The applicant is a NORP citizen born in DATE .

A.

The applicant ’s detention on remand

On DATE the applicant was arrested . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG detained him on remand on charges of armed robbery committed on DATE against a post office in Gdańsk . The prosecutor referred to a danger of absconding and to the serious character of the offence concerned . On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against this decision .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the prosecutor refused to release the applicant .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant served a prison sentence imposed by a judgment of ORG of DATE , pursuant to which a fine had been imposed on him with CARDINAL days’ imprisonment in default .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , referring in particular to new evidence gathered in the case since the beginning of the investigations which made the charges against the applicant and other accused plausible . The court further stressed that the suspects had probably been acting in an organised group , acting in a violent manner bordering on terrorism , and had unlawfully possessed weapons . The court further noted that various indications of criminal connections between the accused and other persons needed clarification .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against a refusal of DATE to release him , considering in particular that the testimony of witnesses pointed to the applicant ’s guilt . On DATE the ORG prolonged detention on remand until DATE .

On DATE the ORG again refused to release the applicant . On DATE ORG upheld this decision . On DATE the applicant ’s detention was prolonged until DATE .

On DATE the ORG refused to release the applicant , referring to evidence gathered in the investigations , which supported suspicion against the applicant and to the danger of absconding .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against a decision prolonging his detention until DATE .

On DATE and on CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld this decision , finding in particular that the evidence gathered so far in the investigations strongly supported the suspicion against the applicant .

On DATE the ORG refused to release the applicant . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE , considering in particular that the applicant ’s allegations that the evidence against him had been fabricated , should be seen in the light of the fact that it was ultimately for the court to assess evidence in criminal cases . The applicant ’s health had also been examined and it did not amount to an impediment to the applicant ’s continued detention .

On DATE the ORG lodged a bill of indictment , including CARDINAL further charges of armed robbery with the ORG to which the case had in the meantime been transferred .

On DATE the ORG refused to release the applicant , and on DATE ORG upheld this decision , considering that the arguments advanced by the applicant in his appeal were essentially the same which he had put forward before in the proceedings concerning his detention . The court noted that certain evidence had still to be taken , in particular as certain witnesses had failed to attend the hearings in order to be questioned . The court further noted that the facts which sufficed for a continuation of detention on remand were not of the same level of probability as those which could ultimately lead to a conviction . In the applicant ’s case there was enough evidence against him to justify his continued detention . The applicant ’s health had repeatedly been taken into consideration by the courts and assessed under LAW .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for release . The court recalled that the applicant ’s request for release had been examined by competent courts on numerous occasions , for DATE . No changes had occurred since that time such as to justify the release , in particular as several witnesses from PERSON had failed to comply with the court ’s summonses . Moreover , the lawyer of another accused , PERSON , had fallen ill , and PERSON had not consented to his being temporarily replaced by another lawyer . Thus , it was necessary to maintain the detention in order to ensure the proper course of the proceedings . Since the last judicial decision by which the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention had been reviewed , he had twice been examined by an orthopaedist . The medical opinion of DATE indicated that the applicant ’s pains had become less severe , that no muscular atrophy had been established and that he had a wider range of movement in his right arm than he had had before , thus , there were no grounds to release the applicant .

On an unspecified later date the applicant complained to the President of the Bielsko - Biała Regional Court that his detention was unlawful . In reply , he was informed by a letter of CARDINAL DATE that pursuant to the provisions of LAW , detention on remand of persons arrested before DATE , whose length of detention had exceeded time - limits fixed by LAW , could be maintained until DATE . In cases in which a request for prolongation of detention had been submitted by a competent court to ORG , detention was to be maintained until this request be examined by that court . Therefore there was nothing , showing that the applicant ’s detention was , or had become , unlawful .

On DATE ORG refused to entertain the request of the ORG for prolongation of the applicant ’s detention , considering that this request should have been given by way of an interlocutory decision and not by a court ’s administrative order . On DATE the ORG requested again that the applicant’ detention be prolonged .

On DATE ORG , at the motion of the ORG , prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court considered that the applicant had been arrested on CARDINAL DATE and noted that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he had been serving a prison sentence . Likewise , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he had been serving another sentence . Consequently , he had been detained on remand for DATE , DATE and DATE , which exceeded time - limits fixed by LAW . The ORG further considered that the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention had been repeatedly examined by the courts . In the light of the evidence gathered in the case , their arguments in support of the applicant ’s detention appeared correct and should be accepted as well - founded . The proceedings against the applicant could not have been terminated on the grounds which could not be effectively counteracted by ORG , such as the fact that the applicant and other accused had submitted various requests for evidence to be taken , and that already when the proceedings were well advanced , for instance during the hearings held on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE . The ORG further had regard to the fact that certain witnesses failed to comply with the court summonses . Therefore the grounds on which detention could be prolonged beyond periods fixed by LAW , listed in LAW were obtained in the case and necessitated the prolongation of the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of armed robbery and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment and a fine with DATE of imprisonment in default .

On DATE ORG amended this judgment in part , in that it acquitted the applicant of CARDINAL count of robbery , reduced his sentence to DATE of imprisonment and upheld the judgment in its remainder .

On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG against the judgment of DATE .

On an unspecified later date the applicant was released .

The applicant ’s medical treatment

In DATE the applicant , at the prosecutor ’s request , was examined in the forensic medicine ward of ORG in LOC . It was established that he could remain in detention if appropriate medical care was given to him .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a court medical expert .

On DATE ORG refused to institute investigations concerning the alleged offence of refusal of medical care to the applicant , finding that , in fact , the applicant had been receiving appropriate care .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical panel which did not find any counter - indications for his continued detention .

On an unspecified DATE before DATE the applicant had been examined and consulted by specialists in FAC .

By a letter of DATE the ORG Regional Court- ORG reminded the applicant that he had been examined by a court expert and that he had also been repeatedly examined by physicians of Wadowice prison . It had been demonstrated that his detention did not fall within the ambit of circumstances referred to in LAW .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical panel , composed of , inter alia , an orthopaedist and a surgeon , found that he could be maintained in custody .

On DATE the ORG ordered that the applicant should be examined by a physician , having a status of a court expert , and that a relevant expert opinion be prepared as to whether his continued detention on remand was compatible with his health .

In a report of CARDINAL DATE the forensic medicine ward of ORG in ORG stated that the applicant , on numerous occasions , had been examined by physicians at the prison , that numerous medical analyses and additional examinations had been made , which , in essence , had shown that the applicant had not had any particular pathological symptoms . His complaints related in particular to frequent headaches and vertigos . The physicians had diagnosed him as suffering from discopathy . In conclusion , the applicant who also suffered from certain sequelae of a trauma to his right shoulder could remain in detention .

On an unspecified date before DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist and had had an electroencephalography , which had not showed any pathological changes .

By letters of CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that his complaints had been examined and that no lack of diligence had been established on the part of the prison medical services .

On an unspecified date the Bielsko - Biała Regional Court , having found that the applicant ’s health was not such as to justify a conclusion that his continued detention was incompatible with the requirements of LAW , prolonged his detention until DATE .

By an opinion of DATE the same court expert , who had already examined the applicant in DATE and in DATE , stated that the applicant suffered from sequelae of trauma to his right shoulder , significant obesity , hypertension and heart condition . This syndrom in itself did not amount to a categorical counter - indication for the applicant ’s continued detention . However , the persistent pains in his shoulder necessitated that the rehabilitation be undertaken as soon as possible under the supervision of an experienced orthopaedist , either in a civil or in a prison hospital .

On DATE a physician of the Bielsko - Biała District Detention Centre issued a medical certificate to the effect that the applicant was suffering from hypertension , and from sequelae of a trauma to his right shoulder , from discopathy and psoriasis . He was not rehabilitated , despite the orthopaedist ’s recommendation , as there was no such possibility in the conditions of the detention centre . He was also taking significant amounts of various medicines , which had not brought about any significant amelioration of his state .

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the prison hospital of Bytom prison , but he refused to give his consent for staying there .

On DATE the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against persons responsible for the alleged offence of the applicant ’s unlawful deprivation of liberty in conditions which entailed danger to his health , finding that the applicant had been kept in detention on the basis of valid decisions of competent authorities , and that the lawfulness and justified character of his detention had repeatedly been examined in the context of various appeals filed by the applicant , also as to its alleged incompatibility with his health . The prosecutor concluded that no criminal offence had been committed .

