CASE OF GEBREMEDHIN [GABERAMADHIEN] v. FRANCE

Violation of Art. 13+3;No violation of Art. 5-1-f;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award

András Baka;Antonella Mularoni;Elisabet Fura;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Jean-Paul Costa

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently in accommodation in GPE provided by a non - governmental organisation .

In DATE , like many other persons , the applicant and his family were displaced from GPE to GPE . In GPE , the applicant worked as a reporter and photographer , chiefly for the independent newspaper PERSON , whose editor - in - chief at the time was Mr PERSON . The applicant stated that the latter was well known as a champion of the free press in GPE and that his case had been dealt with in ORG DATE report , which referred in particular to the fact that he had been arrested and arbitrarily detained in that country on CARDINAL occasion on account of his work as a journalist . The applicant added that on DATE the British Section of Amnesty International had awarded Mr Mihretab its “ Special Award for Human Rights Journalism under Threat ” .

The applicant and PERSON were arrested in DATE , apparently on account of their professional activities . They were held in FAC for DATE and DATE respectively .

In that connection the applicant stated that he had been referred to – under the name of “ Yebio ” , a diminutive form of his pseudonym “ Yayneabeba ” – on a website dedicated to reform in GPE ( www.awate.com ) as CARDINAL of the CARDINAL journalists arrested on DATE at the same time as PERSON .

Unlike PERSON , who fled to GPE in DATE , the applicant remained in GPE , in GPE , in order to take care of his widowed mother and his CARDINAL brothers and sisters . Some time after PERSON PERSON ’s departure – on an unspecified date – the police questioned the applicant about him . Police officers searched his home and found photographs which they considered to be compromising . The applicant was arrested and was subjected to ill - treatment , signs of which allegedly persist in the form of cigarette burns and injuries to his back caused by the position in which he was held for DATE , lying face down with his feet and hands tied above his back . He was subsequently imprisoned for DATE before falling ill and being transferred to hospital , from where he escaped by paying the guards , with the help of relatives of his maternal grandmother who worked there . He then hid in his grandmother ’s home in PERSON , where he was treated by a doctor . As soon as he had recovered he fled to GPE where one of his uncles lived . When an NORP was shot dead in GPE he decided to leave the country , as the NORP community there believed the killing had been carried out by NORP government agents in pursuit of opponents of the government .

The applicant stated that he had travelled to GPE and , with the help of a smuggler and using a NORP passport ( in the name of “ PERSON ” or similar ) , which had been kept by the smuggler , had arrived in GPE - FAC in FAC TIME on DATE on a flight from GPE . He submitted that he had been held in the airport ’s international zone until DATE and had thus been unable to apply for leave to enter the country . TIME after his arrival he reported to the police station , saying that he was NORP and wished to apply for asylum . The police officer asked him to “ prove where [ he ] had come from , claiming that [ he ] was not NORP but NORP , and for the first time refused [ him ] permission to leave the international zone ” . According to the applicant , over DATE ( DATE and DATE ) , he went regularly to the police station – at each change of shift , or CARDINAL times – in the vain hope of finding a police officer who would deal with his application . He said that “ it was not until DATE that a new police officer whom [ he ] had not seen previously finally registered [ his ] application ” .

The Government contested this version of the facts . They said that they had checked the passenger lists for flights from GPE which landed at FAC on DATE and DATE and DATE and that there had been no mention of anyone by the name of ORG , PERSON or ORG . They referred to the report by PERSON airport and border police dated DATE , which stated that the applicant had been questioned at TIME DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for leave to enter GPE as an asylum - seeker . He was questioned at TIME by a senior police officer ( officier de police judiciaire ) assisted by an LANGUAGE - speaking interpreter . The record of the interview simply states that “ the interviewee did not provide any evidence in support of his statements ” . The decision to hold the applicant in the waiting zone was taken by the administrative authority on that date and time , for an initial period of TIME , which was subsequently extended ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP The applicant said that he had been interviewed for the first time on DATE by an official from ORG for ORG ( OFPRA ) , who had recommended that the applicant be granted leave to enter the country as an asylum - seeker . The Government , for their part , contended that no recommendation had been issued on DATE . The record of the interview and the proposed recommendation , both drafted by the official concerned , had been considered unsatisfactory by the official ’s immediate superior , who was responsible for approving them . For that reason the applicant had been interviewed a second time , on DATE , by the latter official ( assisted by an interpreter ) . The official concerned issued the following recommendation that the applicant be refused leave to enter :

“ Statement taken in Amharic through an ORG interpreter

Reason for the application ? My parents are of NORP origin . We had NORP nationality and lived in GPE . In DATE the NORP authorities told us we were not NORP . We were expelled from GPE to GPE . I was supposed to sit my school - leaving exams DATE , but was unable to sit them in GPE . I worked in a garage for DATE , and then did my national service . While I was there I met a guy who was a journalist . When I PERSON finished my service I worked with this journalist friend as a cameraman and photographer , and we travelled together on reporting assignments . My friend was having problems with the authorities and wanted to leave the country . As soon as I got back the authorities questioned me about my friend and put me in prison . While I was in prison the police searched my house and found CARDINAL photos which they considered compromising . Then they started torturing me with cigarettes . I stayed in prison for DATE until I fell ill with tuberculosis . They took me to hospital . By chance , it was the hospital where some of my maternal grandmother ’s relatives worked . They bribed the guards , brought me clothes and helped me to escape . I went to my grandmother ’s place in Areza and stayed there for DATE while I was being treated . Then I left the country secretly for GPE . I found work straight away in a garage in GPE , but there were NORP agents around , and an NORP who worked not far away was killed . I was afraid and went to GPE , where I worked as a porter on the quays . I stayed in GPE for DATE in all ( DATE in GPE , DATE in GPE and DATE in GPE ) . My uncle sold his car to pay for my trip . I travelled to GPE before coming to GPE . My uncle found the network of people smugglers . I do n’t know how they organised things .

What is your friend called and how did you meet him ? His name is PERSON , he ’s a friend of the family , he knew my parents in GPE . When we moved back to GPE , I spent DATE doing my national service . After that I was in the reserves and worked in an army garage but did n’t wear a uniform . That was when my friend arranged for me to go and work for him , by acting as a guarantor for me .

Can you give some examples of events you covered ? We covered the student strikes in GPE in DATE ( no further details given ) .

What were the CARDINAL “ compromising ” photos found at your home ? I do n’t know , I ca n’t remember .

What newspaper did your friend PERSON work for ? PERSON ) . What was his job ? Editor - in - chief .

Do you know what kind of problems your friend had with the authorities ? There were CARDINAL main reasons . Firstly , my friend was in favour of a LAW and , secondly , CARDINAL ministers were imprisoned and my friend had published their biographies . They were put in prison just after the GPE strike in DATE .

When did your friend leave the country ? It was in DATE , when all the journalists were arrested .

Have other journalists been arrested ? All the NORP journalists are in prison . Do you know other journalists from PERSON who were arrested ? ( No reply ) . Other photographers ? ( No reply ) .

Can you give more details about your arrest ( date , circumstances , place of detention ) ? I was arrested in DATE or DATE . They took me to FAC , where I spent DATE .

Were you not arrested “ as soon as you got back ” to LOC ? No , I continued working here and there for DATE .

What has become of your family ? My father became ill and died before the family was expelled . My mother and my CARDINAL brothers and CARDINAL sisters live in GPE . My brothers and sisters are studying .

What are you afraid of if you go back ? When I was arrested , the main thing they wanted to know was what network my friend had used to leave the country . I think they ’re still trying to get that information .

Is this your real name ? Yes , I do n’t have any other name , I never have had .

Have you anything to add ? No .

Reasoned recommendation

Mr PERSON , an NORP national , has stated that he worked as a photographer with a family friend who is a journalist . According to Mr PERSON , in DATE , while they were on a reporting assignment on the NORP border , the journalist took the opportunity to leave GPE . On his return to GPE , PERSON continued to work for DATE before being arrested by the NORP authorities . He was placed in detention for DATE and was regularly questioned about the circumstances surrounding the departure of his friend and colleague . After contracting a serious illness he was transferred to hospital , from where he managed to escape with the help of family members working there . He then stayed with his grandmother for DATE before leaving GPE for GPE , where he lived and worked for DATE .

