Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Tajikistan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in NORP in DATE . In DATE he has lived most of the time in GPE , in LOC . He is currently detained in ORG in LOC .

The applicant lived in NORP . His family owned a fruit farm near the town of GPE in GPE and QUANTITY of orchards . They dried fruits and exported them to GPE . In DATE the applicant moved to GPE , where he sold dried fruit at a market near GPE . DATE he returned for DATE to NORP and helped his relatives with the harvest . He also sent money to his home town . He states that he has CARDINAL wives : his first wife lives in NORP with his children ; his second wife moved to GPE , but after the applicant ’s arrest ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) returned to NORP .

According to the applicant , members of his family were victims of politically motivated persecution in NORP . Thus , the applicant ’s elder brother , GPE , took part in the DATE - CARDINAL civil war in NORP on the opposition side . In the applicant ’s words , PERSON was one of the leaders of ORG . He was arrested in DATE . Following his arrest , CARDINAL of people , including members of the applicant ’s family , demonstrated on the streets of Isfara demanding his release . The police used firearms while dispersing the demonstration . In DATE which followed , the applicant ’s brother was tried and sentenced for anti - constitutional conspiracy , first in DATE and then again in DATE . According to the applicant , PERSON told him that he had been tortured while in detention .

The applicant alleged that the ORG authorities continued to persecute his family . On several occasions their family house was searched in TIME ; the applicant and his wife had to sleep fully dressed in fear of being apprehended . The authorities repeatedly and arbitrarily disconnected water and electricity supplies from his house . The local law - enforcement officers extorted money from him and forced the applicant to pay them part of his earnings in GPE . In addition , in DATE the applicant had a quarrel with a local police officer .

According to the applicant ’s submissions , during his stays in NORP he attended some opposition political gatherings .

In DATE ( the exact date of his arrival was disputed in the domestic proceedings in GPE ) he arrived in GPE from GPE for the last time and started working at the PERSON food market in GPE . In DATE the applicant joined an opposition movement , PERSON ( “ The NORP ” ) , which united NORP nationals living abroad and wishing to see certain reforms in the country . The applicant took part in meetings of PERSON members in GPE . The applicant ’s name was put on the membership list of that organisation ; however , he was not given any documents confirming his membership of PERSON .

NORP On DATE the ORG authorities opened a criminal case against the applicant . He was accused of anti - government armed conspiracy . Specifically , the applicant was accused of being a member of several opposition movements responsible for armed riots – first , the “ Bay’at ” group and then the “ ORG ” ( “ the IMU ” ) . His brother PERSON was sentenced to imprisonment twice for membership of those groups and involvement in the riots . According to the Tajikistani authorities , in DATE the applicant took part in the construction of a military base in the mountains in GPE , near the border with NORP , where the IMU kept firearms and ammunition . He took an oath of allegiance to the movement . The applicant was also involved in propagating the ideas of the movement amongst local youth .

On DATE a formal statement of charges was issued against the applicant . He was additionally charged with supporting the IMU with the money he earned in GPE . The applicant was also accused of being involved in dealing in stolen cars in GPE and the forgery of car documents . He sent the proceeds of this activity to NORP to finance subversive activities there .

The applicant noted that there were CARDINAL versions of the decision of CARDINAL DATE to open a criminal case against him , as well as of the statement of charges of CARDINAL DATE . CARDINAL version of the documents contained information apparently concerning another presumed member of the opposition , a Mr A. Abdulkhalikov . Furthermore , CARDINAL version of the statement of charges against the applicant mentioned “ stolen cars ” , “ forged documents ” and “ financing terrorist activities ” , whereas another version did not contain that information .

On DATE the ORG authorities ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand in absentia . In the detention order personal data of the applicant contained information apparently concerning PERSON . The detention order did not mention stolen cars , forged documents , or financing of terrorist activities .

On DATE the ORG authorities placed the applicant ’s name on the international wanted list . In the international search request thus created the Tajikistani authorities placed the applicant ’s own name in the column concerning his presumed accomplices .

On DATE , in the town of GPE , QUANTITY police officers were killed and several people wounded in a terrorist attack . On DATE , in a press interview concerning the applicant ’s arrest in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the Minister of ORG of NORP mentioned the applicant as one of the perpetrators of that terrorist attack . The applicant was defined as amir ( the leader ) of a terrorist cell operating from NORP territory .

In DATE - CARDINAL other suspected participants in the conspiracy were arrested in NORP and stood trial there . CARDINAL people were convicted . CARDINAL of them , Mr. PERSON , was convicted inter alia of setting up “ criminal contacts ” with the applicant , and of transmitting “ prohibited information ” from the applicant in GPE to GPE .

During the trial several of the accused complained to the court of illtreatment by law - enforcement officers in the course of the preliminary investigation . The applicant referred to the case of PERSON , who died during questioning at the police station in the applicant ’s home town , and who he stated was his cousin . The applicant also cited the case of PERSON PERSON , a member of ORG , who he said had been tortured to death by police officers in the applicant ’s home town . The applicant lastly stated that a Mr PERSON had been tortured . The wife of Mr PERSON had seen the traces of torture , and was prepared to testify to it before the national court , but the court refused to hear her .

On DATE the ORG authorities sent an extradition request to the NORP authorities . The extradition request was accompanied by assurances that the applicant would not be subjected to torture or cruel , inhuman , degrading treatment or punishment . He would have all opportunities to defend himself in NORP , including the right to legal assistance . He would not be persecuted on political grounds , or because of his race , religion , nationality or political views . In addition , assurances were given that the applicant would be prosecuted only in relation to the crimes mentioned in the extradition request , that he would be able to leave NORP freely after standing trial and serving a sentence , and that he would not be expelled , transferred or extradited to a third State without the NORP authorities’ consent .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in the town of GPE in LOC , in connection with the international search warrant against him . He was questioned by the officers of the antiextremism department of the NORP police .

During the questioning he explained that he had come to GPE in DATE for work and that he had not applied for NORP nationality or sought political asylum . His documents were not in order ; he claimed that he had lost his Tajikistani passport . The applicant alleged that his criminal prosecution in NORP was politically motivated because of his membership of the PERSON opposition movement .

On DATE the ORG remanded the applicant in custody pending examination of the extradition request .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG office not to extradite him to NORP , referring to imminent risk of ill - treatment there . He relied on reported cases of torture by lawenforcement agencies in NORP and the relevant case - law of the ORG . The applicant argued that , being connected to the political opposition , he belonged to a vulnerable group and that his criminal prosecution in NORP was politically motivated .

On DATE the ORG extended the period of the applicant ’s detention pending extradition until DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed , claiming in particular , that his detention was not justified , because the asylum proceedings he had initiated earlier ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had a suspensive effect and he could not have been extradited before the completion of those proceedings . Therefore , there was no reason to detain him .

On DATE ORG of GPE informed ORG that they did not see any obstacles to the extradition of the applicant to NORP .

On DATE ORG wrote a letter to the immigration authority in connection with the applicant ’s request for asylum . In this letter he asked ORG to keep him informed of developments in the applicant ’s case , and indicated that the applicant ’s extradition was “ under the control of the President of the NORP Federation ” .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that they did not object to the extradition of the applicant to NORP .

On DATE the applicant ’s appeal was examined and dismissed by ORG .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed against the extension . The applicant alleged , in particular , that if extradited he could be subjected to treatment contrary to LAW . On DATE ORG confirmed the extension of the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE decided to extradite the applicant to NORP .

On DATE the applicant was informed of that decision . On DATE the ORG decided to extend the applicant ’s detention pending extradition until DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the extradition order .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the extension of his detention .

On DATE ORG issued a statement expressing concerns about the possible extradition of the applicant to NORP .

On DATE ORG upheld the extension of the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the applicant applied for asylum in GPE . In the application form he indicated that he belonged to the PERSON opposition political movement . During the asylum interview he specified that he was not an active member of PERSON and did not attend their gatherings , but simply “ shared their political views ” .

On DATE he supplemented his application for asylum and put forward the same arguments as in the extradition proceedings .

