CASE OF IVANŢOC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (ratione personae);Preliminary objection joined to merits and allowed (ratione personae);No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);No violation of Art. 5;No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Jean-Paul Costa;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicants , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . Mr PERSON is also a NORP national . At the time of lodging their application , the first CARDINAL applicants were detained in PERSON and ORG respectively . PERSON was released on DATE and PERSON was released on DATE . The third applicant is the wife of the first applicant . She is unemployed and lives in PERSON . The fourth applicant is the second applicant ’s son . He is a student and lives in PERSON .

The facts concerning the background of application no . CARDINAL , including the NORP armed conflict of DATE and the period up to DATE , are set out in GPE , ORG and PERSON v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVII .

The first and second applicants were detained until their release , respectively on CARDINAL and DATE , in the “ GPE ( FAC ) .

On DATE the first and second applicants were tried and convicted by ORG for various crimes and offences such as murder , deliberate destruction of another ’s property and the unauthorised use and theft of ammunition or explosive substances . They were sentenced to DATE imprisonment and confiscation of their property .

In DATE the first and second applicants , as well as CARDINAL other individuals who had been tried and convicted with them in DATE , namely PERSON and Mr PERSON , filed an application with the ORG concerning , inter alia , the alleged unlawfulness of their detention and their conditions of detention .

In a judgment of DATE in application no . CARDINAL the Grand Chamber of the ORG found that both GPE and GPE responsibility was engaged with regard to the acts complained of and held that there had been violations of various Articles of the Convention ( see below , paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In the first place , the ORG found that ORG was the only legitimate government of GPE under international law , but that it did not exercise authority over that part of its territory that was under the effective control of the “ GPE ( FAC ) . Nevertheless , in the ORG ’s opinion , ORG were under a positive obligation under LAW to take the diplomatic , economic , judicial or other measures that were in their power to take and that were in accordance with international law to secure to the applicants the rights guaranteed by ORG , ORG and PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

It further stated that it was not its task to indicate which measures the authorities had to take in order to comply with their obligations most effectively , but that it had to verify that the measures actually taken were appropriate and sufficient in the present case . When faced with a partial or total failure to act , the ORG ’s task was to determine to what extent a minimum effort was nevertheless possible and whether it should have been made . Determining that question was especially necessary in cases concerning an alleged infringement of absolute rights such as those guaranteed by ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention ( ibid . § CARDINAL ) .

The ORG noted that until DATE , the GPE authorities had taken various measures aimed at obtaining the applicants’ release and that as a result , Mr PERSON was released in DATE . It considered that even after Mr PERSON ’s release in DATE , it was within the power of ORG to take measures to secure to the applicants their rights under LAW . It further noted that the negotiations for a settlement of the situation in GPE , in which GPE was acting as a guarantor ORG , had been on - going since DATE without any mention of the applicants or without any measure being taken or considered by the GPE authorities to secure the applicants their Convention rights , although it was within the power of ORG to take such measures ( ibid . , § PERSON CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

The ORG therefore held that GPE ’s responsibility was capable of being engaged under the Convention on account of its failure to discharge its positive obligations with regard to the acts complained of which occurred after DATE ( ibid . , § CARDINAL ) .

As to GPE , the ORG found that all of the acts committed by the NORP soldiers with regard to the applicants before the ratification of the LAW by GPE , including their transfer into the charge of the NORP separatist regime , in the context of the NORP authorities’ collaboration with that illegal regime , were capable of engaging responsibility for the acts of that regime ( ibid . , § CARDINAL ) .

Turning to the question whether that responsibility was still engaged at the time of the ratification of the Convention by GPE , the ORG found that the “ FAC , which had been set up in DATE with the support of GPE and was vested with organs of power and its own administration , remained “ under the effective authority , or at the very least under the decisive influence of GPE , and in any event , it survives by virtue of the military , economic , financial and political support given to it by the GPE ” ( ibid . , § CARDINAL ) .

It therefore held that there was a continuous and uninterrupted link of responsibility on the part of GPE for the applicants’ fate , as GPE policy of support for the regime and collaboration with it continued beyond CARDINAL DATE , the date of entry into force of the LAW in respect of GPE , and after that date GPE had made no attempt to put an end to the applicants’ situation brought about by its agents , and did not act to prevent the violations allegedly committed after DATE . In the light of these findings , it considered it to be of little consequence that since CARDINAL DATE the agents of GPE have not participated directly in the events complained of in that application ( ibid . , § MONEY ) .

The ORG held that the applicants came within the “ jurisdiction ” of GPE for the purposes of LAW and its responsibility was engaged with regard to the acts complained of ( ibid . , § CARDINAL ) .

Applying these findings ( paragraphs CARDINAL above ) to the alleged substantive violations of the LAW , the ORG further found , in respect of the applicants PERSON and PERSON :

i ) that their detention was contrary to LAW , that , since the applicants were still detained , this violation was of a continuous nature ( § MONEY ) , and that the conduct constituting a violation of this provision was imputable both to GPE as from DATE , and to GPE as from DATE ( § CARDINAL ) ;

ii ) that any continuation of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the applicants would necessarily entail a serious prolongation of the violation of LAW respondent States’ obligation under LAW to abide by the ORG ’s judgment , and indicated that “ the respondent GPE must take every measure to put an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still detained and to secure their immediate release ” ( § CARDINAL ) ;

iii ) that the persecution , ill - treatment and restrictions to which Mr PERSON was subjected while in detention constituted “ torture ” within the meaning of LAW ( § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , that GPE was responsible for the treatment inflicted on Mr PERSON as from CARDINAL DATE , and that GPE was responsible for that treatment from DATE ( § CARDINAL ) .

iv ) that the harsh conditions of detention experienced by PERSON could be qualified as inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of LAW ( § MONEY ) , that GPE was responsible for that violation as from CARDINAL DATE , and that GPE was responsible for that violation as from DATE ( § MONEY ) .

As to the application of LAW , the ORG ordered GPE and GPE to pay to each applicant the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages , and awarded the overall sum of LAW for costs and expenses .

The applicants refer to a number of facts concerning the respondent States’ responsibility under LAW after DATE , the date of the ORG , ORG and PERSON judgment .

The applicants submitted the following information concerning , on the one hand , the relations between GPE , the “ FAC and GPE with regard to the applicants and , on the other hand , the alleged support provided to the “ FAC by GPE .

On DATE the ORG issued a statement in which it expressed its regret that GPE was delaying the withdrawal of its troops from GPE , in violation of the decisions taken at LOC in GPE in DATE .

On DATE the “ ORG of the CARDINAL ” issued a statement accusing ORG having decided the GPE , GPE , PERSON and PERSON v. GPE and GPE case in a superficial and biased manner and confirming that the release of the applicants prior to completion of their term was impossible .

The applicants’ situation was not discussed during the visit to GPE of the NORP Minister of ORG on CARDINAL and DATE , although the NORP Minister met PERSON , the NORP Minister of ORG , and PERSON , Head of the Government administration .

On DATE GPE prohibited the import and export of merchandise to and from the “ FAC .

The applicants submitted the following information concerning the alleged political support provided by GPE to the “ FAC :

- on DATE the first Deputy Minister of ORG of GPE met the “ Head of ORG ” in GPE ;

- on DATE the “ FAC press agency , ORG , published information stating that the acting President of the PERSON and CARDINAL other leaders of various administrative provinces of GPE had congratulated the leader of the “ FAC on the occasion of DATE of the creation of the “ FAC ;

- on DATE the new Ambassador of GPE to GPE went to PERSON , where he met the “ President of the FAC ” , the “ Minister of ORG ” and “ the leadership of the NORP Supreme ” .

- on DATE a group from ORG met the “ Minister of ORG of the FAC ” in PERSON . On that occasion , ORG expressed its indignation at this visit and the general attitude in various NORP governmental circles towards the NORP region ;

- on DATE the Ambassador of GPE to GPE went to PERSON , where he met the “ President of the FAC ” .

- on DATE the NORP First Deputy Minister of ORG received the “ leader of the institution for external relations in GPE ” in GPE ;

- in DATE ORG , an association created at the initiative of ORG , awarded the “ President of the FAC ” the Order of PERSON the Great for his personal contribution to the development and strengthening of GPE ;

- on DATE the NORP news agency “ ORG ” reported that the Mayor of GPE city and leaders of various regions of the NORP Federation congratulated the “ President of FAC ” on the celebration of DATE since the creation of the “ FAC ;

- on DATE , at a gathering in PERSON , the leader of the parliamentary faction of ORG of ORG of GPE , PERSON , on behalf of the deputy President of the PERSON , congratulated the people of GPE on the same achievement and declared that GPE and its economy would be present in the “ FAC forever ;

- DATE a delegation of high officials from GPE headed by Mr PERSON , deputy Secretary of ORG of GPE , visited the “ FAC and met the “ President of FAC ;

- on DATE the “ head of the department of foreign affairs of MRT ” was received at ORG of GPE ;

- on DATE the Minister of ORG of GPE met the “ President of GPE . According to ORG , they discussed how NORP military presence could be maintained in the region ;

- on DATE the “ President of MRT ” , Mr PERSON , declared that a referendum on the future of GPE could take place in DATE and that NORP officials were supporting this idea ;

- according to ORG , on CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON , Minister of Defence of GPE , declared that NORP military troops would remain in GPE until the final solution of the NORP conflict ;

- DATE an official NORP delegation headed by the adviser to the Prime Minister of ORG visited PERSON and PERSON and discussed issues related to social problems and the implementation of the agreement signed between GPE and the “ FAC ” on DATE ;

- on DATE the Permanent Representation of GPE to ORG of the ORG made a statement in support of the referendum in “ FAC ;

- on DATE a referendum took place in “ FAC , which resulted in the participation of PERCENT of NORP with voting rights , out of which PERCENT voted in favour of the independence of “ FAC ” and its adhesion to GPE ;

- DATE a representative of ORG of GPE visited GPE and the “ FAC , where he met the “ President of FAC .