However , PERSON account contains a large number of inaccuracies and erroneous references which cast doubt on the truth of his statements . While the episode in which several journalists were arrested in GPE is very well known and received widespread media coverage , PERSON account bears no relation to what actually happened . The NORP journalists were arrested in DATE , not in DATE , and the applicant displays no knowledge of the reasons leading to the closing - down of the newspapers and the arrest of the journalists . The editor - in - chief of the newspaper PERSON also left GPE in DATE ( it therefore seems impossible that he could have covered the student strikes in DATE ) . The circumstances of his departure , accompanied by another reporter from the same newspaper , do not tally either with PERSON statements . It seems surprising to say the least that , apart from the editor - in - chief of PERSON , he is unable to name any other journalist or photographer arrested by the NORP government of DATE , or to name any other newspaper that was banned . Likewise , it is extremely surprising that PERSON is only able to cite – in a very sketchy and imprecise way – one event which he covered as a photographer . His lack of knowledge is such that it raises serious doubts as to whether he was actually engaged in this activity . Given the widespread media coverage of the events at the time , it seems strange that PERSON name does not appear anywhere , either as a member of staff of PERSON or as one of the persons arrested . All these factors taken together suggest that PERSON is attempting to falsify his past .

ORG for ORG takes the view that the application for leave to enter GPE as an asylum - seeker made by Mr PERSON should be considered as manifestly unfounded , and therefore issues a

RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE LEAVE TO ENTER ”

On DATE ORG held that the applicant ’s application for leave to enter NORP territory as an asylum - seeker was “ manifestly unfounded ” . It therefore rejected the application and decided to remove him “ to GPE , or if need be to any country where he may be legally admissible ” ( the applicant claimed that PERCENT of the applications made at the airport were rejected in this way ) . The decision read as follows :

Having regard to LAW of DATE relating to ORG ;

Having regard to ORG , and in particular Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL thereof ;

Having regard to Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE as amended implementing section CARDINAL of the Ordinance of DATE , as amended in respect of leave to enter NORP territory , and in particular LAW thereof ;

Having regard to the application for leave to enter GPE as an asylum - seeker made at FAC on DATE by X , purporting to be PERSON or PERSON , born on DATE and of NORP nationality ;

Having regard to the report drawn up by the border police on DATE ;

Having consulted ORG for ORG on DATE ;

X , who purports to be PERSON or PERSON , an NORP national , has stated that during his national service he met a journalist , editor - in - chief of the newspaper PERSON ) , for whom he worked as a cameraman and photographer after completing his service . The latter had had problems with the authorities because of his support for a LAW and because he had published biographies of CARDINAL ministers imprisoned after the student strikes in DATE . His journalist friend left the country in DATE after they had carried out a reporting assignment on the NORP border . He himself returned to GPE and continued working . After DATE , in DATE or DATE , the authorities questioned him on the circumstances in which his friend and colleague had left the country . The police found CARDINAL compromising photographs at his home and he was later subjected to illtreatment . He was imprisoned for DATE and , after falling ill , was transferred to the hospital where relatives of his grandmother worked . He escaped from the hospital by bribing the guards and went to PERSON , staying there for DATE before travelling to GPE , where he lived and worked for DATE .

However , X ’s statements contain numerous inconsistencies which detract from their credibility . His account does not tally with the actual events to which he refers , namely the arrest of several journalists in GPE , which was very well known and received widespread media coverage . The NORP journalists were arrested in DATE , not in DATE , and X displays no knowledge of the reasons leading to the closing - down of the newspapers and the arrest of the journalists . Moreover , the editor - in - chief of the newspaper PERSON left GPE in DATE and could not therefore have covered the student strikes in DATE as X claims . The circumstances of the editor ’s departure , together with another reporter from the same newspaper , do not tally either with X ’s statements . In addition , there is no proof of his professional activity : it is very surprising that he is unable to name any other newspaper that was banned or any other journalist or photographer arrested by the NORP government of DATE . It is also astonishing that X is able to cite only one event which he covered as a photographer , and in a very sketchy and imprecise way . Finally , his name does not appear anywhere , either as a member of staff of PERSON or as one of the persons arrested , despite the widespread media coverage of the events at the time . All these factors taken together cast doubt on the sincerity of his application and whether it is well founded .

Consequently , the application for leave to enter GPE for the purposes of asylum made by X ... , purporting to be PERSON or PERSON , is to be considered manifestly unfounded .

Under LAW of ORG , directions are to be given for his removal to GPE , or if need be to any country where he may be legally admissible ... ”

On DATE the applicant made an urgent application to ORG under Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of FAC , seeking an order requiring the Minister of the ORG to grant him leave to enter GPE in order to lodge an application for asylum . He argued that the refusal to grant him leave to enter amounted to a serious and manifestly unlawful breach of the right of asylum – a fundamental freedom whose corollary was the right to apply for refugee status , entailing the right to temporary residence in the country DATE and of the right to life and the right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of LAW . In that regard the applicant maintained , in particular , that the Ministry had not only exceeded the scope of its powers in examining the substance of his asylum application , but had also committed an error of assessment in finding the application manifestly unfounded . He stressed in particular that , as a cameraman and photographer working for a journalist , he had been subjected to persecution in his country of origin , where he had been imprisoned twice and subjected to ill - treatment , before seeking refuge in GPE , from where he had fled as his life had been in danger .

The applicant submitted to the urgent - applications judge the following statement , drawn up DATE by the non - governmental organisation Reporters without ORG ( Reporters sans frontières ) :

“ ... Reporters without ORG , an international organisation dedicated to defending freedom of the press , wishes to draw your attention to the case of PERSON , a journalist and NORP national .

Thanks to the efforts of our permanent correspondents , we are in a position to confirm that Mr PERSON worked as a cameraman and journalist . We have contacted the NORP journalist PERSON , now in exile in GPE , who confirmed that he worked with PERSON . He also confirmed that the CARDINAL men were held at the same time in FAC , CARDINAL of the harshest prisons in the country , in very difficult conditions .

While mindful of the deadlines which must be met in examining this case and carrying out the necessary checks , I would nevertheless stress that Reporters without ORG supports PERSON application for political asylum . We would welcome the opportunity to meet with him in order to study the case more closely and furnish all the evidence required for the purposes of his application . We would be greatly obliged if you would grant him leave to enter GPE ... ”

In addition , the applicant produced CARDINAL e - mails in LANGUAGE sent by PERSON Mihretab to Reporters without Borders on DATE ( Mr Mihretab sent a third , similar , e - mail to the applicant ’s counsel on DATE ) . In the CARDINAL e - mails , PERSON confirmed that he had known PERSON for a long time . Having been shown a photograph of the applicant , he stated that it was indeed PERSON , a journalist and dissident activist who had worked as a freelance photographer for the newspaper PERSON , and that they had been detained together for DATE in FAC . Mr PERSON added that the applicant had suffered a great deal and had undergone numerous ordeals on account of his involvement in campaigning for democratic change and his work with the independent press . In view of the current situation in GPE and the fact that the applicant , who had been held in FAC , was known to the authorities , he would undoubtedly be arrested in that country . His life would be in danger and he would run the risk at the very least of being tortured and of “ disappearing ” like very many journalists , dissidents and other activists .

On DATE the urgent - applications judge of ORG issued an order rejecting the applicant ’s application , without holding a hearing . The order read as follows :

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Administrative Courts Code states as follows : ‘ Where such an application is submitted to him or her as an urgent matter , the urgent - applications judge may order whatever measures are necessary to protect a fundamental freedom which has been breached in a serious and manifestly unlawful manner by a publiclaw entity or an organisation under private law responsible for managing a public service , in the exercise of their powers . The urgent - applications judge shall rule within fortyeight hours.’ Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the same LAW provides : ‘ The urgentapplications judge shall give a ruling following written or oral adversarial proceedings . Where the judge is requested to order the measures referred to in Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and PERSON , to amend them or bring them to an end , he or she shall inform the parties without delay of the date and time of the public hearing ... ’ Lastly , Article CARDINAL of the PERSON provides : ‘ Where the application is not urgent or where it is clear from examination of the application that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts , is inadmissible or is unfounded , the urgent - applications judge may reject it in a reasoned order , without applying the first CARDINAL paragraphs of Article PERSON

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Immigration and Asylum Code , meanwhile , states as follows : ‘ An alien who arrives in GPE by ... air and who ( a ) is refused leave to enter NORP territory or ( b ) applies for asylum may be held in a waiting zone situated in ... an airport , for the time strictly necessary to arrange his departure and , if he is an asylum - seeker , to investigate whether his application is manifestly unfounded ... LAW CARDINAL of the Decree of CARDINAL DATE as amended states : ‘ Where an alien arriving at the border applies for asylum , a decision to refuse him or her leave to enter GPE may be taken only by the Minister of the Interior , after consultation with ORG for ORG Persons.’

The documents in the file show that Mr PERSON , an NORP national , arrived in GPE by air and on DATE requested leave to enter the country as an asylum - seeker . In accordance with the provisions of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG , cited above , PERSON was held in the waiting zone while his application for asylum was examined . After consulting ORG for ORG on DATE , the Minister of the ORG and ORG , in the impugned decision of DATE , refused Mr PERSON leave to enter GPE on the ground that his asylum application was manifestly unfounded .

