Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 7-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE . When lodging his application , he was detained in FAC . He has been released on DATE .

Since DATE the applicant has been convicted of CARDINAL counts of rape and CARDINAL counts of attempted rape of women aged DATE and has been sentenced CARDINAL times to terms of imprisonment . Between DATE and his arrest in DATE he spent CARDINAL outside prison .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempted sexual coercion . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and ordered his placement in preventive detention pursuant to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . ORG found that in DATE the applicant , returning to methods similar to those he had used to commit some of his previous offences , had simulated a breakdown of his car and had asked a DATE woman to help him restart it . He had then attempted to force his victim to submit herself to sexual acts , but she had managed to escape . The preventive detention of the applicant , who had acted with full criminal responsibility , was necessary as he had a tendency to commit serious sexual offences in order to humiliate and abuse women and was thus likely to reoffend .

The applicant served his full prison sentence . He was then placed in preventive detention , for the first time , on DATE ; he had thus served DATE in preventive detention by DATE .

The continuation of the applicant 's preventive detention was ordered by ORG at regular intervals .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a chamber responsible for the execution of sentences , having heard the applicant , his counsel and a psychiatric expert , PERSON , in person , ordered the applicant 's preventive detention to continue pursuant to Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It found that there was still a risk that the applicant , owing to his criminal tendencies , might commit serious sexual offences if released resulting in considerable psychological or physical harm to the victims .

ORG subscribed to the opinion given by expert PERSON in his report of DATE . The expert , who had to give his view on the basis of the case file as the applicant had refused to make any submissions to him , had concluded that there was nothing to indicate that the applicant , who had committed numerous sexual offences and suffered from a personality disorder , had changed . He was therefore likely to reoffend if released .

ORG further found that neither the applicant 's personal situation nor his attitude had changed since its last decision . As had also been confirmed by expert PERSON , without submitting himself to a therapeutic treatment , notably to a social therapy , which the applicant kept refusing to do , the conditions for suspending the applicant 's preventive detention on probation could not be met .

Contrary to the applicant 's view , ORG further considered that Article PERSON of LAW , as amended in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , was constitutional .

On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasons given by ORG , dismissed the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained about the decision to prolong his preventive detention on completion of DATE of placement on the basis of the amended LAW § CARDINAL of LAW , which had entered into force after he had committed his offence . He argued that the decision violated the prohibition of retrospective punishment under LAW , the prohibition of retrospective legislation enshrined in the rule of law and his right to liberty . That decision further breached the principle of proportionality in that the courts responsible for the execution of sentences had made his release dependent on the completion of a social therapy lasting DATE , which would unduly prolong his preventive detention .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant 's constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It found that the applicant 's complaint was ill - founded . Referring to its leading judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; application no . CARDINAL to ORG ) , it stated that the provisions on which the applicant 's continued preventive detention was based , Article CARDINAL of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW to LAW , as amended in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , were constitutional .

NORP Moreover , in ORG view , the criminal courts had not applied these provisions to the applicant in a disproportionate manner . There were notably no objections under constitutional law to considering the total absence of a necessary therapy to be a negative factor in the assessment of whether the applicant was likely to reoffend .

In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with cancer of the lymph nodes and subsequently with cancer of the eyes .

On DATE and on DATE ORG ordered the continuation of the applicant 's preventive detention .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a chamber responsible for the execution of sentences , decided to suspend the further execution of the applicant 's preventive detention on probation as from CARDINAL DATE and ordered the supervision of his conduct . Having consulted a medical expert , it considered that there were justifiable reasons for testing whether the applicant could be released without committing further unlawful acts . It noted that the applicant had persistently refused to make a social ( group ) therapy , considered most suitable by all medical experts consulted , but had at least made an individual therapy with an external psychotherapist . The applicant was released from preventive detention on CARDINAL DATE .

A comprehensive summary of the provisions of LAW and of LAW governing the distinction between penalties and measures of correction and prevention , in particular preventive detention , and the making , review and execution in practice of preventive detention orders , is contained in the ORG 's judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . The provisions referred to in the present case provide as follows :

The sentencing court may , at the time of the offender 's conviction , order his preventive detention , a so - called measure of correction and prevention , under certain circumstances in addition to his prison sentence , a penalty , if the offender has been shown to be dangerous to the public ( LAW ) .

NORP In particular , the sentencing court orders preventive detention in addition to the penalty if someone is sentenced for an intentional offence to DATE imprisonment and if the following further conditions are satisfied . Firstly , the perpetrator must have been sentenced twice already , to DATE imprisonment in each case , for intentional offences committed prior to the new offence . Secondly , the perpetrator must previously have served a prison sentence or must have been detained pursuant to a measure of correction and prevention for DATE . Thirdly , a comprehensive assessment of the perpetrator and his acts must reveal that , owing to his propensity to commit serious offences , notably those which seriously harm their victims physically or mentally or which cause serious economic damage , the perpetrator presents a danger to the general public ( see LAW , in its version in force at the relevant time ) .

Under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , in its version in force prior to DATE , the first period of preventive detention may not exceed DATE . If the maximum duration has expired , the detainee shall be released ( Article QUANTITY § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW was amended by the Combating of Sexual Offences and Other LAW of DATE , which entered into force on DATE . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , in its amended version , provided that if a person has spent DATE in preventive detention , the court shall declare the measure terminated ( only ) if there is no danger that the detainee will , owing to his criminal tendencies , commit serious offences resulting in considerable psychological or physical harm to the victims . Termination shall automatically entail supervision of the conduct of the offender . The former maximum duration of a first period of preventive detention was abolished . Pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW to LAW , the amended version of Article CARDINAL of LAW was to be applied without any restriction ratione temporis .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-2;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and resides in the village of GPE , GPE region , GPE .

