Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Prevent unauthorised entry into country);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicants are Mr PERSON and PERSON née PERSON , nationals of GPE , born in DATE and DATE respectively , and their CARDINAL minor children , who were born in GPE on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

The applicants were born in GPE . They were married on DATE . In the applicants’ submission they were repeatedly persecuted in their country on account of their NORP origin and their affiliation to ORG . On DATE the applicant ’s father was beaten up in the street and required treatment in hospital . The family filed a complaint and on DATE the applicants received , at their house , a visit from unknown individuals of NORP origin who asked them to withdraw their complaint and threatened them with reprisals . On DATE an incendiary device was thrown into their home through the window , starting a fire , and they were rescued by a neighbour . Following that incident , the applicant ’s father left GPE on DATE .

On DATE , when the second applicant was returning home , NORP police officers stopped her in the street and questioned her about her father . They took her away and she was beaten up . They tried to shut her in a vehicle and threatened to rape and kill her . She managed to escape . DATE , she went to the casualty department in the town of Taraz to have her injuries recorded and treated . On DATE her mother came home having also been beaten up by NORP policemen who were looking for her husband . After that incident they moved to the country .

On DATE the second applicant was again assaulted . She had gone shopping and did not return until DATE , covered in bruises and blood . DATE she lost the child she was carrying . She then decided to leave the country and entered GPE on DATE on a DATE visa . After her departure , the applicant , who had filed a complaint , was assaulted by policemen on DATE . He spent DATE in hiding but the authorities found him , confiscated his papers , and threatened to kill him if he did not withdraw his complaint . He too decided to leave the country and joined his wife in GPE on DATE .

The applicants each filed an asylum application with ORG ( OFPRA ) and obtained residence permits . Their asylum applications were rejected on DATE on the ground that their statements were “ riddled with inconsistencies ” , followed “ a stereotyped pattern ” and were “ unconvincing ” . On DATE ORG dismissed their appeals .

On DATE , having learnt of the murder of the second applicant ’s father , after his return to GPE , the applicants requested a fresh examination of their case by the OFPRA . On DATE the OFPRA refused to re - examine the case . On DATE ORG rejected their appeal on the ground that the new fact could not be regarded as established .

They subsequently applied for recognition as stateless persons , but the ORG rejected their request on DATE , on the ground , first , that they had not provided evidence that the NORP authorities had withdrawn their nationality and they could not lose that nationality purely of their own volition , and , secondly , that they held passports issued by their national authorities that were valid until DATE . On DATE the applicants appealed against that rejection before ORG . They subsequently dropped their appeal , however , having obtained refugee status in the meantime ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the NORP prefecture notified the applicants of its refusal to issue them with residence permits and directed them to leave the country within DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON was arrested during a vehicle check when he was found to be in the country illegally . On DATE he was issued with a removal order and placed in administrative detention in GPE - Mézières . On DATE the liberties and detention judge of the GPE - Mézières tribunal de grande instance ordered the extension of his detention for DATE . On DATE the detention was extended for a further DATE in order to “ enable the enforcement of the removal measure ” .

On DATE the Châlons - en - Champagne Administrative Court rejected Mr PERSON ’s application for the annulment of the order for his removal to GPE . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment , finding that he had not adduced any conclusive evidence in support of his allegations that he had been persecuted in his country of origin .

The removal order against the first applicant was not enforced , however , and he was released from the detention centre , as no laissez - passer had been issued .

On DATE it was decided to place the applicants in administrative detention but the prefect of the Ardennes ordered them to reside at a specific address , pursuant to Article PERSON of the Entry and Residence of Aliens and Right of Asylum Code ( CESEDA ) . CARDINAL attempts to remove the applicants failed as a result of the mobilisation of a support group . The family was thus released .

On DATE the NORP prefecture rejected a new request for the issuance of a residence permit to the applicants . On DATE , a further decision was delivered imposing on them an obligation to leave the country . On DATE the Châlons - en - Champagne Administrative Court dismissed their appeal against that decision .

On DATE they again applied for residence permits . As the prefecture failed to respond , the applicants challenged the implicit rejection decision before ORG . However , having subsequently obtained refugee status , the applicants withdrew their complaint .

On DATE the applicants and their children , who were then DATE , respectively , were apprehended at the home of the applicant ’s mother , who was accommodating them , and taken into police custody . After a long wait , the GPE - et - LOC prefecture ordered their administrative detention in a hotel in Angers . On CARDINAL DATE the applicants and their children were transferred to PERSON airport pending their removal to GPE . However , the flight scheduled for TIME was cancelled , without the prefecture having been informed , and the removal could not therefore be carried out . It was only in TIME that the applicants and their children were transferred , in a police van , to the administrative detention centre of ORG .

That centre , even though it is mentioned on the list of centres that cater for families , does not have any real leisure or learning area . Whilst CARDINAL wing is reserved for families and single women , the atmosphere there is distressing and stressful , with a lack of privacy and a high level of tension . Announcements via loud - speakers reverberate throughout the centre and exacerbate the feeling of stress . The GPE centre , at the time of the applicants’ detention , was not equipped with the basic facilities for the detention of young children ( it had metal beds with pointed corners , no cots , just a few toys in the corner of a room , etc . ) . The only outdoor area is a courtyard , concreted over and with wire netting over the top , and the bedroom windows are covered with a tight grill obscuring the view to the outside ...

The eldest child refused to eat in the centre and showed signs of anxiety and stress . The parents had to negotiate with the police to recover their personal belongings , including the milk they had brought for the infant . They were only able to receive CARDINAL short visit during their detention , as it was not easy to gain access to the centre .

On DATE the liberties and detention judge of the GPE tribunal de grande instance ordered the extension of the detention measure for DATE , after observing that the maintaining of a family in detention was not in breach of the decree of CARDINAL DATE on administrative detention and holding areas and that their transfer to ORG was not vitiated by any defect . The decision also mentioned the loss of the second applicant ’s NORP nationality but it was found that this could not justify release , as ORG alone had jurisdiction to decide if that situation would have any consequences . On DATE ORG upheld the extension decision .

