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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Gdańsk .

DATE the applicant lived with PERSON On DATE PERSON had a baby , a boy NORP He was registered at ORG as having “ PERSON as father , i.e. a fictitious name , consisting of the applicant ’s first name and the mother ’s surname .

NORP In DATE the relationship ended . PERSON left the child with the applicant and disappeared for DATE . The applicant submits a copy of a letter , in which PERSON states that she leaves him and the boy and that they should now fend for themselves . As the child subsequently fell ill , the applicant took him to a hospital . PERSON took NORP from the hospital on CARDINAL DATE . She then stayed in hiding for DATE . Since then the applicant has not had any contacts with the child .

Prior to this , on DATE , the applicant lodged a motion with ORG , claiming that the paternity of NORP be established and submitting that he was his biological father . He was subsequently summoned by the court to submit certain documents in order to have a guardian appointed who would bring a paternity action on the child ’s behalf as under the domestic law the alleged biological father , not married to the mother , lacked standing in paternity proceedings . The applicant failed to do so .

In a note of CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the family court about the situation of NORP and requested it to take steps to supervise PERSON in her exercise of parental rights . The social assistance officer also referred in her note to the applicant and stated that , in the light of the information received from his sister , in her view he would be unable to take adequate care of the child .

Subsequently the ORG instituted custody proceedings concerning NORP By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court ordered that NORP be taken into public care . Apparently shortly afterwards this decision was revoked .

NORP In DATE the ORG requested the prosecuting authorities to investigate whether ORG had committed a criminal offence by exposing NORP to immediate danger of serious bodily injury . Such investigations were instituted in DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG gave a new decision on the basis of which NORP was taken into public care . The custody rights of PERSON were restricted and she was only allowed to visit him . The applicant was not a party to the proceedings . PERSON refused to give NORP away when police officers came to take him to a children ’s home .

On DATE the applicant lodged a new motion with ORG to have a guardian appointed to represent NORP for the purposes of the paternity proceedings .

Prior to that , on DATE , the applicant requested ORG to institute on his behalf proceedings to have his paternity established in respect of NORP In a reply of CARDINAL DATE , the prosecutor recalled that the applicant , by a motion of DATE , had requested the civil court to appoint a guardian for the child for the purpose of instituting the paternity proceedings , and that therefore it would not be advisable that the prosecuting authorities considered the applicant ’s request , which , if successful , would lead to CARDINAL parallel sets of proceedings pending at the same time , both concerning the determination of the applicant ’s paternity in respect of NORP

In DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s motion of DATE because he had failed to pay the court fee . Subsequently , the applicant paid the fee and the proceedings were resumed .

At a hearing held on DATE the applicant withdrew his motion to have a guardian appointed and the court discontinued the proceedings .

On DATE PERSON declared before ORG that her new partner PERSON was NORP ’s biological father . On DATE she lodged a motion with ORG to have her full parental rights restored . By a decision of DATE the ORG revoked its decision of CARDINAL DATE to take NORP into public care and ordered that he could stay with her until the termination of the proceedings , considering that since her living conditions had improved , she would be capable of taking adequate care of NORP until a final decision on the merits be given .

By a decision of DATE ORG restricted ORG parental rights by appointing a guardian to supervise her in the exercise of her rights .

On DATE the new partner of ORG , PERSON , was acknowledged as NORP ’s legal father , following his recognition of paternity .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a request to institute investigations concerning his parental rights . He alleged that criminal offences had been committed in connection with the relevant proceedings . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the prosecution authorities refused to institute investigations , finding that no laws had been breached in connection with determination of the applicant ’s parental rights .

On DATE the applicant lodged another motion with ORG , asking again for the appointment of a guardian to represent the child for the purpose of instituting paternity proceedings . By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed it , stating that the applicant had no right of action , since following the declaration of DATE it was PERSON who was NORP ’s legal father .

On DATE the applicant again requested the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings , alleging that the birth certificate of NORP had been forged . On DATE the ORG refused to do so , finding that the child ’s birth certificate had been amended following the recognition of the paternity of NORP by his mother ’s new partner PERSON The prosecutor observed that under the applicable laws recognition of a child was only possible if the mother gave her consent thereto . No criminal offence had been committed in that NORP ’s certificate had been rectified to reflect the recognition of paternity , effected with his mother ’s consent .

The applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision . On CARDINAL DATE the appellate prosecutor dismissed his appeal .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of the ORG of DATE by which it had stated that in view of the fact that PERSON had recognised his paternity of NORP , the applicant had no standing to bring paternity proceedings . On DATE the court dismissed his appeal .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the President of the ORG informed the applicant that the paternity proceedings had been discontinued due to the fact that ORG ’s new partner had recognised his paternity in respect of the child .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the ORG failed to take steps in the interest of the child in order to have the applicant ’s paternity recognised . He submitted that he did not have access to the child , although he was his biological father . He argued that the parental skills of ORG were inadequate as shown by the fact that her CARDINAL other children PERSON and ORG had been placed with a foster family ; that in DATE she had left the child with him and disappeared for DATE , and that the man who had recognised NORP as his child was a habitual offender . He emphasised that the court relied only on the submissions of the mother , disregarding entirely his interests as a biological father of the child , and failed to take the child ’s best interests properly into consideration .

In a letter of DATE of the President of ORG , the applicant was informed that a copy of the decision of DATE by which ORG had dismissed the applicant ’s request to have a guardian for the child appointed for the institution of paternity proceedings , had been sent to a wrong address . Therefore , the decision should be served again on the applicant . The applicant was further informed that ORG had , on DATE , restricted the parental rights of PERSON and PERSON in respect of NORP in that a guardian had been appointed to supervise them in the exercise of their parental rights .

By letters of DATE and DATE the President of ORG informed the applicant that his further complaints concerning the conduct of ORG as regards NORP were unfounded , and that it was PERSON who was the father of the child .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG recalled that the applicant ’s request to institute proceedings on his behalf in order to have him recognised as a biological father of D had been refused on CARDINAL DATE as it was not in the child ’s best interest .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant , in reply to his complaints , that the case - files concerning the child had been reviewed and the applicant ’s complaints about the failure to examine his position as a biological father of NORP were unfounded .

The applicant does not have any access to the child .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that

“ ( e ) everyone shall have the right to legal protection of his private and family life , of his honour and good reputation , and to make decisions about his personal life . ”

Pursuant to LAW , parents shall have the right to educate their children in accordance with their own convictions . Such upbringing shall respect the degree of maturity of a child as well as his freedom of conscience . LAW or deprivation of parental rights may be effected only in the instances specified by statute and only on the basis of a final judicial decision .

DATE LAW provides that “ GPE shall ensure protection of the rights of children . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW , insofar as relevant , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Judgments of the Constitutional Court shall be universally binding and final .

Judgments of ORG , ... shall be published without delay .

A judgment of the Constitutional Court shall take effect from DATE of its publication ; however , ORG may specify another date for DATE the binding force of a normative act . Such time - limit may not exceed DATE in relation to a statute or DATE in relation to any other normative act . Where a judgment has financial consequences not provided for in the ORG , the Constitutional Court shall specify a date for the end of the binding force of the normative act concerned , after seeking the opinion of ORG .

A judgment of ORG on the non - conformity with LAW , an international agreement or statute , of a normative act on the basis of which a final judicial decision , a final administrative decision or settlement of other matters was issued , shall be a basis for re - opening proceedings , or for quashing the decision or other settlement in a manner and on principles specified in provisions applicable to the given proceedings ” .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a party to civil proceedings which have terminated with a final judgment on the merits can request that these proceedings be re - opened , if ORG has found that the legal provision on the basis of which this judgment was given was incompatible with LAW . Such a request can be lodged with the competent court within DATE from the judgment of ORG .

DATE the Code reads :

“ If there is no legal presumption in operation that the mother ’s husband is the father of her child , or if such presumption has been rebutted , the paternity of the child may be established by the recognition of paternity by the father , or by a decision of a court . ”

A declaration recognising paternity of a child can be made before a registrar of a local births , marriages and deaths register office .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL reads :

“ The recognition of paternity in respect of a minor child should be subject to the approval of its mother . On the death of the mother , or if her parental rights have been withdrawn , or if a contact with her is impossible , a court appointed guardian shall give consent to the recognition of paternity . ”

Pursuant to Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL , an action to have the recognition of a child declared null and void can be brought by the mother , by the child and by the man who recognised his paternity . Under LAW the prosecutor may also bring an action to have the recognition of a child declared null and void .

Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code , an action to establish paternity may be brought by the mother or by the child , or by the prosecutor .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provides that a guardian can be appointed by the family court to represent the child , if neither of the parents can represent it in judicial proceedings .

In its judgment of DATE ( K CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG ruled on the ORG ’s request to have LAW and LAW declared incompatible with LAW . The ORG argued that the fact that a biological father did not have standing to lodge himself with a court an action to have his paternity recognised in respect of an out - of - wedlock child and that such action on behalf of a father could be only brought by the public prosecutor , breached the father ’s right to have access to a court , guaranteed by LAW . It was further argued that this restriction on access to a court was in violation of these provisions of the LAW which guaranteed respect for private and family life .

The Constitutional Court observed that the LAW does not regulate the issue of methods to be applied in order to establish filiation of children to whom a presumption of paternity of the mother ’s husband did not apply . This matter is left to be regulated by statute . Nevertheless , the constitutional principle of protecting the child ’s best interest , enshrined in LAW , indicated preference as to the manner in which legal procedures to establish filiation should be shaped , namely so as to allow legal filiation to be determined in accordance with child ’s biological parentage .

ORG observed that under LAW the recognition of paternity by way of unilateral declaration of a putative biological father was subject to the mother ’s consent .

ORG observed that the decision of the legislature to make the effectiveness of recognition of paternity by a declaration made under this provision conditional on the mother ’s consent was justified by the need to protect mother ’s personal rights . Had the requirement of consent been removed , it would create a situation in which a man would be the sole person capable of establishing the child ’s filiation . This could result in creation of legal bonds inconsistent with biological reality and , also , expose the mother to the risk of harassment by a man claiming to be a biological father of her child . However , ORG considered that it would not be justified to introduce a judicial control over the mother ’s consent . This would ultimately lead to replacing the mother ’s consent by consent given by a court , which would undermine the very reason for the existence of unilateral declaration of paternity as a special method of establishing legal ties between the father and child .

The Constitutional Court further considered that the lack of standing before a court for a man claiming to be the biological father of a child and trying to have his paternity recognised in law in procedure provided for by LAW had to be seen in the light of the fact that the recognition of paternity by way of declaration was conditional on the mother ’s consent , referred to above .

The necessity of the mother ’s consent , on the one hand , and the lack of standing before the court to have one ’s paternity recognised in law on the other resulted in a situation in which , in the absence of such a consent , a biological father would be deprived of any possibility of creating legal ties between himself and his child , either by way of declaration or by instituting paternity proceedings . ORG emphasised that a decision of the prosecuting authorities to institute proceedings with a view to creating such ties was left entirely to their discretion . All these factors taken together led the ORG to the conclusion that the lack of standing before a court of the biological father in proceedings to have his biological paternity recognised in law were in breach of LAW , providing for protection of the children ’s rights as a constitutional principle . It was further stated that this was also in breach of the father ’s right to respect for his private and family life , guaranteed by LAW . Moreover , these provisions breached LAW , guaranteeing the right of access to a court .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr O. Kazimov and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

( a ) Criminal proceedings against the applicant .

DATE the applicant held a number of the highest managerial posts in the country 's oil sector , including the “ ORG and ORG . For DATE he worked as a First Deputy Prime Minister and , later , from DATE he was the Speaker of the Milli Mejlis ( the ORG ) . In DATE he resigned from his office , allegedly in protest of the ORG 's policies , and left the country . While abroad , he founded and led ORG ( the “ DPA ” ) with its headquarters in GPE . He currently resides in GPE .

As a result of the criminal investigation commenced in DATE , in DATE the Prosecutor General indicted the applicant for misappropriation of public funds , abuse of power and fraud during his work in the oil companies and in the government . ORG sought the applicant 's arrest and trial . On DATE ORG , based on ORG bill of indictment , issued an order for the applicant 's detention on remand pending trial . On DATE ORG upheld the district court 's order . However , the applicant was not actually arrested , because he had never returned to GPE since his departure in DATE .

Believing that if he returned home he would be immediately arrested , the applicant lodged , through his lawyer , a petition with ORG , asking for the substitution of the detention on remand by a house arrest pending trial . Under this condition , he would agree to return home and stand trial .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's petition . It held that the detention on remand was the proper pre - trial measure , because of the gravity of the alleged crimes , the applicant 's continued “ escape from the investigation , ” as well as the reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant would influence other parties to the proceedings in order to hinder the pre - trial investigation and the trial .

The applicant appealed against this decision to ORG . On DATE ORG refused to consider the appeal in substance . In accordance with its interpretation of the domestic criminal procedure law , the court held that no appeal could lie against a first instance court 's decision concerning a petition on replacement of a pre - trial detention by a house arrest .

At present , the applicant resides in GPE as a political refugee . The criminal proceedings against him are still pending and the order on his detention on remand is still in force . It follows that the applicant would be arrested and detained upon his return to GPE .

( b ) Rejection of the applicant 's candidacy for the presidential elections .

In DATE the ORG nominated the applicant as a candidate for the presidential elections of DATE . However , on DATE ORG ( the “ Commission ” ) rejected the applicant 's nomination based on LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

The ORG filed a lawsuit in ORG , requesting the court to quash the ORG 's decision as unlawful . On DATE ORG rejected this request , holding that the ORG 's decision was lawful for CARDINAL reasons . Firstly , it found that the registration documents submitted to the Commission were not properly certified and legalised and , thus , were not in conformity with LAW requirements . Secondly , the applicant failed to submit evidence of the fact that he had no obligation before any foreign state ( in his case , GPE ) . Upon the ORG 's further appeal , on DATE ORG upheld ORG decision .

LAW of DATE

Section II . Fundamentals of the ORG .

According to LAW , the state power in GPE shall be based on the principle of separation of powers . The legislative , executive and judicial branches of the government shall be independent within the framework of their respective authority .

Section V. Legislative Power .

In accordance with LAW , the legislative power shall be exercised by the Milli Mejlis ( the ORG ) of GPE .

Article CARDINAL authorizes the Milli Mejlis to pass laws , constitutional laws and resolutions on the matters within its competence .

Pursuant to LAW , the Milli Mejlis has competence to establish rules , by way of passing laws , with regard to all the major spheres of state regulation including , inter alia , the human rights and freedoms , elections , judicial system , status of natural and legal persons , civil law issues , criminal responsibility , litigation procedure , enforcement of judgments , family law issues , labour and social security , finance and banking , taxation and customs , communications and transport , commercial transactions , defence and military service , ratification and denunciation of treaties , and the like .

Section VI . Executive Power .

In accordance with LAW , the executive power shall be exercised by the President of GPE .

Under LAW , the President is empowered , inter alia , to sign and publish laws passed by the Milli Mejlis as well as deal with matters not expressly referred to the authority of the Milli Mejlis by LAW .

Article CARDINAL provides the President with a right to veto the laws passed by the Milli Mejlis . The Milli Mejlis may overturn the presidential veto by a qualified majority of votes .

In accordance with LAW , the President shall issue decrees and orders with regard to matters within his competence .

Section X. Legislative System .

In accordance with LAW , the laws ( legislative acts ) of the Milli Mejlis shall have the superior legal authority over any other normative legal acts , except the LAW and acts adopted by public referendum . The presidential decrees and orders shall not contradict the laws passed by the Milli Mejlis .


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 , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He currently lives in GPE .

CARDINAL .

The applicant was born in GPE and lived there until DATE . He was educated in GPE and for a period he was employed by a NORP aviation handling company . On DATE , when he was DATE , he was granted DATE leave to enter GPE as a student . His leave was subsequently extended to DATE . In DATE the applicant was joined by his partner , who was also a national of GPE . The applicant married his partner in GPE in DATE . They had CARDINAL children , who were born on DATE , DATE and DATE . The children were born in GPE and all are NORP citizens . The oldest child has a daughter , who is now DATE .

Prior to the expiry of his leave in DATE , the applicant applied for a further extension . The following day , however , he was caught returning from the GPE with a NORP visitor 's passport obtained by deception . Although he was not prosecuted for the offence , the application to extend his leave was refused .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed of his liability for deportation . He was served with a deportation order on DATE . He attempted to appeal against the order and a second deportation order was served on DATE . The applicant appealed against the second order , but the appeal was subsequently withdrawn .