NORP On DATE his application for asylum was refused by ORG ( “ the MA ” ) , on the ground that the applicant ’s fears of persecution on political grounds in his home country were unfounded . He was formally notified of that decision on DATE . The ORG concluded that the applicant had committed crimes on the territory of NORP . The applicant belonged to organisations which had been banned by a decision of ORG in DATE ; therefore , his presence at the demonstration in DATE in support of his arrested brother had been of itself a criminal act . The applicant ’s allegation that CARDINAL of the population of the town of PERSON had been prosecuted for their political views was , in the view of the ORG , absurd , since there were not enough police officers in NORP to prosecute so many people . The ORG also concluded that the applicant ’s membership of PERSON was merely passive , and therefore that he was not at risk of ill - treatment in this connection . The ORG found , in particular , that “ it was certain that the applicant did not belong to any political , religious or civic organisations ” .

On DATE the applicant appealed , putting forward the same arguments as in the extradition proceedings .

On DATE the applicant ’s appeal against that decision was rejected by ORG .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of the MA not to grant him the refugee status in GPE .

ORG noted , in particular , that in DATE he had been travelling freely between GPE and GPE , and that DATE he returned to NORP to visit his relatives in PERSON . The applicant had applied for asylum only after his arrest in GPE and not immediately at border control . The applicant ’s closest relatives lived in NORP undisturbed and did not leave the country . The court concluded that this demonstrated that the applicant had not been a victim of political persecution as he alleged .

As regards the applicant ’s membership of PERSON and his brother being a former leader of ORG , the court noted that the applicant ’s political involvement was not official , that he only shared their political opinions and did not attend meetings , nor did he engage in agitation . The mere fact that he had political views which were different from the government ’s official position did not give him the right to claim asylum .

The court further noted that NORP was a member of many international conventions , had an ombudsman , and respected human rights . As regards the references to other sources which cast doubt in GPE ’s human rights record , that information had been obtained from the mass media , was opinionated , and was therefore not objective .

The court held that he had not produced sufficient evidence of the risk of persecution for political reasons at home , and that NORP complied with its international obligations in the human rights area .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal in a summary fashion .

DATE . On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal against the extradition order . At the hearing the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his choice . The applicant denied committing the offences imputed to him and presented an alibi . The defence also claimed that if extradited to NORP the applicant would be tortured , as many others accused of “ religious extremism ” had been . The defence referred in this respect to the relevant case - law of the ORG and to numerous reports of international human rights NGOs and ORG bodies competent in the field . The applicant also claimed that he had learned about the criminal prosecution against him only at the moment of his arrest in GPE . He also referred to numerous inconsistencies in the documents submitted in support of the extradition request by the NORP authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The prosecution did not contest that the applicant belonged to the opposition movement and had been present at political gatherings . However , they drew the court ’s attention to numerous inconsistencies in his submissions , cast doubt on the reliability of the sources of information relied on by the applicant , and stressed that the applicant was involved in a terrorist organisation .

Having heard the parties , ORG upheld the extradition order . ORG reasoning can be summarised as follows . The court observed that the applicant faced serious criminal accusations and that the acts imputed to him would in principle qualify as “ crimes ” under NORP law . It was not the task of the NORP court to establish whether the applicant was guilty of the impugned crimes . The court held that the inconsistencies in the Tajikistani documents were “ technical errors ” and did not affect the validity of the extradition request .

It was impossible for the court to establish when exactly the applicant had entered the territory of GPE for the last time , since the applicant ’s own submissions in this respect were inconsistent , and there was no official information on the matter . However , the court found that it certainly had not been in DATE , as the applicant had alleged . According to his original statement to the prosecutor , the applicant had been residing permanently in GPE since DATE . He had not applied for political asylum in GPE before his arrest . Although the applicant had lost his passport in DATE , he did not contact the embassy of NORP to obtain a new one . During the interview the applicant was unable to indicate his exact address in GPE .

The applicant had a family in NORP , which included his brother ’s family and his first wife and children . They all lived in their family house . He regularly spoke to them on the telephone , and it was impossible that they would not tell him about the criminal prosecution . The court concluded that the applicant had been living in GPE permanently since DATE , that he had been aware of the criminal proceedings against him in NORP , and that he had been hiding from the Tajikistani authorities in GPE .

The court did not find any evidence that the applicant ’s case was “ political ” . At the first questioning he mentioned that he had come to GPE to find work , not out of fear of persecution . At the hearing the applicant stated that he had attended a political gathering in DATE , but that his role had been limited to giving a lift in a car to his relatives and taking them to the venue of the gathering . He denied having been involved in any political anti - governmental activity in NORP . His activity in the PERSON political movement was minimal : he simply shared their political opinions . The court observed that the applicant ’s brother , PERSON , was serving a prison sentence in NORP ; however , other members of his family , including his elder brother PERSON , were all living in GPE . The applicant ’s first wife lived in NORP with their CARDINAL children and his second wife had been able to leave NORP freely and come to GPE . His family owned QUANTITY of orchards near a recreational zone . He was able for DATE to maintain himself and his family with his earnings from selling dried fruit in GPE . The authorities thus did not interfere with his business interests or those of his family , despite the allegedly political underpinning of the case against him . His own testimony about the political nature of the prosecution was inconsistent . He first stated that the criminal case against him resulted from personal animosity between him and the chief of the local police following a quarrel in a café . Later in the court proceedings the applicant suggested that the criminal prosecution had been instituted so that his family ’s land could be taken away .

The court also examined letters received from ORG in support of the applicant ’s cause , and noted that they did not contain anything which would point to the existence of a risk of ill - treatment to him personally .

NORP The court finally analysed the institutional and legislative guarantees against ill - treatment which existed in NORP , as well as its international obligations , and concluded that they were sufficient to guarantee that the applicant would not be subjected to any ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG ruled that the applicant ’s detention would not be extended pending extradition , because the period of the applicant ’s detention had reached the maximum established by law ( DATE ) . At the same time , the court indicated that since the applicant had been residing in GPE without papers , he could have been subjected to expulsion ( administrative removal ) proceedings and detained on that ground .

On DATE ORG confirmed the validity of the extradition order and upheld the reasoning of the lower court .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office forwarded the relevant documents in respect of the applicant to the police , who drew up a report on his illegal stay in GPE , which amounted to an administrative offence under LAW ( “ the CAO ” ) .

On DATE , ORG of LOC examined the case against the applicant and found him guilty . The court established that the applicant had unlawfully resided in GPE from DATE until his arrest on DATE with a view to extradition . The court imposed an administrative fine on the applicant , ordered his expulsion ( administrative removal ) from GPE and placed him in detention pending expulsion because of the gravity of the offence and because the applicant had no stable income in GPE . No specific time - limit for the applicant ’s detention was given by the court . The court did not address his arguments about the risk of ill - treatment in the event of his deportation to NORP .

On DATE the public prosecutor ordered the applicant ’s release from detention pending extradition , because the maximum term prescribed by law had expired . In the release order the prosecutor noted that an extradition check was in progress . The applicant was not released but was transferred to the Serpukhov ORG in LOC , according to the detention order issued in the course of the expulsion proceedings .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers appealed against this order to ORG . They submitted that the court had refused to consider the applicant ’s arguments concerning the possibility of ill - treatment in GPE .

According to the applicant , during TIME of CARDINAL DATE he was visited in the detention centre by QUANTITY police officers from the antiextremism department of ORG . They offered the applicant the opportunity to leave GPE for NORP voluntarily , with a plane ticket provided by them . He was also photographed . It appears that the Dolgoprudniy Town prosecutor in charge of his case was not informed of that visit . Nor were the applicant ’s lawyers informed thereof . The applicant declined the offer and was returned to his cell .

On DATE ORG adjourned the hearing concerning the expulsion order due to the failure of CARDINAL of the witnesses , a police officer who had issued the administrative offence report , to appear .

On DATE ORG examined the appeal . The police officer did not appear at the hearing , but the court decided to proceed with the case . The applicant was not present at the hearing either , since the police had not arranged for him to be transferred from the detention centre to the court ; however , his lawyer was present . According to the applicant ’s lawyer , the judge told her that the court had no obligation to arrange for the applicant to attend in person . The court confirmed the validity of the expulsion and detention orders . The court did not address the arguments concerning the risk of the applicant being illtreated in NORP . The court did not specify the period of the applicant ’s detention with a view to expulsion .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG in LOC .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s representative ’s request , ORG of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) expressed the following opinion on the risk of ill - treatment the applicant faces in NORP :

“ In accordance with numerous reports of international organisations as well as generally accessible information on GPE , because of mass violations of human rights and basic principles of international law by the ORG authorities , including the principle of prohibition of torture , in particular , widespread practices of torture and ill - treatment by law - enforcement bodies , especially to extract confessions in criminal proceedings , violations of fair trial provisions , such as denial of access to legal counsel and lack of an independent judiciary , taking into account the fact that in NORP the applicant is to be prosecuted in connection with criminal offences , ORG considers that there exists a real risk of torture for the applicant in the event of his expulsion to NORP . ”

Chapter CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) of DATE governs the procedure to be followed in the event of extradition .