Having been held in the detention centre since DATE , the applicants were again transferred to PERSON airport pending their removal on DATE , the flight being scheduled for the early afternoon . It did not go ahead , however . The applicants were not taken back to the GPE - GPE centre until TIME , without any measure of placement in a detention facility being decided at PERSON during that period . The prefect then applied to the LOC liberties and detention judge to have the LOC detention extended for DATE , relying solely on the argument that the non - enforcement of the removal order could be attributed to the applicants themselves ( CESEDA , Article PERSON ) . The applicants complained about the conditions of their detention and its length , arguing that the authorities had failed to prove that the length of the measure was strictly necessary .

On DATE the applicants submitted to the ORG , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , a request for the suspension of the removal measure . The ORG declined to indicate an interim measure in response to that request .

On DATE the liberties and detention judge found that there was no evidence to show that the applicants had deliberately impeded their removal , because the documents concerning the circumstances of the attempt expressly stated that “ no refusal to board the plane was recorded on CARDINAL DATE ” , and he ordered their release , with the obligation to leave GPE being maintained . The prefect appealed against that decision but without seeking suspensive effect . The applicants were thus released from the detention centre .

On DATE ORG set aside the liberties and detention judge ’s decision and extended the administrative detention measure for DATE , finding that it could be seen from certain documents in the file that the applicants had indeed prevented their removal ( an e - mail from one of the border police officers mentioning the need for an escort to carry out the removal the next time , in view of PERSON reaction ) . It had been found that the next flight with an escort for the ORG removal would not be available before DATE , and the prefect had not therefore shown a lack of diligence in organising the departure and limiting the length of the detention . He had thus been justified in seeking an extension of the administrative detention pending the organisation of a fresh removal . That decision was not enforced .

NORP Before their arrest the applicants had filed a fresh request to be granted refugee status . In a decision of DATE the ORG rejected the request on account of the very general nature of the alleged facts , finding that this , together with the unlikely claim of blackmail on the part of the NORP authorities , precluded the establishment of their veracity . The OFPRA further stated that as the allegation that the applicants had lost their nationality had not been corroborated , the request for re - examination had to be rejected . The applicants appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG granted the applicants refugee status , finding that the enquiries made by the LOC prefecture vis - à - vis the NORP authorities , in breach of the confidentiality of asylum applications , had exposed the applicants to danger in the event of their return to GPE , and that their loss of NORP nationality , in DATE and DATE respectively , whilst not per se constituting persecution , did not , however , preclude the granting of refugee status .

The detention of aliens pending their removal is mainly governed , in NORP domestic law , by the provisions of the Entry and Residence of Aliens and Right of Asylum Code ( CESEDA ) .

The practice of detaining children accompanying their parents is governed by decree no . DATE of CARDINAL DATE concerning administrative detention and holding areas , which amended the CESEDA provision as follows :

“ Administrative detention centres , which are not entitled to accommodate CARDINAL residents , shall provide detained aliens with hotel - type facilities and collective catering services . They shall comply with the following standards :

A minimum usable surface area of QUANTITY per detainee consisting of a bedroom and areas freely accessible during opening hours ;

ORG - mixed shared rooms , housing a maximum of CARDINAL ;

Personal hygiene facilities , consisting of washbasins , showers and toilets , freely accessible and in sufficient numbers , representing CARDINAL washroom for every CARDINAL detainees ;

A telephone freely accessible for every QUANTITY detainees ;

Premises and facilities necessary for catering , in compliance with standards laid down in a joint decision of the Agriculture Minister , the Defence Minister , the ORG Minister and the Minister for SMEs , trade and crafts ;

For CARDINAL detainees , a leisure room separate from the canteen , with a surface area of QUANTITY , plus QUANTITY for every CARDINAL additional detainees ;

One or more rooms containing medical equipment , reserved for medical personnel ;

A room for visits by family members and consular staff ;

The room mentioned in LAW , reserved for lawyers ;

A room assigned to the organisation mentioned in Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ;

A room , containing furniture and a telephone , assigned to the association mentioned in the first paragraph of Article R. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ;

NORP An area for open - air exercise ;

A luggage room .

Administrative detention centres catering for families shall also contain bedrooms that are specially adapted , in particular for childcare . ”

“ By way of exception , the court may order aliens to reside at a specific address when they can provide effective guarantees that they will not abscond , after surrendering to the police or gendarmerie their original passport and any identity document , in exchange for an acknowledgment of receipt constituting proof of the person ’s identity and indicating the removal measure that is pending . Where an order to reside at a specific address is made in respect of an alien who has previously absconded from the execution of an applicable removal or deportation measure , or has breached a ban on re - entry that has not been lifted , the order shall give specific reasoning . ”

The ORG notes that NORP law precludes the placement of minors in administrative detention :

“ An obligation to leave NORP territory or a removal measure , pursuant to the present chapter , can not be decided in respect of :

CARDINAL An alien who is DATE ; ... ”

“ PERSON can not be ordered in respect of an alien under DATE . ”

The ORG , an ecumenical non - governmental organisation providing assistance to immigrants , in its report “ Administrative detention centres and facilities ” ( “ Centres et locaux de rétention administrative ” ) , published in DATE , pointed out that even though the law did not permit the detention of minors , CARDINAL children “ accompanying ” their parents had been deprived of their liberty in DATE . Their average age was DATE . The ORG emphasised that administrative measures of placement in detention could not be taken against children , so their detention was devoid of legal basis .

As a result , the administrative detention centres of ORG CARDINAL , PERSON , GPE , GPE - GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , PERSON ( GPE ) , GPE , GPE , ORG CARDINAL and ORG were thus “ authorised to receive families ” . The ORG observed that there were flagrant discrepancies between the various administrative detention centres in terms of how families were actually catered for . The total lack of guidelines as to what was indispensable for a child precluded any harmonisation of the conditions of detention for families in the centres . The task was left to each centre ’s director , whose responsibility it was to adapt the day - to - DATE management of the centre to the particular needs of a family with children , without having the support of staff specifically trained in education .