It is true that the right of asylum and its corollary , the right to request refugee status and , accordingly , to remain in GPE for the time necessary for the asylum application to be examined , constitute a fundamental freedom for aliens and that , in urgent cases , the urgent - applications judge may order whatever measures are necessary to protect that freedom on the basis of the above - mentioned provisions of Article PERSON of ORG , where the administrative authorities , in the exercise of their powers , have breached it in a serious and manifestly unlawful manner . However , such a breach can not result solely from the fact that , in accordance with Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG , the Minister of the ORG personally took a decision on the asylum application , in this case in the form of the decision of DATE , since under Article PERSON of the same Code ORG for ORG can consider only applications for refugee status made by aliens who have been granted leave to enter the country . Moreover , there is nothing in the case file to suggest that the refusal to grant Mr PERSON leave to enter the country DATE on account of the manifestly unfounded nature of his asylum application DATE was manifestly unlawful . In particular , the applicant did not provide sufficient and substantiated details as to his identity , his alleged professional activity as a cameraman and photographer in his country of origin , the persecution he alleged and the reasons for it , or the risks he would actually run were he to return to his country of origin or to GPE , where he was last resident , or any prima facie evidence capable of substantiating those risks or altering the Minister of the ORG ’s assessment of the asylum application . The only documents produced by PERSON , namely the testimony from a journalist who is a refugee in GPE , which contains very little detail , and a letter from Reporters without ORG , are insufficient to establish that he was at personal risk if he returned to his own country or to GPE .

It follows from all the above considerations that the decision of DATE of the Minister of the ORG and ORG refusing Mr PERSON leave to enter GPE as an asylum - seeker can not be said to have breached his right to request refugee status in a serious and manifestly unlawful manner such as to justify ordering measures under LAW . Consequently , and in accordance with the abovementioned provisions of LAW of LAW , the applicant ’s application must be rejected as manifestly unfounded ... ”

On DATE the applicant was accompanied to the NORP embassy by police officers . The applicant claimed that the authorities had presented his account of the events surrounding his asylum application – giving details of the circumstances in which he had fled and the names of the persons who had helped him – to the NORP ambassador . The ambassador had launched a violent verbal attack on him in her own language and refused to recognise him as a national of GPE and issue him with a laissez - passer .

The Government denied that the applicant ’s account of events had been presented to the ambassador or that she had expressed a definite opinion on that occasion as to whether the applicant should be issued with a laissez - passer ( she had not informed the NORP authorities of her position on the matter until DATE ) .

In a decision of DATE , “ in view [ among other considerations ] of the request made by ORG CARDINAL of its Rules of Court to suspend the applicant ’s removal until DATE ” , ORG granted the applicant leave to enter GPE . At the same time the applicant was issued with a safe conduct valid for DATE which referred also to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule DATE to enable him to report to the prefecture and apply for a temporary residence permit as an asylum - seeker . With the help of ORG ( ORG – a non - governmental organisation made up of CARDINAL associations and trade unions ) and Reporters without Borders , he obtained a DATE residence permit from the GPE Prefecture on DATE , with a view to his lodging an asylum application with ORG ( which he duly did ) .

As stated above , the decision to hold the applicant in the waiting zone for TIME was taken by the administrative authority on DATE at TIME ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . The measure was extended for a further TIME on DATE .

On DATE the liberties and detention judge ( juge des libertés et de la détention ) of the ORG tribunal de grande instance – before whom the applicant had appeared , assisted by a lawyer and an interpreter – authorised the holding of the applicant for a further DATE , in an order giving the following reasons :

“ Mr PERSON ’s application for political asylum is under consideration . He should continue to be held in the waiting zone . ”

On DATE the same judge DATE before whom the applicant had again appeared , assisted as before – authorised the holding of the applicant in the waiting zone for DATE , in an order giving the following reasons :

“ The asylum application was rejected on DATE . PERSON does not have a passport . He was taken to the NORP embassy on DATE and the authorities are waiting for him to be issued with a laissez - passer . He should continue to be held in the waiting zone . ”

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , following an appeal lodged by the applicant on DATE against the order of DATE , the ORG d’Etat held in the following terms that it was unnecessary to give a ruling :

... Mr PERSON ... lodged an application with ORG which , in a decision of DATE , indicated to the NORP government under Rule CARDINAL of its Rules of Court that it was ‘ desirable , in the interests of the parties and of the proper conduct of the proceedings before it , not to remove the applicant to GPE TIME on DATE . In response to that request the Minister , in a decision of DATE taken after this appeal had been lodged , granted PERSON leave to enter GPE , thus enabling him to make an application for asylum . The appellant duly did so , having been issued on DATE with a temporary residence permit . The measure thus enacted has the same effect as the measure requested in the application to the urgent - applications judge , which was by definition temporary . In the circumstances , the arguments set out in Mr PERSON ’s appeal against the order rejecting his application have become devoid of purpose .

By a decision of DATE served on DATE , ORG granted the applicant refugee status . As a result , from that point on , LAW DATE relating to ORG acted as a bar to the applicant ’s expulsion to his country of origin . The Government produced a memorandum from the Deputy Head of ORG of OFPRA attesting to this . The memorandum stated that “ the Agency therefore considered in view , among other considerations , of the inhuman conditions of imprisonment to which [ the applicant ] had already been subjected in his country of origin , that his removal to GPE would place him at risk of persecution within the meaning of LAW ” .

NORP The applicant stated that , during his time in the waiting zone in FAC , the authorities had omitted to carry out a medical examination capable of establishing whether his scars and injuries were the result of illtreatment . However , he had been able on several occasions ( on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) to meet with an employee from ORG in the organisation ’s office in the airport waiting zone . On DATE ORG drew up a written statement ( produced by the applicant ) certifying that the employee in question , in the course of her interviews with him , had observed traces of burns on CARDINAL of his arms at least . The statement added that she had noted “ a hollow in the [ applicant ’s ] lower back , which he explained had resulted from the torture inflicted on him in the PERSON camp . He demonstrated the position in which he had been forced to remain during his detention , lying face down and with his feet and hands tied above his back ” . The applicant also produced a statement written on DATE by the employee herself . In addition , apparently under the guidance of ORG , the applicant was examined on DATE by PERSON of the PERSON medical unit of ORG , who issued a medical certificate stating that the applicant did not require any specific medical treatment , but noting the presence of “ old scars on the left arm and the right and left knees ” .

The fourth paragraph of the Preamble to LAW reads as follows :

“ Any person persecuted on account of his or her actions in furtherance of freedom shall have a right of asylum within the territories of the Republic . ”

The PERSON d’Etat has ruled that the constitutional right of asylum is a fundamental freedom and has as its corollary the right to apply for refugee status . This implies that aliens who request refugee status are authorised in principle to remain on NORP soil pending a ruling on their application . The PERSON d’Etat has also specified that only if an asylum application is “ manifestly unfounded ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) may the Minister of the Interior refuse leave to enter the country , after consulting ORG for ORG ( OFPRA ) ( see , for example , ORG v. PERSON , order of CARDINAL DATE ) .

Under the terms of ORG :

“ Refugee status shall be granted to any person persecuted on account of his or her activities in furtherance of freedom and to any person in respect of whom ORG High Commissioner for Refugees exercises its mandate under the terms of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of its Statute as adopted by ORG on DATE , or who meets the criteria laid down in DATE LAW of DATE relating to ORG . Such persons shall be governed by the applicable provisions concerning refugees laid down in the above - mentioned LAW . ”

“ Subject to the provisions of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , subsidiary protection shall be afforded to persons who do not satisfy the criteria for obtaining refugee status referred to in Article PERSON but who demonstrate that they would be exposed to the following serious threats in their country :

( a ) the death penalty ;

( b ) torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ;

( c ) in the case of civilians , a serious , direct and individual threat to their life or personal safety on account of widespread violence resulting from domestic or international armed conflict . ”

“ The persecution taken into account in granting refugee status and the serious threats which may result in the granting of subsidiary protection may emanate from the ORG authorities , parties or organisations which control the ORG or a substantial part of the territory of the ORG , or from non - State agents in cases where the authorities defined in the following paragraph are unwilling or unable to afford protection .

The authorities in a position to afford protection may be the ORG authorities or international and regional organisations . ”

“ Persons who have access to protection in part of the territory of their country of origin may have their asylum application refused if they have no reason to fear persecution or a serious threat there and if it is reasonable to consider that they can remain in that part of the country . Account shall be taken of the overall conditions prevailing in that part of the country and of the personal situation of the applicant and the perpetrator of the persecution at the time a decision is taken on the asylum application . ”

NORP Under the terms of LAW DATE ( ratified by GPE on DATE ) and LAW of DATE relating to ORG ( to which GPE acceded on DATE ) , a “ refugee ” is any person who “ owing to well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion , is outside the country of his nationality and is unable , or owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ; or who , not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events , is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to return to it ” . LAW reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No Contracting State shall expel or return ( ‘ ORG ) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion .

The purpose of the procedure for claiming asylum at the border is to grant or refuse leave to enter GPE to aliens who arrive at the border by air without the necessary documents and request leave to enter the country as asylum - seekers . The procedure falls within the sphere of competence of ORG , which takes the decision whether or not to grant leave to enter , after consulting OFPRA ( decree of DATE amending LAW of CARDINAL DATE ) .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Immigration and Asylum Code states that “ [ a]n alien who arrives in GPE by rail , sea or air and who ( a ) is refused leave to enter NORP territory or ( b ) applies for asylum may be held in a waiting zone ... for the time strictly necessary to arrange his departure and , if he is an asylum - seeker , to investigate whether his application is manifestly unfounded ” .

The Government indicated that the criteria applied in assessing whether or not requests for asylum made at the border were “ manifestly unfounded ” were based on those contained in the resolutions adopted by the ministers responsible for immigration of the member States of ORG , meeting in GPE on DATE and DATE , and on ORG ’s experience and practice . The criteria were as follows : “ the grounds of the application are not asylum - related ( economic grounds , pure personal convenience , etc . ) ; the application is based on deliberate fraud ( the applicant makes manifestly false claims as to his nationality , makes false statements , etc . ) ; the applicant ’s statements are devoid of any substance , do not contain any personal information or provide insufficient detail ; the applicant refers to a general situation of unrest or insecurity , without providing evidence relating to his personal situation ; his statements are fundamentally inconsistent or improbable or contain major contradictions , depriving his account of any credibility . ” In a judgment adopted in plenary on DATE in the case of ORG , the PERSON d’Etat held that the above resolutions did not have legal effect and could not therefore be relied on in assessing whether an asylum application was “ manifestly unfounded ” .

Aliens who apply for asylum at the border may do so on arrival or at any time while in the waiting zone . The application is to be made to the border police , who draw up an asylum - application report and forward the file to ORG . All applicants are interviewed by an official from ORG ’s border asylum office with a view to establishing the reasons for the application . The office sends ORG a written recommendation stating its opinion as to whether or not the application is manifestly unfounded . ORG then decides whether or not to grant the applicant leave to enter GPE .

If leave to enter is granted , the border police issue a safe conduct which gives the person concerned DATE in which to submit an asylum application under the ordinary - law procedure .

If entry is refused , the person concerned is immediately returned to his or her country of origin or the country of provenance .

As with all administrative decisions , an application may be made to the administrative court seeking the setting - aside of a decision refusing leave to enter . The application does not have suspensive effect .

An “ urgent application for a stay of execution ” ( référé suspension ) or an “ urgent application for an order to protect the applicant ’s interests ” ( référé injonction ) ( also known as an “ urgent application for the protection of a fundamental freedom ” ( référé liberté ) ) – neither of which has suspensive effect DATE may also be made under Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and PERSON of FAC , which provide :

“ When an application is made to set aside or vary an administrative decision , including a refusal , the urgent - applications judge may order that execution of the decision or certain of its effects be stayed where the urgent nature of the matter warrants it and where grounds are advanced capable of raising serious doubts , as the evidence stands , as to the lawfulness of the decision .

Where an order is made staying execution , a ruling shall be given as soon as possible on the application to have the decision set aside or varied . The stay of execution shall end at the latest when a decision is taken on the application to have the decision set aside or varied . ”

“ Where such an application is submitted to him or her as an urgent matter , the urgent - applications judge may order whatever measures are necessary to protect a fundamental freedom which has been breached in a serious and manifestly unlawful manner by a publiclaw entity or an organisation under private law responsible for managing a public service , in the exercise of their powers . The urgent - applications judge shall rule within TIME . ”

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the LAW states that the urgent - applications judge must in principle give a ruling following written or oral adversarial proceedings . Where the judge is requested to order the measures referred to in Articles PERSON and PERSON or to amend or discontinue such measures , he must inform the parties without delay of the date and time of the public hearing . However , Article CARDINAL provides for a “ filtering ” procedure which allows the urgent - applications judge , simply by means of an order giving reasons , to reject an application without giving the parties notice to appear or holding an adversarial hearing , if the matter is not urgent or if “ it is clear from examination of the application that it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative court , is inadmissible or is unfounded ” .

An appeal may be lodged with the ORG d’Etat within DATE of the decision being served . The PERSON d’Etat must rule within TIME .

The PERSON d’Etat has specified that the notion of “ fundamental freedom ” within the meaning of Article PERSON of LAW “ encompasses , in the case of non - nationals who are the subject of specific measures governing their entry into and residence in GPE and who therefore , unlike NORP nationals , do not have free entry into the country , the constitutional right of asylum and its corollary , the right to apply for refugee status , the granting of which is decisive for the exercise by those persons of the freedoms enjoyed by non - nationals generally ” ( order of DATE by the urgent - applications judge in Hyacinthe ; see also the order of CARDINAL DATE in PERSON ) .

In accordance with the principles of NORP administrative law , an urgent application , like any application to the courts , does not result in the immediate suspension of an administrative decision . However , the Government stated that “ in very general terms , where the administrative authority [ was ] aware that an urgent application ha[d ] been made to the administrative courts , it suspend[ed ] the measure refusing asylum until the judge ha[d ] given a ruling ” .

The initial decision to hold a person in the waiting zone is made by the administrative authority in writing and giving reasons , for a period not exceeding TIME . The measure may be extended once on the same basis and for the same period ( Article PERSON of ORG ) . The liberties and detention judge intervenes for the first time after DATE in order to decide whether or not to extend the measure by a maximum of DATE . He or she intervenes again at the end of that period to rule on whether an exceptional extension of a further maximum of DATE should be granted ( Articles PERSON and PERSON ) .

In principle , therefore , the maximum period for which a person can be held in the waiting zone is DATE . In exceptional cases , however , if an asylum application is made DATE , the liberties and detention judge may order an extension of DATE from the date of the application ( Article PERSON ) .

The liberties and detention judge gives a ruling in the form of an order , after hearing evidence from the person concerned , in the presence of his or her lawyer if he or she has one , or after the latter has been duly informed . The judge may order extension of the measure or may refuse the request for extension and either release the person in question or place him or her under house arrest . The judge has discretion to rule on the application to extend made by the administrative authorities and may dismiss the grounds advanced by the authorities for the application and reject it accordingly ( ORG has specified that holding a person in the waiting zone “ is simply CARDINAL option open to the judge ” ; ORG , ORG , DATE ) . Normally speaking , the ruling is given in public ( Article PERSON ) . An appeal lies against such an order to the President of ORG or his or her delegate , who must rule within TIME ( Article PERSON ) .

Aliens held in the waiting zone must be informed as soon as possible that they may request the assistance of an interpreter and a doctor , may speak to a lawyer or any other person of their choosing and may leave the waiting zone at any time for a destination outside GPE . This information must be conveyed to them in a language they understand ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The alien may request the judge to appoint a lawyer to represent him or her ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The ORG pays the lawyer ’s fees and those of the interpreters appointed to assist the alien during the court proceedings concerning his or her confinement in the waiting zone ( Article PERSON ) .

ORG and , after DATE have elapsed , the liberties and detention judge , may visit the waiting zone to inspect the conditions in which the person concerned is being held . ORG may visit the waiting zones whenever he or she deems necessary and must do so at least once DATE . The NORP delegation to ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) , as well as some humanitarian associations , have access to the waiting zone as provided by Decree no . GPE of CARDINAL DATE as amended . In particular , they may hold talks in confidence with asylum - seekers being held there ( Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL et seq . of ORG ) . The Government informed the ORG that , in accordance with an agreement concluded between the ORG and ORG , the latter was entitled to be present round the clock in order to provide legal assistance to aliens ; ORG was also on hand to provide humanitarian assistance ( likewise under the terms of an agreement ) .

OFPRA , a public agency with legal personality and financial and administrative autonomy attached to ORG ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG ) is the authority responsible for granting refugee status and subsidiary protection ( Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The asylum - seeker must report to a prefecture in order to obtain a temporary residence permit ( autorisation provisoire de séjour ) valid for DATE and to fill out the asylum application form . On receipt of the file , ORG sends the asylum - seeker a “ letter of registration ” which enables him or her , among other things , to obtain an acknowledgment of receipt of the asylum application . This is valid for DATE and can be renewed until such time as a decision has been taken by OFPRA and , as the case may be , by ORG .

