political considerations of her recruitment that , considering the nature of the campaign , the protection of her private life would for this reason have become similarly restricted as in respect of the politician she was assisting .

ORG 's function as an official of the presidential campaign was not , either , the kind that would have made her obliged in her private life to stand for or become committed to the values advanced by the candidate . Even if the communication between ORG and ORG could also have had professional content and significance as to ORG 's function , the intimate nature of the relationship had nothing to do with that aspect of the matter . The extra - marital relationship was not , at any rate , a consideration that would have had an impact on ORG 's capacities to perform her function as a communications expert hired for the election campaign . .... The consideration mentioned by O.T. that the reason behind the publication of the article would have been to affect the campaign , has no relevance to whether the defendants have been guilty of violating ORG 's private life . The offender 's possible political motivation or PERSON 's assumption about it have no relevance to the justification of the act in case there were no legal grounds for disclosing information concerning private life .

On the above - mentioned grounds ORG considers that the disclosure in the media of an extra - marital relationship of a person in PERSON 's position or exposure in public of the morals of her private life was not justified by the public 's need to receive information nor by the important interests of society . There was thus no legal right to disclose information about ORG 's private life in the article on the basis of her functions .

Significance of the position of other persons mentioned in the article

As mentioned in the preparatory works for LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW , the restrictions on the protection of private life on the basis of a person 's position or function only applies to that person him or herself . Even though it would be permissible to write about the private life of a politician or a performing artist , this can not be extended to such person 's relatives , acquaintances or other outsiders ( HE CARDINAL vp , p. CARDINAL ) . ORG states that ORG 's position and the fact that his ex - spouse was known from the television are not issues that could change the above - mentioned conclusion and justify such publication of information about ORG 's private life like in the present case .

Nor has the fact that ORG 's ex - spouse had conducted election debates on television prior to the publishing of the article had any relevance . Even though it is possible that such personal scenario , which is completely irrelevant vis - à - vis the presidential candidates , interests certain public circles more than the content of the election debates and the candidates ' own performance , such satisfying of curiosity is not a fact that would have justified the publishing of information about ORG 's private life . There was thus no legal right to disclose information about ORG 's private life on this ground either .

Claim that the relationship was known of by outsiders

The defendants have also claimed that ORG 's and ORG 's close relationship had been open and visible to outsiders , and that it was known among politicians . ORG states that the protection of private life is not only limited to facts or events that take place in private or in closed events . The fact that an issue of private life is noticeable in a certain event or in public places does not mean as such that it would be left outside the protection of private life ( see for example ORG judgment in the case PERSON v. GPE , judgment of DATE , § § DATE ; and the judgment in the case PERSON , in which the pictures found to violate private life were mostly taken in public places ) . The contrary can also be true if the persons involved clearly show by their behaviour that they want to make the issue public .

Moreover , ORG states that the fact that a piece of information about private life has come to the knowledge of a certain group of persons through their own observations or private gossiping is not a ground that would permit distribution of that information through the media to a wider public without the consent of the person concerned . Publication of such an article in the media is conducive to causing harm and suffering to the person concerned and to his or her close ones , just as ORG has described .

... In the present case it has not been shown that ORG , by being with PERSON at the same events or in public places , would have meant their relationship to be public or that information about it should be freely distributable . PERSON can not be regarded as having performed in a manner that could lead to the conclusion that she , even implicitly , would have given her consent to the distribution of the information written in the article .

