Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

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

By decision of LOC of DATE , upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE , the applicant was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in GPE penitentiary no . CARDINAL .

According to the applicant , the sanitary conditions in this prison were poor in that dishes used by inmates were not properly washed after use , thus entailing an increased risk for detainees of contracting tuberculosis . Furthermore , the detainees were woken up very early and assembled for TIME exercises in the prison yard without due regard being had to weather conditions .

NORP In DATE the applicant was moved to penitentiary no . CARDINAL , with a less strict regime , where detainees could enjoy relative freedom of movement . In that penitentiary , according to the applicant , the food and the living conditions were inadequate and the detainees were used as a source of cheap labour for the administration ’s benefit .

In neither of the penitentiaries , allegedly , did the applicant receive adequate medical treatment for unspecified medical conditions .

According to the Government , the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in these penitentiaries , including the quality of medical care , were adequate .

NORP In DATE the applicant was released on probation and returned to his home in Nekhvoroshch .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of hooliganism and theft and detained in the GPE - Shevchenkivsky town police station .

On DATE the GPE - Shevchenkivsky District Court remanded the applicant in custody .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to institute criminal proceedings against several police officers , who had allegedly inflicted bodily injuries on him in order to force him to confess .

On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination and was found to be fit for detention , although he had a fractured rib . According to the applicant , he also suffered other injuries at the hands of the police , including a major head injury , which was not recorded . He did not , however , lodge any complaints concerning the adequacy of the medical examination at the relevant time .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office refused to institute criminal proceedings to investigate the applicant ’s ill - treatment complaint , having found it groundless . It referred to the findings of the medical commission that the applicant had been fit for detention and to the testimonies of the investigator and police officers who had participated in his arrest . All officers denied the applicant ’s allegations concerning ill - treatment . The CARDINAL police officers who had taken part in the arrest operation , however , admitted that they could have inflicted minor injuries on the applicant when arresting him . In their opinion the application of force had , however , been proportionate , since the applicant , who had gone into hiding after his disorderly conduct on DATE , had vigorously resisted his arrest and threatened the officers with a loaded rifle . The applicant did not appeal against that decision in court .

On DATE the GPE - Shevchenkivsky ORG convicted the applicant of hooliganism , acquitted him of theft , and sentenced him to CARDINAL and a half years’ imprisonment . The court found , in particular , that on DATE the applicant had killed CARDINAL dogs , belonging to his neighbour , with an unregistered rifle , had sworn at and beaten CARDINAL ladies and had fired the rifle in the direction of police officers .

The applicant appealed , alleging , in particular , that the police officers had beaten him , to force him to confess to the above offences .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It refused to consider his ill - treatment argument , referring to the decision of the prosecutor ’s office of DATE not to institute criminal proceedings and to the fact that the applicant had failed to appeal against it through the applicable appeal procedure .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal on points of law .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in GPE SIZO no . CARDINAL .

According to the applicant , during that period he started suffering from severe headaches and pain in the left eye as a result of his purported head injury . Gradually he began losing mobility in his left side . In addition , the applicant suffered aggravation of his chronic bronchitis and digestive tract conditions . The administration of GPE did not provide him with prompt and adequate medical examination and treatment , purportedly to conceal the fact that a number of his health problems resulted from his having been ill - treated in police custody .

According to the ORG , the applicant was examined by medical professionals on a number of occasions . Although they have not provided a comprehensive medical file recording all those consultations , the case - file contains a number of handwritten medical notes which , in so far as they are legible , prove that the applicant was frequently attended by doctors .

The first records of such medical care relate to the applicant ’s examination in the GPE - GPE district hospital on DATE , during which it was established that he suffered from haemorrhoids , chronic bronchitis and a fractured rib . The next records relate to CARDINAL and DATE , when the applicant was examined in the GPE - GPE district hospital for chronic bronchitis and unspecified “ neurological symptoms ” . At this point in time the complaint concerning neurological symptoms was considered unfounded . No details concerning treatment recommendations have been provided .

On DATE the applicant was seen by a GPE doctor on account of headaches , dizziness and an irregular heartbeat . He was diagnosed as suffering from the after - effects of a head injury sustained in DATE , in particular , hypertension and neurasthenia , and prescribed nootropic and anti - hypertensive medication ( dibazolum and cerebrolisin ) . There is no indication as to the duration of the prescribed treatment or whether the applicant actually received it .

Subsequently the applicant was seen by the GPE medical staff on a number of occasions , in particular on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ( complaints about headache , dizziness , noise in the ears and aggravation of chronic bronchitis ) ; CARDINAL and DATE ( same symptoms ) ; CARDINAL DATE ( a knee injury ) ; CARDINAL DATE ( headache , dizziness and chills ) ; CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE ( stomach - ache , bronchitis , headache ) ; CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ( leg pain , headache , bronchitis ) ; CARDINAL and DATE ( headache ) ; DATE ( headache and itching ) ; CARDINAL DATE ( insomnia , headache ) ; CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ( dizziness , insomnia , headache ) ; CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ( headache , dizziness , insomnia and itching ) .

In the course of the above visits the applicant was primarily recommended to take painkillers ( analgin , tempalgin ) and other conservative medication , including sedatives ( valeriana and dimedrol ) , mild bronchial and cough medicine ( aminophylline , bromgecsine and mucaltine ) ; stomach medicine ( platifillin ) ; brain stimulators ( fezam , cerebrolisin , piracetam ) and over - the - counter anti - allergy medication ( diasolin ) .

On DATE the applicant was additionally consulted by a neurologist in the hospital of another ( ORG ) penitentiary , who found that he was suffering from cerebral dystonia , chronic vascular insufficiency , neck osteochondrosis , chronic rhinitis and partial loss of sight in the left eye . The neurologist recorded that the applicant ’s ailments were associated with his head injury sustained in DATE .

On DATE the applicant underwent a head scan , which revealed no skull injuries at the time of the test .

On DATE and DATE the applicant consulted a neurologist and an eye doctor , who concluded that he suffered from partial atrophy of the left eye nerve of traumatic origin , an astheno - neurotic syndrome and insomnia . According to the available materials , he received full treatment for these ailments , without any details as to the nature and duration of this treatment being recorded .

DATE and DATE the applicant was treated as an in - patient in the ORG penitentiary hospital for the after - effects of the head injury , with moderate left - side hemiparesis , asthenia , “ mnestic personality impairment ” ( мнестичне зниження особистості ) , chronic bronchitis and chronic gastro - duodenitis . The case - file contains no details concerning the nature of the treatment .

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the ORG prosecutor ’s office that the medical treatment he was receiving was insufficient , regard being had to the seriousness of his medical conditions . On DATE the prosecutor ’s office informed the applicant that it did not find any grounds to pursue his complaint .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a disability commission in ORG penitentiary and recognised as falling into the “ third category ” ( the mildest category ) of invalidity ( третя група інвалідності ) for DATE period on account of secondary neuritis of the left eye nerve , moderate left - side hemiparesis without movement disorders , cerebral asthenia , mnestic personality impairment , chronic bronchitis and chronic gastro - duodenitis . He was found unfit for work in the cold , activities involving high noise levels or lifting heavy objects .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to PERSON penitentiary no . CARDINAL in GPE .

In the applicant ’s opinion , the conditions of detention there were unsatisfactory in that the prison authorities failed to ensure his adequate medical supervision and treatment and to provide him with facilities to attend to his progressively deteriorating mobility . In particular , the applicant was no longer able to walk to the cafeteria without assistance , and even being supported by other inmates caused him unbearable pain . Moreover , on many occasions the administration did not let the inmates assist the applicant , maintaining that he was pretending to be in pain , and he was left in his cell without food for DATE .

According to the ORG and as confirmed by the handwritten medical notes in so far as they are legible , the applicant was seen by medical professionals and treated as an in - patient on a number of occasions .