OFPRA gives its decision after a single examination procedure during which the asylum - seeker is given the opportunity to submit evidence in support of his or her claim and , as a rule , after evidence has been heard from the asylum - seeker ( Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

A decision by ORG refusing an application taken under Articles PERSON and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL in particular may be appealed within DATE before ORG ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , an administrative court with a president who is a member of the ORG d’Etat and is appointed by the latter ’s vice - president ( Article L. CARDINAL ) . The persons concerned may make representations to ORG and be assisted by a lawyer and an interpreter ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

In principle , this appeal has suspensive effect and the temporary residence permit is renewed until ORG has reached its decision ( section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ) . In that connection , LAW of ORG states as follows :

“ Aliens who are granted leave to enter GPE shall have the right to remain until ORG ’s decision has been served or , where an appeal is lodged , until the decision of ORG has been served . They shall have DATE from the date of service of the decision not to extend or to withdraw their residence permit in which to leave NORP territory of their own accord . ”

The PERSON d’Etat has also established the principle whereby aliens seeking refugee status have the right to remain in the country temporarily until a decision has been taken on their application , provided the application is not vexatious or submitted with undue delay ( PERSON d’Etat plenary , CARDINAL DATE , ORG ) .

An appeal on points of law against the decision of ORG may be lodged with the ORG d’Etat within DATE . However , such appeal does not have suspensive effect ( ORG d’Etat , CARDINAL DATE , PERSON ) .

An alien whose application for refugee status or for subsidiary protection has been the subject of a final refusal and who is not authorised to remain in GPE on any other basis must leave the country or face removal ( Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code ) . Aliens facing removal may , within TIME of the order for their removal being served ( if it is served by means of administrative procedure ) or within DATE ( if it is served by post ) , apply to the president of the administrative court to have the order set aside . The president or his or her delegate must rule on the application within TIME ( Article PERSON of the Code ) . The order may not be enforced before these time - limits have expired or , where an application is made to the president of the administrative court or his or her delegate , until he or she has given a ruling ( Article PERSON ) . An appeal against the judgment of the president of the administrative court or his or her delegate may be made within DATE to the president of ORG of the ORG d’Etat or a member of the ORG d’Etat to whom he or she delegates his or her powers ; such appeal does not have suspensive effect ( Article PERSON of the Code ) .

Under LAW of the LAW , if the person concerned is granted refugee status or subsidiary protection , the administrative authority must repeal any order made for his or her removal . In the case of refugees , it must immediately issue the residence permit provided for in LAW , point CARDINAL ( valid for DATE and automatically renewable ) ; in the case of persons granted subsidiary protection , it must immediately issue the temporary residence permit provided for in Article PERSON ( valid for DATE , renewable ) .

On DATE ORG R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL on the right of rejected asylum - seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of LAW of ORG , in which it called on member GPE to ensure that the following guarantees were complied with in their legislation or practice :

“ CARDINAL . An effective remedy before a national authority should be provided for any asylum - seeker , whose request for refugee status is rejected and who is subject to expulsion to a country about which that person presents an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

NORP In applying paragraph CARDINAL of this recommendation , a remedy before a national authority is considered effective when :

NORP that authority is judicial ; or , if it is a quasi - judicial or administrative authority , it is clearly identified and composed of members who are impartial and who enjoy safeguards of independence ;

that authority has competence both to decide on the existence of the conditions provided for by LAW and to grant appropriate relief ;

the remedy is accessible for the rejected asylum - seeker ; and

NORP the execution of the expulsion order is suspended until a decision under CARDINAL . is taken . ”

On DATE ORG adopted “ Twenty Guidelines on Forced Return ” . Guideline CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ Guideline CARDINAL . Remedy against the removal order

NORP In the removal order , or in the process leading to the removal order , the subject of the removal order shall be afforded an effective remedy before a competent authority or body composed of members who are impartial and who enjoy safeguards of independence . The competent authority or body shall have the power to review the removal order , including the possibility of temporarily suspending its execution .

The remedy shall offer the required procedural guarantees and present the following characteristics :

– the time - limits for exercising the remedy shall not be unreasonably short ;

– the remedy shall be accessible , which implies in particular that , where the subject of the removal order does not have sufficient means to pay for necessary legal assistance , he / she should be given it free of charge , in accordance with the relevant national rules regarding legal aid ;

– where the returnee claims that the removal will result in a violation of his or her human rights as set out in LAW . , the remedy shall provide rigorous scrutiny of such a claim .

The exercise of the remedy should have a suspensive effect when the returnee has an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to treatment contrary to his or her human rights as set out in LAW . [ real risk of being executed , or exposed to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; real risk of being killed or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by non - State actors , if the authorities of the State of return , parties or organisations controlling the ORG or a substantial part of the territory of the ORG , including international organisations , are unable or unwilling to provide appropriate and effective protection ; other situations which would , under international law or national legislation , justify the granting of international protection ] . ”

As far back as DATE , ORG adopted Recommendation CARDINAL ( DATE ) on the right of asylum , in which it recommended that ORG insist that asylum procedures provide that “ while appeals [ were ] being processed , asylum - seekers [ could ] not be deported ” . In Recommendation CARDINAL ( DATE ) on the protection and reinforcement of the human rights of refugees and asylum - seekers in LOC , adopted on DATE , it called upon ORG “ to urge the member GPE ... to provide in their legislation that any judicial appeal should have suspensive effect ” .

In its Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) on accelerated asylum procedures in ORG member GPE , adopted on DATE , ORG stressed in particular that “ [ t]he need for GPE to process asylum applications in a rapid and efficient manner must ... be weighed against the obligation to provide access to a fair asylum determination procedure for those who are in need of international protection ” . It specified that this “ balancing of interests ” did “ not imply in any circumstances that GPE may compromise with respect to their international obligations , including under the DATE LAW relating to ORG ... and its DATE Protocol and the DATE European Convention on Human Rights ... and its Protocols ” .

In that ORG , ORG called on the governments of ORG member GPE to take the following measures ( among others ) :

as regards border applicants , to :

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . NORP ensure , in accordance with the principle of non - discrimination , that all asylum - seekers are registered at the border and given the possibility of lodging a claim for refugee status ;

NORP ensure that all asylum - seekers , whether at the border or inside the country , benefit from the same principles and guarantees in terms of their request for refugee status ;

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . NORP ensure adoption of clear and binding guidelines on treatment of asylum - seekers at border points , in accordance with international human rights and refugee law and standards ;

as regards the right of appeal with suspensive effect : to ensure that the right to an effective remedy under LAW is respected , including the right to lodge an appeal against a negative decision and the right to suspend the execution of measures until the national authorities have examined their compatibility with LAW ;

The Commissioner for Human Rights issued a recommendation concerning the rights of aliens wishing to enter a ORG member ORG and the enforcement of expulsion orders ( CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) . The recommendation , dated DATE , stresses in particular the following :

“ CARDINAL . It is essential that the right of judicial remedy within the meaning of LAW ORG be not only guaranteed in law but also granted in practice when a person alleges that the competent authorities have contravened or are likely to contravene a right guaranteed by the ORG . The right of effective remedy must be guaranteed to anyone wishing to challenge a refoulement or expulsion order . It must be capable of suspending enforcement of an expulsion order , at least where contravention of ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the ORG is alleged . ”


CASE OF MASSON AND VAN ZON v. THE NETHERLANDS

Lack of jurisdiction (complaint inadmissible);No violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13

ORG In DATE a so - called " Black Book " ( zwartboek ) containing allegations of irregularities with regard to the financial dealings of ORG ( ORG , " ABP " ) was published anonymously .

ORG Following a criminal investigation , the CARDINAL applicants were charged with forgery and corruption . At the time , PERSON was the Investments Manager of ORG . Mr PERSON was a businessman with interests in real estate development .

ORG On DATE Mr PERSON was arrested and taken into police custody ( verzekering ) . He was subsequently placed in detention on remand ( voorlopige hechtenis ) .

By order of CARDINAL DATE ( effective on CARDINAL DATE ) the review chamber ( raadkamer ) of ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE suspended the detention on remand , allowing PERSON to return to his home on condition , inter alia , that he surrender his passport and report to the local police DATE . In addition , he was not allowed to communicate in any way with his co - accused , Mr PERSON . The obligation to report DATE to the police was lifted by the review chamber on DATE .

ORG Towards DATE the public prosecutor ( officier van justitie ) summonsed PERSON to appear before ORG on DATE on CARDINAL counts of forgery , being an accessory to fraudulent bankruptcy , corruption and swindling .

Mr PERSON filed an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) on DATE , as a result of which the summons lapsed ( section CARDINAL of LAW ( " ORG " ) as it then read ) . The objection was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On appeal the ' s - Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal decided on DATE to clear PERSON of CARDINAL charge , that of being an accessory to fraudulent bankruptcy , but found that there was a prima - facie case against him as regards the remainder . The decision of ORG was upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

Mr PERSON was again summonsed to appear before ORG on DATE , this time on the charges allowed by ORG on DATE .

ORG On DATE , after various adjournments and hearings , ORG acquitted PERSON of CARDINAL of the charges but convicted him of the remainder . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and ordered him to pay to the State MONEY ( NLG ) , that being the court 's estimate of the benefit derived by PERSON from the crimes of which he had been found guilty .

