Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

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

Following a number of remittals of the case against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - defendants , on DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) convicted the applicant of several criminal charges committed in collusion with the co - defendants . ORG found that the applicant had acted in aggravating circumstances in that he had been the perpetrator of CARDINAL of the criminal offences , which had led to the death of a person , whereas the co - defendants had assisted in the commission of that offence . As regards the other criminal offences , ORG found each co - defendant guilty as charged . ORG sentenced the applicant to a cumulative sentence of life imprisonment . As ORG had adopted the use of the summary procedure pursuant to LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , the applicant ’s sentence was commuted to PERCENT five years’ imprisonment .

During the ORG proceedings the applicant was mainly represented by court - appointed lawyers . In the final stage of those proceedings , the applicant appointed counsel of his own choosing on the strength of a power of attorney signed on DATE , which , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

I hereby authorise S.S as my special counsel and representative to defend and represent me before ORG , ORG and ORG in the trial of the criminal case as regards the charges provided in Articles ... of LAW . This case has been tried before and by a ORG decision has been remitted for fresh examination .

In accordance with LAW ORG I request that the case be tried in my absence .

I accept the charges levied against me and I authorise counsel to request the use of summary procedure pursuant to LAW ORG .

Counsel has the right to lodge appeals against court decisions that are against my interests .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . Although he admitted having committed the criminal offences , he challenged the penalty imposed . He argued that the trial court had failed to take account of some mitigating factors in his favour such as the remorse he had shown after committing the crime and his surrender to the authorities , his family ’s difficult financial situation and the fact that he had a minor child , the lack of any previous criminal records and his low educational level .

On DATE a hearing took place which was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE in order to summon the applicant to appear before the court . On DATE , a letter was sent by ORG to ORG and the local prison authorities , requesting them to escort the applicant to the hearing scheduled for DATE .

The applicant did not attend the hearing on DATE . The court ordered an adjournment until DATE . The applicant ’s representative was present at the hearing . Relevant excerpts from the record of the proceedings read :

“ The defendant PERSON was summoned and did not appear . The file indicates that he has been informed and will attend the hearing ( nga aktet rezulton se ka dijeni dhe do të marrë pjesë në gjykim ) . ”

On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG , ORG and the local prison authorities requesting that the applicant be escorted to the hearing on DATE as he had expressed the wish to attend .

The applicant did not appear at the hearing of DATE . The court ordered an adjournment until DATE . Relevant excerpts from the record of the proceedings read :

“ The file indicates that the [ Police ] ORG were informed of the need to escort him [ to ORG ] but they did not do so . His lawyer was summoned and was present ( nga aktet rezulton se ka dijeni komisariati për ta sjellë dhe nuk e solli ) . ”

On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG , ORG and the local prison authorities requesting that the applicant be escorted to the hearing on DATE as he had expressed the wish to be present at the hearing . A handwritten note at the bottom of the letter read :

“ [ they ] refused to sign , saying that they are not answerable to ORG . [ We ] do not accompany prisoners . The court does not have any business with us . Send the letter to ORG in GPE . ”

The applicant was not present at the hearing on DATE , but his lawyer did attend . Relevant excerpts from the record of the proceedings read :

“ the lawyer [ ORG ] said , “ I represented the accused [ PERSON ] by means of a power of attorney during [ the proceedings in ] the first - instance [ court ] . Thus , let us proceed with the hearing . ”

ORG decided to proceed with the hearing in the applicant ’s absence as he was represented by his lawyer .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to a cumulative term of DATE imprisonment , reduced by CARDINAL as a result of the use of the summary procedure . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows .

“ ... ORG [ of Appeal ] considers that ORG characterised the criminal offences correctly , but the sentence [ of imprisonment ] should be changed in the light of large differences in the penalties imposed on each defendant . All the co - defendants are almost in the same position as far as their collusion is concerned and their respective role in the commission of the offences . Despite the fact that the defendant was the perpetrator of CARDINAL of the offences , there should not be such a large difference in the sentences imposed . Having regard to LAW which aims at excluding the application of life imprisonment , having regard to the remorse shown by the defendant during the proceedings , his surrender to the authorities following the commission of the crime , and his role as the perpetrator in the commission of the criminal offence , the court considers that he should be ... cumulatively sentenced to PERCENT imprisonment . In these circumstances , having regard to the appeal lodged by the applicant , the ORG decision should be amended in so far as the sentence imposed on the defendant is concerned . ”

The relevant provisions of the operative part of the judgment read as follows :

Pursuant to LAW the accused PERSON is cumulatively sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

Pursuant to LAW of the sentence imposed on PERSON is reduced . ”

On an unspecified date the prosecutor lodged an appeal with ORG on the grounds of an erroneous application of the criminal law . He stated , inter alia , that the penalty imposed by ORG , which had not ordered life imprisonment for the applicant for being the perpetrator of a crime that had resulted in the death of a person , did not correspond to the serious danger to society posed by the applicant and the serious criminal consequences of that offence .

It would appear that the applicant did not make any written submissions to ORG in response to the prosecutor ’s appeal . On DATE the applicant ’s brother appointed ORG to represent the applicant before ORG .

At the hearing of DATE before ORG , the applicant was represented by ORG , who requested the court to dismiss the prosecutor ’s appeal . On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and upheld the ORG judgment . The record of the hearing states that the applicant was represented by his lawyer . The relevant parts of ORG judgment read :

“ ORG , having examined the documents in the investigation file and the court file , having examined the grounds of appeal lodged by the prosecutor , considers that ORG judgment , which amended the ORG judgment by changing the defendant ’s [ the applicant ’s ] conviction , was taken on the basis of an erroneous application of the criminal law , particularly Article CARDINAL et seq . of LAW , which determine the manner of imposing a sentence .

ORG draws this conclusion because ORG did not duly consider the severity of the criminal offences committed by the accused , the serious danger to society that the accused poses by continuing to commit criminal offences , the serious degree of guilt , the grave criminal consequences , and the commission of the criminal offence on CARDINAL occasion , using weapons and acting in collusion with others .

The reduction of the sentence by ORG on the ground that the accused assisted justice by showing remorse for the offences he had committed and by requesting the use of the summary procedure , is not founded in law . The acceptance of the charges by the accused and his request for the use of the summary procedure assist the speedy rendering of justice . The law takes this into account by reducing the penalty by CARDINAL in accordance with LAW ORG . A further reduction of the defendant ’s sentence , beyond the reduction entitled to by virtue of the application of LAW ORG , has resulted in a double reduction of the sentence for the same circumstances . ”

NORP The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging violations of his right to attend the hearings of ORG and of ORG .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible , finding that the grounds of appeal fell outside its jurisdiction ( pretendimet e paraqitura prej ankuesit nuk përfshihen në juridiksionin e PERSON ... ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows .

DATE

“ During criminal proceedings , everyone has the right :

a. to be notified immediately and in detail of the charges brought against him , of his rights , and to have the possibility to notify his family or relatives ;

b. to have sufficient time and facilities to prepare his defence ;

c. to have the assistance of a translator free of charge if he does not speak or understand the NORP language ;

ç . to present his own case or defend himself through the assistance of counsel of his own choosing ; to communicate freely and privately with him , as well as to be provided with free legal counsel if he does not have sufficient means ;

d. to examine witnesses who are present and to request the appearance of witnesses , experts and other persons who can clarify the facts . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

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

Article CARDINAL

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

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that “ the appointment of counsel for a person detained , arrested or sentenced to imprisonment , unless he has appointed counsel of his own choosing , may be carried out by his relatives in accordance with the procedure stipulated in paragraph CARDINAL above . ”

Article CARDINAL provides that “ when a defendant , even if in detention , ... does not appear at a hearing and it appears that the absence was caused by force majeure or any other obstacle which exempts him from any responsibility , the court , acting , inter alia , of its own motion , shall adjourn or suspend the judicial examination , set a date for a new hearing and order the renewal of the summons . ”

Article CARDINAL states that the accused should be represented by counsel when he requests or gives his accord for the judicial examination to continue in his absence .