The applicants further provided the following information relating to the economic relations between GPE and the “ FAC ” :

- on DATE a delegation from ORG travelled to PERSON on a business trip ; NORP capital plays an important part in the privatisation of NORP enterprises and a branch of ORG was opened in “ FAC ;

- on DATE , in reply to the “ increase in tension in the atmosphere around GPE ” , ORG adopted a declaration recommending ORG and economic agents to examine the possibility of refusing to import NORP alcohol products ( except for GPE ) , to supply oil and gas at world prices ( except for GPE ) and to introduce a visa regime for NORP citizens ( except GPE ) ;

- on DATE , following the new policy adopted by GPE requiring that all goods exported from “ FAC first pass through customs control with the NORP authorities , ORG of the ORG protested against the new export regime instituted by GPE and GPE and called for its review ;

- on DATE the PERSON asked the Prime Minister to inform it of the measures taken by the Government pursuant to the declaration of DATE . The Prime Minister explained that the Government were examining the possibilities of introducing technical barriers to the import of NORP alcohol products ( except for GPE ) . He also mentioned that the Government were planning to request GPE to pay its historical debt in excess of MONEY for the supply of gas . Mr PERSON finally noted that the question of the introduction of visas for NORP citizens ( except those from GPE ) needed to be examined further due to the role of GPE in the region ;

- on DATE a group of NORP experts went to GPE to examine the export regime introduced on DATE . The amount of NORP financial assistance to “ FAC was also discussed during this visit ;

- on CARDINAL DATE the “ President of MRT ” and the NORP Deputy Prime Minister PERSON signed an agreement allowing the “ FAC to collaborate directly with NORP partners in the healthcare and banking spheres ;

- as from DATE GPE started prohibiting the import of all alcohol products made in GPE , despite the periodic requests of the GPE authorities to review this measure ;

- on DATE “ FAC received from a fund set up by the FAC region of GPE MONEY by way of financial assistance ;

- as from DATE ORG decided to avoid rail communication passing through GPE , which resulted in delays to trains travelling to GPE . Consequently , the NORP partner decided to cancel , as from DATE , CARDINAL out of CARDINAL trains travelling from GPE to GPE .

The Moldovan Government considered that the Convention responsibility of GPE continued to be engaged having regard to the latter ’s support for the NORP regime and to the fact that they maintained their troops on the territory of GPE , in breach of international law , of LOC in GPE ( DATE ) and in GPE ( DATE ) ( see also PERSON , ORG and PERSON cited above , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , and of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE on essential provisions on the particular legal status of the towns on the left bank of ORG , which provided for a complete , urgent and transparent withdrawal by GPE of its weaponry and military personnel in GPE .

They further submitted that they had taken all the measures in their power to secure the applicants’ release . They referred to numerous measures taken in order to comply with the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG , ORG and PERSON , and stated that these were constantly brought to the attention of ORG on the occasion of its meetings for the supervision of the above - mentioned judgment .

Among these measures , they referred to the following :

- in a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the President of ORG ( ICRC ) , Mr PERSON , the NORP Minister of ORG asked the PERSON to intercede with the NORP authorities in order to obtain the applicants’ release ;

- on DATE the NORP Minister for Reintegration sent a letter to the OSCE Chief of GPE , asking him to step up the ORG ’s efforts to secure the applicants’ release . Around the same time , the minister also sent a letter to ORG , asking him to allow NORP medical staff to check the health of the detained applicants ;

- on DATE the NORP authorities sent in vain a letter to “ the Minister of ORG of the FAC ” asking him to release the applicants :

- on DATE the ORG , Mr PERSON , sent a letter to his NORP counterpart , PERSON , asking him to use his authority and power to obtain the applicants’ release . His successor sent a similar letter to ORG on DATE ;

- in DATE the NORP Minister for Reintegration , PERSON , sent a letter to the NORP Ambassador for Special Mission within ORG , PERSON , and to ORG , PERSON , asking them to collaborate in order to secure the applicants’ release ;

- on DATE the President of ORG , PERSON , wrote to her NORP counterpart , Mr PERSON , to the same end ;

- the NORP authorities also regularly raised the issue of the applicants’ release with ORG ;

- in addition , the NORP Minister of ORG sent a circular letter to all NORP diplomatic missions , instructing them to use all possible diplomatic contacts abroad in order to obtain the applicants’ release ;

- the NORP President , PERSON , raised this issue not only with the Presidents of GPE and GPE , but also with the ORG structures in DATE ;

- following the adoption of the ORG , ORG and PERSON judgment , there was a change in the practice of the NORP courts , in that they started awarding damages for unlawful acts committed by the NORP administration . For instance , in a judgment delivered on DATE , upheld by ORG , ORG awarded an individual non - pecuniary damages on account of his unlawful detention in the NORP region . The damages were paid by ORG .

Furthermore , ORG referred to developments in the relations between GPE and GPE following the ORG , ORG and PERSON judgment .

They submitted that the negotiations between GPE on the one hand , and GPE and GPE on the other hand , had reached a deadlock following the refusal of the NORP President to sign the Kozak Memorandum ( see below paragraph CARDINAL with further references ) .

In addition , after DATE relations between GPE and GPE became even closer at the political , military and economic levels .

The Government also referred in this respect to a study in DATE by GPE , “ Thawing a Frozen Conflict : Legal Aspects of the Separatist Crisis in GPE ” which pointed to GPE ’s activities in GPE , “ including the intervention of its CARDINALth Army on behalf of the separatists , the ongoing military assistance to GPE ( “ FAC ) , the economic support for the FAC , and effectively bargaining on behalf of the FAC using energy and other levers of power against GPE ” , and which concludes that “ GPE has illegally propped up the viability of the FAC and made reintegration virtually impossible ” .

The presence of NORP troops on the territory of GPE , in the NORP part , amounted to a form of political and military support for the ORG regime .

GPE authorities regularly raised with GPE the issue of the illegal stationing of NORP military forces on the territory of GPE . However , GPE did not make the necessary efforts to ensure a complete withdrawal of their troops . Moreover , GPE refused to sign a statement on stability proposed by GPE during LOC in GPE in DATE .

In DATE ORG made a public statement calling on GPE to withdraw its troops and material from NORP territory , since the purpose of the cease - fire agreement concluded between GPE and GPE had been achieved .

According to ORG , GPE undertook once more within the framework of the ORG to withdraw its troops from the NORP part of GPE by DATE , but again failed to fulfil its obligations .

ORG submitted that GPE continued to exert economic pressure on GPE , while reserving preferential treatment for the NORP region .

For instance , the NORP authorities increased the price of natural gas exported to GPE , while fixing a low price for the NORP part . Starting in DATE GPE stopped , under false pretences , the importation of meat , wine , fruit and vegetables from GPE , in breach of ORG regulations and the free - trade agreement between GPE and GPE .

Likewise , the NORP Federation provided technical and financial assistance to various projects initiated by the NORP administration , for instance a project on railroads in DATE .

ORG further submitted that GPE was behind the decision of the NORP administration to forbid the use of the NORP script in schools in GPE and to prevent farmers from obtaining access to the land they owned situated in the villages behind the cease - fire line .

Insofar as NORP political support for GPE was concerned , ORG pointed to , inter alia , the statement by ORG that the NORP electoral code was in accordance with NORP legislation and NORP requirements in that field , the statement made in DATE by the NORP Ambassador in GPE during the celebration of the anniversary of the city of PERSON proclaiming that “ PERSON was and continues to be an integral part of LOC and of NORP history ” , and the statement on DATE by the NORP Minister of ORG about the right to self - determination of the former NORP republics .

ORG did not make any comments on the facts .

The applicants refer to a number of facts concerning the conditions in which Mr GPE and Mr Popa were detained since DATE , the date of the ORG , ORG and PERSON judgment , until their release on the expiry of their term of imprisonment in DATE , and their effects on all applicants’ family life :

On DATE the “ Supreme NORP of FAC ” decreed a general amnesty . Under point CARDINAL letter ( в ) of this decree , the term of imprisonment of persons convicted of intentional crimes for a period of DATE was reduced by CARDINAL . On DATE Mr PERSON sent a letter to the “ Ministry of Justice of CARDINAL ” requesting it to explain whether the amnesty decree of DATE was applicable to the applicants , and if so , when and in what circumstances the applicants would be released .