Conclusions

On the basis of the above - mentioned , ORG , like the lower instances , has come to the conclusion that the publication of the article violated ORG 's private life . The act was intentional , a fact which has not even been contested before ORG . [ The first and second applicants ] have thus been guilty of invasion of private life , as already held by the lower courts . ..... ”

The outcome of ORG judgment was not unanimous , one of the Justices gave a dissenting opinion . According to him , and taking into account the direct effect of ORG judgments , the exceptions to LAW , section CARDINAL(a ) , of LAW had to be interpreted extensively , both regarding the extent of the political activity and the scope of a matter of interest to society . ORG 's recruitment to the presidential election campaign had attracted political interest due to the fact that her party political background was different from that of the candidate she was assisting . There had been public speculation that , by her appointment , her candidate had tried to attract voters from her party and especially female voters . Even though it could not be said that ORG had , by taking part in the election campaign , become a public figure , she must have understood that , as an important figure in the inner circle of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL candidates , she would also attract public interest . ORG had thus been politically active and this activity had been public . As to the article , the ORG noted that the information about ORG 's private life , even if not strictly relevant to her functions as the communications official , was conducive to contributing to public debate through the fact that family values had been at the centre of the political value debate in the presidential campaign . The article did not only satisfy the curiosity of certain readers but it also contributed to an important matter of public interest as political background information . One could rely on criminal law sanctions in a case of political journalism only exceptionally , namely if freedom of expression was clearly abused . As this was not so in the present case , the ORG did not consider the publication of the article as a punishable act and would have annulled the previous judgments .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of Finland ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag , Act no . MONEY ) provides the following :

“ Everyone has the freedom of expression . Freedom of expression entails the right to express , disseminate and receive information , opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone . More detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an Act . Provisions on restrictions relating to pictorial programmes that are necessary for the protection of children may be laid down by an Act . Documents and recordings in the possession of the authorities are public , unless their publication has for compelling reasons been specifically restricted by an LAW . Everyone has the right of access to public documents and recordings . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW guarantees everyone 's right to private life . According to it ,

“ Everyone 's private life , honour and the sanctity of the home are guaranteed . More detailed provisions on the protection of personal data are laid down by an Act .

The secrecy of correspondence , telephone and other confidential communications is inviolable .

Measures encroaching on the sanctity of the home , and which are necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing basic rights and liberties or for the investigation of crime , may be laid down by an LAW . In addition , provisions concerning limitations of the secrecy of communications which are necessary in the investigation of crimes that jeopardise the security of the individual or society or the sanctity of the home , at trials and security checks , as well as during the deprivation of liberty may be laid down by an LAW . ”

Chapter DATE ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , section CARDINAL(a ) , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen ) read , at the relevant time , as follows :

“ A person who unlawfully , through the use of the mass media or in another similar manner , publicly disseminates information , an insinuation or an image depicting the private life of another person , such as to cause him or her damage or suffering , shall be convicted of invasion of privacy and sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of DATE or to a fine . A publication that deals with a person 's behaviour in a public office or function , in professional life , in a political activity or in another comparable activity , shall not be considered an invasion of privacy if the reporting was necessary for the purpose of dealing with a matter of importance to society . ”

In the travaux préparatoires of the above - mentioned provision ( see government bill HE CARDINAL ) there was no precise definition of private life but matters such as , inter alia , family life , spare time activities , health and relationships and such conduct in socially significant positions that had no significance to the relevant exercise of power , were considered as a part of private life . It was further required that the act might have caused damage or suffering . Such damage might have also been “ immaterial damage , which might have manifested itself in problems with social interaction or respect ” . An ordinary person enjoyed the strongest protection of private life . His or her involvement in an incident of importance to society might have warranted an exception to the protection . In any case , if an offence was of such a kind that it could not be regarded as having social significance , information about that offence was a matter to be protected as belonging to the sphere of private life , otherwise the protection of private life did not restrict publishing . Moreover , the publishing could not be to a greater extent than was necessary . Thus , the necessity of mentioning a person 's name or other description of a person enabling identification was always subject to careful consideration .

In DATE , LAW , section CARDINAL(a ) , of LAW was replaced by LAW , section CARDINAL , ( Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which entered into force on DATE ) . Under the new provision on injury to personal reputation ( yksityiselämää loukkaavan tiedon levittäminen , spridande av information som kränker privatlivet ) a person who unlawfully , through the use of the mass media or in another manner , publicly spreads information , an insinuation or an image of the private life of another person in such a way that the act is conducive to causing that person damage or suffering or subjecting that person to contempt , shall be convicted of injuring personal reputation . However , an act shall not constitute an injury to personal reputation if it concerns the evaluation of that person 's activities in a professional or public capacity and if it is necessary for the purpose of addressing a matter of importance to society .