The applicant was convicted of theft and conspiracy to defraud on DATE . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . Other convictions DATE resulted in CARDINAL terms of DATE imprisonment to run concurrently .

On DATE the applicant claimed asylum by post , but on DATE the application was refused for non - compliance .

On DATE the applicant and his wife applied for leave to remain under an overstayer 's regularisation scheme . On DATE they both were granted Indefinite Leave to Remain .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of sexual assault . The conviction stemmed from an incident in which the applicant , in his capacity as a housing officer , touched a woman 's breast without her consent . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , with CARDINAL to be spent in custody and CARDINAL on licence , and he was registered as a sex offender . The offence was considered to be particularly serious as the applicant was in a position of trust at the time it was committed . The sentencing judge described the offence as “ a gross sexual intrusion into the private life of a woman by someone in a position of trust ” . He reduced the sentence , however , to lessen the impact on the applicant 's family and he did not recommend him for deportation .

NORP The Secretary of ORG for ORG made a deportation order on DATE on the basis that deportation was necessary for the prevention of disorder and crime and for the protection of health and morals . The applicant appealed against that decision but the appeal was dismissed on DATE . Although the judge accepted that the applicant had established a family life in GPE , and that deportation would interfere with that family life , he concluded that the measure was proportionate because the applicant remained a potential offender who posed a threat to society . The applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review , which was refused on DATE and again on DATE .

The applicant subsequently was served with removal directions set for DATE . On DATE he introduced his case with the ORG and on DATE the ORG ordered that the case be notified urgently to the Government under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court . On DATE the applicant again sought permission to apply for judicial review . Permission was refused and on DATE the appeal against this decision was dismissed at an oral hearing . The applicant was served with new removal directions and he was deported to GPE on DATE .

From DATE until DATE both the applicant and his representative requested the applicant 's risk - assessment report from ORG , initially on a DATE basis and subsequently at regular intervals . The report , however , was only disclosed on DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of LAW DATE ( as amended by ORG ) provides that a person who is not a NORP citizen shall be liable to deportation from GPE if the Secretary of ORG deems his deportation to be conducive to the public good . Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act DATE provide for a right of appeal against this decision on the grounds , inter alia , that the decision is incompatible with the Convention .

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides that , in determining any question that arises in connection with a Convention right , courts and tribunals must take into account any case - law from this ORG so far as , in the opinion of the court or tribunal , it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arisen .

A person who has been deported may apply to have the deportation order revoked . Paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL of ORG CARDINAL ( as amended ) provide that :

“ CARDINAL . An application for revocation of a deportation order will be considered in the light of all the circumstances including the following :

( i ) the grounds on which the order was made ;

( ii ) any representations made in support of revocation ;

( iii ) the interests of the community , including the maintenance of an effective immigration control ;

( iv ) the interests of the applicant , including any compassionate circumstances .

In the case of an applicant who has been deported following conviction for a criminal offence continued exclusion

( i ) in the case of a conviction which is capable of being spent under LAW , unless the conviction is spent within the meaning of that LAW or , if the conviction is spent in DATE , DATE have elapsed since the making of the deportation order ; or

( ii ) in the case of a conviction not capable of being spent under that LAW , at any time , unless refusal to revoke the deportation order would be contrary to LAW or LAW .

will normally be the proper course . In other cases revocation of the order will not normally be authorised unless the situation has been materially altered , either by a change of circumstances since the order was made , or by fresh information coming to light which was not before , or the appellate authorities or the Secretary of ORG . The passage of time since the person was deported may also in itself amount to such a change of circumstances as to warrant revocation of the order .

Revocation of a deportation order does not entitle the person concerned to reenter GPE ; it renders him eligible to apply for admission under LAW . Application for revocation of the order may be made to ORG or direct to ORG . ”


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP citizen who was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE .

From DATE until DATE the applicant was detained in FAC . From DATE until DATE he was held in FAC . From DATE he was detained in GPE . On an unspecified date in DATE or in DATE he was once again committed to FAC . On DATE the applicant was released .

The applicant submitted that in FAC he had been held consecutively in CARDINAL overcrowded cells , without specifying the living space per prisoner . He further submitted that his cell in FAC had been so overcrowded that CARDINAL people could stand in the middle at the same time . Detainees had to take turns to eat meals at a small table or hold their plates in their laps . Cells in FAC were furnished with old and damaged stools , tables and cupboards .

The applicant explained that ORG had been a semiopen facility ( zakład półotwarty ) where he and CARDINAL other detainees were held together in a cell of CARDINAL m² . The cell in question had CARDINAL window and was equipped with bunk beds , tables , cupboards and several stools . The conditions in the entire prison were marked by overcrowding , inadequate sanitation and hygiene , insufficient lighting as well as lack of proper ventilation . The buildings were dilapidated and their walls were cracked due to vibrations resulting from the activity of a nearby coal mine . The shower room was located in a separate building and prisoners were not given enough time to dry or change inside the shower room and therefore had to walk the distance back to DATE wet and undressed .

The Government explained that the minimum living space per prisoner in the CARDINAL cells in FAC in which the applicant had been held ranged from CARDINAL m² , depending on their occupancy at a particular time . They conceded that temporary overcrowding had existed in FAC at the material time but the prison authorities had not been storing information as to the exact number of prisoners being detained in each cell at different times in the relevant period .

According to the Government , the applicant remained in ORG for DATE in cells measuring from CARDINAL m² per inmate . In ORG the applicant had been detained in a cell with a living space per inmate ranging from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL m² , depending on its occupancy at TIME . Cells in FAC had been open DATE from TIME until TIME and the applicant could spend almost the entire day outside his cell . The sanitation and hygiene were adequate . The applicant ’s cell was properly lit by natural light . The ventilation system had worked properly but for rare situations where detainees themselves would clog ventilation holes with paper . The ORG moreover submitted that the prison buildings had been regularly renovated . The shower rooms were well heated with radiators and there had been a hallway in front of its entrance .

The applicant filed a number of complaints about the conditions of his detention with the ORG authorities , the remand centre ’s administration and the ORG , all of which were dismissed .

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

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


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his position as a department manager ( начальник бюро ) of ORG ( “ the Company , ” GPE державний експериментальний оптико-механічний завод ) .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the GPE ORG ( “ ORG , ” Ленінський районний суд м. Вінниця ) , seeking his reinstatement and compensation for unlawful dismissal . On DATE the ORG stayed the proceedings until resolution of another dispute between the applicant and the Company .

On DATE the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed , as the aforementioned dispute had been resolved to his satisfaction . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( Управління юстиції ORG області ) that ORG had never responded to his request of DATE .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that on DATE it had discontinued the consideration of his claims because of his repetitive failures to attend the hearings . In DATE the applicant appealed against this decision .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant an extension for lodging his appeal , having noted that the applicant had not been informed about the decision of CARDINAL DATE in due time .

On DATE ORG ( “ ORG , ” PERSON суд ORG області ) quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that ORG had not duly summoned the applicant to attend the hearings and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the GPE ORG ( “ ORG , ” PERSON суд м. Вінниця ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's claims . On DATE the applicant appealed against this judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . In DATE CARDINAL the applicant appealed in cassation .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal for having being lodged out of time . The applicant appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . In DATE the applicant appealed in cassation against the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

By omission of the court personnel , the applicant 's cassation appeal was transferred to ORG only in DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's request for leave to appeal in cassation .


No violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Kazakhstan)

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant submitted CARDINAL medical documents issued on DATE and DATE in GPE , stating that he was suffering from non - osteogenic fibroma of the bones , a condition causing tumours .

On DATE ORG launched a criminal case against the applicant for fraud .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the authorities issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant , which was authorised by the prosecutor on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was charged with fraud , and on DATE he was placed on the international wanted list .

NORP In DATE or DATE the applicant moved to GPE .

NORP On DATE the applicant was detained as a wanted person in GPE .

On DATE he was questioned by the prosecutor ’s office of LOC . The applicant stated that he had arrived in GPE in DATE as a visitor and had subsequently learned of the criminal proceedings initiated against him in GPE . He had decided not to return to GPE to avoid criminal prosecution . According to the Government , the applicant had not indicated any fear of ill - treatment or torture in GPE and had assumed that he was not a victim of political persecution . The Government did not provide a copy of the record of the interview .

By a decision of DATE LOC , GPE , remanded the applicant in custody pending extradition . Subsequently , the detention period was extended on several occasions .

