Remainder inadmissible;Violations of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

NORP In DATE the applicant and her sister ORG decided jointly to build a residence in the town of GPE on CARDINAL adjacent land plots allocated to them by a local council . The plots were registered respectively in the applicant 's name and in the name of ORG 's son PERSON

The construction works started in DATE and in DATE the title over the second land plot was transferred to ORG

According to the applicant , in DATE PERSON died leaving a will by which she bequeathed her part of the house to the applicant .

By DATE the construction works had been nearly completed .

On DATE PERSON obtained a decision of the local administration transferring to him the title to the second land plot and moved into the house .

NORP In response to the applicant 's complaints that PERSON had forged an official document concerning his share in ORG 's inheritance , the local police refused to institute criminal proceedings for the lack of evidence of a crime .

NORP The local prosecutor also advised the applicant that it would be possible to evict PERSON from the house only on the basis of a court decision . It does not appear that the applicant brought proceedings for his eviction .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged with ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) a complaint concerning the decision of the local administration transferring the land title to Z.

On DATE the complaint was registered and accepted for examination .

By decision of DATE the court decided to suspend the proceedings with reference to the need to request the evidence .

On DATE the applicant lodged a separate civil action against PERSON , requesting the court to confirm her property rights in relation to the part of the house formerly owned by ORG with reference to her sister 's will , the fact that it was her and her sister 's joint possession and that the applicant had borne a major part of the construction expenses . She also asked the court to restore the time limits for acceptance of her share in ORG 's inheritance and establish that she had in fact accepted it .

NORP In response , PERSON filed a counterclaim requesting the court to invalidate ORG 's will .

The proceedings concerning the decision of the local administration resumed on DATE . By decision of CARDINAL DATE the court joined the applicant 's claims against the local council and PERSON in one set of proceedings .

By the same decision the court also accepted PERSON 's waiver of claims against the applicant . The waiver was subsequently declared unlawful and quashed by ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) on DATE .

On DATE the court decided to request ORG to question a number of witnesses . The request was executed and on DATE the court received the necessary evidence .

On CARDINAL DATE the LAW entered into force in respect of GPE .

The hearing of DATE did not take place because of PERSON 's failure to appear .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's claims as unfounded .

The Rostov ORG quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case at first instance on DATE .

The case was returned to ORG and accepted for examination on DATE .

The court decided to start the hearings in the case on DATE . On DATE the parties failed to appear and the hearing was postponed .

On DATE the applicant successfully challenged the judge and the case was transferred to a different court composition .

The hearing of DATE did not take place as the defendant 's counsel failed to appear . The hearing was postponed until DATE . On that date a counsel for the local administration failed to appear and the court again rescheduled the hearing .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer dropped the claims for the restoration of time limits and the establishment of the fact of acceptance of inheritance . She also retracted the submission that the applicant 's ownership to her sister 's part of the house should be declared in accordance with the will , claiming ownership only on the ground that the house had been a joint possession and that the applicant had borne the major construction expenses .

By decision of the same date the ORG granted this motion and discontinued the proceedings in respect of these claims accordingly . The applicant submitted that she had not authorised her lawyer to do so and that she had not been aware of this decision .

On DATE the court decided to split the proceedings into CARDINAL parts and examine the defendant 's counterclaim separately . The parties filed an interlocutory appeal against this decision and on DATE the proceedings were suspended awaiting the examination of the appeal .

The Rostov ORG refused to examine the appeal on CARDINAL October CARDINAL on the ground that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been final and not subject to appeal .

Thereafter the proceedings resumed , but on DATE ORG ordered an expert examination and again suspended the examination of the case .

On DATE the completed expert examination reached the court and the proceedings resumed .

The hearing of DATE did not take place because of the absence of the applicant 's counsel .

The expert who was summoned to the hearings of DATE and DATE failed to appear and the hearings were adjourned .

On DATE for an unspecified reason the case was transferred to a different court composition .

The hearing scheduled for DATE did not take place for the failure of the parties to appear .

On DATE and DATE the court decided to adjourn the hearing with reference to the applicant 's failure to attend .

NORP By decision of DATE the court ordered an additional expert examination and suspended the proceedings .

On DATE the examination was completed and on CARDINAL DATE the proceedings resumed .

By judgment of DATE the ORG held in the applicant 's favour . It declared her the owner of the house at issue and voided the decision of the local administration for transfer of land title to Z. as breaching the applicant 's rights

Z. appealed against this judgment .

On DATE the Rostov ORG rejected his appeal and upheld the first instance judgment in full . The judgment became final on DATE .

On an unspecified date the acting President of the Rostov ORG lodged with the ORG an application for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE and the appeal decision of DATE .

On DATE the Presidium of the Rostov ORG examined the case . It appears that the applicant stated her case at the hearing in person .

By decision of the same date the ORG quashed the impugned decisions . It found that the trial and appeal courts had erroneously applied the provisions of LAW of DATE to the events which had taken place before its entry into force . The ORG also referred to discrepancies between the facts established by the lower courts and the courts ' conclusions and remitted the case for a fresh examination at first instance .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint about the decision of DATE and noted that she was free to advance her arguments during the fresh examination of her case at first instance .

The proceedings in the case resumed on an unspecified date .

On DATE a presiding judge withdrew from the case and on DATE it was transferred to a different court composition .

By decision of DATE the court scheduled the hearing for DATE . On the latter date the presiding judge was sick and the hearing was postponed .

On DATE the court suspended the proceedings with reference to the applicant 's illness .

The proceedings resumed on DATE and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On that date the court decided to request further evidence and adjourned the hearing again .

On DATE the defendant failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned .

By judgment of DATE the ORG rejected the applicant 's claim of ownership of the disputed part of the house . The court held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the house was a joint possession and that the applicant had assumed the major construction expenses . It further established that the applicant 's ownership could not be based on the will either since the will was invalid . As to the land plot , the court granted the applicant 's claim and voided the decision transferring title over land to Z.

On DATE ORG upheld the first instance judgment on appeal and it became final .

The applicant filed several applications for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE . She also sought to set aside the decision of DATE alleging that she had not authorised her lawyer to drop the claims .

NORP In response to these applications , by decision of CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG ordered that the applicant 's case be examined on the merits by the Presidium of ORG .

On DATE the ORG of ORG examined the case .

It quashed the decision of DATE on the ground that the applicant 's counsel had gone beyond her authority when he had dropped a part of the claims and that the applicant had been unaware of the decision in question . The ORG ordered a fresh examination of this part of the claim . It also ordered re - examination of the issue as to whether the applicant could claim ownership to ORG 's part of the house as ORG 's heir .

As to the judgment of DATE and the appeal decision , the court ordered the exclusion from the courts ' reasoning of the references to the validity of ORG 's will and upheld them as to the rest .

On DATE the case was accepted for examination by ORG .

On DATE the court scheduled the hearing for DATE . On that date the applicant dropped her claims against the local administration and the court adjourned the hearing with reference to the need to request the evidence .

The hearings of DATE and DATE did not take place for the same reason .

On DATE the court ordered an additional expert examination and suspended the proceedings .

By decision of DATE the court admitted the new evidence in the case and forwarded it for examination to the expert institution .

DATE . The proceedings resumed on DATE . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's claims and granted PERSON 's counter - claim in full .

The judgment was upheld by ORG on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's application for supervisory review of the case was dismissed .

Section CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure of DATE ( Гражданский процессуальный кодекс РСФСР ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that regional and higher courts could conduct supervisory review of the activities of the lower courts .