In DATE the applicant worked as a director of a café in the town of LOC , GPE , GPE .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for plundering State property ( LAW ) .

On DATE the applicant was charged with plundering ORG property in particularly large quantities ( LAW ) . The same day she was arrested .

On DATE the applicant was released on bail subject to an undertaking not to abscond ( підписка про невиїзд ) .

On DATE the criminal case was terminated for want of proof of a crime .

On DATE the Prosecutor of Volodymyr - Volynskyy District quashed the decision of DATE and sent the case for further investigation .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated partly for want of proof of a crime and partly on the ground that the further prosecution in her case was time - barred . The investigator did not find it proven that the applicant had been involved in plundering , but considered that her actions could be classified as negligence , which was an offence under LAW in the wording which was in force at the relevant time ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . However , given that the statutory time - limit for prosecuting the applicant for negligence had passed , the criminal case in respect of that charge had to be discontinued as time - barred .

On DATE the applicant complained to the Prosecutor of Volodymyr - Volynskyy District about the decision of CARDINAL DATE . This complaint was rejected . The applicant appealed to the court .

On DATE the Volodymyr - Volynskyy District Court allowed the applicant ’s appeal and quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court noted that a criminal case could be terminated on non - exonerative grounds , like a time - bar on further prosecution , only with the consent of the prosecuted person . As the applicant had never agreed to the termination of the case on this ground the investigation should be continued .

On DATE , the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the same grounds as previously .

On DATE , the same court , upon the applicant ’s appeal , quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration .

On DATE the criminal case against the applicant was terminated for want of proof of a crime . At the same time , in his decree terminating the criminal proceedings against the applicant , the investigator mentioned that the courts had quashed the previous decisions on termination of the criminal case on non - exonerative grounds , because the applicant had not agreed . In the investigator ’s opinion the applicant ’s consent was not necessary , because even though her conduct could be qualified as a crime of negligence , no criminal proceedings could be instituted , as prosecution was time - barred and she could not be considered as an accused in this respect . The investigator , therefore , decided that :

“ In the actions of PERSON there are corpus delicti ( є склад злочину ) , provided for in LAW [ LAW GPE ] , that is negligence , of which she herself confessed to be guilty . Nevertheless , taking into account that from the moment when she had committed that crime ( час скоєння нею даного злочину ) the time - limits had expired ... the institution of a criminal case under LAW ORG should be rejected for being time - barred ... ”

The applicant challenged the decision of DATE , requesting that her guilt be proved in judicial proceedings in accordance with LAW . She further submitted that closing the criminal case against her on non - exonerative grounds deprived her of a possibility to receive compensation for the unlawful actions taken against her .

On DATE the Volodymyr - Volynskyy Local Court rejected the applicant ’s complaint about the decision of DATE . In its decision the court stated in particular :

“ As it appears from the materials of the criminal case against PERSON and the decision of the head of the investigating unit of ORG of DATE , the actions of PERSON disclose signs of the corpus delicti ( ознаки складу злочину ) provided for in LAW [ LAW GPE ] and she had acknowledged her guilt of having committed this offence .

According to LAW , in the wording of DATE , ... this crime was punishable by imprisonment for a period of DATE .

Under LAW I ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , a person can not be charged with an offence if DATE have elapsed from the date when a criminal offence punishable under the law by imprisonment for a period of DATE was committed .

Under LAW § I ( CARDINAL ) [ of LAW ] no criminal proceedings could be initiated and any proceedings which had been started should be terminated as time - barred .

Therefore , in the above circumstances , no criminal case charging PERSON with an offence under LAW could be instituted because prosecution against her was time - barred . ”

This decision was not subject to appeal .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim with ORG , seeking compensation for damage caused by the allegedly unlawful criminal proceedings against her .

On DATE the court found in part for the applicant and awarded her UAH CARDINAL in compensation . The decision was not appealed against and became final .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG , responsible for the enforcement of the decision , requested ORG to lodge a supervisory review appeal on the ground that ORG for DATE did not foresee expenditure of this kind . Following this request , the ORG sought supervisory review , arguing that the actions of the police were lawful and that the amount awarded to the applicant was too high , in particular given the difficult economic situation in the country .

On DATE upon a supervisory review appeal of the prosecutor , the Presidium of the ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh consideration .

On DATE the Volodymyr - Volynskyy Local Court rejected the applicant ’s claim for compensation because the criminal proceedings against her had been terminated on a non - exonerative ground , namely that prosecution was time - barred . The court noted that it appeared from the decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE terminating the criminal case against the applicant , that her conduct disclosed signs of the corpus delicti provided for in LAW ( negligence ) , namely the inappropriate performance of professional duties by an official due to a negligent attitude , which had caused significant loss to the ORG ’s interests . The record of her interrogation of DATE showed that the applicant acknowledged her guilt of negligence . The court further stated that , given that the criminal case was terminated on a non - exonerative ground , the applicant lost the right to compensation under the PERSON “ on the procedure for compensation of damage caused to the citizen by the unlawful actions of bodies of inquiry , pre - trial investigation , prosecutors and courts ” .