DATE and DATE and DATE the applicant was treated in the penitentiary hospital . His diagnosis included posttraumatic osteochondrosis , chronic obstructive bronchitis , gastro - duodenitis , hyper - metropy of the left eye and chronic haemorrhoids . The prescribed treatment consisted primarily of conservative medication such as sedatives ( dimedrol ) painkillers ( analgin , citramon ) , brain - stimulators ( cinarisin , piracetam ) , vitamins ( nicotine acid ) , metabolism stimulators ( inosine , asparcam ) , other stomach medicines ( almagel and vikalin ) and spasmolytics ( no - spa , papaverin ) . There is no information as to the doses and duration of the medication prescribed or whether the applicant actually received the treatment . Upon his releases from the hospital , the applicant was recommended further therapeutic supervision , an unspecified diet and prophylactic in - patient treatment DATE .

On DATE the applicant was additionally examined by a neurology professor , who concluded that the “ vague limitations of mobility in the applicant ’s left limbs ” did not meet the criteria for organic hemiparesis of traumatic of vascular origin , as indicated in the applicant ’s invalidity report . It appears that apart from this finding the professor made no further comments concerning the nature of the applicant ’s ailments or recommendations as to his subsequent supervision and treatment .

NORP On DATE the applicant refused to walk to the cafeteria for lunch , referring to unbearable pain in the spinal cord , and demanded that his lunch be brought to his cell or that he be carried to the cafeteria on a chair . Eventually , on the instructions of the administration , CARDINAL other inmates dragged the applicant to the cafeteria by his hands . On DATE the applicant saw the governor of the penitentiary about his walking problem , and was referred to the penitentiary doctor .

On DATE the doctor concluded , referring in particular to the report by the neurology professor , that the applicant was exaggerating the gravity of his state , which was stable , and that he was able to move on his own with the help of a stick or a crutch .

On DATE the penitentiary administration concluded that the applicant ’s refusal to walk to the cafeteria was prompted by his low moral fibre and the desire to receive undeserved privileges . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant was reprimanded for his conduct by way of a disciplinary sanction .

On DATE the applicant demanded his urgent hospitalisation on account of severe pain in the spinal cord and the general aggravation of his state of health . According to the applicant , between CARDINAL DATE and DATE he was on hunger - strike to protest against his situation and was force - fed twice a day during that period . DATE the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell which , according to him , had none of the necessary facilities , including furniture .

According to the ORG , the applicant was held in the disciplinary cell during the period in question as punishment for offending an inmate ’s dignity . However , he did not refuse food , or at least did not inform the administration about his hunger - strike and was therefore not force - fed . The conditions in which the applicant was kept in the disciplinary cell were not incompatible with human dignity .

Between DATE and DATE the applicant was treated as an in - patient in the penitentiary hospital for the same conditions and under the same conservative treatment scheme as in DATE and DATE , and was subsequently transferred to penitentiary no . CARDINAL .

DATE and DATE the applicant was placed in the GPE penitentiary hospital suffering from organic injury of the central nervous system of complex origin ( traumatic and vascular ) , left - side hemiparesis and psycho - organic syndrome . The treatment prescribed to the applicant during this period included glucose , aminophylline , inosine , piracetam , cinnarisin and the PERSON mixture ( a sedative ) . The applicant ’s further supervision was recommended .

On several occasions the applicant complained to various authorities , including the prosecutor ’s office and the ombudsman , that his treatment in penitentiary hospitals was far from sufficient . Inter alia , the medical personnel refused to examine and even record a number of his complaints , in particular about severe abdominal pain , heartache and pain in the right arm . Furthermore , he had an opportunity to go to toilet CARDINAL times a day at TIME , which was unbearable in his condition . Moreover , the patients were held in anti - sanitary conditions ; the hospital premises smelled foul , disposable syringes were used several times , the supply of drugs was short and outdated drugs were sometimes administered . Medical personnel rarely checked on the patients , including those who were seriously ill , and administered medication irregularly . As a result , DATE somebody died . On several occasions the applicant received responses from the authorities advising him that , as far as they could determine , his condition was satisfactory and did not call for any intervention on their part .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a disability commission , which placed him in the second ( more advanced ) category of invalidity . In DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG penitentiary no . DATE , designed for inmates with disabilities .

The relevant provisions of the LAW and LAW can be found in the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , ( no . GPE , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The relevant extracts from the CARDINALrd ORG [ ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ] by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) read as follows :

A prison ’s health care service should at least be able to provide regular out - patient consultations and emergency treatment ( of course , in addition there may often be a hospital - type unit with beds ) . ... Further , prison doctors should be able to call upon the services of specialists . ...

Out - patient treatment should be supervised , as appropriate , by health care staff ; in many cases it is not sufficient for the provision of follow - up care to depend upon the initiative being taken by the prisoner .

The direct support of a fully - equipped hospital service should be available , in either a civil or prison hospital . ...

Whenever prisoners need to be hospitalised or examined by a specialist in a hospital , they should be transported with the promptness and in the manner required by their state of health . ”

A prison health care service should be able to provide medical treatment and nursing care , as well as appropriate diets , physiotherapy , rehabilitation or any other necessary special facility , in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community . Provision in terms of medical , nursing and technical staff , as well as LOC , installations and equipment , should be geared accordingly .

There should be appropriate supervision of the pharmacy and of the distribution of medicines . Further , the preparation of medicines should always be entrusted to qualified staff ( pharmacist / nurse , etc . ) .

DATE . A medical file should be compiled for each patient , containing diagnostic information as well as an ongoing record of the patient ’s evolution and of any special examinations he has undergone . In the event of a transfer , the file should be forwarded to the doctors in the receiving establishment .

Further , DATE registers should be kept by health care teams , in which particular incidents relating to the patients should be mentioned . Such registers are useful in that they provide an overall view of the health care situation in the prison , at the same time as highlighting specific problems which may arise .

The smooth operation of a health care service presupposes that doctors and nursing staff are able to meet regularly and to form a working team under the authority of a senior doctor in charge of the service . ”


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was arrested on DATE at TIME On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody until DATE in view of the reasonable suspicion that , together with CARDINAL other suspects , he had stolen several cars . It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary given the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings ; the court did not , however , state its reasons for taking such a view . It also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence .

The applicant ’s appeal against the detention order was unsuccessful , as were his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and his applications for release . His detention was extended on several occasions by ORG ( decisions of DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE ) and his appeals against extension were dismissed by ORG ( decisions of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ) . In all these decisions the courts relied on the original grounds given for the applicant ’s detention or simply found that the reasons for his continued detention given in their previous decisions “ were still relevant ” .

On DATE the first hearing took place . Evidence was heard from the applicant and his co - accused . The applicant behaved in an arrogant and disorderly manner and was expelled from the court room . Consequently , the hearing had to be adjourned and no witness evidence was heard DATE .

On DATE the ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

The applicant and CARDINAL of his co - accused lodged appeals against the firstinstance judgment .

On DATE the ORG heard the appeals , quashed the firstinstance judgment and remitted the case for retrial .

In the retrial proceedings the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against further decisions extending his detention . The relevant decisions on extension of his detention were given by ORG and ORG . The courts again relied on the grounds originally given for the applicant ’s detention . They added that there were no circumstances obliging them to release the applicant , with the result that his detention could be continued . In its decision given on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against further extension . It relied on the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed on the applicant as well as on the reasonable suspicion , justified by the evidence collected in the proceedings before the first - instance court , that the applicant and his co - accused would obstruct the proceedings . The court further found that the proceedings had been conducted without undue delays and that the applicant ’s detention had been necessary to secure the proper course of the proceedings , because the court had had to hear evidence from a certain PERSON , who had previously been accused in the same set of proceedings .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings during which evidence was heard from CARDINAL witnesses .

Following the retrial , on DATE , ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention .

The applicant , his co - accused and the prosecutor appealed against ORG judgment , which was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG received a letter from the applicant . The envelope bore the following stamp : “ Censored on DATE ” ( ORG dnia CARDINAL ) , together with an illegible signature and a stamp affixed by the post office in GPE that read : “ Envelope taken out of mail box damaged and re - taped . PERSON , DATE ” ( “ Przesyłka wyjęta ze skrzynki w stanie uszkodzonym oklejona taśmą . Ostróda CARDINAL ” ) .

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

The relevant domestic law concerning the censorship of ORG correspondence is set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of Michta v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of P1-2

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant attended The Lord PERSON , a maintained secondary ( foundation ) school ( “ the school ” ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE a fire was discovered in a waste paper basket in a classroom . The fire brigade took the view that the fire had been started deliberately and the police were informed . The applicant and CARDINAL other pupils were identified as being in the vicinity of the classroom at the time the fire was started . The Deputy Head advised the QUANTITY boys that they should not return to the school until the police investigation was completed . Contrary to the statutory procedure for school exclusions set out in sections DATE of ORG “ the DATE LAW ) and ORG and Skills Circular CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the ORG circular ” ) , no time limit was placed on the applicant 's exclusion ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .

On DATE the Head Teacher wrote to the applicant 's parents to tell them that he remained excluded from school until DATE . She offered to provide extra work for the applicant and stated that if his parents so wished , they could write to the Chairman of Governors to discuss the matter with them . This letter did not comply with LAW and the PERSON circular as it failed to advise the applicant 's parents that they had a right of appeal to ORG . Moreover , the Governors also failed in their duty to hold a hearing to confirm the exclusion or re - instate the applicant as required under LAW .

On DATE the Deputy Head Teacher wrote to the applicant 's parents to exclude him further until DATE . The letter was drafted in similar terms to that of DATE , and for the same reasons it failed to comply with the statutory requirements in LAW and the PERSON circular .

During the period of exclusion , the school had been sending the applicant revision - based , self - assessing work in mathematics , LANGUAGE and science . This continued until DATE , the date of the applicant 's final Standard Assessment Tests ( “ SATs ” ) . He was permitted to attend school from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE in order to sit these examinations .

On DATE ORG of the school met and were informed that the CARDINAL pupils suspected of involvement in the fire had been excluded . Contrary to the requirements of LAW , ORG did not convene a Governor 's ORG or consider either the exclusion of the applicant or whether he should be reinstated .

The applicant was charged with the offence of arson against the school and he entered a not - guilty plea . On DATE the Deputy Head Teacher wrote again to the applicant 's parents . She indicated that as some of the witnesses in the case were students at the school , the applicant and the other CARDINAL boys could not be permitted to return until the proceedings were concluded . She further indicated that she was making a referral to the access panel for alternative provision for the applicant 's education . Finally , she advised the applicant 's parents that he was being excluded for DATE from DATE and that the school would continue to set work as appropriate . The applicant 's parents were asked to contact the school to arrange to collect the work . They did not contact the school and no work was set after DATE .

On DATE a form referring the applicant to ORG ( “ ORG ” ) for the provision of alternative education was finalised , although it was not received by the ORG until DATE .

Under LAW there was a standard CARDINAL-day maximum period for fixed term exclusions . That CARDINAL-day period expired on DATE .

On DATE ORG notified the applicant 's solicitors that the prosecution had been discontinued on the ground that there was insufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of conviction . DATE the applicant attended court and the proceedings were formally ended . He then went to the school to meet with the Head Teacher , who advised him that she would act to arrange his re - entry as soon as she received written confirmation of the cessation of criminal proceedings . She received a fax to this effect from the court on DATE and official notification from the police on DATE . On DATE she wrote to the applicant 's parents , inviting them to attend a meeting on DATE to facilitate his re - integration . The invitation was extended again on DATE .

The ORG 's access panel met on DATE , unaware that proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued . The panel recommended that the applicant should be provided with tuition by ORG ( “ ORG ” ) until a decision was taken on his future at the school . The ORG offers part - time education to children who are out of school , generally because they have been excluded , but it is not required to provide the full national curriculum . On DATE the ORG 's Flexible Learning Co - ordinator wrote to the applicant 's parents to inform them that the ORG would provide tuition until term ended on DATE while the school resolved the exclusion issue . The school alleged , and the domestic courts subsequently accepted , that ORG had again contacted the applicant 's parents in DATE and they had declined the offer of tuition . The applicant 's parents , however , deny that any offer was made at DATE .

The applicant 's parents did not attend the meeting with the Head Teacher on DATE . The reason for non - attendance was heavily contested but the judge at first instance concluded that they had chosen to stay away . CARDINAL of the other QUANTITY boys did attend and was admitted back to the school . However , as a consequence of their non - attendance , the Head Teacher wrote to the applicant 's parents to advise them that she was removing the applicant from the school roll . The school governors and the ORG were also copied in . The applicant 's name remained on the roll until DATE although he was not provided with any education by the school during this period .

In DATE the applicant was due to begin the first term of DATE of his ORG studies . He did not return to the school . At DATE , the ORG 's welfare service completed a notification of absence . On DATE the ORG wrote to the Head Teacher , stating that the applicant was in GPE and that a place at the school was not required for him . The judge at first instance accepted that this was wrong : the applicant had not been in GPE and had been at home all along . Neither the school nor the ORG contacted the applicant again before removing his name from the roll , and the applicant and his parents were not subsequently informed of the removal .

In DATE the applicant 's family met with FAC - ordinator . At this stage they were unsure about whether they wished the applicant to return to the school . They were advised to decide quickly , and to arrange interviews either at the school or at other schools so that he could resume his education on a full - time basis . From DATE in DATE , the applicant 's parents made it clear that he wished to return to the school . On DATE the applicant 's father wrote to the Head Teacher formally to request his re - instatement . On DATE the Deputy Head Teacher replied , advising that the applicant 's name had been removed from the roll , that his place had been allocated to a student on the waiting list and that the school was now oversubscribed in his year group . The applicant 's father was advised to contact the ORG to find another school place . On DATE the applicant was admitted to a new school , ORG .

The applicant issued a free - standing human rights claim against the school in ORG , claiming , inter alia , that his right to education had been violated contrary to LAW . CARDINAL to the LAW . The ORG was not a party to the proceedings . The case was transferred to ORG . In rejecting the application , the judge held that the school was not the cause of the respondent 's lack of suitable education DATE and DATE term on DATE because his family had declined the ORG 's offer of tuition . The cause of the respondent 's lack of schooling or education during DATE was more complex to ascertain but it was the ORG 's responsibility to provide suitable education and there were educational facilities available to him . Thus although the decisions to exclude the respondent and to remove him from the roll were unlawful in domestic law , and could have been challenged by judicial review , they did not give rise to a liability in damages for breach of his rights under LAW .

On appeal , ORG found that the provision of self - assessing work during DATE of exclusion amounted to sufficient access to education to answer the applicant 's Convention claim . However , ORG held that the respondent 's right to education was denied DATE and DATE , notwithstanding that the school was still offering to provide him with substitute work to do at home , a matter held to be relevant only to damages . In relation to the last phase of the respondent 's exclusion , from DATE – DATE , ORG regarded removal of the respondent 's name from the school roll as improper , although giving rise to no separate legal consequences . But the respondent 's exclusion during this period was , as the judge held , unlawful and unreasonable . In para CARDINAL of the judgment ORG concluded :

“ So characterised , the exclusion of [ the respondent ] from DATE until he was finally placed in a new school amounts , in my judgment , to a further denial of his Convention right to education . It was complete and it was prolonged . It was not terminated by the deletion of [ the respondent 's ] name from the school roll because there was no lawful ground for deletion . To the extent that it may nevertheless have been acquiesced in , the damage may be mitigated . But this is not our present concern , and it will require ( if the case goes that far ) a factual inquiry into a number of things including the family 's state of knowledge and understanding . ”

“ ... the bare existence of the education authority 's fallback duty , together with [ the respondent 's ] right to seek to enforce it , relieves the school either of its obligations or of the legal consequences of failing to discharge them . On the contrary , it is on the CARDINAL public authorities who are the present respondents ( or put more realistically , the school ) that the state has chosen to devolve the material elements of the obligation which it has undertaken to provide universal secondary education . It is the head teacher and the governing body who in law bear the primary duty to educate a child who has been accepted in their school and , as a corollary , not to exclude him except as authorised by law . ”

The school was granted leave to appeal to ORG . In the course of the proceedings , the applicant did not contest the lower courts ' rejection of his complaint that the period of exclusion DATE and DATE had violated his rights under LAW No . CARDINAL . In relation to the period of exclusion after DATE , ORG unanimously held , albeit for different reasons , that there had been no violation of LAW No . CARDINAL . The majority accepted that the applicant 's exclusion from school was at times unlawful , but held that there would be a denial of the Convention right only if there were a systemic failure of the education system which resulted in the applicant 's not having access to a minimum level of education . As regards the scope of LAW No . CARDINAL , Lord PERSON stated that :

“ This does not however guarantee access to any particular educational institution the domestic system does provide : see ORG DATE ) CARDINAL DR CARDINAL . Nor is there a right to remain in any particular institution . Everyone is no doubt entitled to be educated to a minimum standard ( R ( ORG ) v Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) but the right under article CARDINAL extends no further . ”

ORG found that in this case there was no systemic failure of the education system : the applicant 's parents failed to collect work from the school ; the offer of tuition from the ORG was declined ; the applicant 's parents failed to attend the meeting at the school on DATE ; and finally , during the autumn the ORG 's attempts to secure the applicant 's re - admission to school were thwarted by his parents ' uncertainty . Baroness PERSON of GPE , however , was concerned that the applicant had been let down badly by the school , although she also allowed the appeal because , in view of the judge 's findings , it would not have been just to require the school to pay damages when the applicant 's parents had refused various offers of tuition . Nevertheless she indicated that this was the paradigm of a case in which it would be just and appropriate to grant the applicant a declaration that the school had acted in a way that was incompatible with his rights under LAW .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) places on the Secretary of ORG for ORG the general duty of promoting education for the people of GPE and GPE . This obligation has been largely discharged by LEAs . Pursuant to sections DATE of LAW , the ORG has a general responsibility for education and is required to secure that efficient primary and secondary education are available to meet the needs of the population of their area . ORG ) of the DATE Act further provides that each ORG shall make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school for those children of compulsory school age who , by reason of exclusion , may not otherwise receive suitable education . Moreover , the ORG circular further provides that the ORG should ensure that temporarily excluded pupils are reintegrated where possible and educated meanwhile .

Foundation schools were established under LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) . They have wider self - governing functions than other maintained schools . Pursuant to LAW CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , LEAs can only intervene in the management of a ORG school if there has been a serious breakdown in the way the school is managed or governed , or the safety of the pupils or staff is threatened . General responsibility for the conduct of the school lies with the governing body ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) , while the Head Teacher is responsible for the internal organisation , management and control of the school ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) of ORG ) ( Terms of Reference ) ( England ) Regulations CARDINAL ) .

The legislative provisions concerning school exclusions are contained in sections DATE of the DATE Act and the ORG circular . Pursuant to these sections , a Head Teacher of a maintained school may exclude a pupil for a fixed period or permanently , but the pupil may not be excluded for CARDINAL or more fixed periods which amount to DATE in DATE . Exclusions should be for the shortest time necessary , and should not be used for , inter alia , punishing pupils for the behaviour of parents . Where a pupil is excluded , the Head Teacher must take reasonable steps to inform relevant persons ( in this case , the parents ) of the period of exclusion , the reasons for the exclusion , and that he or she may make representations to the governing body . If a pupil is excluded for DATE in any CARDINAL term , the Head Teacher must inform the ORG and the governing body . The governing body must then consider the circumstances in which the pupil was excluded , any representations made by a relevant person , and , where practical , whether the pupil should be reinstated . The ORG must make arrangements for enabling the relevant person to appeal against any decision of the governing body not to reinstate a pupil who has been permanently excluded .


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

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

NORP In proceedings instituted by the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE ORG finally declared that his former employer had terminated his employment unlawfully and granted him severance pay and damages . Simultaneously , on DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG against the employer claiming pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims . On appeal , on DATE PERSON Regional Court granted the applicant damages plus accrued interest .

On DATE ORG review bench quashed the second - instance decision in its part concerning the pecuniary damages , and remitted this aspect of the case to ORG .

In the resumed second - instance proceedings , on DATE ORG granted damages plus accrued interest to the applicant . This decision was partially quashed by ORG review bench on DATE for procedural shortcomings .

In the resumed second - instance proceedings , on CARDINAL DATE ORG granted some damages plus accrued interest to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of his action . On DATE ORG review bench partially quashed this decision as ORG had miscalculated the amount granted to the applicant .

In the proceedings resumed for the third time , on DATE ORG granted the applicant damages plus accrued interest .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who lives in GPE , GPE . He had been granted legal aid covering part of his costs for the proceedings before this ORG and was represented by Professor PERSON , a barrister practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , Attorney - General of GPE .

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

The applicant was arrested on DATE and was remanded in custody until DATE . On DATE he was committed for trial before ORG of GPE sitting on DATE . On the latter date , he was formally charged with a series of offences dating from DATE to CARDINAL January DATE . He pleaded not guilty .

A lengthy series of adjournments of the proceedings followed . On DATE the court adjourned the case to QUANTITY , and then to CARDINAL November CARDINAL as another case which was pending before it had been assigned priority . On the same ground the hearing was adjourned twice more . On DATE , the applicant ’s request for an adjournment was granted and the case fixed for DATE . On DATE , the case was further adjourned on the basis of a request submitted by the prosecution and was fixed for hearing on DATE . On DATE , the applicant requested an adjournment . This was granted by the court which noted that it was , in any event , unable to proceed because it was engaged in the trial of another case . It fixed the case for DATE when it adjourned it to DATE due to lack of time as it had CARDINAL ongoing trials . On DATE , the hearing was again adjourned to CARDINAL DATE and it was further adjourned at the applicant ’s request because in fact the court had CARDINAL other hearings . On DATE , the applicant requested a further adjournment due to the deterioration of his health following a road accident . The case was accordingly adjourned to DATE .

On that date the applicant applied for a stay of the proceedings on the ground that the excessive delay violated LAW guaranteeing the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and LAW . ORG granted the application . Reference was made to a period of DATE when “ there was complete inactivity in the case ” and for which “ the excessive workload of the ORG ” was responsible . It observed that the trial had been adjourned CARDINAL times without the applicant being responsible , and that even on the QUANTITY occasions when he had himself requested an adjournment , this was granted because of the court ’s inability to pursue the case . It therefore concluded that CARDINAL half GPE delay , from the filing of the case until DATE , constituted a breach of the reasonable time requirement . It noted that while ORG had never found that a violation of LAW required the quashing of a conviction , this was one of the remedies offered by the common law in appropriate circumstances . For instance , where the delay took place after the lodging of an appeal against conviction , the appropriate remedy would be a reduction of a sentence , whereas if the delay had arisen before the trial began , as in the present case , one of the available remedies would be to uphold an accused ’s plea in bar of the trial . Reference was made to ORG judgment in Attorney General ’s Reference no.CARDINAL of DATE ( J ) ( DATE ) PERSON . DATE where it had been stated with regard to stay of proceedings that although it was a remedy which the court could grant , it should be confined to situations which in general terms amounted to an abuse of process . It was noted , however , that GPE case - law on this point was clear : where the shortcomings in the fairness of the proceedings could be remedied by a retrial , a retrial should be ordered where possible ; but if the constitutional rights of an accused had been infringed by a failure to put him on trial within a reasonable time , he should not be obliged to prepare for a trial which would necessarily take place after an unreasonable length of time . In the view of ORG , the only appropriate remedy for the unreasonable length of the proceedings under examination was to stay the proceedings and order the applicant ’s discharge .

ORG in its judgment of DATE criticised ORG assessment of the delay since it had only relied on the length of the period and had not considered other relevant factors , such as the complexity of the case and the applicant ’s own conduct . Moreover , it found that ORG account of the relevant adjournments had been inaccurate : while the court itself had been responsible for a number of them , the applicant had not objected and he had himself requested the adjournment of the case on a number of occasions . It observed that according to its case - law unreasonable delay could be remedied by taking it into account in the reduction of sentence . For all the above reasons it considered the decision of ORG erroneous and held that it should be set aside and the case sent for retrial by ORG .

On DATE judgement was delivered by ORG which found the applicant guilty of the offences of falsification of accounts and stealing by an employee . The applicant was acquitted of CARDINAL other charges of steeling by an employee and more serious charges of falsification of documents .