On DATE the “ Minister of Justice of FAC ” informed PERSON that he could neither answer Mr PERSON ’s questions nor maintain correspondence with him , as Mr PERSON had no right to represent persons on the territory of the “ FAC .

The applicants’ conditions of detention did not change following the ORG ’s judgment of DATE .

Both PERSON and PERSON were detained in solitary confinement . No explanation was ever provided for their detention regime and conditions .

Mr Popa was detained until his release to ORG and placed in the wing for prisoners sentenced to death . His cell contained a metal cage of the same size as the cell , i.e. some QUANTITY m. Inside the cell there was a metal bed and a table .

Mr PERSON was detained in PERSON no . CARDINAL , in a cell of QUANTITY m.

The applicants spent TIME a day in their cells , which had no natural light . Access of sunlight was blocked by special blinds , which also prevented them from looking outside .

Both applicants were entitled to a DATE TIME walk in a closed courtyard ; no other prisoner could be present at the same time . From the courtyard the applicants could only see the sky and CARDINAL very high walls . The applicants had no access to the gym or other such facilities .

They were allowed to have a shower once DATE . In DATE there was no warm water . During DATE there was no cold water at all in FAC no . CARDINAL , so that PERSON had only hot water for all his needs .

The cells were never heated . Unlike PERSON , PERSON was allowed to receive an electric heater from his family . He was also allowed to build a small wall in order to separate the toilet from the rest of his cell .

Mr GPE has liver problems and Mr Popa suffers from tuberculosis . They received neither appropriate treatment for their illnesses nor appropriate meals as prescribed by doctors . They were also prohibited from receiving medicines from their relatives .

The applicants were not permitted to receive visits from the prison doctors . They were examined by doctors from PERSON at the request of the LOC mission in PERSON . Such requests were generally dealt with within DATE . In DATE the applicants were examined by doctors from ORG and PERSON was subsequently examined by a dentist .

PERSON was allowed to have CARDINAL short - term ( TIME ) visits and CARDINAL long - term ( DATE ) visits per year . However , his wife was the only person permitted to visit him .

PERSON was allowed to have CARDINAL short - term ( TIME ) visits per year . In DATE and DATE only his sister PERSON visited him . A NORP - speaking prison guard was present throughout all the visits .

For DATE of his detention Mr Popa had not been allowed any long - term visits . No explanation was provided for this refusal .

Short - term visits were generally granted on DATE the request was made . They took place in a special room . The applicants were separated from visitors by a window and discussion took place over the telephone . Applications for long - term visits had to be filed with the prison administration DATE before the date requested .

Mr PERSON was authorised to receive parcels every month . These parcels contained special dietary food which the applicant cooked for himself .

Mr Popa was not authorised to receive parcels DATE as prescribed by law . For this reason , the special food he needed was brought to him by his sister during the short - term visits . However , he was not allowed to receive raw food such as potatoes , eggs or pasta and was not allowed to cook .

PERSON was not allowed to receive newspapers published in the NORP language . Neither PERSON nor PERSON were allowed to write to their families in NORP using the NORP script , although some members of their families could not read the LANGUAGE alphabet . PERSON was not allowed to receive newspapers published in the NORP language .

Neither Mr GPE nor Mr Popa were allowed to have telephone conversations as prescribed by law . They were not allowed to see their lawyers .

PERSON had a TV set in his cell , but he had access only to NORP channels . PERSON was only allowed a radio set in his cell .

All items received by the detainees from their families during their period in detention ( TV and radio set , refrigerator , etc ) had to remain in prison after their release .

Andrei and PERSON have no children . The closest member of ORG ’s family is her husband , who was detained for DATE until his release in DATE . At the time of lodging the present application , she was allowed to see her husband only once DATE , when she was granted short - term visits . She spent a maximum of DATE per year with him . Every time her husband had health problems she was prohibited from visiting . She only learned about his health problems from newspapers .

PERSON was constantly refused visits to his father if not accompanied by a person over DATE , on the ground that he was a minor and had no identity documents .

DATE and his father ’s release in DATE , PERSON saw his father only twice , the last time being in DATE . During this period , he was never allowed to conduct correspondence with his father in the NORP script , although he does not know the LANGUAGE script .

Until the release of his father , and for a period lasting DATE , he used to live without his mother , who , due to financial difficulties , had had to go abroad for work . During this period , he had to take care of his younger sister by himself .

Detailed information with regard to GPE ( NORP military withdrawal , political developments , relations between GPE on the one hand , and GPE and GPE , on the other hand ) during the period since the adoption of the ORG , ORG and PERSON judgment is set out in GPE and Others v. GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE , § § DATE and § § DATE .

ORG ( CM ) has adopted so far CARDINAL interim resolutions in the ORG , ORG and PERSON case : on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

In the Interim Resolution of DATE the ORG “ urgently invites the NORP authorities to comply fully with the judgment ” and “ invites the GPE authorities to continue their efforts towards securing the release of the CARDINAL applicants who are still imprisoned ” .

In the ORG adopted on DATE , the ORG took note of the information provided by ORG as to the measures taken to execute the judgment and “ encouraged the GPE authorities to continue their efforts towards putting an end to the detention of the applicants and securing their immediate release . ”

They further stated that since the last ORG of DATE , “ the NORP authorities have again called into question the validity of the judgment and have insisted that , by paying the just satisfaction awarded , they consider that they have fully executed the judgment ” . They noted that the NORP authorities “ have provided no new information regarding any efforts they may have initiated to secure the release of the applicants who are still imprisoned ” . The ORG further stated that the “ excessive prolongation of [ the applicants’ ] unlawful and arbitrary detention fails entirely to satisfy the requirements of the ORG ’s judgment ” . They decided “ to resume its examination of this case at each of its meetings until the applicants have been released . ”

GPE did not take part in the preparation of this interim resolution and opposed its adoption . Moreover , the Permanent Representative of GPE had stated , even before the adoption of this resolution , that his authorities would not participate in its implementation .

In a third ORG on the matter , dated DATE the ORG encouraged the GPE authorities to continue their efforts towards putting an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and securing their immediate release ; strongly urged the NORP authorities to pursue actively all effective avenues capable of putting an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and of securing their immediate release ; and insisted that the results required by the ORG ’s judgment be attained without any further delay .

In a fourth Interim Resolution adopted on CARDINAL DATE the ORG stated :

“ Deeply deploring the fact that CARDINAL applicants , Mr GPE and PERSON , are still imprisoned , and stressing that the excessive prolongation of their unlawful and arbitrary detention fails entirely to satisfy the requirements of the ORG ’s judgment and the obligation under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Convention ;

Noting that the authorities of GPE have regularly informed ORG steps they have taken to secure the applicants’ release ;

Regretting profoundly that the authorities of ORG have not actively pursued all effective avenues to comply with the ORG ’s judgment , despite the ORG ’s successive demands to this effect ,

Encourages the authorities of GPE to continue their efforts towards putting an end to the arbitrary detention of the applicants still imprisoned and securing their immediate release ;

Declares the ORG ’s resolve to ensure , with all means available to the ORG , the compliance by GPE with its obligations under this judgment ;

Calls upon the authorities of the member states to take such action as they deem appropriate to this end . ”

Following the adoption the above - mentioned fourth ORG , the respondent GPE continued , as in the past , to submit regularly to ORG observations regarding the steps taken to secure the release of the applicants still imprisoned , as appears from an Information document issued by ORG on DATE ( ORG revCARDINAL ) .

GPE submitted that GPE was in a position to influence the “ NORP authorities ” .

As for its part , GPE had directly or indirectly and regularly raised the issue of release of the applicants pursuant to the ORG , ORG and PERSON judgment with various instances such as : ORG , several ORG not members of ORG , various authorities of GPE , ORG , ORG , ORG for Human Rights , ORG , the Ombudsmen of ORG and of GPE , and last , but not least , with “ representatives of the administration of the NORP region ” .

In summary , the NORP authorities constantly reiterated their determination to achieve the applicants’ release and constantly kept ORG informed of the numerous steps they had taken with a view to the execution of the judgment , “ notwithstanding their limited means ” . They concluded that the competent GPE authorities , as well as civil society , had explored all available avenues , including all diplomatic means , with a view to the execution of the judgment , including in the broader context of the NORP conflict .

GPE submitted that their official position with regard to the execution of the ORG , ORG and PERSON judgment expressed in a press statement of ORG of DATE remained unchanged : having paid the just satisfaction awarded by the ORG , GPE had satisfied its obligations under the ORG ’s judgment .

