Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law;No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy;No violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination read in the light of Article 5 - (Art. 5) Right to liberty and security;No violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination read in the light of Article 6 - (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial;No violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination read in the light of Article 7 - (Art. 7) No punishment without law

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant claimed that his home had been in the village of PERSON in GPE ( northern GPE ) . His family had owned considerable immovable property in northern GPE and was CARDINAL of the wealthiest families in the village . The applicant 's parents had intended to transfer to him a CARDINAL share in their immovable properties when he reached DATE . However , because of the DATE NORP intervention this did not happen . The applicant considered that , even though the formal registration process was not completed , he had been the “ beneficial owner ” of the said share in the properties from DATE .

The properties listed below were all transferred to the applicant by way of gift from his parents on DATE ( declarations of transfer CARDINAL . GPE , PERSON , D-CARDINAL and ORG ) :

( a ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : house ( area : QUANTITY ) and yard ( ground floor ) ; use : residence ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( b ) GPE , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( c ) GPE , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( d ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( e ) GPE , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( f ) GPE , PERSON , GPE , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( g ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( h ) GPE , PERSON , GPE , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( i ) GPE , PERSON , GPE , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( j ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . MONEY , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( k ) GPE , GPE , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( l ) GPE , GPE , plot no . PERSON , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( m ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , DATE , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( n ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( o ) GPE , PERSON , Hepipis , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( p ) GPE , PERSON , Vitsada Road , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( q ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . ORG , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( r ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : GPE

The properties listed below were all transferred to the applicant by way of gift from his parents on DATE ( declaration of transfer no . ORG ) :

( a ) GPE , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : house and yard ( ground floor ) ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( b ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( c ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( e ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL .

The properties listed below were all transferred to the applicant by way of gift from his parents on DATE ( declarations of transfer nos . D-CARDINAL and PERSON ) :

( a ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY ; m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( b ) GPE , GPE , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL ;

( c ) GPE , GPE , PERSON , plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan : CARDINAL ; description : field ; area QUANTITY . m ; share : CARDINAL .

NORP In order to substantiate his claim to ownership , the applicant produced the relevant certificates of ownership of NORP - occupied immovable property issued by GPE .

The applicant alleged that since the DATE NORP intervention he had been deprived of his property rights , as his property was located in the area that was under the occupation and control of the NORP military authorities . They had prevented him from having access to and from using his properties .

On DATE , the applicant joined an anti - NORP demonstration in the ORG area in GPE in which the applicants in the GPE and PERSON v. GPE and PERSON v. GPE cases ( see below ) also took part .

According to an affidavit sworn by the applicant before the “ GPE ” ORG on DATE , the demonstration of DATE was peaceful and was held on DATE of the NORP intervention in GPE , in support of the missing persons and to protest against human - rights violations .

The applicant heard about the demonstration from the local radio and press . During TIME of DATE the radio announced that NORP soldiers and policemen had started to cruelly beat the demonstrators . The applicant , a nursing officer , decided to go to the area where the events were taking place . He took with him a special bag containing first - aid equipment and wore an armband marked with ORG sign .

The applicant told ORG officers that he was a nurse and they informed him that they needed his help for a woman who had received an injury to the head and was lying on the ground . While he was trying to attend to the woman , the applicant was beaten with clubs about the head and body by NORP military personnel and/or other personnel acting under NORP control . Despite his attempts to explain that he was a nurse , they continued to hit him . He felt a powerful blow to the head and started bleeding . He was led away at gunpoint through an angry crowd that shouted abuse and threats and was then taken by bus to the so - called “ FAC ” . The crowd had encircled the bus and was hitting it with sticks and throwing stones at the arrested persons .

At the garage a body search was carried out and all the applicant 's personal effects were taken . The crowd was shouting and throwing stones at the garage , some of which came through the roof . TIME he was taken to hospital where he had stitches to his head . He was then taken back to the garage . He was still bleeding and his clothes were soaked with blood . TIME he was interrogated by a NORP - speaking officer . The applicant declared that he had joined the demonstration voluntarily for humanitarian reasons . He was told to sign a statement in NORP but refused as he did not understand NORP and signing would have been tantamount to recognising the “ GPE ” ( the “ GPE ” ) .

In TIME of DATE he was taken to ORG and put in a cell that was dark , damp and dirty . While at the station he was beaten and threatened .

On DATE he was given back his personal effects and taken to court , where an interpreter explained the charges to the accused . The applicant understood that he was accused of having violated the borders of the “ NORP ” . He informed the judge that he had attended the demonstration only in order to offer humanitarian aid as a member of ORG . The court remained completely indifferent to what he said .

He was remanded in custody for DATE and then taken to FAC where all his personal effects were taken away again . He was blindfolded and led to another area of the prison where he was interrogated and punched . The interrogation was aimed solely at eliciting military information and the applicant lied about certain details . He was forced to wash the blood from his clothes before appearing in court DATE . After the interrogation he was taken to the central prison .

On DATE he was taken to court . Foreign journalists and ORG officers were present in the courtroom . The accused had no legal representation and the quality of the interpretation was poor ; the applicant felt that the interpreter was not translating all of what was being said . CARDINAL of the accused ( the Bishop of Kitium ) spoke on behalf of the others and said that they would agree to be defended only by a NORP - Cypriot or ORG lawyer . The judge replied that she could only appoint a lawyer registered with the “ NORP ” bar association . The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that they did not recognise the legitimacy of the “ GPE ” or its tribunals . CARDINAL witnesses were called by the prosecution . The Bishop of Kitium put some questions to the first witness . However , the judge refused to allow some of the questions and the ORG accordingly declined to cross - examine any other witness . The prosecution witnesses lied about basic facts surrounding the demonstration and the arrest of the accused . CARDINAL of the persons present in the courtroom spoke briefly to the ORG , who became frightened as a result . After the trial the applicant and his co - accused were taken back to prison . Their pictures were taken .

On DATE the applicant was again taken to court . A hostile crowd gathered outside the courtroom . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and a fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) DATE ( EUR ) – with DATE in prison in default of payment within TIME . This decision was translated into NORP and the accused stated that they would not pay the fine . An angry crowd had assembled within the precinct of the court and was shouting , swearing and making obscene gestures at the accused . The applicant had the impression that the crowd 's presence and actions were being orchestrated and controlled by the police .

From DATE until DATE the applicant went on a hunger strike to protest about the prison director 's refusal to give the Bishop of ORG church vestments and holy vessels with which to celebrate mass . He was put in an isolation cell as punishment but continued his strike notwithstanding the pressure exerted by the prison staff .

On DATE the applicant was released and taken back to southern GPE .

On DATE he went to the police headquarters in GPE and made a complaint about his arrest and ill - treatment . He was referred to ORG , where he was examined by a doctor .

NORP In support of his claim of ill - treatment , the applicant produced a medical certificate issued on DATE by PERSON , a medical officer at ORG . This document reads as follows :

“ I have examined DATE CARDINAL ORG and found a head injury ( left frontal bone ) . CARDINAL stitches . B.P. = CARDINAL . Removal of stitches and cleaning of wound was recommended . He complains about mild pain in the epigastrium and nausea . Treatment was provided and urine culture was recommended for old nephritis . ”

The Government alleged that the applicant had participated in a violent demonstration with the aim of inflaming anti - NORP sentiment . The demonstrators , supported by the NORP - Cypriot administration , were demanding that the “ GPE ” in GPE should be dismantled . Some carried NORP flags , clubs , knives and wire - cutters . They were acting in a provocative manner and shouting abuse . The demonstrators were warned in NORP and LANGUAGE that unless they dispersed they would be arrested in accordance with the laws of the “ GPE ” . The applicant was arrested by the NORP - NORP police after crossing the ORG buffer zone and entering the area under NORP - Cypriot control . The NORP - NORP police intervened in the face of the manifest inability of the NORP - Cypriot authorities and ORG in GPE to contain the incursion and its possible consequences .

No force was used against demonstrators who did not intrude into the “ GPE ” border area and , in the case of demonstrators who were arrested for violating the border , no more force was used than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances in order to arrest and detain the persons concerned . No one was ill - treated . It was possible that some of the demonstrators had hurt themselves in the confusion or in attempting to scale barbed wire or other fencing . Had the NORP police , or anyone else , assaulted or beaten any of the demonstrators , the ORG Secretary General would no doubt have referred to this in his report to ORG .

The applicant was charged , tried , found guilty and sentenced to a short term of imprisonment . He pleaded not guilty , but did not give evidence and declined to use the available judicial remedies . He was asked if he required assistance from a lawyer registered in the “ GPE ” , but refused and did not ask for legal representation . Interpretation services were provided at the trial by qualified interpreters . All the proceedings were translated into NORP .

In his report of DATE on the ORG operations in GPE , the ORG Secretary General stated , inter alia :

“ A serious situation , however , arose in DATE as a result of a demonstration by NORP Cypriots in GPE . The details are as follows :

( a ) In TIME of DATE , some CARDINAL NORP Cypriot demonstrators , mostly women , forced their way into the ORG buffer zone in the ORG area of GPE . The demonstrators broke through a wire barrier maintained by ORG and destroyed an ORG observation post . They then broke through the line formed by ORG soldiers and entered a former school complex where ORG reinforcements regrouped to prevent them from proceeding further . A short while later , NORP - Cypriot police and security forces elements forced their way into the area and apprehended QUANTITY persons , CARDINAL of them women ;

( b ) The ORG school complex is situated in the ORG buffer zone . However , the NORP forces claim it to be on their side of the cease - fire line . Under working arrangements with ORG , the NORP - Cypriot security forces have patrolled the school grounds for DATE within specific restrictions . This patrolling ceased altogether as part of the unmanning agreement implemented DATE ;

( c ) In TIME of QUANTITY DATE , CARDINAL NORP Cypriots gathered at the main entrance to the ORG protected area in GPE , in which the ORG headquarters is located , to protest the continuing detention by the NORP - Cypriot authorities of those apprehended at PERSON . The demonstrators , whose number fluctuated CARDINAL , blocked all ORG traffic through this entrance until DATE , when the NORP - Cypriot authorities released the last QUANTITY detainees ;

( d ) The events described above created considerable tension in the island and intensive efforts were made , both at the ORG headquarters and at GPE , to contain and resolve the situation . On DATE , I expressed my concern at the events that have taken place and stressed that it was vital that all parties keep in mind the purpose of the ORG buffer zone as well as their responsibility to ensure that that area was not violated . I also urged the NORP - Cypriot authorities to release without delay all those who had been detained . On DATE , the President of ORG announced that he had conveyed to the representatives of all the parties , on behalf of the members of ORG , the ORG 's deep concern at the tense situation created by the incidents of DATE . He also stressed the need strictly to respect the ORG buffer zone and appealed for the immediate release of all persons still detained . He asked all concerned to show maximum restraint and to take urgent steps that would bring about a relaxation of tension and contribute to the creation of an atmosphere favourable to the negotiations . ”

The applicant produced CARDINAL photographs taken at different times during the demonstration on DATE . Photographs CARDINAL to CARDINAL were intended to show that , notwithstanding the deployment of the NORP - NORP police , the demonstration was peaceful . In photographs CARDINAL members of the NORP - NORP police are seen breaking up the ORG cordon . The final set of photographs show members of the NORP - NORP police using force to arrest some of the demonstrators .

The NORP translation of the “ GPE ” ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE indicates that the applicant , together with CARDINAL other men , was charged with CARDINAL offences : entering “ GPE ” territory without permission ( contrary to sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and entering “ GPE ” territory other than through an approved port ( contrary to subsections CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration Law – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The judgment was given in the presence of the accused and of an interpreter . The trial judge noted the following :

( i ) the accused did not accept the charges against them and stated that they did not wish to use the services of a lawyer registered in the “ GPE ” ;

( ii ) the public prosecutor called CARDINAL witnesses , whose statements were translated into NORP for the accuseds ' benefit ;

( iii ) the witnesses ( mainly police officers on duty at the time of the demonstration ) declared that the accused had illegally crossed the “ GPE ” border , shouted abuse at the NORP - Cypriot forces and resisted arrest by pulling and pushing ; knives and other cutting objects had been found in the bags of some of the demonstrators who had been arrested ;

( iv ) the accused had been told that they could cross - examine witnesses in turn and , if they so wished , choose CARDINAL of their number to cross - examine the witnesses on behalf of all the accused ; during the hearing of evidence , CARDINAL of the accused put a few questions to CARDINAL of the prosecution witnesses ;

( v ) the applicant had stated that he considered the NORP coast to be the border and for that reason did not accept that he had violated the border ; before ORG gave its sentence , ORG , speaking on behalf of all the accused , had made a statement saying that their struggle had been peaceful , that their aim was to have NORP and NORP living together in peace , that they had not been carrying weapons and that they had asked for ORG protection ;

( vi ) relying on statements by the prosecution witnesses , which were not undermined by the statements made by some of the accused , ORG came to the conclusion that the accused had crossed the borders of the “ GPE ” at an unapproved entry point and without permission and had resisted by various means the ORG and NORP forces which had tried to stop them ;

( vii ) the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt , so that the accused were guilty on both counts ;

( viii ) in deciding on the sentence , ORG had taken into account the seriousness of the offence , and the fact that the accused had shown no remorse and continued to deny the validity of the “ TRNC ” .

Section CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :

“ Where CARDINAL or more persons assemble with intent to commit an offence , or , being assembled with intent to carry out some common purpose , conduct themselves in such a manner as to cause persons in the neighbourhood to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace , or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace they are an unlawful assembly .

It is immaterial that the original assembly was lawful if , being assembled , they conduct themselves with a common purpose in such a manner as aforesaid .

When an unlawful assembly has begun to execute the purpose , whether of a public or of a private nature , for which it assembled by a breach of the peace and to the terror of the public , the assembly is called a riot , and the persons assembled are said to be riotously assembled . ”

According to section CARDINAL of LAW , any person who takes part in an unlawful assembly is guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to imprisonment for DATE .

Section CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides :

“ Any person who carries in public without lawful occasion any offensive arm or weapon in such a manner as to cause terror to any person is guilty of a misdemeanour , and is liable to imprisonment for DATE , and his arms or weapons shall be forfeited . ”

According to section CARDINAL of LAW , it is an offence to carry a knife outside the home .

The relevant part of LAW , section CARDINAL of GPE states :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Any officer may , without warrant , arrest any person -

( b ) who commits in his presence any offence punishable with imprisonment ;

( c ) who obstructs a police officer , while in the execution of his duty ... ”

Section CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL states :

“ ... Any person who enters a prohibited military area without authorization , or by stealth , or fraudulently , shall be tried by a military court in accordance with LAW ; those found guilty shall be punished . ”

Subsections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No person shall enter or leave the Colony except through an approved port .

Any person who contravenes or fails to observe any of the provisions of subsections ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding QUANTITY or to both such imprisonment and fine . ”


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

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

He was a representative of a NORP company , ORG , which bought a share of a NORP company , S. The applicant was a member of ORG of company S. from DATE , and its chairman from CARDINAL DATE . He was unable , however , to exercise his powers between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , having been illegally dismissed from ORG by its NORP members . Company S. later became insolvent .

On DATE the applicant was charged with insider trading and fraud , in particular with concluding contracts disadvantageous to company S. and causing pecuniary damage of CARDINAL NORP korunas ( CZK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . On DATE he was placed in pre - trial detention .

On DATE the applicant requested to be released on bail and offered to pay security of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The request contained a declaration that he was aware of the contents of LAW of LAW , which set out the conditions under which bail could be forfeited . On DATE the ORG granted the applicant bail against payment of security in the amount of CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) . It justified the amount of the security by the exceptional gravity of the charges and the significance of the reasons for taking him into custody originally , in particular the high risk that he would abscond .

On DATE the applicant authorised his lawyer to pay the security in the amount set by the court . He also undertook to stay at his address in GPE and to attend hearings in his case , and declared that he was aware that the security would be forfeited if he did not comply . On DATE he was released on bail . CARDINAL of the conditions was that he stay at his address in GPE and receive mail there .

On DATE ORG authorised the applicant to leave GPE until DATE , on condition that he attended the first hearing , scheduled for DATE . This was the fourth time such a request by the applicant had been granted . The applicant had made CARDINAL previous trips to GPE , DATE , and had always returned .

On DATE the applicant informed his lawyer that on DATE his passport , with an entry visa to GPE , had been stolen in GPE and that he was arranging for a new passport . As a result the hearing was adjourned to DATE .

A summons to the new hearing was sent to the applicant at his address in GPE but returned as undelivered . ORG also attempted to serve the summons on the applicant through his lawyer .

On DATE the lawyer sent certain documents to ORG , including a confirmation from the NORP authorities that the applicant ’s official registered address in GPE was in PERSON .

On DATE the lawyer informed ORG that he did not have direct contact details for the applicant in GPE and that he had sent the summons for the hearing to the address given to him by CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - accused .

As the applicant had still not received a new passport and he objected to the hearing being held in his absence , the hearing planned for CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE was cancelled .

On DATE ORG , having received no information from the applicant , made enquiries of ORG and the trade representation of GPE in GPE as to whether the applicant had applied for a new passport .

The date the applicant received a new passport from the NORP authorities is disputed between the parties . The Government claimed that it was on DATE , but according to the applicant it was not until DATE . The applicant did not inform ORG that he had obtained a new passport .

ORG scheduled another hearing for DATE and , on DATE , summoned the applicant through ORG at an address in the city of PERSON in GPE , which was registered in the case file as the applicant ’s place of residence in GPE . It also warned the applicant that the fact that he had not applied for a NORP visa , had remained in GPE and had not been in contact with the court was incompatible with his bail conditions , could be qualified as avoiding the criminal proceedings and could lead to the forfeiture of the sum deposited as security . The applicant was also advised of the possibility that criminal proceedings against him would be conducted in absentia .

The Russian Ministry of Justice informed the NORP authorities that the applicant was not registered and did not live at the address in PERSON , and that his current place of residence had not been established . It was thus not possible to deliver the summons to the hearing .

Nevertheless , the applicant found out about the scheduled hearing and obtained a short - term visa allowing him to visit GPE DATE .

On DATE , however , the applicant sent a fax to ORG requesting adjournment of the hearing , referring to unspecified health problems and stating that he now had new lawyers , who would need time to study the case . He did not give his address in GPE . Consequently , ORG was obliged to adjourn the trial once again .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to request the NORP authorities to deliver a summons to the applicant to a hearing scheduled for DATE , at the address in PERSON or in PERSON . However , the summons for the trial was not served on the applicant until DATE , in Udomlya . On DATE ORG again cancelled the hearing .

On DATE ORG decided to conduct the criminal proceedings against the applicant in absentia . It stated that the applicant had been avoiding the criminal proceedings by staying out of the country , that he had not returned to GPE since DATE and that he had created serious difficulties for the conduct of the trial by staying in GPE . The court also found the applicant ’s excuse for not attending the hearing on DATE , namely that he had health problems , totally inadequate . It further observed that the applicant was not respecting the bail conditions he had agreed to , namely that he would appear at hearings and that he would stay at his place of residence in GPE .

On DATE , CARDINAL to DATE , DATE and DATE hearings took place before ORG in the proceedings against the applicant in absentia .

On DATE ORG fully acquitted the applicant , holding that he had not committed any criminal offence but had merely engaged in standard and transparent business activities .

On DATE the ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE ORG , at the applicant ’s request , ruled that the bail should be returned to the applicant , as he had not been duly informed about the consequences of not complying with the conditions of bail . Moreover , none of the situations envisaged by LAW for forfeiting the bail was applicable .

On DATE the High Court quashed that decision and ruled that the bail was forfeited . It held that the applicant must have known about the possibility of forfeiture of the bail even though he had not been formally informed about it because his requests for release on bail had contained declarations that he had been aware of the possibility of forfeiture should he break the bail conditions . It also held that it was true that for some time the applicant had been unable to return to GPE because he had lost his passport and the NORP authorities had taken time to issue him with a new visa . However , the applicant had failed to collect correspondence at the address in PERSON , which was one of the addresses he had given to the prosecuting authorities , and thus letters from the court could not be delivered to him in time . It was also clear from the applicant ’s behaviour that he was avoiding criminal prosecution by remaining out of the country . Nor had he kept in contact with ORG , even though he had known about the proceedings . The conditions for forfeiture of the bail under LAW were thus fulfilled , and in particular the applicant had been in hiding , had failed to inform the relevant authorities of his place of residence , and had thus frustrated delivery of an official letter .

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against that decision , arguing that it was unjust that such a large sum should be forfeited , even though he had not committed any crime . He also disputed the findings of ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as manifestly ill - founded .

Article CARDINALa § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that individuals in pre - trial detention may be released on bail with a minimum security of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the actual amount being determined by the court , depending on the particular circumstances of the accused and the case .

Under LAW ( § CARDINAL at the relevant time ) of that provision bail will be forfeited , inter alia , if the accused absconds , goes into hiding or does not inform the relevant authorities of a change of place of residence , and thus frustrates delivery of an official letter . Under LAW ( § CARDINAL at the relevant time ) the accused must be informed in advance of the conditions under which bail may be forfeited .


CASE OF PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v. IRELAND (ARTICLE 50)

Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The case was referred to the ORG by ORG ( " the Commission " ) and by the Government of GPE ( " the Government " ) on DATE and DATE , respectively . It originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with the ORG in DATE by CARDINAL companies registered in that ORG , ORG ( " LOC " ) and ORG ( " Healy Holdings " ) , and an NORP national , Mr PERSON .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( " the principal judgment " ) , the ORG held , inter alia , that ORG and PERSON ( hereinafter together referred to as " the applicants " ) had been victims of discrimination contrary to LAW , taken in conjunction with LAW No . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , in that section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( " LAW " ) had retrospectively validated all planning permissions in the relevant category other than theirs ( Series A no . CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL of the reasons and point CARDINAL of the operative provisions , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

The only outstanding matter to be settled is the question of the application of LAW ) . As regards the facts , reference should be made to paragraphs CARDINAL of the principal judgment ( ibid . , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

At the ORG ’s hearing on CARDINAL DATE , counsel for the ORG and ORG both reserved their position on the claims for just satisfaction advanced by the applicants .

In the principal judgment , the ORG therefore reserved the whole of this question and invited the ORG and the applicants to submit , within DATE , their written comments thereon and , in particular , to notify ORG of any agreement reached between them ( paragraphs CARDINAL of the reasons and point CARDINAL of the operative provisions , pp . CARDINAL ) .

Following the failure of settlement negotiations and in accordance with the foregoing invitation and the President ’s directions , submissions and observations relating to the claims under LAW ) were filed by the applicants on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE , by the Government on DATE , DATE and DATE and by ORG on DATE . The materials furnished to the ORG included valuations by chartered surveyors of the land owned by ORG , to which outline planning permission had initially been attached ( " the Clondalkin site " ) .

On DATE the ORG decided that there was no need to hold a hearing .

At the deliberations on DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , who had sat to consider the merits of the case but were unable to be present on that date , were replaced by PERSON , who sat as President of the ORG , and Mr PERSON , substitute judge , respectively ; PERSON in her turn was replaced by PERSON , also a substitute judge ( Rules CARDINAL para . CARDINAL , CARDINAL para . CARDINAL , CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) .


The applicant , who was born in DATE , is a NORP citizen resident in GPE .

A. Particular Circumstances of the Case

The applicant was a television producer at ORG ) at the time of the events . He was in charge of a DATE television show in which CARDINAL artists performed DATE .

In DATE the ORG inspectors started an investigation into the allegations that the applicant had extorted a certain amount of money from the artists who performed in the show .

On DATE the ORG management decided that the applicant should be dismissed on the ground of breach of ORG .

The ORG also filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with ORG attached to ORG . On DATE the public prosecutor started criminal proceedings in the ORG pursuant to LAW , alleging that the applicant had committed extortion . In his indictment , the public prosecutor accused the applicant of extorting money from CARDINAL of the artists who had performed in his show DATE .

ORG heard oral evidence from many of the artists who had performed in the show . The applicant requested ORG to hear another witness , PERSON , an artist who had performed in his show , but on DATE the court refused to hear this witness on the ground that PERSON was not connected with the case at hand and that her evidence could not be expected to contribute to the elucidation of the relevant facts of the case .

In its judgment of DATE ORG , after hearing oral evidence from the witnesses called by the prosecution and the defence , found that the applicant had borrowed money from the artists who had performed in his show and did not pay his debts back until he was brought before the court . The court also stated that it could not establish any facts to show that the applicant had forced these people to pay a sum of money . Consequently , it convicted the applicant of abuse of office under LAW of LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , a fine of MONEY and DATE disqualification from holding public office .

On DATE the applicant 's appeal to ORG was rejected . ORG held that the applicant 's conviction and sentence was in accordance with LAW .

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

B. Relevant Domestic Law

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW are set out below .

Section CARDINAL

( Translation )

“ Any public officer who , in abuse of his title or office , wrongfully compels a person to pay a sum of money or to provide or promise any other benefit either to himself or to a third party , shall be sentenced to heavy imprisonment for not DATE . ”

Section CARDINAL

( Translation )

“ Any person who is a public officer and abuses his office in any manner other than that defined in this Code , shall be sentenced to imprisonment of not DATE but not DATE depending upon the gravity of the offence . ”


The applicants , PERSON and PERSON are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE , GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mrs Siv PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

By ORG ( Länsrätten i PERSON ) judgment of DATE , R was taken into public care pursuant to the Act with Special Provisions on ORG ( lagen med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga , CARDINAL - hereafter LAW ) . A , ORG ( socialnämnden ) and CARDINAL witnesses were heard , among the latter a consultant specialised in child and youth psychiatry . The court found it established that A was very suspicious and in conflict with many persons ; that A involved R in her conflicts ; that A did not set any boundaries to R ; that consequently R ’s behaviour had become socially unacceptable ; that there was a palpable risk of impairment of the health and development of R due to lack of proper care ; that A had failed to provide proper care ; and that A refused to receive assistance from the social authorities .

On appeal , the judgment was confirmed by ORG ( ORG ) on DATE . ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) refused leave to appeal on DATE .

On DATE both applicants were placed at a care centre called GPE , specialising in treating and taking care of mothers and their children . On DATE A was discharged from the centre , on demand of the staff , who found her behaviour obstructive . On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to place R with a foster family . Moreover , the ORG exceptionally ordered a temporary prohibition on contact between A and R and the concealment of the foster family ’s identity . On appeal to ORG , A requested that the orders to take R into public care and to place her with a foster family be revoked . She consented to care continuing on a voluntarily basis entailing placement of both of them at a centre . Also , she requested that the prohibition on contact between her and R be revoked .

A stated among other things that she would be more motivated to undergo treatment if the care continued on a voluntarily basis . She admitted having had conflicts at ORG but found that this could be imputed mainly to her disagreements with the superintendent on therapy issues . The disputes that she had had with other persons there were in her opinion irrelevant . Also , recently she had commenced seeing a psychologist .

ORG , a social worker and the superintendent of GPE , all stated among other things that A lacked insight in R ’s need for care ; that A exhibited an increasingly aggressive , harassing and even hateful behaviour towards others , which had resulted in GPE discharging her ; that A constantly involved R in her conflicts to the detriment of R ’s mental health ; and that in their opinion the foster family would not be able to stand the strain that contact with A unavoidably would entail .

A teacher , who had seen R and A DATE from DATE until DATE stated inter alia that in her opinion A and R ’s relationship was very close , and that they were very dependent on each other .

A clergyman , who regularly had met A and R during their stay at ORG , stated inter alia that in the beginning they were very deviant , vociferous and restless . However , they had developed in a positive direction .

By judgment of DATE ORG found against A , stating as follows :

It is undisputed in the present case that [ R ] is in need of care . Firstly [ A ] has requested that the care order be revoked in order that care continues on a voluntarily basis by placing her and [ R ] at a treatment centre . The care centre GPE has stated that it does no longer wish to receive [ A ] . Accordingly , continuing care at GPE is excluded . No elements have been brought to light in the present case , which could indicate that treatment at another care centre would have any prospect of success .

ORG has assessed that now only the placement of [ R ] with a foster family can provide the needed care . [ A ] can not accept such a placement . Against this background , there are no possibilities left to continue care on a voluntary basis ; consequently [ the court ] refuses to revoke the care order . ORG

Secondly , A has claimed that the court revokes the decision to place [ R ] with a foster family . Such a claim entails that public care continues at ORG or at another appropriate treatment centre , placing mother and daughter together . As stated before , however , continuing care at ORG is no longer an option , and care at another treatment centre does not appear to be a realistic alternative . In these circumstances in ORG opinion the needed care can only be provided by a foster family . The court shares this view . Accordingly , it lacks reasons to revoke ORG decision as to the replacement [ of R ] .

Finally , as to revocation of the prohibition on contact and the concealment of [ R ’s ] whereabouts it must be emphasised that the provisions authorising the imposition of such measures must be interpreted restrictively . Having regard to the statements submitted on [ A ’s ] intriguingly and aggressively behaviour , to the detriment of the intended and needed treatment of [ R ] , the court finds that ORG had justified cause for its decision temporarily to prohibit contact . Moreover , taking into account the information submitted as to the risk that [ A ] may go underground with her daughter , and to the foster family ’s prospects of handling contact with [ A ] , the court finds that ORG had justified cause for its decision to conceal [ R ’s ] whereabouts . It is definitely appreciated that [ A ] now is in touch with a psychologist , but it has not been established that she has made such progress , that could result in considerations of revoking the said restrictions . [ A ’s ] appeal is to be refused in its entirety .

The judgment was upheld on appeal on DATE by ORG . Leave to appeal was refused on DATE by ORG .

According to LAW the social authorities are under an obligation to review regularly whether public care is still necessary . By decision e.g. of DATE they upheld public care and the temporary prohibition on contact , which on appeal was confirmed by ORG on DATE .

A appealed to ORG , before which A invoked CARDINAL statements of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , respectively , from a psychiatrist , ORG , who found it established that A did not suffer from any serious mental disorder , and that further examination was necessary in order that he assess whether she suffered from a slight mental illness or disorder . Also she invoked an opinion by a professor , BE , who gave his view on the social authorities’ handling of the case .

A was heard before the court and explained inter alia that allegedly the foster family was maltreating R. Her daughter had lost weight , and e.g. when in DATE A had found the foster family ’s residence , she had paid R a visit , during which she found out that R had bruises all over because she had been beaten up by the foster parent ’s CARDINAL boys .

ORG invoked inter alia a psychiatric statement of DATE on R , in which a consultant , ORG , and a psychiatrist , ORG , stated that R ’s mental state had improved ; that she had expressed a wish to remain with the foster family ; and that she objected to live with her mother . They found that R had been gravely deviant during several different periods in her upbringing , and they recommended that the placement with the foster family be prolonged in order that R ’s commencing positive development continued . Moreover , they recommended that access be established between mother and daughter , however , in a foreseeable , safe , and clear setting .

As regards A , ORG invoked a statement procured by a psychologist , TIME , and a consultant ORG , who found that A did not exhibit any clear signs of a serious mental illness , rather her difficulties concerned a personality disorder , most likely of a paranoid sort .

Other statements on A were submitted , among others by CARDINAL psychiatrists , IP and GPE .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to revoke the care order on the following grounds :

“ ... Having regard to the statement by ORG , and several psychiatrists , ORG , and ORG , the court finds that [ A ] does have weaknesses ; some form of personality disorder , which influences her behaviour towards other people and her ability to provide [ R ] with a favourable development . [ A ] lacks insight in her own need for help , and as long as she does not appear at summoned and necessary examinations , and commence treatment , she can not appropriately take responsibility for the care of [ R ] . The statements submitted by ORG and BE do not alter this assessment . [ R ] has a need for special care , which [ A ] can not [ presently ] provide her ”

However , ORG revoked the prohibition on contact and ordered that access be initiated and progressively increased , commencing as from DATE with TIME every third DATE . It further noted that according to LAW of LAW it is at the social authorities’ discretion to decide where access is going to take place , the exact time , and who are to be present . A ’s request for leave to appeal against the judgment was refused by ORG on DATE .

The social authorities decided that access should take place in the foster family ’s home and be subject to surveillance . On DATE the social authorities increased A ’s access to TIME every third DATE . The change of DATE was explained by lack of staff resources and the fact that the social authority office was closed during DATE . A brought this decision before ORG , and claimed that the court intervened by an interim measure . The court refused this on DATE . A appealed to ORG , which by decision of CARDINAL DATE found for A and maintained that access take place on DATE as set out in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

Moreover , A initiated proceedings before ORG claiming inter alia access DATE from DATE at a place a her discretion and without any surveillance . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted access TIME every second DATE . The exact time , place and whom to be present remained at the social authorities’ discretion . The judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . Leave to appeal was refused by ORG on DATE .

In the period DATE , A initiated CARDINAL sets of various court proceedings claiming e.g. the care order revoked , change of foster family , access increased , and change as to the time and place of access .

It emerges from a judgment of DATE by ORG that access had functioned well since DATE ; that A had access TIME every second DATE under surveillance ; and that it took place by turns at the foster family ’s home in LOC and at A ’s home in FAC . Also , in accordance with a recommendation from a psychiatrist , the social authorities had made several attempts to unite the foster family and A , but this had failed due to A ’s resistance . As to CARDINAL of A ’s claim , that access took place DATE from DATE until DATE TIME , and during DATE , she submitted among other things that PERSON was not accessible by public transportation . The court found against her on all points , and stated inter alia that it was not for the court to decide on her transport . On appeal , A abstained from submitting that PERSON was not accessible by public transportation . By judgment of DATE ORG increased access to TIME every second DATE . On DATE the applicant A requested that ORG grant her leave to appeal against the judgment . It appears that leave to appeal was refused .

The decisions disputed in the present case were taken under LAW containing Special Provisions on ORG DATE ( lagen CARDINAL:CARDINAL med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga – “ the DATE LAW ) .

Compulsory public care may be ordered under LAW ( Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) and is to be provided , inter alia , if there is a clear risk of impairment of the health or development of a person DATE due to illtreatment , improper exploitation , lack of care or any other condition in the home ( LAW ) .

ORG may decide to take a child into care immediately on a provisional basis if later court proceedings concerning compulsory care can not be awaited on account of the risk to the child ’s health or development or of the risk that the continuing examination will be obstructed ( Section CARDINAL ) . Such a decision shall be submitted to ORG for approval ( Section CARDINAL ) .

An order committing a child to care on a permanent basis is issued by ORG on application by ORG . The application shall include a description of the circumstances concerning the child , measures previously taken and the care that ORG intends to arrange ( Section CARDINAL ) .

Once public care has been ordered , it is executed by ORG , which decides on the details of the care . In particular , the board shall decide on how the care is to be arranged and where the child is to live ( Section CARDINAL ) .

The council shall ensure that the child ’s need of contact with parents and other custodians is met to the utmost possible extent . The council may decide on how this access is to be arranged pursuant to LAW of LAW , which provides :

“ ORG is responsible for accommodating as far as possible the young person ’s needs of contact with his parents or other person who has custody of him .

If it is necessary in order to achieve the purposes of care measures taken under LAW , ORG may

decide how the right of access to the young person shall be exercised by a parent or other person who has custody of him , or

decide that the young person ’s place of residence may not be disclosed to the parent or custodian .

The ORG shall reconsider at least once DATE whether such decision as referred to in the second paragraph continues to be needed . ”

When public care is no longer necessary , the ORG shall order the termination of the care ( Section CARDINAL ) .

Decisions taken by ORG as to , inter alia , the continuation of the care and the GPE access may be appealed against to ORG ( Section CARDINAL ) . ORG may review a decision by ORG in so far as its subject - matter is covered by LAW ( or LAW of the DATE Act ; see Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court , PERSON DATE , DATE ) .

The court ’s decisions and judgments may be appealed against to ORG and ORG ( Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Förvaltningsprocesslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG , a firm of lawyers practising in GPE .

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

NORP The applicant first entered GPE , as a visitor , in DATE . He married his wife , a NORP citizen born in GPE , DATE . He and his wife lived in GPE DATE , before returning to GPE , where the applicant was granted indefinite leave to remain in DATE . The applicant and his wife have CARDINAL sons , all born in GPE in DATE , respectively .

On DATE , the applicant was convicted of CARDINAL counts of supplying Class A drugs , for which he was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and made subject to a confiscation order for GBP CARDINAL . The sentencing judge found that the applicant had been near the top of the chain of an operation responsible for supplying huge amounts of heroin . The applicant was notified on DATE of the Secretary of ORG ’s intention to deport him .

The applicant appealed against deportation and his appeal was heard by the then ORG on DATE . The Immigration Judge noted that the applicant had been of good character prior to his conviction , and had been a “ model prisoner ” who had been assessed as presenting a low risk of reconviction . His relationships with his wife , CARDINAL children , the youngest of whom was still DATE , and his wife ’s elderly and infirm parents were taken into account . The applicant ’s wife had stated that she would not accompany the applicant to GPE if he were deported , as it would fracture her family , but that she would visit him and would maintain their relationship . The applicant ’s children were all NORP citizens who were well settled in GPE and in full - time education . The Immigration Judge found without hesitation that the applicant ’s deportation would be conducive to the public good , having regard to his extremely serious crime . His deportation would , however , impact severely on LAW , his wife and youngest child in particular . Nonetheless , it was observed that his family life had already been gravely affected by his conviction and subsequent imprisonment , which were of the applicant ’s own making , and that his wife had coped well raising their children in his absence for DATE . It was her choice , which the ORG respected , not to relocate to GPE with the applicant if his deportation should be ordered . Given these facts , and the fact that the applicant could maintain links with his family by means of visits and telephone calls , it was found that his deportation would not be disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued .

The applicant sought reconsideration of the ORG ’s determination , which was refused on DATE by a ORG Judge , on the basis that the ORG had handed down a careful and detailed determination which contained no error of law .

The applicant was deported to GPE on an unknown date between DATE and DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of LAW DATE ( as amended by ORG ) provides that a person who is not a NORP citizen shall be liable to deportation from GPE if the Secretary of ORG deems his deportation to be conducive to the public good .

Section CARDINAL of GPE DATE provides that the Secretary of ORG must make a deportation order in respect of a “ foreign criminal , ” namely a person who is not a NORP citizen ; who is convicted of an offence ; and who is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of DATE or more . Section CARDINAL ) of the same LAW provides an exception to automatic deportation in circumstances where it would breach the foreign criminal ’s rights under LAW obligations under LAW .

Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act DATE provide for a right of appeal against a decision to make a deportation order , inter alia , on the grounds that the decision is incompatible with the Convention .

Council of Europe Recommendation Rec ( DATE ) CARDINAL Concerning the Security of Long - Term Migrants , DATE , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . As regards the protection against expulsion

a. Any decision on expulsion of a long - term immigrant should take account , having due regard to the principle of proportionality and in the light of ORG Rights’ constant case - law , of the following criteria :

- the personal behaviour of the immigrant ;

- the duration of residence ;

- existing links of the immigrant and his or her family to his or her country of origin .

b. In application of the principle of proportionality as stated in paragraph CARDINAL , member GPE should duly take into consideration the length or type of residence in relation to the seriousness of the crime committed by the long - term immigrant . More particularly , member states may provide that a long - term immigrant should not be expelled :

- after DATE of residence , except in the case of a conviction for a criminal offence where sentenced to in excess of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment without suspension ;

- after DATE of residence , except in the case of a conviction for a criminal offence where sentenced to in excess of DATE of imprisonment without suspension ;

After DATE of residence , a long - term immigrant should no longer be expellable .

c. Long - term immigrants born on the territory of the member state or admitted to the member state before DATE , who have been lawfully and habitually resident , should not be expellable once they have reached DATE .

Long - term immigrants who are minors may in principle not be expelled .

d. In any case , each member state should have the option to provide in its internal law that a long - term immigrant may be expelled if he or she constitutes a serious threat to national security or public safety . ”


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Split .

The applicant worked for the company PERSON ( “ the company ” ) for DATE . By virtue of a DATE court decision and the subsequent decision of the company in DATE , he was granted use of a privately owned flat . However , he was not able to move into the flat until DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil action against the company and T.V. as the owner of the flat seeking damages for not having been able to move into the flat until DATE and for having had to renovate it . Subsequently , ORG filed a counterclaim seeking the applicant ’s eviction from the flat and the payment of rent for the time he had spent in it .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ORG ) dismissed both the applicant ’s claim and ORG counterclaim .

On appeal , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case in so far as it involved the payment of rent by the applicant . At the same time , ORG upheld the remainder of the first - instance judgment in its part concerning the applicant ’s claim and ORG claim for the applicant ’s eviction , which thereby became final . T.V. filed an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) against that part of ORG decision . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) declared his appeal inadmissible , because the value of the subject matter in dispute did not reach the threshold prescribed by law .

In the resumed first - instance proceedings , the applicant withdrew his claim in respect of the company , but maintained in his action against T.V. During the proceedings , also ORG changed his counterclaim on several occasions . Subsequently , on DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s action , accepting ORG counterclaim for payment of rent by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as ill - founded . It found that , at the time when the applicant had lodged his constitutional complaint , the proceedings before ORG had been pending for DATE and that therefore , on the basis of the existing case - law of ORG , the conditions set out in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW were not fulfilled .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment in its part concerning the order to pay to ORG the rent . At the same time , the second - instance court remitted the case in its part concerning the exact amount of the rent due .

The relevant part of section CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , of CARDINAL DATE ; “ the LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been exhausted if the court with jurisdiction fails to decide a claim concerning the applicant ’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him or her within a reasonable time ...

( CARDINAL ) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this section is upheld , the Constitutional Court shall set a time - limit within which the court with jurisdiction must decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision issued under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE from the date a request for payment is lodged . ”


Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 8 (in case of expulsion to Afghanistan);Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The first applicant , who was born in DATE and is a citizen of GPE , left GPE on an unspecified date and entered GPE in DATE .

On an unspecified date the first applicant unsuccessfully sought asylum in GPE . The terms of his application , the reasons for the refusal and the relevant dates have not been substantiated by the first applicant .

Since DATE the first applicant has attended ORG of God , a ORG in GPE . In DATE he was baptised .

The first applicant has CARDINAL children born in GPE in DATE and DATE ( the third and fourth applicants ) . Their mother ( the second applicant ) , born in DATE , whom the first applicant married in DATE , is an NORP national who has had a permanent residence permit in GPE since an unspecified date . According to the first and second applicants , their first child , born in DATE , has no citizenship and their second child , born in DATE , is a national of GPE .

In DATE the first applicant submitted a second application for asylum . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE he was granted refugee status in GPE on the ground that he risked persecution in GPE on account of his conversion from ORG to NORP . The short decision stated in its relevant part that according to information from the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees , conversion to NORP was “ punishable by death in all GPE ” . No further details were stated .

On DATE the Director of ORG , at that time a department of ORG , issued an order withdrawing PERSON residence permit , ordering his expulsion and imposing a DATE ban on his re - entering GPE on the ground that he was a “ serious threat to national security ” . Factual grounds were not indicated . The Director relied on an internal document of DATE which stated that the first applicant was involved in trafficking of migrants , mainly citizens of GPE , through GPE and GPE to GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . The Director considered that this activity was as such a threat to national security . Also , it could be used for the transit of terrorists and thus discredit GPE internationally .

NORP The deportation order of DATE did not specify the country to which the first applicant should be deported . It appears that there was no legal requirement to do so and that in practice deportation orders did not indicate the country of destination .

The order of DATE also stated that the first applicant should be detained pending expulsion .

On DATE another government agency , ORG of the national police , issued an order for the first applicant ’s detention pending expulsion . The relationship between that order and the order of DATE , which also required PERSON detention , has not been clarified .

According to the order of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON detention was necessary since he posed a serious threat to national security , and also in view of the fact that there was no ( direct ) transport connection between GPE and the first applicant ’s country of origin , which prevented the immediate execution of the measure against him .

The orders of DATE and DATE were both immediately enforceable .

On DATE the first applicant was arrested and detained at FAC . He remained there until his release on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The first applicant has not been deported .

According to a statement by ORG , prepared for the present proceedings and submitted in DATE , Mr M. ’s deportation was impeded by the fact that he did not have a document valid for international travel , the “ lack of transport connections ” and his refusal to cooperate . The Director further explained , without providing details , that several possible destinations for his expulsion had been considered and that unsuccessful attempts had been made to remove the obstacles to the execution of the deportation order .

At least until DATE , the first applicant did in fact have a document valid for international travel . He possessed a special refugee passport , issued by the NORP authorities on DATE , which was valid for international travel until DATE . The existence of this document , including its number and date of issue , was mentioned in the deportation and detention order of DATE . It is unclear whether the first applicant presented his refugee passport to the authorities or concealed it , as suggested by the Government .

NORP In DATE the Migration Directorate of the police wrote to ORG in GPE requesting that an identity document be issued to PERSON It reiterated the request in DATE and DATE . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE informed ORG that it was unable to issue the first applicant with a passport since he had expressly stated at a meeting with ORG representatives that he did not want to have a passport issued and did not want to return to GPE . In those circumstances , the ORG would not participate in the first applicant ’s forced expulsion .

In a letter of DATE to the first applicant ’s representative , in reply to his request for release , the Director of ORG stated that PERSON detention continued to be necessary despite the ORG ’s interim measures decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . That was so because :

“ [ I]n accordance with the document from the [ ORG ] , the [ first applicant ] should not be deported to GPE . In execution of the expulsion order , he may be deported either to his country of origin or to a third country , where there is no danger for his life and health . The fact that the [ deportation ] order has not been enforced is the result of the obstinate conduct of [ Mr M. ] manifested by his frustrating and hampering his deportation from GPE . ”

On DATE the first applicant appealed to ORG against the order of DATE of ORG and requested a stay of enforcement pending the determination of his appeal . In these proceedings he was legally represented .

He argued , inter alia , that mere suppositions , not facts , had served as the basis for the impugned measures , there being no evidence of unlawful activities and no criminal proceedings having been brought against him . He also submitted that the expulsion order was in breach of the prohibition to deport a person to a country where his life was under threat . The first applicant further argued that his expulsion interfered with his right to respect for his family life . He also challenged the order for his detention .

The defendant , ORG , submitted a copy of the internal document of CARDINAL DATE which had served as the basis for the expulsion order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also filed submissions , maintaining , inter alia , that the impugned order did not contravene section CARDINALa of LAW .

On an unspecified date Mr PERSON ’s representative wrote to ORG insisting that the deportation order should be revoked in view of PERSON refugee status in GPE .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG replied that the order was lawful . He stated , inter alia :

“ In accordance with section ORG ) of LAW , execution of the [ deportation order ] should not be suspended where there are grounds to believe that the alien seeking or having obtained protection imperils national security .

In accordance with LAW relating to LAW , ‘ no Contracting State shall expel or return ( refouler ) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political GPE .

The benefit of this provision can not , however , be claimed by a refugee about whom there are grounds to believe that he imperils the national security of the country where he is ... ”

In DATE , as a result of legislative amendments , the examination of the first applicant ’s appeal against the order of DATE fell within the competence of ORG .

On DATE a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG refused the first applicant ’s request for a stay of enforcement . The court devoted no attention to his allegations about the risk of ill - treatment in GPE and his request to stay the execution of the deportation order but stated merely that the alleged interference with family life did not warrant a stay of enforcement of the order for his detention . That decision was amenable to appeal before a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG . It is unclear whether the first applicant appealed .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s appeal against his expulsion and detention .

The court noted that an internal ORG document dated DATE and submitted by the defendant stated that PERSON had acted in a way that presented a threat to national security . The court did not accept the first applicant ’s arguments that it should engage in detailed examination of the evidence allegedly supporting the view of the Ministry that he posed a threat to GPE ’s national security . It stated :

“ [ The document of DATE ] must be regarded as an official certification which contains data collected by ORG in the exercise of its functions . It has been issued in accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG . It contains evidence and data which have been assessed by the relevant administrative authority as sufficient grounds for ordering [ Mr M. ’s deportation ] for having engaged in unlawful activities threatening national security ... It follows that the impugned order is lawful . ”

The court rejected the first applicant ’s argument that the deportation order should be revoked since he lived in GPE by virtue of his refugee status . The court stated that the domestic provisions regulating deportation did not provide for discretion and their interpretation could not vary on the basis of such factors as residence status .

The court further noted that Mr PERSON had been granted refugee status on the basis of his allegation that he had converted from NORP to NORP and was afraid of persecution in GPE . The court observed that there existed evidence of a danger to the first applicant ’s health and life in relation to his conversion . It found , however , that this danger did not stem from ORG and that the applicant had not provided evidence that the authorities would be unable to protect him . Therefore , section CARDINALa of LAW , which reflected the guarantees of ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention , did not apply .

As regards the order for the first applicant ’s detention , ORG found that it was not amenable to judicial review as it concerned a measure undertaken in the execution of the expulsion order and not a separate administrative decision .

On DATE the first applicant appealed to ORG against the detention order of DATE issued by ORG .

In these proceedings , on DATE the ORG refused the first applicant ’s request for a stay of enforcement of the detention order . It found , inter alia , that there was no evidence that its immediate enforcement would cause irreparable harm . The refusal was upheld by ORG on DATE .

In the proceedings on the merits , the first applicant argued that his lengthy detention was unlawful and in breach of LAW and that it disproportionately affected his family life .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG found that the order of DATE for the first applicant ’s detention had been signed by an unauthorised official and declared it null and void . The court held , however , that it did not have the power to order the first applicant ’s release . No appeal was lodged against that judgment . It became final on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE LAW was amended with the aim of incorporating into NORP law Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of ORG and of ORG on common standards and procedures in Member GPE for returning illegally staying third - country nationals .

NORP Under the new section CARDINALa of LAW , the director of the detention centre for aliens is required to submit to the relevant court a list of persons who have been detained for DATE and the court must decide of its own motion on their continued detention or release .

In accordance with this new procedure , the situation of a number of aliens , including the first applicant , was reviewed by ORG in a decision of DATE . The decision was presented to the first applicant to read but he was not given a copy of it .

On DATE the Director of ORG of the national police , referring to the decision of ORG of DATE , issued an order which revoked the order of CARDINAL DATE for the first applicant ’s detention and imposed on him the obligation to report DATE to the local police station . The judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was not mentioned .

The order of DATE was served on the applicant on DATE and he was released on DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the third and fourth applicants were granted refugee status in GPE . The grounds for that decision have not been communicated to the Court .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in detail in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . The following additional provisions of domestic law are relevant .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , deportation orders issued on national security grounds do not indicate the factual grounds for imposing the measure .

Under section CARDINALa of LAW , deportation orders may not be executed by way of deportation to a country where there exists a risk to the person ’s life or a risk of ill - treatment .

A similar prohibition is spelled out in section CARDINAL ) of LAW , in respect of persons who have obtained protection under LAW or have entered GPE to seek such protection . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides , however , that the right not to be returned to a country where the person concerned risks ill - treatment or death can not be invoked by aliens , including refugees , about whom there are grounds to believe that they imperil national security . There is no reported case - law under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , where the person to be deported has been granted refugee status , the deportation decision is to be annulled . In accordance with section ORG ) of the LAW , however , the above does not apply where there are grounds to believe that the person concerned imperils national security or that , having been convicted of a serious criminal offence , he or she may pose a threat to public order . There is no reported case - law under section ORG ) .

It follows from sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW that deportation orders issued on national security grounds are immediately enforceable and that the lodging of a judicial appeal does not suspend their enforcement . Enforcement may be postponed only by a decision of the relevant administrative body in the event of legal or technical obstacles hindering immediate execution ( section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) ) .

In accordance with LAW , in pending appeal proceedings the interested party may request a stay of execution of an administrative decision on grounds of , inter alia , risk of significant or irreparable harm . In some of its decisions ORG has held that this does not apply with regard to deportation orders issued on national security grounds . That was so because immediate enforcement was provided for ex lege , in LAW , and the courts did not have the power to impose a stay of enforcement ( see опред. № GPE CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINALг. на ВАС по ORG , where a request for a stay of deportation on the ground that the person concerned was seriously ill was refused ) .

In an interpretative decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG revised its approach and stated that LAW applied even where the immediate enforceability of administrative decisions was provided for ex lege , with the exception of instances where the law did not provide for any judicial review . There is no reported case - law confirming that the interpretative decision also concerned the stay of enforcement of deportation orders on national security grounds .

Under section CARDINAL of the Regulations for the implementation of LAW , in cases where deportation orders are enforced through removal by air , the person concerned shall be escorted by officers of the GPE control services to his country of citizenship or another country of his choice to which he may be admitted .


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;No violation of Art. 14;No violation of Art. 18;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was born in DATE and was detained in the GPE prison in GPE at the time of the application . In DATE he went to GPE and sought asylum . He currently lives in GPE . He was the provincial leader of ORG ) in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from ORG . He alleges that he was blindfolded , put in a car , beaten and threatened . After being driven around for some time , still blindfolded , he was taken to ORG . The applicant claims that he did not realise that the persons who had abducted him were police officers and that the building to which he had been taken was ORG .

The applicant further alleges that he was blindfolded , stripped naked and immersed in cold water in ORG . He was attached by the arms to the ceiling pipes and made to stand on a chair . Electric cables were attached to his body , in particular to his sexual organs . The chair was then pulled away and he was left suspended while electric shocks were administered . From time to time the shocks were stopped and his testicles were squeezed . The applicant was interrogated about his work and his connections with an illegal organisation , the ORG ( ORG ORG ) . He was further questioned as to why he had helped torture victims apply to ORG .

DATE the applicant was detained in ORG . The applicant alleges that his family had not been informed of his detention and that the interrogation under torture continued during this DATE period .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical expert from ORG . The applicant stated that - as a result of the torture – he did not have the full use of his left arm , CARDINAL of his ribs had been broken and there were injuries to various parts of his body on account of having been attached and suspended . The forensic medical expert 's report stated the following :

“ QUANTITY superficial scab wounds were identified on the right knee of the person and inside both wrists . The person described numbness in his left arm and pain in the right side of his chest . ”

On DATE the applicant was brought before the ORG public prosecutor and then before ORG ( Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi ) . On both occasions the applicant denied the veracity of the statements that had been taken from him by the police . ORG ordered his detention on remand . He alleges that on the way from the courthouse to the ORG prison he was ill - treated by the policemen accompanying him , who used rifle butts and truncheons to beat him .

On DATE the applicant was brought to the sickbay of the prison and examined by Dr. PERSON who noted the following in the prison patients ' examination book :

“ He claims to have been subjected to duress in ORG . He further alleges that he was beaten up between the courthouse and the prison . There are bruises of QUANTITY on the upper left arm , numerous erythematic and some ecchymosed lesions on the back . There are lesions , i.e. scratches and grazes , on the right ankle . ”

The applicant claims that Dr. PERSON advised him to obtain permission from the prison authorities to be transferred to a hospital for treatment .

The applicant further claims that he submitted petitions to the ORG public prosecutor 's office through the prison authorities on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , requesting that he be given permission to be treated at the hospital and that he be sent to ORG for a further medical examination . He contends that no action was taken on his requests and that the prison administration did not permit him to see a doctor from ORG who had come to the prison to inquire about his situation .

On unspecified dates the applicant was transferred from the ORG prison to the GPE prison and from the latter to the PERSON prison . In DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

On DATE a doctor from the Rehabilitation and Research Centre for Torture Victims in GPE commented on the medical procedures used to examine the applicant . She stated that , following a lapse of time , it was difficult to see any marks on the body after electrical torture . However , it was possible to observe a superficial lesion on the skin in the acute phase on a minority of victims . She further stated that exposure to cold water did not necessarily cause pneumonia , fever or soreness of the throat . She maintained that numbness , pain or reduced strength in the arms were symptoms of suspension by the arms . She finally stated that scab formations on the wrists were often seen when the wrists were tied together tightly for a period of time .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor from the ORG branch of ORG of GPE . According to the doctor 's report , the applicant 's symptoms included pain in the gums , inability to eat due to missing teeth , pain in the chest and pain and restricted movement in the wrists and knees . The applicant further contracted pleurisy ( inflammation of the pleura ) which necessitated surgical treatment . As to the reasons for the applicant 's poor state of health , the report referred to his illtreatment and the prison conditions .

In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE where he claimed asylum . On DATE he was granted a residence permit in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor in GPE . The doctor noted the following symptoms : chronic pain in the feet , knees and femur ; dyspnoea ( breathing difficulties ) ; depression ; and reduced pulmonary functioning . The doctor concluded that it could not be excluded that the applicant 's complaints were the result of torture . He further noted that the applicant would receive somatic and psychological treatment at his surgery .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor working in ORG , an organisation based in GPE specialised in providing advice and treatment to refugees and torture victims . The doctor , after referring to the somatic and psychological findings consistent with the report of DATE , diagnosed the applicant as suffering from chronic post - traumatic stress syndrome . He further stated that the applicant was also suffering from serious psychosomatic problems .

On an unspecified date the ORG public prosecutor issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the applicant 's case file and the case files of CARDINAL other defendants to ORG .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW with membership of the ORG .

On an unspecified date , the applicant 's case file was transferred to ORG .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of aiding and abetting the members of the ORG and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with the public prosecutor 's office in GPE alleging that he had been ill - treated during his detention in police custody .

On DATE , following a preliminary investigation against CARDINAL police officers from ORG , the ORG public prosecutor declined to take criminal proceedings against the officers due to lack of evidence against them .