According to Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code , certain senior judicial officers could , at any time , on the request by the person concerned or on their own motion , lodge with a higher court an application for supervisory review of a final decision of a lower court on points of law and procedure .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

On DATE the applicant was taken by ambulance to ORG of ORG . Pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) , the ORG notified the NORP ORG of this fact DATE .

In the opinion of an expert psychiatrist , dated DATE , it was observed that the applicant had been committed to hospital because of his erratic , pyromaniac behaviour , and was in a deranged state of mind which warranted his compulsory psychiatric treatment in a closed institution . On DATE the court heard the applicant and ordered his treatment under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Act .

DATE and DATE the applicant ’s compulsory treatment was reviewed by the court at the statutory intervals .

On DATE ORG again reviewed the applicant ’s psychiatric detention . At the hearing he was represented by an ad hoc guardian ( eseti gondnok ) . The judge in charge appointed an expert psychiatrist , specifying that his task was

“ to give an opinion as to whether or not the patient ’s ( eljárás alá vont személy ) admittance to , and prolonged treatment at , the psychiatric department was justified because of his pathological mental status ( kóros elmeállapot ) ” .

The expert confirmed the need to continue the applicant ’s treatment .

Based on that opinion , the court ordered the prolongation of the applicant ’s compulsory psychiatric treatment for an indefinite period , the necessity of which was to be reviewed within DATE . It reasoned as follows :

“ The patient ( eljárás alá vont személy ) was admitted to the psychiatric department .

Relying on the evidence taken and the expert opinion , the court has established that the patient ’s prolonged psychiatric treatment was justified and lawful .

The patient is in need of further therapy ; the court has therefore given its decision according to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . CARDINAL [ on ORG ] . ”

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed to ORG , arguing that the first - instance decision was unlawful in that its reasoning was substantially deficient . He pointed out that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) did not provide any substantive ground for prolonging his compulsory treatment , which could only be authorised under sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the Act .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision , finding that it was in compliance with the relevant provisions of LAW . It noted that , according to the expert psychiatrist ’s opinion , no change had occurred in the applicant ’s condition as to warrant his release , and that his prolonged therapy was justified and necessary . It was satisfied that the first - instance proceedings were in compliance with section CARDINAL of the Act . This decision was received at ORG for despatch on DATE , and was served on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a petition for review by ORG . He reiterated that the reasoning of the first - instance decision was insufficient , and argued that the lower ORG decision infringed the applicant ’s constitutional right to a fair hearing . He pointed out that the LAW provided no ground for compulsory psychiatric treatment because of a patient ’s “ pathological mental status ” – a criminal - law notion which had mistakenly been referred to when the expert psychiatrist had been appointed . The potential grounds for the applicant ’s psychiatric confinement were enumerated in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . In his view , this element deprived the expert ’s opinion of any relevance . He stressed that the fairness of any proceedings which might result in coercive measures required detailed reasoning in the relevant decisions . Referring to the ORG ’s conclusions in the case of PERSON the GPE ( judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINALA ) , he also argued that the failure to inform a patient of the reasons for his involuntary psychiatric treatment might amount to a violation of his Convention rights .

On DATE ORG rejected the petition for review as inadmissible . It held that it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of LAW .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant was released from hospital .

The relevant provisions of Act no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG read as follows :

“ ... b ) Dangerous conduct is constituted by a condition in which a patient , due to his disturbed state of mind , may represent a serious danger to his or others’ life and limb or health , but , given the nature of the illness , ‘ urgent hospitalisation’ [ within the meaning of section CARDINAL ] is not warranted ( a sürgős intézeti gyógykezelésbe vétel nem indokolt ) . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The treatment may be considered voluntary if , prior to admission to the psychiatric institution , the [ mentally ] competent patient has consented to it in writing .

( CARDINAL ) A partly or fully incompetent patient may be subjected to treatment in a psychiatric institution at the request of the person referred to in sections CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) In cases under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the court shall regularly review the necessity of hospitalisation . Such review shall take place DATE in psychiatric hospitals and DATE in psychiatric rehabilitation institutions . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The doctor in charge shall directly make arrangements to commit a patient to an appropriate psychiatric institution , if the patient ’s conduct is imminently dangerous because of his psychiatric or addictive disease and can only be controlled by urgent treatment in a psychiatric institution . ...

( CARDINAL ) The head of the psychiatric institution shall , within TIME of the patient ’s admission , notify the court thereof and shall thereby initiate steps to establish the necessity of the patient ’s admission and the order of compulsory psychiatric treatment . ...

( CARDINAL ) The court shall order the compulsory treatment of a patient subjected to urgent hospitalisation if the patient ’s conduct is dangerous and his treatment in an institution necessary .

( CARDINAL ) Before deciding , the court shall hear the patient and obtain the opinion of an independent expert psychiatrist . ...

( CARDINAL) The court shall review the necessity of the treatment DATE .

( CARDINAL ) The patient must be released from the psychiatric institution if his treatment in an institution is no longer necessary . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The court shall order the compulsory institutional treatment of a patient whose conduct is dangerous because of his psychiatric or addictive disease but whose urgent treatment is not warranted . ...

( CARDINAL ) Before giving its decision , the court shall hear the patient and an independent ... forensic expert psychiatrist ... as well as the psychiatrist who has initiated the proceedings . ...

( CARDINAL ) The court shall review the necessity of compulsory institutional treatment at the intervals specified in section CARDINAL . ...

( CARDINAL) A patient subjected to compulsory institutional treatment must be released once his treatment is no longer warranted . ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) In the proceedings outlined in this chapter , the court shall proceed by way of non - contentious proceedings . Unless required otherwise by this LAW or the non - contentious nature of the proceedings , the court shall apply the provisions of LAW no . DATE on Civil Procedure as appropriate . ...

( CARDINAL ) In the court proceedings , appropriate representation must be secured for the patient . ... . ”


CUMMINS AND OTHERS  v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The applicants are relatives of CARDINAL of the persons who were killed in the bombings in GPE in DATE and DATE and CARDINAL are victims of injury suffered in those explosions . They are represented by Mr PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE and solicitor for the organisation " Justice for the Forgotten " . Details of the applicants may be found in the FAC .

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

On DATE PERSON and PERSON were killed and CARDINAL people injured when car bombs exploded without warning at FAC and FAC in the centre of GPE .

On DATE another car bomb exploded in FAC killing PERSON and injuring CARDINAL other people .

On DATE , the principal NORP police report on the first bombings was concluded , reporting inter alia that the CARDINAL cars used in the bombings had been hired in GPE . In the section dealing with inquiries in GPE , it was commented :

" Due to the unsettled state existing in GPE , it was not possible for members to pursue all enquiries to finality . This was largely due to reluctance on the part of the ORG members to enter some areas of the city . In other instances and for reasons best known to themselves the ORG members would not allow our members to interview some persons . A case in point was the check made at ... ( tel . DATE ) . The ORG members conducted this enquiry on their own while leaving CARDINAL PERSON members in a car outside . The information passed on was that the house was occupied by an eccentric old lady and her CARDINAL grandchildren and to forget about her ... "

The report made no speculation as to who was responsible for the bombings and concluded that enquiries were continuing .

The investigation report into the second bombing issued on CARDINAL DATE , also without identifying any suspected perpetrators .

Following the " LAW " in DATE , ORG was set up in GPE in response to the perceived need for the suffering of the victims of violence to be recognised and addressed . In a report published in DATE , the ORG acknowledged that there was a widespread demand to find out the truth about specific crimes for which no - one had been made amenable . Foremost amongst these was the later GPE / Monaghan bombings of DATE ( see O’Loughlin and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL DATE . CARDINAL ) .