An extradition decision made by ORG may be challenged before a court ( LAW ) . In that case the extradition order should not be enforced until a final judgment is delivered ( LAW ) .

A court is to review the lawfulness and validity of a decision to extradite within DATE of receipt of a request for review . The decision should be taken in open court by a panel of CARDINAL judges in the presence of a prosecutor , the person whose extradition is sought and the latter ’s legal counsel ( LAW ) .

Issues of guilt or innocence are not within the scope of judicial review , which is limited to an assessment of whether the extradition order was made in accordance with the procedure set out in applicable international and domestic law ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL lists the conditions under which extradition can not be authorised . Thus , the following should be refused extradition : a NORP citizen ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) or a person who has been granted asylum in GPE ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) ; a person in respect of whom a conviction has become effective or criminal proceedings have been terminated in GPE in connection with the same act for which he or she has been prosecuted in the requesting ORG ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) ; a person in respect of whom criminal proceedings can not be launched or a conviction can not become effective in view of the expiry of the statute of limitations or under another valid ground in NORP law ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) ; or a person in respect of whom extradition has been blocked by a NORP court in accordance with the legislation and international treaties of GPE ( LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . Finally , extradition should be refused if the act that serves as the basis for the extradition request does not constitute a criminal offence under LAW ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) .

Article CARDINAL of the CCrP regulates , inter alia , periods of detention with a view to extradition ( Directive Ruling of the Plenary Session of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , § DATE ) . The maximum statutory period of detention in connection with serious offences is DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

In its Directive Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE , the Plenary Session of ORG indicated , with reference to LAW , that extradition should be refused if there were serious reasons to believe that the person might be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the requesting country . Extradition could also be refused if exceptional circumstances disclosed that it might entail a danger to the person ’s life and health on account of , among other things , his or her age or physical condition . NORP authorities dealing with an extradition case should examine whether there were reasons to believe that the person concerned might be sentenced to the death penalty , subjected to illtreatment or persecuted because of his or her race , religious beliefs , nationality , ethnic or social origin or political opinions . The courts should assess both the general situation in the requesting country and the personal circumstances of the person whose extradition was sought . They should take into account the testimony of the person concerned and that of any witnesses , any assurances given by the requesting country , and information about the country provided by ORG , by the relevant ORG institutions and by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that a foreign national who infringes residence regulations of GPE , including by residing on the territory of GPE without a valid residence permit or by failing to comply with the established procedure for residence registration , is liable to punishment by an administrative fine of MONEY ( RUB ) with or without administrative removal from GPE . Under LAW ) a report on the offence described in LAW is drawn up by a police officer . LAW such a report to be transmitted within DATE to a judge or to an officer competent to examine administrative matters . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the determination of any administrative charge that may result in removal from the NORP Federation shall be made by a judge of a court of general jurisdiction . The statute of limitations for administrative offences listed in DATE from the date the relevant offence was committed ( LAW ) .

DATE . Article CARDINAL provides for CARDINAL types of administrative removal , namely “ controlled independent exit ” and controlled forced removal .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , as in force at the material time , allowed domestic courts to order a foreign national ’s detention with a view to administrative removal .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that administrative detention can be authorised in exceptional cases if it is necessary for the fair and speedy determination of the administrative charge or for execution of the penalty . Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , which amends certain provisions of the ORG , introduced LAW , which specifies that administrative detention can be authorised in the case of controlled forced removal .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL guarantees the right to appeal against a decision on an administrative offence to a court or a higher court . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that an appeal against an administrative removal order must be examined within DATE of submission of the appeal .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that a decision imposing an administrative penalty may not be enforced after the expiry of a DATE period from the date on which this decision became final .

Article CARDINAL provides that an administrative offender can be penalised with administrative arrest only in exceptional circumstances , with a maximum term of DATE .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE provides that a foreign national temporarily residing in GPE must register with a local migration authority within DATE .

In judgment no . DATE of CARDINAL DATE ORG held , with reference to LAW , that detention of a person with a view to removing him from GPE requires a court decision if that detention exceeds TIME . That decision must establish whether the detention is necessary for the purposes of enforcing the removal . The court should also assess the lawfulness and reasons for detention . Detention for an indefinite period of time is not acceptable , since it may become a form of punishment , which does not exist in NORP law and which is incompatible with the provisions of the LAW .

In DATE a group of NORP NGOs ( including ORG , ORG , ORG , Soldiers’ Mothers of GPE , ORG , and several others ) prepared a ‘ Shadow Report on the Observance of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment by GPE for DATE to CARDINAL’ . Paragraph CARDINAL of that Shadow Report reads as follows :

“ In DATE , the NORP authorities have increasingly relied on administrative expulsion in its efforts to transfer persons to states requesting their extradition . Expulsion decisions are taken by courts of general jurisdiction ... Courts ... refuse to examine arguments concerning the person ’s risk [ of being ] subjected to torture in the country of destination , assuming that these arguments are not relevant in cases dealing with a foreigner ’s violation of immigration rules in GPE . The government claims that such arguments can not be considered by courts in ... administrative proceedings since their duration is very short and “ ... the alleged risk of ill - treatment ... [ is ] not a legally relevant fact , [ so there is ] no obligation to ascertain it ” ... They fail to take into account the fact that the consequences of administrative expulsion and extradition are identical for the applicant , since in both cases s / he falls into the hands of the state requesting his / her return . It is important to note that in some cases such attempts [ have been ] made by explicit instructions from ORG , indicating that the latter ignores the risk of the deportee ’s [ being subjected to ] prohibited treatment in the country of destination ... ”

Article CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , which was ratified by GPE on DATE , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No Contracting State shall expel or return ( ‘ ORG ) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion .

NORP The benefit of the present provision may not , however , be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is , or who , having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime , constitutes a danger to the community of that country . ”

LAW ( Law no . GPE of DATE ) defines a refugee as a person who is not a NORP national and who , owing to a wellfounded fear of persecution for reasons of race , religion , nationality , ethnic origin , membership of a particular social group or political opinion , is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or , owing to such a fear , is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ; or who , not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events , is unable or , owing to such a fear , is unwilling to return to it ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) . The migration authority may refuse to examine the application for refugee status on the merits if the person concerned has left the country of his nationality in circumstances falling outside the scope of LAW ( CARDINAL ) , and does not want to return to the country of his nationality because of a fear of being held responsible for an offence ( правонарушение ) committed there ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) .

Persons who have applied for or been granted refugee status can not be returned against their will to the ORG of which they are a national where their life or freedom would be imperilled on account of their race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW ) .

Having received a refusal to examine an application for refugee status on the merits , and having decided not to exercise the right of appeal under LAW , the person concerned must leave the territory of GPE within DATE of receiving notification of the refusal if he has no other legal grounds for staying in GPE ( LAW ) . Under LAW , having received a refusal to examine the application for refugee status on the merits or a refusal of refugee status , and having exercised the right of appeal against such refusals , the person concerned must leave the territory of GPE within DATE of receiving notification of the decision on the appeal if he has no other legal grounds for staying in GPE . If , after the appeal has been rejected , the person concerned still refuses to leave the country , he is to be expelled ( LAW ) .

If the person satisfies the criteria set out in LAW ( CARDINAL ) , or if he does not satisfy the criteria but can not be expelled or deported from GPE for humanitarian reasons , he may be granted temporary asylum ( LAW ) . Persons who have been granted temporary asylum can not be returned against their will to the country of which they are a national or to the country of their former habitual residence ( LAW ) .

The conclusions and recommendations of ORG in respect of NORP issued in DATE were cited in ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE .

In DATE the UN Special Rapporteur on torture , Mr Juan E. Méndez , visited NORP . In his preliminary findings of CARDINAL DATE , he noted that “ pressure on detainees , mostly as a means to extract confessions is practiced in NORP in various forms , including threats , beatings and sometimes by applying electric shock ” . He underscored that “ confessions extracted by violence remain the main investigatory tool of law enforcement and prosecutorial bodies ” . He also expressed his concerns at the lack of safeguards against illegal extradition or rendition from and to other countries , as “ there seems to be no meaningful opportunity for judicial review of these measures that are generally conducted by the law enforcement bodies under the direction of ORG . LAW in civil and criminal matters of DATE , other agreements between ORG countries ... offer general language about protection against abuse , but they operate more meaningfully as international cooperation in law enforcement . The result is that international law prohibitions on refoulement to places where a person may be subjected to torture or cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment are not guaranteed in fact ” ( End - of - mission Statement by ORG , PERSON . Preliminary findings on his country visit to GPE DATE ) .

NORP The report by ORG entitled “ Shattered Lives : Torture and other ill - treatment in NORP ” , released on DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ ... ORG research shows that practices of torture and other illtreatment remain widespread in all types of detention facilities in NORP . Detainees at the early stages of detention were found to be at particular risk , subjected to torture or other ill - treatment by law enforcement officers in order to “ solve ” crimes by obtaining confessions of guilt and also to obtain money from torture victims or their relatives . The general climate of impunity keeps police abuse virtually unchecked ...

NORP The scale of torture and other ill - treatment in GPE

In NORP torture and ill - treatment occur in a climate of secrecy . [ T]he perpetrators are rarely brought to justice ... [ T]orture and other ill - treatment occur particularly in pre - trial detention ... Domestic law has significant shortcomings when it comes to safeguards against torture . In addition , those crucial safeguards that do exist in law , such as access to a lawyer immediately after apprehension , are rarely applied in practice ...

CARDINAL LOC and other ill - treatment by police

[ T]he routine use of torture results from the lack of technical capacity to investigate crimes ... A local independent human rights observer told ORG that : “ people may get away without beatings in less serious cases , but in cases involving grave crimes – if they do n’t confess , they get beaten ” , adding that police “ wo n’t hesitate to resort to violence ...

CARDINAL Torture and other ill - treatment used in the context of national security and counter - terrorism

The fight against terrorism and threats to national security are often invoked by the ORG authorities as key to securing national and regional stability . However , ... frequently human rights are violated in the pursuit of groups perceived as a threat to national security ...

[ The ] research indicates that particular targets are NORP movements and NORP groups or parties , and that people accused of being NORP extremists are at particular risk of torture and other ill - treatment in NORP ...

In DATE an explosion occurred at the office of the [ police ] in GPE , resulting in several deaths and injuries to CARDINAL people . Following this the Tajikistani authorities redoubled their efforts to find members of NORP movements and NORP groups or parties who they alleged were responsible . Law enforcement officers came under increased pressure to solve cases with national security implications ...

Torture and other ill - treatment upon return to NORP

... ORG is concerned at a series of recent cases where the ORG authorities have made extradition requests based on unreliable information for people alleged to be members of banned NORP groups , who have subsequently alleged being tortured on their return . Many of these extradition requests have been issued for people in GPE . ”

In DATE ORG released its World Report CARDINAL , in which the relevant chapter on NORP states :

“ Torture remains an enduring problem within NORP ’s penitentiary system and is used to extract confessions from defendants , who are often denied access to family and legal counsel during initial detention . Despite discussions with ORG ( ICRC ) in DATE , authorities have not granted ICRC access to places of detention . With rare exceptions , human rights groups are also denied access .

While torture is practiced with near impunity , authorities took a few small steps to hold perpetrators accountable ...

Under the pretext of combating extremist threats , NORP continues to ban several peaceful minority NORP groups ... Local media continued to report on prosecutions of alleged members of PERSON ut - GPE and the NORP Tabligh movement . ”

On DATE a group of non - governmental organisations including international NGOs ( ORG , ORG ( FIDH ) , ORG ( ORG ) and ORG ( OMCT ) ) as well as NORP NGOs ( ORG , ORG , LAW , LOC , and several others ) released a joint statement : “ NORP : A coalition of non - governmental organisations is calling on the government to end torture and fulfil its international obligations ” which , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ In NORP police have in many cases been accused of torturing or beating detainees to extract money , confessions or other information incriminating the victim or others . This abuse has mostly taken place in the early stages of detention ; in many cases victims are initially detained without contact with the outside world ...

Torture practices reported in NORP include the use of electric shocks ; attaching plastic bottles filled with water or sand to the detainee ’s genitals ; rape ; burning with cigarettes . Beating with batons , truncheons and sticks , kicking and punching are also believed to be common .

... [ S]afeguards against torture enshrined in domestic law are not always adhered to . For example , while the new Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that detainees are entitled to a lawyer from the moment of their arrest , in practice lawyers are at the mercy of investigators , who can deny them access for DATE . During this period of incommunicado detention , the risk of torture or other ill - treatment is particularly high . The new Criminal Procedure Code also introduced remand hearings within TIME of a suspect ’s arrest . However , they often take place with a delay , and judges in many cases ignore torture allegations and the injuries presented to them in the courtroom . Usually they rely on the version of events given by [ those ] accused of the torture .

There are no routine medical examinations when detainees are admitted to police stations and temporary detention facilities . Upon transfer to pre - trial detention facilities under the jurisdiction of ORG they undergo a medical examination . However , when medical personnel suspect that a detainee [ has undergone ] torture or other ill - treatment they ... usually return them to the temporary detention facility until the signs of injury have faded .

Victims rarely lodge complaints ... for fear of repercussions , and impunity for abusive officers is the norm . Often relatives and lawyers are reluctant to file complaints , so as not to worsen the situation for the detainee .

Prosecutor ’s offices are tasked with investigating allegations of torture . Sometimes close personal and structural links between prosecutor ’s offices and police undermine the impartiality of prosecutors . The authorities have not published comprehensive statistics on prosecutions of law - enforcement officers relating specifically to torture or other ill - treatment , rather than broader charges such as “ abuse of power “ or “ exceeding official authority ” .

Judges [ regularly ] base verdicts on evidence allegedly extracted under duress ...

NORP has not given ORG access to detention facilities to carry out monitoring since DATE . It has not ratified LAW to LAW and other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment , which provides for a system of regular visits to places of detention carried out by independent international and national bodies . ”

The joint statement of a group of NGOs of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) also reported particular cases of unpunished torture of several individuals , including Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE , all of them accused of IMU membership .

The Annual Report DATE by ORG in respect of NORP , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ The trial against ORG and CARDINAL co - defendants began on DATE at ORG in northern NORP . All were accused of membership of ORG and of participating in organized crime . On DATE , he and several others told the judge that they had been tortured in pretrial detention . On DATE , ORG told the judge that he had been pressurized by officials to retract his earlier allegations of torture and other illtreatment . He had not dared speak out earlier , fearing retaliation from law enforcement agencies . The judge ignored his statement . His confession , allegedly obtained under torture , was used as evidence against him ... ”

A research paper by PERSON entitled “ Instability in NORP ? ORG and the GPE Factor ” , published in LOC CARDINAL ( DATE ) , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ In terms of government actions related to the IMU , during DATE the NORP government arrested CARDINAL IMU suspects , and sentenced CARDINAL to jail terms . In DATE the NORP courts were particularly busy , sentencing CARDINAL accused IMU members to prison for a DATE suicide car - bombing in northern NORP – claims of torture being used to extract confessions notwithstanding . Indeed , the systematic practice of torture being used to ensure confessions by police and security officers casts doubt on the actual affiliations – if any – of suspects in custody . In regards to the suicide bombing – a DATE attack on a police station in GPE that left CARDINAL dead – a new group called ORG claimed responsibility . However , the government charged CARDINAL accomplices to the bombing with being members of the IMU – all of whom confessed during the investigation amidst allegations of torture being used to secure confessions . ”

On DATE the Coalition against Torture and Impunity ( a group of NORP NGOs ) prepared a report on NORP ’s implementation of LAW and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment . It contains a detailed description of the case of GPE and CARDINAL co - defendants :

“ Criminal case number # CARDINAL on the accusation of terrorism and extremism

... On DATE there was a massive explosion ... in the building ... of ORG ) ... The blast killed the ... [ purported ] suicide bomber ... CARDINAL employees of ROCOP , CARDINAL officers of ROCOP and CARDINAL residents of GPE [ suffered ] injuries of various degrees .