On DATE the International Law and ORG of ORG sent a letter to the chief public prosecutor 's office in GPE requesting the latter to conduct an investigation into the allegations which the applicant had filed with ORG .

DATE , the ORG chief public prosecutor 's office conducted a new preliminary investigation into the applicant 's allegations of ill - treatment . The applicant was heard in the context of this investigation . He gave the names of CARDINAL witnesses on his behalf . The ORG public prosecutor heard CARDINAL of these witnesses , who confirmed the applicant 's allegations . The public prosecutor heard the accused police officers , who denied the allegations against them .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG ( Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi ) , charging CARDINAL police officers , who had been on duty in ORG at the time of the alleged ill - treatment of the applicant , under LAW . The defendants were accused of torturing the applicant in order to obtain a confession from him .

DATE and DATE , ORG held CARDINAL hearings in the case against the police officers .

The court heard the evidence of the accused and some of the witnesses until DATE . On DATE , the court abandoned the proposal to hear the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses . It held that the statements which they had given during the preliminary investigation were sufficient and observed that they could not be found .

On DATE ORG withdrew its decision of DATE in relation to the applicant on the ground that he could probably be summoned to give evidence before the court since he had filed an application with ORG . The firstinstance court issued a further summons requiring the applicant to give evidence .

The applicant 's whereabouts could not be determined until DATE .

On DATE ORG held that the criminal proceedings against the police officers should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time - barred ( zamanaşımı ) .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VII § DATE ) and PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and LOC , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


LAZAREVSKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant was reassigned ( прераспореденa ) to the post of bartender ( “ the new post ” ) in the context of a re - structuring ( поефикасно извршување на функцијата ) of ORG ( “ the employer ” ) . The applicant submitted an objection to the employer , which remained undecided . By a decision of DATE , the applicant was dismissed , since the new post had been terminated . On DATE the employer set this latter decision aside .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against the employer , requesting the court to annul the reassignment decision . She claimed that the new post had not been stipulated in the employer 's Rules on Posts ( “ the Rules ” ) and it did not correspond to her qualifications and work experience .

On DATE ORG annulled the reassignment decision and ordered the employer to reinstate the applicant to a post corresponding to her qualifications . The court noted that , under the Rules , there had been CARDINAL requirements related to the new post : a certain level of education ( level “ IV ” ) and a particular type of education , leading to qualification as a “ caterer ” ( угостител ) . It found that while the applicant had the required level of education , the reassignment had been contrary to the employer 's collective agreement in that she did not satisfy the requirement as to the type of education : she had specialised in commerce ( трговско училиште ) , but not in catering ( угостителство ) . The court dismissed the employer 's argument that the applicant had been reassigned for disciplinary reasons , since no such reasons had been given in the reassignment decision . The claim value of the dispute was not specified in the introductory part of the first - instance court 's decision , as is usually the case .

On DATE ORG dismissed the employer 's appeal , finding no grounds to depart from the reasons given by the lower court .

On DATE the employer lodged an appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) with ORG , arguing that the fact that the applicant did not have the type of education stipulated for the new post could not be the sole reason to declare the reassignment decision unlawful . It maintained that her reassignment had been carried out under the then Labour Act and the collective agreement , which required a particular level of education ( степен на стручна подготовка ) , but not a particular type of education .

In her reply submitted to ORG on DATE , the applicant argued that she had been reassigned because she had discovered some work - related irregularities . She did not raise any complaints about ORG competence to examine her case .

On DATE ORG accepted the employer 's appeal and overturned the lower courts ' decisions . It dismissed the applicant 's claim , arguing that she had had the required qualifications ( степен на стручна подготовка ) for the new post and the mere fact that they had not been of a particular type ( вид на образование ) could not affect the lawfulness of the reassignment decision . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the public prosecutor to lodge a request for the protection of legality ( барање за заштита на законитоста ) with ORG , arguing that the latter had lacked the competence to revise facts already established by the lower courts . She further reiterated her allegations that she had been reassigned to prevent her revealing some work - related irregularities .

On DATE the public prosecutor rejected the applicant 's application .

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that parties concerned could lodge an appeal on points of law against a second - instance final decision within DATE of service of that decision . An appeal would be inadmissible in a property - related dispute which did not concern a pecuniary claim ; transfer of movable property ; or any other activity , if the claim value of the dispute as specified by the plaintiff did not exceed MONEY ( ORG ) .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of that section , exceptionally , an appeal was always allowed in disputes described in the preceding paragraph which concerned ( i ) maintenance ; ( ii ) compensation claims for loss of maintenance due to death of the care provider ; ( iii ) copyright disputes ; ( iv ) industrial property related disputes ; and disputes concerning unfair competition and anti - competitive behaviour .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that the presiding judge of the first - instance court 's panel would reject belated , incomplete and inadmissible appeals on points of law . An appeal on points of law would be inadmissible , inter alia , if it was lodged against a decision which could not be contested by such an appeal under the law .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that a belated , incomplete or inadmissible appeals on points of law would be rejected by the review court ( ORG ) if the first - instance court had not rejected them under LAW .

In case of incorrect application of the substantive law , the review court would overturn the impugned decision ( section CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Ercsi .

On DATE the applicant , a truck driver , was involved in a multiple road accident . Subsequently he was interrogated as a suspect for having negligently caused the death of CARDINAL people and the serious injury of CARDINAL others , CARDINAL of whom became permanently disabled .

After several hearings at which numerous witnesses testified and the opinions of several experts were obtained , on DATE ORG acquitted the applicant .

On DATE the FAC ORG quashed this judgment as unfounded .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG held QUANTITY hearings . On DATE it found the applicant guilty as charged . It held that , apart from the responsibility of another driver who had died in the multiple collisions , the accident had essentially been caused by the applicant ’s failure to maintain the brakes of his truck and his grossly negligent driving . The applicant ’s offence was punishable with CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . ORG took account of the protraction of the proceedings as an important mitigating factor and sentenced him to CARDINAL half GPE imprisonment and a DATE prohibition on driving .

On appeal , on DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction but reduced his sentence to DATE years’ imprisonment and a DATE prohibition on driving .

As a consequence of a successful intervening constitutional complaint concerning a procedural rule applied in the applicant ’s case , on DATE the Attorney ORG introduced a motion for a review by ORG .

On DATE ORG review bench quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case to it .

In the resumed second - instance proceedings , a motion for bias lodged by the applicant was dismissed ORG . The hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE had to be postponed for non - attendance by the applicant ’s representative . After another hearing on DATE , on DATE ORG acquitted the applicant .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . This decision was served on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE . He was accommodated in Cell CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY . The cell had CARDINAL window and the toilet was located inside the cell , separated with a brick partition approximately QUANTITY in height . It disposed of CARDINAL sleeping places . Detainees were allowed TIME of outdoor exercise per day .

The parties disagreed on the number of inmates in Cell CARDINAL .

According to the applicant , Cell CARDINAL was constantly overcrowded . It was designed for CARDINAL inmates but actually housed CARDINAL persons . He referred to the ORG ’s findings in respect of the same cell in the case of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE and DATE , DATE ) .

The Government maintained that the number of detainees in Cell CARDINAL had not exceeded CARDINAL persons . In support of their position , they enclosed with their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case , a certificate issued by the prison governor on DATE and selected pages from the prison population register covering the period DATE and DATE .

On DATE , further to the ORG ’s request for more detailed factual information on the number of detainees in Cell CARDINAL , the ORG submitted the following material :

– a certificate issued by the prison governor on DATE , according to which Cell CARDINAL accommodated CARDINAL persons during the entire period of the applicant ’s detention ;

– an undated certificate from the deputy head of the relevant department , according to which there were CARDINAL detainees in Cell CARDINAL ;

– every second page from the prison population register covering the period DATE and DATE .

On DATE , in response to the ORG ’s request for clarifications about the origin of visible corrections of the number of detainees in Cell CARDINAL in the prison population register , the ORG submitted that , upon making the enquiries , it had been established that the procedure for filling out the prison population register had been breached which had resulted in “ careless filling [ out ] ” , corrections and erasures . The head of the department who was responsible for overseeing the compliance with the procedure could not be disciplined because he had retired in DATE . The Government pointed out that the corrections had not been made “ with a purpose to misrepresent reliable information but because of carelessness and inattention of the officers of the pre - trial detention centre ” .