In DATE , ORG agreed to establish a non - statutory ORG . Mr Justice PERSON was eventually appointed to head the inquiry and issue a report to the Government , after which a committee of ORG would decide whether any further steps should be taken . The inquiry was informal , did not sit in public and had no legal powers . It initially received terms of reference in relation to the GPE / Monaghan bombings of DATE and the bombing of ORG GPE in DATE . In DATE , the ORG also requested the inquiry to take into consideration other bombings and shootings in GPE DATE . Following a preliminary examination the inquiry felt that the GPE bombings in DATE should be the subject of a second report .

On DATE the Inquiry wrote to the Secretary of ORG for GPE seeking such further information as ORG might have concerning the bombings in GPE in DATE .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG replied that this would appear to require a further major search through their records and given the experience of the task of identifying relevant material in the GPE / Monaghan and GPE bombings this would take some time .

By letter dated DATE , the Inquiry asked the Secretary of ORG if , in the first instance , documentation could be supplied relating to the intelligence services’ initial reactions to the bombings and their opinions as to those who were responsible .

By letter dated DATE , the Secretary of ORG replied that this would require a major and time - consuming search of records and that he could not give any indication at present of when that would be possible .

Following further letters from the inquiry dated DATE and DATE , the Secretary of ORG replied that they had yet been unable to commence the time - consuming search through the various records .

Further letters were sent by the inquiry dated DATE and CARDINAL May CARDINAL stressing the urgency and asking for at least the police records on the incidents . No reply was received .

In DATE , the first inquiry report ( sometimes known as " ORG " ) was made public . The inquiry had heard evidence , inter alia , implicating the ORG and former ORG officers in organising and supplying explosives for the GPE / Monaghan bombings in DATE . Written evidence before the inquiry included materials from the ORG who had carried out a number of interviews at the request of the NORP police , including some of the implicated officers who had rejected allegations of collusion in the attacks .

In his statement to ORG , Mr ORG stated that from the early stages the inquiry had received assurances of co - operation from ORG GPE . From its dealings with the ORG / ORG , the ORG had received a considerable amount of information , including records of the questioning in DATE of ORG officers suspected of participating in attacks on NORP civilians and ballistics evidence . There had been considerable delay in obtaining information from the Secretary of ORG of GPE . The inquiry was told that this was because there were CARDINAL files of possible relevance in ORG alone , while files in ORG could be counted in the CARDINAL . The teams examining these files were stated to have finished at DATE . On DATE , a CARDINAL page letter was sent by the Secretary of ORG containing the promised information . An appendix of CARDINAL pages gave details of the structure and control of intelligence gathering at the relevant time . No copies of original documents had been provided . Further requests for specific information did produce some additional information in a similar form :

" Correspondence with ORG undoubtedly produced some useful information ; but its value was reduced by reluctance to make original documents available and the refusal to make other information available on security grounds . While the Inquiry fully understands the position taken by ORG on these matters , it must be said that the scope of this report is limited as a result . "

The Inquiry nonetheless made findings as to the likely identities of the loyalist perpetrators ( mostly members of ORG “ ORG ” ) and concluded that it was likely that members of the GPE and ORG participated in , or were aware of , the preparations for the GPE - Monaghan bombings .

On DATE , ORG on ORG , ORG Women ’s Rights , published the inquiry ’s second report on the bombings in issue in the present case ( known as ORG of ORG into the Dublin Bombings of DATE " ) .

In this report , Mr Justice PERSON found that on the information available to date there was no credible evidence of any collusion by GPE security forces in the bombings . It was established that the car which exploded in FAC was a silver - grey FAC registered no . CARDINALVZ and the car which exploded on FAC was a blue PERSON Avenger registered no . OGX CARDINALK. The NORP police investigation in GPE revealed that they had both been hired on DATE by a man using a driver ’s licence in the name of PERSON . The latter made a statement to the ORG from which it appeared that his driving licence had been stolen in DATE . The ORG and NORP police were satisfied that he had no connection with the bombings . The NORP police received full co - operation in their enquiries in GPE following up the hiring of the cars and were successful in interviewing most of the persons involved in the transactions , building up photofit impressions of the hirer from the witnesses . The NORP police took possession of all the hiring documents for fingerprint examination . Further enquiries revealed that the driving licence had been used to hire CARDINAL other vehicles ( CARDINAL of which had been returned ) . Details of the photofit picture and the licence were circulated in the LOC and in GPE , without apparent success in uncovering any further information . As regarded fingerprint evidence on the documents , some were established as belonging to innocent persons . CARDINAL unidentified prints were sent to the ORG for their comparison . The inquiry noted that while no written report was ever received in reply , it could not be excluded that an oral negative reply had been given over the telephone .

The inquiry further noted that the investigation report at the time stated that a miscellany of intelligence information had been received and acted upon but it commented that without going into details it sufficed to say that nothing of real interest resulted . It could no longer be established from the available documentation what the nature of this information was . CARDINAL known element indicated that a named individual , an ex - NORP army man , was investigated by the police in GPE who notified the NORP authorities of various details including his whereabouts on relevant DATE and concluded that he had not been in GPE at those times .

As regarded possible loyalist responsibility for the bombings , the inquiry stated that on DATE an NORP police inspector had reported that one of his informants had given him confidential information to the effect that the ORG was responsible for the bombings . A report of this was passed to the ORG with a request for any relevant information that might be available , in particular concerning the bomb maker said to be a retired member of the NORP forces now a ORG member in the GPE area of GPE . By letter dated DATE , the ORG summarised their enquiries stating that they had no hard intelligence on those responsible for the bombings . The retired member of the armed forces in the GPE area had not been identified but the information could refer to an ex - colonel living outside GPE . The ORG stated that they were following this up . While there were no further letters dealing with this subject , it could not be excluded that verbal contact was maintained on the issue .

The inquiry report contained an examination of the allegations of collusion or NORP army or intelligence involvement which had been aired from the time of the bombings and had been even referred to on television by the NORP Prime Minister shortly after the events . It noted that in DATE a member of the NORP army , PERSON , who had deserted from his unit and joined the ORG , was convicted of the murder of CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL robberies . He also gave evidence against other ORG members . A newspaper article in DATE reported that PERSON had stated the cars used to bomb GPE were driven from GPE by ORG men but that the explosives and cars themselves had been supplied by a leading member of the ORG from GPE who had a close association with NORP intelligence . While the author of the article claimed to know the names of the ORG men involved , he told the inquiry that no NORP police officer approached him on the matter . In a later statement in prison in DATE , PERSON claimed that there was collusion between the ORG and the ORG , in particular that a ORG sergeant was passing weapons to the ORG and that the ORG had been instructed not to let him talk to the NORP police about the ORG bombings in GPE . An official from ORG visited PERSON in DATE and while on that occasion he made allegations concerning links between a ORG man who made a bomb and NORP intelligence he referred only to " a single bombing incident in the south in DATE " , without identifying the date or place of the attack .

On the other hand , the inquiry report noted that another journalist had published allegations suggesting that the ORG were responsible , in particular PERSON who was killed in DATE . According to a recent book published by the journalist , a former Chief of Staff of ORG had told him shortly before his own death in DATE that at an ORG meeting in DATE PERSON had claimed that the ORG had planted the bombs in GPE but that the army provided the cars . The journalist did not respond to the invitation to talk to the inquiry . A third journalist told the inquiry that by DATE PERSON was the senior military commander for the ORG in GPE and that he was a close friend of CARDINAL officers in ORG in GPE and of an army officer , possibly from the ORG attached to intelligence . PERSON had not mentioned to him any involvement in the bombings and that in any event PERSON was to some degree a fantasist , embellishing and fabricating stories to make himself seem more impressive .

Mr Justice PERSON commented as follows on the inquiry ’s access to information from GPE sources :

" ... It is now DATE since the Inquiry ’s first request for information on the GPE bombings of DATE was made . But on this occasion not only has no information been forthcoming ; but as of CARDINAL DATE ORG has not yet begun the process of searching for relevant information . ...

... The Inquiry is surprised and disappointed at this lack of co - operation on the part of the NORP authorities . "

A sub - committee was established to examine the report in public session with a view to reporting back to the Houses of the ORG . It invited submissions from interested persons and bodies and held public hearings DATE and DATE . The committee issued a final report with recommendations on DATE . The committee noted the lack of co - operation that Mr ORG had received from ORG and the NORP authorities and stated that it had experienced the same difficulty and had met with no adequate response to its own requests for information . It referred to a letter dated DATE from Prime Minister PERSON to the NORP Prime Minister which explained that on the matter of NORP co - operation with ORG extended inquiry it was their judgment that , given their experience of the scale of the task in identifying relevant materials in the GPE , GPE and GPE bombings , it would not have been possible to conduct another major search through their records within the timescale of the inquiry .

The committee further noted that when it narrowed its request to CARDINAL sets of papers , including those of ORG from DATE , this was no more successful . It stated that in its view the fact that to date the papers had not been made available raised the question as to whether the NORP authorities had something to hide and that this non - co - operation exacerbated the difficulties in establishing the truth . It made no findings as to collusion otherwise and made no specific recommendations concerning further investigations into these bombings .

Meanwhile , during DATE the lawyers acting for the victims and relatives in the organisation " Justice for the Forgotten " discovered that the inquests into the death of the CARDINAL people who had died in the bombings in DATE had been adjourned . The GPE agreed that the inquests should resume on DATE once the inquiry report had issued .

Prior to and during the inquest the legal representatives of the GPE families made known their views that witnesses from GPE and other parts of GPE would be necessary to ensure a thorough and proper inquest took place . By letter dated DATE the Coroner had already requested information from the ORG , including any files in relation to the criminal investigation concerning the cars stolen in GPE and identified as involved in the bombings in GPE and any files relating to specific inquiries conducted by the ORG in support of the inquiries made by the NORP police into the DATE GPE bombings . He also invited a representative of the ORG to attend the inquest . The ORG declined to send a representative on the grounds that there was no one who had been sufficiently senior at the time and was still a member of the service .

CARDINAL witnesses from GPE voluntarily attended the inquest at the invitation of " Justice for the Forgotten " . Other witnesses declined to attend , such as Mr PERSON whose car had been hijacked and used in the DATE bombing and whose CARDINAL statements to the ORG contained inconsistencies which the GPE families wished to explore .

Members of the NORP police gave evidence at the inquest concerning their contacts with the ORG during the investigation . A detective superintendent outlined that during the investigation members of the NORP police conducted enquiries in GPE with the assistance and co - operation of members of the ORG . For example , photofit pictures of the hirer of CARDINAL of the cars were compiled from witness descriptions , the NORP police were given all the hiring documents for fingerprinting and the ORG interviewed a number of people in relation to the hiring and hijacking of cars .

On DATE , the jury gave verdicts of unlawful killing by a person or persons unknown .

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained that GPE had failed , in breach of its obligations under LAW , to co - operate with ORG , the consideration of the report by the sub - committee of ORG and the resumed inquests by LOC . They complained that it was known that the perpetrators came from the jurisdiction of GPE and that GPE authorities held information essential to any effective investigation or inquiry . They pointed to the well - established nature of the public administration in GPE , its renown for its management techniques , its recently adopted expertise in file identification and retrieval in the Bloody Sunday Tribunal , the fact that the relevant departments and bodies still existed and the dates and events were specific to known areas of responsibility in arguing that the GPE claims of difficulty in identifying and accessing relevant information were grossly exaggerated .

THE LAW

The applicants complained that GPE had failed to co - operate with recent investigations into the deaths and injuries caused by bombs in GPE in DATE , invoking LAW which provides as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone ’s right to life shall be protected by law . ... ”

The ORG ’s case - law establishes that the obligation to protect the right to life under LAW , read in conjunction with the ORG ’s general duty under LAW to “ secure to everyone within [ its ] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in [ the ] LAW , requires by implication that there should be some form of effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force ( see , mutatis mutandis , ORG and Others v. the GPE , judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , and GPE v. GPE , judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-I , § CARDINAL ) . The essential purpose of such investigation is to secure the effective implementation of the domestic laws which protect the right to life and , in those cases involving ORG agents or bodies , to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility . What form of investigation will achieve those purposes may vary in different circumstances . However , whatever mode is employed , the authorities must act of their own motion , once the matter has come to their attention . They can not leave it to the initiative of the next of kin either to lodge a formal complaint or to take responsibility for the conduct of any investigative procedures ( see , for example , mutatis mutandis , PERSON GPE [ ORG ] no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII , § CARDINAL ) .

Where there are cross - border elements to an incident of unlawful violence leading to loss of life , the ORG has already had occasion to observe that the authorities of the ORG to which the perpetrators have fled and in which evidence of the offence could be located may be required by LAW to take effective measures in that regard , if necessary of their own motion . Otherwise those indulging in cross - border attacks would be able to operate with impunity and the authorities of ORG which has suffered the attack would be foiled in their own efforts to protect the fundamental rights of their citizens ( see the above - cited O’Loughlin and Others case ) .

In the present case , the ORG finds no indication of any lack of effective co - operation by the police in GPE in the aftermath of the bombings in DATE . The PERSON inquiry report refers in positive terms to the fact that NORP police officers were able to conduct inquiries in GPE and had full access to available evidence ( e.g. the documents relating to the cars used in the bombings ) . The criticism made that ORG officers were reluctant at times to enter areas of GPE , at a time of considerable unrest , and insisted on occasion on interviewing suspects alone ( the example given was an eccentric old lady ) does not , in the ORG ’s view , disclose any bad faith or establish that there were any obstacles effectively preventing the NORP police from pursuing any substantive leads . It would appear that the investigation had largely wound down by DATE without any success in identifying possible suspects or further useful leads .

The applicants’ complaints indeed focus , not on the co - operation in the investigation furnished at the time , but on the GPE authorities’ failure to respond to the PERSON inquiry and ORG requests for information from their files , as well as the lack of response to the Coroner ’s approaches for the purpose of the Inquest .

The ORG would note , firstly , that the PERSON inquiry report which commented on the failure of GPE authorities to produce information from their files was published on DATE , DATE before the application was lodged with the ORG , raising issues as to whether this part of the ORG complaints has been lodged timeously as required by LAW .

That said , the ORG would observe that both the PERSON inquiry and the ORG hearings were non - statutory , non - judicial procedures , inspired by the considerable sympathy felt for the victims and their families who continued to suffer from a lack of resolution to the atrocities committed . The GPE authorities had already been requested to assist in providing information concerning the GPE - Monaghan bombings and had provided some information and copies of documents , after trawling through CARDINAL of files . The ORG finds that the ORG response to a subsequent extension of the enquiry and a new series of requests concerning earlier incidents was unsurprisingly not enthusiastic . It sees no reason to doubt that responding to such requests would have been time - consuming in the extreme and is unpersuaded by assumptions that the work had already been done for the GPE - Monaghan bombings or that the task would be of relative simplicity for NORP staff well - practised in document retrieval due to experience in their own inquiries .