The applicant did not appeal against that decision .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW reads as follows :

“ A person is presumed innocent of committing a crime and shall not be subjected to criminal punishment until his or her guilt is proved through legal procedure and established by a court verdict of guilty .

No one is obliged to prove his or her innocence of committing a crime .

An accusation shall not be based on illegally obtained evidence as well as on assumptions . All doubts in regard to the proof of guilt of a person are interpreted in his or her favour .

In the event that a court verdict is revoked as unjust , the ORG compensates the material and moral damages inflicted by the groundless conviction . ”

The relevant provisions of the Code read as follows :

Article CARDINAL .

The statute of time - bar for instituting criminal proceedings

“ CARDINAL . A person can not be charged with an offence , if the following periods have elapsed from the date of the criminal offence :

... CARDINAL . DATE from the date of offence for committing a crime punishable under the law by imprisonment for the period of DATE ; ... ”

Article CARDINAL .

Plundering the ORG or collective property through misappropriation , embezzlement or malversation

“ CARDINAL . Misappropriation or embezzlement the ORG or collective property by a person to whom it was entrusted shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE , or a fine in the amount of CARDINAL non - taxable incomes , with or without deprivation of the right to occupy certain posts or to practice certain activities for the term of DATE ...

Any such actions as provided for by paragraph CARDINAL or CARDINAL of this Article , if repeated or committed by a group of person upon their prior conspiracy shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE with or without a confiscation of property , with deprivation of the right to occupy certain posts or to practice certain activities for the term of DATE ... ”

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

ORG or collective property in particular large quantities

“ ORG or collective property , performed in particularly large quantities , regardless of the manner of plundering ( ORG DATE , and CARDINAL ) shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE with the forfeiture of property . ”

LAW prior to DATE provided for a sanction of imprisonment of DATE for negligence , that was “ the failure to perform or improper performance , by an official , of his or her official duties due to careless or inaccurate attitude , which caused significant damage to the state or public interests or to the legally protected rights and interests of individual physical or legal persons ” .

At the material time paragraph CARDINAL of part I of LAW provided that criminal proceedings could not be initiated and started proceedings should be terminated if further prosecution was time - barred . This provision was repealed on DATE . At the same time the right to close the case as time - barred was given to the courts .

Article CARDINAL of the Code laid down the conditions for refusing to institute criminal proceedings against a person and Article CARDINAL the conditions for terminating the criminal proceedings .

The termination of criminal proceedings on the ground of paragraph CARDINAL of part I of LAW required the applicant ’s consent .

The relevant provisions of the PERSON read as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ The right to compensation for damages in the amount and in accordance with the procedure established by this PERSON shall arise in the cases of :

acquittal by a court ;

termination of a criminal case on grounds of absence of proof of commission of a crime , absence of corpus delicti , or lack of evidence of the accused ’s participation in the commission of the crime ;

refusal to initiate criminal proceedings or termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds stipulated in sub - paragraph CARDINAL of paragraph CARDINAL of this Article ;

termination of proceedings for an administrative offence . ”


The applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr GPE GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE police officers arrested the applicant on suspicion of membership of the ORG .

On DATE ORG ( sıkıyönetim askeri mahkemesi ) ordered the applicant 's detention pending trial .

On DATE ORG filed an indictment with ORG charging the applicant under articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code with membership of the ORG and undertaking actions aimed at separating a portion of the territories under the sovereignty of the ORG from the administration of the ORG .

On an unspecified date the applicant appointed a lawyer of his own choice to represent him throughout the domestic criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of offences under LAW and CARDINAL and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG ( askeri yargıtay ) quashed the judgment of DATE holding that there was insufficient evidence for the applicant 's conviction .

On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

Following promulgation of the PERSON of DATE , which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts , ORG acquired jurisdiction over the case and the case - file was sent to it .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of the charges .

On DATE the judgment of ORG was served on the applicant 's representative .

On DATE the judgment acquitting the applicant became final as neither the applicant nor the public prosecutor had appealed against it before the statutory time - limit .

On DATE the applicant appointed a new lawyer , who is his representative in the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the now final judgment was served on the applicant 's new lawyer upon his request .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim with ORG under PERSON no . CARDINAL requesting compensation for his unjustified detention on remand .

On DATE ORG awarded compensation to the applicant .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 - Right to life)

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

The applicants , who are father and daughter , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are the husband and the daughter of PERSON , who was born in DATE , and the father and sister of NORP Seriyev , who was born in DATE . At the material time the applicants and their relatives lived in GPE , GPE ; the applicants currently live in GPE , GPE .

On DATE a projectile struck the applicants ' house , hit PERSON and severely wounded her . She died on DATE from the injuries .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office instituted an investigation into the death of PERSON under LAW ( aggravated murder ) . The case file was given number DATE .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case . On DATE the investigative authorities ordered a forensic examination of ORG body .

At some point DATE the investigation of the criminal case was transferred to the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . DATE ( the military prosecutor 's office ) , where the case file was given number DATE .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office terminated the proceedings in the criminal case . The decision stated that the investigation had established that on DATE military unit no . DATE had participated in a special operation against illegal armed groups . At TIME an illuminating shell launched by a cannon CARDINALCCARDINAL No . CARDINAL from the position of the military unit , due to a technical malfunction , had hit the house at CARDINAL FAC in GPE , GPE . The death of PERSON was a result of an accident and therefore no personal responsibility could be established for it . The decision further stated that the criminal investigation in case no . DATE should be terminated for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the military servicemen .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant about the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings . The applicants did not appeal this decision .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office took another decision to terminate the proceedings in the criminal case on the grounds of lack of corpus delicti and the amnesty act applied to the military officers . The applicants did not appeal this decision either .