According to the travaux préparatoires ( see government bill HE CARDINAL ) , the content of the new provision corresponds to the old LAW , section CARDINAL(a ) , of LAW . The amendments and clarifications made to the existing provision were mainly technical . The provision thus still restricts the protection of the private life of persons having important political or economic powers . This restriction , however , applies only to the persons referred to , not to their close friends and family . According to ORG ( lakivaliokunnan mietintö , lagutskottets betänkande PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the purpose of that provision is to permit the dissemination of information on the private life of such persons if the information may be relevant in assessing the performance of their functions .

NORP The government bill HE CARDINAL further provides that in the assessment of interferences with private life , the lawfulness of the interference and the concept of private life are taken into account . A person 's consent to the provision of information has relevance in the assessment of the lawfulness of the interference . Without explicit consent , there is usually no reason to believe that the person in question would have consented to the publication of information relating to private life ( see ORG Report LaVM CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . With regard to the concept of private life , a reference is made to the explanatory works concerning the LAW 's provisions on fundamental rights and to the government bill HE CARDINAL . Moreover , private life is , in particular , protected against dissemination of information which may be correct as such . In order for the act to be punishable , it is necessary that the information concerns the private life of the person in question ( see government bill HE CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Freedom of LAW ( painovapauslaki , tryckfrihetslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that the provisions of LAW applied to the payment of compensation for damage caused by the content of printed material .

LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( vahingonkorvauslaki , skadeståndslagen , Act no . CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL ) stipulates that damages may also be awarded for distress arising inter alia from an offence against liberty , honour , home or private life . Under LAW , section CARDINAL , of the said Act , damages shall constitute compensation for personal injury and damage to property . LAW provides that a person who has suffered personal injury shall be entitled to damages to cover medical costs and other costs arising from the injury , as well as loss of income and maintenance and pain and suffering .

According to the government bill to amend LAW ( HE CARDINAL ) , the maximum amount of compensation for pain and suffering from , inter alia , bodily injuries had in the recent past been MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . In the subsequent government bill to amend LAW ( HE CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , it is stated that no changes to the prevailing level of compensation for suffering are proposed .

ORG decision of DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) concerned the publication in a magazine of an article which had described a pending criminal case in which the accused had been charged with , inter alia , aggravated fraud . The article had been illustrated , without the accused 's permission , with another article published previously in another magazine and with a picture of the accused published in that connection . The accused 's name had been given in the text of the article and she could be recognised from the picture . ORG found that the criminal case had no such social significance that would justify its publication without the accused 's permission and , consequently , her private life had been invaded .

ORG decision of DATE ( ORG ) concerned an incident following which A. , a public figure , and B. , his female friend , had been convicted . When interviewing A. , PERSON 's name was mentioned in the television broadcast in DATE , that is , after they had been convicted . The court found that the facts discussed in the television programme with regard to B. were part of her private life and enjoyed the protection of privacy . The fines imposed on her as punishment for the assault did not constitute a criminal - law sanction justifying publication of her name . The interviewer and the television company were ordered to pay B. damages in the amount of LAW for disclosing her identity in the television programme .

The decision of DATE ( ORG ) concerned the present case . An article had been written about a relationship between A. , who worked as a press officer for a candidate in the presidential elections , and B. , the ex - spouse of a TV journalist . A. 's photo was included in the article . ORG , having assessed the provision on the invasion of privacy in LAW in the light of this ORG 's case - law , found that A. did not hold a position that meant that such details of her private life were of public importance . The article had thus invaded ORG 's privacy .