On DATE ORG ... initiated a criminal case under LAW ) of LAW of GPE ...

[ On the basis of ] the results of ... blood tests the suicide bomber was identified as Mr. PERSON ... Later , the brothers and close relatives of the alleged suicide bomber ... were arrested .

[ The trial ] in the criminal case was opened on DATE . There were CARDINAL people in the dock , mostly residents of [ the ] Isfara , Spitamen , and GPE regions ...

... CARDINAL defendants are charged [ with the terrorist attack ] in the building [ of the ] ORG for Combating Organised Crime , the rest were charged with membership [ of ] ORG and other extremist organisations ( Dzhamiyati Tablig etc ) ...

All of them were [ charged with ] ... terrorism , [ running a criminal organisation ] , forcible seizure of power , forgery , unlawful possession of firearms , murder , abuse of authority , illegal crossing of state borders , etc . There were also those who are accused of failing to report the crime or its concealment .

According to the materials of the criminal case , CARDINAL of those on trial declined the services of an advocate , however in the course of the [ appeal ] hearing ... they state[d ] that all [ their ] refusals of legal representation had been written under duress and dictated by officials from law - enforcement agencies .

According to [ the ] lawyers [ as well as ] relatives of the defendants and [ the defendants’ ] statements ... during the trial almost all the defendants [ were subjected to ] various kinds of physical [ torture ] ( [ such as ] beating , pulling out nails and beards , electric current , [ and ] rape ... ) and psychological [ torture ] ( [ such as ] threat[s ] to rape wi[ves ] , sister[s ] , ... mother[s ] , ... the torture of others in [ their ] presence , ... and other methods ) ... [ Various ] methods were used not to allow lawyers to see their defendants ... The lawyers met ... their clients in the presence of the investigating authorities .

Statements [ relating to ] torture have been made in the course of the trial , where the defendants described ... the torture [ in detail ] and [ identified the officers ] who ... tortured them [ : these were stated to be officers ] of ORG , of ORG , and of ORG . However , neither the court nor the prosecutor [ took those statements into consideration ] ...

The first few hearings were [ public ] , but then at the request of the prosecution the judge [ decided to conduct proceedings in camera ] . It is assumed ( according to lawyers and relatives ) that the reason [ for closing the proceedings was the allegations of torture ] ...

On DATE relatives of the defendants [ made a written representation ] to the Chairman of ORG , Mr. PERSON ... , but [ received no response ] .

On DATE in [ Khujand prison no . CARDINAL the court rendered its judgment sentencing some of the defendants to life imprisonment ] ...

On DATE [ an appeal hearing took place at ] ... ORG no . CARDINAL [ in GPE ] ... [ In their statements of appeal the defendants complained of the ] use of torture ... during interrogation and preliminary investigation ...

Advocates PERSON and PERSON , who [ were ] representing [ Mr ] PERSON , made several attempts to meet ... their client , however ... the head of [ the Detention Centre Mr ] PERSON , refused to [ allow a meeting without authorisation from ] ORG ) ... The actions of the head of [ FAC ] ... were appealed [ against ] to ORG , however no answer was received .

The advocates and defendants drew the attention of the [ appeal court ] to the presence of ... traces [ of torture ] on the GPE bodies , presented [ information on ] medical treatment at the medical unit of ORG ... in GPE . The advocates requested [ that ] each defendant [ be subjected to a medical examination ] .

The advocates [ submitted requests for the ] testimony of the defendants [ which had been obtained ] ... through the use of torture [ to be excluded ] ... [ These requests were left ] ... without consideration ...

[ On ] DATE the [ appeal court ruled that there should be an ] investigation [ of ] the use of torture , [ charged ] ORG with carrying out this investigation , and announced [ an adjournment in the proceedings ] .

[ On examination of ] the testimony of the defendants the following should be highlighted :

All defendants during the [ trial ] complained about ... [ the ] use of torture ... , however in the [ judgment all complaints were dismissed with the following ] formulation [ : ] “ complaints of defendants made during judicial proceedings about the use of torture were unconfirmed ” .

In relation to CARDINAL persons , administrative arrest was applied for a period of DATE , during which they were held in ... buildings [ belonging to ] the security services and ... subjected to torture . As a result , they confessed to ... crimes ...

The majority of defendants declined to use the services of advocates in DATE following [ the ] arrest[s ] , though ... their refusals were [ written ] without the presence of an advocate , in [ contravention of ] part CARDINAL , LAW of GPE . CARDINAL persons signed documents refusing the services of advocates , and CARDINAL people did not see their court - appointed advocates during [ the ] entire period of their detention ... [ the proceedings concerning their detention pending trial ] , and the preliminary investigation . [ The remaining defendants met ] their lawyers periodically , however , many investigative actions were conducted without the participation of advocates . CARDINAL court - appointed advocates asked their defendants to sign procedural documents without reading them ...

On DATE , the [ appeal court ] ... resumed consideration of the criminal case . The state prosecutor had announced that ... [ there was ] no evidence of crime in the actions of members of [ the ] investigation group who [ had carried out the criminal investigation ] ... [ According to the defence ] ... the medical examination [ during the trial had been ] carried out by [ an ] expert who [ had not ] been trained on the standards of LAW , [ did ] not know what the “ torture ” means , and who ... admitted that in the course of the examination he [ had seen signs of a ] fracture , but [ that it was outside ] his competence to identify timing and ... [ circumstances in which ] the injury [ had been ] received . The defendants claimed that medical records [ in the prison ] contain[ed ] information [ that some detainees had ] arrived [ at the prison ] with injuries . The lawyers demanded ... the medical records of all [ the ] prisoners ... Lawyers were provided with [ the ORG ] medical records ; however the [ pages ] were not numbered ; [ furthermore , some pages were missing – they had been ] torn out of medical records .

The defence lawyer PERSON ... [ contested the results of the official investigation of the allegations of ill - treatment ] . Lawyers requested [ access to the materials of the prosecutor ’s case file concerning that investigation ] . The prosecutor agreed , and [ the appeals panel ] ... granted the lawyers [ access ] to the documents . [ It appears from the documents that ] the defendants ... had no complaints of torture ; [ this however ] contradicted their testimony ... during the trial . According to the CARDINAL defendants sentenced to ... life imprisonment , during the investigation they [ informed the ] medical [ experts ] and prosecutors about ... methods of torture ... however [ their detailed testimony was not reflected in the conclusions of the expert and the prosecution ] . The records also include explanations [ by employees who were ] members of the investigative task force , who claim that they [ had respected the law ] and that ] no one [ had been ] tortured . On DATE during the trial [ the ] lawyers requested [ a fresh investigation ] and appointment of a [ mixed investigative ] commission [ which would include ] ... the lawyers . The court left [ that ] request unanswered .

[ The appeal proceedings before ORG are currently pending . ] ”

Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of GPE , issued by ORG on DATE ( CAT / C / RUS / CO/CARDINAL ) , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Non - refoulement and diplomatic assurances

The ORG is concerned about reports of extraditions and expulsions of foreign nationals by the ORG party to members of ORG in LOC , when those extraditions or expulsions expose the individuals concerned to a substantial risk that they will be subjected to torture in their countries of origin . The ORG is also concerned by the reliance of the ORG party on diplomatic assurances in such cases ... ”

Other Relevant United Nations’ and ORG documents concerning the use of diplomatic assurances were summarised in PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , § § CARDINAL , DATE and PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL et seq . , and § § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .

By a decision of DATE ORG of GPE classified as terrorist a number of organisations , including ORG ( also known as ORG ) . ORG prohibited the activity of these organisations on the territory of GPE . It held that the ORG aimed to overthrow non - NORP governments and to establish “ NORP governance on an international scale by reviving a Worldwide NORP Caliphate ” , in the first place in the regions with predominantly NORP populations , including GPE and other members of ORG .


CASE OF ALFATLI AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (as regards the applicant Mahmut Memduh Uyan)

Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings;Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning independence and impartiality of the court;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody . He was accused of membership of an illegal organisation , the Dev - Yol ( NORP Way ) . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) ordered the applicant 's detention on remand .

On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG setting out charges against CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . The military prosecutor accused the applicant of membership of an organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a NORP - Leninist regime , contrary to Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

After martial law was lifted , ORG took the name of ORG attached to ORG .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to death penalty . The applicant appealed against the conviction and the case was referred to ORG ( PERSON ) .