Article CARDINAL provides that any party may appeal against a first - instance court decision , which is the ORG decision .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL establishes the scope of the examination of an appeal by ORG . It provides that the examination of a case by ORG is not limited to the grounds of appeal but extends to the whole case , namely an examination of both the facts and the law . LAW proscribes reformatio in peius stating that “ in an appeal lodged solely by the accused , the court can not impose a heavier criminal sanction , order a more severe measure of restraint , or characterise innocence less favourably than the grounds relied upon in the impugned judgment . ”

ORG may make a complete re - assessment of the evidence obtained and examined by the first - instance court , in which case it decides afresh on the appellant ’s guilt or innocence . Under LAW could re - open the judicial examination of a case ( përsëritja e shqyrtimit gjyqësor ) . In the event that one of the parties requests the re - examination of evidence administered during the first - instance court proceedings or seeks the collection of additional new evidence , ORG , when deemed necessary , may decide to reopen the judicial proceedings , in part or in whole ( LAW ) . In so far as evidence has been discovered subsequent to the first - instance court ’s judgment or , in so far as evidence has been discovered in the course of the appeal proceedings , ORG decides on a case - by - case basis about its admission ( LAW ) . The re - opening of a case may also be decided ex officio when deemed necessary ( LAW ) . ORG may also re - examine evidence provided that the accused did not attend the first - instance court proceedings , either because he was not notified or because he was unable to attend those proceedings on lawful grounds ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL establishes which decisions may be taken by ORG . It provides that ORG may decide to dismiss the appeal and uphold the first - instance court decision , to amend the first - instance court decision , to quash the first - instance court decision and terminate the criminal proceedings , or to quash the first - instance court decision and remit the case for a fresh trial .

ORG decisions may be appealed against to ORG in compliance with one of the following requirements of Article CARDINAL : a ) the criminal law has not been respected or has been erroneously applied ; b ) there have been breaches which have resulted in the court ’s judgment being declared invalid in accordance with Article CARDINAL of this Code ; c ) there have been breaches of procedural rules which have affected the adoption of the judgment .

Article CARDINAL provides that ORG shall examine the appeal in so far as points of law have been raised therein . It has the right to examine and to decide of its own motion and at any stage or instance of the proceedings legal issues which have not been examined before . Section CARDINAL provides that the accused and private parties must be represented by a defence lawyer . As to the procedure , paragraph CARDINAL of the said section states that the judge rapporteur introduces the case , followed by the prosecutor ’s oral submissions and the defence lawyer ’s pleadings . No counter - pleas are allowed .

Under LAW ORG can decide : a ) to uphold the decision of the lower court ; b ) to modify the qualification of the criminal offence , insofar as the type , sentence and civil consequences are concerned ; c ) to quash the [ lower court ’s ] decision and to adopt a judgment without remitting the case for a rehearing to the lower court ; d ) to quash the [ lower court ’s ] decision and remit the case for a re - hearing ; e ) to quash ORG decision and uphold ORG decision .

The summary procedure is governed by Articles CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ ORG ” ) . The accused or his representative should make a request in writing for the use of a summary procedure , which is based on the assumption that the case can be decided on the basis of the case file as it stands , without submitting it to judicial examination . If the court grants the accused ’s request for summary procedure , when giving its decision on the merits it reduces the penalty by CARDINAL . Life imprisonment is commuted to MONEY imprisonment . Both the prosecutor and the accused may appeal against the court ’s decision .

ORG unifying decision No . CARDINAL of DATE stated , in so far as the summary procedure is concerned , the following .

“ ... The summary procedure is important for the sake of judicial economy , because it simplifies and abridges the procedure , increases the expediency and effectiveness of a judicial examination , and consequently results in a benefit to the accused by reducing his penalty by CARDINAL and by not imposing a sentence of life imprisonment .

It is important to underline that this benefit should not be to the detriment of justice . For this purpose , the court accepts the accused ’s request only when it is persuaded that it could resolve the case on the basis of the case file as it stands , without submitting it to judicial examination . ... The essence of the summary procedure is to admit the documents as collected during the criminal investigation and to avoid the consideration of other evidence at a hearing and the arguments relating thereto .

The collection of other evidence and requests relating to their invalidity are not part of the summary procedure .

The law provides that the case shall be resolved on the basis of the case file as it stands , which implies a mutual acknowledgment of acts and documents by the parties . It is the court ’s obligation to assess whether a decision could be taken on the basis of the case file as it stands , without undermining justice and interfering with the lawful interests of the accused . The trial proceeds with the submission of the parties’ final conclusions , which make reference to the case file as it stands ... and the court takes a decision based thereon .

If the parties complain that acts or documents are invalid , the court should revoke its decision for use of a summary procedure and order the continuation of a normal judicial examination . ”

In CARDINAL decisions ( no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ORG upheld ORG decisions which had further reduced the GPE penalties , despite their having obtained a reduction by way of the application of the summary procedure by ORG . In further reducing the penalties , ORG had regard to the defendants’ admission of guilt and signs of remorse .

In CARDINAL other decisions ( no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE and no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) ORG further reduced the GPE penalties , which had been imposed and reduced by virtue of the application of the summary procedure by ORG and upheld on appeal . In reducing the penalties , ORG had regard to mitigating circumstances such as the GPE surrender to the authorities and their deep remorse over the commission of the crime .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

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

In DATE the applicants bought a property , PERSON , in the municipality of PERSON , in GPE , for recreational purposes . They have their permanent residence , where they are formally registered , in GPE .

In DATE and DATE the municipality of ORG granted building permits to erect CARDINAL wind turbines on a property , PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL , neighbouring the applicants’ property . These wind turbines measured QUANTITY to the hub of the rotor blades , which had a diameter of QUANTITY . The first wind turbine had a delivery of QUANTITY ( kilowatts ) and was built QUANTITY from the applicants’ property while the second wind turbine had a delivery of QUANTITY and was situated at a distance of QUANTITY from the applicants’ property . Apparently , these CARDINAL wind turbines did not cause any nuisance to the applicants .

In DATE a third wind turbine was erected on PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL , at a distance of QUANTITY from the applicants’ property . This wind turbine measured QUANTITY to the hub of the rotor blades , which had a diameter of QUANTITY . Moreover , it had a delivery of QUANTITY and was capable of producing MONEY per year ( which roughly corresponds to the energy needed to heat CARDINAL private households over a DATE period ) . The wind turbine was owned by the “ Hästholmen Joint Wind Association ” ( PERSON ) , which consisted of CARDINAL shares , of which the municipality owned CARDINAL shares and several property owners in the area also owned some of the shares .

According to the applicants , the wind turbine emitted a constant , pulsating noise and , sometimes , light effects which they found very disturbing and intrusive . For these reasons and because they considered that the new wind turbine had been erected much too close to their property , and without them having been consulted in advance , they complained about it in a letter to the municipality .

It turned out that the municipality ’s ORG ( miljötekniska nämnd ) had already granted a building permit for the wind turbine , in DATE . Before that decision , a geotechnical evaluation of the ground had been carried out and ORG ( PERSON ) , ORG ( Försvarsmakten ) and ORG ( länsstyrelsen ; hereinafter referred to as “ the Board ” ) of ORG had been heard , as well as the owners of the CARDINAL closest neighbouring properties ( situated within QUANTITY of the planned location of the wind turbine ) . None of those consulted had had any objections to a wind turbine being constructed on the property of NORP CARDINAL:CARDINAL . However , in its decision , ORG had stipulated that the exact location of the wind turbine should be agreed upon in consultation with the municipality ’s building unit and ORG began .

On DATE ORG received a leasehold contract between the property owners of PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL and ORG from which it appeared that the wind turbine had been constructed QUANTITY north - west of the location which had been agreed upon and thus also closer to the inhabited area .

On DATE ORG held a meeting , attended by the chairman of ORG , to discuss the situation relating to the wind turbine . It was agreed that ORG should submit a request to ORG for a change to the building permit so that it was valid for the wind turbine in its present location . The ORG would have to make a completely new assessment , where all property owners within a radius of QUANTITY of the wind turbine should be heard , as should , again , ORG , ORG and the ORG .

Consequently , the applicants and all other property owners , tenants and residents within a QUANTITY radius of the wind turbine were invited to submit their comments on it .

Moreover , on DATE , ORG company ( the builder of the wind turbine ) carried out noise tests of the CARDINAL wind turbines , together and separately , which were submitted to ORG but also presented to those , including the applicants , who attended a general meeting on DATE . According to the results of these tests , the noise levels in respect of the applicants’ property were calculated at PERCENT ( decibels ) from the new wind turbine alone and at PERCENT from all CARDINAL wind turbines together . The tests were carried out in the evening when the wind speed was measured at QUANTITY per second .

