The first applicant , Mr GPE Palisko , and the second applicant , PERSON Mária ORG , are a married couple . They are NORP nationals who were born in DATE respectively and live in GPE pri Prešove . The respondent Government were represented by ORG , their Agent , who was subsequently succeeded in that function by PERSON .

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

In DATE the applicants were granted the “ right of personal use ” ( právo osobného užívania ) of a plot of land . Following changes in property law , this right was later transformed into the right of ownership .

The plot is located in the municipality of ORG and registered as no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The nearest public road is FAC . Another nearby public road is FAC .

The municipality is connected to the electricity and gas networks but has no access either to a public water supply or to sewage and water cleansing systems .

The area where the plot is located was subject to a development plan ( zoznam pozemkov na výstavbu ) issued in DATE under the DATE Decree on territorial - planning documentation ( Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) . This plan was later transformed into a zoning plan ( územný plán ) under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) . It designated the relevant area for systematic individual construction of residential houses . The construction of a public road to connect FAC and FAC and a connection to the public utility system were envisaged on land that had previously been expropriated and purchased for that purpose . If constructed , the road would provide access to the LOC house and the electricity and gas networks would run CARDINAL from the house .

Later in DATE the applicants were granted a permit to construct ( stavebné povolenie ) a family house on the assigned plot and commenced the construction work .

On DATE ORG ( Obecný úrad ) held a public meeting to debate the issue of the construction of the new road . The owners of all the plots concerned were invited to attend and the majority of them stated that they were not interested in having the road constructed . The applicants were advised to seek access to their house by way of an easement through the neighbouring property of the first applicant ’s family which they were using de facto for the construction work .

On DATE ORG ( Obecné zastupiteľstvo ) passed a resolution instructing the mayor to reconsider the existing zoning plan in the light of the changing circumstances and approving the sale of the land adjacent to the applicants’ plot to several individuals . The land included the plots on which the new road and the public utility connection were to be located . The sale deprived the applicants’ plot of direct access to FAC . The road and utility connections envisaged in the original plan have never been constructed . Alternative solutions were explored instead ( see below ) .

The applicants requested to be granted , by way of an administrative decision , a right of access to their plot via the plots separating their house from FAC . In a letter of DATE the ORG ( ORG úrad životného prostredia ) informed the applicants that in the circumstances no such right could be granted in administrative proceedings and that they should assert it in the ordinary courts . There is no indication that the applicants have done so . They received a similar response from ORG in a letter of CARDINAL DATE .

In the meantime the applicants finished the construction of their house and requested that the construction be approved ( kolaudačné rozhodnutie ) . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG “ returned ” the request to the applicants and informed them that the construction could not be approved as , contrary to sections DATE CARDINAL of the DATE Decree on general technical requirements for constructions ( Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) , the house was not connected to the land communications or public utilities networks . There is no indication that the applicants formally pursued the request after receiving this letter .

Since then the applicants have been unable to use the house . In order to minimise its dilapidation they have had to carry out maintenance work . They had to stay in another flat which they eventually had to sell to be able to pay the costs of maintenance of the house . At the same time , the applicants have been liable to pay real - estate ownership tax in respect of the plot of land , but not in respect of the house .

On DATE ORG passed a resolution approving a new zoning plan for the period until DATE . It does not envisage the construction of any land communications or utilities connections in the area and is still in place .

The applicants eventually acquired title to the property of the first applicant ’s family and acquired consent from the owner of another neighbouring plot which allows their plot to be connected to the gas and electricity networks from another street a distance of QUANTITY away . They had the gas and electricity connection installed at their own expense , the cost being substantially higher than it would have been under the old zoning plan .

DATE and DATE the applicants on numerous occasions raised the issue of the construction of the access road and the connection to the public utility system with ORG ( GPE kontroly ) , ORG , ORG ( ORG úrad životného prostredia ) , ORG ( ORG úrad ) and ORG ( GPE životného prostredia ) . In response , they were informed that the matter primarily fell within the responsibility of the NORP municipal authorities and that they were free to bring their claims before a court .

On DATE a commission convened under the auspices of ORG ( Pozemkový úrad ) observed that it was the duty of the ORG municipal authorities to construct an access road to the applicants’ plot of land and called on ORG to reconsider its above resolution of DATE .

On DATE , at the ORG request , ORG lodged a complaint against the resolution of DATE . He considered that the municipality was under an obligation to construct an access road to the applicants’ plot and to secure a connection to the public utility system for them . The DATE sale was arbitrary and had prevented the construction of the applicants’ house from being approved . Further to the complaint , on DATE the ORG quashed the resolution of DATE but its decision was later overturned by ORG on appeal .

On DATE the applicants brought a civil action challenging the DATE sale of the land adjacent to the applicants’ plot to third parteis . On CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively the ORG and , on appeal , ORG dismissed the action . They concluded that the applicants did not have a “ pressing legal interest ” in accordance with LAW ) of LAW in having the action determined because it did not directly concern their legal position .

On DATE the applicants submitted a request to the municipal authorities for the construction of an access road and a connection to the utilities network . ORG took notice of the request and advised the applicants to seek access to their plot by way of an agreement with the owners of the land concerned . In response the applicants applied to ORG ( Ústavný súd ) , challenging the way in which the municipal authorities had handled their request and claiming a violation of their property rights as protected under LAW . On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It held that ORG reaction to the ORG request did not take the form of a decision and , as such , could not constitute a violation of individual rights . ORG nevertheless observed that “ the obligation on the [ ORG ] municipal authorities to secure an access road [ for the applicants ] remained undisputed ” ( nie je dotknutá ) .

The applicants also lodged a petition under LAW with ORG , alleging that the municipal authorities’ inactivity in respect of the construction of the road amounted to a violation of their property rights under LAW . On DATE ORG declared the petition inadmissible , observing that the applicants had asserted their property rights in court proceedings and that their action was still pending ( see below ) . In view of the subsidiary role of ORG , a simultaneous assertion of the applicants’ rights before ORG was not appropriate .

On DATE the applicants brought an action against the municipality . They supplemented the action several times , ultimately seeking a judicial order for the municipal authorities to plan and construct an access road to their plot of land . They relied on LAW , section MONEY ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) and sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) . The applicants also sought a ruling establishing an easement in their favour against the owners of the neighbouring plots . However , they later withdrew this claim .

The ORG determined the action for the first time on DATE but the judgment was quashed on appeal .

On DATE ORG granted the action and ordered the municipal authorities to plan and construct an access road for the applicants within DATE from the date on which the judgment became final . It was observed that the applicants had lawfully constructed a house . The municipal authorities had an obligation to provide an access road . Their failure to do so prejudiced the applicants’ rights and exposed them to an imminent risk of substantial damage . In these circumstances the applicants were entitled to have their interests safeguarded under LAW of LAW . The municipal authorities were to choose the means of complying with the ruling , for example by buying out or expropriating the land concerned or establishing an easement in the applicants’ favour . The municipal authorities appealed ( odvolanie ) .

On DATE the ORG ( Krajský súd ) overturned the judgment of DATE and dismissed the action . ORG held that there was no legislation providing a basis for a privatelaw obligation to construct a road . The construction of roads fell within the field of construction law and , as such , could not be ordered under the general civil law .

The applicants challenged the judgment of DATE by means of an appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) . They argued that the municipality was the sole entity responsible for the construction of local communications facilities on its territory . The applicants relied on LAW and maintained that the municipal authorities had the power to initiate expropriation proceedings in respect of the land for the access road and proceedings for establishing an easement in their favour . The applicants also relied on the protection of their property rights under LAW .

On DATE ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) dismissed the appeal on points of law . It held that the ordinary courts could not issue enforceable orders in matters within the field of construction law . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW did not support the ORG request for a construction order , which could only be carried out in accordance with construction law .

The applicants challenged the judgments of DATE and DATE by lodging a complaint under LAW alleging a violation of their property rights and discrimination . On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible , having found no constitutionally relevant illegality , arbitrariness or unfairness .

The LAW regulates the legal and economic status of municipalities and their self - governance and cooperation ( section CARDINAL ) .

General rules concerning municipal self - governance are laid down in DATE . Unless provided otherwise by statute , municipalities are independent in taking decisions and actions in respect of the administration of their property and all affairs falling within their competence ( subsection CARDINAL ) . In particular , municipalities are self - governed in respect of the construction , maintenance and administration of local communications ( miestne komunikácie ) ( subsection CARDINAL ( e ) ) .

The Code lays down general rules concerning territorial planning , construction activities and expropriation in the context of construction activities and defines the status of construction authorities .

Under LAW , as applicable at the relevant time , approved territorial - planning documentation ( územno - plánovacia dokumentácia ) provides a binding basis for the preparation of other categories and levels of territorial - planning documentation , for decisions concerning the use of areas and for documentation concerning specific constructions .

Expropriation is dealt with in DATE . Land and buildings which are necessary for construction purposes may be expropriated and rights in respect of them may be restricted ( “ expropriation ” ) ( LAW ) .