The domestic courts have given a number of rulings on the practice of placing children accompanying their parents in administrative detention pending removal .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) the President of ORG ruled on an appeal by the public prosecutor with a view to the annulment of an order by the liberties and detention judge concerning the release of a family with an infant . The public prosecutor had argued that the fact of holding them “ on LOC that were specially adapted to receive families did not constitute inhuman treatment ” . ORG upheld the first - instance order with the following reasoning :

“ even though it provides an area reserved for the ‘ reception’ of families , the detention centre remains a place where aliens are detained pending their removal from GPE , for a maximum period of DATE ; in the present case , the fact of holding in such a place a young mother , her husband and their DATE baby constitutes inhuman treatment within the meaning of LAW on account , firstly , of the abnormal living conditions imposed on this very young child , virtually since birth , and secondly , of the great emotional and mental distress inflicted on the mother and father by detaining them with the infant , a distress which , by its nature and duration ... , exceeds the threshold of seriousness required for the above - mentioned provision to be engaged , and which , moreover , is manifestly disproportionate to the aim pursued , namely the couple ’s removal ... ”

In another order , this time of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , the same ORG took the view that “ even though it provides an area reserved for the reception of families , the detention centre remains a place of seclusion [ and ] the fact of holding in such a place a very young mother , her husband and their DATE baby constitutes inhuman treatment within the meaning of LAW . That court further noted in particular that , for a family , such seclusion caused “ great emotional and mental suffering ” which “ exceeded the threshold of seriousness for the purposes of the LAW .

In a decision of DATE ( Bulletin CARDINAL , I , no . CARDINAL ) , ORG quashed that order . .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ordered the immediate release of the appellants on the following grounds :

“ the fact of holding in such a place a young mother , her husband and their DATE baby constitutes inhuman treatment within the meaning of LAW on account , firstly , of the abnormal living conditions imposed on this very young child , virtually since birth , having been held in police custody with its mother , and secondly , of the great emotional and mental distress inflicted on the mother and father by the detention measure , a distress that is manifestly disproportionate to the aim pursued , namely the execution of the removal order ... ”

That decision was quashed by ORG , which decided in a judgment of DATE ( Bulletin CARDINAL , I , no . CARDINAL ) as follows :

“ inhuman or degrading treatment is not constituted by the provisional holding in administrative detention of a family , made up of a man , a woman and their child of a few months’ old , pending the execution of an enforceable removal measure , where such deprivation of liberty has been lawfully ordered by a judicial authority , under its supervision , and is carried out in an area of the detention centre specially reserved for families , unless it is shown that the area is not adapted to the needs of family life or of human dignity . ”

The ORG and the ORG applied to the ORG d’Etat seeking the annulment of the decree of CARDINAL DATE “ in so far as it organised the placement in administrative detention of families , including minors , but their applications were rejected in a judgment of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) . Concerning the detention of families , it took the view that LAW of the decree in question did not have the purpose or effect of permitting the administrative authorities to decide on the deprivation of liberty of the families of individuals placed in detention , but that it sought only to provide for the reception of such families . The ORG d’Etat thus concluded that the administrative authority was competent to make such arrangements , which were not in breach either of the CESEDA or of FAC on the Rights of the Child .

Following his visit from DATE , the Commissioner for Human Rights published , on DATE , a report on “ the effective respect for human rights in GPE ” ( CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) . He observed , concerning the detention of minors , that children should not be kept in an enclosed facility , offering little in the way of activities and few , if any , outings , and where conditions were precarious and their safety could not be guaranteed . He recommended that an alternative solution be proposed to families with children ( § CARDINAL ) . He noted in this connection that compulsory residence orders , which were provided for by law , were “ little used ” ( § CARDINAL ) .

The Commissioner further observed that the placement of children in a detention centre was incompatible with ORG and NORP law , which precluded the use of removal orders against minors . He found , however , that a legal vacuum made it possible to place children in detention centres and remove them , on the grounds of concern not to separate them from their families . In his view , the NORP authorities appeared to completely underestimate the legal and humanitarian problems posed by the presence of children in such centres ( § CARDINAL ) . He added , lastly , that in any event , no children should be detained on the grounds that their parents did not have the necessary papers to remain in GPE , especially “ in places marked by overcrowding , dilapidation , promiscuity ( sic ) and very strong tensions ” ( § CARDINAL ) .

In his report of DATE ( CommDHCARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) the Commissioner noted that “ [ n]otwithstanding the recommendation made in the DATE report , an increasing number of children [ were ] placed in administrative holding centres with their parents ” . He added that it was regrettable that such holding centres and waiting zones at the border were the only places in GPE where minors under the age of CARDINAL were deprived of their liberty . He found , lastly , that the NORP authorities continued to underestimate the problems posed by the presence of children in holding centres and invited the authorities to place families in administrative detention only in cases of extreme necessity , so as to avoid causing children irreparable trauma .

Following its visit to numerous administrative detention centres in GPE ( PERSON , Vincennes CARDINAL and CARDINAL , GPE , FAC , in DATE , the ORG raised with the Government the question of detaining families , and in particular any “ accompanying ” children , in such centres . It noted that this type of situation was not exceptional .

In response to concerns about the conditions of accommodation , the NORP authorities acknowledged that “ the current furnishings in the bedrooms [ were ] not always fully adapted to small children ... ” .

On DATE the ORG and ORG adopted Directive CARDINAL , known as the “ Return Directive ” , on common standards and procedures in Member GPE for returning illegally staying third - country nationals ( Official Journal L. CARDINAL , DATE , pp . DATE ) .

The relevant provision reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The use of coercive measures should be expressly subject to the principles of proportionality and effectiveness with regard to the means used and objectives pursued ... ”

In Council Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC , the “ Reception Directive ” , adopted on DATE , ORG gave the following definition of vulnerable persons particularly requiring the authorities’ attention :

“ General principle

NORP ... minors , unaccompanied minors , disabled people , elderly people , pregnant women , single parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture , rape or other serious forms of psychological , physical or sexual violence ... ”

“ Minors

The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration for Member GPE when implementing the provisions of this Directive that involve minors . ... ”

LAW became binding with the entry into force of LAW on DATE . Article CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL . NORP In all actions relating to children , whether taken by public authorities or private institutions , the child ’s best interests must be a primary consideration . ... ”

In DATE ORG published a study entitled : “ The conditions in centres for third country national ( detention camps , open centres as well as transit centres and transit zones ) with a particular focus on provisions and facilities for persons with special needs in the CARDINAL ORG member states ” ( PE CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) analysing the implementation of the “ reception ” directive .