On an unspecified date before DATE the applicant was put in the hospital of the ORG prison . A medical opinion of DATE stated that the applicant had complained about pains and limited movement of his right arm , caused by an accident , certain pains in his spine , headaches and lack of appetite . The applicant ’s condition necessitated a permanent pharmaceutical treatment of his hypertension and periodical treatment of his spine problems . Also , a treatment to bring his right shoulder to full efficiency was indicated . Apparently , the applicant ’s actual pains were less severe than he had reported . Likewise , the range of movement of his right shoulder seemed to be wider than complained of . The physician concluded that the applicant could be maintained in detention and that the necessary treatment could be provided by the prison medical services .

On DATE the ORG upheld this decision of CARDINAL DATE finding , first , that there were no grounds on which to believe that the applicant ’s detention could be unlawful . It had repeatedly been reviewed by competent authorities who had found that the allegations of unlawfulness were ill - founded . It was emphasised that the applicant had very often been examined by prison physicians and that he had access to appropriate medical care , available in conditions of detention . The only limitation to this access concerned the rehabilitation treatment , but this was due simply to the fact that the detention centre was not in a position to ensure this kind of medical care to detained persons . This circumstance alone could not serve as a basis for the applicant ’s release as it had been established by way of expert medical opinions that his ailments were not severe enough to fall within the scope of LAW . In conclusion , the applicant ’s allegations that his detention could amount to a criminal offence were entirely implausible and should be regarded as attempts to put pressure on the justice administration organs .

On DATE a medical expert opinion was submitted to the ORG . The expert had examined the applicant and analysed the entries in his voluminous medical records . He stated that the applicant suffered significant obesity , had sustained a trauma of his right shoulder with a persistent pain syndrome , had a light hypertension and very light decrease of audition , caused by slight damage of a hearing nerve . It transpired from the entries in the applicant ’s records that he had very often requested medical advice and had been taking great quantities of painkillers and anti - inflammatory medicines . In conclusion , the applicant ’s ailments were not of such severity as to prevent him either from being detained on remand , or from serving a prison sentence . It was true that the rehabilitation treatment could not be provided in prison , and that , if postponed for a long time , this could lead to a gradual deterioration in the state in the applicant ’s arm .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Evolution of NORP criminal law in the relevant period

NORP criminal legislation was amended several times during the relevant period . LAW enacted in DATE ( “ old ” Code ) was replaced by LAW , adopted by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , and which entered into force on DATE .

The “ old ” Code was significantly amended by the PERSON of DATE on LAW to LAW and Other Criminal Statutes . This PERSON entered into force on DATE . However , the entry into force of the provisions concerning imposition of detention on remand was postponed until DATE . In pursuance of these provisions , detention on remand was to be imposed by a judge ( whereas before it was imposed by a prosecutor - see section CARDINAL below ) .

The second amendment , effected by the PERSON of DATE on LAW to the LAW ( commonly referred to as “ LAW DATE ” ) entered into force on DATE .

Preventive measures

The Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ old ” ) , applicable at the relevant time , listed as " preventive measures " , inter alia , detention on remand , bail and police supervision .

After the bill of indictment was transmitted to the court , relevant orders were to be made by the court . A decision concerning preventive measures could be appealed to a higher court .

Grounds for detention on remand

Article CARDINAL of the “ old ” Code of Criminal Procedure , as applicable at the relevant time , provided that a person could be held in detention on remand if there were serious grounds for believing that this person would abscond , did not have a permanent address or his / her identity could not be established . Further , detention could be imposed if there were serious grounds for believing that there was a risk of collusion or that an accused would otherwise jeopardise criminal proceedings . Finally , alternative grounds for detention on remand were either the fact that an accused was charged with an offence of a particular danger to society or that he was a recidivist within the meaning of LAW .

Pursuant to LAW ” Code of Criminal Procedure , if there were no special considerations to the contrary , detention on remand should not be imposed or should be lifted , if it involved danger to life or limb or entailed particular hardship for a suspect or his family .

After the Interim PERSON of DATE entered into force on DATE , grounds of imposition of detention on remand were restricted to situations in which there was a reasonable risk of absconding , or that a suspect would go into hiding , in particular when his identity could not be established or he had no permanent domicile . Secondly , detention could be imposed if there was a reasonable risk that the suspect would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to hinder the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means .

Proceedings to examine the lawfulness of detention on remand

At the material time there were CARDINAL types of proceedings enabling a detainee to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and thus possibly obtain release . Under LAW § CARDINAL of the “ old ” Code of Criminal Procedure he could appeal to a court against a detention order made by a prosecutor ( see above ) . Under Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL he could appeal against a further decision by that court prolonging his detention on a prosecutor 's request . Finally , under LAW an accused could at any time request the competent authority to quash or alter the preventive measure applied in his case . Such an application had to be decided by the prosecutor or , after the bill of indictment had been lodged with the court competent to deal with the case , by that court , within DATE .

Statutory time - limits for detention on remand

Until DATE the law did not fix any time - limits concerning detention on remand in judicial proceedings . During the investigations , the prosecutor could order detention for DATE . Prolongation of this period was possible by a court order , for a period not exceeding one year , and for any further periods , by a decision of ORG given upon a request of ORG

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , as applicable from DATE , provided insofar as relevant :

" CARDINAL . The whole period of detention on remand until the date on which the first - instance court gives judgment may not exceed DATE and DATE in cases concerning offences . In cases concerning serious offences this period may not exceed DATE .

In particularly justified cases ORG may , upon the request of the court competent to deal with the merits of the case , ... prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the periods referred to § ... CARDINAL , when it is necessary in connection with a suspension of the proceedings , a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused , when evidence needs to be obtained from abroad or when the accused has deliberately obstructed the termination of the proceedings within the time - limits set out in § CARDINAL . ”

However , under LAW ( a ) of LAW of DATE different rules applied in respect of persons whose detention on remand started prior to CARDINAL DATE . This article provided :

“ CARDINAL . In cases where the total period of detention on remand which started prior to CARDINAL DATE exceeds the [ maximum ] time - limits referred to in LAW ... and QUANTITY of the Code of Criminal Procedure [ as amended by the Law of DATE on LAW to LAW and Other Criminal Statutes ] , the accused shall be maintained in detention until ORG gives a decision on a request for prolongation of such detention under LAW of LAW .

In cases referred to in § CARDINAL , if no [ such ] request has been lodged , detention shall be lifted not DATE . ”

Under all the relevant provisions of LAW read together , a detainee was entitled to appeal against any decision prolonging his detention on remand , regardless of whether it had been made at the investigative or judicial stage of proceedings . However , no appeal lay in law either against a decision containing a request under LAW , or against a decision of ORG granting such a request .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Françoise Tulkens;Loukis Loucaides;Peer Lorenzen;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of several criminal offences , including murder , and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . He started serving his prison sentence on DATE at FAC ( GPE zavod DATE “ LSP ” ) .

LSP is a building comprising CARDINAL wings : A , B , C , D and E. All the wings have now been renovated . B wing was the last to be renovated , its renovation being completed in DATE .

NORP The applicant remained at LSP until DATE , when he was transferred to another prison . He was admitted to LSP for a second time on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG where he remained until DATE . Then he was transferred to ORG . During his stay in that institution , the applicant was granted various privileges , including the right to short periods of leave . After committing criminal offences ( burglary and theft ) while on leave , the applicant was again transferred to LSP on DATE . On DATE he was placed in B wing .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to a cell in the renovated part of B wing .

On DATE the applicant was released as he had served his time in prison .

The applicant gave the following account of the detention conditions in B wing of LSP .

The cell he was placed in was small and there were neither sanitary facilities nor running water . There was no heating and the cell walls were damp and mouldy . The cell was dirty and the bed sheets were not changed for very long periods of time . In order to urinate at TIME and at other times when he was confined to his cell , the applicant had to use a QUANTITY plastic container in the shape of a bottle , because the guards refused to unlock his cell and let him use the toilet . Toiletries and other personal hygiene products were provided CARDINAL to five months . The food served to the inmates was of insufficient quantity and poor quality ; the inmates were served only carbohydrates , without any vegetables and hardly any meat . In general , the prison was overcrowded . The prison buildings , built DATE , were in a very poor state of repair . As the prison guards did not wear badges with their number or name , the inmates did not know their identities . The prisoners were made to line up CARDINAL times a day , even when it rained . They also had to take outdoor exercise daily in slippers , even when it rained or snowed .

The Government provided the following account of the applicant 's detention conditions at LSP .