On DATE the first applicant brought proceedings against military unit no . DATE . He demanded compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage caused by his wife 's death .

On DATE the NORP town court partially granted the claim . The court granted the applicant MONEY ( RUB - about CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros ( EUR ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB MONEY ( about EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .

On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a request with the town court asking for an extension of the time - limits for appeal of the judgment . The applicant submitted that he had not complied with the time - limits for the appellate procedure because of illness .

On DATE the NORP town court rejected his request . The court stated that the applicant had failed to provide any evidence , such as a medical certificate , to justify his failure to comply with the statutory timelimits for the appeal .

On an unspecified date the first applicant again brought proceedings against military unit no . DATE demanding compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the actions of the military in DATE .

On DATE the NORP town court granted the applicant 's claim and awarded him a total of RUB MONEY ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in damages , of which RUB CARDINAL were granted in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage suffered in connection with the death of PERSON . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE the judgement was enforced and the applicant received the amount due .

In DATE as a result of an accident NORP ORG ( also spelled as PERSON ) lost his right hand , CARDINAL fingers on the left hand and vision in his right eye . At the material time he was wearing a prosthesis .

On DATE the applicants , PERSON and their relative PERSON were at home at CARDINAL FAC in GPE , GPE . The area was under the full control of the NORP federal forces ; military checkpoints were located on the roads leading to and from the village .

At TIME or CARDINAL silver - coloured vehicles , including a van and ORG cars , arrived at the applicants ' house . CARDINAL of them had a registration number , which was CARDINAL .

CARDINAL heavily - armed masked servicemen in uniforms got out of the vehicles . CARDINAL of them were in helmets . The men neither identified themselves nor produced any documents . They communicated in NORP , although a few spoke NORP . The applicants thought that the intruders were federal servicemen as the vast majority of them spoke unaccented NORP and just a few spoke NORP .

Upon entering the applicants ' yard , the servicemen demanded that the residents of the house hand their weapons to them and state who had spent TIME in the house . After that the men forced the second applicant and her brother LANGUAGE into different rooms .

The intruders sprayed some kind of thick liquid into the room where the second applicant was placed . CARDINAL of the officers entered GPE 's room , where he was forced to stay , beat him and searched the place .

Meanwhile other intruders took NORP out from the house , forced him into the yard and then into one of the cars in the street . As this was happening the first applicant was trying to explain to the servicemen that LANGUAGE was a disabled person and to show them his and GPE 's identity documents . CARDINAL of the servicemen took them from the first applicant and told him that they did not need any identity documents .

The second applicant and LANGUAGE ran after the servicemen in an attempt to prevent them from detaining LANGUAGE , but one of the intruders pushed the applicant and sprayed her with the thick liquid , causing her eyes to burn . They also sprayed LANGUAGE in the left eye and he ran to rinse his eye under an outdoor water tap . The first applicant also attempted to prevent the soldiers from taking LANGUAGE away . The applicant threw himself onto one of the cars , but a soldier sprayed a liquid into his eyes . A group of the applicants ' neighbours witnessed the abduction of PERSON .

The first applicant followed the abductors ' vehicles by car with an officer from a local department of the interior . They drove up to the local military checkpoints ; however , the applicant could not obtain any information there about GPE 's abductors .

The description of the circumstances surrounding NORP ORG 's abduction is based on an account by the first applicant dated DATE , on an account by the second applicant , dated DATE , and on documents submitted with the application .

On DATE the applicants started their search for NORP ORG . They contacted , both in person and in writing , various official bodies , such as the PERSON administration , the NORP administration , the NORP district military commander 's office and the prosecutors ' offices at different levels , describing in detail the circumstances of their relative 's abduction and asking for help in establishing his whereabouts . The applicants retained copies of a number of their complaints and the authorities ' replies and submitted them to the ORG . An official investigation had been opened by the local prosecutor 's office . The relevant information is summarised below .

NORP Immediately after his son 's abduction , in TIME of DATE , the first applicant invited the investigators of the NORP district prosecutor 's office ( the district prosecutor 's office ) . They arrived at the house TIME after the events . In the yard they took down the statements of the applicants , their relatives and neighbours and drew a map of the house . When the second applicant told the investigators about the spray used to disable her , CARDINAL of them dismissed her statement as irrelevant . The investigators refused to go inside and examine the house for evidence .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office instituted an investigation into the abduction of NORP ORG under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number CARDINAL .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in the criminal case was taking operational search measures to establish the whereabouts of NORP PERSON and identify the perpetrators of his kidnapping .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office forwarded the first applicant 's request for assistance in the search for his son to the district prosecutor 's office for examination .

On DATE the head of the criminal search division of the GPE department of the interior ( the NORP MVD ) informed the first applicant that his son 's abduction was being investigated by the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the first applicant requested the military prosecutor office 's of ORG ( the military prosecutor 's office of the ORG ) to assist in the search for his son .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of the ORG informed the first applicant that information concerning the investigation into his son 's abduction was available either at the district prosecutor office or the GPE prosecutor 's office . The letter also stated “ ... it has been established that federal military servicemen were not involved in your son 's abduction ” .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that his complaint about the abduction had been included into the investigation file .

NORP On DATE the first applicant addressed the LOC military commander 's office ( the district military commander 's office ) with a request for assistance in the search for his son .