The report ’s authors found that minors were detained in the vast majority of GPE ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) . The report presents an exhaustive study of the conditions of reception of vulnerable persons in GPE member GPE . GPE appears to be the only State that never has recourse to detention for minors and GPE limits it to TIME . Countries such as GPE , GPE and GPE , however , have recourse to detention almost systematically for accompanied children .

The report further shows that in spite of the existence of separate sections reserved for families with children and improved conditions ( game rooms , toys , etc . ) , the fact remains that the lack of privacy , stressful living conditions , food , DATE routine , negation of intimacy and the human and material environment are not adapted to children . The detention centre staff interviewed all felt that children should not be imprisoned in detention centres for the short or long term , because of the negative impact this traumatic experience could have on the children ’s psychological balance , on their relations with their parents and on the image the children had of their parents whilst in detention .

In the part concerning GPE , the report noted a deterioration in the atmosphere in these secure centres and in particular a rise in the number of desperate acts committed , including physical assaults . It was also suggested that the improvement in physical conditions for families had the perverse effect of making this type of detention seem banal when the very principle of detaining them in this position could be questioned . The report ’s authors added : “ The presence of children in these places where they are deprived of their freedom , even if these are ‘ family ORG and they are kept here in order to keep families together , was particularly shocking for the study team ” .

According to the non - governmental organisation “ ORG ” , the alternative of compulsory residence orders is used in GPE in PERCENT of cases ( see the report : “ Survey on Alternatives to Detention of Asylum Seekers in GPE Member GPE ” ) . Many organisations , both governmental and non - governmental , advocate alternatives to detention .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG The applicant had become a director and chief executive of ORG ( " Guinness " ) in DATE .

ORG In early DATE Guinness was competing with another public company , ORG ( " Argyll " ) , to take over a third public company , ORG ( " Distillers " ) . The take - over battle resulted in victory for ORG . ORG ’s offer to ORG shareholders , like ORG , included a substantial share exchange element , and accordingly the respective prices at which ORG and GPE shares were quoted on ORG was a critical factor for both sides . During the course of the bid the ORG share price rose dramatically , but once the bid had been declared unconditional it fell significantly .

ORG The substantial increase in the quoted ORG share price during the bid was achieved as a result of an unlawful share - support operation . This involved certain persons ( " supporters " ) purchasing ORG shares in order to maintain , or inflate , its quoted share price . Supporters were offered secret indemnities against any losses they might incur , and , in some cases , also large success fees , if the ORG bid was successful . Such inducements were unlawful ( CARDINAL ) because they were not disclosed to the market under LAW on Take - overs and Mergers and ( CARDINAL ) because they were paid out of ORG ’s own moneys in breach of LAW DATE ( " the CARDINAL Act " ) , which prohibits a company from giving financial assistance for the purpose of the acquisition of its own shares .

ORG Supporters who had purchased shares under the unlawful sharesupport operation were indemnified and rewarded . In addition , some of those who had helped find supporters were rewarded by the payment of large fees . These too came from ORG funds . In most cases payments were made using false invoices which concealed the fact that payment was being made in respect of the supporters or other recipients’ participation in the unlawful share - support operation .

ORG Allegations and rumours of misconduct during the course of the bid led the Secretary of ORG to appoint inspectors DATE after the events pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The inspectors were empowered to investigate the affairs of Guinness .

ORG On DATE , the inspectors began taking oral evidence . Mr GPE , a director of the merchant bank advisers to Guinness , was the first witness .

ORG On DATE , the inspectors informed ORG ( " the ORG " ) that there was concrete evidence of criminal offences having been committed . On DATE the ORG contacted PERSON PERSON of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ office ( " the ORG " ) . It was decided that the proper thing to do was to permit the inspectors to carry on with their inquiry and to pass the transcripts on to ORG ( " the ORG " ) which had come into being in DATE .

ORG On DATE the applicant was dismissed from ORG .

ORG On DATE , the Secretary of ORG required the inspectors to inform him of any matters coming to their knowledge as a result of their investigation pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act . Thereafter the inspectors passed on to the Secretary of ORG transcripts of their hearings and other documentary material which came into their possession .

ORG On DATE , a meeting was held attended by the inspectors , the solicitor to and other officials of the ORG , Mr PERSON and a representative from the ORG . Amongst other matters , potential accused were identified - including the applicant – possible charges were discussed and it was stated that a decision had to be made as to when to start a criminal investigation . All concerned agreed on the need to work closely together in preparing the way for bringing charges as soon as possible . The inspectors indicated their readiness to cooperate although they reserved the right to conduct their investigations as they thought right .

ORG On DATE Mr PERSON , who had been appointed head of legal services at the ORG , appointed a team of counsel to advise on the criminal aspects of the investigation . Transcripts and documents from the inspectors were passed on to the team after receipt and consideration by the ORG .

ORG The applicant was interviewed by the inspectors on CARDINAL occasions : on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . He was accompanied by his legal representatives throughout these interviews .

ORG During DATE of DATE the police were formally asked by the ORG ’s office to carry out a criminal investigation . The transcripts and documents obtained as a result of the inspectors’ interviews were then passed on to the police .

ORG The applicant was subsequently charged with numerous offences relating to the illegal share - support operation and , together with his codefendants , was arraigned before ORG on DATE .

In view of the large number of counsel and the number of defendants CARDINAL separate trials were subsequently ordered by the trial judge in ORG on DATE .

ORG From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the court held a voir dire ( submissions on a point of law in the absence of the jury ) following the application of CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - defendants , PERSON , to rule the ORG transcripts inadmissible . PERSON argued , principally , that the statements obtained during CARDINAL interviews before the inspectors should be excluded

( i ) pursuant to section DATE of ORG " PACE " ) on the basis that they had been obtained by oppression or in circumstances which were likely to render them unreliable ;

( ii ) pursuant to section CARDINAL of PACE because of the adverse effect the admission of the evidence would have on the fairness of the proceedings having regard to the circumstances in which it was obtained .