On DATE ORG granted a change to the building permit for the wind turbine so that it applied to the present location of the wind turbine . ORG had observed that several of those heard on the matter had complained about the noise made by the wind turbine . However , it had also noted that , according to the noise tests carried out by the builder of the wind turbine , the noise levels did not exceed PERCENT , which was the recommended maximum level , at any house , except the CARDINAL closest , where the owners had stated that they were not disturbed by the noise . Still , in order to try to minimise the nuisance perceived by a number of neighbours of the wind turbine , the ORG ordered that certain temporary measures be taken . Hence , the wind turbine should automatically stop if the wind did not exceed a speed of QUANTITY per second and , during DATE ( DATE and DATE ) , the wind turbine ’s rotor blades should be adjusted to a “ less aggressive ” angle to reduce the sound level . Moreover , all mechanical sound created by the wind turbine should be eliminated completely and an evaluation of these measures should be carried out no later than CARDINAL DATE by ORG together with the neighbours concerned . Following this evaluation , which might include an impartial noise investigation of , inter alia , the applicants’ property , final advice and measures to be taken would be decided .

In its protocol from the deliberation , ORG noted that the final assessment of protective and precautionary measures and advice , according to environmental protection legislation , in relation to the wind turbine would be decided upon when the matter had been sufficiently examined . This decision could then be appealed against by any of the persons concerned .

On DATE the evaluation meeting took place . The applicants were present as were several other neighbours and representatives for ORG and ORG . It turned out that the “ mechanical noise ” that some had complained of came from one of the smaller wind turbines , which had since been repaired so that such noise was no longer emitted . Moreover , the other measures had been implemented during DATE but the neighbours , including the applicants , claimed that this had had no effect on the noise level .

The applicants appealed against the decision of DATE to ORG and demanded that “ all the building permits ” be revoked and that the wind turbine be dismantled . They claimed that the wind turbine caused serious nuisance to them and that no real noise investigation had been carried out to establish the true level of the noise . They further submitted that they had not been given the opportunity to voice their opinion about the wind turbine before it had been constructed and that the municipality had not dealt with the case impartially since it owned a part of the wind turbine .

ORG submitted in reply that ORG had some shares in the wind turbine but that those who were members of both ORG and ORG had not participated in the ORG ’s decision of DATE . It further stated that the decision had been taken in accordance with relevant legislation .

ORG , for its part , stated that it had kept the general public in the municipality informed about the planned construction of the wind turbine through brochures and advertisements in the local press . It further claimed that it was prepared to continue with the measures imposed the following summer too .

On DATE , after having visited the applicants’ property , ORG rejected their appeal . It first noted that ORG decision of DATE had replaced that of CARDINAL November CARDINAL . Thus , in so far as the ORG appeal could be interpreted as being directed also against the decision of DATE , it had ceased to exist and therefore did not require further measures from the ORG . Turning to the substance of the ORG appeal , it found from its visit to the applicants’ property that the wind turbine created certain sound effects which could be considered disturbing but which were not serious enough to justify dismantling the turbine . In this respect , it noted that the measured noise levels did not reach the maximum recommended level of CARDINAL dB. Moreover , the ORG observed that the running of the wind turbine was subject to the regulations in LAW ( ORG ; CARDINAL ) . Thus , if the applicants , or others , considered that the measures in force to minimise the noise from the wind turbine were insufficient , they could request that the ORG impose further measures . Were the ORG to reject such a request , those who had made the demand could appeal against it to the environmental courts . In these circumstances , the ORG found that there were no legal impediments to the wind turbine .

The applicants appealed to ORG ( länsrätten ) of GPE , maintaining their claims . In particular , they emphasised that the wind turbine was a serious nuisance and that ORG had made an incorrect evaluation of the matter and several formal errors in its handling of the case . Moreover , they stated that the municipality had refused to carry out an impartial noise investigation despite requests from several of the concerned parties .

ORG disputed the ORG claims and insisted that its decision had been made in due order and was correct . It further observed that it still kept the question regarding a noise investigation open but that the concerned parties so far had agreed on certain specific measures to reduce the noise ( such as stopping the wind turbine at low wind speed ) , which were re - evaluated regularly . Thus , at the moment it considered that a noise investigation was not necessary .

On DATE , after having visited the applicants’ property and held an oral hearing , ORG rejected the appeal . It found that ORG decision had been lawful and that , although some sound effects from the wind turbine could be observed on the applicants’ property , the disturbance had to be considered tolerable .

Upon further appeal by the applicants both ORG ( kammarrätten ) in GPE and ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) refused leave to appeal on DATE and DATE respectively .

Domestic provisions of relevance to the present case are to be found , primarily , in FAC ( Plan- och bygglagen , CARDINAL - hereafter “ the Act ” ) and in LAW ( ORG , CARDINAL - hereafter “ the Code ” ) .

Thus , according to LAW , LAW consideration shall be given to both public and private interests when questions under LAW are examined , unless otherwise prescribed . It is the responsibility of each municipality to plan the use of land and water areas within their territory ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . ORG is the supervisory body of planning and building activities within its county and cooperates with the municipalities in their planning . Moreover , ORG , hereafter referred to as “ the ORG ” ) has general responsibility for the supervision of planning and building activities throughout GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL) .

Furthermore , buildings shall be located and designed in a suitable manner with regard to the townscape or the landscape and the natural and cultural values at the site ( LAW , section CARDINAL of the Act ) and so that neither the buildings themselves nor their intended use will cause any danger or significant impact ( betydande olägenhet ) to the surroundings ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . According to LAW , section DATE , these requirements also apply to constructions other than buildings , such as wind power stations .

It follows from LAW , LAW , LAW CARDINAL of the LAW that building permits are required for the construction of new buildings , including wind power stations , inter alia , if the wind turbine is QUANTITY in diameter . Moreover , LAW , section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , states that when a measure which requires a building permit has been taken without permission , the municipal committee responsible for deciding on building permits shall ensure that such a construction is removed or otherwise rectified , unless a building permit is granted retrospectively .

Before an application for a building permit is decided upon , all known parties as well as known affected cooperative owners , tenants and residents , shall be informed and given the opportunity to state their opinions on the application ( LAW , section CARDINAL of the Act ) . Also , decisions concerning building permits may be appealed against to the competent county administrative board ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) and subsequently to the administrative courts ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

As concerns the LAW , LAW states , inter alia , that its purpose is to promote sustainable development which will ensure a healthy and sound environment for present and future generations . It shall ensure that human health and the environment are protected against damage and inconvenience , whether caused by pollutants or other sources , and that the use of land , water and the physical environment in general is such as to secure long - term good management in ecological , social , cultural and economic terms . It shall also encourage reuse and recycling as well as other management of materials , raw materials and energy with a view to establishing and maintaining natural cycles .

According to LAW , LAW , those who pursue an activity or take a measure shall implement protective measures , comply with restrictions and take other precautions that are necessary in order to prevent , hinder or combat damage or detriment to human health or the environment as a result of the activity or measure . They are also obliged to plan and monitor the activity continuously in order to combat or prevent such effects ( LAW , Article CARDINAL ) . To ensure that these regulations are adhered to , ORG ( PERSON ) and the county administrative boards exercise general supervision and a committee appointed by the municipal council is responsible for local supervision ( LAW , LAW ) .

Appeals against decisions by municipal committees concerning the LAW , including decisions to refuse a request for noise abatement measures or a noise investigation , may be lodged with the competent county administrative board unless otherwise provided ( LAW , LAW , and further appeal lies to ORG and ORG ( LAW , LAW , and LAW , LAW . Anyone who is adversely affected by a judgment or decision may appeal against it , provided that it is appealable ( LAW , PERSON ) . Thus , in a case from ORG ( ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) , the court set aside a judgment of the lower court and ORG decision and referred the case back to ORG for a new examination because the municipal committee had turned down a request , put forward by some people living close to a wind power station , that the committee should , inter alia , make arrangements for a noise investigation of the wind power station , whereupon ORG had dismissed their appeal .

LAW of the Code contains provisions concerning compensation for certain kinds of environmental damage , inter alia , from noise . Hence , in accordance with LAW , it is possible to get compensation for pecuniary loss that is not caused by a criminal offence , where the loss is of some importance and even if it is not caused deliberately or through negligence . However , the disturbance that causes the damage must not be tolerable in view of local conditions or with regard to the extent to which such disturbance normally occurs in similar conditions . Among those liable to pay compensation are , inter alia , those who pursue a harmful activity or who cause it to be pursued in their capacity as property owners or land leaseholders , including those who use the property for business or public activities ( LAW .