On DATE the Prosecutor General ’s office of GPE requested the applicant ’s extradition pending criminal charges against him . The request contained assurances that the applicant would not be extradited to a third state without the consent of GPE , nor would he be held criminally liable for a different crime committed before his extradition , that upon termination of the trial proceedings and completion of any criminal sentence the applicant would be free to leave GPE and that the charges against the applicant were of a common criminal nature and he would not be discriminated against on any ground .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s extradition .

On an unspecified date the prosecutor ’s office of LOC investigated the applicant ’s allegations of lack of proper medical treatment while in detention . In its conclusion issued on DATE it stated that during his detention in GPE the applicant had been examined by medical professionals on numerous occasions , including in connection with his tumour condition . There had been no deterioration in his condition during the detention , and the medical documents supplied had served as proof that the necessary medical treatment would be available to the applicant in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative challenged the extradition order .

On DATE the Prosecutor General ’s office of GPE submitted an additional letter to ORG office of GPE , containing further assurances in respect of the applicant . In particular , it referred to the ratification by GPE on DATE of ORG , prohibiting , among other things , torture , inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment . The author of the letter pledged that , irrespective of the fact that GPE was not a party to ORG , it would ensure the rights guaranteed to the applicant by ORG , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . Finally , the letter assured that the applicant would be detained in compliance with LAW of DATE and would be provided with medical aid , if necessary .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint against the extradition order . It noted , inter alia , that the applicant ’s extradition would not violate LAW , as the applicant was being prosecuted for a common crime and there was nothing to suggest that he would be subject to torture , inhuman treatment or lack of adequate medical treatment in GPE . It further considered that none of the medical documents provided demonstrated that the applicant had an illness which precluded him from being detained or extradited . It also relied on the assurances given by ORG Office of GPE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal . The appeal decision essentially repeated the reasoning of the lower court .

On DATE the President of the ORG to which the case had been allocated decided , in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , to indicate to ORG , under LAW , that the applicant should not be extradited to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG . The case was also granted priority under LAW .

On DATE the ORG office of LOC rejected the applicant ’s application for refugee status after analysing his arguments in accordance with LAW and concluding that the applicant did not have any grounds to fear persecution if he returned to GPE . By a decision of DATE ORG upheld this decision on appeal in final instance .

On DATE the same office refused to accept the applicant ’s application for NORP citizenship , referring to the criminal charges against him in GPE .

Finally , on DATE the same office refused the applicant ’s request for asylum in GPE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal at the final level of jurisdiction .

Everyone has the right to liberty and security ( LAW ) . Arrest , remand in custody and custodial detention are permissible only on the basis of a court order . The term during which a person may be detained prior to obtaining such an order can not exceed TIME ( LAW ) .

The relevant international legal material is summarised in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .


Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant , a former police officer , was arrested , with CARDINAL others , on suspicion of drug dealing .

On DATE the applicant was detained pending investigation , and on DATE charges were brought against him .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of drug dealing and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for retrial .

On DATE the Volgograd ORG convicted the applicant of drug dealing and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The judgment was not appealed against and became final .

On DATE the applicant was released on completing his sentence .

On DATE officer P. of the Volgograd Regional remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( ФБУ ИЗ № CARDINAL/CARDINAL PERSON по PERSON области ) , where the applicant was detained at the material time , allegedly hit the applicant several times with a rubber truncheon on the lower back and buttocks . The applicant could hardly walk afterwards . In the evening he felt feverish . The doctor on duty was to examine the applicant . However , according to the applicant , despite his request the doctor was instructed not to record the injuries .

On DATE the applicant was brought to ORG for trial . However , he felt unwell , and an ambulance team was called . The ambulance paramedic discovered bruises on the soft tissue of the applicant ’s buttocks . When he returned to the remand prison the applicant was examined by a medical assistant . The latter recorded multiple haematomas on the applicant ’s buttocks , measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY . On DATE the applicant made a complaint about the beatings to ORG .

On DATE the chief assistant of ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer PERSON The decision read as follows :

“ [ ... ] The inquiry conducted [ into the applicant ’s allegations ] established that at TIME on DATE [ officers PERSON and ORG . of the ORG Regional remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] took [ the applicant ] out of cell no . CARDINAL for a talk on the subject of compliance with the detention regime [ ... ]

[ Officer PERSON ] invited officer PERSON by telephone to come to his office , no . CARDINAL , and bring [ the applicant ’s ] personal file . TIME those present went to P. ’s office , where PERSON informed [ the applicant ] of the material in the file . The latter threatened to have criminal proceedings instituted against PERSON , and to make all others present regret everything , without offering any further explanation .

At TIME [ the applicant ] was taken to a temporary isolation cell , from where , TIME , he was escorted back to his cell .

No physical force or special means were applied to the [ applicant ] . According to the records on the use of special means , officers PERSON , ORG . and PERSON were not given special means on DATE .

When he returned to his cell [ the applicant ] made no health - related complaints to his cellmates or to the medical unit of the [ remand prison ] .

During the exercise period on DATE [ the applicant ] was rubbing his buttocks against the wall of the exercise yard ( explanations by detainees Sh . , NORP , and others ) , deliberately causing himself harm .

At TIME on DATE , having been escorted to ORG , [ the applicant ] complained to convoy officers that he felt unwell , mentioning in particular pain in the area of his kidneys , for which reason an ambulance was called to the courthouse .

Medical assistant PERSON . discovered haematomas on [ the applicant ’s ] buttocks [ ... ] .

[ The applicant ’s ] allegations of “ blows to the kidneys and high blood pressure ” were not confirmed . His health was assessed as relatively satisfactory .

It follows from submissions by detainees NORP , PERSON and PERSON . that [ the applicant ] repeatedly expressed discontent with [ officer PERSON ] and was planning to make accusations against him ...

In view of the foregoing , [ the applicant ’s ] allegations were not substantiated ... ”

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant obtained written statements from his cellmates PERSON , NORP and PERSON , who stated that they had not seen the applicant causing himself injuries . They further stated that police officer PERSON had made them and other inmates sign statements to the contrary .

In the meantime , in DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of DATE to ORG .

In DATE the applicant was informed that his complaint had been referred to ORG , which , in its turn , referred the complaint to ORG supervising the enforcement of legislation in correctional institutions .

Soon afterwards the applicant received a letter dated DATE from ORG , informing him that his complaint had been examined and that no grounds had been found to quash the decision of DATE . A copy of the relevant decision was not however made available to the applicant .

The applicant tried to challenge the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against officer PERSON before the court examining his criminal case in DATE , during the trial and in DATE on appeal . However , neither of the domestic courts considered the applicant ’s arguments .

Since some considerable time had elapsed since the quashing of the applicant ’s conviction in DATE and no new trial had yet started ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the applicant decided to challenge the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against police officer PERSON in separate proceedings .

On an unspecified date in DATE he challenged the refusal before ORG and ORG .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of the Volgograd Region quashed the decision of QUANTITY DATE , because it had been taken by the wrong person and outside the procedural time - limits . The decision also referred to the results of the inspection of the case file material ( материалы служебной проверки ) . An additional investigation was ordered .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE .

NORP However , on DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against officer P. The decision read as follows :

“ ... Junior inspector [ of facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] PERSON . explained that on DATE ... [ officers PERSON and ORG . ] took [ the applicant ] from cell . CARDINAL to the management and security office . [ Officer PERSON ] was already there . [ They ] spent TIME in the office , after which [ the applicant ] was taken back to cell . CARDINAL . The [ officers ] had no special equipment on them . Neither P. nor ORG were issued with rubber truncheons . He had seen no injuries on [ the applicant ] ; [ the applicant ’s ] behaviour was normal and , [ the latter ] made no health - related complaints .

Similar statements were made by junior inspector [ of facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ] PERSON , who confirmed that no physical force had been applied to [ the applicant ] .

[ Officer ] PERSON submitted that on DATE ... she had been showing [ the applicant ] the material in his personal file , explaining [ to the latter ] the lawfulness of his detention .. On that occasion no violence was used against [ the applicant ] by the officers of IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

[ Officer PERSON . ] submitted that on DATE together with [ officers PERSON and PERSON ] at TIME he had [ had a talk with the applicant ] . [ ... ] On that occasion none of [ the officers ] had used violence on [ the applicant ] , beaten him or threatened him .

Medical staff from PERSON and ORG submitted that [ the applicant ] had not sought medical assistance DATE and DATE .