Expropriation may take place only in the public interest in specified circumstances , for example where it is necessary for creating conditions for ensuring access to a plot of land or a construction ( LAW ( d ) ) .

The aim of expropriation is to transfer or restrict the right of ownership or to establish , cancel or restrict easements ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Expropriation can take place only if its aim can not be attained by consent or by other means ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Expropriation is subject to a procedure before the construction authority . The procedure commences on an application by , inter alia , the individual who is to benefit from the expropriation ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

The expropriation procedure is concluded by means of an administrative decision on expropriation ( LAW ) and , unless provided otherwise , is governed by the general rules on administrative proceedings ( LAW ) .

The LAW regulates the construction , use and protection of land communications , the rights and duties of owners , administrators and users of land communications , and ORG administration and supervision of land communications ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Land communications are divided according to their importance , purpose and technical nature into : ( a ) highways ( dialnice ) ; ( b ) roads ( cesty ) ; ( c ) local communications ; and ( d ) utility connections ( účelové komunikácie ) ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

Local communications include streets that are generally accessible to and used by local transport and belong to the local communications network ( section DATE ) ) . They are the property of municipalities ( section CARDINALd(CARDINAL ) ) and their planning , preparation and construction is the responsibility of the municipal authorities ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Utility connections serve , inter alia , to connect production facilities or constructions and real estate with other land communications . They are divided into public and private ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) , may be owned by the ORG or other legal entities or individuals ( section CARDINALd(CARDINAL ) ) and their planning , preparation and construction is in general the responsibility of the owners ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

In the event of a serious threat , the person threatened may seek a judicial order for appropriate and adequate measures to be taken in order to avert any impending damage ( LAW ) .

The Decree was issued by ORG and published in the Collection of Laws as no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

Pursuant to section DATE ) , all constructions must be accessible from public land communication facilities by means of a communication node or a utility connection which must be completed before the construction is approved . Constructions must have adequate access to the water , energy and sewage systems prior to their approval ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .


Violations of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

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

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

Since DATE the applicant has brought , mostly before ORG ( PERSON ) in PERSON , CARDINAL lawsuits against his employer and its management , as well as various private parties and Government officials , alleging irregularities , harassment and/or malfeasance . He has also lodged numerous criminal complaints on the same grounds .

In DATE insolvency proceedings were instituted in respect of the applicant 's employer and the applicant was laid off .

The said lawsuits , however , continued , some of which were subsequently concluded in favour of the applicant .

NORP In DATE the applicant threatened his employer 's general manager with a hunting knife and a fake hand grenade . Ultimately , however , he voluntarily surrendered both , leaving the manager with a cut on his right hand .

NORP The applicant was subsequently charged with the crime of intimidation ( ugrožavanje sigurnosti ) .

In the course of these proceedings the applicant was examined by CARDINAL teams of medical experts .

On DATE the first team of experts ( PERSON centar ORG psihijatriju ) stated that he was mentally ill , suffering from paranoid psychosis , and could not therefore be held criminally liable . Further , since there was a real danger that the applicant could reoffend , the team recommended mandatory psychiatric treatment on an in - patient basis .

On DATE the second team of experts ( ORG bolnica u ORG ) found that the applicant had a borderline personality disorder , but deemed him not seriously aggressive and recommended no in - house psychiatric treatment .

On DATE ORG in GPE found that the applicant was not criminally liable given that he could not control his actions nor properly comprehend their meaning ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It ordered , however , the applicant 's mandatory psychiatric treatment on an out - patient basis .

DATE and DATE the applicant regularly reported for treatment . On DATE he was discharged from this obligation .

On DATE the applicant was summoned by the NORP police in order to give a statement concerning his repeated threats allegedly made to the same general manager .

Following receipt of requests to this effect from ORG ( Okružni sud ) in ORG and ORG ( PERSON ) of DATE and DATE respectively , which courts had themselves already been dealing with the applicant 's claims in a number of separate , pending civil suits ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL , in that order ) , in DATE ORG in GPE recommended to the local ORG ( NORP za socijalni rad , “ the SCC ” ) to formally request the institution of proceedings for the assessment of the applicant 's legal capacity .

On DATE the SCC agreed with this proposal .

On DATE ORG noted that the said proceeding had thus been instituted ex officio and ordered that the applicant be subjected to a psychiatric examination by ORG ( NORP - medicinski odbor medicinskog fakulteta u ORG ) . In so doing , it reasoned as follows :

“ Considering the fact that [ the applicant ] is involved in many legal cases and that the number of these cases ... is sharply on the increase , it is in the court 's interest that his decision - making ability be examined ... [ as already ] ... pointed out by ORG in ORG and ORG ... ”

On DATE the applicant was served with this decision .

The Forensic Medical Board thereafter scheduled examinations for DATE and DATE , but the applicant refused to be examined unless certain conditions were met . In particular , the applicant requested that : ( i ) he be informed in advance of the identity of the experts who would examine him ; ( ii ) he , ultimately , be given an opportunity to accept or reject the experts selected ; ( iii ) his examination be carried out in a courtroom in the presence of the judge as well as the public ; and ( iv ) the entire examination be recorded audio - visually .

On DATE and again on DATE the ORG informed ORG that these conditions were unacceptable .

CARDINAL other experts , appointed by ORG subsequently , shared this view and declined the assignment , while another CARDINAL were unavailable or unwilling to personally examine the applicant .

In the meantime , on DATE , the ORG appointed PERSON . PERSON to act as the applicant 's temporary guardian and represent him in the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was informed that the President of ORG had agreed to allow him to make an audio recording of his psychiatric examination .

On DATE the ORG appointed PERSON to act as the applicant 's new temporary guardian .

On DATE the applicant requested a loan from CARDINAL of the experts , given his “ difficult financial situation ” .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG about his family 's grave financial difficulties , citing his inability to obtain compensation in various civil suits as the main reason therefor .

Following several hearings , held by DATE , attended by the experts and/or the applicant , on DATE ORG ordered that the latter be subjected to a compulsory examination and placed in a psychiatric institution for a period of no longer than DATE . In so doing , the court relied on the opinions of the experts heard to date and the applicant 's own unwillingness to be subjected to a psychiatric examination .

The applicant and ORG each filed an appeal against this decision .

On DATE ORG confirmed the decision rendered at first instance .

On DATE ORG ( Okružni javni tužilac ) in ORG urged ORG to expedite the proceedings , alleging that the applicant had recently threatened his staff in a telephone conversation .

ORG subsequently , on CARDINAL separate occasions , invited the applicant to willingly undergo a psychiatric examination .

On DATE , DATE and DATE PERSON complained to the President of ORG , the President of ORG and the SCC , respectively , stating that the proceedings were initiated in violation of the law , that they were excessively long and had a negative impact on the applicant and his family .

On DATE Z.P. informed the SCC and ORG that he had decided to cease being the applicant 's temporary guardian .

On DATE the SCC informed ORG that the applicant could represent himself in the proceedings .

On an unspecified date ORG ordered the police to arrest the applicant and place him in a psychiatric institution for examination .

On DATE the applicant accepted to be examined in the premises of ORG ( NORP za psihijatriju kliničkog centra u ORG ) . Upon his request , the judge in charge of his case was present during the examination .

On DATE ORG concluded that the applicant suffered from litigious paranoia ( paranoia querulans ) , and recommended that his legal capacity be restricted . The experts recalled , inter alia , numerous lawsuits brought and submissions lodged by the applicant , the criminal proceedings instituted against him in DATE , the threats allegedly made in DATE , and his debt incurred on account of legal costs .

On DATE the presiding judge , GPE , requested to be removed from the case , noting that he had been subjected to continued harassment by the applicant . On DATE , however , the acting President of ORG rejected this request .

In response to ORG prior motion , on DATE the ORG appointed PERSON to act as the applicant 's temporary guardian and represent him in the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG about his family situation . He described the ongoing conflict with his wife concerning his alleged failure to contribute to the family budget , the mutual threats made , and her opinion that all problems stemmed from his “ status ” .

The applicant subsequently gave a written authorization to his neighbour ORG to represent him before ORG . ORG duly submitted his power of attorney and was accordingly summoned to appear at the next hearing .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned , at the applicant 's request , and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the hearing was held and presided over by another judge . The applicant was not present because he had already been placed in pre - trial detention within a separate criminal case brought against him ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant 's representative , ORG , appeared at the hearing , but was not allowed inside the courtroom . The applicant was instead represented by ORG , the lawyer employed at the SCC who had been appointed to represent him . It would seem that the applicant had never met PERSON and was not aware of her appointment .

After the hearing , on DATE , ORG ruled that the applicant was to be partially deprived of his legal capacity . It further specified that his capacity for taking part in legal actions , deciding about his own medical treatment , and dealing with large amounts of money , was to be restricted ( “ ograničava se poslovna sposobnost za učestvovanje u pravnim radnjama , odlučivanje o sopstvenom lečenju i raspologanje većim novčanim sredstvima ” ) . ORG relied on the report produced by ORG , and recalled the expert reports produced in DATE . Lastly , it stated that there was no need to hear the applicant in person since , based on the available psychiatric evidence , this would serve no useful purpose ( nije celishodno ) within the meaning of LAW Non - contentious LAW ( “ the NCPA ” ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . There is no evidence in the case file indicating that PERSON had challenged this decision or the report issued by ORG .