The applicant 's cell was a double - occupancy cell . Most of the time the applicant shared it with another inmate and only for a period of DATE was he alone in the cell . The cell was QUANTITY , QUANTITY wide ( QUANTITY ) and QUANTITY high . It had a QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) window and CARDINAL artificial light . There was no toilet in the cell although the applicant had permanent access to communal sanitary facilities and could use a shower . Inmates were provided with toothpaste , soap , shaving cream , disposable razors , shampoo and toilet paper on a DATE basis . The food served to the inmates was of the prescribed calorific value and in general the inmates had no complaints in that respect . The inmates were lined up several times a DATE before meals . The inmates who worked were also lined up when going to and coming from work and before and after their break . Inmates were lined up outdoors when the weather permitted and they were dressed appropriately . In bad weather inmates were lined up inside the prison building . The inmates were afforded a large outdoor exercise area and were able to attend film shows on DATE .

The Government submitted that the renovation of B wing had been completed on DATE . It had been freshly painted and every cell had been provided with a toilet and washbasin . The cells now have parquet flooring , new furniture and radiators , new electric sockets and new ceiling lights . There are now CARDINAL showers used by CARDINAL inmates .

NORP The ORG visited GPE DATE . Its findings with regard to LSP were as follows ( extract from the report to the NORP government on the visit to GPE carried out by the ORG from DATE , ORG . ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) :

“ a. Material Conditions

NORP ... the CARDINAL unrenovated wings , B and E , accommodating mainly unemployed prisoners , offered very poor conditions of detention . Prisoners in these wings were being held under cramped conditions , typically CARDINAL persons in cells measuring between CARDINAL to QUANTITY . The ORG must emphasise that cells of such size are only suitable for individual occupancy . Further , the cells were dirty and in a poor state of repair , and a number of them had poor access to natural light and/or dim or artificial lighting . In addition , they were not equipped with integral sanitation ; as a result , at TIME inmates had to comply with the needs of nature using a plastic container in their cell . As for the communal sanitary facilities , they were in a generally woeful state of repair ( some of them with hazardous flooded floors ) . It is also noteworthy that several prisoners in these CARDINAL wings complained that they were not able to obtain necessary toiletries .

The director informed the delegation that the renovation of the whole establishment was planned , but that difficulties were being encountered in obtaining the necessary resources . The ORG must stress that the prevailing material conditions in B and E wings are quite unacceptable . Consequently , the ORG recommends that the renovation of these wings , including installation of in - cell sanitation following the model of D wing , be treated as a matter of high priority .

Moreover , the ORG recommends that steps be taken immediately to ensure that all prisoners at FAC are able to obtain personal hygiene products ( toilet paper , soap , toothpaste , etc . ) as well as the necessary means to maintain their cells and communal sanitary facilities in a clean and hygienic state .

Further , as already indicated in DATE , the closed unit was overcrowded at the time of the visit . This was particularly the case in the unrenovated wings ...

The ORG recommends that serious efforts be made to reduce cell occupancy levels in the closed unit at FAC ...

b. Regime

According to section CARDINAL of LAW , sentenced prisoners must be provided , to the extent possible given an establishment 's facilities and resources , with various types of work appropriate to their abilities and skills . ...

Of the CARDINAL prisoners in the closed and semi - open sections at FAC , CARDINAL were engaged in various types of work activities , including woodworking and furniture production ( employing CARDINAL inmates ) , metalwork ( CARDINAL ) , arts and crafts , as well as a variety of posts involving the day - to - DATE operations of the prison ( laundry , cooking , gardening , etc . ) . ...

Nevertheless , the fact remains that at the time of the visit , the majority of the prisoners in the establishment 's closed unit CARDINAL out of CARDINAL – were not working . CARDINAL prisoners were on a waiting list for work . Further , CARDINAL prisoners had been categorised as permanent non - workers , either through choice or disability , though many such prisoners interviewed by the delegation advanced that they did in fact wish to work .

The situation of the non - workers was rendered all the more unsatisfactory by the scarcity of other regime activities at the prison . Although the establishment was equipped with good educational facilities , CARDINAL prisoners – including some who already worked – were attending classes . Further , there was little evidence of therapeutic ( i.e. offence - focused ) programmes and no organised sport activities . To sum up , CARDINAL of the prisoners accommodated in the closed unit were subject to an impoverished regime ; the typical DATE programme for a non - working prisoner was found to consist of little else besides watching television in an association area and outdoor exercise .

... For the majority of prisoners in the establishment 's closed unit , there was no positive regime in place which might encourage them to address their offending behaviour .

The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that all prisoners at FAC have access to an appropriate range of work , educational , sports and recreational activities . ”

On DATE a delegation of the ORG visited LSP in connection with the PERSON case ( see PERSON v. GPE ( friendly settlement ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . Its findings in respect of the general conditions at LSP were as follows :

“ Meeting with the governor of LSP

The prison governor informed the delegation that the only unrenovated wing is B wing . He further informed the delegation that the prison held CARDINAL inmates . He admitted that the prison was overcrowded , especially B wing .

Tour of LSP

B wing

We found cell CARDINAL situated next to the communal bathroom . It measured QUANTITY . There were no in - cell sanitary facilities . There were CARDINAL non - working electrical sockets . There was a dim light on the ceiling . The window on the wall opposite the door measured QUANTITY . There was CARDINAL wooden chair and a metal locker . There was CARDINAL set of bunk beds . The mattresses were dirty and bloodstained . The cell smelled strongly of moisture . The cement walls were damp to the touch .

ORG , toilet and laundry area

There were CARDINAL toilets and CARDINAL showers for CARDINAL inmates . There was no heating in the toilet . In the shower there was CARDINAL radiator . There was no toilet paper . Next to the showers there was a laundry area equipped with long basins for inmates to wash their clothes . The laundry area was accessible for TIME per day .

The indoor entertainment and recreation area

Next we visited a TV - room where we found CARDINAL television , CARDINAL chairs and CARDINAL tables . It served CARDINAL inmates .

There was also a social room with CARDINAL tables , each with CARDINAL chairs , serving CARDINAL inmates . We saw chess - boxes on the tables . Inside , there was CARDINAL stove with CARDINAL electric hotplates and CARDINAL sink .

On each floor we saw table tennis equipment , each serving CARDINAL inmates .

Renovated wing

Here we visited a cell which measured QUANTITY . There were CARDINAL sets of bunk beds . There was a separate bathroom with toilet and sink , but with no shower or bathtub . However , there were communal showers on the same floor . There was CARDINAL electric socket , CARDINAL lights on the ceiling , CARDINAL metal lockers , CARDINAL wooden chairs , CARDINAL table and CARDINAL shelf on the wall . There were CARDINAL windows ( QUANTITY ) . The room was freshly painted and had parquet floor . It was very clean .

Outdoor recreation area

We saw a large walking area , with benches and trees and an asphalt playground of large proportions .

The canteen

The canteen where the inmates eat is a huge room , separated from the other prison areas . It can accommodate CARDINAL persons at a time . The inmates eat in shifts . Food is cooked on the LOC and there is also a bakery .

Working area

The working area comprises several large workshops for wood - processing , production of chess boards , picture - framing , a bookbinding shop and book press and an art studio including a visual arts section .

The bookbinding shop where the applicant works has large windows , a desk and a chair .

The interviews

The applicant

The applicant informed the delegation that he had been placed in cell no . CARDINAL in B wing sometime in DATE and had stayed there until DATE . He reported that at the time of his arrival there had been no glass on the window , but that it had been repaired in DATE . The paint on the walls had been peeling off and the cell had been very damp . Sometime in DATE the walls had been repainted in the entire wing . He further reported that although there had been a radiator in the cell , there had been no heating until DATE , when the radiators had been repaired , but that even after that the heating had been insufficient . The applicant stressed that the toilets in B wing had been renovated to a certain degree and that they had been in a much worse state of repair . He said that there had been mould on the walls which was covered over with paint .

The applicant 's DATE routine is as follows :

TIME wake up

TIME – breakfast and walk

TIME – locked in cell

TIME – lunch

TIME – walk

TIME locked in cell

TIME dinner

from TIME locked in cell

TIME lights off

The applicant complained that the inmates were always pressed for time for lunch and dinner because there were too many people , divided into several shifts . He also said that the food was of low quality , badly prepared , badly cooked and that the only edible food was bread . He said that most of the time he was hungry . The inmates are dressed in jeans and shirts that are replaced DATE . They are also provided with shoes , underwear and a jacket .

The applicant complained that the bed sheets were dirty , greasy and too short . The blankets were old , dirty and had not been washed for DATE . The mattress in his cell was old , rotting , bloodstained and soiled . The applicant also stated that medical assistance was only available once DATE on DATE and that consultations with physicians were superficial , lasting TIME .