On DATE the district military commander 's office informed the first applicant that they had forwarded information requests concerning PERSON whereabouts to a number of law enforcement agencies .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that the investigation in the criminal case had been resumed on an unspecified date .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the first applicant that they had not received his request .

On DATE the district military commander 's office provided the first applicant with a copy of their information request concerning the search for NORP ORG .

On DATE the first applicant complained to the district military commander 's office about the lack of information concerning the investigation into his son 's abduction .

On DATE the applicants ' representatives wrote to the district prosecutor 's office . They asked about the measures taken in the criminal case and the progress of the investigation and requested that the first applicant be provided with copies of documents from the investigation file .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the applicants ' representatives that the investigation into the abduction of PERSON had taken all measures to identify the perpetrators ; that the first applicant was entitled to familiarise himself with the documents in the investigation file ; that he could obtain information on the progress of the investigation and receive copies of the requested documents at the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the applicants ' representatives that information concerning the investigation in the criminal case was a secret and was not a subject to disclosure .

The Government submitted that “ ... at TIME on DATE in FAC in GPE , in the LOC district of GPE , CARDINAL unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms and masks , armed with automatic weapons , abducted PERSON and took him away to an unknown destination in a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle . The whereabouts of S. ORG have not been established since ” . In connection with this , the district prosecutor 's office had opened criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) .

On DATE the investigators conducted the crime scene examination at CARDINAL FAC , GPE . Nothing was collected from the scene .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case . The text of the decision included the following :

“ ... the investigation established : on DATE unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms , with firearms , had arrived during the daytime in VAZ-CARDINAL cars at the house of PERSON in FAC , GPE and detained him ; after that they had taken him away to an unknown destination ... ”

On DATE , DATE , the applicant was questioned by the investigators . According to a partial copy of his witness statement furnished by the ORG , in TIME of DATE he had been at home with his relatives . His son LANGUAGE was in the house while his daughter , the second applicant , was in the yard . At TIME a masked man in camouflage uniform armed with an automatic weapon had entered the room where the first applicant was resting . The man asked the applicant in LANGUAGE whether any other men were in the house . The applicant responded that his children were on the second floor of the house and then followed the man outside . In the yard he saw a group of CARDINAL masked men in camouflage uniforms , armed with automatic weapons ; the second applicant was showing her brother 's documents to them . CARDINAL of the men sprayed the second applicant 's face with a liquid from a spray can and took PERSON to a VAZ-CARDINAL car which was parked in the street . The applicant did not see how many cars were in the street . He further stated that his son had a first - degree disability owing to the amputation of his hand .

On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant . According to a partial copy of her witness statement furnished by the Government , she stated that NORP ORG had a disability : he had lost his hand as a result of a mine explosion . On DATE she had been at home when she had heard from the hallway an order to put her hands up . She saw a man in camouflage uniform holding a machine gun , and her brother LANGUAGE next to him . The man asked whether anyone else , other than the family members , were in the house . When the applicant responded that only family members were in the house , the man asked what had happened to her brother 's hands . The applicant explained that a mine had exploded in his hands and that there were medical documents certifying it . Several more men entered the house and asked her to fetch the documents . After the applicant returned with the papers , they sprayed her in the eyes with tear gas , pushed her into a room and dragged her brother downstairs . She attempted to follow them , but one of the abductors pointed his gun at her and ordered her to get back in the room . Then the applicant decided to call for help from the window ; from there she saw several more armed men in camouflage uniforms in the yard and CARDINAL or CARDINAL VAZ-CARDINAL cars . All the vehicles were silver - coloured , except for CARDINAL , which was white . The intruders put NORP into CARDINAL of the cars and drove away .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants ' neighbour , Mr V.S. According to a partial copy of his witness statement furnished by the Government , he stated that on DATE he had been at home when he had heard screams coming from the applicants ' house . He went outside and heard the second applicant screaming . Then the witness went to the applicants ' house . On the way there he saw a boy who told him that NORP PERSON was being taken away . A silver PERSON with tinted windows was in the street ; its registration number was CARDINAL , region CARDINAL . CARDINAL masked men in camouflage uniforms , armed with QUANTITY machine guns and ORG pistols ( “ automatic PERSON pistol ” ) walked towards the car from the vegetable garden . Judging by the way the men moved , the witness concluded that they were CARDINAL old ; they were wearing white training shoes . CARDINAL men got in the VAZ-CARDINAL car , whereas the fourth one pointed his gun at the witness and said in NORP : “ Stop or I will shoot ” . After that the man also got into the car , which drove away down the street in the direction of the PERSON - Baku auto route . According to the witness , CARDINAL more silver VAZ-CARDINAL cars , a white PERSON car and a white minivan ORG , all with tinted windows , had been parked next to the LOC ' house ; these vehicles followed the VAZ-CARDINAL in the direction of the PERSON - Baku motorway .

On an unspecified date the investigators questioned Mr PERSON who stated that in DATE he and other residents of GPE had been on their way back to the village from haymaking . On the road they had seen some objects . PERSON picked up CARDINAL of them . The objected exploded in his hands . He was immediately taken to the nearest military checkpoint and from there to the hospital . As the result of the incident NORP ORG had lost his hand .

On DATE the investigators requested that ORG of ORG ( LOC ) informed them about the owners of vehicles which had numbers CARDINAL on their registration plates . According to the response from the authorities , CARDINAL persons , Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr GPE . and PERSON . ORG , owned cars with the numbers CARDINAL - CARDINAL on the plates .