Anyone who wishes to claim compensation in accordance with LAW of the Code shall institute proceedings before an environmental court ( LAW , LAW , paragraph CARDINAL and LAW , LAW . Judgments and decisions by ORG may be appealed against to ORG and further to ORG ( Chapter CARDINAL , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . In CARDINAL case , ORG granted some property owners compensation from the municipality for a decrease in the value of their properties caused by environmental disturbance from traffic noise and “ aesthetic nuisance ” from a newly built road ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) .

In GPE there are no binding rules regarding maximum noise levels in respect of wind turbines . However , according to the ORG ’s general recommendations CARDINAL ( “ The Establishment of Wind Power Stations on Land ” ( Boverkets allmänna råd CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Etablering av vindkraft på land , DATE ) , the recommended levels set by ORG are applicable to wind turbines on land . Thus , the recommended levels that should normally not be exceeded when the turbine is in operation are , at TIME , CARDINAL dB for housing areas and PERCENT for areas planned for recreational houses and active outdoor life . In CARDINAL case concerning the establishment of a wind power plant ( ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) , ORG found in its judgment that the recommended maximum level of PERCENT for housing areas should apply both during the daytime and at night . In another case ( ORG , judgment of DATE ) , ORG held that the fact that an area was used for recreational houses did not suffice to characterise it as an area with “ special qualities ” and that , therefore , a maximum noise level of PERCENT was sufficiently far - reaching and there was no need to lower it to CARDINAL dB as the complainants had requested .

The general recommendations of the ORG further state that noise calculations should be performed in connection with an examination under LAW . Such a noise test should be carried out according to a set method where the calculations should relate to a wind speed of QUANTITY per second , with a following wind , and at a height of QUANTITY from the ground . The levels of noise calculated should be drawn on a map of the area and marking the distances where the noise level is at DATE and CARDINAL dB.

A new handbook “ Planning and Processing of Permits for Wind Power Stations ” ( Planering och prövning av vindkraftsanläggningar ) was published in DATE by the ORG and replaced the recommendations from DATE . However , the recommendations concerning noise from wind turbines have not been altered .

In DATE ORG adopted the first Government PERSON relating to wind power ( Government PERSON , PERSON med vindkraft DATE åtgärder för ett livskraftigt vindbruk ( “ Environmentally friendly electricity using wind power – measures for a viable use of wind ” ) ) in which it was stated that wind power should be given greater priority and various specific measures should be taken to promote and increase the use of wind power . It was further stressed that energy production in a sustainable society should have the smallest possible impact on the environment and the climate .

Most environmental noises can be approximately described by CARDINAL of several simple measures . The sound pressure level is a measure of the air vibrations that make up sound and it indicates how much greater the measured sound is than the threshold of hearing . Because the human ear can detect a wide range of sound pressure levels , they are measured on a logarithmic scale with units of decibels ( dB ) . If the instantaneous noise pressure level is measured this is called “ A - weighting ” ( abbreviated dBA ) whereas , if the noise pressure level is measured over a certain time span , this is called the “ equivalent continuous sound pressure level ” ( abbreviated GPE ) . Such average levels are usually based on integration of A - weighted levels . A simple PERSON type measure will indicate reasonably well the expected effects of specific noise .

ORG ) has published “ ORG ” ( DATE ) and “ Fact Sheet No . CARDINAL , on ORG ” ( revised DATE ) which give guideline values for various environments and situations . These guideline values are set at the level of the lowest adverse health effect , meaning any temporary or long - term deterioration in physical , psychological or social functioning that is associated with noise exposure , and represent the sound pressure level which affects the most exposed receiver in a given environment .

The guideline levels for annoyance have been set at CARDINAL or CARDINAL dB PERSON ( measured for a period of QUANTITY hours in the daytime and TIME at TIME ) , representing TIME levels below which a majority of the adult population will be protected from becoming moderately or seriously annoyed . It can be noted here that , according to the guidelines , a casual voice level in both men and women at a distance of QUANTITY corresponds on average to CARDINAL dB. Moreover , for most people , a DATE ’s continuous exposure to an average environmental noise of PERCENT will not cause hearing impairment , whereas exposure for TIME a day to sound in excess of CARDINAL dB is potentially hazardous . Thus , in relation to noise levels in homes , the guidelines state that to protect the majority of people from being seriously annoyed during the daytime , the sound pressure level on balconies , terraces and in outdoor living areas should not exceed DATE PERSON for steady continuous noise and should not exceed CARDINAL dB PERSON to protect people from being moderately annoyed . These values are based on annoyance studies but most NORP countries have adopted a CARDINAL dB GPE as the maximum allowable for new developments .

At TIME , sound pressure levels at the outside façades of living spaces should not exceed CARDINAL dB GPE , so that people may sleep with bedroom windows open . This value has been obtained by assuming that the noise reduction from outside to inside with the window partly open is CARDINAL dB and , where noise is continuous , the equivalent sound pressure level should not exceed PERCENT indoors , if negative effects on sleep , such as a reduction in the proportion of ORG sleep , are to be avoided .

According to the NORP Speech - Language - Hearing Association , noise levels above PERCENT are potentially hazardous . To illustrate various noise levels , it gives the following examples : PERCENT = alarm clock , busy street , MONEY = busy traffic , vacuum cleaner , PERCENT = conversation , dishwasher , CARDINAL dB = moderate rainfall , CARDINAL dB = quiet room , CARDINAL dB = whisper , quiet library .


Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 34;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

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

On an unknown date in DATE ORG ) issued a warrant to search for the applicant by “ wanted ” notice on suspicion of his having committed fraud .

On DATE the police arrested the applicant under that warrant .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the Wrocław Stare Miasto District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) . The prosecutor charged him with several counts of aggravated fraud and ordered that he be remanded in custody until DATE . The detention order was based on Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . As to the grounds for the applicant ’s detention , the prosecution first relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged . They also considered that the offence in question represented a serious danger to society ( wysoki stopień społecznego niebezpieczeństwa czynu ) and considered that there was a risk that the applicant might induce witnesses to give false testimony or obstruct the criminal proceedings against him by other unlawful means .

On DATE , on an application made by ORG , the FAC ( Sąd Rejonowy ) prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged and the serious nature of that offence . The court also found that , in the light of the material collected in the investigation , there was a high risk that the applicant would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings . Finally , the court held that the interests of the investigation , such as the need to obtain and secure evidence , militated in favour of keeping him in custody .

Subsequently , ORG ( Prokurator Wojewódzki ) took over the investigation from ORG .

On DATE ORG PERSON ) , on an application made by ORG , prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , finding that it was necessary because there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the serious offence . Furthermore , the court found that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings militated against releasing him since , at the current stage of the investigation , it was necessary to hear evidence from all the injured parties , to carry out confrontations between witnesses and defendants and to lay further charges of dealing in stolen goods against several other persons who had not to date been involved in the proceedings .

On DATE , on the subsequent application from ORG , the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , holding that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the serious offence with which he had been charged . The court also stressed that the applicant should be kept in custody in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , especially as the charges originally laid against the suspects needed to be supplemented .

On DATE ORG completed the investigation and , on DATE , lodged a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was indicted on several counts of aggravated fraud . The bill of indictment comprised charges against CARDINAL co - defendants . The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from CARDINAL expert witnesses and ORG lay witnesses , and to consider CARDINAL pieces of documentary evidence .

The first hearing was to be held on DATE . Yet it was eventually cancelled because CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - defendants , who had already been released under police supervision , was absent .

Subsequently , DATE and DATE , ORG listed CARDINAL hearings for various dates but cancelled all of them because several of the applicant ’s co - defendants who had already been released under police supervision had repeatedly failed to appear before it . They had submitted medical certificates to the effect that they could not participate in the trial because of their poor health and asked the court to adjourn the proceedings .

During that time the applicant made numerous unsuccessful applications for release on bail or under police supervision . He submitted that even though his detention pending trial had exceeded any reasonable limits , not a single hearing on the merits had so far been held . He also asked ORG to order , under LAW of LAW , that the charges against the released co - defendants be severed from the case so as to ensure that the trial proceeded without any further impediment .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG had released PERSON , one of the CARDINAL co - defendants , under police supervision . From then on , only the applicant and CARDINAL other co - defendants ( PERSON and PERSON ) were still kept in detention pending trial .

On DATE ORG held a session in camera at which ORG was present . It made an application under LAW to ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) , asking it to prolong the applicant ’s and his CARDINAL co - defendants’ detention for DATE . That application was prepared in view of the fact that on DATE the amendments to LAW were to take effect . The new provisions set statutory time - limits for detention pending trial and , in consequence , in all cases where detention had already exceeded , or was about to exceed , the relevant terms , the courts had either to release the person concerned or to ask ORG to prolong his detention ( see also “ B. Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) .