The prison governor

The prison governor admitted that there were CARDINAL deaths from cardiac arrest DATE and that a number of inmates suffered from hepatitis , though they were not placed in any special unit . He admitted further that in the whole area there was a water shortage because of the problems with water pressure . However , the bathrooms were open from TIME and from TIME As to the medical staff , he said that CARDINAL physician , a specialist in general medicine , and a dentist , were employed full - time . There was CARDINAL nurse on the LOC at all times . Once a week physicians of different specialisation visited the prison ( a lung specialist , a surgeon , an internist and an ophthalmologist ) .

He also reported that PERCENT of inmates currently worked in the prison . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Ustav PERSON ) provides as follows :

“ No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... ”

The Enforcement of Prison Terms Act ( Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL of DATE , and no . CARDINAL of DATE ( consolidated text ) ) came into force on DATE , whereas the provisions concerning the judge responsible for the execution of sentences came into force DATE , on DATE . The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) An inmate may file a request for judicial protection against any acts or decisions unlawfully denying him , or limiting him in , any of the rights guaranteed by LAW .

( CARDINAL ) NORP for judicial protection shall be decided by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The accommodation of the inmates shall meet the required standards in terms of health , hygiene and space , including climatic conditions .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall as a general rule be accommodated in separate rooms ...

( CARDINAL ) ORG rooms shall be clean , dry and of adequate size . Each inmate shall have CARDINAL GPE and CARDINAL m³ of space in the room .

( CARDINAL ) Every room ... must have daylight and artificial light ...

( CARDINAL ) ORG and prisons must be equipped with sanitary facilities allowing inmates to meet their physiological needs in clean and adequate conditions , whenever they wish to do so .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall have drinking water at their disposal at all times . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The penitentiary or prison shall supply the inmates with underwear , clothes and bed linen appropriate to the climatic conditions . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Inmates shall be served CARDINAL meals DATE with a calorific value of QUANTITY per day . The content and the nutritional value of the food shall be supervised by a doctor or other medically qualified person . ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed - Non-pecuniary damage - award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC , the GPE region . He is a former employee of the ORG “ ElectronGaz ” ( “ the ORG , ” ORG “ Електрон-Газ ” ) . At the material time the ORG owned PERCENT of the ORG 's share capital . The ORG was therefore subject to the PERSON of DATE “ on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property . ”

On DATE ORG ( Жовтоводський міський суд ORG області ) ordered the Company to pay the applicant ORG ORG in salary arrears . This judgment became final and the enforcement writ was transferred to ORG ( “ the Bailiffs , ” PERSON виконавчої служби Жовтоводського міського управління юстиції ) for enforcement .

On DATE the Bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgment of DATE was delayed on account of the ORG 's lack of funds . It also stated that the attachment of the ORG 's property was impeded by the PERSON of DATE “ on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property . ”

On DATE ORG ( Господарський суд ORG області ) instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the ORG and on DATE ordered its rehabilitation to be completed by DATE .

On DATE the applicant received the debt due to him by the judgment of DATE .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national born in DATE and living in GPE . He is represented by PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE .

The applicant is a traveller who , since DATE , has lived with his family in a caravan on ORG . This site was established as an official local authority site in DATE under the duty to provide gypsy sites contained in GPE DATE . The site is now leased by ORG of GPE and ORG and managed by ORG and GPE . It is located beneath CARDINAL flyovers that make up part of the motorway bridge known as the ORG leading from FAC in GPE . A railway line also passes nearby . Plots CARDINAL and CARDINAL were directly under the flyover , the carriageways to the east and west were separated from the site by a concrete barrier and vehicles passed within QUANTITY of residential caravans .

Virtually since the opening of the site , the applicant has been campaigning for its relocation because of the pollution and noise , coming from the adjacent highways .

In DATE CARDINAL independent ORG inspected the site and concluded :

" The present conditions are unsatisfactory , and are prejudicial to health within the meaning of s. CARDINAL of LAW DATE .

Environmental issues , such as rat infestations , lead levels in dust and noise levels , smells and nuisance from adjoining LOC are largely beyond the control of the managing authority . In our opinion the site is not suitable for residential occupation . The original decision to locate the site in such a position fails any commonsense assessment of the suitability of the environment . "

They noted that while a number of items could be remedied by works , for example , site drainage , other problems , such as , nitrous oxide poisoning and noise levels resulted from the site 's location and could not be remedied .

Following the coming into force of LAW DATE , the applicant instructed his solicitors to obtain an updated environmental report from the CARDINAL officers who produced the DATE report . This was finalised in DATE and confirmed the earlier conclusion that it was not a suitable location for a gypsy site . The CARDINAL experts noted that lead levels had dropped since DATE due to a ban on leaded petrol and this was no longer a ground of concern . It found the residents at the site were being exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels above the air quality objective of QUANTITY ( a mean concentration in DATE of CARDINAL and in DATE of CARDINAL ) . The report noted that air pollution in GPE was unlikely to cause any serious health effects in the population as a whole but that young children , the elderly or those suffering from respiratory problems might be more sensitive to air pollution . No formal measurement of noise levels was made but it was noted that road traffic noise was intrusive and almost continuous during both their visits . Given the location between major roads and adjacent to a railway they recommended formal monitoring of noise levels be undertaken .

The applicant presented the report to ORG and renewed requests for relocation of the site , invoking arguments under LAW .

By letter of DATE , ORG responded to the applicant 's complaints stating that the alleged treatment failed to satisfy the degree of severity for a breach of LAW and that no claim arose under LAW as it would be akin to interpreting the provision as requiring a right to be given a home . It denied that it was under any duty to provide a new site .

The Royal Borough obtained that year Government approval of a major grant for PERCENT of the total expenditure for refurbishment of the site then estimated at GBP CARDINAL .

The applicant commenced judicial review proceedings in DATE .

On DATE , the High Court judge refused the application on the ground of delay .

Following a hearing on DATE , ORG dismissed his appeal . Lord Justice PERSON noted the delay in bringing the proceedings :

“ In this case it seems to me that the important issue is the delay in bringing the proceedings . From DATE the rights under LAW DATE were established . Mr Ward was being advised by his present solicitors ... In DATE he was also being advised by [ counsel ] who appeared before us . There was no doubt as to the nature of his rights . The only excuse put forward for the delay until DATE was the time taken to get this report . However the report itself , although detailed , is reiterating matters which [ the applicant ] had been asserting for DATE . The council has had its own reports in DATE which showed as a matter of principle that there were major problems with the site .

It seems to me that during this time the council was , to [ the applicant 's ] knowledge presumably , putting forward major proposals for refurbishment with the support of the majority of the residents . It was crucial that , if there was some legal error in the way the council approached it , it should be established as soon as possible . In my view the judge was right to refuse permission on the ground of delay . I see no arguable basis for appeal . ”

Concerning the substantive issues , he held :

“ .. The problem in this case is that it is accepted that , as a result of changes in the law since LAW , the council is under no duty to provide [ the applicant ] with a site here or anywhere else . In those circumstances , it seems difficult to see that he can argue for a right to be relocated to another and better site . If the argument is right , it is difficult to see what distinction there would be between [ the applicant ] and any other inhabitant of a caravan or a house who is concerned about pollution levels in his home .

In my view , there is nothing in NORP law or , more particularly the cases we have been shown , which provides any support for such a claim . Under LANGUAGE law , [ the applicant ] has potential remedies under LAW which do not seem to have been activated . As I understand from the evidence , the council is taking active measures to improve the site .

The more general problems about which [ the applicant ] complains are the pollution levels , nitrogen dioxide and noise . Those are problems which , unhappily , are shared by a number of urban sites . The council 's ORG has acknowledged the problems but considers they do not cause unacceptable conditions ... ”


Violation of Art. 6-2;Violation of Art. 5-3;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in flagrante delicto for receiving a package containing QUANTITY of cannabis and remanded in custody . Following his arrest , the applicant ’s house was searched . The investigating authorities found and seized a large number of NORP and NORP antiquities , including small statues , ancient coins , vessels and fossils .

On DATE the applicant was brought before ORG who charged him with having received a package containing drugs . Concerning the antiquities found in the applicant ’s house , the Prosecutor decided not to press charges unless new evidence was adduced .

On DATE the investigating judge at ORG , after questioning the applicant , remanded him in custody with effect from CARDINAL DATE , the date of his arrest , on the grounds that there were serious prima facie indications that the defendant had committed the drug - related offence and that it was necessary to prevent him from absconding and to make sure that he would not commit further offences .

On DATE the applicant applied for release on bail .