On DATE , after the applicants’ release , the CM adopted Interim Resolution DATE ( CARDINAL ) , in which it stated the following :

“ [ ... ] Noting with relief that the applicants PERSON and PERSON have finally regained their freedom , but deeply regretting that , despite the injunction of the ORG , they were only released on CARDINAL and DATE respectively ;

Noting that the authorities of GPE have regularly informed ORG efforts they have made to secure the applicants’ release ;

Recalling the various interim resolutions adopted by ORG and most particularly the call made upon the authorities of the member states of ORG to take such action as they deem appropriate to ensure the compliance by GPE with its obligations under this judgment ; noting the various steps taken by the states following this call ; also noting , in this context , the support of ORG and of numerous other states with a view to achieving the execution of this judgment ;

Renewing its profound regret that despite these steps , the authorities of ORG have not actively pursued all effective avenues to comply with the ORG ’s judgment ;

Reaffirming most firmly that the obligation to abide by the judgments of the ORG is unconditional and is a requirement for membership of ORG ;

Recalling that the ORG stated that “ any continuation of the unlawful and arbitrary detention of the [ ... ] applicants would necessarily entail [ ... ] a breach of the respondent states’ obligation under LAW § CARDINAL of the LAW to abide by the ORG ’s judgment ” ;

Deeply deploring the prolongation of the ORG unlawful and arbitrary detention after the judgment of the ORG and underlining , in the light of this situation , the obligation incumbent on respondent states under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Convention to erase , as far as possible , the consequences of the violations at issue in this case ;

Noting , in this respect , that Mr PERSON and Mr Popa have lodged a new application with the Court , against GPE and GPE ( No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , on the ground of the prolongation of their arbitrary detention beyond DATE ;

DECIDES to suspend its examination of this case and to resume it after the final determination of the new application by ORG . ”

On DATE the ORG published the report following this visit , which stated , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . CARDINAL members of the ORG group had been held for DATE under conditions of solitary confinement ( though CARDINAL of them - PERSON - had recently been offered , but had refused , the presence of other prisoners in his cell ) . As regards CARDINAL of the prisoners , there were clear indications that the regime to which he was subject was having harmful psychological consequences . Certain other prisoners interviewed by the delegation had also been held under conditions of solitary confinement for prolonged periods .

The ORG pays particular attention to prisoners held , for whatever reasons , under conditions akin to solitary confinement . The principle of proportionality requires that a balance be struck between the requirements of the case and the application of a solitary - confinement type regime , which is a measure that can have very harmful consequences for the person concerned . Solitary confinement can , in certain circumstances , amount to inhuman and degrading treatment ; in any event , all forms of solitary confinement should be as short as possible . To hold persons under conditions of solitary confinement for DATE on end is scarcely justifiable under any circumstances .

At the end of the visit , the delegation requested that CARDINAL measures be taken to attenuate the severity of the regime applied to the CARDINAL members of the ORG group referred to above : i ) allow them access to newspapers of their own choice ; ii ) ensure that their rights to visits from family members and lawyers are fully respected in practice . The ORG wishes to be informed of the action taken upon the delegation ’s request .

Beyond this , the ORG calls upon the authorities to end the solitary confinement regime applied to PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . Whatever justification there might have been in the past for the application of that regime to these prisoners , to persist with such a regime for DATE is indefensible . ”


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants are NORP nationals . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers at ORG , a non - governmental organisation in GPE . ORG were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

The applicants were all employed as journalists by ORG , a private television and radio company formerly owned by the late NORP media proprietor ORG and by PERSON ORG . The applicants were not shareholders in that company .

NORP In the autumn of DATE , large - scale demonstrations led by a collection of opposition parties took place in GPE , protesting against the President of GPE and the Government . These demonstrations , to which ORG was sympathetic , were initially peaceful but turned violent on DATE when the police , using various harsh anti - riot tactics , dislodged the demonstrators from land adjoining ORG , preventing them from resuming their protests .

All major television stations in GPE , including ORG , broadcast live footage of the dispersal of the demonstrators on DATE .

Later in the evening of CARDINAL DATE , without warning and without possession of a court order , CARDINAL of police officers armed with automatic weapons broke into the ORG television station headquarters , causing the station to be taken off the air . According to the applicants’ version of events which is disputed by the Government , the police forced the ORG staff members , including CARDINAL of the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to lie on the floor with their hands behind their heads . Some of the captive journalists were verbally insulted and threatened at gunpoint . After holding the staff members , including the applicants , in the above - mentioned conditions for TIME , the police forced them out of the building , destroying much of the company ’s television equipment and its video archive ( “ the police raid on LOC ” ) . Many other staff members of the television , including the remaining CARDINAL applicants , were , in the meantime , gathered in a street adjacent to the building .

On DATE , DATE , a criminal case for attempted coup PERSON was initiated against ORG by ORG . Furthermore , the President of GPE declared a nationwide state of emergency DATE which lasted until DATE .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) suspended ORG ’s broadcasting licence , citing violations of broadcasting law by the company .

According to the ORG , on DATE ORG opened a criminal probe in the lawfulness of the police actions during the raid on ORG . However , the case file does not contain any decision related to those proceedings .

On DATE and DATE CARDINAL ORG ’s CARDINAL newly designated lawyers enquired with prosecution authority about progress in the criminal proceedings which had been initiated against their client on CARDINAL DATE , requesting to be acquainted with case materials . As disclosed by copies of those enquiries , the CARDINAL lawyers , who did not possess authority to act from any of the CARDINAL applicants , did not voice any grievances and described any facts concerning the police raid on ORG .

On DATE the police allowed the ORG staff members , including the applicants , to re - enter their offices in the television station for the first time . On DATE the ORG lifted the broadcast ban on ORG .

Subsequently , and notably after ORG ’s death on DATE , a row concerning the question of ownership of ORG broke out between the late media proprietor ’s family and certain other persons . The company management ’s subsequent decision to suspend the television broadcasts again , led most of its leading journalists , including the applicants , to leave their jobs at ORG in DATE . In DATE ORG television , already running under new management , started broadcasting again .

For DATE after the police raid on ORG on DATE , the applicants did not complain about the actions of the police before any of the domestic authorities . In DATE , ORG , a human rights advocacy centre known in GPE for specialising in bringing applications to the ORG , publicly declared its readiness to assist victims of the police raid on ORG . Subsequently , on CARDINAL and DATE , all CARDINAL applicants simultaneously filed complaints with the GPE public prosecutor ’s office requesting the initiation of a criminal investigation into the circumstances of that raid .

On DATE the prosecution authority informed the applicants that their criminal complaints had been transmitted to the investigative unit of ORG for further action .


Violation of Art. 10;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed

The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ) . He is a lawyer and Chairman of ORG .

In DATE a group composed of members of parliament and the ORG sought a ruling from ORG that ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL-XIV ) was unconstitutional . The LAW laid down , inter alia , that all lawyers practising in GPE should be members of ORG , a national association of all lawyers from the local Bars . They argued that compulsory membership of ORG was contrary to the right of freedom of association guaranteed by LAW .

After consulting , inter alia , ORG , which expressed the view that the LAW was consistent with the LAW , ORG held in a decision of DATE that the provisions making membership of ORG compulsory were unconstitutional .

The applicant criticised ORG decision in a telephone interview he gave to TIME , a journalist on ORG ( “ Economic Analysis ” ) newspaper .

NORP In the DATE edition of the newspaper , TIME published an article on the debate which ORG decision of DATE had sparked off among lawyers . He gave the following account of his telephone interview with the applicant :

“ ... After ORG decision was made public , ORG put a series of questions to the Chairman of ORG , PERSON . His comments are tinged with emotion , no doubt because they were made in the heat of the moment :

‘ ORG decision will produce total anarchy in the legal profession’ , said PERSON . ‘ You will see what will happen over the course of DATE . From now on , we no longer have a single system for organising the profession or a unitarian ORG . We have become accustomed to DATE it is easier to live and work in chaos . Taxes are not paid , there is no supervision and , consequently , no ethics , no discipline and no responsibility .

In view of this , the question is whether ORG is constitutional . In DATE ORG adopted its Basic Principles on ORG , which are fully guaranteed by our law . The legal profession is independent the world over . In GPE it is subordinate to the executive , that is to say ORG . This is a serious breach of fundamental democratic principles .

ORG did not take into account the judgments of ORG referred to by ORG in its observations . The judges of ORG probably do not regard ORG as an authority . Am I to assume that they have acquired more experience in DATE than the GPE judges in CARDINAL ? We shall certainly be informing ORG that GPE does not comply with the case - law or requirements of ORG Rights.’

According to Mr ORG , lawyers have always been regarded as being at the forefront of the legal profession : ‘ Despite everything , even after ORG decision , the body of lawyers remains a force.’ ... ”

In a letter of DATE , the President of ORG informed the applicant that his remarks as reported in the ORG newspaper could constitute a lack of regard for the court within the meaning of LAW ( e ) of LAW and invited him to submit written observations on this point within DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted the requested observations . He said that he had only learned of the publication of his remarks from the letter of DATE and confirmed having had a long telephone conversation with the journalist TIME about the decision of DATE . He stressed , however , that his remarks had been misquoted and largely taken out of context . He added that , had TIME submitted the article to him prior to publication , he would have checked the presentation of his remarks carefully and , accordingly , assumed full responsibility for them .

On DATE ORG issued a final decision pursuant to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in which it imposed an administrative fine on the applicant in the sum of CARDINAL NORP lei ( equivalent to MONEY ) .

It found that the applicant had made the following comments in the aforementioned interview : “ ORG decision will produce total anarchy in the legal profession . ... the question is whether ORG is constitutional . ... The judges of ORG ... do not regard ORG as an authority . ” It found that these comments showed a lack of respect on the applicant ’s part for ORG and its decision .