A medical auxiliary from IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL M. submitted that on DATE he examined [ the applicant ] and discovered blue marks on his buttocks , the origin of which [ the applicant ] did not explain . [ The applicant ] did not seek medical assistance until DATE .

[ Officer PERSON ] [ made statements similar to those made by officers PERSON and ORG . ] ...

[ According to the PERSON records ] , PERSON . , PERSON , NORP , NORP , NORP , PERSON M. , A. [ formerly detained with the applicant ] were no longer being held in facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL [ ... ] .

ORG . confirmed that he had been detained in facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL with [ the applicant ] , but in a different cell [ ... ] . Regarding the circumstances of the alleged beatings , he only knew what [ the applicant ] had told him , that he had filed a complaint about the beatings . [ ... ]

The above - mentioned detainees had not confirmed the alleged beatings at the initial inquiry .

Therefore , it follows that the events outlined by [ the applicant ] in his complaint that he had been beaten up by [ officer P. ] had not taken place [ ... ] . ”

The applicant challenged the above decision before the court .

On DATE the ORG did not find grounds for quashing the decision of DATE . It concluded that the decision in question had been made following analysis of all the pertinent information and in full compliance with the requirements of the domestic law .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE because it had been given in the applicant ’s absence , without necessary measures having been taken to ensure that he was duly notified of the hearing and summons . The case was remitted for fresh examination , with an instruction to check more thoroughly the arguments set out in the complaint .

On DATE ORG held again that the decision of DATE was lawful .

On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .

The applicant was involved in court proceedings over his tenancy rights to a flat , which ended , to the applicant ’s detriment , with final decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE .

The applicant brought proceedings against his former employer ( the GPE police office ) for salary arrears and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG , as the final appeal court , dismissed the applicant ’s claims in full .

Abuse of position associated with the use of violence or entailing serious consequences carries a punishment of CARDINAL ten years’ imprisonment ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE , in force from DATE , the “ CCrP ” ) states that a criminal investigation may be initiated by an investigator or prosecutor on a complaint by an individual ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Within DATE of receipt of such a complaint the investigator or prosecutor must carry out a preliminary inquiry and make one of the following decisions : ( CARDINAL ) to open criminal proceedings if there are reasons to believe that a crime has been committed ; ( CARDINAL ) to decline to open criminal proceedings if the inquiry reveals that there are no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation ; or ( CARDINAL ) to refer the complaint to the appropriate investigating authority . The complainant must be notified of any decision taken . The decision not to open criminal proceedings is amenable to appeal to a higher prosecutor or a court of general jurisdiction ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

The ORG provides for judicial review of a decision or ( in)action on the part of an inquirer , investigator or prosecutor which has affected constitutional rights or freedoms . The judge is empowered to verify the lawfulness and reasonableness of the decision/(in)action and to grant the following forms of relief : ( CARDINAL ) to declare the impugned decision/(in)action unlawful or unreasonable and to order the respective authority to remedy the violation ; or ( CARDINAL ) to reject the complaint ( LAW ) .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , ORG , 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 . His claim for widows’ benefits , namely ORG ( “ WP ” ) , was made on DATE and was rejected on CARDINAL DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . This decision was confirmed by an appeal tribunal on DATE . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

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 .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect)

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jean-Paul Costa;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

The applicant is the sister of PERSON , who was born on CARDINAL DATE and died on DATE after hanging himself in a cell in FAC , where he was in pre - trial detention . They are members of a family of Travellers .

PERSON was separated from his former partner , with whom he had CARDINAL children .

On DATE he was placed under investigation by the investigating judge at the PERSON tribunal de grande instance for the armed assault on DATE of his former partner and their DATE daughter , occasioning total unfitness for work for DATE , and also for criminal damage and theft .

On DATE Joselito Renolde was placed in pre - trial detention in FAC . A medical and psychological report ordered by the investigating judge , submitted on DATE , found that he had retardations and deficits in the cognitive sphere ; that , having a neurotic structure , he possessed immature and infantile defence mechanisms and several paranoid traits ; and that , as he was incapable of mentalising , all his violence was expressed on a physical level .

On DATE he was transferred to FAC to be closer to his family . His personal file described him as a normal person and mentioned sedative treatment .

On DATE PERSON attempted to commit suicide by cutting his arm with a razor and was treated at the infirmary . The warder on duty found him to be somewhat “ disturbed ” and called in the Rapid Crisis Intervention Team ( ORG – “ ERIC ” ) from the psychiatric unit at ORG after ORG had claimed to be hearing voices . The duty officer also observed CARDINAL other cuts on his forearm and noted in the file that he had forced his way out of his cell .

NORP The emergency report drawn up by the PERSON team stated :

“ Patient who made an SA [ suicide attempt ] by cutting his forearm with a razor . This act took place in the context of a hallucinatory delusional state observed since DATE by the prison duty staff . On being interviewed , the patient displays incoherent , dissociative speech , a listening attitude , mentions verbal hallucinations , [ illegible ] , persecutory delusional statements ... The patient mentions his psychiatric history , says that he has already been admitted to hospital and has already taken Tercian ... Conclusion : acute delirious episode . ”

The PERSON team accordingly prescribed antipsychotic neuroleptic treatment , later adding an anxiolytic . The infirmary staff supplied the medicine to ORG twice a week from DATE , without checking that he actually took it .

From DATE , PERSON was treated by ORG ( service medico - psychologique regional – “ the ORG ” ) and placed in a cell on his own under special supervision , which took the form of more frequent patrols . He was seen by the PERSON on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE a trainee warder reprimanded him for throwing a piece of bread out of the window . PERSON threatened her with a fork , saying :

“ I ’ll see you outside and we ’ll see who has the power . ”

He then threw a stool in her face . The warder was certified unfit for work for DATE .

During the inquiry into that incident , PERSON made incoherent statements and denied what had happened . The inquiry report stated : “ very disturbed prisoner who had already wanted to go to the PERSON at CARDINAL TIME , received by the PERSON in the TIME ” . As to the action to be taken , the report stated :

“ Very disturbed prisoner , being monitored by the ORG , will need to go before the disciplinary board . ”

On DATE PERSON was interviewed by the disciplinary board and spoke coherently . He stated that he had been asleep because of his medication but that the warder would not leave him alone ; he denied that he had thrown a stool at her or threatened her with a fork but admitted having thrown a piece of bread outside .

The disciplinary board found it established that physical violence had been used , entailing disciplinary offences punishable under LAW and LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW . PERSON was given a penalty of DATE in a punishment cell , which he began serving on DATE .

On DATE he wrote a letter to his sister in which he compared his cell to his tomb and said that he was “ at the limit ” and taking tablets . He explained to her that he would be spending DATE confined within CARDINAL walls , with no television or music . In a drawing he depicted himself as crucified on a tomb bearing his name , next to the bed in his punishment cell , and ended his letter as follows :

“ PERSON [ his nickname ] is a sad story , you know , I do n’t know if my life is worth living , with all the troubles I have ... and yet I have n’t hurt anyone . You know , I ’m alive and I do n’t even know why . I believe in heaven , maybe it ’s better up there . You know , I would like to sleep and never wake up again . What is keeping me going are the little ones at home , because I love them . ”

NORP The letter was sent on DATE ( date of the postmark ) .

NORP In a letter of DATE , received at the investigating judge ’s registry on DATE , ORG lawyer asked the judge to order a psychiatric examination of her client in order to ascertain whether his mental state was compatible with detention in a punishment cell . The letter from the lawyer read as follows :

“ ... I met Mr Joselito Renolde in FAC , in a punishment cell where he has been placed for DATE .

Mr PERSON mental state prompted the present request .

I asked Mr PERSON to describe the events that led to disciplinary proceedings being instituted against him . He stated , among other things : ‘ I was hearing voices ... It was my family ... I wake up in the morning , I say it ’s daylight ... They tell me it is n’t ... ’ etc . ...

I was unable to establish a coherent dialogue with Mr PERSON .

Having regard to this state of affairs and the worsening of his condition ( I would also point out that , unless I am mistaken , Mr PERSON has been admitted to a psychiatric institution in the past ) , I consider it essential that he should be seen as soon as possible by a psychiatric expert appointed by you .

The purpose of the present request is therefore to obtain a psychiatric examination of ORG , the expert being instructed , in particular , to determine whether PERSON mental or physical state is compatible with pre - trial detention as currently being served , in particular placement in a punishment cell , and whether he should undergo appropriate treatment in view of his condition . ”

According to information supplied by the ORG , the request for an examination was referred on DATE by the investigating judge to the public prosecutor , who stated on DATE that he had no objection to such a measure .

Joselito Renolde was supplied with medication for the last time on DATE . He was handed several days’ medication , with no supervision of whether he actually took it .

During TIME , an intervention report noted that at TIME PERSON was not asleep , was tapping at the bars of his cell and wanted to go out .

On DATE , TIME , a nurse from the psychiatric service met him and told him that someone from social services would be coming to see him later . On leaving his cell for exercise at TIME , he asked to see a doctor . At TIME he returned to his cell .

At TIME the warder on patrol found him hanging from the bars of his cell with a bed sheet . A doctor and CARDINAL nurses from the Outpatient Consultation and Treatment Unit ( unité de consultation et de soins ambulatoires – “ the ORG ” ) arrived at TIME , followed by the ambulance service and fire brigade at TIME Despite efforts to revive him , PERSON was pronounced dead at TIME

After being called to the scene at TIME , the police conducted initial inquiries and interviews . The GPE public prosecutor visited the scene at TIME and a preliminary investigation was opened .

On DATE a forensic medical examiner conducted an autopsy and reached a finding of suicide by hanging .

An expert toxicological report , ordered by the public prosecutor on DATE , found that no medicinal substances were present in ORG body , other than paracetamol .

The warders who had been present on the scene , the medical staff and the prisoners placed in solitary confinement in neighbouring cells were questioned .

Mr NORP , a warder , stated that on DATE of the incident ORG had gone out for exercise without any trouble and that he had been seen that same morning by the medical and psychological service , who had not issued any instructions concerning him . Mr NORP added :

“ Mr Renolde told us that he could hear his son speaking to him at TIME . He explained that people wanted to come into his cell . ”

One of the prisoners in solitary confinement in a neighbouring cell , Mr N. , stated :

“ During our discussions , he told me that he felt anxious and down as he was not used to being alone , and he would speak to God , asking him what he was doing here , and would start to cry ... I called out to him but he did not reply because he was crying . ”

Mr NORP , a warder , mentioned that on DATE he had had to call the PERSON team because ORG had been making strange comments , saying that he could hear his son calling him and telling him that he wanted to kill him . PERSON added :

“ Objectively , I believe that this person was not at ease with himself . I know that he was on medication because he was being monitored by the ORG . It should be pointed out that PERSON was under special supervision because he was being monitored by the psychiatric service . ”

PERSON , the psychiatrist in charge of the PERSON , confirmed that the PERSON had supplied PERSON with medication for DATE in his cell twice a week , on DATE , without the nurses checking whether he actually took it . He pointed out that , where a prisoner ’s mental state required regular attention , the doctor ordered the medication to be taken DATE in the PERSON in the presence of the nurses . In ORG case , he stated that the members of his service had not “ at any time noted any factors suggesting that the medication should be taken at shorter intervals , or in the service itself ” . He added that checking whether all medication prescribed by the PERSON was actually taken was impossible and “ contrary to the principle of trust which underlies the therapeutic alliance in a hospital environment ” .

Mr B. , a psychiatric nurse , stated that ORG had not displayed an attitude suggesting that he might not take his medication .

PERSON , the psychiatric nurse who had seen him the morning before his suicide , stated that he had not seemed particularly depressive to her and that no comments of a depressive nature had aroused her attention DATE .

Joselito Renolde ’s former girlfriend , who was likewise questioned , stated that he had been admitted to psychiatric institutions on several occasions .

On DATE the public prosecutor applied for a judicial investigation to be opened in respect of a person or persons unknown for manslaughter , and an investigating judge of the GPE tribunal de grande instance was appointed to that end . On DATE ORG brothers and sisters , including the applicant , applied to join the proceedings as civil parties .

On DATE the investigating judge appointed CARDINAL psychiatric experts , PERSON and PERSON , instructing them to inspect ORG medical records ; to analyse their contents and to determine whether the condition from which he suffered was compatible with detention in a punishment block , whether the absence of medicinal substances in his blood was normal , whether it was to be concluded that he had deliberately refrained from taking his medication and whether such an interruption of treatment had influenced his behaviour , and in particular his suicide ; to clarify the reason for the ORG team ’s intervention on DATE ; to interview , if necessary , the PERSON psychiatrist and nurses and the members of the PERSON team ; and to determine whether ORG suicide had been foreseeable in view of his conduct and state of health .

NORP The experts inspected the file on the criminal proceedings and ORG medical records . On DATE they submitted their report , concluding as follows :

“ The medical records as a whole and the interviews of those who came into contact with Mr Renolde indicate the following :

– He had acute psychotic disorders at the time of his arrival in GPE d’Arcy , and those disorders seem to have receded fairly quickly as a result of the medication prescribed . In any event , there is little mention of these delusional factors in later observations , although a prison warder observed that Mr Renolde talked to himself at TIME ( hallucinatory dialogue ? ) . The PERSON team found his psychiatric condition to be compatible with detention , not requiring admission to a psychiatric institution . The letter which the prisoner sent his parents on DATE shows that he retained a certain degree of coherence , although he may have been keeping his delirium or hallucinatory disorders to himself .

– There is no evidence in the file indicating the presence of a depressive syndrome as such : no sign of carelessness , no expression of suicidal thoughts , no manifest sadness , apart from , of course , a legitimate gloom or sadness linked to incarceration , separation from his children , etc . ...

Having regard to the context and to the information in our possession , we consider that his committing suicide was more the consequence of a psychotic disorder than of a depressive syndrome . The act may have taken place in a hallucinatory state ( it appears that he sometimes heard voices telling him to kill himself ) , especially if the medication had not been correctly taken , as the toxicological examinations show .

It is to be noted that the response of the PERSON team , which intervened from the outset following a suicide attempt , was to prescribe neuroleptics and not antidepressants , which confirms the psychotic nature . These disorders could perhaps have called for a discussion of the advisability of admission to a psychiatric unit if the hallucinatory , dissociative and delusional aspects had been prominent and hence incompatible with continued detention . However , seeing that the disorders rapidly improved , it may be felt that continued detention remained possible in so far as the ORG kept the prisoner under very close observation , although supervision of his DATE taking of medication would also have been helpful .

Conclusions :

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON was suffering from psychotic disorders at the time of his arrival in FAC . His psychotic disorders were described as an acute delirious episode by the PERSON team and he made an initial suicide attempt on DATE by phlebotomy . The suicide attempt may have taken the form of self - mutilation in a delusional state . It is also legitimate to wonder whether his assault on a warder , in DATE that followed , was not likewise part of a pathological acting - out process . A course of neuroleptic treatment was immediately started , which seems to have been effective in that PERSON speech became more coherent . At the same time , he was placed in the punishment block . If his state of health was compatible with detention , we do not consider that placement in the punishment block could actually have worsened his psychological condition , since the dominant disorders were not depressive but psychotic . It remains to be determined whether such disorders could have been treated satisfactorily in detention , bearing in mind that the medication was handed to the prisoner only twice a week and thus left at his disposal . In view of his lack of awareness of the disorders , it would perhaps have been preferable to have supplied him with the medication every day and to have supervised his taking it .

( CARDINAL ) If no medicinal substance was found in the toxicological examinations , it can only be concluded that the prisoner refrained deliberately ( or in a state of delirium ) from taking his medication ( anxiolytics and neuroleptics ) . It can not therefore be ruled out that this poor medicine compliance might have contributed to the suicide , which may have been committed in a state of delirium . However , even if PERSON was no longer under medication , none of the members of the team , including the nurse who met him on DATE of his suicide , noted any resurgence of delirium , any incoherent behaviour or any major signs of dissociation . The suicide attempt can not be solely ascribed to psychotic disorders . It may quite conceivably have taken place at a time of legitimate despair or sadness in a person who readily resorted to acting - out ( suicide attempt on DATE , assault on DATE , suicide on DATE ) .

( CARDINAL ) On DATE the ORG team treated an injury which ORG had intentionally inflicted to his forearm with a razor blade in a moment of delirium . The practitioners attending to PERSON did not observe any sign of depression but manifest psychotic disorders involving delirium , hallucination , the listening attitude , etc ...

( CARDINAL ) Having regard to the information in our possession , we did not consider it necessary to meet the ORG staff and the members of the PERSON team .