NORP In response to the investigators ' request , in DATE the LOC department of ORG ( the ORG ) submitted that they had not conducted special operations on DATE in GPE and had no information which discredited PERSON . A similar response was received in DATE from ORG of the NORP President .

On DATE the investigators forwarded a request to the military prosecutor 's office of the ORG and the LOC district department of the interior ( LOC ) asking whether they had conducted a special operation in GPE on DATE and whether PERSON had been detained in either the ORG detention centre or the ROVD premises . According to their replies , these authorities had no information either concerning a special operation in GPE on DATE or detention of the applicants ' relative .

In DATE the investigators forwarded requests to ORG district prosecutor 's office and the NORP district prosecutor 's office asking the authorities to question the owners of the CARDINAL vehicles . According to their responses , it was impossible to question Mr GPE as his whereabouts had not been established ; a neighbour of Mr Kh . PERSON had stated that the latter had moved to the GPE district of GPE and therefore could not be questioned . Mr PERSON stated that for DATE he had owned a dark red DATE VAZ-CARDINAL with the registration number PERSON , which he had sold to PERSON from the Samashki village , GPE . As for PERSON . , he stated that in DATE he had purchased a silver DATE VAZ-CARDINAL with the registration number T CARDINAL ORG . In DATE he had sold the car to a man from ORG who had been introduced to him by the owner of a local service station , Mr M.

On an unspecified date the head of the criminal search division of the Shelkovskoy ROVD informed the investigators that they could not establish the identity of the new owner of the car which had belonged to PERSON GPE .

The investigators forwarded a number of requests to various detention centres and the district prosecutors ' offices in GPE asking whether these authorities had detained PERSON and whether they had opened criminal proceedings against him . According to the replies received by the investigation , the applicants ' relative had not been detained and no criminal proceedings had been opened against him .

On an unspecified date the investigation received a letter from ORG ( the ORG ) which stated that PERSON was listed by the criminal search police as a member of an illegal armed group .

According to the Government , the investigation failed to establish the whereabouts of NORP ORG . The investigating authorities sent requests for information to the competent ORG agencies and took other steps to have the crime resolved . The investigation found no evidence to support the involvement of NORP military servicemen in the crime , nor did they find any evidence that the applicants ' relative was dead .

The Government further submitted that the investigation had been suspended and resumed on a number of occasions and that the applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation .

Despite specific requests by ORG did not disclose most of the contents of the investigation file in criminal case no . CARDINAL . They provided copies of only a few documents , including only partial copies of the applicants ' witness statements to the investigators , and requested the ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules of Court concerning confidentiality of the submitted documents and to restrict public access to the submitted documentation . In their request the ORG stated that the criminal investigation was still in progress and that public disclosure of the documents could be detrimental to the interests of participants in the criminal proceedings .

The Government further stated that a copy of the entire investigation file could not be submitted to the ORG owing to the absence of any guarantees on the part of the ORG of non - disclosure of the secret data contained in the investigation file . In this respect the Government referred to LAW , since the file contained information concerning participants in criminal proceedings . They also cited , by way of comparison , LAW of ORG of DATE ( Articles CARDINAL and DATE ) and the Statute of ORG for the former GPE ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and argued that these instruments provided for personal responsibility for a breach of the rules of confidentiality .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


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

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE ORG gave a judgment in divorce proceedings . It held that both parents of twins PERSON , born in DATE , were to retain parental rights over them , with their place of permanent residence being with their mother , the applicant . Having regard to the lack of cooperation between the parents , it restricted both of them in the exercise of their parental rights and decided that they should be supervised by a court - appointed guardian . The guardian was to report to the court once DATE on the exercise of the parties’ parental rights and on the situation of the family . This judgment was later upheld by ORG .

On DATE ORG , upon a petition submitted by the children ’s father , changed the manner in which the parties’ parental rights should be exercised .

The court established that DATE the children , who before had had a harmonious and spontaneous relationship with their father , had started to react negatively and even hysterically to his presence .

The court had regard to CARDINAL expert opinions . They had stated that the children and their mother as a family had been affected by PERSON syndrome ( Parental Alienation Syndrome ) , consisting in a strong emotional link with CARDINAL of the parents , in this case – the mother . This entailed the children ’s complete submission to her , and in their perceiving the father , as a result of the mother ’s hammering this into her daughters , as an enemy . This resulted in a total severance of all emotional links with him .

The court heard as witnesses a number of experts , CARDINAL of the children ’s teachers , a psychologist who had talked with the mother for the purposes of making a diagnosis of the situation and a number of other persons .

It refused to admit evidence from psychologist PERSON , proposed by the applicant , and refused also her request for additional expert opinions of another psychologist , paediatrician and psychiatrist . The court found that ample expert evidence was already available in the case file .

The court accepted the conclusion that the family was affected by PERSON ( ORG ) syndrome , caused mostly by the applicant ’s emotional pressure on the children in order to make them perceive their father in a negative light . There was no evidence to indicate that the children ’s father had committed any reprehensible acts and the children had not accused him of any . In particular , no incidents of domestic violence had been established . He was interested in the children ’s development , cooperated with the authorities and had been complying with the court ’s decisions on contact with the children and the court guardian ’s suggestions . The children were deeply disturbed . They were overly excitable and often aggressive , verbally denigrated their father and their paternal grandparents , referred to alleged episodes of illtreatment which had never been confirmed and of which they had received information from their mother , showed undue fear and reacted hysterically when spoken to about their father and when seeing him .