Following promulgation of the PERSON of DATE , which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts , ORG ( Yargıtay ) acquired jurisdiction over the cases and the files were sent to it .

On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant 's conviction .

A description of the relevant domestic law and practice can be found in Şahiner v. GPE , judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure lists the circumstances in which “ a person convicted in a judgment that has become final may be granted a retrial ” .

It was amended by LAW no . DATE , which added a sixth set of circumstances in which the proceedings could be reopened :

“ where it has been held in a final judgment of ORG that a decision in criminal proceedings was given in breach of ORG or its Protocols . In such cases , an application to reopen the proceedings may be lodged within DATE of the date on which the judgment of ORG became final . ”

Law no . DATE came into force on DATE . By provisional section CARDINAL of the LAW , section CARDINAL is applicable in CARDINAL sets of circumstances : where the ORG has delivered a judgment that became final before the PERSON came into force , and where the ORG delivers a final judgment on an application lodged after the PERSON came into force .


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

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

The applicant has lived in GPE since DATE and obtained NORP citizenship in DATE . On DATE he filed a request with ORG ( Pensionsversicherngsanstalt der Angestellten ) to pay contributions under LAW of ORG ( Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz - “ LAW ” ) for the time he had been at school and had studied in GPE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request . It found that the applicant had not shown that he had undergone a period of training as specified by Section CARDINAL ASVG .

On DATE the Regional Governor of ORG ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . He noted that periods of training in foreign countries were not mentioned in PERSON . Therefore it was not possible to pay contributions for these periods .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG claiming that the above decision violated the principle of equality ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG refused to entertain the applicant ’s complaint for lack of prospect of success . It referred to its previous case - law on LAW § PERSON , according to which territorial restraints ( territoriale ORG ) of the social security system were in accordance with LAW : Just as being employed in GPE was a legitimate requirement for participation in the social pensions scheme , the substitute requirement of having undergone training in GPE - and not abroad - was the same . Upon the applicant ’s request it transferred the case to ORG .

On DATE the applicant supplemented his complaint to ORG . He argued that although the wording of Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) PERSON explicitly mentioned attending a school in GPE as a condition this criterion should rather be construed as to mean training for a diploma which is subsequently recognised by GPE authorities .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . It rejected the applicant ’s argument and found that the wording of LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) PERSON was clear and unambiguous and required that such training be attended in GPE . It was reasonable to enable backpayments into the pension scheme for periods of pre - professional training only in cases when , without such training , the person concerned would have been employed in GPE and would have contributed to the NORP social pension system .

The NORP social pension scheme is based on the principle that pension rights are acquired by contributions during a person ’s employment ( Beitragszeiten ) . Section CARDINAL of ORG also provides for the possibility to pay pension contributions for certain periods during which a person was not gainfully employed . By paying such contributions a person acquires pension rights and – when he or she retires – receives a higher pension .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW defines these latter periods ( ORG ) . As to periods of training , the provision only includes periods during which a person has attended an NORP secondary school or university ( inländische mittlere PERSON oder Hochschule ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON K. Berzeg , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the ORG .

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

The applicant is the owner of QUANTITY of land , in a plot of QUANTITY ( plot no . CARDINAL ) , in FAC , in the GPE district of GPE . The plot in question is situated in front of ORG , of which the applicant is a co - owner .

On DATE the applicant brought an action for compensation against ORG ( GPE FAC ) before ORG of First Instance . She submitted , inter alia , that GPE occupied plot no . CARDINAL illegally for the purposes of constructing a tube station in FAC . The applicant maintained that the GPE neither conducted expropriation proceedings nor compensated her for the damage resulting from the de facto taking of her property . She requested to be paid the value of the plot in question . She also submitted an expert report dated DATE in support of her claim . According to this report , the Municipality was in actual possession of plot no . CARDINAL/A.

The GPE denied the allegations and argued that they had been in actual possession of plot no . CARDINAL since DATE . They therefore argued that the applicant ’s action for compensation had to be rejected as being time - barred .

On DATE ORG submitted a sketch plan to ORG of First Instance according to which plot no . CARDINAL was situated next to CARDINAL other plots of land belonging to the applicant and her co - owners and was left by the owners as an access area .

On DATE ORG of First Instance requested the GPE and GPE Municipalities to submit information on whether plot no . CARDINAL was used by these municipalities .

On DATE ORG informed ORG of First Instance that the applicant was one of the co - owners of plot no . CARDINAL and that , in the registry records , it was stated that the plot was “ to be expropriated ” .

On DATE ORG informed the first - instance court that the applicant ’s land had been used by GPE since DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the firstinstance court that there had been a de facto interference with the applicant ’s co - ownership rights to plot no . CARDINAL by the LOC during the construction of the tube station in FAC .

On an unspecified date , the first - instance court ordered an expert report to be prepared in order to determine the value of plot no . CARDINAL/A.

On DATE a committee of experts submitted a report to ORG . According to the PERSON report , the Municipality was in actual possession of plot no . CARDINAL although the applicant was identified as the co - owner of the plot in the land registry records . The experts stated that the value of the land that the applicant co - owned was MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE ORG informed ORG of First Instance that plot no . CARDINAL , which was located in front of ORG , had been used during the construction of the tube station with a view to ensuring the security of the surrounding area . Following the lodging of the case by the applicant , they separated the plot from the entrance to the tube station by means of a wall and restored the plot to its original state by paving it .

On DATE another expert report was drafted . According to this report , plot no . CARDINAL had been used during the construction of the tube station in FAC in order to ensure the security of the neighbouring buildings . The report further indicated that the plot in question had been paved by the Municipality and that it was used as a pedestrian area .

On DATE ORG held that GPE had been in actual possession of the land since DATE . It accordingly rejected the case as having been introduced outside the statutory time - limit laid down by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG rendered its decision . It observed that according to the local master building and settlement plan ( imar planı ) , plot no . CARDINAL was used as an access area for the surrounding buildings . ORG considered that the administration could not therefore be considered to be in actual possession of the plot . It further held that the legal reasoning of the first - instance court was erroneous since plot no . CARDINAL had only been used to ensure the neighbouring NORP security during the construction of the tube station and that there had been no interference with the plot afterwards . ORG based its assessment on the expert report of DATE . It nevertheless agreed with ORG that the case should be dismissed and upheld the judgment of DATE , but for different reasons .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for rectification of the decision of DATE .

On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was served on the applicant .

It appears from this document that the applicant is one of the co - owners of plot no . CARDINAL/A.

According to the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE ORG brought an action against the applicant ’s and her co - owners’ heirs and requested that the title to plot no . CARDINAL/A be transferred to it . The court dismissed the case .

The Municipality informed CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - owners , PERSON , that plot no . CARDINAL was the front access area of the buildings next to the plot and that construction of a building on the plot was not possible .

The LOC proposed that ORG transfer the title to plot no . CARDINAL to it free of charge . It further proposed that the GPE would , in return , construct CARDINAL of the exits of the tube station in FAC - which would normally cost MONEY ( ORG ) - free of charge .

LAW no . CARDINAL on administrative procedure provides that any person who has suffered damage as a result of an act committed by the administration may request compensation from the administration . In the event of complete or partial rejection of a compensation request , or if no reply has been received within a time - limit of DATE , the person involved may initiate administrative proceedings .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Retroactivity);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was stopped by police for drinkdriving . The police informed him on the spot that his right to drive on the public roads was suspended for DATE . The driving licence was not physically removed from the applicant ’s possession .

On DATE the applicant was stopped by police while driving a car and was committed to trial for the offence of driving on public roads while his driving licence was suspended under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on driving on public roads ( “ Decree no . CARDINAL ” ) .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the NORP - Jiu ORG convicted the applicant of that offence and imposed on him a criminal fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) and ordered him to pay ROL MONEY in costs . It also informed the applicant that if he did not comply with the payment order the fine could be converted into a prison sentence ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . The decision became final , as the parties did not appeal against it .

On DATE the applicant went to FAC police station to ask for his old driving licence to be replaced with the new model , in accordance with the new requirements in the matter . On this occasion , the police withdrew his driving licence and informed him that it would be annulled , as the applicant had been stopped for drink - driving in DATE .

On DATE the police informed the applicant that LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) of Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL his driving licence had been annulled with effect from DATE . His objection to the annulment was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed before ORG , seeking the revocation of the annulment order .

In a decision of DATE ORG ) allowed the action for the following reasons :

“ Indeed , in the judgment of DATE of the Târgu - Jiu County Court ... the [ applicant ] was sentenced to pay a fine of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ... and under Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL , the driving licence stood to be annulled if the driver was convicted of a traffic offence ...

Under LAW ) of LAW , the enforcement of the criminal fine becomes statute - barred after DATE ; therefore the annulment of the driving licence , being a subsidiary penalty ( pedeapsa accesorie ) , becomes statutebarred at the same time as the main penalty .

The time - limits are counted from the date when the events occurred , therefore ... the penalty is at present statute - barred . ”

The Gorj County Police appealed , and in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ) reversed the judgment and dismissed the applicant ’s initial action , giving the following grounds :

“ The annulment of the driving licence is not a subsidiary penalty , as the firstinstance court wrongly considered ; it represents an administrative measure with distinct rules applicable to it that can only be imposed by the police .

Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL do not provide a timelimit for the application of this measure ; moreover , in the applicant ’s case the measure is applied automatically , as he was criminally convicted for a traffic offence . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of Decree no . CARDINAL on driving on public roads criminalises the offence of driving on public roads with a suspended driving licence . The same LAW provides that a driving licence may be annulled if its owner has been convicted of a criminal offence under the regulations on driving on public roads ( LAW ) . The annulment is decided by the Head of ORG once the criminal decision is final ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and DATE ) .

Decree no . CARDINAL was abolished by Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL , which entered into force on DATE , and which in its LAW CARDINAL ( b ) made the annulment of the driving licence automatic . This Act was amended on several occasions , but the relevant provision was in place on the date when the final decision was rendered in the case at hand .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG , solicitors in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . They had no children from the marriage . On DATE , the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits . Subsequently , he was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . On DATE the applicant made a request for reconsideration . On DATE the applicant was informed that the legislation had not changed and that he was not eligible for such benefits . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

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


IZZET MEHMET AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

CARDINAL .

The applicants are either owners , or the heirs of owners , of property which is governed by the custodianship regime under LAW .

None of the applicants have taken proceedings in the domestic courts or brought such proceedings to a conclusion . The third applicant in no . PERSON claims to have proceedings pending but no documents or details have been provided .

The first CARDINAL applicants wished to transfer as gift their properties in GPE to their niece and nephew , the third and fourth applicants . On DATE , the Custodian refused permission for the transfer as the properties were classified as NORP - Cypriot properties .

The applicant was one of the heirs and an administrator of property of his deceased father and mother , NORP Cypriots who fled north in DATE . This property was now being used as a primary school . The applicant contacted the Minister of ORG with a view to claiming his property rights and damages . No response was received .

The applicants are the heirs and administrators of the estate of CARDINAL deceased Turkish- NORP relatives consisting of a property in GPE . In DATE they discovered the house had been demolished and another building erected . They made an application to ORG for the return of property and payment of loss of use ; the authorities refused .

The applicant , a NORP , bought land in DATE and rented it out . The tenant paid rent until DATE . ORG later expropriated part of the land , building a road down the middle . Under LAW , the Custodian appeared to have terminated the lease with the applicant ’s tenant and rented the property to another person .

The CARDINAL applicants are NORP , who left GPE either before or in DATE and who owned or have inherited property in the LOC . The third applicant stated that his father ’s property had been expropriated and a bus terminal built there . The second applicant brought court proceedings ( no documents provided ) which he said were still pending ; the other applicants stated that no proceedings were brought due to the failures of their lawyers .

The applicant , a NORP - Cypriot owner of property sold to the ORG , made a claim for compensation for loss of use from DATE to DATE which was refused by the authorities who relied on LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL . No proceedings were taken .

The applicant owned , wholly or in part , CARDINAL plots of land in the Republic which he had not been able to use since DATE . CARDINAL plot was used as a Post Office by the authorities and another was rented out as a giftshop without his consent . No proceedings had been taken .

The applicants are the heirs ( spouse and children ) of the deceased owner of property in GPE . NORP Cypriots have been using the property , a house and shops , since DATE , without their consent .

The CARDINAL NORP - NORP applicants , who abandoned their homes and property in the village of GPE in DATE , wrote a petition to ORG in DATE for return of land and compensation . No reply was received .

NORP The applicant , a NORP - Cypriot who left the south in DATE , owns CARDINAL properties from which she previously collected rents . On DATE , she made a claim to ORG for return of her property ; no answer was received .

The applicants , NORP Cypriots , own , wholly or in part , QUANTITY plots in the LOC , bought in DATE . Since DATE , they have been unable to use or develop these plots .

The applicants are heirs of NORP Cypriots who owned property in the south and fled in DATE ; the property had tenants but no rent had been received since . On DATE the applicants applied to the authorities for restitution of their property without success .

The applicants are heirs of their NORP - Cypriot father who owned a house and business property in GPE . The family left in DATE . Tenants declined to pay rent due to the custodianship regime and gave rents to the authorities . The applicants sought unsuccessfully after the death of their father in DATE to obtain possession of the properties . Some of the property has been demolished , other plots compulsorily acquired by the ORG . No court proceedings were taken .

The relevant case - law and laws are set out in GPE and Others v Cyprus ( no . CARDINAL et al , § § CARDINAL , decision of CARDINAL DATE ) .


The applicants are NORP nationals , born in DATE respectively . They are a married couple and live in GPE , GPE .

A.

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

On DATE the applicants bought for cash CARDINAL shares in a joint stock company ( spółka akcyjna ) “ C ” . On CARDINAL DATE the shareholders of the company decided that the share capital would be increased to MONEY ( PLZ ) and approved a private placement of a new issue of shares . On CARDINAL DATE the applicants signed before a notary a deed in which they agreed to acquire CARDINAL shares in the “ C ” company in exchange for a contribution in kind . Their contribution consisted of an industrial estate situated in LOC . On DATE the company was registered as the owner of the property in the ORG real property register ( Sąd Rejonowy Wydział Ksiąg Wieczystych ) .

On DATE the second applicant joined the company management board . Subsequently , he became unhappy with certain decisions of other company directors . As a result , on DATE the applicants requested the company that their contribution in kind be returned to them .

On DATE ORG allowed the company ’s request and registered in the commercial register an increase in the share capital to PLZ CARDINAL .

On DATE the shareholders of the company adopted a resolution obliging the management board to conclude an agreement under which the property contributed by the applicants would be transferred back to them and they would return the company shares . At the same time , the shareholders approved the second applicant ’s resignation from the board . Subsequently , the applicants requested the prosecution service to initiate criminal proceedings against certain members of the management board . In addition , they were involved in court proceedings concerning the property record in a real property register and bankruptcy proceedings relating to the “ C ” company .

On DATE the applicants lodged with ORG an application under LAW of LAW . They requested the court to strike out CARDINAL entries in the commercial register concerning the “ C ” company . The first contested entry stated that the share capital of the company amounted to PLZ CARDINAL . The second entry confirmed changes in the company by - laws . The applicants claimed that the entries had been based on untrue statements and inaccurate information and had been inadmissible in law .

On DATE the court held a hearing and took evidence from the parties .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) about the inactivity of ORG . They claimed that the proceedings in their case disclosed unreasonable delay even though their request could have been decided at the first hearing .

On DATE ORG notified the President of ORG that the above complaint had been lodged and instructed the court of first instance to take further action in respect of it .

On DATE ORG held a hearing during which it allowed the applicants ' request of DATE . In particular , the court struck out CARDINAL entries in the commercial register concerning an increase of the share capital and amendments of the by - laws . The court also ordered the management board that the amendments to the company by - laws be made to ensure their compliance with domestic legislation . In addition , it instructed the board to take several other measures required by LAW in relation to the increase in the share capital .

B. Relevant domestic law

The DATE LAW provides that a joint - stock company should be registered in the ORG commercial register . The ORG contains records concerning inter alia a company name , registered office , business , officers , share capital , number of shares and contributions . A company is required to notify within DATE any changes in the records .