The reasons for ORG application read , in so far as relevant :

“ [ In respect of the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused ] the [ maximum ] time - limits for detention on remand laid down in LAW of LAW have expired and DATE is the deadline for lodging a request for further prolongation of their detention on remand .

During the period following the date on which the bill of indictment was lodged with this court , it scheduled numerous hearings ; however , the trial has not yet began as this court , for valid reasons [ , such as the fact that the defendants , one after another , had failed to appear before us , ] could not proceed with the trial . In this connection , this court has , in accordance with the suggestion of ORG , considered whether it would be sensible to sever the charges laid against the co - defendants concerned , pursuant to LAW . Yet , as all the charges in the present case are interrelated , this court finds that there is no just cause to proceed in this way .

The detained defendants have repeatedly asked this court to lift or vary the preventive measure imposed on them . This court has dismissed their applications and in doing so it has had [ particular ] regard to the serious nature of the offences , the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed and , more particularly , to the conduct of the defendants during the investigation , that is to say [ the fact that they had had to be ] searched for by a “ wanted ” notice and that there had been problems in the course of their arrest [ which had justified the risk that ] they might go into hiding . The [ ORG , which has dealt with the GPE appeals [ against decisions refusing to release them ] , expressed the same opinion .

That being so , and there being other serious obstacles [ to the proper course of the trial ] the present application for the GPE detention to be prolonged must be submitted to ORG . ”

The application was posted to ORG on DATE .

On DATE , a panel of CARDINAL judges , sitting in camera as FAC , after obtaining oral comments from ORG ( Prokurator PERSON ) , who had been summoned to the session and represented the prosecution , dealt with , and granted , the application . ORG prolonged the applicant ’s and his co - defendants’ detention “ from DATE to DATE ” . The defendants were not present . Nor were they legally represented since , under NORP law as it stood at that time , defendants or their counsel were not entitled to participate in court sessions held in camera ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

ORG decision contained exhaustive reasons , the relevant part of which may be summarised as follows :

ORG , noting that the application was filed on DATE but posted as late as DATE , first considered what was the proper date of “ lodging ” such an application for the purposes of LAW .

ORG next observed that , depending on the answer to this question , it would have to determine the legal consequences of a potential failure on the part of ORG to respect the rule laid down in DATE a ) LAW of DATE , which stated that in cases where no request for a further prolongation of detention on remand had been “ lodged ” , the detention on remand had to be lifted and the person concerned released not later than on DATE .

ORG considered that it should also deal with the question of whether it was competent to rule on the application if it had been “ lodged ” after the expiry of the term referred to in LAW ( a ) of LAW of DATE , i.e. after DATE .

Referring to the first question , ORG held that the proper date of “ lodging ” an application under LAW of LAW had to be deemed either the date of posting the request or the date of submitting it to the registry of ORG since to hold otherwise would mean leaving a detainee without any guarantee that ORG was properly supervising his detention . Moreover , if the requesting court was not bound by any time - limits for submitting its application , detention , the most severe among the preventive measures , might continue for an unspecified and unlimited time outside ORG supervision . In consequence , an application under LAW of LAW , a mere “ proposal ” to continue detention , would , for all practical purposes , transform into a basis for continuing detention . Clearly , that was not the intention of the legislator .

ORG therefore concluded that since in the applicant ’s case no application for a further prolongation of his detention was “ lodged ” before DATE , the applicant ’s ( and his co - defendants’ ) detention from that date to the date of its present decision lacked any legal basis and was , accordingly , unlawful .

It went on to find that it was , nevertheless , competent to deal with the application lodged outside the relevant date . It considered that a lower court ’s obligation to release a detainee in case of its failure properly to lodge an application under LAW of LAW was CARDINAL thing , but its right to make such an application at any time was another . In ORG opinion , the application in question should be deemed a “ fresh application ” and be examined as such .

It considered that further prolongation of the applicant ’s detention was necessary . In essence , it repeated the arguments adduced by ORG and stressed the complexity of the case .

On DATE ORG made another application under LAW of LAW . It asked ORG to prolong the applicant ’s , PERSON ’s and ORG detention until DATE . ORG submitted that regardless of its consistent efforts to proceed with the trial , it could not begin the main hearing because several released co - accused had repeatedly failed to appear before it . However , the applicant had to be kept in custody since there was still a risk that he might go into hiding because at the initial stage of the proceedings he had had to be searched for by a “ wanted ” notice and , likewise his CARDINAL detained co - defendants , had obstructed his arrest . Finally , the court relied on the complexity of the case and the fact that evidence gathered in the investigation sufficiently supported the charges laid against him .

In the meantime , in DATE and DATE , the applicant repeatedly complained to ORG , ORG , ORG , the Minister of ORG and the Ombudsman ( PERSON ) that , from DATE , he had been kept in detention without any legal basis . He also asked for release .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges , sitting in camera as FAC , after obtaining oral comments from ORG , prolonged the applicant ’s , PERSON ’s and ORG detention pending trial until DATE . ORG fully upheld the arguments adduced by ORG in its application . However , it expressed the opinion that , for the sake of the proper conduct of the trial , the charges against the released co - defendants should be severed from the case .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing . It did not deal with the merits of the case but ordered that the charges against CARDINAL of the released co - defendants be severed from the case and adjourned the trial until DATE . The applicant asked for release . The court refused , holding that the reasons for his continued detention , as cited in ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , were still valid .

In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant sent numerous petitions , letters and applications to , inter alia , the Minister of ORG , ORG , the ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG . He complained about the unlawfulness and length of his detention , the slow conduct of his trial and asked the authorities to release him and to institute criminal proceedings against the persons who had kept him in unlawful custody . He invoked LAW , submitting that he had no remedy whereby he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention from DATE and obtain release . He also relied on LAW and maintained that his right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial was not respected .

On DATE the applicant made an application for release to ORG . He asserted that there was no risk of his going into hiding . He admitted that it was true that , DATE previously and before he had been detained , he had used a false identity card . However that single fact could not justify holding him in custody for such a long time . At that point , he added , his detention had already exceeded DATE . The applicant further complained that there had been an exceptional delay in the proceedings which , in his opinion , had resulted solely from the fact that ORG had failed to ensure the presence of the released co - defendants at the trial . He also maintained that , following his arrest , there had been no single attempt on his part to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings . In his view , there was no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that , had he been released , he would have evaded justice or any sentence that might be imposed .

That application was dismissed on DATE . ORG repeated the reasons previously given to justify the applicant ’s detention . It was stressed that he should be kept in detention to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings . Moreover , the court considered that the applicant had failed to adduce any arguments militating in favour of his release . On DATE the court cancelled a hearing since one of the released co - defendants had failed to appear before it and submitted a medical certificate stating that he was ill .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits . Since some of the co - defendants decided not to give any oral evidence at the trial stage , the court read out the record of evidence given by them in the investigation .

The next hearing was to be held on DATE but was cancelled because CARDINAL of the released co - defendants had submitted a medical certificate stating that he was ill .

On DATE ORG , at the Minister of ORG ’s request , submitted to the Ministry a report on the progress of the proceedings . Further similar reports were submitted on DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the court held a hearing and had the record of evidence taken from other CARDINAL co - defendants in the investigation read out . The court then started to hear witnesses . After hearing evidence from CARDINAL of them , it adjourned the trial in order to hear CARDINAL other witnesses .

In the meantime , in DATE , the applicant had again filed several petitions with the ORG , the Minister of ORG and ORG ) of ORG . He complained that the overall period of his detention had meanwhile amounted to DATE but the determination of the charges against him had merely begun . He asked the authorities concerned to react , in an appropriate manner , to the fact that he had been unlawfully detained in DATE , a fact that had already been confirmed by the highest national court .

On DATE ORG dismissed a further application for release which had been filed by the applicant on an unknown date . The court held that all the legal and factual grounds previously given for his detention were still valid . It also considered that since there were no circumstances justifying release , as listed in LAW , his detention should continue to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings .

On DATE the court held a hearing . It heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and adjourned the trial until DATE because other witnesses had not appeared .

On DATE ORG made a fresh , and third , application under LAW of LAW to ORG , asking for the applicant ’s , PERSON ’s and PERSON ’s detention to be prolonged until DATE . It stressed that it had eventually been able to begin the trial . It considered that , given that evidence had already been taken from all the co - defendants , it could not be said that the court had not handled the case efficiently . While it was true that the process of obtaining evidence had not come to an end , that was not due to any fault on the part of the trial court but had arisen out of other factors . There were still valid reasons justifying the GPE continued detention , notably the well - founded suspicion that they had committed the offences with which they had been charged and the risk that they might abscond or go into hiding .