On DATE ORG of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It held as follows :

“ ... [ the way that the packet was carefully prepared ] reveals a dexterous and studied action , established by the choice of special means for the commission of the crime of drug trafficking , as well as a collective action . Furthermore , during the lawful search of the accused ’s house ... a significant number of antiquities were found , including in particular , CARDINAL coins from different periods , a small statue of ORG , a small bronze statue of PERSON , an ancient vessel , a fossil in lava from the volcano of PERSON , part of a fresco and numerous NORP antiquities , the possession of which demonstrates the perpetrator ’s propensity to commit further offences relating to antiquities . In view of the above , there is very serious evidence of the applicant ’s guilt and ... his request should be rejected since it is reasonably considered that even the replacement of his pre - trial detention by preventive measures would not be sufficient to ensure his appearance in court and the execution of any judgment the court may deliver . ”

On DATE , ORG submitted to ORG of ORG his proposal to prolong the applicant ’s detention in compliance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , since the applicant had been in detention for DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG replaced the applicant ’s pre - trial detention by preventive measures ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In particular , it held that :

“ ... the prolongation of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention is not absolutely necessary since he has a known residence in GPE , and has family and property in GPE , he has not made preparations with a view to absconding , he has never been a fugitive in the past and it is improbable , on the basis of his criminal record and his social and professional status , that he will commit further crimes if he is released . In the light of the above and in view of the applicant ’s old age and serious health problems ... ORG considers that the prolongation of the detention imposes on the applicant a disproportionate burden and that his appearance in court and the execution of any judgment the court may deliver can be ensured by the above preventive measures : ( a ) prohibition from leaving the country and ( b ) an obligation to report to his local police station twice DATE . ... ”

Subsequently , ORG laid supplementary charges against the applicant for misappropriation of antiquities . On DATE the investigating judge questioned the applicant in that connection .

It appears from the case - file that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the investigating authorities .

The applicant suffers from various health problems , including chronic duodenal ulcer , persistent urinary problems , inguinal hernia ( when part of the intestine bulges through a weak area in muscles in the groin , the area between the abdomen and thigh ) and degenerative spine disorders . He often complains of hemoptysis ( coughing up blood ) , intense epigastric pain and melena .

The applicant was frequently hospitalised in FAC in order to undergo medical examinations . On several occasions he was granted leave to be consulted by external doctors and undergo special examinations in ORG , including gastroscopy , echocardiography and chest X - rays . According to the medical certificates submitted by the applicant and the Government , the results of a number of medical examinations ( kidneys , bladder and prostate ultrasound , chest computed tomography , bronchoscopy and heart triplex ultrasound ) were imminent . The applicant was prescribed medication for his urinary and gastro - intestinal problems . Concerning the inguinal hernia , surgical treatment was advised .

Article CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No person shall be arrested or imprisoned without a reasoned judicial warrant which must be served at the time he is arrested or remanded in custody , except when caught in the act of committing a crime .

The maximum duration of detention pending trial shall be specified by law ; such detention may not exceed a period of DATE in the case of felonies or DATE in the case of misdemeanours . In entirely exceptional cases , the maximum durations may be extended by DATE respectively , by decision of the competent judicial council . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . During the preliminary procedure , if there are serious indications of guilt , preventive measures may be imposed on a person accused of a felony or an offence punishable with a sentence of imprisonment of DATE , and provided that these measures are considered to be strictly necessary ....

Detention on remand may be imposed instead of preventive measures , provided that the conditions of paragraph ( CARDINAL ) are fulfilled , only if the accused is charged with a crime and does not have a known residence in the country or has made preparations with a view to absconding or has been a fugitive in the past ... or it is reasonably considered that if he is released , it is most probable , in the light of his previous conduct or the special circumstances of the incriminated act , that he will commit further offences . The gravity of the charge can not by itself serve to justify the detention on remand . ”

“ CARDINAL . Where detention on remand has lasted DATE in the case of felonies , or DATE in the case of misdemeanours , ORG shall give a final , reasoned decision on the question whether to prolong detention or release the accused . ...

In all cases , and until adoption of the final decision , detention on remand in respect of a single offence shall not exceed DATE for felonies or DATE for misdemeanours . In exceptional circumstances these limits may be extended by DATE respectively by a reasoned decision , against which no appeal shall lie , of

ORG ( a ) ORG of ORG ...

ORG ( b ) ORG of ORG ... ”


Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

On DATE the applicant registered his marriage with PERSON in GPE DATE the applicant moved to GPE to work .

On DATE PERSON gave birth to a child , PERSON On DATE , soon after having been informed of the birth of S. , the applicant filed an action for rejection of paternity before ORG . On DATE , based on the results of a blood test , ORG concluded that it was likely that the applicant was PERSON 's biological father .

On DATE , in view of the medical report of the forensic institute and considering the facts that the applicant and PERSON had lived together before the marriage , and that the child was born in wedlock , the court dismissed the applicant 's claim .

On DATE the marriage was dissolved by divorce . The court ordered the applicant to pay an allowance of MONEY ( TRL ) and TRL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the maintenance of GPE , respectively .

On DATE a DNA test was carried out in GPE which showed that the applicant was not PERSON 's biological father .

On DATE , relying on the findings of the DNA test , the applicant filed an application before ORG , requesting a retrial in his action for rejection of paternity . The court ordered another DNA testing .

In the meantime , on DATE PERSON filed another action before the same court , requesting to increase the allowance that the applicant was ordered to pay for the maintenance of S. On DATE ORG decided to increase the relevant amount to TRL CARDINAL . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld this decision .

The forensic DNA test carried out in ORG of ORG confirmed the findings of the earlier test . The report of DATE concluded that the applicant was not the biological father of S.

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request to annul the decision dated DATE and to have a retrial . It interpreted LAW to the effect that the newly obtained evidence must have been existent at the time of the proceedings and must have been inaccessible due to force majeure . However the DNA test was carried out years after the court gave its final ruling in the case . It recalled that , in a similar case dated DATE ORG held that the plaintiff could not request to have a retrial of an action for rejection of paternity , by invoking the results of a blood test , carried out DATE after the final decision .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of ORG arguing that the court could not dismiss a case for procedural reasons after examining its merits . Furthermore he contended that the medical report of CARDINAL DATE was merely based on assumptions , while the DNA tests carried out in DATE and DATE revealed the biological fact that he could not be the father of S.

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the first instance court , holding that S. should have been a party to the proceedings , as she has attained full age and her rights were competing with those of the mother .

The proceedings were resumed before ORG . S. was included in the proceedings as the second defendant and she was notified about the hearing . However she neither appeared before the ORG nor submitted any written statements . On DATE the court dismissed the applicant 's request for retrial for the same reasons as before . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court . It held that , in view of the jurisprudence of ORG , “ scientific progress ” ( fennin gelişmesi ) could not be considered as force majeure provided under LAW .

On DATE the applicant 's request for rectification of the decision was dismissed .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , pertaining at the time of the proceedings , provided as follows :

“ As regards the final decisions , retrial may be requested under the following circumstances :

After the judgment is rendered , a certificate or a document is found , which could not have been acquired during the trial because of force majeure or because of the acts of the party in favour of which the decision was given . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Law no . DATE , dated DATE ) read as follows :

“ The husband is the father of the child , born in wedlock , or within DATE after the marriage has ended . ”

“ In order to rebut the presumption of paternity , an action to reject paternity may be brought by the husband . Such an action shall be brought against the mother and the child . ... ”

“ If the child is conceived in wedlock , the plaintiff has to prove that he is not the father of the child .

A child is considered to be conceived in wedlock if he or she is born CARDINAL after the marriage , or at DATE from the end of the marriage . ”

“ The husband shall bring an action within DATE from the moment he is informed of the birth , when he realizes that he is not the father of the baby or when he finds out that the mother had sexual intercourse with another man , during the period of conceiving ; in any event , within DATE from the birth . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national of NORP origin , born in DATE and living in GPE ( the GPE ) . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON Later , a lawyer practising in the GPE .

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

On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE or a residence permit for compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature . On DATE , he was questioned by an immigration official for the reasons of his request for asylum . On DATE and DATE , the applicant submitted corrections and additions to the report drawn up by the immigration official . He stated that he feared persecution for political motives .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary of ORG ( ORG ) rejected the applicant 's requests . He was ordered to leave the GPE within DATE . On DATE , the applicant filed an objection ( bezwaar ) with the ORG Secretary against this decision .

On DATE , the applicant was arrested in GPE and detained on remand on suspicion of participation in the commission of assault on a NORP national . On DATE , the public prosecutor informed the applicant that , for lack of evidence , no criminal proceedings would be taken against him .

On DATE , the applicant was heard before ORG for Aliens ' Affairs ( PERSON voor ORG ) in relation to his objection .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary rejected the applicant 's objection . On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) . The ORG Secretary granted the applicant 's appeal suspensive effect as to his expulsion to GPE .