ORG Both PERSON and the public prosecutor appealed against this judgment to the ' s - ORG . On DATE ORG acquitted PERSON on all charges .

Mr PERSON was arrested on CARDINAL DATE . Like PERSON , he was taken into police custody and subsequently detained on remand . He remained in detention until DATE .

On DATE his detention on remand was suspended on condition that he report DATE to the investigating judge and provide a surety of NLG CARDINAL . The order to report to the investigating judge was lifted on DATE . On DATE , at Mr PERSON request , the ' s - ORG rescinded the order of detention on remand altogether and ordered the return of the surety .

Mr PERSON was summonsed to appear on DATE before ORG of GPE .

ORG On DATE , after various adjournments and hearings , ORG convicted him on a number of counts of fraud , corruption and forgery and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

ORG Both the public prosecutor and Mr PERSON appealed against ORG judgment to the ' s - ORG .

On DATE ORG acquitted PERSON on all charges .

Mr PERSON was suspended from his duties on CARDINAL DATE by the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) following the opening of the criminal investigation . On DATE the Minister decided to withhold CARDINAL of his salary for DATE and to stop his salary entirely thereafter . This apparently left him without an income from public employment from DATE until CARDINAL DATE , when he became entitled to a pension .

In DATE , following the acquittal , the Minister for ORG paid PERSON half the amount which had been stopped .

Mr PERSON 's costs of legal assistance in the national proceedings totalled NLG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Of this sum NLG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL remained unpaid .

Mr PERSON had to pay his counsel NLG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL for their assistance in the national proceedings . Other expenses included the cost of the banker 's guarantee which served as surety in lieu of detention .

ORG On DATE and DATE respectively , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON filed requests to ORG , under section CARDINALa ORG for reimbursement by the ORG of their legal costs and of travel and subsistence expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and under LAW for financial compensation for the restrictions on their liberty ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE the review chamber of ORG rejected both applicants ' claims under LAW on the ground that there were no reasons in equity to award the applicants compensation .

The review chamber , which was composed of CARDINAL judges , included QUANTITY ( CARDINAL of them the presiding judge ) who had participated in the appeal hearing ; the third member of the original chamber had in the meantime left the ' s - ORG .

ORG In decisions of the same date the presiding judge of the review chamber awarded NLG CARDINAL to PERSON and NLG DATE to Mr PERSON by way of reimbursement for travel and subsistence expenses incurred in connection with the hearings of the courts and in respect of the costs of defence witnesses , but rejected the remainder of their claims entirely . These decisions explicitly referred to the decisions of the review chamber mentioned in the previous paragraph , including the reasoning on which they were based .

ORG Both applicants brought proceedings against ORG before ORG of GPE , PERSON on DATE and PERSON on DATE . Alleging a wrongful act in civil law ( onrechtmatige daad ) , they claimed compensation for the damage caused to them by the detention on remand and full reimbursement of their legal costs . It appears that these proceedings are still pending .

ORG The relevant provisions of LAW were amended by LAW DATE , Staatsblad ( Official Gazette ) DATE , no . CARDINAL , which entered into force on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ORG , in so far as relevant , provided :

" CARDINAL . ORG If a case ends without the imposition of a punishment or measure , or when such punishment or measure is imposed but on the basis of a fact for which detention on remand is not allowed , the court may , at the request of the former suspect , grant him compensation at the expense of the State for the damage which he has suffered as a result of police custody or detention on remand . Such damage may include non - pecuniary damage .

ORG The request may only be submitted within DATE following the termination of the case . The petitioner shall be heard , or at least summoned , and may be assisted during the hearing by a lawyer . At the hearing the lawyer shall be offered the opportunity to make any observations required .

ORG The review chamber shall consist as far as possible of the judges who have dealt with the case at the trial .

ORG The court competent to grant compensation shall be the court with jurisdiction as to both facts and law ( gerecht in feitelijke aanleg ) before which , at the time of its termination , the case was or would have been prosecuted or else was last prosecuted , or , if that court is a ORG ( kantonrechter ) , ORG of that judicial district . ... "

" CARDINAL . Compensation shall be awarded in each case if and to the extent that the court , taking all circumstances into account , is of the opinion that there are reasons in equity to do so .

ORG In the determination of the amount , the personal circumstances ( levensomstandigheden ) of the former suspect shall also be taken into account .

ORG The decision shall be reasoned . The decision shall immediately be notified to the former suspect or to his heirs , but in case of a rejection the grounds shall be omitted . In that case the former suspect or his heirs may consult the statement of grounds at the registry . "

It was not possible to file an appeal on points of law against a decision based on these provisions .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINALa ORG , in so far as relevant , provided as follows :

" CARDINAL . Compensation shall be paid to the former suspect or his heirs at the expense of the ORG for costs borne by the former suspect under or pursuant to the provisions of the LAW on Fees in Criminal Cases ( Wet tarieven in strafzaken ) , in so far as the appropriation of these costs has served the investigation or has become devoid of purpose by the withdrawal of summonses or legal remedies by the public prosecution ( openbaar ministerie ) .

ORG The amount of compensation shall be determined at the request of the former suspect or his heirs . This request must be submitted within DATE following the termination of the case . The determination shall be made in the court with jurisdiction as to both facts and law before which , at the time of its termination , the case was or would have been prosecuted or else was last prosecuted , by ORG judge or by the presiding judge as the case may be . The presiding judge may appoint CARDINAL of the judges of ORG or ORG who have dealt with the case to do so . ORG judge or ORG [ or ORG ] judge will issue an order of payment ( bevelschrift van tenuitvoerlegging ) for the amount of the compensation .

Petitioners can be heard . If they so wish they will be heard , or at least summoned . They may be assisted by a lawyer . Section CARDINAL , last paragraph , applies .

" CARDINAL . ORG If the case ends without imposition of a punishment or measure ... , the former suspect or his heirs shall be granted compensation at the expense of the State for his travel and subsistence expenses incurred for the investigation and the examination of his case , calculated on the basis of the Act on Fees in Criminal Cases .

ORG If the case ends without imposition of a punishment or measure ... , the former suspect or his heirs may be granted compensation at the expense of the State for the damage which he has actually suffered through loss of time as a result to the preliminary investigation ( gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ) and the examination of his case at the trial , as well as the costs of counsel . This will include compensation for the costs of counsel during police custody and detention on remand . Compensation for such costs may furthermore be granted when a case ends with the imposition of a punishment or measure on the basis of a fact for which detention on remand is not allowed .

ORG and CARDINAL , subsections CARDINAL to CARDINAL , shall apply by analogy . "

ORG LAW , which was adopted in DATE and entered into force in DATE , assumed that matters dealt with therein were to be decided either by the trial court , following a hearing which in principle was public , or by the review chamber following a hearing in camera to which the public had no access . Proceedings before the review chamber were governed by sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL .

Section CARDINAL CCP , in so far as relevant , provided as follows :

" CARDINAL . ORG All cases in which a decision is not required by law to be taken by the trial court at the trial hearing or taken at the trial hearing ex officio shall be dealt with by the review chamber . However all applications , requests and proposals made at the trial shall be examined and decided at the trial .

DATE . ... "

" CARDINAL . ORG The accused is entitled to be assisted by counsel at all hearings .

ORG The counsel or the lawyer will be offered the opportunity to make any observations required at the hearings . "

ORG Requests based on sections CARDINAL and following and on sections CARDINAL and CARDINALa were heard by the review chamber . As is indicated in the preceding paragraph , review chamber proceedings were not intended to be public . However , since the Convention is directly applicable in the GPE , taking precedence over domestic law , it was open to petitioners to claim that a request based on CARDINAL of these provisions related to a " civil right " for the purposes of Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW and that they were therefore entitled to a public hearing . It appears from the case - law of ORG that if the review chamber hearing the request accepted this argument , they were obliged to grant a public hearing . It was also open to the review chamber hearing the request to decide of its own motion that Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) was applicable , with the resultant obligation to hear the request in public unless the petitioner preferred a hearing in camera ( see , inter alia , ORG judgment of DATE , PERSON ( ORG , " GPE " ) DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

In an appeal on points of law for safeguarding the law ( cassatieberoep in het belang der wet ) against a decision of DATE by the ' s - ORG , ORG ( procureur - generaal ) to ORG addressed the question , which he answered in the negative ( see paragraphs CARDINAL of his statement of grounds of appeal ) , whether a request for compensation based on LAW ORG led to the determination of a " civil right " . In its judgment rejecting the appeal ( judgment of DATE , GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) ORG expressly declined to rule on this issue .

The Act of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) is intended to ensure the conformity of review chamber proceedings with LAW as the legislature considers that this provision ( article CARDINAL ) is to be interpreted in the light of the ORG 's case - law . The legislature has chosen to retain the general principle that review chamber proceedings are not public but to prescribe public hearings where LAW ) makes that necessary . LAW ORG , in so far as it is relevant , now reads :

" CARDINAL . Review chamber proceedings shall not be public unless they are required to be by law .