( CARDINAL ) This prisoner ’s suicide was not foreseeable , at least in the short term , in so far as he did not display any suicidal intentions , no manifest depressive syndrome was present , and he was regularly monitored by the ORG staff and had been seen DATE by a nurse , who did not report anything abnormal in his behaviour . ”

The civil parties were interviewed by the investigating judge on DATE .

On DATE the judge notified the parties that the investigation was complete . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the civil parties’ lawyer asked for certain steps to be taken , namely for the persons responsible to be charged with the manslaughter of PERSON through a breach of their duties of care and safety , in the alternative with endangering his person by placing him in a punishment cell although he was known to be extremely fragile , and in the further alternative with failing to assist a person in danger .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE the judge refused the request , giving the following reasons :

“ The persons who had ‘ custody’ of ORG were not qualified to assess his physical and mental condition or to intervene in the process of distributing and administering his medication .

PERSON was monitored on a very regular basis by the PERSON shortly after being transferred to FAC . He was seen nearly CARDINAL times by that service DATE . His suicide attempt on DATE prompted the ORG team to intervene and to prescribe medication , which alleviated Mr Renolde ’s psychotic disorders . The ORG staff found his psychiatric condition to be compatible with detention , including in a punishment cell , since it did not decide to admit him to a psychiatric institution .

The experts did not find any evidence in the subject ’s psychiatric records suggesting the presence of a depressive syndrome . In their view , his suicide was more the consequence of a psychotic disorder than of a depressive syndrome .

Accordingly , the constituent elements of manslaughter , endangering the person of another or failing to assist a person in danger have not been made out . ”

In an order of CARDINAL DATE the judge ruled that there was no case to answer , on the ground that the investigating authorities had found no basis on which anyone could be held criminally liable .

The civil parties appealed against the order to ORG of ORG , asking for further inquiries to be made with a view to bringing charges against all those responsible for the offences of manslaughter , endangering the life of another and failing to assist a person in danger . In a memorial of DATE they expressed doubts , in particular , about the DATE disciplinary sanction imposed on PERSON , who was known to be a fragile person who had already attempted suicide and had displayed suicidal intentions in his letters .

In an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG ordered additional inquiries and appointed one of its judges to conduct them .

On DATE the judge requested a copy of the file on the investigation in respect of PERSON .

On DATE the judge interviewed PERSON , deputy governor of PERSON Prison and the person in charge of the “ adult ” wing , which included the “ arrivals ” block , the solitary - confinement block and the punishment block . Mr C. stated that ORG had been included in the warders’ special register from DATE , after slashing his arms , and that he had then been examined by the psychiatric emergency team . The psychiatrist had found that he was in a delusional state with acute psychotic decompensation . From that date on , he had been under special supervision and had been placed in a cell on his own . PERSON explained that the taking of medication by prisoners was the responsibility of the ORG staff and not the prison authorities . He also pointed out that the monitoring of correspondence could not entail reading every letter in detail .

DATE . On DATE the investigating judge of ORG ordered a further toxicological report on the basis of samples taken on DATE , with a view to determining the date on which PERSON might have stopped taking his prescribed medication . The report , submitted on DATE , concluded that at the time of his death , PERSON had not taken the prescribed anxiolytic medication for CARDINAL to two days , and the neuroleptic medication for DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the judge interviewed PERSON , the psychiatrist in charge of the PERSON . PERSON considered that PERSON condition had not called for any particular precautions in terms of taking medication , and that there had been no clearly identified or suspected suicide risks , no serious behavioural disorders and no suspicion of incorrect use of medication . Nor , in the psychiatrist ’s view , was there any incompatibility in prescribing neuroleptic medication to a prisoner in a punishment cell .

The submission of the findings of the additional inquiries was noted in a judgment of DATE .

A hearing before ORG was held on DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the ruling that there was no case to answer , holding as follows :

“ Following the prescription of neuroleptic medication by the medical service , no further signs of aggression towards others or himself were observed on the part of ORG after the incident of DATE until TIME DATE . The medication prescribed was therefore effective during that period .

It was decided by the medical authorities in the present case that ORG should be allowed to administer his own treatment after being supplied with several days’ medication . There was a distribution on DATE . The expert toxicological report established that the prisoner had not taken the medication supplied to him .

ORG medication was thus administered in accordance with the regulations set out in the circular of CARDINAL DATE on the provision of health care for prisoners . Since the principle that medication is taken freely by the prisoner was observed in ORG case , it can not be concluded on the basis of the evidence available prior to the TIME of DATE that the failure to depart from this principle constituted negligence within the meaning of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW on the part of any doctor or member of the medical staff of FAC . Since the time of ORG placement in a punishment cell , no suicide risk or serious behavioural disorder had been identified ; nor was there any suspicion of incorrect use of medication .

Accordingly , as regards the actions of the prison staff , neither the investigation nor the additional inquiries have found any potential evidence of negligence within the meaning of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW .

Nor did the imposition of a disciplinary sanction on ORG constitute a manifestly deliberate breach of a special statutory or regulatory duty of safety or care exposing the prisoner to an immediate risk of death or injury . The same applies to the fact of not checking that the medication was taken . No provision prohibited the imposition of a disciplinary sanction in ORG case or [ dictated ] that he should be compelled to take his medication .

Lastly , no evidence from the investigation or the additional inquiries supports the conclusion that anyone deliberately refrained from providing or ensuring the provision of assistance to ORG , who had been prescribed medication and had not caused any particular incident for DATE . ”

The civil parties did not appeal on points of law .

Since DATE , psychiatric treatment for prisoners has been provided by the public hospital service . LAW DATE , issued pursuant to ORG of DATE , provides :

“ Within each regional branch of ORG , CARDINAL or more prison - based psychiatric sectors shall be set up , each attached to a public hospital ... Each of these sectors shall include a regional medical and psychological service [ ORG ] , based in a prison facility ...

The sector shall be placed under the authority of a hospital psychiatrist ... and assisted by a multidisciplinary team from the hospital to which the sector is attached ... ”

DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , of the PERSON provides that the SMPRs’ duties , organisational structure and operating procedures are to be laid down in a set of model rules .

The order of DATE on the model rules states the following :

“ The regional medical and psychological service ... shall engage in activities for the prevention , diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders for the benefit of the prison population in the facility in which it is based ... ”

“ The regional medical and psychological service shall , more specifically , perform the following tasks :

– a general task of prevention of mental illness in the prison environment , in particular through systematic testing for mental disorders of all those entering the facility in which it is based ;

– provision of the necessary psychiatric treatment to both remand and convicted prisoners ... ”

The PERSON of DATE transferred responsibility for the provision of all treatment for prisoners to the public hospital service . Prisoners receive treatment from medical units DATE outpatient consultation and treatment units ( ORG ) DATE that are set up within prisons and are directly attached to the nearest public hospital ( Article NORP CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Article D. CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW provides that the practical aspects of the ORG ’s intervention and its coordination with the ORG are to be laid down in a protocol drawn up in accordance with LAW .

Article D. CARDINAL of the LAW provides that , if the doctors from the ORG or the ORG consider that a prisoner ’s health is not compatible with detention , they are to notify in writing the prison governor , who must immediately inform , where appropriate , the relevant judicial authority .

Article D. CARDINAL provides :

“ Detainees suffering from the mental disorders referred to in LAW can not be kept in a prison facility .

On the basis of a detailed medical certificate and in accordance with the legislation in force , it shall be the duty of the prefect to ensure that they are compulsorily admitted as soon as possible to an approved health - care institution within the meaning of Article L. CARDINAL of LAW .

The rule in the second paragraph of Article NORP CARDINAL concerning supervision by a police or gendarmerie officer while in the institution shall not apply to them . ”

Article NORP CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure divides disciplinary offences by prisoners into QUANTITY of severity . Article NORP CARDINAL - CARDINAL provides that physical violence by a prisoner against a member of the prison staff constitutes a first - degree offence ( the most serious ) .

Placement in a punishment cell is provided for in LAW , point ( CARDINAL ) , of the LAW . Article D. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the LAW lays down the terms of such placement :

“ Placement in a punishment cell under LAW , point ( CARDINAL ) , consists in placing the prisoner in a cell equipped for that purpose , which he must occupy alone . The penalty shall throughout its duration entail the prohibition of purchases in the canteen in accordance with LAW , point ( CARDINAL ) , and the prohibition of visits and all activities .