From DATE to DATE the applicant filed numerous petitions with the Minister of ORG , ORG and ORG , submitting that his constitutional right to personal liberty , as well as his rights secured by LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW , had been violated . He maintained that he had spent DATE in detention because the trial court had – wrongly – concluded that there was a risk of his absconding even though , after his arrest , there had never been a single basis for such a finding . Whatever his arguments , the court had never believed him and never given him a chance to prove that his release would not have obstructed the course of the trial . In fact , the applicant claimed , the proper conduct of the proceedings had constantly been impeded by his CARDINAL released co - defendants .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges , sitting in camera as FAC , after obtaining oral comments from ORG , prolonged the applicant ’s , PERSON ’s and ORG detention until DATE . ORG fully upheld the reasons given by ORG to justify its application .

On DATE ORG held a hearing but the trial was again adjourned since , in the applicant ’s words , “ one of the defence counsel [ had ] left the courtroom ” .

On DATE the court released the applicant , PERSON and PERSON under police supervision . In its decision , the court conceded that the period of DATE that the applicant had spent in detention had been nearly as long as the anticipated penalty and that , in consequence , his continued detention would amount to serving a sentence of imprisonment .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings . At the hearings held on DATE and DATE the court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses . On DATE the court heard CARDINAL witnesses . The applicant twice failed to appear before the court .

Further hearings were held on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL May and DATE . During that time the court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and read out records of evidence taken from CARDINAL witnesses .

At a hearing held on DATE the court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and read out records of evidence taken from CARDINAL witnesses . The trial continued on DATE .

On DATE ORG gave judgment . It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine . The applicant did not appeal against his conviction . Accordingly , the judgment became final on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the ORG ’s registry received the applicant ’s declaration of means filed on DATE . It was delivered in an envelope bearing CARDINAL stamps . The first of them read :

“ ORG .

Received on [ handwriting ] CARDINAL . No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ”

The second stamp read “ cenzurowano ” ( censored ) .

The envelope itself bore traces of opening after being sealed : its right side had been cut open and then resealed with CARDINAL white self - sticking paper slips .

It was DATE .

NORP Over the period to which the facts of the present case relate , i.e. from DATE to DATE , NORP criminal legislation was amended on several occasions .

In so far as the present case is concerned , there were CARDINAL relevant amendments to LAW ( “ the DATE Code ” ) , a law which is no longer in force as it was repealed and replaced by the so - called “ New Code of Criminal Procedure ” of DATE ( “ the DATE Code ” ) , which entered into force on DATE .

The first such amendment was made by the PERSON of DATE on LAW to LAW and Other Criminal Statutes which entered into force on DATE , except the amendments relating to the imposition of detention on remand ( in particular , those stating that only a judge was empowered to detain a suspect on remand ) ; the entry into force of the latter amendments being postponed until DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The second amendment , effected by the PERSON of DATE on LAW to the LAW ( “ the DATE Interim LAW ) came into force on DATE . Section CARDINAL(a ) of the PERSON introduced special interim rules governing the prolongation of detention on remand beyond the statutory time - limits laid down in LAW and DATE Code in cases where such detention had been imposed before DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At the material time the DATE Code listed as “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) , inter alia , detention on remand , bail and police supervision .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE Code read ( in the version applicable until DATE ) :

“ Preventive measures shall be imposed by the court ; before a bill of indictment has been lodged with the competent court , the measures shall be imposed by the prosecutor . ”

Article CARDINAL ( in the version applicable until DATE ) stated , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The prosecutor may order detention on remand for a period not exceeding DATE .

( CARDINAL ) the court competent to deal with the case , upon the prosecutor ’s request , for a period not exceeding one year ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , upon request of ORG , for a further fixed term required to terminate the investigation . ”

Under LAW a detainee could appeal against a detention order made by a prosecutor to the court competent to deal with his case ; however , he was not entitled to be brought before the judge dealing with his appeal .

Article CARDINAL of the DATE Code set out general grounds justifying imposition of preventive measures . That provision ( as it stood at the material time ) provided :

“ Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings if the evidence against the accused sufficiently justifies the opinion that he has committed a criminal offence . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL defined grounds for detention on remand . That provision , in the version applicable until DATE provided , in so far as relevant :

“ Detention on remand may be imposed if :

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when he has no fixed residence [ in GPE ] or his identity can not be established ; or

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper conduct of proceedings by any other unlawful means ; or

( CARDINAL ) an accused has been charged with a serious offence or has relapsed into crime in the manner defined in LAW ; or

( CARDINAL ) an accused has been charged with an offence which creates a serious danger to society . ”

On DATE paragraphs ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) were repealed . From that date on that provision read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when his identity can not be established or he has no permanent abode [ in GPE ] ; or

( CARDINAL ) [ as it stood before DATE ] . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL then read :

“ If an accused has been charged with a serious offence or an intentional offence [ for the commission of which he may be ] liable to a sentence of a statutory maximum of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , or if a court of first instance has sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , the need to continue detention in order to secure the proper conduct of proceedings may be based upon the likelihood that a heavy penalty will be imposed . ”

The DATE Code set out the margin of discretion as to maintaining a specific preventive measure . Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code were based on the precept that detention on remand , the most extreme among the preventive measures , should not be imposed if more lenient measures were adequate .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided :

“ A preventive measure [ including detention on remand ] shall be immediately lifted or varied , if the basis therefore has ceased to exist or new circumstances have arisen which justify lifting a given measure or replacing it with a more or less severe one . ”

Article CARDINAL stated :

“ Detention on remand shall be imposed only when it is mandatory ; this measure shall not be imposed if bail or police supervision , or both of these measures , are considered adequate . ”

The provisions of the LAW providing for “ mandatory detention ” ( for instance , pending an appeal against a sentence of imprisonment exceeding DATE ) were repealed on DATE by the PERSON of DATE referred to above .

Finally , Article CARDINAL provided :

“ If there are no special reasons to the contrary , detention on remand should be lifted , in particular , if :

( CARDINAL it may seriously jeopardise the life or health of the accused ; or

( CARDINAL ) oit would entail excessively burdensome effects for the accused or his family . ”

Until DATE , i.e. the date on which the relevant provisions of the Law of DATE on LAW to LAW and Other Criminal Statutes entered into force , the law did not set out any time - limits on detention on remand in court proceedings ; it did so only in respect of the investigative stage ( see above , CARDINAL ) Imposition of detention on remand ; Article CARDINAL in the version applicable until DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL of the DATE Code in the version applicable after DATE provided , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The whole period of detention on remand until the date on which the court of first instance gives judgment may not exceed DATE and DATE in cases concerning offences . In cases concerning serious offences [ offences for the commission of which a person was liable to a sentence of a statutory minimum of PERCENT imprisonment ] this period may not exceed DATE .

NORP In particularly justified cases ORG may , on an application made by the court competent to deal with the case , ... prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the time - limits set in DATE , when it is necessary in connection with a suspension of the proceedings , a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused , when evidence needs to be obtained from abroad or when the accused has deliberately obstructed the termination of the proceedings in the terms referred to in paragraph CARDINAL . ”

On DATE , by virtue of the Law of DATE , paragraph CARDINAL of that Article was amended and the grounds for prolonging detention beyond the statutory time - limits included also :

“ ... other significant obstacles , which could not be overcome by the authorities conducting the proceedings ... ”

However , as already mentioned ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , under section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Interim PERSON , different rules applied to persons whose detention on remand started prior to CARDINAL DATE . That section provided :

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

NORP In cases mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL , if no [ such ] application has been lodged , detention shall be lifted not DATE . ”

In cases where ORG dismissed an application under LAW , a detainee had to be released . As long as it had not given its ruling , the application of the relevant court DATE which had the form of a decision ( “ postanowienie ” ) – was deemed to be a legal basis for the continued detention .

At the material time there were CARDINAL different legal avenues enabling a detainee to challenge the lawfulness of his detention : appeal to a court against a detention order made by a prosecutor ; proceedings in which courts examined applications for prolongation of detention made by a prosecutor at the investigation stage ; and proceedings set in motion by a detainee ’s application for release .

As regards the last of these , LAW stated that an accused could at any time apply to have a preventive measure lifted or varied . Such an application had to be decided by the prosecutor or , after the bill of indictment had been lodged , by the court competent to deal with the case , within a period not exceeding DATE .

Under LAW of the DATE Code the participation of the parties at judicial sessions other than hearings was a matter for discretion of the court . Sessions concerning an application for release , a prosecutor ’s application for prolongation of detention or an appeal against a decision on detention on remand were held in camera . If the defendant asked for release at a hearing , the court made a decision either during the same hearing or at a subsequent session in camera .

At the material time the law did not give the detainee the right to participate – either himself or through his counsel – in any court session concerning his detention on remand . In practice , only the prosecutor was notified of , and could participate in , those sessions . If he was present , he was entitled to adduce arguments before the court . The prosecutor ’s submissions were put on the record of the session ( see also PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Under all the relevant provisions read together a detainee was entitled to appeal against any decision prolonging his detention on remand , regardless of whether it had been made at the investigative or trial stage . However , no appeal laid in law either against a decision whereby the trial court applied , under LAW , for prolongation of detention beyond the statutory time - limit , or against a decision of ORG prolonging detention under that provision .

Under the present criminal legislation ( as amended on DATE ) , a detainee may appeal against a decision whereby a trial court has asked the higher court to prolong his detention beyond the statutory terms .

DATE . Rules relating to means of controlling correspondence of persons involved in criminal proceedings are set out in LAW ( NORP karny wykonawczy ) of CARDINAL DATE .

LAW , which is contained in LAW entitled “ Rights and duties of convicted persons ” , provides as follows :

“ Convicted persons , their counsel , representatives and the relevant non - governmental organisations have a right to lodge complaints with institutions set up by international treaties ratified by GPE concerning the protection of human rights . In those cases , correspondence of persons deprived of their liberty shall be sent to the addressee without delay and shall not be censored . ”

Provisions relating to the execution of detention on remand ( Articles CARDINAL ) are contained in LAW entitled “ Detention on remand ” .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ ... a detainee ’s correspondence shall be censored by [ the authority at whose disposal he remains ] , unless the authority decides otherwise . ”

Pursuant to LAW ,

“ Unless exceptions are provided for in the present LAW , a detainee shall enjoy at least the same rights as are secured to a convicted person serving a sentence of imprisonment under the ordinary regime in a closed prison . No restrictions shall be applied to him except such as are necessary to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings , to maintain order and security in a remand centre and to prevent demoralisation of detainees . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , which is contained in Chapter XXI entitled “ Definitions ” , provides :

“ The prohibition of censorship shall also mean the prohibition of acquainting oneself with the content of a letter . ”


The applicant [ Mr PERSON ] is an NORP national , born in DATE and living in Quarto Flegreo ( GPE ) . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , of ORG .

On DATE the applicant , who had been accused of corruption and membership of a criminal organisation , was arrested and placed under house arrest . He was released on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor ’s office requested that the applicant and numerous other people be committed for trial . In an order of DATE the GPE investigating judge allowed the request .

The first hearing in ORG was held on DATE . After CARDINAL further hearings DATE on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE a number of witnesses were questioned . On DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE the proceedings were adjourned owing to strikes by lawyers . On DATE ORG , noting that the composition of its bench was not the same as at the previous hearings , directed that all the measures taken during the trial should be carried out again . Following a succession of hearings DATE on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the parties presented their submissions .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for corruption . It acquitted him of membership of a criminal organisation .

The public prosecutor ’s office and the applicant both appealed to ORG .

The first hearing was scheduled for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the case was adjourned , initially until DATE because of a ORG strike and subsequently until DATE at the GPE request . On DATE the proceedings were adjourned until DATE as the lawyers were on strike .

On DATE the defendants , noting that an appeal concerning an issue of relevance to the outcome of their case was pending before ORG , applied for an adjournment . ORG granted their application . ORG delivered its judgment on DATE and the applicant ’s case was set down for hearing in ORG on DATE . Following numerous adjournments , the parties presented their submissions on DATE .

In a judgment of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG acquitted the applicant . That decision became final on DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ the Pinto Act ” ) had come into force on DATE , introducing into NORP legislation a remedy in respect of the excessive length of court proceedings . The applicant was at the same time invited to refer his complaint , in the first place , to the national courts .

In a fax of CARDINAL DATE the applicant indicated that he did not wish to avail himself of the remedy provided by LAW and insisted that his application to the ORG should be registered . He observed , in particular , that it had been lodged on DATE , before the publication and entry into force of LAW .

In passing LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , the NORP parliament decided to include the principle of a fair trial in the LAW itself . The relevant parts of LAW are now worded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Jurisdiction shall be exercised through fair proceedings , conducted in accordance with the law .

All proceedings shall be conducted in compliance with the principles of adversarial process and equality of arms before a neutral and impartial court . The right to be tried within a reasonable time shall be guaranteed by law . ”

In order to ensure the effective application at domestic level of the “ reasonable time ” principle now enshrined in the LAW , ORG passed the Pinto Act on DATE . The relevant parts of the LAW provide :

“ CARDINAL . Anyone sustaining pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage as a result of a violation of ORG , ratified by PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , on account of a failure to comply with the ‘ reasonable time’ requirement in LAW , shall be entitled to just satisfaction .

NORP In determining whether there has been a violation , the court shall have regard to the complexity of the case and , in the light thereof , the conduct of the parties and of the judge deciding procedural issues , and also the conduct of any authority required to participate in or contribute to the resolution of the case .

NORP The court shall assess the quantum of damage in accordance with LAW and shall apply the following rules :

( a ) NORP only damage attributable to the period beyond the reasonable time referred to in subsection CARDINAL may be taken into account ;

( b ) in addition to the payment of a sum of money , reparation for non - pecuniary damage shall be made by giving suitable publicity to the finding of a violation . ”

“ CARDINAL . Claims for just satisfaction shall be lodged with the court of appeal in which the judge sits who has jurisdiction under LAW to try cases concerning members of the judiciary in the district where the case in which the violation is alleged to have occurred was decided or discontinued at the merits stage or is still pending .

NORP The claim shall be made on an application lodged with the registry of the court of appeal by a lawyer holding a special authority containing all the information prescribed by LAW .

The application shall be made against the Minister of ORG where the alleged violation has taken place in proceedings in the ordinary courts , the Minister of Defence where it has taken place in proceedings before the military courts and the Finance Minister where it has taken place in proceedings before the tax commissioners . In all other cases , the application shall be made against the Prime Minister .

NORP The court of appeal shall hear the application in accordance with Articles CARDINAL et seq . of ORG . The application and the order setting the case down for hearing shall be served by the applicant on the defendant authority at its elected domicile at the offices of ORG [ Avvocatura dello Stato ] DATE prior to the date of the hearing before the ORG .

The parties may apply to the court for an order for production of all or part of the procedural and other documents from the proceedings in which the violation referred to in LAW is alleged to have occurred and they and their lawyers shall be entitled to be heard by the court in private if they attend the hearing . The parties may lodge memorials and documents up till DATE before the date set for the hearing or until expiry of the time allowed by the court of appeal for that purpose on an application by the parties .

The court shall deliver a decision within DATE after the application is lodged . An appeal shall lie to ORG . The decision shall be enforceable immediately .

To the extent that resources permit , payment of compensation to those entitled shall commence on DATE . ”

“ A claim for just satisfaction may be lodged while the proceedings in which the violation is alleged to have occurred are pending or within DATE from the date when the decision ending the proceedings becomes final . Claims lodged after that date shall be time - barred . ”

“ If the court decides to allow an application , its decision shall be communicated by the registry to the parties , to ORG at ORG to enable him to start an investigation into liability , and to the authorities responsible for deciding whether to institute disciplinary proceedings against the civil servants involved in the proceedings in any capacity . ”

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE after the entry into force of this LAW , anyone who has lodged an application with ORG in due time complaining of a violation of the ‘ reasonable time’ requirement contained in LAW , ratified by LAW . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , shall be entitled to lodge a claim under LAW hereof provided that the application has not by then been declared admissible by ORG . In such cases , the application to the court of appeal must state when the application to the said ORG was made .

NORP The registry of the relevant court shall inform the Minister for ORG without delay of any claim lodged in accordance with section QUANTITY and within the period laid down in subsection CARDINAL of this section . ”

“ CARDINAL . NORP The financial cost of implementing this LAW , which is put at MONEY from DATE , shall be met by releasing funds entered in the DATE budget DATE in the chapter concerning the basic current - liability estimates from the ‘ special fund’ in DATE forecast of ORG . ORG deposits shall be set aside for that purpose .