DATE . On DATE the applicant filed an appeal , arguing that : ( i ) the proceedings had been instituted unlawfully ; ( ii ) the SCC had appointed a person to represent him without his knowledge ; ( iii ) the person whom he had authorised to represent him was not allowed to do so ; and ( iv ) he had personally been excluded from the hearing when his legal capacity was being considered .

On DATE ORG in ORG upheld the decision rendered at first instance .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG , relying on the same arguments . He further complained about the methods of his examination and its conclusions .

On DATE ORG ruled against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police and charged with the crime of intimidation . These charges were based on complaints filed by GPE , the judge who had been dealing with the applicant 's civil case , the President of ORG in GPE , and several other individuals .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigating judge of ORG in PERSON who ordered his detention .

On DATE the investigating judge opened a formal judicial investigation against the applicant , and on DATE he ordered that the applicant be subjected to a psychiatric examination .

On DATE a team of medical experts from ORG ( ORG bolnica u ORG ) issued a report . The report , inter alia , concluded as follows :

“ It is evident that at the time when ... [ the criminal act in question was allegedly committed by the applicant ] ... he had had distorted ideas ... [ about ] ... the court ... [ as well as ] ... the judges and other ... [ persons ] ... involved in the proceedings ... Taking into account ... [ the applicant 's ] ... personality and his ... disorder ... we consider that his capacity to comprehend the meaning of his actions , as well as to control them , was significantly reduced ... [ but not excluded ] ... ”

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was released from detention .

On DATE the investigating judge questioned one of the members of the said team of medical experts in order to clarify their current conclusions in the light of any inconsistencies with their report of DATE . The expert explained , inter alia , that the applicant suffered from a borderline personality disorder , that this disorder was not , as such , a mental illness , but that it was also characterised by occasional psychotic episodes when the applicant ' state could be considered as a temporary mental illness . The decisive factor was the specific situation faced by the applicant and his reaction thereto . In DATE , in view of the relevant circumstances , the applicant was therefore rightly considered as not being criminally responsible , whilst in DATE his criminal responsibility could not be excluded altogether .

On DATE ORG in ORG decided that the proceedings should be continued before ORG in FAC . It reasoned that this was necessary because the alleged victims in the case were all employed with ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG in FAC found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE in prison , suspended for a period of DATE . The court noted that the applicant had already been deprived of his legal capacity , but relied on the opinion of ORG as regards his criminal responsibility .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , the applicant 's lawyer and the applicant personally each filed an appeal with ORG in ORG . Both appeals , however , were ultimately rejected .

On DATE the applicant filed a request with ORG in GPE , seeking restoration of his full legal capacity . The clerk , however , refused to accept it , referring to an internal order issued by the court 's vice - president on DATE , whereby no submission lodged by the applicant was to be accepted until he was provided with a guardian .

On DATE the ORG appointed PERSON , the applicant 's son , as his guardian . The SCC specified that , in order to undertake the “ restricted actions ” on the applicant 's behalf , PERSON would have to obtain its consent .

On DATE ORG lodged a request with ORG , seeking restoration of the applicant 's full legal capacity ( CARDINALP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE PERSON filed another submission with ORG to the same effect ( CARDINALP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the SCC informed ORG that it would not support the request .

On DATE the court rejected the request of DATE , explaining that , in the absence of the ORG 's consent , PERSON had no standing to initiate the proceedings at issue . On DATE ORG also rejected the request of CARDINAL DATE , stating that a motion of this sort had already been filed .

DATE . I.S appealed both decisions , but on DATE ORG in ORG confirmed the decision adopted in case no . CARDINALPCARDINAL/CARDINAL . On DATE , however , it quashed the decision adopted in case no . CARDINAL , stating that the submission filed on DATE was not a separate matter , but merely additional written pleadings to the first request .

On DATE the applicant filed a request with the SCC , seeking institution of judicial proceedings for the restoration of his full legal capacity .

On DATE the SCC rejected this request , stating that the applicant 's legal capacity was restricted which is why he could not file any requests personally .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal , via the SCC , against this decision . The appeal was addressed to ORG ( LOC sekretarijat za zdravstvo i socijalnu politiku ) .

On DATE the SCC rejected the appeal , stating that the applicant was not authorised to file it .

On DATE PERSON filed a new request for the restoration of the applicant 's legal capacity with ORG ( CARDINAL ) . On DATE he filed an identical request with the SCC .

On DATE , as part of the process of reviewing the applicant 's status , the ORG stated , inter alia , that he had remained litigious , the only difference being that his submissions were now being signed by PERSON The ORG 's team comprised of a psychologist , a lawyer , and a social worker .

On DATE the applicant again filed an appeal against the ORG 's decision of DATE , this time directly with ORG .

DATE . On DATE I.S received a letter from ORG informing him that he should address his requests to the SCC .

On DATE the SCC lodged a disability pension request on behalf of the applicant .

On DATE the SCC , inter alia , reaffirmed its views of DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to join the proceedings in case files CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and on DATE it invited the SCC to express its opinion as to whether proceedings for the restoration of the applicant 's full legal capacity should be instituted .

On DATE the SCC stated that there were no reasons for so doing , and on DATE ORG rejected the request in question .

On DATE the SCC appointed PERSON as the applicant 's new guardian .

The applicant subsequently wanted to take out a loan in order to purchase a new car , but PERSON refused to act on his behalf . The ORG thereafter appointed PERSON as the applicant 's temporary guardian in this respect only .

On DATE the SCC discharged PERSON from being the applicant 's guardian and re - appointed PERSON to this position .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A perpetrator [ was ] mentally incompetent if , at the time of commission of the offence in question , he was unable to understand the significance of his own actions or control his behaviour due to a permanent or temporary mental illness , a temporary mental disorder or mental retardation ...

A perpetrator ... whose ability to understand the significance of his own actions or control his behaviour was substantially diminished due to any of the conditions referred in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article ... may be punished with more leniency ... ”

Article CARDINAL provided that at DATE all persons shall gain full legal capacity .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided that persons of age who , due to mental illness or “ retardation ” , substance abuse or “ old age feebleness ” , or another similar reason , put in jeopardy their own rights and interests , or those of others , shall be partially deprived of their legal capacity .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that family support and guardianship shall be provided by the guardianship authority ( organ starateljstva ) , i.e. the competent SCC .

Article QUANTITY , CARDINAL DATE provides that a child below the age of CARDINAL shall only be able to independently engage in legal actions of minor significance or those which do not entail the undertaking of any obligations . A child aged DATE , however , shall be able to undertake all legal actions , albeit with the prior or subsequent consent of his or her parents , or the consent of the guardianship authority concerning particularly valuable properties . A child aged CARDINAL shall be able to independently undertake legal actions as regards the management and disposal of his or her earnings or of other property acquired through employment .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL state that a child without parental care , as well as a person of age who has been deprived of his or her legal capacity , shall be provided with a guardian . The guardian shall be appointed by the guardianship authority , and shall represent his or her ward in the same way in which a parent represents a child . With the prior consent of the guardianship authority , the guardian shall , inter alia , be able to decide about any medical procedures needed by the ward , give consent to any legal actions undertaken by a ward aged DATE or more , and undertake all legal actions necessary for the management and disposal of the income acquired by a ward below DATE .

Article CARDINAL provides that the ward 's property not acquired through his or her own work shall be managed by the guardian . The guardian shall be independent as regards the “ regular management ” of this property , but may undertake additional actions only with the prior consent of the guardianship authority .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and QUANTITY provides that the guardian shall , with the prior consent of the guardianship authority , be able to dispose of the ward 's property not acquired through his or her own work .

Article CARDINAL provides that a person of age may be fully or partially deprived of legal capacity if , due to an illness or developmental problems , he or she endangers his or her own rights or interests or the rights and interests of others . The legal capacity of the person partially deprived thereof shall be equal to the legal capacity of a minor between the age of DATE and DATE . A court decision shall determine the legal actions which the person concerned may or may not undertake independently .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the guardianship authority may also , if needed , appoint a temporary guardian to safeguard the rights and interests of the ward .

Article CARDINAL provides that a ward 's legal capacity may be restored by the competent court once the reasons for its deprivation have ceased to exist .

LAW entered into force on DATE , thereby repealing ORG .

Articles DATE provide details as regards the procedure for the full or partial deprivation of legal capacity , as well as its possible subsequent restoration .

DATE , in particular , states that a person of age shall be fully or partially deprived of legal capacity depending on the degree of ability to independently take care of his or her rights and interests , and providing there are legal grounds for so doing .