However , prisoners in a punishment cell shall have TIME exercise per day in an individual yard . The penalty shall , moreover , entail no restrictions on their rights regarding written correspondence .

The duration of the placement in a punishment cell shall not exceed DATE for a first - degree disciplinary offence , DATE for a second - degree disciplinary offence and DATE for a third - degree disciplinary offence . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides :

“ No serious crime ( crime ) or other major offence ( délit ) can be established in the absence of intention to commit it .

However , where the law so provides , deliberately endangering the person of another shall constitute a major offence .

A major offence shall also be established , where the law so provides , in cases of recklessness , negligence or a breach of a duty of care or safety laid down by statute or regulation where it is found that the person concerned failed to display normal diligence , regard being had where appropriate to the nature of his role or functions , his responsibilities and the power and means at his disposal .

In the case referred to in the preceding paragraph , natural persons who did not directly cause the damage , but who created or contributed to creating the situation which allowed the damage to occur or failed to take steps enabling it to be avoided , shall be criminally liable where it is established that they have committed a manifestly deliberate breach of a particular duty of care or safety laid down by statute or regulation , or an act of gross negligence which exposed another person to a particularly serious risk of which they could not have been unaware ... ”

Although the principle of ORG liability for the acts of the prison authorities , particular in relation to prisoner suicides , has been affirmed by the PERSON d’Etat since DATE , such liability has traditionally required the existence of gross negligence .

In the ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( AJDA DATE , p. CARDINAL ) the ORG d’Etat departed from its previous position and acknowledged ORG liability for the suicide of a remand prisoner , on account of a series of acts of ordinary negligence attributable to the prison service . That position has since been reaffirmed ( see , for example , ORG , ORG , DATE , Petites affiches no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , p. CARDINAL , note by PERSON , and ORG , DATE , ORG no . DATE , Jurisprudence p. V , concerning a suicide in an administrative detention centre ) .

The relevant parts of Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison read as follows , as regards prisoners suffering from mental disturbance :

“ ... NORP ORG symptoms , mental disturbance and major personality disorders , risk of suicide

Prisoners suffering from serious mental disturbance should be kept and cared for in a hospital facility which is adequately equipped and possesses appropriately trained staff . The decision to admit an inmate to a public hospital should be made by a psychiatrist , subject to authorisation by the competent authorities .

In those cases where the use of close confinement of mental patients can not be avoided , it should be reduced to an absolute minimum and be replaced with CARDINAL - to - one continuous nursing care as soon as possible .

NORP Under exceptional circumstances , physical restraint for a brief period in cases of severely mentally ill patients may be envisaged , while the calming action of appropriate medication begins to take effect .

The risk of suicide should be constantly assessed both by medical and custodial staff . Physical methods designed to avoid self - harm , close and constant observation , dialogue and reassurance , as appropriate , should be used in moments of crisis . ...

F. Violence in prison : disciplinary procedures and sanctions , disciplinary confinement , physical restraint , top security regime

In the case of a sanction of disciplinary confinement , any other disciplinary punishment or security measure which might have an adverse effect on the physical or mental health of the prisoner , health care staff should provide medical assistance or treatment on request by the prisoner or by prison staff . ... ”

The relevant parts of Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL read as follows :

“ ORG , under the terms of Article CARDINAL.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe ,

Recommends that governments of member states :

– be guided in their legislation , policies and practice by the rules contained in the appendix to this recommendation , which replaces Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG on ORG ; ...

Appendix to Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL

CARDINAL LOC who are suffering from mental illness and whose state of mental health is incompatible with detention in a prison should be detained in an establishment specially designed for the purpose .

CARDINAL If such persons are nevertheless exceptionally held in prison there shall be special regulations that take account of their status and needs .

Prison authorities shall safeguard the health of all prisoners in their care .

CARDINAL ORG services in prison shall seek to detect and treat physical or mental illnesses or defects from which prisoners may suffer .

CARDINAL NORP All necessary medical , surgical and psychiatric services including those available in the community shall be provided to the prisoner for that purpose .

CARDINAL When examining a prisoner the medical practitioner or a qualified nurse reporting to such a medical practitioner shall pay particular attention to :

b. diagnosing physical or mental illness and taking all measures necessary for its treatment and for the continuation of existing medical treatment ;

h. noting physical or mental defects that might impede resettlement after release ;

PERSON making arrangements with community agencies for the continuation of any necessary medical and psychiatric treatment after release , if prisoners give their consent to such arrangements .

CARDINAL NORP The medical practitioner shall have the care of the physical and mental health of the prisoners and shall see , under the conditions and with a frequency consistent with health care standards in the community , all sick prisoners , all who report illness or injury and any prisoner to whom attention is specially directed .

CARDINAL NORP The medical practitioner shall report to the director whenever it is considered that a prisoner ’s physical or mental health is being put seriously at risk by continued imprisonment or by any condition of imprisonment , including conditions of solitary confinement . ... ”


Partly inadmissible;No violation of Art. 5-3

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is currently detained in FAC .

The applicant was arrested on DATE and subsequently remanded in custody by ORG on suspicion of founding and leading a criminal armed gang within which he had ordered various crimes to be carried out , such as murder , robbery and drug trafficking . He was also accused of illegal possession of weapons and their use in assault and battery . In view of the fact that the applicant had been seriously injured by an explosion in his car on CARDINAL DATE , the court had regard to a medical opinion given by experts from ORG of ORG . The experts found that there had been no indication that the applicant ’s detention would pose a danger to his health or life . The experts concluded that the applicant should receive appropriate medication and have unrestricted access to medical advice or be hospitalised on the ward of the detention centre . Accordingly , the court stressed in its decision that the applicant should receive adequate medical assistance during his detention .

The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against that decision . On DATE he requested that the detention order be quashed , arguing , firstly , that there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged and , secondly , that he had been arrested at a hospital while being treated for injuries sustained as a result of a bomb explosion in his car . Accordingly , his detention created a serious risk for his health and life . He submitted medical opinions on his state of health , which confirmed that he had required surgery . According to CARDINAL opinions , the applicant ’s detention in a detention centre could constitute a serious danger to his health and life . A third opinion stated that there were no sufficient and objective grounds for believing that detention could seriously endanger the applicant ’s health or life .

On DATE the applicant ’s detention pending investigation was extended by ORG . The court was of the view that the suspicion against the applicant was reasonable and confirmed by witness testimonies and by evidence obtained during searches . It had also been established in the course of the investigation that the members of the gang were close and , hence , in view of the fact that most of them were sought by means of wanted notices , the applicant ’s detention was the only measure capable of ensuring the proper conduct of the investigation and preventing him from colluding with co - accused . The court took into account the serious nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged and the severity of the penalty to which he was liable . The court also referred to a medical opinion of CARDINAL DATE stating that there were no grounds for finding that the detention created any serious risk for the applicant ’s health or life . The decision was upheld on DATE by ORG .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention was subsequently extended by the same court ’s decisions of DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . They were based in particular on the need to conduct further complex investigative measures , the need to obtain extensive evidence and the fear of the applicant colluding with other gang members or absconding . The risk was very serious in view of the applicant ’s position in the criminal world and the fact that other members of the gang were still sought by the police .

The bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused was transferred to ORG on DATE . The prosecutor requested CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL experts to give evidence and extensive documentary evidence was also submitted .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the trial court held CARDINAL hearings . The hearings were held on average CARDINAL to CARDINAL times per month , at times even CARDINAL times per month . Prior to the first hearing the court held CARDINAL preparatory meetings in order to examine the question of the extension of the applicant ’s detention and his health . On DATE the director of the detention centre submitted a medical opinion prepared by a doctor from the remand centre and subsequently another by an orthopaedist . The specialists recommended that the treatment be continued and confirmed that the applicant was receiving adequate medical assistance . The court ordered medical examinations by a surgeon , including a vascular surgeon , and by a pulmonologist , with a view to verifying whether the applicant could be treated in the detention centre ’s ward .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of founding and leading an armed criminal gang for DATE and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel lodged an application for the applicant to be released to allow him to receive specialist treatment .

On DATE ORG ordered a medical opinion from the Tuberculosis and ORG . The opinion of DATE stated that

“ ( ... ) the patient presents a high risk of recurrent thromboembolic complications , which means that there is a need for preventive measures in certain situations to be taken ( ... ) . His current condition does not seem to warrant further diagnostic studies or referrals , such as to a pulmonologist . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal .

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