ORG , following a hearing held on DATE , rejected the applicant 's appeal on DATE , including his complaint under LAW . This decision was notified to the applicant on DATE .

In his letters of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , and DATE , the applicant requested the ORG Secretary to reconsider his case and to grant him asylum .

By letter of DATE the ORG Secretary informed the applicant that the proceedings on his asylum request had ended with the decision taken on DATE by ORG and that it was open for him to file a fresh asylum request insofar as he considered that there were new facts and circumstances that had not been examined in the initial asylum proceedings and on the basis of which the outcome could be different .

On DATE , the applicant filed an objection with the ORG Secretary against the letter of DATE , which he considered to be a decision for the purposes of administrative law proceedings .

On DATE the ORG Secretary declared the applicant 's objection of DATE inadmissible , holding that the contents of the letter of DATE were merely of an informative nature and did not constitute a decision for administrative law purposes . The applicant was ordered to leave the GPE immediately .

The applicant filed an appeal with ORG . In the course of the appeal proceedings before ORG , the ORG Secretary withdrew the challenged decision and allowed the applicant to await the outcome of his request for reconsideration in the GPE . Consequently , the applicant withdrew his appeal before ORG .

On DATE , noting that the ORG Secretary had not yet taken a decision on his request for reconsideration of his case , the applicant requested the ORG Secretary to grant him a residence permit as the proceedings had lasted DATE which , according to an established policy , would make him eligible for a residence permit . In this context , the applicant further submitted that also his wife had filed an asylum request in the GPE and that the appeal proceedings before ORG against the ORG Secretary 's negative decision of DATE on her request had been adjourned on CARDINAL DATE on the basis of the decision that was to be taken in the case of the applicant .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was employed by a bank , working in the relevant DATE in the bank ’s new campaign to grant loans and to invest in property abroad .

The applicant ’s suspected offending in respect of credit decisions made without adequate guarantee arrangements , which led to the bank ’s winding - up in DATE , was reported to the police on DATE . The criminal investigation was begun by the police on DATE . A total of CARDINAL reports of offences had been made . The corresponding investigations lasted from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE ending on DATE . On DATE the police carried out a search at the applicant ’s home and seized his assets , at which point he became aware that he was suspected of serious fraud in connection with his activities at the bank .

The hearing of the case , which involved CARDINAL defendants , began in the Salo ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) on DATE . It included several adjournments and lasted DATE in total . The case was heard during a total of DATE . The judgment was rendered on DATE and it ran to CARDINAL pages . The applicant was convicted of CARDINAL counts of aggravated fraud and sentenced to a suspended term of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine .

On DATE ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) gave judgment . It added a fifth count of serious fraud and increased the applicant ’s sentence to DATE and DATE of unconditional imprisonment and a loss of military rank . The court decided to examine the case directly including the part which had been declared inadmissible by ORG ( charge CARDINAL ) , i.e. without returning the case to ORG , referring to LAW and the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed therein . Furthermore , it stated in its reasons ( p. MONEY ) that it was taking the length of the proceedings into account as a factor lessening the sentence for all defendants in the case .

On DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal .

The applicant submitted an extraordinary appeal against the decisions of ORG and ORG , but it was rejected by ORG on DATE .


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

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen who was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC . He was represented before the Court by Mr P. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

From DATE to date the applicant has been serving a prison sentence in FAC .

The applicant submitted that throughout his detention he was held in overcrowded cells . By way of example , he submitted that he had been incarcerated together with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell of CARDINAL m² . The level of overcrowding was such that at times , and each time for a period of DATE , he was forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor of his cell .

The applicant further submitted that overcrowding had resulted in increased tension , conflict and self - inflicted injuries among detainees as well as in the deterioration of the prison ’s sanitary conditions .

The Government acknowledged that the applicant might have been temporarily placed in cells with a space of CARDINAL m² per prisoner . They stressed , however , that the prison authorities had not been storing information as to the exact number of prisoners detained in each cell on specific DATE .

The Government submitted that during the applicant ’s detention in ORG the prison authorities had never used measures of direct coercion against him . There had been no conflicts in the cells where the applicant had been serving his sentence .

More recently , the ORG also submitted that on an unspecified date , presumably in DATE , the applicant had been placed in a cell in which the statutory minimum standard of CARDINAL m² per person was respected . The applicant did not contest this submission .

The applicant filed CARDINAL complaint with the Governor of FAC ( PERSON ) , alleging overcrowding and inadequate conditions of his detention . On DATE his complaint was dismissed as unfounded . In addition , the applicant submitted that , on many occasions , he had brought the issue of his detention conditions to the attention of the prison authorities by way of oral complaints .

The applicant did not bring a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights .

( See PERSON and CARDINAL other applications v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


The applicants were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in the village of GPE , GPE region , GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicants bought a house from the collective agricultural enterprise “ Svitanok ” . They lived in it with their CARDINAL minor children until DATE .

In DATE after returning from vacation the applicants found that their house was occupied by a police officer , PERSON latter informed them that the house purchase agreement had been invalidated by a notary . All of the applicants ' possessions had been moved to the “ Svitanok ” enterprise storehouse .

In DATE the applicants instituted proceedings against the notary in ORG . On DATE the court cancelled the act by which the notary had invalidated the purchase agreement .

On DATE the applicants instituted other proceedings in the same court against Mr S. , the “ Svitanok ” enterprise and the notary asking that Mr S. be evicted from their house and claiming CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( “ UAH ” ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . On an unidentified date the applicants introduced additional claims against the “ Svitanok ” enterprise for ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in pecuniary damage and ORG CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damage .

NORP In DATE the collective agricultural enterprise “ Svitanok ” initiated proceedings in the ORG challenging the validity of the house purchase agreement .

On DATE the court stayed the proceedings in the applicants ' case on eviction until the question of validity of the purchase agreement had been decided .

NORP In DATE a wedding photo , a coat , a lamp , a wash - basin and some other small items which had been held at the “ Svitanok ” storehouse were returned to the applicants .

On DATE the court found the purchase agreement invalid . The applicants appealed against this judgment and requested the transfer of their case to another court . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to ORG .

On DATE the applicants requested the Head of ORG to transfer their case on eviction to another court . Their request was satisfied .

On DATE ORG decided to consider together the case on eviction and the case on validity of the purchase agreement .

On DATE the court disjoined the cases and declined to consider the case on the validity of the purchase agreement because the representative of the ” Svitanok ” enterprise had failed twice to appear at a court hearing .

NORP In DATE the house , which was partly derelict , was returned to the applicants .

In DATE and DATE the applicants introduced additional claims , requesting reimbursement of the costs of renovation of the house and payment of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage respectively .

On DATE the court ordered a technical expert 's report on the applicants ' house . The expert stated that the court decision was received by him on DATE .

On DATE the expert carried out his survey . He concluded that it was not possible to live in the house and that it needed major renovation . The cost of such renovation was also determined .

On DATE the ORG found in part for the applicants and awarded each of the applicants ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation for pecuniary damage , UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage and UAH CARDINAL in court expenses . The applicants did not appeal against this judgment .

The applicants received some money and goods in enforcement of the judgment in their favour , but for the major part the judgment remains unenforced .


HLAVICA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicants , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON , born in DATE and PERSON , born in DATE are NORP nationals and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr V.A. Schorm , from ORG .

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

On DATE the first , second and a predecessor of the third and fourth applicants brought restitution proceedings in the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodní soud ) against a ORG enterprise . On an unspecified date , the third and fourth applicants’ predecessor died . The third and fourth applicants joined therefore the restitution proceedings .

It appears that the proceedings are still pending .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicants , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON ( GPE ) , PERSON , PERSON Akarsu , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( PERSON ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

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

The applicants are the owners of a plot of land of QUANTITY ( plot no . CARDINAL ) in GPE , GPE . The plot in question is situated in the vicinity of military barracks .

On an unspecified date , the military forces enclosed QUANTITY of plot no . CARDINAL with a wire fence .

On DATE the applicants brought an action ( case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in the Third Chamber of the Erzurum Civil Court of First Instance against ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) and requested compensation for de facto expropriation of QUANTITY of their plot . They alleged that the Ministry had forbidden them access to their land , claiming that it was a military security zone .

On DATE the ORG and ORG brought a cross - action ( case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) with ORG and requested to be registered as the owners of plot no . CARDINAL , claiming that the plot in question was located in a restricted military and security zone and that the military forces had control over it pursuant to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of Law no . CARDINAL ( PERSON on the Restricted Military Zones and GPE ) .

On an unspecified date ORG of ORG decided to await the outcome of the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE a judge from ORG , together with representatives of the parties and experts , conducted a survey of the applicants’ land . The local experts stated that the land had been owned by PERSON and that the applicants had inherited it from him . They noted that the military brigade had occupied CARDINAL the land and had fenced it in DATE , during the first Gulf War . The applicants had been denied access to CARDINAL their land by the military authorities but had continued to cultivate the other CARDINAL for DATE . The wire fence had been removed CARDINAL or six months before .

On DATE ORG of ORG Instance dismissed the case by the ORG and ORG . In its judgment the first - instance court stated the following :

It has been understood that plot no . CARDINAL comprises QUANTITY and that the owner of the plot was PERSON , the ancestor of the defendants . He used the plot until his death in DATE and since then the defendants have been using it . It has also been understood that the military command enclosed QUANTITY of the plot during DATE and that the fence was removed in DATE .

The witnesses stated that the plot had been used by the ancestor of the defendants prior to the Gulf War and that during the Gulf War the military command had moved the fence and had taken actual possession of CARDINAL the plot .

In a letter dated DATE ORG informed the court that the plot was outside the military zone .

In view of the evidence gathered , the court concludes that the disputed plot is outside the military zone and that the defendants are in actual possession of it . The administration has failed to substantiate its allegation and therefore the case is dismissed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Commander of the CARDINALth ORG informed ORG of ORG that the land in question , namely QUANTITY of land forming part of plot no . CARDINAL , was within the military security zone . However , under PERSON no . CARDINAL and PERSON no . DATE , owners of land within military security zones were free to reside and carry out agricultural activities . According to this letter , owners of such land are required to seek permission from the authorities only for construction , timber felling or sale of their property to non - NORP citizens .

On DATE ORG of ORG Instance awarded the plaintiffs in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL a total of MONEY ( TRL ) for the value of the land , in accordance with the expert report submitted to it . The first - instance court ordered the annulment of the applicants’ title and registration of the land with the title of the defendant . It observed that the ORG ancestor had been the owner of plot . CARDINAL and that the Ministry had limited their rights over the plot , which had resulted in the de facto expropriation of the land . The court further considered that the control of the use of property by the administration contradicted the legal principles governing the right to property .

On an unspecified date , the ORG and ORG appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE . In its decision , ORG stated the following :

CARDINAL- There is no power of attorney attesting that PERSON and GPE PERSON had given authority to the GPE representative . Therefore , the first - instance court should have rendered a decision pursuant to LAW in respect of these CARDINAL plaintiffs .

CARDINAL- According to the letter of ORG dated DATE , the land in dispute is located within the military security zone . As mentioned in this letter , there is no control of the use of the property as rural land ( arazi ) . The owner of the land can use it subject to the authorisation of ORG . Since the plot in question is rural land [ as opposed to urban land ( arsa ) ] , there is no de facto expropriation and , therefore , the plaintiffs can not request compensation .

On an unspecified date the applicants requested rectification of ORG decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed their request .

On DATE the first - instance court abided by ORG decision and decided to discontinue the proceedings in so far as they had been brought by PERSON and GPE PERSON pursuant to LAW . It further dismissed the ORG claim for the value of the land in accordance with ORG reasoning .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG once again dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification of the decision .

On DATE the authorities carried out an inspection of the applicants’ land ( plot no . CARDINAL ) . The inspection report , prepared by a real estate expert , stated that the LOC had been visited in the company of the village mayor and that it had been observed that the plot in question had stayed outside the fence . Furthermore , the land was not occupied and there was no obstacle to cultivation . Yet it had been noted that , according to some witnesses , the land was only used to grow grass ( for animals ) and not cultivated .

The relevant page of the log book kept at the GPE land registry office indicates that PERSON , the applicants’ ancestor , had been the owner of the land in dispute .

A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE .

It appears from the established practice of ORG that when land is located within a restricted military zone the owners of the land in question can not claim compensation for de facto expropriation unless the administration permanently denies access to that land with the intention of owning it ( see , in particular , decision no . CARDINAL on file no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG of ORG ) . Furthermore , such restriction is not considered de facto expropriation . Accordingly , the litigants can not claim compensation for the value of their land . However , they may obtain compensation for temporary denial of access to land or damage resulting from restrictions imposed on the use of their land .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :

“ All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review .

The administration shall be liable to indemnify any damage caused by its own acts and measures . ”


Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant worked for a NORP company in GPE DATE . Following the termination of his contract by the company the applicant brought civil proceedings before the NORP courts and requested compensation . On DATE the NORP courts partially awarded the applicant 's claims . Upon his return to GPE the applicant brought the following proceedings before the NORP courts .

Without specifying before which court , the applicant stated that he instituted domestic proceedings on DATE for the recognition of the NORP court order . According to the applicant , these proceedings had later been abrogated . The applicant did not present any document regarding these proceedings .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before the ORG requesting the recognition of the NORP court order . On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant 's request . The applicant appealed and on DATE ORG quashed the decision on the ground that the first instance court did not have jurisdiction . On DATE ORG further rejected the rectification request . On DATE the ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction .

On DATE the applicant requested the proceedings to be referred to the competent labour court . On DATE the GPE ORG held that the case before it concerned the recognition of the NORP court order , the contents of which were the subject matter of the proceedings pending before ORG that the applicant had introduced separately on DATE . Therefore there was no need to continue the proceedings . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG and requested compensation for the same period that had been examined and concluded by the NORP court as well as a number of other damages . After holding CARDINAL hearings ORG partially awarded the applicant on DATE . The applicant appealed . ORG upheld the judgment on CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant also instituted proceedings before the GPE CARDINALth ORG against the NORP company and requested the payment of DATE salary . These proceedings which started on DATE ended on DATE when the court partially upheld the applicant 's request . The applicant appealed and ORG upheld the judgment on DATE . The sum awarded was paid to the applicant .

In DATE the applicants brought proceedings before ORG and requested additional compensation for their property that had been expropriated . Claiming that the additional compensation amount to be awarded by the court would not have met their actual loss , the applicants later stopped pursuing their case and on DATE the court decided not to continue the proceedings . On DATE the applicants initiated proceedings before ORG and requested determination of the value of the expropriated property and their damages due to the expropriation . The court issued a decision of non - jurisdiction on the ground that the proceedings should have been instituted before the competent administrative court . The applicants ' appeal was further dismissed by ORG on DATE .

Consequently , the applicants instituted damage proceedings on DATE before ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' claims . Referring to the previous proceedings before ORG which the applicants had stopped pursuing , the court declared that the ORG could not be held liable for the applicants ' omission in not following the judicial procedure in due time . The applicants ' appeal and rectification requests were rejected by ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and CARDINAL others who were allegedly involved in a bribery and forgery incident . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged . ORG quashed these judgments on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . According to the information submitted by the applicant , the proceedings are still pending before domestic courts .


Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award

The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE , and is a graduate in computer science .

On an unspecified date , the GPE prosecution authorities started an investigation against the applicant and other persons on suspicion of involvement in drug - trafficking ( FAC ) . In DATE , when questioned as a witness in connection with other investigation proceedings , PERSON , who had been convicted of drug - trafficking in DATE and sentenced to DATE imprisonment , outlined his drug - trafficking activities in GPE since DATE and implicated several persons involved therein , including the applicant . He gave further details on those issues when questioned in GPE in DATE . He stated , inter alia , that the applicant had once kept QUANTITY and on CARDINAL other occasions QUANTITY of cocaine for a third person in an apartment in GPE . He also maintained that the applicant had twice sold him cocaine .

On DATE preliminary investigations were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of offences under LAW ( GPE gegen das Betäubungsmittelgesetz ) . TIME the applicant was arrested .

In TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant was questioned by the GPE police authorities . In the course of this questioning , he was informed that , following the statements made by witness PERSON , there was a strong suspicion that in DATE he had kept CARDINAL kg of cocaine for a Mr A.C. , that he had aided and abetted the drug - trafficking offences committed by the latter and that he had sold QUANTITY of cocaine to the witness PERSON The applicant thereupon explained how he had met PERSON and that he had known about his involvement in drug - trafficking . He also made statements on the involvement of third persons in drug - trafficking . He denied the accusations made by the witness Mr K.

Still on DATE he was brought before a detention judge ( LOC ) at FAC ( ORG ) who , after hearing the applicant , issued a warrant for his arrest ( Haftbefehl ) .