The Ministry of the ORG , ORG is authorised to make the appropriate budgetary adjustments by decree . ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations;Determination (civil));No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

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

The applicant is a journalist and human rights activist . Since DATE he has been a member of ORG of the NORP ORG “ ORG of GPE ” ( hereinafter “ CVU ” ) ( ORG обласна організація всеукраїнської громадської організації « GPE виборців PERSON ) and a reporter for the regional newspaper “ Vilnyy vybir ” ( « Вільний вибір GPE ) , which was founded by ORG of the ORG . DATE and DATE he was also a reporter for the ORG ’s newspaper “ ORG zoru ” ( « Точка зору GPE ) . The CVU ’s main activities include , inter alia , election monitoring and raising voters’ legal awareness during election campaigns .

NORP The NORP presidential elections in DATE were held on CARDINAL rounds , on DATE and DATE .

After DATE second - round voting of CARDINAL DATE mass protests were carried out . The elections were claimed to be marked by massive corruption , voter intimidation and electoral fraud . The protests succeeded in that the results of the original run - off were annulled , and a revote was organised on DATE .

The protests and other political events that took place in GPE from DATE to DATE were called the Orange Revolution .

During the NORP presidential elections in DATE the applicant covered meetings and decisions of ORG no . CARDINAL ( hereinafter “ the TEC ” ) ( територіальна виборча комісія ) .

According to the applicant , at TIME on DATE , DATE of first - round voting in the presidential elections , he requested PERSON , the ORG ’s secretary , and PERSON , the ORG ’s Head , to provide him with a copy of the ORG ’s decision no . P-CARDINAL - CARDINAL , adopted earlier on DATE , concerning the possibility for district electoral commissions to make changes to the lists of voters without the approval of the TEC . According to the applicant , such a decision was unlawful . Later , the applicant asked for the voting results for each polling station and for copies of TIME meetings of DATE .

As the applicant was not provided with the information requested , on DATE at TIME he submitted a written request to the Head of the TEC . In reply , he was informed that decision no . P-CARDINAL - CARDINAL had been posted on the information stand and that by TIME PERCENT of voters had voted . According to the applicant , his request for the ORG meeting TIME was ignored . However , according to explanations given by NORP to a prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , the minutes of the TEC meetings of DATE and DATE had also been displayed on the information stand .

That same evening , at TIME , the applicant was prevented from entering the TEC building to attend its meeting . According to the applicant , he entered the TEC TIME . It is unclear whether a ORG meeting was actually held at that time and , if so , whether the applicant was finally able to attend .

On DATE the applicant complained to the Head of the ORG , inter alia , about not letting him into the ORG ’s LOC , and requested copies of the LOC meeting TIME and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG adopted a decision to disregard the applicant ’s complaint .

On DATE , the day of second - round voting , the applicant requested to be provided with the ORG ’s decision no . CARDINAL of DATE allowing the police to be present in polling stations . The applicant stated that he had been shown this decision by the police at CARDINAL of the polling stations . According to the applicant , his request was ignored . No copy of such a request has been submitted by the applicant .

That same evening the ORG decided not to allow the applicant to attend its meetings as he interfered with its work . According to the applicant , that decision was adopted after he had asked the Head of the TEC what the legal basis for one of her decisions adopted at the meeting was . The applicant later tried to enter the TEC premises but was stopped by PERSON , a ORG member . This was witnessed by PERSON . , a journalist .

The applicant later requested a copy of TIME of the ORG meeting . In reply he was told that TIME were posted on the ORG ’s information stand .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint to institute criminal proceedings against ORG members for obstructing the lawful professional activities of journalists ( Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ) .

The prosecutor questioned NORP , the secretary of the TEC , who explained that all the material requested by the applicant on DATE had been posted on the information stand on the ORG ’s premises on DATE or DATE . It was also noted that LAW did not provide for the possibility of receiving information about detailed voting results for each polling station . NORP also submitted that the applicant “ had shouted out loud remarks about ‘ wrong decisions’ of the TEC and had wandered round the TEC ’s premises , hindering its work ” .

The Head of the TEC , B. , explained that on DATE the applicant “ had behaved inappropriately and hindered the TEC in its work ” .

K. , another ORG member , submitted that the applicant “ had behaved inappropriately and physically hindered the ORG ’s work ” . This was also confirmed by PERSON , another ORG member . PERSON also stated that the applicant had threatened her and NORP with physical reprisals and this fact had been documented .

Bi . , a journalist , testified that she had seen the applicant being prevented from entering the ORG ’s LOC on DATE TIME

PERSON . , an election observer , submitted that the applicant was requested to leave the PERSON meeting after he had asked what the documents on and under the table and in the drawers in the meeting room were . It was decided to exclude him from the meeting for “ making remarks from the floor ” .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in LOC , challenging the ORG ’s refusals to give him copies of its decisions and to allow him to attend its meetings . He also complained about the failure to provide him with accurate information in a timely manner . In particular , the applicant complained that on DATE he had not been provided with a copy of decision no . PCARDINAL , with written information “ about voting results for each polling station in the constituency ” , or with TIME meetings of DATE , and that he had been prevented from entering the LOC of the LOC on DATE . Further , on DATE he was not provided with the ORG ’s decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , was not allowed to attend the ORG ’s meeting of DATE and was not provided with the minutes of that meeting .

The applicant lodged his complaint under LAW of the Code of Civil Procedure of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , which sets out the rules for lodging complaints against decisions , acts or omissions of ORG bodies .

On DATE the court held that the applicant ’s complaint should have been lodged under LAW of the ORG and under LAW DATE ( “ the LAW ” ) . The court further considered that because ( i ) the elections had already ended , ( ii ) the applicant had lodged his complaint about the events of DATE only on DATE , and ( iii ) the applicant had sought the consideration of his complaint under LAW , the proceedings should be terminated .

On DATE ORG upheld the above - mentioned decision . It stated in particular that :

“ ... the subject of the complaint in the present case is limited to decisions and actions of the ORG and officials during the elections DATE and DATE . The examination of election - related complaints is regulated by the provisions of LAW , according to which a journalist can not lodge such complaints . By DATE of the court decision the elections were already over . As it was not possible to examine the applicant ’s complaint under LAW of LAW , the first - instance court lawfully terminated the proceedings in the case ” .

According to the applicant , he received a copy of this decision on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s appeal , as neither the LAW nor Chapter CARDINAL-B of the ORG provided for a cassation appeal against a court decision concerning electoral matters .

According to the applicant , he received threats from unknown persons . He requested that the police protect him . On DATE , DATE and DATE the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant ’s allegations that he had been persecuted .

The applicant further complained of alleged violations of his rights to various state authorities , including the NORP Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights . He subsequently instituted court proceedings against the Commissioner and several members of her ORG for failure to answer his complaints , but was unsuccessful in those proceedings .

According to LAW of LAW GPE , it is possible to challenge the decisions , actions or omissions of any ORG agency or local self - government body in court , as well as those of any enterprise , establishment , association of citizens or other legal entity , or their officials or administrators .

According to LAW of the Code , complaints against decisions , acts or omissions of a territorial election commission are examined by ORG , by the relevant regional court , or by the GPE and ORG , as appropriate . Such complaints may be lodged by the candidates , their proxies , representatives of political parties or blocs , or by CARDINAL voters .

Section CARDINAL of the Act establishes that the subjects of elections are : ( i ) the voters ; ( ii ) the election commissions formed according to the LAW and the Central Election Commission Act ; ( iii ) candidates for the post of the President of GPE registered in accordance with the procedure established by the LAW ; ( iv ) the parties or blocs who have nominated candidates for the post of President of GPE ; and ( v ) the authorised representatives , proxies and official observers of any of the parties or blocs involved in the election process , or candidates for the post of President of GPE .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that a subject of the election process shall have the right to file a complaint against the decisions , actions or inaction of an election commission or an individual member of an election commission . Complaints against the decisions , actions or inaction of territorial election commissions or their members must be filed with ORG or with a court of appeal situated in the area covered by the relevant territorial election commission .

The relevant Articles of LAW provide as follows :

Participants in informational relationship are citizens , legal persons or the state who obtain the rights and obligations stipulated by law in process of information activity .

Principal participants in this relationship are authors , consumers , promoters , keepers ( guardians ) of information

Participants of informational relationship have the right to receive ( produce , obtain ) , use , disseminate and store information in any form with the use of any means , except for the cases , stipulated by the law .

Every participant of informational relationship to secure his rights , freedoms and legal interests has the right to obtain information on :

activity of governmental authorities ;

activity of people ’s deputies ;

activity of local and regional governmental authorities and local administration ... ”