While administrative difficulties do not as such excuse a failure to provide an effective investigation into a potential breach of LAW , the ORG must give weight in this case to the lack of any concrete elements of collusion by NORP security forces in the bombings , which may be contrasted with the evidence brought to light concerning other incidents both north and south of the border . That evidence can not be regarded as in any way probative of any likely security force implication in the bombings in issue in this case . Nor have the applicants pointed to any line of substantive enquiry or access to potential suspects being blocked by GPE authorities . In the circumstances , given the lapse of time and the level of assistance given by the ORG to the NORP police in their investigations at the time , the ORG does not find that the failure of GPE to complete a search of all their files for information of possible relevance to the inquiries in GPE discloses any appearance of a breach of a positive obligation to conduct an effective investigation required by LAW .

As regards the inquests , which were conducted by Coroner and jury in GPE in DATE , the ORG recalls that this procedure had been adjourned for DATE . No explanation has been provided as to why the NORP authorities , or the families , did not take steps to conclude the inquests within a reasonable time after the events . While it appears that the GPE police declined to send a representative to the hearings , this was apparently on the basis that there was no relevant officer still on the force who could give useful evidence DATE . Nor is it apparent that any former ORG officer or the requested information from ORG files would have been likely to shed any further light on events , given the level of co - operation between the NORP police and ORG during the investigation at the relevant time . The ORG finds accordingly that it has not been shown that GPE authorities were required , for the purposes of assisting in an effective investigation under LAW , to participate in the manner requested in the resumed inquest hearings .

The ORG therefore rejects the application as manifestly ill - founded pursuant to LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .

For these reasons , the ORG unanimously

A N N E X

List of applicants

PERSON

PERSON

PERSON

PERSON

PERSON

PERSON

PERSON

PERSON

Paddy DUFFY

PERSON ( née PERSON )

PERSON

PERSON

PERSON

PERSON MORRISSEY

Betty SWORDS

PERSON

Rosanna BOWLER

PERSON


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

On DATE the ORG ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) charged the applicant under LAW with the offence of securing execution of document by deception . The applicant was also charged under LAW with the offence of acting against the interests of the “ R ” company . The prosecuting authorities considered that on DATE the applicant , acting as the president of the “ R ” company , had deceived a notary public in order to obtain a power of attorney authorising his brother to sell shares in that company . Furthermore , they considered that on CARDINAL June DATE the applicant had acted against the interests of the “ R ” company when he had sold the company shares and had granted his brother another power of attorney to sell company shares without having the right to do so .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed by ORG who informed him about the charges laid against him and the facts on which they were based .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant to report once DATE to ORG and to surrender his NORP passport . The prosecutor considered that these measures were necessary in order to ensure the proper course of the criminal investigation ( zapewnienie prawidłowego toku postępowania przygotowawczego ) . The order was based , inter alia , on Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure which granted the prosecuting authorities a right to order a person charged with a criminal offence to report to the police .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG ) an appeal against the order of DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the part of the appeal concerning the applicant ’s obligation to report to the police and instructed ORG to return immediately the applicant ’s passport . It appears that subsequently the applicant received his passport without delay .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE to quash the order requiring him to report once DATE to the police . The prosecutor considered that the applicant had failed to show any legal grounds for quashing the order .

In a letter of DATE the ORG advised counsel for the applicant that his request of DATE to be given written grounds for the order issued on DATE was unsubstantiated since that order clearly stated that the measures it imposed on the applicant were necessary to ensure the proper course of the criminal investigation .

On DATE counsel for the applicant received from ORG written grounds for the statement of charges issued on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to discontinue the proceedings in his case .

The applicant failed to provide information about the outcome of the proceedings .


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

Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Sverre Erik Jebens;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

On DATE the authorities confiscated the applicant 's father 's QUANTITY villa and the appurtenant plot of land measuring QUANTITY m which was situated in the city of ORG .

On DATE the authorities transferred the confiscated villa and the plot of land to S.

Pursuant to the DATE LAW , on an unspecified date the applicant and his CARDINAL siblings lodged an application with ORG on ORG and Compensation of Properties ( “ the Commission ” ) seeking the restitution of their father 's property . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG dismissed their request .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) claiming that the ORG 's decision was unlawful .

On DATE ORG recognised the applicant 's and his siblings ' inherited property rights over the villa and the plot of land . However , ORG found that , in so far as the plot of land was occupied and in so far as the QUANTITY villa had been lawfully transferred to S , they were not recoverable by the applicant and his siblings . It awarded them compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP leks ( “ ALL ” ) .

NORP The applicant and his siblings appealed arguing that ORG had wrongly assessed the evidence .

On DATE ORG ( “ Court of Appeal ” ) awarded the applicant and his siblings compensation in - kind for the value of the plot of land as opposed to monetary compensation . The applicant and his siblings appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that it did not contain any of the grounds of appeal envisaged by LAW . The applicant and his siblings lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG .

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

To date , ORG decision has not been enforced .

The relevant provisions of LAW read :

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

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

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ State bodies shall comply with judicial decisions . ”

Article CARDINAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to LAW , as amended , the Government have adopted a number of by - laws , by way of ORG ( “ CMDs ” ) as described below .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The first decision fixed the price of land for the regions of GPE , PERSON , PERSON and ORG ; the second decision fixed the price of land for the regions of ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ; the third decision fixed the price of land for the regions of ORG , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and GPE . The fourth decision contained an updated price list for certain cities .

The DATE LAW provided for the establishment of the IkCF ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Government have adopted the following CMDs on the procedures for the allocation of properties covered by the IkCF .

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

Local and central ORG institutions are responsible for identifying and drawing up a list of immovable properties in their ownership which could serve as in - kind compensation . The list is submitted to the ORG and its regional offices which are responsible for checking the legal status of each property . The ORG submits the final list of immovable properties for inclusion in the NORP to the Minister of Justice . The Government are to approve the list and publish it in ORG .

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE the ORG allocated QUANTITY of agricultural land to the NORP . The ORG is responsible for using it for the compensation of owners in accordance with the criteria prescribed by law .

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE the Government allocated QUANTITY of forests and pastures to the NORP . The Agency shall use it for the compensation of owners in accordance with the criteria prescribed by law .

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE the Government allocated CARDINAL objects , mainly warehouses , factories and office buildings , to the NORP . The ORG is responsible for using it for the compensation of owners in accordance with the criteria prescribed by law .

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE the ORG allocated CARDINAL objects , mainly warehouses , office buildings and workshops to the NORP . The ORG is in charge of using it for the compensation of owners in accordance with the criteria prescribed by law .

With regard to the appeal procedure before ORG , the Code of Civil Procedure , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ Decisions of ORG and ORG may be appealed against to ORG on the following grounds : ( a ) the law has not been complied with or has been applied erroneously ; ( b ) there have been serious breaches of procedural rules ( pursuant to LAW ) ; ( c ) there have been procedural violations that have affected the adoption of the decision . ... ”

Article CARDINAL

“ An appeal [ to ORG ] shall be declared inadmissible if it contains grounds other than those provided for under the law . The inadmissibility of appeals shall be decided upon in deliberations in camera . ”


CASE OF EASTERBROOK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in ORG , GPE .

On DATE , the applicant was convicted at ORG in GPE of robbery , wounding with intent , possessing firearms with intent to endanger life and possessing ammunition with intent to endanger life .

The offences arose out of a single robbery which occurred on CARDINAL DATE at a shop in GPE . CARDINAL of the applicant ’s associates entered the shop , snatched a ORG bag containing MONEY and held a loaded revolver to the head of a member of the shop ’s staff . The applicant , armed with a loaded revolver , kept watch outside . During a changeover of cars in their flight from the crime , the applicant and his associates were intercepted by the police , who surrounded them and told them to lay down their arms . The applicant fired CARDINAL shots , wounding CARDINAL police officer in the leg . The police returned fire and one of the applicant ’s associates was killed . The applicant received a superficial wound to his shoulder . He was arrested and immediately detained .

The applicant was subsequently tried and was not represented at his trial . He stated that he was informed by his counsel that his defence was “ political ” in nature and could not be put by a professional advocate . His counsel then withdrew . The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment . In sentencing him , the judge made reference to his long , violent criminal record and the dangerous nature of his character .

NORP In DATE , ORG refused the applicant ’s renewed application for leave to appeal against conviction , leave having already been refused by a single judge . ORG also rejected the applicant ’s appeal against sentence . At this hearing the applicant was again not represented .

NORP On DATE , a certificate was issued on behalf of the Secretary of ORG , stating that the provisions of LAW DATE for certifying the tariffs of discretionary life sentence prisoners would not apply to the applicant . The applicant ’s release from prison would therefore be at the Home Secretary ’s discretion , following a favourable recommendation from ORG and after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and trial judge , if available . The certificate stated that it was ORG policy that no life sentence prisoner should be detained DATE without a review by ORG . The first review of the applicant ’s case by ORG would be in DATE . The applicant stated that he had no record of receiving this document .

On DATE , ORG informed the applicant that , following a judgment of ORG , the Secretary of ORG would now be setting a specific tariff which would be disclosed to the applicant , along with the judicial recommendations and any reasons for any departure from them . The judicial recommendations - that in the applicant ’s case “ ORG should mean ‘ life’ ” – were disclosed to the applicant and he was invited to make representations .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary agreed to certify that the applicant should be subject to the arrangements for the release of discretionary life prisoners , despite having previously qualified the applicant as someone serving a mandatory life sentence . The decision of CARDINAL DATE also set the tariff of the applicant ’s sentence at DATE , expiring on DATE .

The applicant ’s solicitors made written submissions as to the appropriate length of the tariff and submitted that the applicant should be entitled to an oral hearing before the Lord Chief Justice . The applicant ’s solicitors were informed by a letter of CARDINAL DATE that the Lord Chief Justice had revised his opinion and that he recommended a tariff of DATE , but that no oral hearing would be allowed . On DATE , ORG informed the applicant ’s solicitor that the ORG Secretary had decided on a tariff of DATE , to expire in DATE .

On DATE , the applicant made an application for judicial review of the Home Secretary ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The application was dismissed on DATE . A renewed application was dismissed on DATE .

After the tariff expired in DATE , the applicant became eligible for ORG review procedures . He has stated however that he has decided not to participate in the procedures due to his continuing belief that the Government have breached his human rights and still refuses to acknowledge those breaches .

Murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment under LAW DATE . A person convicted of other serious offences ( e.g. manslaughter , rape or robbery ) may also be sentenced to life imprisonment at the discretion of the trial judge in certain other cases where the offence is grave and where there are exceptional circumstances which demonstrate that the offender is a danger to the public and it is not possible to say when that danger will subside .

NORP Over DATE , the Secretary of ORG has adopted a “ tariff ” policy in exercising his discretion whether to release offenders sentenced to life imprisonment . This was first publicly announced in ORG by Mr PERSON on DATE ( ORG ) cols . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . In essence , the tariff approach involves breaking down the life sentence into component parts , namely retribution , deterrence and protection of the public . The “ tariff ” represents the minimum period which the prisoner will have to serve to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence . The Home Secretary will not refer the case to ORG until DATE the expiry of the tariff period , and will not exercise his discretion to release on licence until after the tariff period has been completed ( per Lord PERSON , NORP v. Secretary of ORG for ORG , ex parte PERSON and CARDINAL , [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL , at pp . CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , the tariff of a discretionary life prisoner is fixed in open court by the trial judge after conviction . After the tariff has expired , the prisoner may require the Secretary of ORG to refer his case to ORG which has the power to order his release if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to detain him for the protection of the public .

A different regime , however , applied under LAW to persons serving a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment ( now replaced by ORG “ the DATE LAW ) , sections CARDINAL ) . In relation to these prisoners , the Secretary of ORG decides the length of the tariff . The view of the trial judge is made known to the prisoner after his trial , as is the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice . The prisoner is afforded the opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of ORG who then proceeds to fix the tariff and is entitled to depart from the judicial view ( NORP v. Secretary of ORG for ORG , ex parte Doody [ DATE ] CARDINAL Appeal Cases CARDINAL ; and the ORG Secretary ’s statement to ORG , DATE , ORG ) cols . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The Criminal Justice Act DATE provided in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) as regarded mandatory life prisoners :

“ If recommended to do so by the [ ORG , the Secretary of ORG may , after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice together with the trial judge if available , release on licence a life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner . ”

This was in contrast to the position for discretionary life prisoners , where ORG was given the power of decision . Pursuant to the reforms introduced at this time , these prisoners were also given the opportunity of an oral hearing .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

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

On DATE the applicant ’s father , a former police officer , attacked the applicant ’s sister with a knife . She suffered moderate injuries to her left arm . When the applicant began to defend his sister , the father turned to attack him . The applicant suffered several injuries to his arms . During the struggle the applicant seized a machete from his father and inflicted a number of blows on him . The applicant ’s father died of a haemorrhage shortly thereafter .

On DATE criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant . A lawyer was appointed to defend him . DATE several expert opinions were obtained and a number of witnesses were heard .

On DATE the investigator transmitted the case to ORG , with the proposal that the applicant be indicted for murder .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , concluding that the applicant had acted in self - defence . This decision became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG filed a complaint in the interest of the law against the above decision . On DATE ORG upheld the complaint and quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG sent detailed instructions to ORG on the action to be taken with a view to establishing the relevant facts . The case was returned to the police investigator .

DATE and DATE the investigator took action at regular intervals with a view to establishing the facts of the case . This included questioning of a number of witnesses and obtaining expert opinions and documentary evidence . The applicant ’s counsel was notified of and had the option of attending the questioning of witnesses .

In the meantime , on DATE and DATE the applicant requested that a different lawyer be appointed to defend him , as he had lost confidence in the lawyer who had been appointed on DATE . On DATE the applicant asked the police investigator to notify him of all steps taken in the criminal proceedings , so that he could attend and defend his rights in person . On DATE the investigator replied to the applicant that the law did not require his presence during the interrogation of witnesses . The applicant would be summoned whenever his presence was required under the relevant provision of LAW . On DATE different counsel was appointed to assist the applicant .

On DATE the applicant consulted the file . On DATE , in the presence of his counsel , he submitted his comments on several witness statements .

On DATE , after the applicant had perused the file , ORG indicted the applicant before ORG in PERSON .

On DATE ORG judge asked for permission to withdraw , as he had known the victim . On DATE the case was transferred to a different judge .

On DATE ORG returned the case to ORG . The decision stated that the prosecuting authority had failed to comply in full with the instructions set out in ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG lodged a complaint , submitting reasons . On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor ’s complaint . The decision was delivered to ORG on DATE .

On DATE the investigator requested information about the applicant ’s criminal record . In DATE the investigator examined and cross - examined witnesses and the applicant . Further investigative measures were also carried out . GPE evidence was obtained and an expert was heard in DATE . CARDINAL witnesses were examined in DATE . On DATE the investigator submitted the file to ORG .

On DATE the prosecutor filed a new indictment against the applicant with ORG .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG heard an expert in forensic medicine . On DATE it again returned the case to the prosecuting authorities , noting that several of ORG instructions relating to the establishment of the facts of the case had not yet been complied with . The applicant and the public prosecutor challenged this decision . The public prosecutor later withdrew his complaint .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The decision stated that the public prosecutor had complied with ORG earlier instructions taken as a whole . However , there had been substantial procedural shortcomings in the examination of the applicant and several witnesses . Those shortcomings needed to be rectified .

On DATE and on CARDINAL and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the applicant and several witnesses were cross - examined .

On DATE ORG again indicted the applicant on a murder charge before ORG in PERSON .

At a preliminary hearing on DATE the public prosecutor withdrew the indictment . The case was returned to the police investigator as a result .

On DATE the applicant , his mother and sister refused to make statements .

On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant . As ORG judge involved considered himself biased , the case was transferred to a different judge on DATE .

On DATE ORG adjourned the main hearing as the applicant ’s counsel was unable to attend for serious family reasons .

On DATE the applicant refused to make a statement before ORG . His statements made in the course of the pre - trial proceedings were read out and the applicant confirmed them . ORG heard a witness . It decided that the hearings should be held in the applicant ’s presence . The case was adjourned with a view to hearing other witnesses .

On DATE ORG heard witnesses . The case was adjourned as the expert in forensic medicine was ill . The court later established that she would be on sick leave until DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG heard several witnesses and experts . On DATE it took further evidence .

On DATE , after both the applicant and the public prosecutor had stated that they had no further proposals for evidence to be taken , ORG in PERSON convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . With reference to the experts’ conclusions , ORG

On DATE and DATE the applicant appealed . Relying on the evidence in the case he argued that the first - instance court had erred in the legal qualification of his action . He had acted in self - defence and his action did not constitute a criminal offence .

On DATE ORG , referring to the evidence included in the file , upheld the first - instance conclusion that the applicant had committed murder . ORG accepted that the applicant had initially acted in legitimate defence , in that he had protected his sister from their father ’s attacks . In the subsequent stage , however , after he had separated his father from his sister , the applicant had inflicted CARDINAL injuries on his father using a machete that was QUANTITY in length . That action had been in excess of legitimate defence . After the attack the applicant had tied up his wounded father , and then rolled him up in a carpet without attempting to provide assistance . In view of the ORG reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE imprisonment .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1 (composition of the State Security Court);Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 (other complaints);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers at ORG on suspicion of his involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation .

On DATE the applicant was brought before a judge at ORG who ordered his release pending trial .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation , namely the ORG . He requested that the applicant be convicted and sentenced under LAW of LAW and LAW no . ORG .

On DATE ORG joined the trial of the applicant to the ongoing trial of CARDINAL other accused . Throughout the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer .

On DATE ORG , relying on the applicant 's statement to the police , the witness testimonies of other suspects as well as other evidence , convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

Following the decision of ORG the applicant fled to GPE where he successfully applied for asylum .

The applicant submitted that on CARDINAL DATE he was arrested and taken into custody in GPE on the basis of a Red Notice issued by GPE via ORG on the ground of his original indictment in DATE and his subsequent case before the ORG . He was released DATE since he had been granted asylum by GPE . The Government denied the existence of any such notice .

The Government further submitted that the applicant 's sentence had been reduced to DATE and DATE imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of the new LAW .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments : PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG were abolished .


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

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

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

The applicant is suffering from partial deafness ( also known as sensor neural hearing loss ) .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several counts of robbery , theft and unlawful possession of arms and taken to a police station for questioning . Following the interrogation , the applicant was remanded in custody pending trial in detention facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE , GPE .

Upon the applicant ’s arrest he retained a lawyer , PERSON In DATE the applicant asked for PERSON to be replaced by PERSON Later the applicant again asked the court for permission to change his lawyer on CARDINAL occasions , alleging ineffectiveness . It appears that during the trial hearing he was represented by PERSON

The trial was held on DATE . ORG convicted the applicant , along with CARDINAL other co - accused , of theft , aggravated robbery , hijacking , causing deliberate damage to property and possession of firearms , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment with forfeiture of estate . The applicant appealed on the point of facts and law , contesting his involvement in several episodes and alleging that the sentence was too severe .

According to the applicant , on DATE he requested to be present in the courtroom in person for health reasons ( partial deafness and weak eyesight ) but his request was never examined by the court .

According to the Government , the courts did not receive such a request .

It appears that the applicant was not informed about the date and time of the appeal hearing in due time but learned about it on DATE of the appeal hearing . The authorities submitted a certificate from the IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL detention centre in GPE , where the applicant was placed for the duration of the appeal proceedings , informing the ORG that it was impossible to submit a copy of the summons to the appeal hearing due to the absence of the applicant ’s case file .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined the applicant ’s appeal , modified the qualification of his crimes and reduced the sentence to DATE . The appeal hearing was held by video link . The applicant was brought to IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL detention centre , which was equipped with the necessary facilities to broadcast the hearing . He was not represented by a lawyer . The prosecutor was present in person in the court room .

According to the applicant , the quality of the video and audio transmission was very low . The applicant , who was suffering from partial deafness , could not follow the appeal hearing properly and when he asked the warders to increase the volume his requests were allegedly refused in a rude manner . He further alleged that he had twice been interrupted by the judge when trying to defend himself and was not able to proceed with the defence due to his confusion and the negative psychological effect caused by the judge ’s attitude and the transmission by video link . He further alleged that the overall length of the hearing amounted to TIME .

According to the Government , the applicant stated his case at the appeal hearing . He did not mention his illness during the appeal examination . ORG examined his arguments concerning the excessive severity of punishment . The court took into account the applicant ’s family situation , his readiness to cooperate with the authorities and the factors which had induced him to commit the crime .

On DATE ORG of GPE brought the applicant ’s sentence into compliance with the amendments introduced into LAW in DATE and reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG of GPE refused to review the judgment of DATE and the appeal decision of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review , having found no violations .

The applicant was held in the detention facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE from DATE and from DATE to DATE . The applicant does not complain about the conditions of his detention in other detention facilities where he was held from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

The Government submitted that the applicant was held in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL during the above - mentioned period .

According to a certificate of DATE issued by the facility administration , cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY . m and cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m Another certificate of the same date indicated that CARDINAL inmates were held in cell no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL inmates were held in cell no . CARDINAL at the relevant period . The personal space afforded to the applicant was consequently over QUANTITY m in each cell . The cell was equipped with heating , ventilation , a window that could be opened , a drinking water container and a lavatory . The windows were covered by metal security shields which were removed in DATE . The applicant had an individual sleeping place and bedding . He received food CARDINAL times a day in accordance with standard norms . The applicant was given cutlery and personal hygiene items . He was able to shower once DATE and exercise outside for TIME a day .

NORP The applicant contested these statements on account of personal space and sanitary conditions . He claimed that the cells were small , dirty and damp . The metal security shields covering the windows blocked access to natural light and fresh air , especially bearing in mind that the cells were located in a semi - basement . The artificial light was never switched off . Drinking water was of poor quality and was supplied in rusty containers . Due to overcrowding in the cells the applicant did not have an individual bed . The lavatory in the corner of the cell had no flush system and was not separated from the living area ; the applicant had to use the toilet in front of his cellmates and the wardens who observed them through a peephole in the door . The detainees were given TIME to take a shower . CARDINAL detainees had to share CARDINAL shower and had to wash themselves and their clothes during this short time .

According to the certificates of DATE issued by the facility director and the warders , the applicant was held in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE during the above - mentioned period . The cells measured CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and QUANTITY m and housed CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL inmates respectively . The Government submitted consequently that the applicant was afforded CARDINAL CARDINAL sq . m of personal space in each cell .

As to the sanitary conditions , the ORG submitted the same information as regards the period from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP In support of their allegations the Government provided several certificates issued by the chief of GPE on DATE , statements by the warders ( not dated ) , a copy of the applicant ’s prison card stating that the applicant had been provided with bed sheets , cutlery and clothes , as well as a number of certificates concerning the food ration during the relevant period of time and disinfection activities conducted in the detention facility in DATE .

The applicant contested these statements . He claimed , in particular , that he had been held in cells CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ; that the cells were small , dirty and damp . The metal security shields covering the windows blocked access to natural light and fresh air , especially bearing in mind that the cells were located in a semi - basement . The artificial light was never switched off . The cells were dimly lit by a QUANTITY bulb , fixed in the ceiling and covered with metal mesh . Drinking water was of poor quality and was supplied in rusty containers . According to the applicant inmates were allowed QUANTITY per person in each cell , and he did not have an individual bed . The lavatory in the corner of the cells had no flush system and was not separated from the living area ; it was allegedly located QUANTITY from the dining table ; the applicant had to use the toilet in front of his cellmates and the wardens who observed them through a peephole in the door . The detainees were given TIME to take a shower . CARDINAL detainees had to share CARDINAL shower and had to wash themselves and their clothes during this short time . The applicant also complained about the appalling quality of nutrition , the large numbers of insects and rats , the lack of ventilation , the cold in DATE ( down to -CARDINALºC in the corner cells ) and the inadequate supplies of detergent . In detention the applicant contracted shingles and scabies .

The applicant supported his allegations by statements from his CARDINAL cellmates , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . who were held in the same cells as the applicant during DATE . Additional submissions supporting the applicant ’s description of PERSON in respect of overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions were lodged by PERSON . , who had been detained in cells ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL in DATE , Mr. PERSON . who had been held in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL in DATE , Mr. PERSON . who had been held in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL in DATE and Mr. PERSON who presented a general description of the detention building which had allegedly been built in DATE and not reconstructed since then . Although not all of the witnesses had been detained during exactly the same period of time as the applicant , their submissions relate to DATE and the same cells ( nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) and support the applicant ’s allegations .

The Government contested the statements of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . as factually untrue , claiming that these statements were not supported by any evidence and reiterating their description of the conditions of detention . They did not dispute that the persons who had submitted their statements had been held in the same detention facility together with the applicant .

On DATE upon the applicant ’s arrival in the detention facility the applicant was examined by doctors . Following this examination , he was diagnosed with chronic otitis of the middle ear and given the necessary treatment in the detention facility .

On DATE the applicant asked for medical help in the detention facility due to the same problem with his ears . The applicant was examined by a prison doctor and transported to ORG to consult an otolaryngologist where he was diagnosed with bilateral mesotimpanite , a type of chronic ear disease which causes partial hearing loss and periodic pus discharge from the ear . Anti - inflammatory treatment was prescribed to the applicant .

The applicant again complained about his ear problem to the facility administration on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . It appears that in all cases the applicant was provided with some form of medical treatment .

While in detention , the applicant contracted scabies and shingles . In this respect he received the necessary medication from the facility ’s doctor .

After his arrival in the correctional colony IK-CARDINAL on DATE the applicant received treatment for otitis . On DATE at his request he was transported to a regional hospital of GPE where he stayed until DATE and received anti - inflammatory treatment for his ears . Upon the medical examination conducted in the hospital the doctors diagnosed the applicant with bilateral chronic neural hearing loss .

On DATE a medical certificate was issued by the colony administration indicating that the applicant was suffering from hearing impairment in both ears ( двусторонняя хроническая нейросенсорная тугоухость ) .

The applicant submits that on DATE of his arrest he had a construction business and was the owner of a house and CARDINAL imported cars of good quality .

Since the original judgment of CARDINAL DATE provided for forfeiture of property , the applicant ’s property was apparently confiscated when the judgment became final . Later , following the changes in the NORP criminal law introduced in DATE , the part of the judgment concerning the forfeiture of property was quashed in the proceedings for bringing the sentence in compliance with these changes ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In any event , it appears that upon the applicant ’s release from prison his property was not available to him .

No civil claim was apparently lodged with the domestic authorities for compensation or restitution of property .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant ’s mother died . According to the applicant , he asked the prison authorities to transport him to the funeral venue , which was QUANTITY away from the prison . His request to attend the ceremony was allegedly refused . The applicant did not submit any decisions or further details in this respect .

Section CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINALFZ of DATE ) provides that detainees should be given free food sufficient to maintain them in good health according to standards established by the Government of GPE . Section CARDINAL provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have QUANTITY of personal space in his or her cell .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE ( in force from DATE ) provides :

“ CARDINAL . Participation of legal counsel in the criminal proceedings is mandatory if :

CARDINAL ) NORP the suspect or the accused has not waived legal representation in accordance with LAW ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the suspect or the accused is a minor ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the suspect or the accused can not exercise his right of defence by himself owing to a physical or mental handicap ;

CARDINAL ) the court proceedings are to be conducted [ in the absence of the accused ] in accordance with LAW of this Code ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the suspect or the accused does not speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted ;

CARDINAL ) the suspect or the accused faces serious charges carrying a term of imprisonment DATE , life imprisonment or the death penalty ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the criminal case falls to be examined by a jury trial ;

CARDINAL ) the accused has filed a request for the proceedings to be conducted [ without a hearing ] under LAW of this Code ;

In the circumstances provided for by paragraph CARDINAL above , unless counsel is retained by the suspect or the accused , or his lawful representative , or other persons on request , or with consent , of the suspect or the accused , it is incumbent on the investigator , prosecutor or the court to ensure participation of legal counsel in the proceedings . ”

“ CARDINAL . The suspect or the accused may refuse legal assistance at any stage of criminal proceedings . Such a waiver may only be accepted if made on the own initiative of the suspect or the accused . The waiver must be filed in writing and must be recorded in TIME of the relevant procedural act .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provides that the appeal instance examines appeals with a view to verifying the lawfulness , validity and fairness of judgments . Under LAW and CARDINAL of the Code , the appeal instance may directly examine evidence , including additional material submitted by parties .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provides that upon receipt of the criminal case and the statements of appeal , the judge fixes the date , time and place for a hearing . The parties shall be notified of the date , time and place of the hearing no later than DATE before the scheduled hearing . The court determines whether the remanded convict should be summoned to the hearing . If the remanded convict has expressed the wish to be present at the examination of his appeal , he has the right to participate in person or to state his case via video link . The manner of his participation in the hearing is to be determined by the court

Examining the compatibility of LAW , the Constitutional Court ruled as follows ( decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE ) :

“ LAW , which describes the circumstances in which the participation of defence counsel is mandatory , does not contain any indication that its requirements are not applicable in appeal proceedings or that the convict ’s right to legal assistance in such proceedings may be restricted . ”

That position was subsequently confirmed and developed in CARDINAL decisions delivered by ORG on DATE . It found that free legal assistance for the purpose of appellate proceedings should be provided on the same conditions as during the earlier stages in the proceedings and is mandatory in situations listed in LAW . It further underlined the obligation of courts to secure participation of defence counsel in appeal proceedings .

In a number of cases ( decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) the Presidium of ORG of the Russian Federation quashed judgments of appeal courts and remitted cases for fresh consideration on the ground that the courts had failed to secure the presence of defence counsel in the appeal proceedings , although it was obligatory for the accused to be legally represented .