The court was of the view that the children ’s best interest dictated that they should be given appropriate treatment . The applicant was unable to draw a line between her own negative view of her former husband and the conduct which she should have adopted in the children ’s best interests . Her behaviour was dictated entirely by her own emotional relationship to her former husband , with no due regard to the need to show restraint for the sake of the children ’s development , wellbeing and psychological balance . The court noted that it was well aware of the necessity of keeping the measures to be applied within limits , having regard to the proportionality principle . It was of the view that the children should be placed in a children ’s home and temporarily change their environment . The applicant should be allowed to see her children in the home , supervised by psychologists , and ordered to undergo therapy suitable for persons affected by ORG . The same obligation had to be imposed on the children ’s father .

The applicant appealed . She requested that the decision be quashed in its part concerning the placement of her children in the institution . She submitted that the measures were not in the children ’s best interests . The court had failed to examine whether less invasive measures would also have achieved the aim sought .

By a decision of DATE ORG amended the contested decision . It deleted the description of an alleged disorder affecting the applicant and her daughters from the description of the facts of the case . It observed that the opinions of specialists had not given rise to any doubt that the children were indeed deeply disturbed and that their separation from the mother , together with therapy , would help them . It maintained the order to place the children in a children ’s home with a view to therapy and maintained the obligation for the parents to undergo therapy aimed at ameliorating their contacts , due regard being had to the children ’s best interests .

The court observed that already in the divorce judgment the court , having regard to the conflict between the former spouses , had imposed on the latter supervision measures intended to facilitate their contacts and to ensure respect for the children ’s best interests . As the parties had subsequently failed to co - operate and their relationship had steadily deteriorated to the point where they were unable to ensure compliance with the custody and access arrangements without acrimony , the decision of the lower court was justified and should be upheld .

On DATE ORG , acting ex officio , set aside the placement order of CARDINAL DATE .

Subsequently , the applicant and the children ’s father had a number of conversations with the assistance of specialists of ORG to the Family . The court was informed of them .

On DATE the court decided again to place the children in a children ’s home .

On DATE the court granted the applicant ’s request to stay the execution of that order . It appointed another expert with a view to determining the best possible therapy for the children . The court fixed CARDINAL dates for the applicant and the children for therapy sessions . The applicant failed to attend these sessions without providing any justification .

On DATE and DATE the applicant contested the appointment of the expert . The court dismissed her motion .

On DATE the court set the placement order aside and appointed a court guardian for the family . The court had regard to the children ’s health and found that the placement could have a negative effect on their health .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 8

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Požega .

The applicant was employed as a civilian by ORG ( ORG ) . On DATE ORG issued a conclusion noting the applicant 's application to be granted a flat and classifying it in “ group CARDINAL ” on the basis of his employment with the ORG from DATE . On DATE the Government adopted the Decree on the Prohibition of All Real Estate Transactions in GPE ( ORG o zabrani raspolaganja nekretninama na teritoriju PERSON published in ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) which banned all transactions in respect of immovable property situated in GPE and belonging to the former GPE 's federal institutions or legal entities having their seat in CARDINAL of its former federal units . This decree entered into force on DATE .

On DATE the above - mentioned ORG adopted a decision to grant the applicant , as their civilian employee , together with his wife and son , the right to occupy and purchase a flat in Požega owned by the ORG . The applicant and his family moved into the flat in DATE . Pursuant to the Government 's decree of DATE , all possessions of the former ORG came into the ownership of GPE . The applicant left the ORG and made himself available for ORG .

On DATE ORG enacted ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ) , which regulated the sale of publicly - owned flats previously let under protected tenancies , giving the right to holders of such tenancies of publicly - owned flats to purchase them from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions . On the basis of that LAW , in DATE the applicant requested ORG as the owner of the flat to enter into a contract for the sale of the flat with him as the buyer . Since the owner declined his request , the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale .

On DATE the ORG brought a civil action against the applicant in the same ORG , seeking his eviction . The ORG submitted that it was the owner of the flat and that the applicant , as a result of the decree of DATE , had never obtained a specially protected tenancy in respect of the flat , so the ORG had the right to repossess it . The CARDINAL proceedings were joined .

In a judgment of DATE ORG accepted the ORG 's action and dismissed the applicant 's counterclaim . It also ordered that the applicant be evicted . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :

“ ... the decision relied on by the defendant [ the applicant ] is null and void pursuant to the Decree on the Prohibition of All Real Estate Transactions . No other decision has been adopted concerning the defendant 's [ rights ] in respect of the flat in question . Under LAW a specially protected tenancy could have been acquired on the basis of a final decision on allocation of a flat for occupation or any other valid legal entitlement ( section CARDINAL of LAW , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Save for his occupation of the flat in question , the defendant does not possess a final decision that he had acquired a specially protected tenancy or any other valid legal entitlement to that effect ... ”

On appeal , on DATE ORG PERSON u GPE ) upheld the first - instance judgment . The relevant part of the appellate judgment reads as follows :

“ By the decree of CARDINAL DATE GPE became the owner of all real estate , movables , property rights and monetary resources situated on its territory and formerly under control of the ORG . The decree which came into force on DATE banned all transactions in respect of the real estate situated in GPE ( including its sale , exchange , transfer of the right of use , etc . ) which was in possession or owned or under control of the federal organs or institutions . Therefore , the conclusions of the first - instance court that after that decree had come into force , the ORG , which was the owner of the flat , had no right to dispose of it and that the decision of CARDINAL DATE which served as a basis for the defendant 's occupation of the flat , was null and void , are correct .