DATE . ... "

The explanatory memorandum ( GPE ( Parliamentary Documents ) II , DATE , CARDINAL no . CARDINAL , pages CARDINAL and following ) enumerates the review chamber proceedings which , in the view of the Government , are covered by LAW . In this connection , the following passage taken from the explanatory memorandum is of relevance ( page CARDINAL ) :

" The actions for obtaining compensation for damage or costs * are of a composite nature ( gemengd van aard ) ( sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINALa ) . The close link between the action and criminal proceedings admittedly justifies placing them in LAW , but what is at stake in the proceedings can be qualified as of a civil - law nature . The applicability of LAW ) is thus established . " ( * emphasis in the original )

Accordingly , the third paragraph of CARDINAL now reads :

" The request may only be submitted within DATE following the termination of the case . It shall be dealt with by the review chamber in public . "

Similarly , the third paragraph of CARDINAL now reads :

" The request shall be dealt with by the review chamber in public . "

As a further consequence of the fact that LAW ) is now considered applicable to the proceedings brought pursuant to LAW , the third paragraph of section CARDINAL has been amended so as to read :

" The decision shall be notified without delay to the former suspect or his heirs . "

The explanatory memorandum states the following : "

Section CARDINAL requires the decision to be reasoned . It is incompatible with the proposed publicity of the proceedings and of the decision to omit reasoning in a decision rejecting the request . "

ORG In its judgment of DATE , GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL , ORG of ORG ruled that section CARDINAL ORG did not prevent the former suspect who considered himself a victim of unlawful detention from bringing proceedings in tort against the ORG and claiming full compensation for any damage suffered . ORG held , inter alia , that

" [ LAW ] did not purport to do more than offer the courts the possibility of granting compensation ` for detention that was lawful but nevertheless shown afterwards to be unjustified ' " .

Further to that judgment , ORG , in its judgment of DATE , GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL , held , inter alia :

" Sections CARDINAL and following ORG offer the former suspect a speedy and inexpensive but , in view of what is laid down in LAW , first and second paragraphs , limited possibility of obtaining compensation for damage suffered on grounds of equity . This procedure therefore does not extend to the determination by the courts of complete compensation for damage on the basis of a tort committed by the State vis - à - vis the ( former ) suspect and therefore does not affect the possibility open to the former suspect of bringing his claim before the civil courts on that basis . Given the limited purport of the procedure established by sections CARDINAL and following , what is laid down in those provisions as regards the procedure to be followed does not inhibit their application even in cases of unlawful detention . "

ORG Recently ORG of ORG has confirmed that a former suspect may bring an action before the civil courts only if he or she wishes to claim compensation on the basis of unlawful detention and that otherwise the only remedy available is to bring proceedings under sections CARDINAL and following ORG ( judgment of DATE , PERSON ( Weekly Law Reports , " RvdW " ) DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

It thus appears from the case - law that former suspects may choose between proceedings before the criminal courts and proceedings before the civil courts . For their claim to be allowed by the civil courts , they must state , and prove , that the detention was unlawful in their regard ; if they are successful , they are entitled to full compensation . For their claim to be accepted by the criminal courts , no more is required than that the case should end without the imposition of a punishment or measure and that the review chamber should consider that reasons in equity exist to award compensation .

ORG There was formerly some controversy in legal writing as to when deprivation of liberty in connection with criminal proceedings constituted a tort , but this has now been settled by CARDINAL recent judgments of ORG .

In its judgment of DATE , RvdW DATE , no . ORG , ORG rejected the suggestion that pre - trial detention undergone in connection with a criminal act of which the suspect is afterwards acquitted should invariably be considered to be retrospectively unlawful and that the ORG should therefore be held liable to pay compensation for all damage suffered by the former suspect . ORG held that , on the contrary , only additional circumstances could lead to such a finding . These additional circumstances were referred to in this judgment and further elaborated in ORG above - mentioned judgment of DATE . From this statement of the law it envisages that pre - trial detention can only engage the ORG 's liability in tort , and entitle the former suspect to full compensation , in CARDINAL cases :

- firstly , if it is established , either by the judgment acquitting the former suspect or on the basis of other evidence contained in the case file of the criminal proceedings , that the suspicion which existed when the pre - trial detention was ordered and which at that time justified the detention had no basis in fact ; or


Violations of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , LOC .

He had been receiving a retirement pension since DATE . In DATE he asked a pension authority to up - rate his pension on the basis of the fact that he had worked in hazardous industries . The latter disagreed and the applicant appealed to ORG ( “ ORG ” ) .

By judgment of DATE ORG chaired by Judge T. ordered the pension authority to up - rate the applicant 's pension starting from DATE . The court based its findings on ORG ( “ LAW ” ) . The judgment was not appealed against and on DATE became final .

On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE and GPE Region ( “ ORG ” ) lodged with ORG ( “ ORG ” ) an application for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE . This application was never examined . However , on DATE the President of ORG wrote a letter to the first - instance court which stated as follows :

“ ORG sends a statement of complaint by the PERSON ORG ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE and GPE Region against the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE and GPE Region ...

[ The Town ] Court examined the scope of the pension rights of the plaintiff ...

[ The principles ] of the examination of the scope of the pension rights ... have been set out in the Ruling of the Plenum of ORG of the Russian Federation no . CARDINAL of DATE ... and the Judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE in the case of ORG v. ORG - Chief ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE and LOC .

Delivering a judgment ... at variance with the Ruling of the ORG of ORG of the Russian Federation no . CARDINAL of DATE and ORG of GPE of DATE discloses a judicial error , such judgment can not be regarded lawful . With the purpose of securing consistency in the case - law ... the statement of complaint by the ORG ORG ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE and GPE Region ... against the above said judgment in the case of PERSON ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE and GPE Region is being sent for reconsideration on the ground of newly discovered circumstances . ”

On DATE ORG lodged with ORG an application for quashing of the judgment of DATE and re - opening of the applicant 's case on the ground of newly discovered circumstances . It stated that ORG judgment of DATE in the PERSON case , which gave a different interpretation of LAW , had been a circumstance warranting the re - opening of the Khrykin case . The applicant argued that the application had been introduced outside the DATE time - limit .

By decision ( определение ) of DATE , ORG presided over by the same judge who examined the applicant 's case in DATE granted the application . It held as follows :

“ [ T]he method of the assessment of pension rights ... has been set out in paragraph CARDINAL of the Ruling of the Plenum of ORG of the Russian Federation no . CARDINAL of DATE ... and in the Judgment of ORG of GPE CARDINAL in the case of GPE v. ORG - Chief ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE and LOC ...

[ T]he court finds that reconsideration of such a judgment [ as in the applicant 's case ] can be done by way of additional proceedings on the ground of newly discovered circumstances ... which allow to remedy a judicial error ... that resulted in a violation of the rights of the defendant [ the Pension Fund ] ...

[ T]he arguments by the applicant and his representative that the reconsideration ... of the judgment of DATE is impossible and that the time - limit for lodging such a request was missed are to be dismissed on the ground that the Judgment of ORG ... , which entails legal consequences , was rendered on DATE and became known [ to ORG ] in DATE . The defendant had applied , to the competent judicial authorities , for reconsideration of the judgment [ of DATE ] on DATE , that is to say before the DATE time - limit ... expired .

In the light of the foregoing ... the court

DECIDED :

The judgment of DATE ... is to be quashed .

The re - examination of the merits of the dispute is to be scheduled on DATE at TIME ”

By judgment ( решение ) of DATE , ORG held that the applicant 's claim for a higher pension was to be dismissed in full . Its findings were based on ORG and the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court no . CARDINAL of DATE . On DATE , ORG upheld the first - instance court 's judgment on appeal .

The LAW of the Russian Federation provides :

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . In the administration of justice , judges shall be independent and subject only to the LAW of GPE and the federal law ... ”

Article CARDINAL

“ ... CARDINAL . A judge can not be transferred , suspended or removed from office unless it is provided for by the federal law . ”

The Code of Civil Procedure provides :

Article CARDINAL . GPE of judges

“ ... CARDINAL . Judges shall examine civil disputes in the conditions that exclude outside influence . Any interference with the exercise of their judicial powers shall be forbidden and shall be punishable under the law ... ”

Law of DATE “ On ORG in the NORP Federation ” provides that the independence of a judge is to be secured , in particular by the prohibition of interference with the administration of justice , the manner of their appointment and termination of their office , judges ' inviolability and by the system of judicial self - government ( Section CARDINAL ) . A judge is not obliged to give any comments on a decided , or a pending , case ( LAW ) .

Law “ On ORG in the NORP Federation ” provides :

Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL Judges ' liability for disciplinary offences

“ CARDINAL . A judge who has committed a disciplinary offence ( a breach of this PERSON and of LAW to be adopted by ORG ) may , with the exception of the judges of ORG of GPE , receive a disciplinary penalty in the form of :

– a warning ; [ or ]

– early termination of judicial office .

The decision to impose a disciplinary penalty must be taken by the judicial qualification board that has competence to examine the question of termination of office of a particular judge at the time of that decision ... ”

Law of DATE “ On Bodies of the ORG ” provides that a body which is empowered to impose a disciplinary penalty on judges ( including presidents of district courts ) are , in particular , regional judicial qualification boards ( Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . An application for holding a judge liable for having committed a disciplinary offence can be lodged by the president of the relevant court or the president of a higher court ( LAW § CARDINAL ) .

The Constitutional Court of GPE in its Ruling PERSON of DATE held that the power of the presidents of the relevant , or higher , courts to apply for holding a judge liable , as well as the powers of the presidents to examine complaints against judges and to participate in hearings of judicial qualification boards and to make their submissions , were not incompatible with the LAW of GPE .

The Code of Civil Procedure provides :

Article CARDINAL . Right to apply to a court exercising supervisory review

“ CARDINAL . Judicial decisions that have become legally binding , with the exception for judicial decisions by the ORG of ORG of GPE , may be appealed against ... to a court exercising supervisory review , by parties to the case and by other persons whose rights or legal interests have been adversely affected by these judicial decisions .

Judicial decisions may be appealed against to a court exercising supervisory review within DATE after they became legally binding ... ”

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL . Actions of the supervisory review court after an application for supervisory review is submitted

“ An application for supervisory review proceedings shall be examined :

( CARDINAL ) by the President of the Court , or [ his / her ] Deputy , or , at their request , by a judge of this court ... ”

Article CARDINAL . Examination of an application for supervisory review

“ CARDINAL . Having examined an application for supervisory review , the judge issues a decision on –

( CARDINAL ) NORP refusal to remit the application for examination on merits by a supervisory court in a court hearing if the grounds for [ quashing or altering judicial decisions ] do not exist ...

( CARDINAL ) . remitting the application for examination on merits by a supervisory court in a court hearing ... ”

Article CARDINAL . FAC for quashing or altering judicial decisions by way of supervisory review

“ Judicial decisions [ of lower courts ] may be quashed or altered by way of supervisory review on the grounds of substantial violations of substantive or procedural legal provisions . ”

LAW Competence of the supervisory - review court

“ CARDINAL . Having examined the case by way of supervisory review , the court may ...

( CARDINAL ) quash the judicial decision issued by a court of first , second or supervisory - review instance in whole or in part and remit the matter for a fresh examination ; ...

( CARDINAL ) quash or alter the judicial decision issued by a court of first , second or supervisory - review instance and issue a new judicial decision , without remitting the matter for a fresh examination , if substantive legal provisions have been erroneously applied or interpreted . ”

The Code of Civil Procedure provides :

“ CARDINAL . [ Judgments ] which have become final may be re - considered on the basis of newly discovered circumstances .

The grounds for reconsideration ... shall be :

CARDINAL ) NORP significant circumstances which were not and could not have been known to the party who applies for reconsideration ; ... ”

“ ... [ An application for reconsideration of a [ judgment ] due to the discovery of new circumstances ] shall be lodged within DATE after the discovery of the circumstances . ”

“ The time - limit for lodging an application for reconsideration of a [ judgment ] due to the discovery of new circumstances shall be calculated from DATE of the discovery of such circumstances ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Following the examination of an application for reconsideration of a [ judgment ] due to the discovery of new circumstances , the court may either grant the application and quash the [ judgment ] , or dismiss the application .

NORP The court decision by which an application for reconsideration of a [ judgment ] due to the discovery of new circumstances is granted shall not be subject to appeal .

Provided that a [ judgment ] is quashed , the case shall be examined in accordance with the rules of this LAW . ”

By a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the decision of the judicial qualification board of GPE to terminate office of judge PERSON for a breach of the procedural law . She argued that her actions had not constituted a disciplinary offence but to no avail .

PERSON had been a president of a district court .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the decision of the judicial qualification board of GPE to terminate office of judge PERSON for a “ blatantly erroneous breach of the procedural law ” . The Judge S. 's arguments that it had been an erroneous interpretation of the legislation rather than “ an intentional breach of law ” were dismissed .

PERSON had been Justice of ORG . The proceedings before the judicial qualification board had been brought by the president of the town court .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the decision of a regional judicial qualification board to terminate office of judge PERSON for “ blatant and repeated breaches of the procedural law ” . Judge S. ' unsuccessfully argued that she had misinterpreted the law and that she could not be held liable given that her judicial decisions had not been quashed by a higher court and had become final .

Ms Z. had been a judge of a district court . The proceedings before the judicial qualification board had been brought by the president of the town court .


Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant 's pre - trial detention for a period of DATE . The court referred to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant was guilty of fraud while acting in an organised group .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . On DATE the ORG ordered his detention for DATE . The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged ( including establishing and leading an organised criminal group ) . Furthermore , he had confessed to the charges . The court also stressed that the detention was necessary in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings , in particular as the applicant had been in hiding .

NORP In DATE his detention was extended until DATE . The court repeated the reasons previously given .

On DATE and DATE the applicant 's wife , PERSON , asked for permission to visit her husband in prison . On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG refused her requests . The prosecutor made handwritten notes on ORG applications – “ no permission ” and “ permission refused ” respectively ( “ brak zgody ” , “ nie wyrażam zgody ” ) .

On DATE the applicant was again refused permission to be visited by his wife and children by GPE . The prosecutor made a handwritten note on the applicant 's motion “ permission refused ” ( “ nie wyrażam zgody ” ) .

On DATE the applicant was visited by his daughter .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . The court held that the original reasons for his detention were still valid . The court also referred to the likelihood of a heavy sentence and the fact that the applicant had acted in a criminal group . The court further refused the applicant 's request for release .

On DATE the ORG refused the applicant 's application for release and the replacement of detention by more lenient preventive measures . The court referred to the grounds given in previous decisions .

The trial began on DATE . There were QUANTITY other coaccused in the proceedings . The prosecutor asked the court to hear CARDINAL witnesses .

At the hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the applicant again asked for the preventive measure to be changed . The court refused his request and extended the detention until DATE .

DATE and DATE the applicant was visited by his wife on CARDINAL occasions .

The applicant 's detention was subsequently extended on several occasions , in particular on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention .

It would appear that the proceedings are pending .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre - trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and the rules governing other “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG 's judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW DATE , as applicable at the material time , provided as follows :

“ A detainee is allowed to receive visitors , provided that he obtains permission from the authority at whose disposal he remains [ investigating prosecutor at the investigative stage or from the trial court once the trial has begun ] . If the detainee remains at the disposal of several authorities , it is necessary to obtain permission from all of them unless they decide otherwise . ”

The judgment was given following a constitutional complaint lodged by the ORG , alleging that LAW had been incompatible with a number of constitutional provisions , including the principle of protection of private and family life ( LAW ) , the principle of proportionality ( LAW ) , LAW ORG and LAW . ORG judgment became effective on DATE , on the date of its publication in ORG ) .

The Constitutional Court ruled that LAW , in so far as it did not specify the reasons for refusal of family visits in pre - trial detention , was incompatible with the above provisions . The court held that this provision did not indicate with sufficient clarity the limitations on a detainee 's constitutional right to protection of private and family life . The court also considered that LAW was incompatible with LAW in so far as it did not provide for a possibility to appeal against the prosecutor 's decision to refuse a family visit in pre - trial detention .

On DATE the parliament adopted amendments to Article CARDINAL of LAW . In particular , subparagraphs CARDINALa-CARDINALf were added . These provisions provide in particular that a detainee is entitled to CARDINAL family visit per month . In addition , they indicate clearly the conditions for refusing a family visit to a detainee and provide an appeal procedure against such a refusal . The amendments enter into force on DATE .

The relevant extracts from the Recommendation read as follows :

“ Part II Conditions of imprisonment

Contact with the outside world

CARDINAL Prisoners shall be allowed to communicate as often as possible by letter , telephone or other forms of communication with their families , other persons and representatives of outside organisations and to receive visits from these persons .

CARDINAL ORG and visits may be subject to restrictions and monitoring necessary for the requirements of continuing criminal investigations , maintenance of good order , safety and security , prevention of criminal offences and protection of victims of crime , but such restrictions , including specific restrictions ordered by a judicial authority , shall nevertheless allow an acceptable minimum level of contact .

CARDINAL ORG law shall specify national and international bodies and officials with whom communication by prisoners shall not be restricted .

CARDINAL NORP The arrangements for visits shall be such as to allow prisoners to maintain and develop family relationships in as normal a manner as possible .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG authorities shall assist prisoners in maintaining adequate contact with the outside world and provide them with the appropriate welfare support to do so . ”