In a ruling given on DATE , the trial judge ( Mr Justice PERSON ) held that the transcripts were admissible . He stated that it was common ground that the interviews were capable of being " confessions " as defined in section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of PACE . He found that as a matter of construction of the DATE Act inspectors could ask witnesses questions that tended to incriminate them , the witnesses were under a duty to answer such questions and the answers were admissible in criminal proceedings . He rejected Mr Parnes ’s assertion that the inspectors should have given a warning against self - incrimination . He was satisfied that there was no element of oppression involved in the obtaining of the evidence and that the answers were not obtained in consequence of anything said or done which was likely to render them unreliable in all the circumstances existing at the time .

ORG From DATE the court held a further voir dire following the application of the applicant to rule inadmissible the ORG transcripts concerning the eighth and ninth interviews on the basis that they should be excluded either as unreliable under section DATE of PACE or pursuant to section CARDINAL of PACE because of the adverse effect the admission of the evidence would have on the fairness of the proceedings having regard to the circumstances in which it was obtained . ORG was placed on the applicant ’s alleged ill - health at the time and on the fact that the CARDINAL interviews in question had taken place after the applicant had been charged .

In his ruling of CARDINAL DATE Mr Justice PERSON rejected the defence argument as to the applicant ’s medical condition . He did , however , exercise his discretion pursuant to section DATE to exclude the evidence from the CARDINAL above - mentioned interviews which had taken place after the applicant had been charged on the grounds that his attendance could not be said to be voluntary . In his view , moreover , it could not be said to be fair to use material obtained by compulsory interrogation after the commencement of the accusatorial process .

ORG The applicant was tried together with CARDINAL co - defendants . The trial involved DATE of evidence , DATE of speeches by counsel and a DATE summing - up to the jury by the trial judge . The applicant faced CARDINAL counts including , inter alia , CARDINAL counts of false accounting contrary to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) b of LAW DATE and CARDINAL counts of theft and several counts of conspiracy .

In the course of his trial the applicant , who was the only accused to give evidence ( DATE ) - after the reading of the transcripts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) - testified that he knew nothing about the giving of indemnities or the paying of success fees and that he had not been consulted on such matters . He asserted that he had been guilty of no wrongdoing . The ORG relied heavily on the evidence of PERSON ( ORG ’s finance director ) who had been granted immunity from prosecution . It also referred to the statements made by the applicant in the course of interviews to the ORG inspectors .

ORG The transcripts of the interviews were read to the jury by the prosecution over a DATE period during the trial ( DATE ) . They were used in order to establish the state of the applicant ’s knowledge and to refute evidence given by the applicant to the jury .

For example , counsel for the prosecution used passages from the interviews to demonstrate that PERSON had been aware , inter alia , of the payment to Mr PERSON , who had been allegedly involved in the sharesupport operation , of MONEY , before the inspectors had shown him an invoice for the payment of the money to Mr W. In his answers to the inspectors Mr PERSON had stated that he had agreed on the payment to Mr W. of MONEY as an appropriate success fee . When the inspectors showed him the invoice for the payment of this money to a company ( ORG ) used by PERSON to receive fees for work done , he replied that he had not seen the invoice before but had deduced that it related to his agreement to pay Mr MONEY .

In his opening speech to the jury , counsel for the prosecution stated as follows :

" PERSON also told [ ORG ] inspectors why the [ MONEY ] had been paid . He said that PERSON [ W. ] had performed invaluable service during the bid for ORG and that Mr [ W. ] had persuaded him that MONEY was an appropriate fee as a reward . Mr PERSON accepted that there was no documentation to support his decision to pay Mr [ W. ] MONEY . Mr PERSON admitted to the [ inspectors ] that he knew that ORG was a company used by PERSON [ W. ] and his associates to receive money . "

During the trial Mr PERSON testified that he did not know that the money had been paid to Mr PERSON prior to being shown the invoice by the inspectors . In his cross - examination of the applicant , counsel for the prosecution referred to the above answers in the transcripts to contradict PERSON PERSON ’s testimony . In his closing speech to the jury he stated :

" But PERSON ... evidence to the inspectors make it clear that he knew perfectly well ... that PERSON [ W. ] had been paid . You will remember those passages in his ... interviews where he knew all about this payment before he was shown the invoice . "

Reference was also made to the interview transcripts by counsel for the co - accused [ Mr NORP ] in an attempt to demonstrate that PERSON was not telling the truth . In his answers to the inspectors Mr PERSON had repeatedly stated that he did not recall any conversations with Mr NORP concerning the purchase of shares in Guinness or about indemnities against loss in the event of such purchase . However , a letter written by PERSON to another person stating that such conversations had taken place and generally implicating PERSON in the share - support operation had been previously published in the press .

During cross - examination of PERSON , counsel for PERSON suggested that PERSON answers to the inspectors on this point were not believable , that he had " lost his nerve " before them and that this explained his replies that he could not recollect the conversations with PERSON taking place . He repeatedly asked why PERSON did not take the opportunity to tell the inspectors that PERSON accusations in the published letter were a " pack of lies " instead of replying as he did .

ORG In his summing - up to the jury , the judge also compared and contrasted what the applicant had said in court with the answers which he had given to the inspectors .

ORG On DATE the applicant was convicted of CARDINAL counts in respect of conspiracy , false accounting and theft . He received an overall prison sentence of DATE .

ORG In the second set of proceedings concerning the other co - defendants , further challenge was made to the admissibility of the transcripts of the interviews on the ground , inter alia , that there was an abuse of process in that there was misconduct by the inspectors and/or the prosecuting authorities in the use of the inspectors’ statutory powers for the purpose of constructing a criminal case . In particular , it was alleged by CARDINAL of the codefendants , Mr GPE , that there was a deliberate delay in charging the accused in order that the inspectors could use their powers to obtain confessions .