As ORG decision was final , the applicant paid the sum of CARDINAL lei into ORG account on DATE .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ In order to protect the dignity of the Constitutional Court judges and the participants in the proceedings , and to secure appropriate conditions for the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction , the ORG may take the measures provided for in LAW . ”

“ CARDINAL . In order to ensure the proper administration of constitutional justice , the ORG may impose an administrative fine of CARDINAL times the minimum monthly salary on anyone who :

( a ) makes an unconstitutional statement , regardless of the manner of its expression ;

( b ) interferes with the procedural activity of the Constitutional Court judges , or attempts to influence them by non - procedural methods ;

( c ) refuses without due cause to comply with the orders of the judges of ORG in the prescribed manner or within the time allowed , or fails to comply with a judgment or advisory opinion of the ORG ;

( d ) violates the judicial oath ;

( e ) displays a lack of respect for ORG by refusing to obey orders of the presiding judge , violating disciplinary rules or committing other acts that show an obvious lack of regard for the ORG and its procedure .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) provides :

“ Publishers of periodicals ... shall have a discretion as to the documents and information they choose to publish , but shall have regard to the fact that , since it carries with it duties and responsibilities , the exercise of these freedoms is subject to such formalities , conditions , restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a NORP society , in the interests of national security , territorial integrity or public safety , for the prevention of disorder or crime , for the protection of health or morals , for the protection of the reputation or rights of others , for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence , or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary . ”


The applicant [ Mr PERSON ] is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , in the département of FAC ( GPE ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , of the ORG d’Etat and ORG .

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

The applicant has worked as an accountant for various accountancy firms since DATE . In DATE he applied to be registered as a chartered accountant ( a member of the ordre des experts - comptables , ORG ) on the basis of his professional experience , under section CARDINAL bis of Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE .

The procedure laid down in the ORG provides for the possibility of becoming a chartered accountant on the basis of professional experience ; candidates must demonstrate that they have CARDINAL years’ experience in accounting or auditing , including DATE in posts or on assignments entailing substantial administrative , financial and accounting responsibilities . Applications are considered by a regional committee , and unsuccessful candidates may appeal to ORG set up to implement section CARDINAL bis of the Ordinance of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG regional committee refused the applicant ’s application on the ground that he had not produced certificates attesting that he had CARDINAL years’ experience in posts or on assignments entailing substantial administrative , financial and accounting responsibilities . It held that , as a result , the applicant did not “ fully satisfy the requirements laid down in the relevant provisions ” and could not “ be regarded as having acquired experience comparable to that of a well - qualified chartered accountant , as is required by section CARDINAL bis of the Ordinance of DATE ” .

The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG , arguing that the assessment of his professional experience had been incorrect and that the regional committee had infringed the principle of equality of opportunity in prematurely refusing his application . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , giving the following reasons for its decision :

“ The candidate was considered on the basis of the application he submitted .

As a consequence of an appeal , the ORG rehears the case as a whole . At that stage , the candidate had the opportunity to produce additional information in support of his appeal . Consequently , the procedure followed did not give rise to any discrimination against him .

In order to satisfy the first requirement laid down in the Decree cited above , candidates must have discharged accounting or auditing duties on a regular basis for DATE .

From an examination of the candidate ’s application it appears that he satisfies that requirement .

In order to satisfy the second requirement , candidates must have assumed substantial responsibilities in CARDINAL fields – administrative , financial and accounting DATE for DATE . To qualify as substantial , such responsibilities must be exercised within large institutions that raise complex problems , and must be accompanied by decision - making powers enabling the person in whom they are vested to commit the firm by which he is employed and to influence its future .

As evidence of the responsibilities he has assumed , the candidate has produced various certificates .

Only those from ORG and PERSON are signed by authorised persons .

The certificate issued by Mr Le Petit , the chairman of ORG , states that the candidate performed the duties of a management auditor and did not have any real decision - making powers .

The candidate performed the duties of a managing director for DATE , as is attested by PERSON , the current managing director of ORG .

With regard to the duties performed within ORG group ... and subsequently within ORG ... and ORG ... , the documents submitted do not give a sufficiently clear indication of the extent of the powers enjoyed by the candidate in administrative and financial matters ; in that respect , there is no proof of such powers having been delegated to him . Moreover , the documents and organisation charts giving details of those duties have been drawn up by the candidate himself and , in some cases , are signed by persons outside the companies or by former managers and can not be treated as ORG certificates .

As regards the remainder of the candidate ’s career , there is no evidence in his application that the posts or assignments concerned have entailed responsibilities of the kind required by the statutory provisions .

Accordingly , he is unable to show that he has PERCENT five years’ experience in posts entailing substantial administrative , financial and accounting responsibilities .

It follows from the foregoing that Mr GPE does not satisfy the second requirement laid down in LAW of DATE . ”

The applicant applied to the ORG d’Etat to have ORG decision set aside . He argued , in particular , that the proceedings before ORG did not satisfy the requirements of LAW on account of their secret and anonymous nature . He submitted in that connection that the committee ’s decision did not contain any indication of its composition , so that its members remained anonymous . He also observed that the committee had given its decision without holding a public hearing and without hearing evidence from him .

In a judgment of DATE the ORG d’Etat dismissed the application on the following grounds :

“ Outward legality

... No provision of a statute or of regulations has conferred the status of a court on ORG set up to implement section CARDINAL bis of the Ordinance of DATE . The provisions cited above are therefore not applicable to it .

Internal legality

By DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Decree of DATE , as amended , registration as a chartered accountant is conditional on the candidate ’s having ‘ CARDINAL years’ experience in accounting or auditing , including DATE in posts or on assignments entailing substantial administrative , financial and accounting responsibilities’ .

It does not appear from the documents in the file that ORG erred in law or made a manifest error of assessment in holding that Mr GPE , who has practised in various companies and accounting firms since DATE and satisfies the above - mentioned requirement of having DATE experience , did not have DATE experience in exercising substantial responsibilities of the kind referred to in the Decree of DATE cited above . Mr GPE accordingly has no grounds for seeking the setting aside of the decision of CARDINAL DATE in which ORG refused him leave to apply to be registered as a chartered accountant . ”

Section CARDINAL bis of the Ordinance of DATE provides :

“ Persons who have carried on an occupation entailing accounting or auditing duties and who have consequently acquired experience comparable to that of a well - qualified chartered accountant , may be granted leave to apply ... to be registered as a member of the ordre with the status of chartered accountant . ... ”

LAW DATE , as amended by Decree no . MONEY of DATE , provides :

“ Persons who are covered by section CARDINAL bis of Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , cited above , and are DATE may apply to be registered as a member of the ordre with the status of chartered accountant if they satisfy CARDINAL of the following conditions :

NORP they are certified accountants registered either on a list of company auditors or on a list of court experts in accountancy ;

NORP they are certified accountants with CARDINAL years’ experience in an occupation entailing the frequent exercise of substantial responsibilities in each of the following CARDINAL fields :

( a ) accounting ;

( b ) verifying accounts prepared by staff under their responsibility ; and

( c ) analysing the position and functioning of firms from an economic , legal and financial standpoint ; or

NORP they have CARDINAL years’ experience in accounting or auditing , including DATE in posts or on assignments entailing substantial administrative , financial and accounting responsibilities . ”


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and currently living in GPE , GPE .

He is represented before the ORG by Mr GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The applicant was a client of the ORG branch of ORG ( ORG : hereinafter “ the defendant ” ) .

On DATE the applicant sought to withdraw the balance on the bank accounts which he had opened with the defendant namely , MONEY ( ORG ) and PERSON ( DEM ) . The bank refused to comply with his request giving as its reason that there was no longer any balance left on the accounts since all amounts previously deposited had been withdrawn .

The applicant brought legal proceedings against the defendant before the CARDINALrd ORG of GPE ( PERSON ) .

During the proceedings the court appointed experts to look into the defendant ’s accounts . The experts could not identify the existence of any document or record proving that the applicant had been paid the sum of USD MONEY from his accounts . Although the defendant had not been able at the start of the trial to supply any documents signed by the applicant in the form of bills , checks or payment orders , it submitted a report dated CARDINAL DATE indicating the existence of “ a general release ” ( genel ibraname ) which the applicant had signed on CARDINAL DATE affirming that he had irrevocably released the defendant from its obligation to pay him the money which he had deposited with it .

The applicant contended that the defendant forged the so - called general release after he instituted proceedings against it . He maintained that the defendant , using a typewriter , filled in a blank page which he had signed and lodged with the defendant ’s Mecidiyeköy branch . The applicant claimed that he had done so since he had trusted the defendant ’s branch manager at the time and considered that this was in the interests of the smooth running of his financial dealings . He noted that the typed wording of general release bore a misspelling of his last name ( “ LOC ” instead of “ LOC ) . The applicant argued before the court that notwithstanding the existence of the so - called “ general release ” of DATE , the defendant had nevertheless made him a payment from his account no . DATE on DATE in the sum of ORG CARDINAL .

During the proceedings before the CARDINALrd ORG of GPE the applicant requested that witnesses be heard by the court on the matter of the validity of the release . He submitted an expert legal opinion to the court stating that the court could only properly assess the applicant ’s claim by hearing evidence other than the general release letter . The applicant ’s request was refused .

The experts commissioned by the CARDINALrd ORG of GPE on the matter of the alleged falsity of the general release letter stated in a report dated DATE that they “ did not find any proof that the disputed document had been prepared later by filling in blank pages signed by the applicant ” . The experts who investigated the history of the applicant ’s deposit accounts found that “ the bank had paid all sums of money , totalling ORG CARDINAL , without the applicant having signed any check , payment order or other document ” . As to the “ general release letter ” the experts concluded that : “ the existence of this release may legitimately close the accounts and bring to an end the bank ’s obligation to pay money out of them . ” The experts also stated that the general release letter had been signed by hand whereas the actual wording of the letter had been typed . This made it impossible to determine whether the wording used in the general release letter had been inserted after it had been signed by the applicant , as he alleged .

In its judgment of DATE , the CARDINALrd ORG of GPE rejected the applicant ’s claim . It found inter alia that there was no evidence to prove that the release given to the defendant by the applicant was a blank page which had been filled in later or that he had intended a signed blank page to be used by the bank for another transaction . The court found that although some of the documents concerning the payments made to the applicant did not bear the applicant ’s signature these documents were nonetheless valid having regard to his general release letter of DATE .

The applicant appealed to ORG arguing that the judgment of the CARDINALrd ORG had not clarified a number of legal issues . The applicant requested ORG to examine the merits of these issues and to address them specifically and separately .

The CARDINALth ORG of ORG upheld the decision of the CARDINALrd ORG of GPE . The ORG found that the applicant ’s release letter relieved the defendant from the obligation to make payments to him from his account . The court considered the applicant ’s argument that he had given the release to the defendant in the form of a blank page for the purposes of a banking transaction . The court noted that the CARDINALrd ORG of GPE appointed a group of experts to inquire into the allegation that the document had been unlawfully filled in at a later stage . However , the court - appointed experts found no evidence of forgery . The court also considered the issue whether the document could be regarded as a lawful release under NORP law . It noted that , according to doctrine , a release of debt was accepted as one of the ways of discharging a debt . The court concluded that the release letter showed that it was the intention of the applicant to discharge the debt owed to him by the defendant . Furthermore the release had complied with the requirements of the relevant provisions of LAW ( PERSON ) .

CARDINAL judge dissented , being of the opinion that the first instance court should have allowed witnesses to be heard on behalf of the applicant . The judge also noted that there were indications that the general receipt could have been forged and that it was not normal practice for a bank to pay out money to a client without having a trace of his signature . The judge was not prepared to accept the defendant ’s argument that it had paid money in good faith from the applicant ’s account after the date indicated on the general release letter .

On DATE the CARDINALth ORG of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for rectification of its earlier judgment .


CASE OF PODBIELSKI AND PPU POLPURE v. POLAND

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

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

The proceedings described below have already been examined by ORG from the point of view of the “ reasonable time ” requirement . In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG unanimously held that the NORP authorities had been in breach of LAW ( Reports MONEY , pp . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant , who was at that time the owner and the president of the management board of the company “ Polpure ” sued LOC ( PERSON ) in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking payment for construction works which it had carried out for the defendant . He also sought damages for the defendant ’s delay in payment and penalties resulting from the breach of contract .

On DATE the company was exempted from court fees due for lodging the claim .

On DATE ORG gave judgment . It declared certain clauses of the contract null and void , as being in breach of a number of substantive civil law provisions .

Following the applicant ’s appeal , the judgment was later quashed and the case remitted .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim for payment but declared null and void a clause of the contract that imposed penalties for the breach of contract . The parties’ further appeals were dismissed by ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) on DATE .

On DATE the ORG filed with ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) an extraordinary appeal on behalf of the company , submitting that ORG judgment had been in flagrant violation of substantive civil law and had unduly restricted the parties’ freedom of contract . That appeal was rejected on DATE .

On DATE ORG , on an application made by the applicant , reopened the extraordinary appeal proceedings . It amended its judgment of DATE , set aside the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to the court of first instance . It ordered that the claims , save for the already - awarded claim for payment , be reconsidered . ORG held that the previous judgments were in breach of substantive civil law . It gave guidelines as to how to proceed with the claims .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant modified the claims and asked for a total award of CARDINAL old NORP zlotys ( PLZ ) . He also made an application to ORG , asking for an exemption of the company from all court fees involved in the litigation .

On DATE the court partly granted the application and exempted the company only from a court fee due for lodging the modified claim ( which would normally have amounted to PLZ CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , except for the first PLZ CARDINAL .

The court observed that while it was true that the applicant ’s company had encountered significant difficulties in recovering payments from third parties , had lost its credit solvency and was charged with debts , it had not yet been declared insolvent and was , accordingly , able to continue its commercial activity . In view of that , the court considered that exempting it from all future court fees would not be justified .

On DATE , on an appeal filed by the applicant , ORG quashed that decision and held that the exemption from the court fee due for lodging the claim , granted on CARDINAL DATE , was still in force and applied to the modified claim .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the defendant to pay pecuniary penalties to the applicant , but reduced their amount to PLZ CARDINAL because it considered that the penalties originally fixed in the contract were excessive . It dismissed the claim for damages arising from the defendant ’s delay in payment .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE , arguing that the court had not made certain findings of fact which were relevant to the outcome of the case and that it had committed a number of procedural errors . He also asked for an exemption from court fees due for lodging an appeal on behalf of the company . That fee amounted to MONEY ( ORG ) . ORG partly exempted the company , ordering that it should pay ORG MONEY .

On DATE ORG , on the applicant ’s appeal lodged on behalf of the company , quashed that decision and exempted the company from the entire fee due for lodging the appeal . The court , finding that all the company ’s assets had been attached in enforcement proceedings against it , that its bank accounts had been frozen and that its debts exceeded ORG CARDINAL , held that it was impossible for it to pay the fee in question .

On DATE DATE ORG set aside the judgment of DATE in so far as it had rejected the applicant ’s claim for damages for the defendant ’s delay in payment . It ordered that that claim be reconsidered since the trial court had failed to comply with ORG legal opinion and guidelines on that matter . It also criticised the manner in which the trial court had taken expert evidence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim for damages .

On DATE the applicant filed , through ORG , an appeal to ORG . He submitted , among other things , that ORG had for the second time failed to comply with the guidelines given by ORG and ORG in respect of the claim for damages for the defendant municipality ’s delay in payment and that it had disregarded the instructions given by ORG in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The value of the claim asserted in the appeal proceedings was ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The applicant asked for an exemption from court fees due for lodging an appeal . The relevant part of his application read :

“ The plaintiff ’s application for an exemption from court fees is based on the fact DATE a fact already ascertained by the court – that its financial situation has not improved but has become more difficult . The entire sum awarded by the previous judgment was , without any basis whatsoever , attached by ORG . The defendant municipality , for its part , unjustifiably deducted its debts ... from the sums awarded . The adjudicated claim was not therefore satisfied and the Bailiff in addition deducted from that sum ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL by way of [ costs of enforcement proceedings ] . In consequence , the plaintiff sustained further loss . Moreover , the plaintiff ’s debts have been climbing rapidly due to interest on arrears . ”

On DATE ORG exempted the applicant ’s company from all court fees save for the first ORG CARDINAL and dismissed the remainder of the application . The relevant part of that decision read :

“ ... the applicant has declared that it is still conducting its business activity , although it has limited it considerably . It emerges from entries made in the company ’s cash book from DATE that since DATE cash holdings and disbursements exceeded ORG and , in DATE , they reached PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

In the circumstances , exempting the applicant from the entire fee would be unjustified and that court exempts it only from fees exceeding PLN CARDINAL . ”

The applicant appealed against that decision on DATE . The appeal read , in so far as relevant :

“ ... ORG made erroneous findings in respect of the plaintiff ’s financial situation :

As the plaintiff already stated , its situation , [ assessed as bad by ORG already on DATE ] had not improved but had become worse . [ the applicant further repeated the arguments adduced in the above - cited application ] ;

NORP The plaintiff has already produced abundant documentary evidence [ including the DATE balance sheet , cash books , the relevant bank report and documents setting out financial analyses of the company ’s standing ] confirming the previously - described financial situation , a situation with which ORG has become well acquainted throughout that lengthy trial . That situation is as follows : in DATE the company sustained losses ; in DATE it sustained losses in DATE ; the income did not cover debts ( the outstanding debt is PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) ; all assets were attached ( see the enclosed list of court files ) ; the bank account is practically empty ( see the bank ’s report ) ; ... the outstanding debt of ORG was eventually covered by the partner in order to avoid the institution of winding - up proceedings . ... ;

There is no dispute that the defendant ruined the plaintiff company ... which now is able to carry out only casual construction works ;

NORP The opinion of ORG expressed in its decision of CARDINAL DATE [ as to the bad financial situation of the applicant ’s company ] is therefore still valid

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , considering that the applicant ’s company had sufficient means to pay the court fees . The court stressed that , pursuant to LAW , grounds for exempting a legal person from court fees were stricter ; the court “ could ” but did not “ have to ” exempt it from such fees even if it proved that it did not have means to pay them . Furthermore , ORG observed that since the applicant ’s company still continued its business activity and derived a systematic income from it ( which , recently , had been in excess of the ORG CARDINAL needed for the required court fees ) , ORG had correctly concluded that the applicant could pay that sum . A prospective litigant , the court added , should take into account the need to secure the court fees for the litigation and put aside part of his or its income for that purpose .

On DATE the applicant made another application for an exemption from court fees , arguing that in the course of the prolonged litigation his company ’s financial situation had deteriorated very significantly . He stressed that DATE the Bailiff had frozen the last CARDINAL of the company ’s bank accounts and attached ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively ( those sums had been the applicant ’s salaries ) . Furthermore , ORG ( ORG ) had ordered the company to pay immediately ORG in tax arrears , together with default interest . In the circumstances , the company did not have any means whatsoever to pay the court fees . The applicant produced the relevant documentary evidence in support of his application . Those documents showed that the company had incurred a loss of ORG in DATE , a loss of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE and a loss of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a pleading with ORG and asked it to hear evidence from the applicant in order to establish the current financial standing of the company .

On DATE the court exempted the company from court fees exceeding ORG CARDINAL . It observed that in DATE the applicant ’s company had an income of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and that it could therefore pay the court fees previously imposed on it . In the court ’s opinion , the documents produced by the applicant showed that since DATE the company ’s management could have put aside money for securing court fees . However , having regard to the new facts supplied by the applicant on DATE , the court considered that the original fee should be reduced .

The applicant appealed on DATE . He stated , among other things , that he had been a “ well - known bankrupt ” and that he had no means whatsoever to pay court fees and , by reason of the fact that the company had lost its credit solvency , he could not even obtain a loan for the purpose of securing court fees . Yet as he had obtained a modest financial support , i.e. ORG CARDINAL from a third person , he was prepared to pay that sum to the court . He further criticised the court for having considered only cash reports , which had not reflected the real state of the company ’s business , and for having ignored the fact that under the applicable laws his company had a legal duty to disburse all cash in hand for tax arrears . He also stressed that the court had completely overlooked the losses the company had incurred .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It considered that despite the losses sustained , the company could have put aside money for the court fees in question . In the court ’s view , the company ’s cash holdings should , in the first place , have been used for the court fees . The court also observed that the company should have regarded payment of those fees as its priority . Lastly , the court noted that the proceedings relating to the exemption from court fees had lasted for such a long time that the plaintiff could have secured money for the fees .

On DATE the applicant made yet another application for an exemption from the court fees for lodging the appeal , save for the first ORG CARDINAL . He asked ORG to obtain expert evidence and to hear evidence from himself as the president of the management board in order to establish the financial standing of his company . He submitted documents showing that he had in the meantime applied to CARDINAL banks for loans to secure the court fees but that his applications had been rejected because of the very bad financial situation of the company . On DATE the applicant filed a pleading and produced further documentary evidence . It emerged from the relevant documents that from CARDINAL January to DATE the applicant ’s company had incurred a loss of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant paid ORG CARDINAL to the court .

On DATE ORG refused to grant the plaintiff any further exemption from court fees . The court reiterated the grounds already cited in its previous decisions . It rejected the application for evidence to be obtained from the applicant and the expert proposed by him .

The applicant appealed against that decision , but on DATE ORG rejected his appeal .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to allow him to pay the fee in instalments but his application was refused .

On DATE , ORG refused to proceed with the appeal against the judgment of DATE and rejected it for non - compliance with the court ’s decision ordering the company to pay the court fees for lodging the appeal .

From DATE both ORG and ORG considered the applicant ’s subsequent , repeated and eventually unsuccessful applications for an exemption from court fees .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision rejecting his appeal of CARDINAL DATE on formal grounds .

The applicant lodged with ORG a cassation appeal against that decision on DATE . The company was ordered to pay a court fee of ORG CARDINAL for proceeding with the cassation appeal . That sum was paid on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant first submitted that the company had never paid a court fee to proceed with the cassation appeal since it could not afford it . Subsequently , he stated that that amount was paid by his friends on his behalf .

The cassation appeal was rejected on DATE .

The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment delivered by ORG on DATE in the case of PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) v. GPE ( appl . no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VI ; see also PERSON and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The grounds for exempting legal persons , companies and business enterprises from court fees were , however , formulated in a different way from the grounds applying to natural persons . LAW CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure in the version applicable at the relevant time read :

“ A legal person , or an entity not possessing legal personality , which has demonstrated that it does not have sufficient financial means for court fees , may be granted an exemption from those fees . ”


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

Christos Rozakis;David Thór Björgvinsson;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Giovanni Bonello;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Karel Jungwiert;Khanlar Hajiyev;Lech Garlicki;Loukis Loucaides;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Mark Villiger;Mindia Ugrekhelidze;Nicolas Bratza;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Riza Türmen;Snejana Botoucharova;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

On DATE the NORP State expropriated an area of land measuring CARDINAL m² , located on the outskirts of the town of LOC ( LOC ) , for the purpose of building an airport . This area , which now falls within the jurisdiction of ORG , included plots of land which belonged to the applicants ' ascendants .

The amount of expropriation allowance was set by judgments ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG of First Instance , no . CARDINAL of ORG and no . CARDINAL of ORG .

By judgment no . CARDINAL of the President of ORG , the applicants ' ascendants were recognised as being entitled to the compensation in question . However , the ORG refused to pay it . The airport was ultimately constructed elsewhere .

On DATE , by a joint decision of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works ( no . E.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the ORG went ahead with expropriation of the above - mentioned area , which included the disputed plots of land , with a view to building housing for workers . As the decision did not fulfil a public - interest aim , it was revoked on DATE .

On DATE a royal decree designated the land for the construction of a sports centre .

On DATE the LOC prefect modified the development plan ( ρυμοτομικό σχέδιο ) for the area in which the applicants ' plots of land were located , which he designated as a “ green area ” and “ sports and leisure zone ” . This decision was confirmed by a decision of the Minister of ORG dated DATE and by a presidential decree of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicants or their ascendants applied to the GPE requesting that the development plan in force be amended to have the encumbrance affecting their land removed . The prefecture did not reply .

On DATE the applicants or their ascendants applied to ORG , seeking to have set aside the authorities ' implicit refusal to remove the encumbrance affecting their land .

On DATE the ORG filed its observations on the case . A hearing was held on DATE .

On DATE ORG granted the applicants ' request . In particular , it found that , having failed for a long time to proceed with the expropriation of the land in question in furtherance of the project provided for in the development plan , the authorities were duty bound to lift the encumbrance on the disputed properties . ORG sent the case back to the authorities , asking them to take the necessary measures to make available the applicants ' land ( judgments FAC . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , QUANTITY and TIME ) . Those judgments were finalised and certified as authentic on DATE .

The applicants estimate that the current value of the land in issue is QUANTITY ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG lodged a third - party appeal ( τριατανακοπή ) against the above - mentioned judgments by ORG with regard to the applicants nos . DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , who had applied to ORG in the proceedings which resulted in judgments nos . CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL . This form of appeal , open to persons who have been neither parties to nor represented in proceedings , enables them to contest a decision which adversely affects them . Where the third - party appeal – which does not have suspensive effect DATE is found to be valid , the impugned judgments are set aside retrospectively and the application to the administrative court is re - examined . In the instant case , as the third - party appeal did not have suspensive effect , judgments nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , QUANTITY and QUANTITY thus remained valid .

On DATE ORG declared the third - party appeal inadmissible ( judgments nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) . It held that ORG could not rely on this form of appeal since it had already had an opportunity to submit its observations on the case . The above - mentioned judgments were finalised and certified as authentic on DATE .

On DATE the Minister for ORG modified the urban development plan of GPE municipality in order to designate the land in question as the site for a sports and leisure centre ( decision no . DATE ) .

On DATE the applicants or their ascendants applied to ORG seeking to have the above - mentioned decision set aside . The sole purpose of this application was to challenge the lawfulness of the impugned administrative decision .

On DATE they submitted various documents in support of their application , including the title deeds to the properties . The hearing , initially scheduled for DATE , was postponed several times . It was finally held on DATE . It appears from the case file that ORG has not yet delivered its judgment .


Government's request to strike the application out of the list;Violation of Art. 6-1 in respect of the quashing of the judgment;Not necessary to examine the other complaints under Art. 6-1 and P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is the widow of the former President of ORG . On DATE , after the death of her husband , the applicant lodged several requests with ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) and ORG , seeking the lump sum to which she was entitled in accordance with the “ PERSON on the Status of Judges ” . When she was refused on the ground of lack of resources , the applicant brought an action against ORG .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant CARDINAL GPE lei ( ORG , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) , to which it found she was entitled following the death of her husband . ORG appealed . By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , dismissed the ORG ’s appeals .

The applicant lodged numerous complaints about the failure of the Ministry to comply with the judgment and pay her compensation . On CARDINAL DATE the Ministry paid the compensation .

Since the applicant considered that the late enforcement of the judgment had significantly reduced the value of her compensation due to inflation , she requested the Ministry to make good the diminished value . ORG refused to comply with the applicant ’s request and she brought an action against it , seeking compensation for the late enforcement .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered ORG to pay her MDL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL at the time ) in compensation . ORG appealed .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the ORG ’s appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE . The judgment of ORG stated specifically that the ORG ’s representative had been present and had addressed the court . Since ORG did not lodge an appeal in cassation within DATE , the judgment of DATE became final .

On DATE , DATE after the expiry of the legal time - limit for lodging the appeal in cassation , ORG lodged an appeal in cassation with ORG and requested an extension of the legal time - limit for lodging it , without providing any reasons for the failure to observe it .

On DATE ORG examined the ORG ’s appeal in cassation . ORG requested , ex - officio , a report from ORG on the level of inflation and relied on it in its judgment . The applicant alleged that she had not been given the possibility either to familiarise herself with the document or to challenge it before the court . The applicant also alleged that she had expressly requested ORG to dismiss the ORG ’s appeal in cassation since it had been lodged out of time .

By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the ORG ’s appeal in cassation , quashed the judgments in favour of the applicant and reduced the amount of compensation for inflation to MDL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) . ORG did not give any reason for accepting the appeal in cassation lodged out of time .

On DATE the Prosecutor General lodged with ORG a request for annulment of the judgments in favour of the applicant and asked for the reduction of the amount of compensation awarded .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG request for annulment , quashed the judgments in favour of the applicant and dismissed her claims for compensation .

The relevant provisions of LAW , in force DATE and DATE , read as follows :

“ Where a person has failed to comply with a legal time - limit for reasons considered by a court to be plausible , that time - limit may be extended by the court .

A request for the extension of the time - limit shall be lodged with the court concerned and shall be examined at a court hearing ....

A court judgment dismissing a request for extension of a time - limit may be challenged by way of an appeal . ”

“ The time - limit for lodging an appeal may be extended in accordance with the provisions of LAW of the present Code . If a court does not have reasons to extend the time - limit , it shall dismiss the appeal as time - barred . ”

“ The legal time - limit for lodging an appeal in cassation is DATE , unless the law provides otherwise . ”

“ The issuance of the judgment as well as other procedural provisions before the appeal instance should be applicable to the proceedings before the cassation instance . ”

“ Irrevocable judgments are :

CARDINAL ) non - appealed judgments , issued by the appeal instances . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LANGUAGE .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was arrested and taken into custody in NORP on suspicion of membership of an illegal armed organisation , namely the ORG ( NORP - Leninist Communist Party ) .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was examined by a doctor who found no signs of ill - treatment on his body .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was handed over to police officers at ORG and transferred to NORP by car .

On DATE and DATE the applicant took part in CARDINAL reconstructions of events in the mountains in order to show where he had buried guns .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by CARDINAL police officers at FAC of ORG , where he gave a detailed account of the activities he had taken part in within the ORG .

On an unspecified date the applicant signed a pre - printed document which indicated , inter alia , that he had the right to remain silent .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG who found no signs of ill - treatment on his body .

On DATE the applicant was brought before ORG where , in the presence of his lawyer appointed by the Bar , he submitted that he was unfit for questioning because he had been subjected to ill - treatment in police custody . The applicant requested to be transferred to a hospital for a medical examination . The judge noted a purple bruise and redness on the applicant 's left eye and that he had difficulty in standing upright and speaking , and ordered him to be transferred to ORG for an examination . On DATE , the court remanded the applicant in custody .

On DATE the applicant asked to be released . In his request he maintained that he had been ill - treated both by the police officers at ORG and ORG . He gave details as to the form of the treatment , namely beatings , hanging , and squeezing of the genital organs , as well as when they had occurred . The applicant 's objection to his remand in custody was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant requested to be examined by a doctor at the prison clinic .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was examined by the prison doctor , who noted that he had under the left eye a fading light green line of QUANTITY which looked like either a bruise or a hyper pigmentation . He reckoned that it dated from DATE previously . The doctor did not note any other signs of beating or violence .

An investigation into the alleged ill - treatment was instigated by the NORP public prosecutor .

On DATE the prosecutor heard evidence from the applicant , who gave details as to where , when and what forms of illtreatment he had been subjected to . In particular , he claimed that his eye injury had resulted from blows he had received from the driver of the car when he was being transferred to NORP . He further repeated that he had been tortured during interrogation , both in NORP and in LANGUAGE .

On DATE the public prosecutor heard evidence from the doctors at ORG who had examined the applicant . They both affirmed that they had conducted the medical examination in accordance with the law and had not seen any signs of ill - treatment on the applicant .

On DATE the prosecutor heard Mr GPE , CARDINAL of the accused arrested and detained at the same time as the applicant . He submitted that since he had been blindfolded the whole time he had not seen anyone ill - treating the applicant . He maintained that he had not been ill - treated by police officers and that he had not heard any indicative noises .

On DATE the prosecutor heard evidence from an accused police officer D.A. He submitted that he had questioned the applicant on DATE and that at that time the applicant had had a fading bruise under his left eye which appeared to be DATE . He did not know how it had happened but the applicant had not been ill - treated by him , whether or not with someone else present .

On DATE another police officer was heard who denied the allegations of ill - treatment and claimed that the applicant 's eye injury might be a swelling due to TIME travelling , lengthy questioning and CARDINAL trips to the mountains for site visits .

On DATE the prosecutor heard Mr GPE , the doctor who had examined the applicant in prison . The doctor affirmed that they had conducted the medical examination in accordance with the law and had not seen any signs of ill - treatment on the applicant apart from the light green area , which could be seen only if looked at carefully , under his eyes . In this connection , he submitted that he did not think that this was the result of ill - treatment since the area was not large . He considered that it could have been the result of lack of sleep or a local infection .

On DATE the prosecutor heard Mr PERSON , CARDINAL of the accused arrested and detained at the same time as the applicant . He also submitted , inter alia , that since he had been blindfolded he had not seen anyone illtreating the applicant . He maintained that he had not heard any noise indicating ill - treatment . However , he stated that , since he did not know where the applicant had been held , he could not be sure if he could have heard something in any case .

On DATE the NORP public prosecutor gave a decision of non - prosecution concerning the QUANTITY police officers at FAC of ORG on account of lack of evidence . In his decision , the prosecutor took particular note of the testimony of the doctors and the other suspects who had been detained at the same time as the applicant on the same grounds .

In the meantime , on DATE , the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant , accusing him of membership of the illegal armed organisation ORG and of throwing a Molotov cocktail in a public place . The charges were brought under LAW and CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the “ trio protocol ” , prepared jointly by the ministries of ORG , ORG and ORG to introduce security measures on the access of lawyers to prisons , came into force . ORG , considering such measures to be , inter alia , in breach of defence rights , gave a decision indicating to lawyers not to go into prisons while such measures remained in place .

In the meantime , on DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant commenced before ORG . In the course of the trial the applicant repeatedly denied any involvement with the ORG and alleged that he had been tortured and forced to make self - incriminating confessions during his police interrogations . He rejected the findings of the medical reports included in the case file . The applicant also submitted that he had encountered difficulties in having access to his lawyer due to the stringent measures introduced by the “ trio protocol ” . Before the court the applicant 's lawyer further maintained that , apart from CARDINAL person , all other suspects who had given statements against the applicant had been acquitted before other courts .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of membership of an illegal armed organisation and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . In so doing , they took into account the evidence in the case file , including the applicant 's statements given in police custody , the verbatim records of the reconstruction of the events and the statements of other suspects or convicts given to the police or another court . In particular , the court considered that , in the absence of any indication of ill - treatment noted in the medical report , the applicant 's statements given to the police were sincere and truthful .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . The applicant 's request for a rectification of this decision was dismissed by the principal public prosecutor at ORG on DATE .

Following the adoption of the new Criminal Code , the execution of the applicant 's sentence was suspended by ORG on DATE . He was released from prison .

On DATE by an additional judgment the ORG reduced the applicant 's original sentence to DATE and DATE imprisonment . This decision became final on DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Anatoly Kovler;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant worked as chief physician in a hospital managed by the GPE patriarchate . On DATE the applicant on her own initiative left her place of work in order to participate in a conference dedicated to the fight against drug addiction in GPE , organised by ORG .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed for unjustified absence from work on DATE . She believed that the dismissal was unlawful and brought civil proceedings for reinstatement and for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the Simonovskiy ORG of GPE partly allowed the claims , ordered her reinstatement and awarded her MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of pecuniary damage . The applicant ’s claims for non - pecuniary damage were dismissed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE ORG lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment . On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and the appeal decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to the first - instance court for a fresh examination .

On DATE the Simonovskiy District Court of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s claims in full . ORG upheld the judgment on DATE .

The Vice - President of ORG lodged an application for supervisory review of the ruling of the ORG of ORG of DATE and the subsequent judgments .

On DATE ORG , by way of supervisory review , quashed the ruling of DATE and the judgment of DATE and restored the validity of the judgment of CARDINAL March and the appeal decision of CARDINAL DATE as regards the applicant ’s reinstatement and the refusal to pay her compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The applicant ’s pecuniary claims were remitted to the first - instance court for a fresh examination as the amount initially awarded had by that time considerably decreased in purchasing power . No appeal lay against this ruling .

The Prosecutor General ’s Office lodged an application for supervisory review of ORG ruling of DATE .

On DATE the ORG of ORG of GPE quashed the judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review and restored the validity of the judgment of DATE , upheld on appeal on DATE .

For the relevant provisions on the supervisory review proceedings contained in DATE , see the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IX ) .