In a decision of DATE ( ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , ORG noted that an offence was not a private matter for the offender . In principle , however , a person convicted of and sentenced for having committed an offence also enjoyed the right inherent in private life to live in peace . According to LAW , any information about the commission of an offence and the resulting sentence qualified as “ sensitive ” personal data . The publicity per se of criminal proceedings and of related documents did not mean that information made public during the proceedings could be freely published as such by the media . ORG concluded that publishing the name of a person convicted of , inter alia , assault and deprivation of liberty did not invade his privacy as the person concerned had been convicted of offences of violence which had also degraded the victim 's human dignity . Furthermore , the article in question did not include his photo .

ORG decision of DATE ( ORG ) concerned the scope of the private life of a leading public prosecutor whose name or identify had not been revealed in an article which mainly concerned his wife , who had been suspected of having committed a crime . ORG concluded that the issue had had social significance as the person under suspicion was the public prosecutor 's wife . Even though the public prosecutor could have been identified from the article , this was justified by the fact that his own impartiality as a prosecutor was at stake .

In ORG decision of DATE ( ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) A. had been convicted of incest with his children and the case file was declared secret . Later PERSON revealed certain details of the case in a television programme . The court found that , even though the children had remained anonymous in the programme , they could still be identified because PERSON had appeared in the programme undisguised and his first name had been given . The privacy of the children and their mother had thus been invaded .

The latest ORG decision of DATE ( PERSON ) concerned invasion of privacy of the Prime Minister by his ex - companion . ORG found that the ex - companion had had no right to disclose intimate details about the Prime Minister 's private life and their dating in her book .

The Union of Journalists in GPE ( ORG , PERSON ) publishes Guidelines for Journalists ( NORP ohjeet , PERSON ) for the purposes of self - regulation . The DATE Guidelines were in force at the material time and provided , inter alia , that matters falling in the sphere of private life , being detrimental to the relevant party or his or her near relative , should not be published unless the matters are of general significance ( Article CARDINAL ) .

New Guidelines came into force in DATE , which noted that when publishing public material regard must be had to the protection of private life . Highly delicate information relating to one 's personal life may only be published with the consent of the person in question , or if such matters are of considerable public interest ( DATE ) .

Also ORG ( GPE sanan neuvosto , PERSON för massmedier ) , which is a self - regulating body established in DATE by publishers and journalists in the field of mass communication and whose task it is to interpret good professional practice and defend the freedom of speech and publication , has issued a number of resolutions and statements , inter alia , in DATE and DATE . The former concerned the content of private life and the latter disclosure of names in crime news coverage .

In its statement of DATE , ORG stated , inter alia , that the protection of private life applies , in principle , to all citizens . The greater and more profound social implications a matter has , the more important it is to be able to publish information thereon . The ORG divided persons into CARDINAL groups as to the protection of identity : ( CARDINAL ) persons exercising political , economic or administrative power ; ( CARDINAL ) other public persons , for example in the sectors of entertainment , sports , arts or science ; and ( CARDINAL ) ordinary citizens . The ORG noted that the protection of identity is narrowest for group CARDINAL and most extensive for group CARDINAL . However , this scale was not to be used formally , but the extent of protection should be interpreted on a case by case basis . A person 's position had a great significance in determining the protection of private life but that alone could not be considered as a decisive factor . The significance of a matter also had an important impact . The conduct of a well - known person appearing in public in connection with his or her professional tasks or public role does not as such belong to such person 's protected private life . On the contrary , information concerning lifestyle does normally belong to such person 's sphere of private life even though his or her sphere of protection is narrower than that of an ordinary citizen . In some cases information concerning one 's lifestyle can be closely connected to his or her professional tasks in a way that its publishing is justified . It is required , however , that the matter in question does have considerable general significance . Also , the publishing should not extend further than is necessary for the consideration of the matter . Finally , it is in accordance with good journalistic practice to see to it that the publishing does not cause undue suffering for the person in question or for his or her relatives .

On DATE ORG of ORG DATE ) , Towards decriminalisation of defamation , in which it urged those member GPE which still provide for prison sentences for defamation , even if they are not actually imposed , to abolish them without delay .