On DATE the same court proceeded to sentence the applicant . It considered that given the seriousness of the offences of which he had been convicted , involving breach of confidence and elements of fraud , the only appropriate sentence would be that of imprisonment . The maximum sentence provided for by the relevant provisions of LAW at the time of commission of the relevant offences was DATE imprisonment . ORG referred to the previous decision of ORG in the case , noting that a finding that a trial had not been concluded within reasonable time could be remedied by taking the delay into account as a mitigating factor . It stated that :

“ It is a fact that the lapse of DATE from the date of the applicant ’s arrest and DATE ( CARDINAL ) from the commission of the offences for which he has been found guilty , constitutes in itself a period of time that should be taken into account in the determination of an appropriate sentence . The uncertainty of the pending proceedings leading to understandable anxiety about one ’s guilt or innocence is in itself harrowing , but this is aggravated by the circumstances of this case , which we will attempt to summarise in the context of our duty to impose a sentence :

( a ) the accused has been acquitted after a lengthy hearing of most of the charges brought against him ;

( b ) Despite the fact that certain requests for an adjournment were made on behalf of the defence , responsibility for the length of the proceedings could not be attributed to them given the conduct of the proceedings as a whole ...

( c ) During this period of time ... the accused ’s [ personal ] circumstances had deteriorated . In addition to the anguish he went through due to the pending proceedings , he had lost his employment in the bank and was unable to find a new job .... Moreover , [ it was asserted on behalf of the accused that ] because of the proceedings he could not get married .

We have carefully examined the circumstances of the present case knowing that they lasted for such a long period that their duration must have a substantial impact on the sentence as a primary mitigating factor .

Having examined the seriousness of the offences and balanced every other relevant factor , we find that the appropriate sentence can not be other than that of imprisonment . The length of the proceedings in combination with the accused ’s lack of criminal record , the devastating effects that the proceedings had on his life ( and , in particular , his loss of employment and career prospects ) must have a significant impact on the prison sentence that is to be passed . ”

Accordingly , the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment on each of the CARDINAL counts of falsification of accounts and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment on each of the counts of stealing in respect of which he had been convicted . All the sentences were to run concurrently . The applicant ’s request for suspension of the sentence of imprisonment was rejected .

LAW ) of LAW provides as follows , in so far as relevant :

“ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... , every person is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by an independent , impartial and competent court ... ” .

In the case of PERSON the Police ( DATE ) CARDINAL S.C.J. CARDINAL it was stated :

“ This case had been repeatedly adjourned without a valid reason and without the accused ’s culpability . Hence , the accused ’s criminal liability had not been determined within reasonable time in breach of his right guaranteed by LAW . This finding leads to the quashing of the conviction as well as the proceedings in their entirety including the arrest order and confiscation of the applicant ’s surety . ”

In the case of ORG v. the Police ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. the Supreme Court stated that :

“ A violation of the rights guaranteed by LAW ... renders the proceedings void in their entirety . ”

However , in the recent case of GPE and CARDINAL of DATE , ORG observed that the case - law of ORG concerning the consequences of a violation of the fair trial guarantee due to the excessive length of the proceedings was not as strict as the position adopted by ORG in its judgment in GPE v. the Police ( cited above ) and subsequent cases . It concluded that the consequences ought to be determined in accordance with the extent of the violation at issue and the possible prejudice to an accused ’s defence . Where a violation is demonstrated it should be taken seriously into account as a mitigating factor in sentence .


Violation of art. 6-1 (adversarial trial);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON is a NORP citizen who lives at PERSON ( West Flanders ) .

ORG On DATE , on an application by the department of the procureur du Roi and without any adversarial hearing , ORG adjudicated the applicant bankrupt and declared his company - Vermeulen & Verstraete Business Consultancy , Ltd ( ORG p.v.b.a . ) - insolvent . It had heard the opinion of the deputy procureur du Roi but had not heard the applicant himself , who was in custody in GPE prison on account of criminal proceedings against him for forgery , uttering , fraud and misappropriation .

The applicant applied to the court to set aside that judgment and rehear the case .

ORG On DATE the court declared the application admissible , ordered that the proceedings should be reopened and put the case on the special list pending the outcome of the criminal investigation that was under way in respect of Mr PERSON .

In a written opinion that was read out at the hearing of the case on DATE , the deputy procureur du Roi had submitted that the application to set aside was admissible but unfounded .

ORG On DATE , on an appeal by the applicant against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , in which ORG had not rescinded the bankruptcy order , ORG , exercising its power to determine also the merits of the case , upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , having heard the submissions to that effect of the deputy procureur du Roi that had been read out at the hearing of the case on DATE .

ORG The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment , but ORG dismissed it on DATE . At the hearing on DATE it had heard in FAC , the judge rapporteur , PERSON lawyer and PERSON , the avocat général ( a member of the procureur général ’s department ) . The avocat général made oral submissions and subsequently took part in the court ’s deliberations .

ORG On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of all the criminal offences with which he had been charged ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG The relevant Articles of the LAW provide :

" Any trader who ceases payments and whose credit has been impaired shall be considered insolvent .

" Insolvency shall be declared in a judgment of ORG delivered either on the bankrupt ’s own admission or on a petition by CARDINAL or more creditors or of the court ’s own motion .

Proceedings for a declaration of insolvency by the court of its own motion are opened at the instance of ORG . The procureur du Roi or a member of his department delivers an opinion , in accordance with Article CARDINAL , CARDINAL , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG Article CARDINAL of the Judicial Code provides :

" Subject to the provisions of LAW , the department of the procureur du Roi shall act as prosecuting authority in the manner laid down by law .

In civil matters it shall intervene by way of legal proceedings , applications or opinions . It shall act of its own motion in the instances prescribed by law and also on each occasion that public policy requires its intervention . "

ORG Article CARDINAL of the Judicial Code lists the cases which , unless they are being tried by a magistrate , are to be referred to the procureur du Roi , failing which the proceedings will be null and void . They include , at CARDINAL , those relating to insolvency , compositions with creditors and extensions of time for payments .

ORG By LAW ,

" The procureur général at ORG shall not act as prosecuting authority except where he has instituted proceedings in which the decision on the merits falls to ORG . "

The fairly rare instances in which ORG hears a case on its merits include trials of ministers ( LAW ) , actions against judges for misuse of their authority ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the Judicial Code ) and disciplinary proceedings against certain judges or other members of the national legal service ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the same Code ) .

Other than in these circumstances , the procureur général ’s department at ORG carries out , with complete independence , the duties of adviser to the court .

ORG As to the disciplinary hierarchy of the ministère public , the following provisions of the Judicial Code should be mentioned :

" The Minister of ORG shall exercise supervisory authority over all the officials of the ministère public ; the procureur général at ORG likewise over his counterparts at the courts of appeal ; and the latter over the members of their own departments and of those of the auditeurs généraux at ORG and over the procureurs du Roi attached to the lower courts , the auditeurs attached to the industrial tribunals and their deputies . "

" The procureur général at ORG may impose on the officials of the ministère public subordinate to him the penalties of a warning , a reprimand or a reprimand with suspension of salary .

The procureur général at ORG shall have the same powers in regard to the avocats généraux at that court and the procureurs généraux at the courts of appeal .

The Minister of ORG may likewise warn and reprimand any official of the ministère public or recommend to the King his suspension or dismissal . "

ORG In respect of the procedure to be followed in ORG , in both civil and criminal proceedings , the Judicial Code provides : ORG

" After the report has been read out , submissions are heard from counsel present at the hearing . Their addresses shall relate exclusively to the issues of law raised in the grounds for appeal or to objections to the admissibility of the appeal .

The procureur général ’s department shall then make its submissions , after which no further documents shall be accepted . "

" The procureur général or a member of his department shall be entitled to attend the deliberations unless the appeal on points of law has been lodged by the procureur général ’s department itself ; he shall not be entitled to vote in the deliberations . "

The procureur général ’s department may lodge an appeal on points of law either " in the interests of the law " ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Judicial Code and LAW ) or following a complaint by the Minister of ORG ( Article CARDINAL of the Judicial Code and Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) .

ORG Since DATE , when ORG gave judgment in the PERSON case previously cited , an appellant in ORG has been able , at least in criminal cases , to address the court after the representative of the procureur général ’s department , who does not subsequently attend the court ’s deliberations .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE - on - Trent . He was represented before ORG , solicitors in GPE . 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 .

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . There were CARDINAL children of the marriage , born on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In DATE the applicant applied for widows’ benefits and was refused . On DATE he applied to ORG for benefits equivalent to those which would have been received by a widow . He was finally refused such benefits by ORG on DATE .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV and Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-c;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

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

The applicant was born in DATE .

Following a criminal conviction for murder , the applicant was sent to ORG on DATE to serve a DATE prison sentence . Since DATE he has served his sentence in various prisons in GPE .

On DATE , while the applicant was serving his prison term in PERSON , the NORP Municipal State Attorney 's ORG indicted him on a charge of threatening a prison employee on CARDINAL DATE . Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant before ORG ( PERSON GPE ) . A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the applicant had not been duly summoned . A further hearing scheduled for DATE was also adjourned because at that time the applicant was undergoing treatment in ORG . At a hearing held on DATE the applicant stated that he had neither understood the content of the indictment against him nor the warning given to him by the presiding judge . The court then ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant and adjourned the hearing .

On DATE the applicant lodged a written request for a legal aid counsel . The request was received at ORG on DATE and enclosed in the case file on DATE . No written decision was made in respect of his request at that stage of the proceedings .

The applicant was examined by a psychiatrist in ORG ( Psihijatrijska bolnica Vrapče ) from DATE . The report , drawn up on DATE , shows that the applicant was treated in ORG of FAC during the following periods :

- CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE for depression ;

- DATE to CARDINAL DATE for a suicide attempt ;

- CARDINAL to DATE for allegedly falling out of bed and hurting his head ;

- CARDINAL DATE to DATE for depression and anxiety ;

- DATE for self - injury ;

- CARDINAL DATE to DATE for a suicide threat ;

- CARDINAL to DATE for personality disorder ;

- CARDINAL to DATE for personality and behavioural disorder ;

- DATE until DATE for a suicide attempt ;

- CARDINAL to DATE ;

- CARDINAL July to DATE for a suicide attempt ;

- CARDINAL to DATE for refusal to drink water ;

- DATE for a suicide attempt ;

- CARDINAL to DATE for swallowing batteries ;

The conclusions of the report read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . PERSON is a person suffering from serious and permanent personality disorder with a prevalence of paranoia [ paranoid personality disorder ] , schizophrenic disorder and a pronounced narcissistic pathology , as well as a strong tendency towards destructive and self - destructive behaviour .

The patient 's mental disorders do not fall into the category of a temporary or permanent mental illness , insufficient mental development or a mental illness with physical causes .

During psychiatric examination no elements indicating alcohol dependency or dependency on any psychoactive substance were found .

Bearing in mind the gravity and nature of the patient 's personality disorders and their close link with the offences with which he has been charged , we consider that his ability to understand and control his own actions was diminished when the offences in question were committed .

Bearing in mind the serious and genuine risk [ that the patient ] might commit further criminal offences , we recommend that he undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment .

The patient maintains the capacity to participate in the proceedings against him for the time being . ”

On DATE the report was submitted to ORG .

At a hearing held on DATE the applicant stated that he was going to defend himself in person although he was of the opinion that his constitutional rights were thus violated . At the same time he also stated that he did not understand anything . The relevant part of the written transcript of the hearing reads :

“ The defendant is informed , under LAW , that he has the right to defend himself in person or with assistance of a defence counsel .

The defendant states : ' I do not understand anything . '

The judge again informs the defendant of his rights under LAW .

The defendant states :

' I will defend myself in person although I think that my constitutional rights have thus been violated . '

The defendant then states that he has not understood anything . ”

During the trial the applicant remained silent . On DATE ORG ( PERSON GPE ) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . In addition , it ordered the applicant to undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment because he had been diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder . With regard to the applicant 's mental state , the judgment stated :

“ ... the defendant ... is a person suffering from serious and permanent [ chronic ] personality disorders with a prevalence of paranoia [ paranoid personality disorder ] , schizophrenic disorder and a pronounced narcissistic pathology , as well as a strong tendency towards destructive and self - destructive behaviour . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment alleging , inter alia , that his defence rights had been violated in that his request to have a defence counsel appointed in the proceedings before the first - instance court had been ignored . The case file was sent to ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) sitting as an appeal court . On DATE the appeal court returned the case file to ORG because it had failed to decide upon the applicant 's further , written request of DATE to have a defence counsel appointed to him .

On DATE ORG heard the applicant in connection with his request for a legal aid lawyer . In a decision of DATE ORG appointed a lawyer practising in GPE as the applicant 's defence counsel . In the operative part of the decision a lawyer PERSON was appointed , while in the reasoning another lawyer , PERSON , is named as the officially appointed defence counsel . The relevant part of this decision reads as follows :

“ This court has ... established that the defendant 's financial situation ... does not allow him to engage the services of a defence counsel and that reasons of fairness require that a defence counsel be officially assigned to him . ”

On DATE the appointed counsel , PERSON , also lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the ORG dismissed both appeals . As regards the lack of legal representation for the applicant during the trial before the first - instance court , it held :

“ The defendant ... maintains that the first - instance court took no heed of the fact that he suffers from mental illness and that therefore a defence counsel should have been assigned to him ...

This appeal court finds , however , that no procedural error was made which could have affected the defendant 's defence rights . The record of the hearing held on DATE shows that the defendant stated that he did not feel capable of defending himself , after which the first - instance court adjourned the hearing and ordered a psychiatric examination of the defendant ... The report showed that the nature and intensity of the defendant 's mental illness did not put in question his ability to defend himself . The [ first - instance court ] held a hearing on DATE at which the defendant , although expressly advised in accordance with LAW that he could defend himself in person or with the assistance of a defence counsel , stated ' that he is going to defend himself in person although his constitutional rights are thus infringed ' . It follows that the defendant , who had been found capable of defending himself in person , that is to say that he understood his role in the trial and the information about his rights , expressly stated that he was going to defend himself in person . ”

NORP In his subsequent constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained that he had no means to pay for legal assistance since he had been serving a prison term since DATE . Furthermore , owing to his mental state , the interests of justice required that he be granted such assistance . He alleged that he had asked the presiding judge on several occasions , both orally and in writing , to be granted legal assistance . However , she had completely ignored his requests until the appeal court remitted the case file to her in order to decide on his request for legal assistance . A decision of the President of ORG of DATE appointing CARDINAL defence counsel had been served on the applicant in prison but it did not contain the address or telephone number of either of the appointed counsel . Neither of them had contacted the applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A defendant has the right to defend himself in person or with the assistance of a defence counsel of his own choosing from among the members of the Bar . Where prescribed by this LAW , and in order to ensure [ that the rights of ] defence [ are respected ] , a defence counsel shall be assigned to a defendant who has not appointed a defence counsel of his own choice .

( CARDINAL ) Under the conditions prescribed by this LAW , a legal aid lawyer shall be appointed , on the request of the defendant , to a defendant who has no means to pay for legal assistance .

( CARDINAL ) A court or other ORG body participating in the criminal proceedings shall inform the defendant of his right to a defence counsel when he or she is first questioned .

( CARDINAL ) The defendant shall be afforded adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his or her defence . ”

Pursuant to LAW , where the defendant requests an amendment of a final judgment following a finding by ORG a violation of , inter alia , the right to a fair trial , the rules governing a retrial shall apply .

The relevant part of LAW on LAW ( PERSON o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE – “ the LAW ” ) , as amended by DATE Amendments ( PERSON o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON zakona o PERSON sudu PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , which entered into force on DATE , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that the decision of a state authority , local or regional self - government , or a legal person invested with public authority , on his or her rights or obligations , or about suspicion or accusation of his or her having committed a criminal offence , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , or right to local or regional self - government , guaranteed by LAW ( hereinafter : constitutional rights ) ...

If another legal remedy is allowed against the violation of the constitutional rights [ complained of ] , the constitutional complaint may be lodged only after this remedy has been exhausted .

In matters in which an administrative action or , in civil and non - contentious proceedings , an appeal on points of law [ revizija ] are allowed , remedies shall be considered exhausted only after the decision on these legal remedies has been given . ”

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

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

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

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o sudovima , ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A party to court proceedings who considers that the competent court failed to decide within a reasonable time on his or her rights or obligations or a criminal charge against him or her , may lodge a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the immediately higher court .

( CARDINAL ) If the request concerns proceedings pending before ORG of GPE , ORG of GPE or ORG , the request shall be decided by ORG .

( CARDINAL ) The proceedings for deciding the request referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall be urgent . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the court referred to in LAW finds the request well founded , it shall set a time - limit within which the court before which the proceedings are pending must decide on a right or obligation of , or a criminal charge against , the person who lodged the request , and shall award him or her appropriate compensation for the violation of his or her right to a hearing within a reasonable time .

( CARDINAL ) The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE from the date the party 's request for payment is lodged .

( CARDINAL ) An appeal , to be lodged within DATE with ORG , lies against a decision on the request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time . No appeal lies against ORG decision but CARDINAL may lodge a constitutional complaint . ”


CASE OF BOYCHENKO AND GERSHKOVICH v. RUSSIA

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE issued “ Series III ” domestic hard currency bonds ( облигации внутреннего государственного валютного займа III серии ) . On DATE the first applicant acquired bonds of a total nominal value MONEY ( ORG ) and the second applicant acquired bonds of a total nominal value ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE the bonds matured and the applicants presented them for redemption .

On DATE the applicants were informed that ORG acting as the ORG 's agent refused to redeem the bonds , referring to a letter of ORG of CARDINAL DATE No . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL advising the holders of Series III bonds to refrain from presenting the bonds for redemption for DATE in the light of the unfavourable economic situation in the country . In the same letter the ORG undertook to negotiate restructuring of the debt during this period .

On DATE the Government of GPE issued Order No . DATE which provided for the existing Series III bonds to be converted into new bonds of CARDINAL types with DATE maturity periods .

On an unspecified date the applicants brought civil proceedings against the ORG , ORG and ORG seeking recovery of the nominal value of the bonds and damages . They also asked the court to defer the payment of the court fees .

On DATE the Presnenskiy District Court of GPE awarded the applicants the nominal value of the bonds and dismissed the claim for damages . The first applicant was awarded ORG CARDINAL and the second applicant was awarded USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by ORG and upheld the judgment .

On DATE the applicants submitted writs of execution to ORG .

On DATE ORG refused to comply with the writs of execution , referring to an application for supervisory review of the judgments which was to be lodged by ORG . The applicants ' request to see the application was refused .

On DATE the Prosecutor of GPE lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgments .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG granted the application . The ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the appeal decision of DATE on the grounds that the courts had erred in interpretation of the law and failed to rule on the issue of payment of court fees , and remitted the case for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG examined and dismissed the applicants ' claim in full .

On DATE the ORG delivered an additional judgment ordering the applicants to pay court fees .

On an unspecified date the applicants ' appeal against the judgment was dismissed .

On DATE , following a request by the applicants , the Prosecutor of GPE lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgments .

On DATE the ORG of ORG examined the application and upheld the judgment of DATE . In the same proceedings it quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE concerning the payment of court fees and remitted it for a fresh examination .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings concerning the court fees .

On DATE the Deputy President of ORG of GPE lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment in the applicants ' case .

On DATE the ORG of ORG decided to adjourn its examination of the case , apparently pending a ruling from ORG on the matter .

In DATE the parties informed the ORG that the examination of the case by the ORG of ORG was adjourned in connection with a case pending before ORG of GPE which concerned a similar issue . Since then the parties provided no information to the ORG about the development of the case .

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

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


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and resides in the city of GPE , GPE .

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

On DATE , as a result of injuries sustained in an industrial accident , the applicant was unable to work . Thereafter , he was paid a disability pension by his former employer , the PERSON i ORG company . According to the applicant , PERCENT of the shares in the company belong to the ORG .

In DATE the payments ceased and on DATE the applicant lodged a claim with the Moskovsky ORG of GPE against the company .

On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant ( ORG Харкова ) . The decision became effective on DATE and was sent for execution to the Moskovsky ORG of ORG ( ORG Районного Управлiння Юстицiї м Харкова ) .

On DATE , ORG initiated execution proceedings in the applicant ’s case . The first payment ( CARDINAL ORG ) to the applicant was made on DATE .

In the absence of further execution , the applicant contacted the bailiff responsible for the execution of the judgment on several occasions and , on DATE , lodged a complaint with the Head of the Moskovsky ORG of ORG against that bailiff .

On DATE the Head of the Moskovsky ORG of ORG replied to the applicant , stating , inter alia , that the judgment could not be executed due to the adoption of GPE on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property ” ( ORG Про введення мораторiю на примусову реалiзацiю TIME ” ) , which had entered into force on DATE .

On DATE , a second payment ( CARDINAL UAH ) was made to the applicant .

On DATE , the final payment ( CARDINAL ORG ) was made to the applicant and the court judgment of CARDINAL DATE was thereby fully enforced .

Civil Code of GPE

Under LAW , in case of delay in the fulfilment of its financial obligations , the debtor must , upon a claim of the creditor , pay the amount of the debt , plus any interest payable at an established inflation rate during the default period .

PERSON of GPE of CARDINAL DATE “ on the LAW of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property ”

The PERSON aims at protecting ORG interests on the sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the ORG holds PERCENT of the share capital .

The moratorium has been introduced until such time as the mechanism for the forced sale of the property of such undertakings has been improved . No time - limit has been set .

Section CARDINAL of the PERSON provides that the forced sale of property includes the execution of writs by ORG over property belonging to undertakings .

The PERSON applies to immovable property and other fixed assets , which are used in production , as well as shares , owned by the ORG in the property of other companies and invested to the statutory capital of those enterprises .

The PERSON therefore stays the execution of all writs by ORG over the above - mentioned assets or undertakings in which the ORG holds PERCENT of the share capital .

PERSON of GPE of DATE “ on Enforcement Proceedings ”

Under LAW , the enforcement of judgments is entrusted to ORG . Under LAW of the PERSON the creditor may file a complaint against actions or omissions of ORG with the head of the competent department of that ORG or with a local court . Article CARDINAL of the PERSON entitles the creditor to institute court proceedings against ORG for inadequate enforcement or non - enforcement of a judgment , and to receive compensation .

PERSON of GPE of DATE “ on ORG ”

LAW provides for the liability of bailiffs for any inadequate performance of their duties , and compensation for damages caused by a bailiff when enforcing a judgment . Under LAW , acts and omissions of the bailiff can be challenged before a superior official or the courts .


Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, ratione materiae);Violation of Art. 8;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

The applicant lives in GPE .

The applicant owns a part of a house in GPE where she lives with her family . Since DATE a bar , F. , has been run by a third person in the other part of the house .

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , ORG ( ORG inspekcija Ureda za rad , zdravstvo i socijalnu skrb primorsko - goranske županije u ORG – “ the Sanitary Inspection ” ) , reporting that her flat had constantly been exposed to excessive noise from the F. bar , which was open from TIME each day . She invited ORG to measure the noise . On DATE the applicant urged action on her request .

Measurements were carried out on DATE at TIME by an independent expert firm . The expert found that the level of noise at TIME had exceeded the permitted level . In a room situated in the western part of the applicant 's flat the noise level at TIME reached CARDINAL,CARDINAL dB ( decibels ) which exceeded the permitted level by CARDINAL dB. In a room situated in the eastern part of the applicant 's flat the noise at TIME reached FAC dB which exceeded the permitted level by CARDINAL dB.

In a decision of DATE ORG ordered the company L. , the owner of the bar F. , to reduce the level of noise from their equipment for reproduction of music . The decision relied on the measurements carried out on DATE for the purposes of these proceedings which had established that the noise from F. exceeded the prescribed limit . The decision was however quashed on DATE by ORG , upon an appeal lodged by the respondent and the case was remitted to ORG .

Measurements carried out on DATE at night again showed that noise from F. exceeded the permitted level by PERCENT to CARDINAL dB depending on the exact place of measurements . The maximum levels measured inside the applicant 's flat were CARDINAL dB and the external noise level , at the house entrance , CARDINAL dB.

Measurements carried out on DATE again showed that noise from F. exceeded the permitted level by CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL dB depending on the exact place of measurements . The maximum level measured at the applicant 's flat was PERCENT , and the external noise level CARDINAL dB.

By decision of DATE ORG ordered the owner of the bar to add sound insulation to the walls and the inter - floor construction according to the NORP standards in that respect .

An inspection carried out on DATE established that the above decision had not been complied with .

On DATE ORG ordered the enforcement of the above decision if the owner did not comply with it by DATE . On the latter date an inspection established that the bar F. had been closed and that the owner had lodged a request with the local ORG to allow the bar to be closed in order to install the required sound insulation .

A further inspection in the bar F. , carried out on DATE showed that sound insulation had been installed . Measurements were not carried out because the applicant sought the replacement of ORG assigned to the case . On DATE the request was denied .

On DATE a further measurement showed that the level of noise insulation on the first floor was insufficient . The owner of the bar objected to these findings and on DATE a fresh expert report was ordered .

On DATE the applicant again sought the replacement of ORG assigned to the case . Her request was declared inadmissible on DATE .

The measurements carried out on DATE again showed that noise from F. exceeded the permitted level . On DATE the firm L. informed the authorities that it no longer ran the bar F. An on - site inspection of CARDINAL DATE showed that the first floor of the house was no longer used as a bar , but only the ground floor . On DATE the proceedings were terminated on the grounds that the measurements previously carried out had shown that the level of noise on the ground floor was not excessive .

The applicant lodged an appeal , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE . On DATE the applicant brought a claim before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) , challenging the findings of the administrative bodies .

Further measurements carried out for DATE from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE showed that the level of noise in the applicant 's flat exceeded the permitted level by PERCENT , depending on the time of measurements . The noise in the period from TIME reached levels of PERCENT on TIME to DATE and PERCENT on TIME DATE

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG about the length of the proceedings before ORG . On DATE the complaint was accepted and ORG ordered ORG to adopt a decision within DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the lower bodies ' decisions and ordered them to establish whether the noise coming from the bar was still excessive .

On DATE the second - instance administrative body annulled the decision of DATE on the grounds that the measurements of noise in the applicant 's flat and in the common yard in front of the house showed that the noise coming from F. was excessive and that the noise insulation between F. and the applicant 's flat was insufficient .

On DATE ORG ordered expert noise measurements to be carried out on DATE . These measurements showed that the insulation was sufficient . On DATE the applicant requested new measurements in TIME and without prior notification . This request was accepted on DATE and the applicant was invited to indicate the date for measurement . She submitted her answer on DATE and the measurement was carried out on DATE . They showed that the level of noise was again excessive . The maximum level of noise measured inside the applicant 's flat was PERCENT and the external level of noise CARDINAL.CARDINAL dB.

On DATE ORG ordered the owner of the bar to reduce the noise . Measurements carried out on DATE showed that the level of noise had not exceeded the set standards .

The applicant submitted medical documentation of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , in respect of her daughter , born in DATE , showing that she suffered from hearing impairment and recommending that she avoid exposure to noise . She also submitted medical documentation of CARDINAL and DATE in respect of her husband , born in DATE , showing that he had been treated for heart disease , including heart surgery .

Section CARDINAL of the Bylaw on the Maximum Permitted Levels of Noise in Areas Where People Work and Live ( PERSON o najvišim dopuštenim razinama buke u sredinama u kojima ljudi rade i borave , ORG no DATE ) limits the maximum permitted noise - reception level inside closed residential areas at DATE in the period between TIME ( night ) and at DATE during day . The limit for external noise - reception level was set at DATE during day and PERCENT at night .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW on FAC Where People Work and Live ( PERSON o najvišim dopuštenim razinama buke u sredinama u kojima ljudi rade i borave , ORG no CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) limits the maximum permitted noise - reception level inside closed residential areas at PERCENT in the period between TIME ( night ) and at DATE during day . The limit for external noise - reception level was set at DATE during day and PERCENT at night .

NORP Most environmental noises can be approximately described by one 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 .

The World Health Organization ( WHO ) has published “ Guidelines for Community Noise ” ( DATE ) and “ Fact Sheet No . CARDINAL , on ORG ” ( revised DATE ) which give guideline values for various environments and situations ( LAW ) . 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 .

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 PERCENT 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 .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants are NORP nationals . The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in Oktyabrskiy in the Republic of Bashkortostan . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE in LOC . He is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The third applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE in GPE .

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

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a drug offence . On DATE he was convicted by ORG , of unlawful dealing in drugs and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . On DATE the conviction was upheld on appeal by ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for invalidation of certain gift agreements , which he later supplemented with other claims . His claims were dismissed in a judgment of DATE by ORG , GPE . On DATE ORG upheld part of the judgment on appeal and remitted the rest for fresh consideration . On CARDINAL DATE the trial court partially granted the applicant 's claims invalidating certain transactions and third persons ' property titles and acknowledging the applicant 's title to a plot of land and a house . The judgment was upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the authorities instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant . On DATE the justice of the peace of PERSON , PERSON , found the applicant guilty of infliction of bodily harm through negligence , did not impose any sanction due to the expiry of the time - limit for criminal prosecution and partly granted a civil suit against him . On DATE ORG , PERSON , upheld the judgment on appeal after some minor changes . The conviction was finally upheld at a third level of jurisdiction by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that in response to the pilot judgment CARDINAL federal laws had been enacted , introducing a new domestic remedy in respect of lengthy judicial proceedings and delayed enforcement of domestic judgments against the ORG . The laws entered into force on DATE ( “ the LAW ” , see part B below ) .

In DATE ORG informed the applicants in the present cases and all other applicants in the same position of the new remedy , advising them to make use of it within the DATE time - limit set by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE Mr Fakhretdinov informed the ORG in response that he had indeed brought a relevant claim before a domestic court in accordance with the new statute .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON expressed an intention to lodge such a claim but cast strong doubts as to the effectiveness of the procedure , and added that it had not been available at the time of his application to the ORG .

All the applicants explicitly maintained their complaints concerning undue length of the proceedings before the ORG . Mr PERSON furthermore insisted on his other complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG adopted a Federal Law no . CARDINAL-ФЗ “ On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time or ORG of a ORG within a Reasonable Time ” ( “ LAW ” ) . On DATE the ORG adopted LAW , no . CARDINAL-ФЗ , introducing a number of corresponding changes to the relevant federal laws . Both laws entered into force on DATE .

LAW entitles a party concerned ( “ an applicant ” ) to bring an action for compensation of the violation of his or her right to a trial within a reasonable time or of the right to enforcement within a reasonable time of a judgment establishing a debt to be recovered from State budgets ( LAW , § CARDINAL ) . Such compensation can only be awarded if the alleged violation took place independently of the applicant 's own actions except those taken in the circumstances of force majeure . A breach of the statutory time - limits for examination of the case does not amount per se to a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time or right to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time ( Section CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) . A compensation award is not dependent on the competent authorities ' fault ( Section CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

The compensation is awarded in monetary form ( LAW , § CARDINAL ) . The amount of the compensation should be determined by courts according to the applicant '

Section CARDINAL sets out the rules of jurisdiction and procedure . It states in particular that a claim for compensation for excessively lengthy civil and criminal proceedings should be brought to a court of general jurisdiction , and a claim concerning commercial proceedings to a commercial court . Such a claim can also be introduced as part of an application for supervisory review of the decisions of commercial courts . This provision further sets down the conditions to be satisfied prior to lodging a claim for compensation . Thus , in the case of civil proceedings the claim should be lodged within DATE of the last judicial decision , or prior to termination of the proceedings provided that their length has exceeded DATE and the applicant has applied for their expedition in a procedure determined by statute . In the case of criminal proceedings the claim for compensation should be lodged within DATE of the entry into force of a final judicial decision , or prior to termination of the proceedings if their length has exceeded DATE and the applicant has applied for their expedition in a procedure determined by statute .

A court decision granting compensation is subject to immediate enforcement ( Section CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) . It may be appealed against in accordance with the procedural legislation in force ( Section CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) . The costs of payment of compensation awards are included in the federal budget , in the budgets of federal entities and in local budgets ( Section CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

All individuals who have complained to ORG that their right to a trial within a reasonable time or to enforcement of a judgment within a reasonable time has been violated may claim compensation in domestic courts under LAW within DATE of its entry into force , provided ORG has not ruled on the admissibility of the complaint ( LAW CARDINAL ) .