Article CARDINAL provides that the proceedings can be instituted by the competent court ex officio , by the guardianship authority , by a spouse , a child or a parent of the person concerned , or by his grandparents , brothers , sisters , or grandchildren , if they live together . The procedure may also be initiated by the person concerned if he or she is capable of understanding the significance of such a motion .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that if the proceedings have not been instituted by the guardianship authority , the request must be submitted with the necessary authorisation .

Article CARDINAL provides that the court shall decide after having held a hearing . The court shall summon to this hearing the person concerned , a representative of the guardianship authority , the concerned person 's guardian or temporary representative , as well as the person who had proposed the institution of the proceedings . At the hearing the person concerned shall be heard by the judge . Should he or she happen to be placed in a medical institution , the hearing shall be held in that institution .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the court shall “ personally hear ” the individual concerned . Under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , however , the court may dispense with a hearing if it would be harmful to his or her health or if no hearing is possible due to his or her mental or physical condition .

Article CARDINAL , inter alia , provides that the court shall also hear all other persons capable of providing relevant information .

Article CARDINAL , inter alia , provides that the person concerned shall be examined by CARDINAL medical specialists who shall give their opinion as regards his or her mental condition . If needed in this respect and if this would not be harmful to his or her health , the competent court shall have the right to order the placement of the person concerned in a psychiatric institution for a period no longer than DATE .

ORG . Article CARDINAL provides that full legal capacity shall be restored by the court , either upon a motion filed by the guardianship authority or ex officio , when the reasons for the deprivation have ceased to exist . All those entitled to file a motion for the deprivation of legal capacity may also file a motion for its restoration .

Finally , Article CARDINAL states that the provisions concerning the deprivation of legal capacity shall , mutatis mutandis , be applied in the proceedings concerning its restoration .

The relevant provisions of this Act provide as follows :

“ A party with full legal capacity may personally undertake all acts in the proceedings ( litigation capacity ) .

A person of legal age whose legal capacity has been partially restricted ... [ shall be able to litigate ] ... within the limits of his or her [ existing ] legal capacity .

“ Throughout the proceedings the [ civil ] court shall ex officio monitor whether the person appearing as a party may [ indeed ] be a party to the proceedings , as well as whether he or she has the [ necessary ] litigation capacity ... ”

On DATE ORG adopted “ Principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults ” , Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL . The relevant provisions of these Principles read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The measures of protection and other legal arrangements available for the protection of the personal and economic interests of incapable adults should be sufficient , in scope or flexibility , to enable suitable legal responses to be made to different degrees of incapacity and various situations . ...

The range of measures of protection should include , in appropriate cases , those which do not restrict the legal capacity of the person concerned . ”

“ CARDINAL . The legislative framework should , so far as possible , recognise that different degrees of incapacity may exist and that incapacity may vary from time to time . Accordingly , a measure of protection should not result automatically in a complete removal of legal capacity . However , a restriction of legal capacity should be possible where it is shown to be necessary for the protection of the person concerned .

In particular , a measure of protection should not automatically deprive the person concerned of the right to vote , or to make a will , or to consent or refuse consent to any intervention in the health field , or to make other decisions of a personal character at any time when his or her capacity permits him or her to do so . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Where a measure of protection is necessary it should be proportionate to the degree of capacity of the person concerned and tailored to the individual circumstances and needs of the person concerned .

The measure of protection should interfere with the legal capacity , rights and freedoms of the person concerned to the minimum extent which is consistent with achieving the purpose of the intervention . ... ”

“ The person concerned should have the right to be heard in person in any proceedings which could affect his or her legal capacity . ”

“ CARDINAL . Measures of protection should , whenever possible and appropriate , be of limited duration . Consideration should be given to the institution of periodical reviews . ...

There should be adequate rights of appeal . ”


HUDSON v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The applicant was a driver of CARDINAL of the lorries that transported oil for ORG from GPE to the former GPE . He was involved in a car accident that happened on DATE , TIME , in which CARDINAL persons lost their lives and CARDINAL others were injured .

At TIME , the investigating judge on duty was informed about the accident . At TIME the investigating judge and the public prosecutor went to the scene . A record of the scene was made and personal data taken from all participants in the incident as well as data concerning the vehicles .

The inspection report of the investigating judge stated , inter alia , the following :

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The inspection was carried out at TIME , with no visibility and under dry and windy weather conditions . The traffic accident had happened TIME under the same weather conditions

There are road markers on both sides of the road . The road has a horizontal sign - a full white line ...

The report described the traces made on the road by the car , the position where broken glass and different parts of the car were found , and the damage suffered by other vehicles in the incident .

The investigating judge ordered that an expert report on civil engineering be prepared , photos be taken of the location of the accident and the applicant 's blood be tested for possible presence of alcohol . She also took away the tachograph tape of the applicant 's vehicle .

At TIME , there was a hearing before the investigating judge . The applicant appointed a local lawyer on the recommendation of FAC . The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing . TIME , signed by the applicant , the judge and the interpreter , stated as follows :

“ Due to the fact that the defendant is a foreign citizen and does not speak NORP , an authorised court interpreter , PERSON from PERSON , was present at the questioning .

He was informed of the [ Public Prosecutor 's ] Request to Open Investigation Proceedings with proposal that the applicant be put in detention ... dated CARDINAL on reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence of having endangered traffic safety within the meaning of LAW in connection with LAW of LAW .

The court interpreter was replaced before the applicant had been informed of the [ prosecutor 's ] request . PERSON [ the second interpreter ] from ORG was engaged as a sworn court interpreter of ORG .

After the applicant had been informed of the Request submitted by the prosecution [ and ] translated by PERSON - the interpreter ... the defendant stated that he had understood PERSON with the proposal that the applicant be put in detention pending trial .

In accordance with Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW [ the applicant was informed ] that he was entitled to remain silent , that he had the right to defend himself in any way he perceived best , or not to present his defence and not to answer questions , that he could call evidence and could appoint a legal representative , and , indeed , he appointed PERSON from GPE as his legal representative ...

The defendant stated that he would remain silent , but that he would give his defence later in view of the fact that he felt depressed due to the accident .

The applicant 's legal representative proposed that the applicant should not be detained pending trial , as there were no circumstances indicating that the defendant should be put in pre - trial detention , or that he would tamper with witnesses , or re - offend , and bearing in mind that ORG would not allow the defendant to leave the territory of the [ former GPE and would not issue him a new passport .

The defendant stated that he had stopped of his free will and had not tried to abscond [ from the place of accident ]

The investigating judge decided to detain the applicant pending trial .

DATE the investigating judge interrogated the other CARDINAL drivers who drove lorries in the convoy with the applicant . They were from GPE and GPE . From TIME of the questioning of CARDINAL of them it appears that the applicant 's lawyer was present at the questioning .

According to their separate accounts they had been driving at a speed of QUANTITY in the direction PERSON . The applicant , who was the last in the motorcade , overtook the third lorry on the section of the road that was marked with full white line on their side . When the applicant had started overtaking the second lorry and had been positioned on the lane reserved for the vehicles coming from the opposite direction , the driver of the first lorry had noticed that a car appeared from the curve and gave a signal to the applicant . The applicant had been trying to return to the lane , while the car had started to brake in order to avoid the collision with the applicant 's vehicle . It had not bumped into the applicant 's vehicle , but went to the right and off the asphalt road . As a result a huge amount of dust arose , so the witnesses had been unable to see what happened afterwards . CARDINAL of the witnesses stated that he had noticed that the applicant had managed to return to the right lane . Afterwards he noticed that the front left side of the last lorry in the motorcade had been damaged and behind it the car had tumbled over on its right side .

On DATE the CARDINAL passengers in the car gave evidence to the investigating judge . The applicant 's lawyer , albeit summoned , failed to appear at the hearing . According to their statements , on DATE they had been travelling from Valandovo to ORG in their cousin 's car . After they had passed a curve , they suddenly noticed that their lane had been blocked by a freight vehicle coming from the opposite direction . The driver of the car had started to brake . In order to avoid direct collision the driver had turned sharply to the right and went off the asphalt road to the earth path . Their car had hit the grass embankment , and then the driver turned the steering wheel to the left . The car had started turning around and couple of times it hit CARDINAL of the freight vehicles . It had continued to slide and stopped overturned on its right side . The witnesses had pulled themselves out of the vehicle and were taken to hospital in a taxi .

On CARDINAL and DATE the brother and the father of the deceased gave evidence to the investigating judge .

By decisions of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant 's pre - trial detention .

The applicant 's lawyer objected to the expert report , communicated to him on DATE , as regarded its estimation of the speed at which the applicant and the car were travelling , and requested the expert to prepare an additional report . A translation of the report was transmitted to the applicant on DATE .

At a later date further information was provided by the expert .

On DATE , the applicant was brought before the investigating judge to give his view of the evidence presented so far . His counsel and the interpreter were present . The applicant maintained his right to silence . He and the interpreter signed the minutes . The applicant claimed that only those questions which dealt with his basic personal details were interpreted to him and that he was unaware of the purpose of the hearing .

On DATE , the applicant , who remained in pre - trial detention , was indicted for causing death and injuries by negligence within the meaning of LAW in conjunction with LAW of LAW . The indictment contained a schedule of the evidence which ORG adduced before the court . On DATE , the court interpreter who had immediately translated the contents of the indictment , gave a copy to the applicant . A copy was also given to the applicant 's counsel . On DATE , a translated copy of the indictment was given to the applicant .

On DATE a hearing took place before ORG . The public prosecutor read out the indictment which contained a schedule of the evidence on which the prosecution relied . The interpreter orally translated the indictment . In TIME it was recorded that the applicant stated that he had understood the indictment .

The applicant , in the presence of his lawyer , gave the following account :

“ On DATE around TIME I was travelling from GPE to [ the former GPE of ] GPE and I had already completed all procedures at the border . I was driving at a speed of QUANTITY [ in a motorcade ] with CARDINAL freight vehicles . First I started overtaking the third vehicle and I passed it , then I started overtaking the second vehicle in order to come behind the first freight vehicle . While I was positioning myself behind the first vehicle I noticed that from the opposite direction a vehicle was approaching , that is , I first saw the light of the vehicle and then the vehicle . I actually heard the sound of the vehicle that was braking out of control . Then I shifted behind the first vehicle and in order [ for me to enter the right lane ] the second vehicle decelerated its speed and I started to move behind the first vehicle . I had no reason to stop because I did not bump into anything , my vehicle and the vehicle from the opposite direction passed one by another . I started to decelerate . ... The first vehicle started to decelerate and I slowed down without braking ...

Then the police came and they approached my lorry - all of that in TIME . My passport was taken away , then I waited for TIME and during that time I walked towards the vehicle , I mean the passenger vehicle , however , I could not get to it because there were so many people .

Then I went as , I said above , in the police vehicle . Then I was taken to hospital and to the site where the accident happened ...

I do not agree with everything that is stated in the indictment . I was not driving at a speed of QUANTITY , I was driving at a speed of QUANTITY . I did not see where the passenger vehicle was hit , I only saw that we passed one by another and then I lost it from sight . I think that the passenger vehicle was going at speed superior to QUANTITY . I think that the driver of the passenger vehicle had time to pass by safely and I think that the driver of the passenger vehicle , in a moment of panic , lost control of the vehicle . Maybe my lights blinded the driver of the passenger vehicle because in GPE the lights are directed oppositely , since we drive on the left side .

The fact that I was driving at a speed of QUANTITY / h I noticed from my tachograph . I had a tachograph in the vehicle when I entered [ the former GPE of ] GPE . I used the tachograph for TIME in my vehicle . On DATE in the vehicle I put CARDINAL tachographs , CARDINAL in GPE which is a member of ORG and one in [ the former GPE of ] GPE ...

I am PERCENT sure that I changed the tachograph at TIME on the territory of [ the former GPE of ] GPE ...

I changed the tachograph because of a different law of ORG - a different regime .

The police requested my tachograph , I gave them the tachograph , and I want to make this clear : I gave CARDINAL tachographs to the police , the tachographs that I previously pulled out and put into a folder , CARDINAL of which I took out of the lorry and the other CARDINAL that had already been pulled out .

[ The speed ] of my vehicle is limited to QUANTITY according to the mechanic in the tachograph centre in GPE . The speed can vary DATE , QUANTITY

... The lights of my vehicle such as they are positioned helped me to see the passenger vehicle and maybe they blinded the passenger vehicle . The first time that I saw the light from the opposite side I thought that they were from another road , because of the curve and the angle of movement of light . And then the lights suddenly turned towards me .

At that hearing the passengers from the car were also interrogated . They confirmed their statements given to the investigating judge . From the minutes it appears that the parties stated that they had not had any questions to put to the passengers .

The drivers of the articulated lorries , albeit summoned , failed to appear before the court .

The expert on civil engineering gave , inter alia , the following account :

“ On the ground of the evidence submitted ... I prepared a written report ... I calculated and established the speed of the defendant before the overtaking and at the time of the overtaking according to the tachograph log sheet submitted from [ the applicant 's ] vehicle and from the other tachograph log sheets taken from the CARDINAL other freight vehicles . From the tachograph log sheet of the defendant in GPE after TIME [ it appears that ] he drove at a speed of QUANTITY / h and in some places he even moved with [ speed ] superior to QUANTITY / h , those were only occasional movements .

The tachograph log sheet was taken out at TIME That means that the tachograph log sheet shows the movement of the vehicle only until TIME and not after that . The log sheet until that time was in the tachograph . This is a one day log - sheet . [ The log sheet ] is unified and he could have entered [ the former GPE of ] GPE with it .

The speed of the other freight vehicles was established completely from the tachograph log sheets . It was DATE ....

All CARDINAL [ other freight ] vehicles moved at the constant speed of QUANTITY . For the defendant to overtake and the fact is that he overtook [ them ] , the speed has to increase , at least for QUANTITY / h , since we know that the [ other ] vehicles were moving at QUANTITY / h .

The tachograph log sheet ... it can not be established from which vehicle it originates nor the date can be established since it has to be noted down . If the time on the watch of the tachograph is set accurately than the time when the accident happened can not be registered on the tachograph of the defendant . The [ number ] of km that appear on the tachograph of the defendant of QUANTITY matches the number of km between GPE and PERSON ...

The distance between the third and the second vehicle was QUANTITY and was enough if [ the applicant ] was moving at speed of QUANTITY to overtake the third vehicle ... and to start overtaking the second vehicle ... Estimated from the tachographs , the car accident happened TIME and TIME depending on the time set on the watch of the tachograph . The line of diagram of the defendant shows QUANTITY / h .

I took a general position that the maximum allowed speed was QUANTITY / h . If the driver or assistant driver , I am talking in general , is fastened with a safety belt , the probability that he would be thrown out from the vehicle in the case of the accident is very small . In this particular case , I do not know if the driver and assistant driver were fastened ... ”

As the applicant 's counsel put questions to the expert which he could not answer immediately , it was proposed to put the questions in writing for the expert to give his view later during the proceedings . Although an interpreter was present at the hearing , the applicant alleges that only the questions put to him were interpreted .

The hearing resumed on DATE when again , according to the applicant , only questions directed at the applicant were translated by the interpreter . The expert replied to the defence counsel 's previous questions . Defence counsel applied to obtain fresh expert evidence . The prosecution objected . The court rejected the application .

At the hearing of DATE the medical expert gave evidence . The other drivers in the convoy still did not appear . With the agreement of the public prosecutor and defence counsel , their statements before the investigating judge were read out . The court again rejected the defence 's proposal to obtain further expert evidence , finding that the explanations by the expert had established the facts to a sufficient extent . The final remarks of the parties were delivered .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of having committed a criminal offence with negligence within the meaning of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW of LAW by ORG . In particular , he had not observed the traffic rules and as a result of his negligent behaviour CARDINAL people died and CARDINAL other were injured . He was sentenced to DATE and DATE imprisonment by ORG . The court had examined additionally the statement of the father of CARDINAL of the victims , the report of ORG , the report of the investigation on the spot with the sketch - map , the police report , the photos , the blood and urine test and the hospital discharge of the CARDINAL passengers .

Relying on the above evidence the court , inter alia , found that :

“ ... on the motorway ORG the defendant , travelling constantly at QUANTITY / h , which is QUANTITY faster than the allowed speed for that category of vehicles , overtook the third freight vehicle and lined in the motorcade behind the second freight vehicle , shortly after at the same speed , he started outflanking and overtaking the second freight vehicle , although it was dark and the visibility was low , nearby the difficult curve to the right , where ... a white full line indicates that overtaking and driving in the first lane is prohibited , just as the defendant was about to complete his action , a car appeared ...

... from the curve on the opposite side of the motorway , because of the imminent danger of direct collision the driver now deceased started intensively to brake and after some time of intensive braking on his right lane , he stopped braking and turned the steering wheel to the right , avoided the collision with the defendant 's vehicle and [ the car ] skidding went to the right and it completely went off the motorway into the right [ grass ] embankment , hit it , returned to the motorway where it turned over several times and overturned [ the car ] had slid for QUANTITY it went on the left lane where it first hit the left front of the third vehicle in the motorcade , driven by PERSON , and then it hit the left side [ of the same vehicle ] where the tool and spare tires are usually kept . According to the tachograph sheets taken from the freight vehicles of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON [ the drivers ] , it is established that their vehicles [ had been travelling ] at constant speed of CARDINAL km / hour . The tachographs were in the mentioned vehicles [ of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ] at the time of the accident . The tachograph taken from the defendant 's vehicle shows that it had been put on TIME on DATE and had been removed at TIME i.e. before the accident happened ... .and was sufficient that the defendant moved at speed of QUANTITY / h which was QUANTITY more than the speed of the third and the second freight vehicle and it was QUANTITY higher than the allowed speed for that category of vehicles ... [ to overtake the lorries ] . ”

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer lodged an appeal with ORG . He complained , inter alia , that the lower court :

a ) had failed to give reasons for its finding that the defendant 's vehicle had been travelling at TIME ;

b ) had considered the incorrect tachograph evidence ;

c ) had failed to ensure that the car was subject to a technical examination ;

d ) did not note that the expert report on civil engineering was imprecise , that some elements were incorrect and that this shortcoming was not corrected in the additional report ;

e ) had failed to afford the defence the facilities to arrange for the blood of the deceased driver to be examined for its alcohol or drug content ;

f ) had based its judgment on the witnesses ' statements which were imprecise and inconsistent ; and

g ) had paid little if any intention to the individual responsibility of the driver , as he drove at a higher speed than that allowed at that section of the motorway , that the car had not been technically examined and that the passengers had not fastened their seat belts .

At the public hearing of DATE , in the presence of another court interpreter , ORG dismissed the appeal and endorsed the reasons in the lower court 's decision .

The ORG reduced the applicant 's sentence to DATE term of imprisonment holding that the fact that the driver of the car had been driving at a higher speed than the CARDINAL allowed was a mitigating circumstance in respect of the applicant 's guilt . The applicant alleged that nothing was translated to him apart from the figure “ DATE ” .

On DATE , the applicant submitted an extraordinary petition for review to ORG , claiming inter alia that the facts of the case had not been properly established and the evidence wrongly assessed .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the extraordinary petition for review ( Барање за вонредно преиспитување на правосилна пресуда ) . The court , inter alia , found that the applicant was served with ORG judgment through the court interpreter on DATE . The applicant 's lawyer lodged the above petition with ORG on DATE , therefore after the DATE time - limit prescribed by LAW .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay damages to the victims of MONEY .

In DATE the applicant was released from prison and returned to GPE .

After his arrest on DATE , the applicant claimed that he was forced to sleep in a chair in the police station and that he was given limited food . During his time in PERSON prison , he claimed that he shared a cramped , squalid cell without running water and with poor sanitary facilities . Although his cell had CARDINAL beds and he mostly shared with another prisoner , there were occasions when there were QUANTITY in the cell , with CARDINAL sleeping on the floor . He spent DATE in solitary confinement in a cell with a hole in the ground as a toilet .

The Government stated that on arrival at the police station on DATE the applicant was accommodated in the office of the police administrator until TIME and that he was given food and watermelon . He contacted his wife several times by phone . After TIME , he was placed in the detention room , which had sanitary facilities and running water . On the way to court for the hearing at TIME he was given a sandwich . After he was remanded in custody , at TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to PERSON prison where he was accommodated initially alone in a double cell . On DATE , the vice consul of ORG accompanied by the applicant 's lawyer visited the applicant there . After some time , another inmate joined him in the cell and for a certain period he was detained in a CARDINAL - bed cell . The detention facilities in the prison had been renovated in DATE and each cell had a sanitary facility and running water . There were showers and shaving facilities available separately . The applicant was checked by the prison doctor regularly and on his request on CARDINAL further occasions while on CARDINAL occasions he was able to see a specialist outside the prison .

On DATE the applicant was sent to ORG in GPE to serve his sentence .

LAW provides , inter alia , that a bench of CARDINAL judges of the first instance court shall decide on appeals lodged against the decisions of the investigating judge .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a person shall have the right to appeal against the decisions of the investigating judge .

LAW , CARDINAL QUANTITY provides , inter alia , that a person who has been summoned or apprehended shall be informed promptly , in a language that he understands , of the reasons for his summoning , apprehension or any charge against him , of his legal rights , and shall have the right not to make any statements . He shall be informed of his right to remain silent , to consult with a lawyer , to have a lawyer of his choice present during questioning , as well as , to inform a third party of the fact of his detention . Everyone arrested or detained shall be brought within TIME before a judge who shall promptly decide on the lawfulness of the detention .

LAW and QUANTITY provides , inter alia , that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law . Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be informed promptly , in a language which he understands and in detail of the accusations and circumstances against him , shall have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and the right to communicate with the legal representative of his own choosing , to be present at the trial and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing , to be given free legal assistance , when the interests of justice so require and to examine or have examined witnesses .

LAW and QUANTITY provides , inter alia , that every person has a right to be legally represented in pre - criminal and court procedure . Before the first interrogation , the suspect in pre - criminal procedure and an accused person must be informed of the right to have a legal representative of their own choosing who may be present at the interrogation .

Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that everybody detained shall have the right to consult his legal representative without any restriction or supervision .

Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the legal representative may undertake all the actions that the applicant has the right to undertake on the applicant 's behalf .

Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the investigating judge shall promptly inform an arrested person of the right to appoint a legal representative who may be present at his questioning and shall assist the arrested person in finding a legal representative if the need may be .

LAW and QUANTITY provides that everybody in the criminal proceedings shall be informed of his right to the free assistance of an interpreter provided that he can not understand or speak the language used in court .

LAW provides that a foreign citizen who is apprehended shall have the right to submit his documents to the court in his language .

Article QUANTITY , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE provides , inter alia , that the accused who is being questioned shall first be asked about his personal data . Then he shall be informed of charges against him , the reasons why he is a suspect and he shall be asked to put forward his defence . He shall be informed of the right to remain silent . He may make statements without any restrictions in respect of facts against him and may state all facts in his defence . The accused may be questioned only after he finishes his statement .

A person may be questioned in the absence of his legal representative only if he waives this right , save in cases when the law provides that the presence of a legal representative is obligatory .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that everybody detained pending trial may ask to be put alone in a pre - trial detention facility .

LAW , CARDINAL DATE provides that the persons detained pending trial shall have the right of an uninterrupted DATE rest of TIME . They may obtain food , clothes , bed sheets , books , newspapers at their own expense if approved by the investigating body . The detained persons may use means necessary to maintain the hygiene in the pre - trial detention facility .

Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the officials working for the diplomatic representative offices may , on the approval of the investigating judge , visit and speak without any supervision with a person detained pending trial who is a citizen of their country . After the person is indicted such an approval shall be given by the president of the bench .

LAW , CARDINAL and DATE provides , inter alia , that the president of the competent trial court shall supervise the conditions of detention of the persons detained pending trial . He shall visit the detained persons at least once a week and , without the prison warders being present , inquire with the detained persons about the food they are given , other necessities and the treatment that they have received . The responsible judge shall undertake all the necessary measures to correct all the shortcomings in this respect . The president of the competent court and the investigating judge shall have the right to visit the detained persons at any time , speak to them and hear their complaints .

Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL a lawyer has the right to consult all the documents in the case - file from DATE the prosecution authorities request the investigating judge to open preliminary investigation . A defendant enjoys that right from DATE he has been questioned by the investigating judge .

Article CARDINAL provides that the parties may ask the investigating judge to undertake different actions in the course of the investigation .

LAW and CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The prosecution , the defendant and the defendant 's lawyer shall have the right to be present when an investigating judge is examining a witness who will not be heard at a public hearing ...

Persons present at the interrogation of a witness may ask the investigating judge to put questions to him ... ”

LAW provides , inter alia , that at the trial after the presiding judge has finished the interrogation of a witness or an expert , the accused and his lawyer have the right directly to put questions to him on the approval of the presiding judge .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ When an allegation is based on a statement of a person , that person shall be heard at a public hearing . The right to cross - examine him shall not be lost because the transcript of his statement is read out , or because he has already given a written statement . ”

Article QUANTITY provides that the indictment against the defendant shall be read out at the beginning of the hearing by the prosecutor .

Article QUANTITY CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and LAW provide that after the indictment is read out or orally explained the presiding judge shall interrogate the defendant . He shall ask the defendant whether he understands the indictment and if not the presiding judge shall elaborate it . Then he will ask the defendant to give his opinion on each of the items of the indictment and to present his defence . The defendant shall have the right not to give his defence . After the interrogation of the defendant the presiding judge shall ask him if he wishes to add something in connection with his defence .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the prosecutor and the legal counsel may interrogate the defendant .

LAW and CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The parties shall have the right to call ... evidence at the hearing even after the case is listed for a hearing .

NORP If the presiding judge dismisses the request to call fresh evidence , the parties shall have the right to call evidence at the public hearing . ”

Under LAW the courts may obtain , even at their own motion , evidence which they consider will assist in establishing the truth .

Article CARDINAL read together with ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL provides that an appeal may be lodged with ORG when a hearing took place in the absence of the court interpreter .

LAW and CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A defendant who has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment or to youth custody by a binding judgment shall have the right to lodge an extraordinary petition for review in the cases set forth in this LAW .