Since the defendant has no legal entitlement to occupy the flat , the decision of the first - instance court ordering his eviction ... is correct . ”

With a view to securing the applicant 's eviction the ORG instituted enforcement proceedings before ORG on DATE . The eviction order was issued on DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE the applicant sought that the eviction be adjourned , pending the resolution of his appeal on points of law before ORG . He also submitted medical documentation concerning his son , born in DATE , showing that he suffers from a malign brain tumour and chronic hepatitis B. In view of the applicant 's pending appeal on points of law and the condition of the applicant 's son , the eviction was adjourned in a decision of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on points of law .

NORP The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on DATE . He complained , inter alia , that his constitutional right to the protection of his personal and family life had been violated in that the lower courts ' decision had ordered and upheld his eviction . He argued that these decisions had been contrary to the law and that he had a specially protected tenancy in respect of the flat in question and thus the right to occupy it .

ORG scheduled the eviction of the applicant and his family for DATE . The applicant asked for an adjournment . On DATE the ORG Attorney 's ORG , which represented ORG in the proceedings , agreed to the applicant 's request owing to his difficult family situation . They stressed , however , that it was only a temporary solution and invited the applicant to file a request for accommodation with GPE . On DATE ORG again adjourned the applicant 's eviction until ORG decision , on the ground that the applicant 's constitutional complaint was pending and that the creditor , that is the ORG , had agreed with the adjournment owing to the applicant 's difficult family situation .

A letter of GPE of DATE sent to ORG indicates that the Municipality had no flats at its disposal where the applicant and his family could be accommodated . In a letter of DATE the applicant expressed his intention to purchase another flat .

The applicant 's constitutional complaint was dismissed as being ill - founded by ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on DATE . The enforcement proceedings have not been resumed so far .

In a letter of DATE the applicant informed ORG that he was finally about to resolve his housing situation .

DATE Ustav Republike Hrvatske , ORG nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) reads as follows :

“ The home is inviolable .

A search of a person 's home or other premises shall be ordered by a court in the form of a reasoned written warrant based on law .

An occupier , or his or her representative , shall be entitled to be present during the search of a home or other LOC . The presence of CARDINAL witnesses shall be obligatory .

Under the conditions prescribed by law and where it is necessary to execute an arrest warrant or to apprehend a person who has committed a criminal offence or in order to remove serious danger for the life or health of people , or for property of greater value , the police may enter a person 's home or other LOC and carry out a search without a court 's warrant or the occupier 's consent and without any witnesses being present .

Where there is a probability that evidence may be found in the home of a person who has committed a criminal offence , a search shall be carried out only in presence of witnesses . ”

Section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ( Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima , ORG no CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads as follows :

“ The owner has the right to seek repossession of his or her property from the person in whose possession it is . ”

The Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to Occupier ) Act ( Official Gazette nos . DATE , DATE , CARDINAL CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , PERSON o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ) regulates the conditions for the sale of flats let under specially protected tenancies . In general , the LAW entitles the holder of a specially protected tenancy of a publicly owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions of sale .

The relevant provision of the LAW provides as follows :

“ Every holder of a specially protected tenancy ( hereinafter ' the tenant ' ) may submit a written application to purchase a flat to the ... owner ( ' the seller ' ) ... and the seller shall be obliged to sell the flat .

The relevant part of ORG decision no . U - III/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE reads as follows :

“ As regards the alleged violation of the constitutional right guaranteed under LAW , it is to be said that that a violation of that right can not occur in the enforcement proceedings , since LAW guarantees inviolability of home which concerns conduct of the police during entries and searches of home in execution of arrest warrants or in order to comprehend a perpetrator of a criminal offence or to remove serious risk for lives and health of persons or for valuable assets . Therefore , the provision in question is not applicable in the proceedings at issue . ”


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Batman .

On DATE the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti - terror branch of ORG on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation . On DATE she was brought before the investigating judge at ORG , who ordered her detention on remand .

On DATE ORG declared a lack of jurisdiction and transferred the case file to ORG .

On DATE ORG at ORG filed an indictment with that court accusing her , inter alia , of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the ORG . The prosecution requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to LAW .

The trial commenced before ORG . In the subsequent hearings , the court refused to release the applicant on account of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of evidence .

On DATE the applicant submitted a petition to ORG , alleging that she had been ill - treated during police custody .

The case against the applicant continued before ORG until DATE when , following a constitutional amendment , ORG were abolished . Thereafter , the applicant 's case was transferred to ORG .

On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

On DATE ORG declared its lack of jurisdiction and transferred the applicant 's case to ORG , holding that the applicant had been a minor at the time of the events .

On an unspecified date , ORG also declared its non - jurisdiction and the case file was then transferred to ORG .

CARDINAL DATE the ORG declared a lack of jurisdiction and transmitted the case file to ORG to resolve the jurisdictional conflict .

On DATE ORG decided that the case should be heard by ORG .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of the charges against her .

Subsequently , the applicant applied to ORG seeking compensation for both non - pecuniary and pecuniary damage pursuant to PERSON no . CARDINAL pertaining to the payment of compensation to persons unjustifiably arrested or detained . On DATE ORG awarded the applicant MONEY ( TRY ) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage . According to the information submitted by the applicant , the proceedings are still pending before ORG , following her appeal , and she has not yet received the due amount .