NORP The arrest warrant stated that the applicant was suspected of having , as a dealer , received in DATE several deliveries of cocaine ( a total of QUANTITY ) from a Mr A.C. , against whom separate criminal proceedings were pending ; of having received further deliveries ( a total of QUANTITY ) between CARDINAL and DATE ; and of having sold in DATE , for a price of CARDINAL ORG , CARDINAL lots of cocaine to PERSON The arrest warrant indicated that the applicant was suspected on the basis of the statements made by PERSON , who had previously been convicted of drug - trafficking and was being prosecuted in separate proceedings in respect of new offences . The applicant was orally informed of the content of the arrest warrant .

On DATE the applicant ’s defence counsel applied to ORG ) for access to the criminal files . ORG supplied the defence counsel copies of the applicant ’s statements to the police authorities and the detention judge , of the record of the search of the applicant ’s LOC , as well as of the arrest warrant . As regards the other documents contained in the files , counsel ’s request was dismissed , pursuant to LAW ) , on the ground that such consultation would endanger the purpose of the on - going investigations .

Subsequently the applicant chose PERSON as his new defence counsel and he repeated the request on DATE . He also applied for a review of the applicant ’s detention on remand ( GPE ) . Thereupon , on CARDINAL DATE ORG forwarded a copy of the investigation file concerning detention matters , which at that time comprised a single volume , to FAC .

On DATE ORG again sent copies of the above - mentioned documents and , as regards the other documents of the file , replied that for the time being a full inspection of the file could not be granted , as otherwise the purpose of the investigation proceedings would be jeopardised .

On DATE the Berlin - ORG , after an oral hearing in the presence of the applicant , his counsel and ORG , ordered the applicant ’s continued detention on remand . ORG , having regard to the results of the investigations , especially the statements made by PERSON who had been further questioned in the meantime , found that there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences mentioned in the arrest warrant and was also involved in organised crime relating to drug - trafficking . The ORG considered that ORG statements were particularly detailed and conclusive . Neither the applicant nor his counsel were given access to the record of PERSON ’s questioning .

On DATE ORG ( Landgericht ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal ( Beschwerde ) against that decision . ORG , which had a copy of the investigation file at its disposal , observed that it was not competent to decide on the applicant ’s complaint about the refusal of full access to the files , while confirming that there was a risk of collusion .

On DATE ORG ( GPE ) dismissed the applicant ’s further appeal ( weitere Beschwerde ) against the decision of DATE . According to ORG , the oral information provided to the applicant on the statements of witness PERSON had been sufficient for him to be in a position effectively to defend himself . In so far as the applicant had invoked LAW and the PERSON judgment of ORG , ORG considered that the applicant ’s case was different in that access to the files was not wholly excluded , but only to the extent that legitimate public interests in an effective prosecution of offenders required such measures . ORG confirmed the existence of a risk of collusion . ORG based its decision on the contents of a copy of the files which had been prepared by ORG for the purposes of the appeal proceedings and had been sent to ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint ( ORG ) with ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) . Furthermore , counsel requested that the incriminating passages of the statements made by witness PERSON should be read out or otherwise be made known to him by ORG . According to a file note of CARDINAL DATE , ORG was not prepared to grant full access to the files as the records on the questioning of witness PERSON contained information on further suspects and other investigation proceedings where arrest or search warrants had not yet been executed .

On DATE applicant ’s counsel obtained copies of the records on the questioning of witness PERSON to the extent that they related to the applicant . Other passages had been blacked out .

On DATE counsel again requested full access to the files as the copies sent to him were not comprehensible as a consequence of the blacked out passages . Moreover , he requested further investigations . The request for full access to the files was dismissed on DATE . The requested investigations were carried out .

On DATE ORG informed applicant ’s counsel that there were no longer any reasons to refuse full inspection of the files , and ORG was also informed of that fact . In view of this development , ORG asked the applicant whether he wished to maintain his constitutional complaint . The applicant ’s reply was affirmative . The applicant ’s lawyer was granted access to the file on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided not to entertain the constitutional complaint .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of aiding and abetting drug - trafficking in respect of the storage of QUANTITY and QUANTITY of cocaine and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The time he had spent in detention on remand was counted towards the sentence . The judgment became final .

Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( GPE ) concern the arrest and detention of a person on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence . According to LAW a person may be detained on remand if there is a strong suspicion that he or she has committed a criminal offence and if there is a reason for arrest , such as the risk of absconding or the risk of collusion . LAW regulates the suspension of the execution of an arrest warrant .

Under Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , remand prisoners can ask any time for judicial review of the arrest warrant . An oral hearing will be held upon the request of the remand prisoner , or if the court so decides on its own motion ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . If the arrest warrant is held to be valid following an oral hearing , the remand prisoner is entitled to a new oral hearing only if the detention has lasted for DATE altogether and if DATE have elapsed since the last oral hearing ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Article ORG provides that an arrest warrant has to be quashed if reasons justifying the detention on remand no longer persist or if the continued detention appears disproportionate . Any prolongation of detention on remand beyond DATE is to be decided by ORG ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure concern the defence of a person charged with having committed a criminal offence , in particular the choice of defence counsel or appointment of official defence counsel . According to LAW , defence counsel is entitled to consult the files , which have been presented to the trial court , or which would have to be presented to the trial court in case of an indictment , and to inspect the exhibits . LAW of this provision allows for a refusal of access to part or all of the files or to the exhibits , for as long as the preliminary investigation has not been terminated , if the purpose of the investigation would otherwise be endangered . Pending the preliminary investigation , it is for ORG to decide whether to grant access to the file or not ; thereafter it is for the president of the trial court ( LAW ) . By an LAW amending LAW ( Strafverfahrensänderungsgesetz , BGBl . DATE , I , p. CARDINAL ) with effect as from DATE , the latter provision has been amended to the effect , inter alia , that an accused who is in detention is now entitled to ask for judicial review of the decision of ORG denying access to the file .

Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure regulate the principles of criminal prosecution and the preparation of the indictment . Article CARDINAL provides that any trial has to be initiated by an indictment . According to LAW is to be preferred by ORG which is , unless otherwise provided , bound to investigate any criminal offence of which there exist sufficient grounds for suspicion .

Preliminary investigations are to be conducted by ORG according to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure . On the basis of these investigations ORG decides under LAW whether to prefer an indictment or to discontinue the proceedings .

According to LAW , every person involved in proceedings before a court is entitled to be heard by that court ( PERSON auf rechtliches PERSON ) .

According to ORG ( ORG - gericht ) , this rule requires a court decision to be based only on those facts and evidential findings which could be commented upon by the parties . In cases involving arrest and detention on remand , the arrest warrant and all court decisions upholding it must be founded only on those facts and pieces of evidence of which the accused was previously aware and on which he was able to comment ( ORG , decision of DATE ( ORG DATE , ORG ) , with further references ) .

In the aforementioned decision , ORG held that , following his arrest , an accused had to be informed of the content of the arrest warrant and promptly brought before a judge who , when questioning him , had to inform him of all relevant incriminating evidence as well as of evidence in his favour . Moreover , in the course of ensuing review proceedings , the accused must be heard and , to the extent that the investigation will not be prejudiced , the relevant results of the investigation at that stage must be put to him . In some cases , such oral information may not be sufficient . If the facts and the evidence forming the basis of a decision in detention matters can not or can no longer be communicated orally , other means of informing the accused , such as a right to consult the files ( PERSON ) , are to be used . On the other hand , statutory limitations on an accused ’s access to the files pending the preliminary investigation are to be accepted , if the efficient conduct of criminal investigations so requires . However , even pending those investigations , an accused who is detained on remand has a right of access to the files through his lawyer if and to the extent that the information which they contain might affect his position in the review proceedings and that oral information is not sufficient . If in such cases the prosecution refuses access to the relevant parts of the files pursuant to LAW , the reviewing court can not base its decision on those facts and evidence and , if necessary , has to set the arrest warrant aside ( ORG , loc . cit . ) .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and resides in the village of GPE , GPE region , GPE .

The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG of GPE against ORG No . CARDINAL - a ORG - owned enterprise - to recover salary arrears and other payments due to her .

On DATE the ORG found in favour of the applicant ( ORG городского суда PERSON области ) and awarded her ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . On DATE ORG ( PERSON исполнительной службы Новогродовского городского управления юстиции ) initiated the enforcement proceedings .

NORP In DATE , the applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG of GPE against ORG for failure to enforce the judgment in her favour . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim , finding that no fault had been committed by ORG . The court stated that ORG had acted properly in trying to enforce the judgment of DATE . However , by a number of decisions of ORG of GPE , ORG had been prohibited from selling the property of ORG , due to the bankruptcy proceedings which had been initiated against the company .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of the first instance court of DATE . The applicant appealed in cassation to ORG . The parties did not provide any further information about this set of proceedings .

In DATE the judgment in the applicant ’s favour was enforced in full .

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