( CARDINAL ) [ The extraordinary petition for review ] may be lodged within DATE from DATE the accused was served with a binding judgment ”

Article CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ ORG shall have jurisdiction to deal with such an extraordinary petition for review . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL in conjunction with Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE lays down that the above petition may be lodged on the grounds that the act or omission of the convict does not constitute a criminal offence under LAW , there is a justification excluding criminal responsibility , there is a justification excluding the prosecution of the convict ( for example : he is granted amnesty ) , the lower courts applied law wrongly and a heavier penalty is imposed than the one prescribed by LAW for such an offence .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL in conjunction with Article QUANTITY , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE lays down that such a petition may be lodged on the grounds that the bench was improperly composed or the judgment was rendered by a judge who was not present at the hearing , the convict was not prosecuted by a competent prosecutor , the final judgment is based on inadmissible decisive evidence , the courts decided on issues other than the ones set out in the indictment and there is a breach of the principle of reformatio in pejus .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL specifies that such a legal remedy may be lodged if the convict 's right to defence was breached during the course of the trial , or because the provisions of LAW in respect of the appellate proceedings were breached provided that that was decisive for the outcome of the proceedings .

Article QUANTITY , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the petition for review shall be lodged through the trial court , that the president of the trial court or of the competent court shall refuse to examine the extraordinary petition for review which was lodged out of the time limit , and that the competent court may decide to suspend an execution of a binding judgment until the petition for review is dealt with .

Article CARDINAL in conjunction with Article CARDINAL provides that when the ORG grants the above petition it may substitute the binding judgment with its own verdict or quash the decisions of the lower courts and remit the case to them , or declare that the lower courts erred in law .


CASE OF MATASARU AND SAVITCHI v. MOLDOVA

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicants were both born in DATE and live in PERSON . They are married to each other .

The first applicant is the owner of an Internet café . On DATE at around TIME he ejected a boy from the café because he had prevented another boy from using the Internet . The first applicant then went to another address and brought a plumber ( C. ) back in order to do some repair work at the café .

While he was away , QUANTITY persons ( C.A. and D.A. ; GPE was the Commander of the ORG police regiment “ ORG ” ) came to the café and asked PERSON , the café manager who was on duty on DATE , about the first applicant 's whereabouts .

L.C. told them that the first applicant would return shortly and they went outside . PERSON then called the second applicant , the first applicant 's wife , and told her that CARDINAL men had been looking for the first applicant . She asked PERSON to ask CARDINAL of the men to come to the telephone . When PERSON went outside to do so , he saw the first applicant on the ground , unconscious . CARDINAL of the men who had been looking for him earlier was giving him emergency assistance . He informed the second applicant of what he had just seen and then called an ambulance and the police .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a complaint with the police , stating that when he had approached the Internet café he had seen CARDINAL men and a boy near the entrance . The boy was the one whom he had ejected earlier from the café . CARDINAL of the men asked the boy : “ Is that him ? ” . Having received an affirmative response , the man punched the first applicant in the face . When the first applicant tried to resist , the second man hit him on the back of his head with a hard object , following which he lost consciousness . When he regained consciousness , he was on the ground and CARDINAL of the attackers was giving him emergency medical assistance . That man told the persons who had gathered around that the first applicant had had an epileptic fit .

The first applicant was taken to hospital and was prescribed in - patient treatment . On DATE he was examined by a doctor , who noted that he had a hematoma around his right eye and on his nose ( CARDINALxCARDINAL and QUANTITY ) , and one on the back of his head measuring CARDINAL.CARDINALxCARDINAL.CARDINAL cm . The specialist also noted a neurologist 's diagnosis dated DATE , according to which the first applicant had suffered a head trauma . The specialist finally established that , given the location of the various injuries suffered by the first applicant , it was “ unlikely that they could have been caused by a fall ” .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against ORG , “ because the act was not prohibited by criminal law ” . The prosecutor found that C.A. had offered the first applicant medical help and had not attacked him .

CARDINALC.A. and D.A. were contradicted by the statement by ORG , according to which they had been looking for the first applicant before the alleged attack . Moreover , other witnesses identified by the first applicant , including ORG , had not been heard .

On DATE the prosecutor inquired with the local medical authorities about the first applicant 's alleged medical condition . On DATE the local territorial medical association replied that it did not have the first applicant 's medical file and that it could not confirm whether the first applicant suffered from epilepsy .

On DATE PERSON was questioned again and repeated his earlier statement , reiterating that ORG had been looking for the first applicant before the attack .

On DATE the prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against ORG The decision was almost identical to that of DATE , although it contained a summary of the statement made by GPE

On DATE the hierarchically superior prosecutor annulled that decision , finding it premature . The prosecutor in charge of the case was ordered to hear the second applicant and the ambulance doctor who had given the first applicant medical treatment .

On an unknown date the second applicant made a statement to the prosecutor and confirmed having received a call from PERSON , informing her that CARDINAL men had been looking for the first applicant .

On DATE the prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against ORG The decision was almost identical to the CARDINAL previous decisions , although it mentioned that the ambulance doctor had been interviewed and had confirmed that he had diagnosed the first applicant 's condition on DATE . However , he had not filled in the first applicant 's medical file and did not know who had done so .

The first applicant complained about that decision to the hierarchically superior prosecutor . The latter rejected the complaint on DATE , finding it ill - founded .

The first applicant challenged that decision before FAC . On DATE the investigating judge of ORG accepted the request and annulled the decisions of DATE and DATE . The court found that the facts of the case had not been properly verified , as was obvious from the decisions themselves , which had failed to analyse the first applicant 's statements and the medical report of DATE . Moreover , the prosecutor had not inquired as to whether the first applicant had had a history of epileptic attacks or had been seeing a psychiatrist , and whether the injuries suffered by the first applicant could have been the result of DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor obtained a copy of the first applicant 's medical file , which contained only data registered on or after DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against ORG The decision was almost identical to the CARDINAL previous decisions , adding that the specialist who had filed the report of DATE had stated that the injuries suffered by the first applicant could have been caused by a fall . In addition , the first applicant had refused to submit a medical certificate which attested that he had lost consciousness after a blow to the occipital area of his cranium .

On DATE the first applicant challenged that decision in court . He referred to the fact that he had never suffered from epilepsy and that there was no statement by the medical expert in the file indicating that the injuries could have been caused by DATE . He also noted that GPE was known for his violent behaviour , mentioning that on DATE he had attacked the journalist PERSON ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .

NORP The complaint was forwarded to the hierarchically superior prosecutor , who rejected it on DATE . The prosecutor found that the first applicant 's allegations had not been confirmed by facts and that the statements of witnesses showed that he had not been hit by ORG but had been helped by them .

The first applicant challenged that decision in court . On DATE ORG accepted the request and annulled the decisions of DATE and The case was sent back for examination by the prosecutor .

On DATE the GPE district prosecutor 's office initiated criminal proceedings on the basis of the first applicant 's complaint of DATE . However , he did not receive a copy of that decision , and saw it for the first time among the documents attached to the ORG 's observations .

On DATE the first applicant asked ORG to assign the case to another prosecutor in view of the perceived bias of the prosecutor dealing with the case . On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General assigned the case to ORG . The reason for this re - assignment was that “ several tendentious circumstances appeared within the framework of the relevant criminal proceedings which could cause the investigation to be excessively lengthy ” .

In DATE both applicants were questioned , but were not shown the TIME of the interviews on the ground of protecting the confidentiality of the investigation .

On DATE , after communication of the present case to the respondent Government , the prosecutor formally named ORG as suspects in the case . The applicants found out about that decision from the ORG 's observations .

On DATE the first applicant asked the prosecutor to inform him about the progress of the investigation . He was shown a recent medical report concerning the injuries caused to him in DATE , but he was refused permission to make a copy of that report for confidentiality reasons . The first applicant had not been informed before the second report had been ordered and he had therefore not been able to exercise any of his rights under LAW ( “ the ORG ” , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the charges against ORG were dropped . According to the applicants , they received a copy of the decision when they received the ORG 's observations of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG transferred the case back to LOC prosecutor 's office , which had territorial competence to investigate it .

On DATE the GPE district prosecutor 's office suspended the investigation because the identity of the perpetrator(s ) had not been established . On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG about the suspension of the investigation . He also noted that he had not been informed about the suspension and had only found out about it on DATE when he had called the prosecutor and then visited his office on DATE . The first applicant added that the charges against ORG had apparently been dropped but that he had not seen any decision in that respect . Moreover , on an unknown date and for unknown reasons the case had been re - assigned back to the GPE district prosecutor 's office , again without his having been informed . In addition , no cross examination with the applicants ' participation and that of ORG had ever been organised . No attempt had been made to find the boy who had been ejected from the internet café , despite PERSON 's witness statement confirming that the CARDINAL persons whom he had seen with the first applicant had been accompanied by a boy . PERSON was never asked to identify ORG at an identity parade , even though he had given a complete description of the QUANTITY persons who had been looking for the first applicant immediately before he was attacked .

On DATE the first applicant was informed that the decision of DATE had been quashed and the investigation had been reopened .

On DATE the first applicant repeated his request , noting that he had received no response to his complaint concerning the dropping of charges against ORG or to that concerning the transfer of the case back to the GPE district prosecutor 's office . On DATE ORG informed him that no unlawful act had been apparent in the dropping of the charges or in transferring the case to the GPE district prosecutor 's office .

The investigation is pending before the GPE district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the applicants organised a protest march in the centre of PERSON , which had been authorised by the PERSON municipality . The aim of the protest was to draw public attention to the first applicant 's ill - treatment and the prosecution 's inertia in investigating the case . Only the applicants participated in the protest , holding banners with inscriptions such as : “ Prosecutors , you should respect the law and human rights ! ” , “ The NORP prosecutor 's office protects police criminals ! ” , “ NO to corruption in the NORP prosecutor 's office ! ” , “ NO to bandits in the law - enforcement agencies ! ” and “ The prosecutor 's office covers up the crimes of police officer [ C.A. ] ! ” .

The applicants protested in front of the GPE police station , then in front of ORG . The applicants were approached by plain - clothed officers , who were shown the authorisation for the march and who accompanied the applicants until they reached ORG . The applicants stood across the road from the ORG and protested by displaying banners and blowing a whistle . At TIME the plain - clothed officers asked the applicants to follow them to the police station because the applicants had insulted them .

The protest and the arrest were filmed by reporters . The video footage shows the applicants next to a building with no officer in the vicinity until the time of the arrest . The plain - clothed officers who arrested the applicants were asked by the applicants and the reporters about the reasons for the arrest . They answered that the applicants ' identities needed to be verified and that they had “ insulted the law - enforcement authority ” through the messages on the banners . They did not specify which banner was considered insulting , other than to ask : “ Bandits , is that not insulting ? ” It appears from the video materials that the applicants were not asked to provide identification documents .

According to the applicants , they were released immediately after a short period in detention in front of the police station on TIME of CARDINAL DATE . It appears from the video materials submitted by the parties that CARDINAL plain - clothed officer explained that “ [ the applicants ] were not arrested but only brought in for identification . The protest has been authorised , so they are free to continue it ” . They were subsequently rearrested in front of ORG at TIME and detained until TIME

On DATE the applicants were charged with having committed several administrative offences , provided for under LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) ( refusal to abide by the lawful orders of a police officer ) , Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL of the ORG ( violation of the order on holding assemblies ) , LAW of the ORG ( resisting a police officer ) , and LAW ORG ( insulting a police officer ) . On DATE , a judge of ORG decided to postpone the hearing , ordering the applicants ' release at TIME

On DATE ORG dismissed all the charges against the applicants , except for the charge of insulting a police officer on account of the inscription “ The prosecutor 's office covers up the crimes of police officer [ C.A. ] ! ” . The applicants were found guilty of having committed the administrative offence provided for under LAW of the ORG ( see below ) .

The applicants appealed , arguing that the statement on the banner concerning the prosecution 's failure to properly investigate their alleged ill - treatment by ORG had been based on facts . The aim of the message had not been to disseminate insults but rather to provoke an effective investigation by the prosecutor 's office . Moreover , the applicants had not seen C.A. on DATE . Therefore , even if the banner could be seen as insulting to C.A. , it could not be said that they had intentionally insulted him while he was carrying out his duty to maintain public order .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE , finding that the lower court had not analysed the applicants'The case was sent for a retrial .

On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of the administrative offences provided for under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § § DATE , QUANTITY § CARDINAL , and CARDINAL/CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and discontinued the proceedings against the applicants . The court found that the lower court had not indicated the evidence on which it had based its decision and that the arresting police officers who had witnessed the events were unsure whether the applicants had resisted or insulted them .

On DATE , national police day , the first applicant intended to protest in the centre of PERSON against the prosecution 's failure to properly investigate his ill - treatment by C.A. He had previously obtained the PERSON mayor 's permission to bring domestic animals to the protest .

On DATE at TIME the first applicant parked his minibus in front of his garage . Inside were a mule , dressed in uniform and bearing the inscription “ miliţioner ” ( officer of NORP - time militia ) , and a pig , dressed in black and bearing the inscription “ porcuror ” ( a play on the words “ pig ” and “ prosecutor ” , roughly translated as “ pigsecutor ” ) .

At TIME a car belonging to the ORG police regiment “ ORG ” with CARDINAL men inside arrived at the garage . TIME a traffic police car arrived . Minutes later an operative group of ORG arrived , followed by the GPE sector deputy head of the police station , some plain - clothed police officers , a criminal investigator and a specialist . The media arrived at the garage shortly afterwards .

The Special Forces officers who had arrived first prevented the applicant from leaving the garage area with his minibus by blocking the exit with their own car and later took his car keys and papers , while the criminal investigator sealed off the area with yellow tape . The first applicant took his animals out of the minibus in order to go on foot to the protest area . At TIME his minibus was driven away by the traffic police , without answering the protests of the second applicant and questions put by the media .

At TIME the deputy head of the GPE police station ordered the applicant 's arrest because he had urinated in a public place . The first applicant declared that he had not done so .

It is apparent from the video footage aired on several TV channels in PERSON that the first applicant asked repeatedly for witnesses of the alleged act to be identified , and the second applicant asked to be shown the place where the alleged wrongdoing had taken place . They received no reply . CARDINAL journalist commented “ After TIME during which CARDINAL police officers present had been looking for a reason to make the protester show respect , they finally found a pretext for his arrest : that he had urinated in a public place ” .

On DATE the first applicant was charged with having committed the administrative offences provided for under LAW ORG ( hooliganism ) , LAW of the ORG ( refusal to abide by the lawful orders of a police officer ) , LAW CARDINAL of the ORG ( resisting a police officer ) , and LAW § CARDINAL of the ORG ( insulting a police officer ) . The report concerning the events of DATE noted that on DATE at TIME the operative group of the GPE police station was on route in response to a call for assistance when it discovered the first applicant 's minibus and CARDINAL animals next to it , dressed in uniform and bearing the names “ miliţian ” and “ porcuror ” . The operative group stopped to find out what was going on , but the first applicant “ reacted negatively ” to their presence and made direct comparisons between the animals and the police officers , thus insulting them . He then went behind the police car and openly urinated . Having been asked to stop , he refused and resisted the officers when they forced him into the police car and brought him to the police station .

On DATE ORG found the first applicant guilty of having committed the administrative offences provided for under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG .

The first applicant appealed , noting the absence of any evidence that he had committed any wrongdoing . Moreover , the reports filed by the police officers mentioned that the first applicant had already been asked to follow them to the police station , before the alleged offence had taken place . It was therefore unclear what the reason for the limitation of his liberty before the alleged wrongdoing had been . Since he had not committed any act that warranted his being brought to the police station , the police officers ' request to follow them had been unlawful . Therefore , his refusal to abide by that request , and his resistance to unlawful orders , could not be considered a violation of the law . The first applicant added that the hearing had never been officially opened and had taken place in the absence of witnesses and his lawyer . He had not been had been interrupted and the judge had declared that he was guilty of having committed CARDINAL administrative offences and was fined CARDINAL NORP lei ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) .

DATE 's lawyer , failing to note that absence in TIME of the hearing .

On DATE ORG discontinued the administrative proceedings against the first applicant , finding that there was not sufficient evidence in the file to prove that he had committed any offence and that the police officers who had reported on the offence allegedly committed by the first applicant had refused to appear in court . The court added that the reports , which were the only evidence in the file , were insufficient to establish that an offence had been committed . The court found that “ the actions of the police officers were not well - founded and lawful , [ as ] they did not have a ground on which to bring [ the first applicant ] by force to the police station . ”

On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by ORG as out of time . That judgment was final .

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , in force since DATE , provides that no authorisation is needed for holding a peaceful demonstration with CARDINAL participants .

The relevant provisions of PERSON no . DATE on compensation for damage caused by the illegal acts of the criminal investigation organs , prosecution and courts have been set out in ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE .

The relevant part of LAW reads as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL . Actions preceding an expert report

( CARDINAL ) The investigating authority or the court , when ordering an expert report , shall summon the parties and the expert , if the latter has been assigned by the investigating authority or the court .

( CARDINAL ) On the date set in the summons , the parties and the expert shall be informed of the object of examination and of the questions which the expert will have to answer , and it shall be explained [ to the parties ] that they have the right to make remarks concerning those questions or to ask for them to be amended or added to . At the same time , the parties shall be informed of their right to select an expert of their choice to participate in the expert report . ”

The applicants referred to reports by ORG ( the ORG 's office ) for DATE and DATE , which had found that various provisions of administrative law had been frequently abused by the police by unlawfully detaining individuals . They also noted that members of the LOC non - governmental organisation had been arrested CARDINAL times during DATE , while the first applicant had been arrested CARDINAL times during the same period .

The applicants submitted copies of CARDINAL judgments adopted by ORG concerning unlawful administrative detention or prosecution . These judgments allegedly constituted that court 's entire case - law on that issue during DATE . The awards made in those cases varied between the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL .

The applicants referred to a number of court actions lodged under PERSON no . DATE , cited above , the examination of which had lasted for DATE or was still pending before the domestic courts . In many of these cases the courts postponed numerous hearings due to the failure of the defending ORG authorities ' representatives to appear before the courts . Moreover , enforcement of final judgments against the ORG was a long - standing problem in GPE , as established in numerous cases decided by the ORG .