ORG In a ruling given on DATE Mr Justice PERSON found that there was no prima facie case of abuse by either the inspectors or the prosecuting authorities . He had heard evidence from both the inspectors and the police officer in charge of the criminal investigation . In a ruling given on DATE the judge rejected the application for a stay , finding that there had been no abuse of the criminal process in the questioning of the defendants or in the passing of Mr GPE ’s depositions to the inspectors to the prosecuting authorities or in their conduct of the prosecution . He saw nothing improper or sinister in the decision by Mr Wood not to involve the police until DATE He concluded rather that proper use had been made of the statutory powers . The judge also refused an application to exclude the evidence of the interviews under section CARDINAL of PACE as constituting evidence which had such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it .

ORG On appeal ORG in a judgment dated DATE ( NORP v. PERSON ) upheld the trial judge ’s ruling as to the admissibility of the interviews before the inspectors . On DATE leave to appeal was refused by ORG .

ORG The applicant applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence . He argued , inter alia , that the trial judge had misdirected the jury as to the weight to be allowed to the evidence given by PERSON , the finance director of ORG who had been afforded immunity from prosecution .

The applicant was granted leave to appeal against conviction . Following a hearing at which the applicant was represented , ORG gave its judgment on DATE . It held that while there were some blemishes and infelicities in the judge ’s summing - up , it was in the main a masterly exposition , which left the main issue of dishonesty to the jury . It commented that the applicant ’s counsel had expressed the possibility that he might wish to address the court as to the admissibility of the transcripts . It stated however that the question had been decided , as far as it was concerned , by the decision given by another division of ORG in the case of NORP v. GPE , which had held that such statements were admissible . It went on to reject the applicant ’s appeal on all but CARDINAL count : it found that the judge had erred in his direction on CARDINAL count and quashed that conviction . It reduced his sentence to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment .

ORG On DATE the Home Secretary referred the applicant ’s case and that of his co - defendants to ORG pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE . He did so on the basis of applications by the applicant ’s co - defendants - but not the applicant himself - who submitted that the prosecution had failed to disclose certain documents at their trial .

ORG At the appeal the applicant argued , inter alia , that the use at the trial of answers given to the ORG inspectors automatically rendered the criminal proceedings unfair .

The court rejected this argument , pointing out that ORG had expressly and unambiguously provided in the DATE Act that answers given to ORG inspectors may be admitted in evidence in criminal proceedings even though such admittance might override the privilege against selfincrimination .

In its judgment the court noted that the interviews with each of the accused " formed a significant part of the prosecution case " .

ORG With reference to the allegation that it was unfair that those interviewed by ORG inspectors should be treated less favourably than those interviewed by the police under PACE , the court noted as follows :

" ... the unravelling of complex and devious transactions in those fields is particularly difficult and those who enjoy the immunities and privileges afforded by LAW and the Companies Acts must accept the need for a regime of stringent scrutiny especially where fraud is suspected ... "

ORG In relation to the argument that the difference between LAW and LAW regimes ( see paragraphs DATE below ) was anomalous the court stated :

" ... the explanation lies in the very different regime of interviews by ORG inspectors compared with that of interviews either by police or the ORG [ ORG ] . ORG inspectors are investigators ; unlike the police or ORG they are not prosecutors or potential prosecutors . Here , typically , the CARDINAL inspectors were a Queen ’s Counsel and a senior accountant . They are bound to act fairly , and to give anyone they propose to condemn or criticise a fair opportunity to answer what is alleged against them ... Usually , the interviewee will be represented by lawyers and he may be informed in advance of the points to be raised . "

ORG The court also rejected an allegation that there had been an abuse of process in that the ORG inspectors were used wrongly as " evidence gatherers " for the prosecution or that there had been improper or unfair " collusion " , as follows :

" We have carefully considered the effect of the events of DATE in the light of all the documents . We conclude that to allow the inspectors to continue their inquiry and to bring in the police only in DATE was a proper course subject to CARDINAL essentials .

( CARDINAL ) That the inspectors were left to conduct their inquiries and interviews independently without instruction , briefing or prompting by the prosecuting authority . We are quite satisfied that the inspectors themselves made that clear and abided by it . Counsel also laid down those ground rules correctly and they were observed ...

( CARDINAL ) That the interviews were conducted fairly and unobjectionably . It was not suggested to the trial judge or before us that the inspectors could be criticised on this score . These were carefully structured sessions of proper length in suitable conditions . The appellants , experienced businessmen of high intelligence , were each represented either by counsel ( usually ORG ) or a senior solicitor . The questions were put scrupulously fairly and the Code laid down in the PERSON case ... was observed . "

ORG Finally , the court also rejected the allegation that non - disclosure prior to the trial of the material alleged to indicate abuse caused any unfairness to the applicant . It subsequently refused to certify that the case involved a point of public importance and denied leave to appeal to ORG . Following this decision no further avenue of appeal was open to the applicant .

ORG By CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( the " CARDINAL Act " ) the Secretary of ORG may appoint CARDINAL or more competent inspectors to investigate the affairs of a company and to report on them in such manner as he may direct . The Secretary of ORG may make such appointment if it appears that there are circumstances suggesting :

" ( a ) that the company ’s affairs are being or have been conducted with intent to defraud its creditors or the creditors of any other person , or otherwise for a fraudulent or unlawful purpose , or in a manner which is unfairly prejudicial to some part of its members , or

( b ) that any actual or proposed act or omission of the company ( including an act or omission on its behalf ) is or would be so prejudicial , or that the company was formed for any fraudulent or unlawful purpose , or

( c ) that persons concerned with the company ’s formation or the management of its affairs have in connection therewith been guilty of fraud , misfeasance or other misconduct towards it or towards its members , or

( d ) that the company ’s members have not been given all the information with respect to its affairs which they might reasonably expect . " ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) )

ORG The Secretary of ORG is also empowered to appoint inspectors to :

" ... investigate and report on the membership of any company , and otherwise with respect to the company , for the purpose of determining the true persons who are or have been financially interested in the success or failure ( real or apparent ) of the company or able to control or materially to influence its policy . " ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) )

ORG The function of inspectors is an inquisitorial and not a judicial function . It has been summarised in re ORG [ DATE ] Chancery Reports CARDINAL , per ORG at p. CARDINAL , as follows :

" The inspectors’ function is in essence to conduct an investigation designed to discover whether there are facts which may result in others taking action ; it is no part of their function to take a decision as to whether action be taken and a fortiori it is not for them finally to determine such issues as may emerge if some action eventuates . "

ORG Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act provides :

" ( CARDINAL ) When inspectors are appointed under section CARDINAL or CARDINAL , it is the duty of all officers and agents of the company ...