Section CARDINAL of the Commercial Code , insofar as relevant , provides :

" CARDINAL . ( ... ) where an application is made to rectify or strike an entry out of the commercial register on the grounds that it is unjustified , the court may order that a warning ( wzmianka ) [ about the application ] be made in the register . ( … ) ”


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was unrepresented before the ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE leaving CARDINAL child born in DATE . On DATE the applicant applied for widows’ benefits . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed . The applicant asked for reconsideration . On DATE the matter was reconsidered and the decision remained unchanged .

The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The applicant was in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim . He ceased to be eligible for such benefit on DATE . The applicant has been in receipt of income support since his wife ’s death which exceeded the rate of Widowed Mother ’s Allowance . Moreover , the applicant ’s wife had not paid the required national insurance contributions .

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


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 5-1

Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG convicted the applicant on CARDINAL counts of attempted burglary as a member of a gang . Including the sentence imposed for a previous conviction of attempted burglary , the court fixed a cumulative sentence of DATE imprisonment and ordered the applicant 's preventive detention pursuant to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

ORG found that , having regard to his personality and to his numerous previous convictions of burglary , the applicant had a disposition to commit serious offences causing serious economic damage and was therefore dangerous to the public . The applicant had repeatedly declared that the burglaries he had committed , which had been aimed at obtaining CARDINAL NORP and of which he had made his living , were not immoral . As confirmed by a psychiatric expert , the applicant , who was of at least average intelligence , was therefore liable to reoffend . The judgment became final on DATE .

The applicant served his full prison sentence until DATE . Since DATE the applicant has been in preventive detention .

On DATE the ORG , sitting as a chamber for the execution of sentences ( PERSON ) , decided that the applicant should be kept in preventive detention following the end of his prison term on DATE . Relying on Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court considered that his preventive detention was still necessary in view of the objective of such detention .

ORG , agreeing with the views taken by the director of FAC and by ORG , found that the applicant was very liable to reoffend and to commit serious offences if released ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It noted that the applicant , who was represented in the proceedings by a courtappointed defence counsel but had refused to participate in an oral hearing , had numerous previous convictions of burglary for which he had spent already DATE in prison . He had always made his living outside prison from crime and had hardly worked in prison , arguing that the remuneration for his work was insufficient . The applicant insisted that the police had arrested him by having recourse to illegal methods of investigation and that he had wrongfully been convicted . He thus failed to accept that the court was bound by the findings in the final judgment of ORG . The applicant was free to deny having committed the offences he was convicted of by that final judgment in DATE , which as such did not mean that he risked being found to be a recidivist . However , he refused to reappraise his entire criminal past . The findings of the psychiatric expert consulted by ORG on the applicant 's personality were therefore still valid . The fact that the applicant could stay with his son or with a writer when released did not warrant the conclusion that he would not reoffend on release .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He argued that his preventive detention violated the right to liberty and the prohibition on punishment without guilt under LAW . His preventive detention also breached the prohibition of torture in that it was aimed at extracting from him a confession to the offences for which he had been convicted in DATE . Moreover , the proceedings before ORG had been unfair because that court had refused to verify the police methods of investigation leading to his arrest and conviction .

By a decision of DATE ( which the applicant received on DATE ) ORG declined to consider the applicant 's constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the Aachen ORG , in review proceedings pursuant to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL and LAW of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , allowed ORG request and refused to suspend the applicant 's placement in preventive detention on probation .

Having heard the applicant , represented by counsel , in person , ORG found that he was still liable to reoffend if released . It referred to the findings in its previous decision of DATE not to suspend the applicant 's placement in preventive detention on probation and argued that there had been no developments indicating that the applicant was now less likely to be recidivist . His numerous previous convictions showed that he had chosen at an early stage to make his living from crime . Having regard to the report submitted by the director of ORG , who had opposed to the suspension on probation of the applicant 's placement in preventive detention , ORG noted that since his dismissal from his job as editorial journalist of the prison journal for misuse of the computer made available for editing that journal , the applicant was out of work due to his own fault . As the applicant refused any therapy , there was no expert opinion on him and thus no visible positive development .

On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasons given by ORG , dismissed the applicant 's appeal . It took the view that his preventive detention was covered by LAW ( a ) of the LAW . It further confirmed that the applicant 's final convictions could not be reviewed in the proceedings at issue , but could only be subject of reopening proceedings . Even assuming that the applicant , as he had claimed , had been dismissed from his job as editing journalist of the prison journal without good cause , this did not alter the fact that owing to his disrespect for the property of others , he was liable to reoffend if released . Whilst the applicant did not sell the house he owned ( valued at some EUR CARDINAL ) , he did not have at his disposal the necessary funds to make his living so that there was a risk that he would reoffend .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He claimed that his detention , being a preventive measure , violated his right to liberty . Moreover , it breached the prohibition of torture in that it was aimed at extracting from him a confession to the offences he had been convicted of . The low remuneration for his forced labour disregarded human dignity . The courts ' refusal to review the lawfulness of his criminal convictions also violated LAW as the court proceedings at issue were ineffective without doing so .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant 's constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

While in preventive detention , the applicant worked for a private company DATE and DATE and as editorial journalist for the prison journal DATE . He was paid an average of some ORG DATE by the ORG .

On DATE the GPE Office for the Execution of Sentences ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant 's objection to his wage slip . It noted that the applicant 's remuneration was in accordance with the rates fixed in LAW . It argued that his wage was not unreasonably low , given that the remuneration included other advantages and that the Land paid contributions to the unemployment insurance and did not deduct a contribution to the cost of keeping him in prison from his wages .

On DATE the ORG dismissed as illfounded the applicant 's request for judicial review of the low remuneration for his prison work , for which he claimed some ORG CARDINAL net per month , and of the failure of the prison authorities to disclose the financial agreement between them and the private company he worked for . It took the view that the remuneration for prison work , which had recently been raised by MONEY in order to comply with a judgment of ORG of DATE , was constitutional . Endorsing the reasons given by the GPE Office for ORG , the court argued that if prisoners received a higher remuneration , private companies might no longer place any orders in view of the considerably lower productivity of prisoners and prisoners would then not be able to work at all . As the applicant 's remuneration was lawful , he could not claim the disclosure of the terms of the contract concluded between the prison authorities and the private company .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on points of law as inadmissible . It found that a review of ORG decision was not necessary for the development of the law or in order to secure consistency in the case - law .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He argued that the unduly low remuneration for his prison work was degrading and disregarded human dignity . Moreover , the failure of the prison authorities to disclose the wage paid to them by the private company for his work breached his right to effective judicial review .

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 relevant in the present case can be summarised as follows :

The German Criminal Code distinguishes between penalties ( GPE ) and socalled measures of correction and prevention ( Maßregeln der Besserung und GPE ) to deal with unlawful acts . Preventive detention ( LAW seq . of LAW ) is classified as a measure of correction and prevention . The purpose of such measures is to rehabilitate dangerous offenders or to protect the public from them . They may be ordered for offenders in addition to their punishment ( compare Articles CARDINAL et seq . ) . They must , however , be proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed by , or to be expected from , the defendants as well as to their dangerousness ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The sentencing court may , at the time of the offender 's conviction , order his preventive detention under certain circumstances in addition to his prison sentence 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 ) .

Article CARDINALc of the Criminal Code governs orders for the preventive detention of convicted persons which are not executed immediately after the judgment ordering them becomes final . Paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW provides that if a term of imprisonment is executed prior to a simultaneously ordered placement in preventive detention , the court responsible for the execution of sentences ( that is , a special ORG composed of CARDINAL professional judges , see sections ORG and CARDINAL ) of LAW ) must review , before completion of the prison term , whether the person 's preventive detention is still necessary in view of its objective . If that is not the case , it suspends on probation the execution of the preventive detention order ; supervision of the person 's conduct ( GPE ) commences with suspension .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in its versions in force as of DATE , lays down rules on judicial review of the placement in preventive detention . If there is no provision for a maximum duration of the measure of correction and prevention or if the time - limit has not yet expired , the court ( i.e. the chamber responsible for the execution of sentences ) shall suspend on probation further execution of the detention order as soon as it is to be expected that the person concerned will not commit any further unlawful acts on his or her release . Suspension shall automatically entail supervision of the conduct of the offender ( paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to LAW the court ( i.e. the chamber responsible for the execution of sentences ) may review at any time whether the further execution of the preventive detention order should be suspended on probation . It is obliged to do so within fixed time - limits ( paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ) . For persons in preventive detention , this timelimit is DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ) .