( a ) to produce to the inspectors all books and documents of or relating to the company ... which are in their custody or power ,

( b ) to attend before the inspectors when required to do so and ,

( c ) otherwise to give the inspectors all assistance in connection with the investigation which they are reasonably able to give ...

( CARDINAL ) An inspector may examine on oath the officers and agents of the company or other body corporate , and any such person as is mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) , in relation to the affairs of the company or other body , and may administer an oath accordingly ...

( CARDINAL ) An answer given by a person to a question put to him in exercise of powers conferred by this section ( whether it has effect in relation to an investigation under any of sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL , or as applied by any other section in this Part ) may be used in evidence against him . "

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

" ( CARDINAL ) When inspectors are appointed under section CARDINAL or CARDINAL to investigate the affairs of a company , the following applies in the case of -

( a ) any officer or agent of the company ,

( b ) any officer or agent of another body corporate whose affairs are investigated under section CARDINAL and

( c ) any such person as is mentioned in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) applies with regard to references in this subsection to an officer or agent .

( CARDINAL ) If that person -

( a ) refuses to produce any book or document which it is his duty under section CARDINAL or CARDINAL to produce , or

( b ) refuses to attend before the inspectors when required to do so , or

( c ) refuses to answer any question put to him by the inspectors with respect to the affairs of the company or other body corporate ( as the case may be ) the inspectors may certify the refusal in writing to the court .

( CARDINAL ) The court may thereupon inquire into the case , and , after hearing any witnesses who may be produced against or on behalf of the alleged offender and after hearing any statement which may be offered in defence , the court may punish the offender in like manner as if he had been guilty of contempt of court . "

ORG Contempt of court in this context may be punished by the imposition of a fine or by committal to prison for a period not exceeding DATE .

Section CARDINAL of ORG PACE ) provides as relevant :

" CARDINAL . In any proceedings a confession made by an accused person may be given in evidence against him in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of this section .

If , in any proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a confession made by an accused person , it is represented to the court that the confession was or may have been obtained -

( a ) by oppression of the person who made it ; or

( b ) in consequence of anything said or done which was likely , in the circumstances existing at the time , to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequence thereof , the court shall not allow the confession to be given in evidence against him except in so far as the prosecution proves to the court beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession ( notwithstanding that it might be true ) was not obtained as aforesaid ... "

Section CARDINAL provides as relevant :

" CARDINAL . In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow the evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court that , having regard to all the circumstances , including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained , the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it . "

ORG Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of PACE a " ‘ confession’ includes any statement wholly or partly adverse to the person who made it , whether made to a person in authority or not and whether made in words or otherwise " .

ORG LAW DATE confers on the Director of ORG special powers to assist him in the investigation and prosecution of serious fraud . LAW ) requires a person whose affairs are being investigated to answer questions even if by so doing he might incriminate himself . Failure to answer may give rise to criminal sanctions ( LAW . Answers in this context can not be used in evidence against a suspect unless he is prosecuted for failure , without reasonable excuse , to answer questions or unless he makes a statement in evidence which is inconsistent with a previous answer ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL) ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

Mr. PERSON and Mr ORG were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC . PERSON was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The applicants are siblings .

On DATE the applicants requested a judicial determination of their ownership title to a house .

The first - instance court delivered judgments on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The court of appeal quashed those judgments on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

On DATE ORG found that GPE had violated the applicants’ right under LAW to a hearing within a reasonable time .

ORG had jurisdiction to examine the length of the proceedings as from DATE , but it had regard to the stage which the proceedings had reached by DATE . The case was not complex and the applicants by their conduct had not caused any delay . The overall length of the proceedings was in itself incompatible with the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time .

ORG ordered ORG to proceed with the case without further delay . It also awarded CARDINAL NORP korunas ( the equivalent of MONEY at that time ) to each applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non - pecuniary damage . ORG ordered ORG to reimburse the ORG costs .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment . ORG quashed that judgment on DATE on the ground that ORG had failed to assess the relevant evidence and to give sufficient reasons for the conclusion reached .

On DATE ORG found against the applicants . The judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . The decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on DATE .

On DATE the applicants asked the Prosecutor General to lodge an extraordinary appeal on points of law against the above final decision on their behalf . No further information has been made available .


Preliminary objection dismissed (victim);No violation of Art. 14+8

Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE ORG published a book entitled “ The NORP of GPE ” , written by Associate Professor PERSON .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with ORG on behalf of the NORP Gypsy associations . In his petition , he stated that in CARDINAL pages of the book , the author had stated that NORP were engaged in illegitimate activities , lived as “ thieves , pickpockets , swindlers , robbers , usurers , beggars , drug dealers , prostitutes and brothel keepers ” and were polygamist and aggressive . Furthermore , Gypsy women were presented as being unfaithful to their husbands . The applicant also submitted that the book contained several other expressions that humiliated and debased NORP . Claiming that the expressions constituted criminal offences , he requested that the sale of the book be stopped and all copies seized .

On DATE , the head of the publication unit at ORG ordered that all copies of the book be returned to the publication unit as there were corrections to be made .

On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to ORG enquiring whether the copies of the book had been seized .

On DATE the head of the publication unit at ORG informed the applicant that the publications advisory board of ORG , composed of CARDINAL professors , had decided that the book was scientific research and that the expressions in the book did not contain any insults or similar expressions . The applicant was also informed that the author of the book would not permit any amendments to the text and that , in accordance with the author ’s request , ORG had transferred the copyright of the book to him .

On DATE the applicant sent letters to ORG and to Associate Professor PERSON and repeated his initial request . He received no reply .

Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant brought proceedings before ORG against ORG and the author of the book , and requested compensation for the non - pecuniary damage he had suffered on account of the expressions contained in the book . He alleged that the expressions constituted an attack on his identity as a Gypsy and were insulting . The applicant also asked for the copies of the book to be confiscated and for its publication and distribution to be banned .

The author of the book submitted , in reply , that he had used the records of the GPE police headquarters and books written by other authors on NORP when writing the book and that he had not had any intention to insult or humiliate LANGUAGE . The author further stated that the passages referred to by the applicant should not be considered in isolation , but in the context of the whole book .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s requests in so far as they concerned the author of the book . It considered that the book was the result of academic research , was based on scientific data and examined the social structures of NORP in GPE . The first - instance court therefore held that the expressions in question did not insult the applicant . As to the applicant ’s case against the ORG , the firstinstance court decided that it lacked jurisdiction as the administrative courts had jurisdiction over the applicant ’s claim .

On DATE the applicant appealed . In his petition , he submitted that the book could not be considered as scientific research and that therefore ORG should not have published it .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . In its decision it noted that the expressions in question were of a general nature . It therefore found no grounds for concluding that they concerned all NORP or that they constituted an attack on the applicant ’s identity .

On DATE a request by the applicant for rectification of the decision was dismissed .

Subsequently , on an unspecified date , the applicant initiated proceedings against ORG before ORG . He requested non - pecuniary compensation , alleging that the content of the book published by ORG had been offensive and insulting towards the ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s case . It held that before its publication , the book in question had been examined by a ORG appointed by the publications advisory board . Following his approval , the advisory board had agreed to publish the book . In the wake of the applicant ’s allegations the advisory board , composed of CARDINAL professors , had examined the book again on DATE and had decided that it was an academic study based on scientific research and that no inconvenience would be caused by continuing its distribution and sale . ORG therefore concluded that the applicant ’s allegations were unsubstantiated . It is not clear from the documents in the case file whether or not the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision .

The last paragraphs of the conclusion to “ The NORP of GPE ” read as follows :

“ The most important links connecting the NORP to each other are their familial and social structures as well as their traditions . Despite the fact that they have been leading a nomadic life for DATE , they have managed to protect their traditional way of living thanks to their endogamous character . Their attachment to these traditions begins at birth and continues till death . Doubtless , tradition is the most significant factor in the way of life of the NORP . The elderly members of the Gypsy society bear the heaviest responsibility in protecting and sustaining the traditions . However , due to ever - changing circumstances and needs , the social structure of the GPE has become difficult to preserve . In particular “ GPE ” , CARDINAL of these social structures , can no longer be sustained in DATE ’s GPE .

The liveliest characteristic of NORP is their way of living . Hence , all branches of socio - cultural activity , consisting of migration and settlement , dance , music , language , eating and drinking , fortune telling , sorcery and professions , constitute the true nature of Gypsy life . That is to say , these elements form the visible part of the iceberg . Other persons usually recognise Gypsies through these phenomena . Nevertheless , the way to truly know GPE is to mingle with their society and to fully analyse their traditions and beliefs . The secret world of the NORP reveals itself through their beliefs , in particular through their superstitions and taboos .

NORP , like everyone , feel the need to have faith and to worship . In addition to adopting the religion of the country they live in , they also perpetuate the traditional beliefs specific to their culture . Consequently , it is observed that NORP have genuine feasts and celebrations stemming from their beliefs which can be partly traced to NORP .

In our opinion , these people , who suffer from humiliation and rejection everywhere , could be transformed into citizens who are an asset to our ORG and our nation once their educational , social , cultural and medical problems are solved . The only thing that needs to be done is to focus on this issue with patience and determination . ”

NORP In DATE ORG , a non - governmental organisation , published a dictionary entitled “ Turkish Dictionary for Pupils ” . The publication of the dictionary was financed by ORG .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG of ORG on behalf of ORG . In his letter , the applicant submitted that certain entries in the dictionary were insulting to and discriminatory against NORP . In this connection , he referred to the descriptions and idioms below :

“ Gypsy ” ( çingene ) : ( metaphorically ) stingy .

“ PERSON ( çingenelik ) ( metaphorically ) : stinginess , greediness .

“ Becoming a Gypsy ” ( ORG ) : “ displaying stingy behaviour ” .

“ ORG debt ” ( PERSON borcu ) : an unimportant debt .

“ Gypsy plays NORP dances ” ( PERSON çalar ORG oynar ) : a place where there is a lot of commotion and noise .

“ Gypsy tent ” ( PERSON çergesi ) ( metaphorically ) : a dirty and poor place .

“ Gypsy wedding ” ( PERSON düğünü ) : a crowded and noisy meeting .

“ Gypsy fight ” ( PERSON kavgası ) : verbal fight in which vulgar language is used .

“ Gypsy money ” ( PERSON parası ) : coins .

“ Gypsy pink ” ( PERSON pembesi ) : pink .

In the applicant ’s opinion , these descriptions had negative , discriminatory and prejudiced meanings . The applicant further submitted that ORG and ORG had amended their dictionaries at his request and asked ORG to correct the definitions of the aforementioned words and to remove the discriminatory expressions from the dictionary . He received no reply to his letter .

Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant sent a further letter to ORG , repeating his request . He added that he would bring a case against the ORG if his request was not granted by DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings in ORG against ORG , requesting that the aforementioned definitions and expressions be removed from the dictionary . The applicant also requested compensation for the nonpecuniary damage he had suffered on account of the expressions contained in the dictionary . He alleged in that connection that the dictionary definitions constituted an attack on his identity as a Gypsy and an insult to his personality .

On DATE the representative of ORG made submissions to the firstinstance court . He maintained , inter alia , that the definitions and expressions contained in the dictionary were based on historical and sociological reality and that there had been no intention to humiliate or debase an ethnic group . He further submitted that the dictionary contained expressions and definitions that were commonly used in society and that there were other similar expressions in NORP which concerned NORP , NORP and NORP .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s case . It held that the definitions and expressions in the dictionary were based on historical and sociological reality and that there had been no intention to humiliate or debase an ethnic group . It further noted that there were other similar expressions in NORP concerning other ethnic groups , which existed in dictionaries and encyclopaedias .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .