The applicant , F , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently in prison in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE .

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

In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE ( “ GPE ” ) with a short - term visitor ’s visa issued by ORG in GPE . He did not claim asylum and was given leave to enter for DATE , stating that he was looking at colleges with a view to studying LANGUAGE .

In DATE he was charged and convicted of theft and sentenced to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . In DATE he was convicted of dishonest handling . Since he did not pay the fine , in DATE he was again arrested and committed to prison until DATE .

In DATE the applicant began a relationship with Ms R , a NORP citizen . She had a baby in DATE .

In DATE a deportation order was served at the applicant ’s last - known address . He had made no application to extend his leave to remain and was liable to deportation for overstaying . A further deportation order was signed in DATE and served on the applicant in DATE , when he was arrested . Ms R was now pregnant with their second child .

On DATE ORG for ORG made detailed submissions to ORG on the applicant ’s behalf , requesting that he be granted leave to remain on the basis of his relationship with PERSON

The applicant was interviewed by an immigration official on DATE . He claimed that his older brother had been executed and that he had been arrested in consequence and had fled to the GPE in fear of further ill - persecution . He appeared , however , unsure whether his brother had been a student or what he had studied . He claimed that his younger brother had avoided military service by jumping from a building and injuring himself . He also stated that he had no political affiliations at all in GPE and that , far from disagreeing with the regime in GPE , he had no quarrel with the PERSON regime . ORG official found the applicant ’s account of his relationship with Ms R to be “ fraught with discrepancies ” .

In the course of a further interview on DATE the applicant alleged that , while the PERSON regime had confiscated some of his father ’s property and the applicant disliked it , he had never been involved in politics in GPE , belonged to any anti - government group or taken part in any demonstration . He again referred to his younger brother ’s avoidance of military service , his older brother ’s execution for anti - government activities , his own subsequent arrest and ill - treatment , and his release and flight from GPE . He had lied on entry to the GPE , saying he was married , whereas he had divorced in DATE . He confirmed at the end of the interview that he had never received threats from the NORP authorities . The report of the interview states that the applicant could offer no convincing reason why , if fear was the reason he left GPE , he had not applied for asylum in the GPE earlier . However , the applicant added that his long absence from the country and avoidance of military service would increase the risk of his having a “ bad time ” if returned .

Ms R was also interviewed in DATE .

On DATE the deportation order was revoked . ORG indicated in its letter of that date that the applicant “ did not appear to be more exposed to risk than any other NORP national as he appears to lack either the motivation or capacity to represent opposition to the regime . ” However , given his long standing relationship with Ms R , he was given exceptional leave to remain until DATE , when his position would be reconsidered . On DATE Ms R had their second child . Both children were placed for adoption on DATE . On DATE the applicant and PERSON married . No further request for an extension of leave to remain was received at ORG , although the applicant claims that Ms R had said that she would post his request .

In DATE a full adoption order was granted in respect of the CARDINAL children .

In DATE the police attempted to find the applicant . In DATE police enquiries revealed that Ms R and he were separated . In DATE the applicant was arrested on grounds of overstaying . In DATE he was convicted of overstaying and fined . ORG upheld his conviction but the applicant was not recommended for deportation .

In DATE his solicitors made a late application for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of his marriage . While he and his wife were requested to attend on DATE for interview with immigration officials , the applicant attended ( with representation ) but Ms R did not attend . The applicant explained that they were living separately and that Ms R had serious alcohol problems but that he was hopeful of a reconciliation .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG refused the application , as there was no evidence that the marriage subsisted , and issued a deportation order . The applicant had overstayed and had not made any application for an extension . He had been in GPE for DATE , most of the time without any legal authority . His alleged fears of returning to GPE had already been examined and dismissed and there were no compassionate reasons militating against deportation .

The applicant appealed against this decision , arguing that he merited asylum . He was interviewed by an immigration officer on CARDINAL DATE and made general submissions which were largely the same as those made on CARDINAL DATE . He confirmed that he had never been politically active , but stated that a magazine published in DATE in LOC had indicated that he was wanted by the NORP authorities . He implied that his younger brother ’s injuries were not self - inflicted ( as previously maintained ) but had been inflicted by the NORP authorities . He still hoped to reconcile with his wife , although they were not in regular contact .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG rejected the appeal : it was considered that the applicant had not demonstrated a well - founded fear of persecution and that there were no compassionate grounds warranting the grant of leave to remain .

The applicant appealed to the Special Adjudicator ( “ SA ” ) . He gave evidence about his older brother ’s execution , the loss of his father ’s wealth to PERSON , and his own departure from GPE in fear . He said that he had not contacted ORG when he arrived as he had not known about political asylum . He also referred to the magazine where his name allegedly appeared as someone wanted by the PERSON regime . Although the hearing was adjourned for DATE to allow the magazine to be produced , the applicant could not produce it .

On DATE the ORG dismissed his appeal . He found that the DATE deportation order had not been revoked because of the grant of asylum ( as the applicant had claimed ) but instead because of the applicant ’s relationship with PERSON He considered the various different versions of events presented by the applicant over DATE and found him generally to be lacking in credibility . Moreover , apart from his unproven and tenuous connection with his brother ’s political activities , the NORP authorities would have no reason to target the applicant . It could not be accepted that all NORP outside GPE would be pursued by the regime on their return . No compassionate circumstances appeared to exist .

On DATE leave to appeal to ORG ( “ ORG ” ) was granted . The applicant has not submitted the ORG decision , although later correspondence from the Secretary of ORG indicates that the ORG refused his appeal on DATE . However , the Secretary of ORG re - considered following further representations on the applicant ’s behalf , and on DATE exercised his discretion to grant indefinite leave to remain on the basis of the applicant ’s marriage .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm on an elderly neighbour . In finding that there were grave and aggravating features to the case , the trial judge sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . No deportation order was made . His sentence was reduced to DATE on appeal .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG , finding that the applicant ’s continued presence in the GPE was not conducive to the public good , decided to deport him and to issue removal directions .

The applicant appealed against the deportation order to the ORG on the basis of his good character ( he stated that “ since my arrival I have been of good character and adhered to the laws of the land ” ) , his responsibility to his children , his professional affairs in the GPE , the previous grant of leave to remain and his pending appeal against sentence . He challenged the removal directions on the basis that he had a fear of persecution : he had fled from GPE as he had been politically involved , he had been allowed to enter the GPE to seek asylum , he was still campaigning for asylum , he was still regarded as a subversive in GPE and his time in LOC would be badly regarded .

On DATE his appeal to the ORG was rejected . He was found to be “ totally lacking in credibility ” and it was not believed that he had “ the slightest interest in politics in GPE or here ” . It was found that the CARDINAL brothers with whom the applicant remained in contact worked for ORG and that his older brother had been executed for fraud rather than any political activity . It was further noted that the applicant had a large family in GPE and that he had been convicted of a horrific offence in the GPE for which he had not shown the slightest remorse . It was true that the NORP regime was unpredictable and that any NORP having spent TIME in LOC was likely to come under some scrutiny . However , on balance , deportation was the right course .

A deportation order was made on DATE . At the expiry of the applicant ’s prison sentence , fresh removal directions were set by the Secretary of ORG . The applicant ’s representatives appealed , invoking Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG rejected the application . He considered the applicant ’s record in the GPE to have been “ quite appalling , showing complete contempt for both immigration and criminal law ” . The applicant had formed remarkably few ties with the GPE and his claim to asylum had been considered and rejected on a number of occasions by the Secretary of ORG , the ORG and the ORG . There were no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would be ill - treated contrary to LAW . On DATE the Secretary of ORG confirmed his decision to deport . The applicant appealed to the ORG on DATE .

Following a hearing on DATE , by a decision dated CARDINAL DATE , the ORG rejected the appeal . The applicant ’s credibility had previously been found lacking , a finding confirmed by his answers to questions before the ORG . In particular , the ORG found it significant that the applicant relied before him on the suggestion that , if returned to GPE , he would tell the NORP authorities that he had left because he was an opponent of the regime - the SA observed that “ this suggestion beggars belief in view of the previous evidence ” . There was no evidence to suggest that the NORP authorities were aware or would become aware of the applicant ’s criminal record or that he would be at risk of double jeopardy , other sanctions or treatment in breach of LAW . There was no evidence that he would be prejudiced if the authorities discovered that he was a failed asylum seeker and there was no evidence that ill - treatment would result from any discovery that he had failed to complete his military service . Even if ORG and DATE had extra - territorial effect , his brief detention on return would not breach LAW there was no evidence to suggest that he faced criminal , political or other sanctions in GPE .

The applicant applied for leave to appeal solely on the basis of the Bulletin of ORG ( “ CIPU ” ) dated DATE ( see the “ Domestic Law and Practice ” section below ) . Leave to appeal was granted on DATE . The ORG also had before it CARDINAL letters from ORG ( Near East and GPE department ) dated DATE and DATE , which provided an update on the position concerning the return of failed asylum seekers to GPE ( see below ) .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal . Although the history of the matter was “ a truly shocking one , as much for the sloth and lack of resolution displayed by ORG in the past as for [ the applicant ’s ] own downright wickedness ” , the ORG noted that it had to decide whether the applicant ’s return to GPE brought with it a real risk . The ORG found as follows :

“ We have to say that there is nothing whatsoever in this case , apart from the existence of the [ CIPU bulletin ] , to suggest that [ the applicant ] would face any real risk of persecution or ill - treatment on return . The policy itself is not a blanket one , and allows for consideration of individual cases by a senior caseworker , which has been done here , resulting in the unusually coherent refusal letters of DATE and DATE . There is nothing to suggest that , if the loathsome crime the [ applicant ] committed here became known to the NORP authorities , he would face any form of double jeopardy for it there . Nor is there anything to suggest he would be regarded by them as any kind of political opponent : if he declared himself as such , as he had threatened , there is nothing to show that he would face any real risk of being taken seriously . The adjudicator was clearly entitled to reach the view he did , and we should have done the same ourselves . ”

On DATE the ORG refused leave to appeal to ORG . His renewed leave application ( under LAW and in relation to the CIPU Bulletin only ) to a single judge of that ORG was rejected on DATE .

His application to the full ORG was dismissed after a hearing on DATE , ORG finding as follows :

“ What [ the applicant ’s representative ] says about the present applicant is that if the applicant is interrogated by the [ NORP ] security authorities , as the CIPU bulletin says he will be , there is , if not a likelihood , at least a risk that they will elicit from him the fact DATE he sought and was refused asylum in this country . This seems to me to be a possibility so remote as not to constitute an appreciable risk at all . The history of the applicant in this country is littered with good reasons for his removal , any CARDINAL of which will intelligibly explain his enforced reappearance in GPE DATE after his first arrival in this country . The immediate cause of his removal , and indeed the only active cause of his removal because of the extraordinary good fortune which he has previously enjoyed , is his deportation for the commission of a crime for which he has served a long punitive term . There is no reason why any other documentation should accompany him and every reason why the notice of deportation can accompany him and provide a perfectly intelligible explanation of his removal . If he wishes he can also draw attention to the fact that , but for the commission of that crime , he would have continued to be the beneficiary of indefinite leave to remain , of which there is also , no doubt , documentary evidence in his or his lawyer ’s hands .

In those circumstances , there is nothing in the documentation to suggest that as a deported criminal the applicant faces any special risk of maltreatment . ... ”

This document was entitled “ Enforced Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers ” and , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ Summary

In DATE ORG made representations to us in the specific case of a failed NORP asylum seeker where we had enforced his removal to GPE . It was said that this individual was arrested and imprisoned on return to GPE . A temporary hold was placed on further removals whilst we made further enquiries . ORG also produced a report DATE in which they said that , in addition to being detained , several returned asylum seekers have been subjected to serious human rights violations , including torture .

On the basis of the information from ORG , ORG urged caution in returning failed asylum seekers to GPE . They also point to an incident in DATE concerning CARDINAL NORP nationals , who were extradited from GPE to GPE , CARDINAL of whom were killed on arrival at GPE airport .

ORG advised that : any NORP returning to that country after an absence of DATE or more are subject to an interrogation by the NORP security authorities . Failed asylum seekers are routinely imprisoned by administrative ( as opposed to judicial ) order for ‘ having shown disloyalty to the ORG .

In the light of this information we do not believe that we can at present safely enforce removals of failed asylum seekers to GPE . Any representation made under LAW against the removal to GPE of a refused asylum applicant , and based on information currently available in the public domain is likely to succeed . ORG has said that they do not expect a significant change in the human rights situation in GPE within DATE .

New Policy

As a consequence of the above it has been decided that a limited exceptional leave policy for failed asylum seekers from GPE will be introduced as follows :

a. refused NORP asylum seekers to be granted DATE [ exceptional leave to remain ] .

b. senior case workers to submit , to the Minister , advice on individual cases involving applicants who have been convicted of a serious crime and those subject to a recommendation to deport by the courts .

c. there will also be close , ongoing monitoring of the situation , to facilitate a review of this policy in DATE or sooner if new information becomes available on the safety of return . ”

This document , in so far as relevant , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Scope of Document

This bulletin provides caseworkers with guidance on dealing with NORP asylum claims in the light of the announcement made by the Home Secretary on DATE regarding , inter alia , the use of Exceptional Leave to Remain in connection with unsuccessful asylum applications . This bulletin is publicly disclosable .

Change in ORG [ Exceptional Leave to Remain ] policy

In the past country specific ORG policies have been introduced where the general humanitarian situation would normally preclude removal . What this has meant in practice is that where asylum is refused , ORG has been granted routinely ( subject to security / criminal considerations ) without the particular circumstances of the individual ’s case being examined . The ORG Secretary has announced an end to these country specific ORG policies and that in future all cases will be decided on an entirely individual basis .

GPE has been the subject of a country specific ORG policy that was introduced in DATE based on concerns about the safety of returning failed asylum seekers . In the light of the Home Secretary ’s announcement , that policy has now ended .

If the circumstances of an individual case justify it , exceptional leave to remain should be granted . In cases where asylum has been refused , and exceptional leave has not been granted , appropriate enforcement action will be considered .

The latest available country of origin information on GPE is contained in GPE Bulletin CARDINAL/CARDINAL issued on DATE . CIPU are in the process of preparing updated country of origin information and this will be issued shortly . In the meantime caseworkers and presenting officers will wish to have the CARDINAL documents attached to this Bulletin :

Annex A : a letter from ORG dated DATE which addresses the issue of the treatment of returnees to GPE

Annex B : a report of a ORG fact - finding mission to GPE conducted in DATE . ”

This further bulletin indicated its purpose to be as follows :

“ This Bulletin should be read in conjunction with the CIPU Bulletin of DATE , which provides caseworkers with guidance on dealing with NORP asylum claims . The guidance below updates the current casework directions on the return of failed asylum seekers to GPE . It replaces the previous directions set out in the CIPU Bulletin of DATE , which is now superseded by this bulletin and by the CIPU Bulletin of DATE .

It explained the background to the CIPU Bulletin of DATE :

“ In DATE ORG made representations to us in the case of a failed NORP asylum seeker where we had enforced his removal to GPE . It was said that this individual was arrested and imprisoned on return to GPE . A temporary hold was placed on further removals whilst we made further enquiries . ORG also produced a report DATE in which they said that , in addition to being detained , several returned asylum seekers have been subjected to serious human rights violations , including torture . The Foreign and ORG office advised at that time that any NORP returning to that country after an absence of DATE or more are subject to an interrogation by the NORP authorities .

On the basis of the information from ORG , ORG urged caution in returning failed asylum seekers to GPE . They also pointed to an incident in DATE concerning CARDINAL NORP nationals , who were extradited from GPE to GPE , CARDINAL of whom were killed on arrival at GPE airport .

In the light of this information we took the view that we could not safely enforce removals of failed asylum seekers to GPE . A limited exceptional leave [ to remain ] policy was instigated at that time . That has been superseded by the instructions in the CIPU Bulletin of DATE ”

The bulletin went on to outline the current position to be as follows :

“ The suspension of removals of failed asylum seekers to GPE is still in force . However it appears from the most recent advice from ORG and ORG issued by ORG authorities ( both attached to the CIPU Bulletin of DATE ) that the situation has moved on . We are trying to obtain further views and information and will issue these as soon as possible . ”

The summary of this bulletin , headed “ Country Report by ORG ” , provided as follows :

“ This bulletin circulates a country report on GPE by the NORP immigration authorities .

The attached report at ORG translation ) has been prepared by ORG and published on the website of ORG of the GPE .

The following is a summary of the report :

NORP law prohibits opposition to the present regime . The human rights situation leaves much to be desired .

ORG The NORP authorities ban international and local human rights organisations . The ORG office in GPE does not carry out any duties in respect of returning NORP asylum seekers . The NORP authorities have a co - operative attitude towards ORG . ORG has raised a number of human rights concerns about the treatment of NORP , including returned rejected asylum seekers .

ORG opposition to the present regime has often been religiously inspired and has occurred above all in PERSON ( north - east GPE )

ORG groups abroad ( mostly located in GPE and the GPE ) do not seem to form a united front .

In the past opponents of the regime have been executed , including by public hanging . There is no recent information about the enforcement of the death penalty . The last officially known execution took place in DATE . CARDINAL leaders of the banned ORG arrested in DATE were sentenced to death in DATE , but the sentences were not carried out .

Following the lifting of sanctions against GPE in DATE and the resumption of air flights the return of rejected asylum seekers is more practically possible .

In DATE a number of incidents occurred where rejected asylum seekers returned from various countries received adverse treatment from the authorities . In DATE CARDINAL members of a group of CARDINAL deported from GPE were killed on arrival at GPE airport .

There are strict controls on people leaving GPE .

NORP who have been abroad for longer periods ( not specified ) are liable to be questioned by the NORP authorities on return . This applies to all NORP , not just rejected asylum seekers .

Rejected asylum seekers are likely to be held for DATE on return . Rejected asylum seekers who are returned under escort are certain of arrest , temporary detention and interview . It may also happen that rejected asylum seekers are just interviewed briefly . As far as is known this practice has no repercussions . Cases are known of removed rejected asylum seekers who since their forced return have resumed living in GPE unhindered .

There is an essential difference between the treatment of people suspected of opposition activities in or outside GPE and people who are not suspected of these . Suspicion of opposition activities is enough for longer detention and sentencing . Association with an opponent of the government is sufficient excuse to detain and interview . If a rejected asylum seeker is detained on return to GPE maltreatment or torture can not be ruled out .

ORG Other countries policies The GPE ( CARDINAL ) , GPE ( CARDINAL ) and GPE ( CARDINAL ) had most asylum applications in DATE . CARDINAL rejected asylum seekers were removed from GPE in DATE , DATE and CARDINAL in DATE . The NORP authorities examine each case carefully and do not return people originating from eastern GPE . DATE CARDINAL rejected asylum seekers were removed from GPE . Subject to credibility most applications in GPE are approved . Of the other countries surveyed none had specific policies on GPE . The numbers of cases were very small . In DATE the GPE expelled CARDINAL NORP , CARDINAL of whom were rejected asylum seekers and CARDINAL non - asylum .

ORG In DATE ORG took the attitude that care should be used in returning rejected asylum seekers to GPE . Asked about its present standpoint , ORG said it was engaged in working out its stance . ”

This bulletin , headed “ Removal of Failed Asylum Seekers to GPE ” , stated as follows :

“ This bulletin sets out the revised policy about return of rejected asylum seekers to GPE .

CHANGE OF POLICY ON RETURN OF REJECTED ASYLUM SEEKERS

In the light of advice from ORG , and information from other NORP countries who have produced country reports and carried out some enforced returns to GPE in DATE returns , it is believed that there is no longer a justification for the country policy first issued in the ( now defunct ) CIPU Bulletin of DATE .

Asylum applications from NORP nationals should be carefully considered in the light of the country information recently issued to caseworkers . This includes standard reference , human rights and other relevant reports .

The following documents should be particularly noted :

CIPU Bulletin dated DATE . This bulletin notified the decision to end the country specific Exceptional Leave policy in respect of unsuccessful NORP asylum seekers . It also circulated advice from the Foreign and GPE office ( Letter dated DATE ) and a report of a ORG fact - finding mission to GPE conducted in DATE .

CIPU Bulletin dated DATE circulating a country report of DATE by ORG official report on GPE / return

Other previous CIPU Bulletins including those of DATE and CARDINAL DATE are superseded by this Bulletin . ”

Early in DATE the ORG issued a further bulletin on GPE , which was confined to listing source material ( and providing electronic links to such material ) for caseworkers to consult when considering asylum applications . There was no accompanying Country Report offering commentary on the source material , opinion or policy , since Country Reports are currently compiled only for the top CARDINAL asylum - producing countries , of which GPE is not one .

This letter was from LOC and ORG ( “ ORG ” ) of the ORG to the ORG and read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . You requested an assessment of the current situation in GPE and the authorities’ likely attitude towards NORP nationals deported from GPE . I received a preliminary reply to this question in DATE , the burden of which was that the people concerned would not face serious difficulties in GPE , provided they had not been involved in anti - regime activities . This reply was by no means definitive .

[ The GPE Ambassador ] had the opportunity to raise this issue with a senior member of ORG . He read to him the standard list of assurances that ORG seeks in such cases from the receiving country . He also explained CARDINAL cases in outline . The NORP official said that the CARDINAL names were not ones he recognised as having any political significance . He said that they seemed to be economic migrants who had committed crimes , and not people of any significance to the NORP security authorities . On that basis , they would not face difficulties ; indeed , they might not even be questioned .

These comments are consistent with the information GPE has obtained from their Legal Adviser . It is impossible to be MONEY confident of the assurances we need , given the presence in GPE of numerous security agencies . Once a NORP is returned following deportation , we lose any ability to protect them . Travel documents might well highlight them for special attention by ORG . Moreover , there may be something in their record that turns up when they research the names of deportees .

That apart , [ the GPE Ambassador in ] GPE has confidence in his contact ’s judgement . On balance , therefore , he believes it should be possible to recommend to ORG that serious ill - treatment is unlikely and that the men , in these cases , could be returned without a breach of LAW . ”

CARDINAL of the individuals referred to in the second paragraph of that letter was the applicant in the case of A v. the Secretary of ORG for ORG ( cited below ) .

The ORG of the ORG provided , by way of this letter to the ORG , a further assessment of the position of returnees . The letter is almost identical to that of DATE except that it added a preliminary sentence to the second paragraph which reads :

“ The NORP authorities appear to take a slightly more relaxed view than they have done previously . ”

It also excluded the reference to the CARDINAL specific cases to which the letter of DATE had referred and its last sentence was more general than that of DATE :

“ On balance , therefore , he believes it should be possible to return certain categories of migrant without a breach of LAW . ”

This letter was written by the ORG in response to queries from the solicitors for a NORP asylum seeker ( the applicant in the case of A v. the Secretary of ORG for ORG , see below ) , referred to the sources of the information in the ORG ’s letter of DATE . A general enquiry had been made by the ORG to the Deputy Head of Mission in GPE who replied , having consulted the Honorary Legal Advisor to the Embassy in GPE , that deportees would be questioned on return to ascertain whether :

“ ( i ) they had acted against ORG while overseas by being a member of an opposition grouping or other such political activity and ( ii ) as to why they were arrested in the GPE . On the whole this would just be routine questioning and if there were no political context they would be quickly released . It was the [ Honorary Legal Adviser ’s ] considered opinion that a deportee would not face problems on their [ sic ] return if they had not been involved in political activities– even if they had claimed political asylum , as long as the individual were able to explain the reason behind any claim was based on economic or other [ ie . non - political ] grounds . The [ Deputy Head of Mission ] added that the embassy was aware of NORP asylum seekers who were at large in GPE . ”

A second but more specific enquiry had also been made of the Ambassador in GPE . The person to whom the Ambassador had spoken was described as a “ very senior member ” of ORG , but it was said that it would be contrary to the public interest and diplomatic relations to identify that person in the relevant ORG ( “ ORG ” ) proceedings . The discussion had taken place in GPE . The reason for the Ambassador ’s confidence in that NORP official was that the Ambassador , a highly experienced diplomat , had had numerous dealings with him and trusted his judgment . Both of the individuals whose circumstances were outlined to this official had served prison sentences and had been recommended for deportation . The list of assurances which had been sought by the Ambassador included assurances that no - one should be detained unless there was due cause , or harassed or subjected to ill - treatment by the authorities or ill - treated in detention . If detained , they should have a hearing which would be fair and public , before independent and impartial judiciary in a civilian court . Arrangements would be made for access by ORG and independent medical personnel during any term of imprisonment .

Prompted by a sharp increase in NORP nationals seeking asylum in GPE , ORG conducted a fact - finding trip to GPE DATE and DATE . Its findings were contained in its report dated DATE .

As to the NORP intelligence services , the report noted :

“ To ensure both the country ’s and PERSON ’s security , GPE has a highly active intelligence service that operates both in and outside the country . GPE ’s intelligence service comprises several individually independent agencies , which also monitor each other . It is claimed that many NORP constantly feel that they may be under surveillance , which causes a certain amount of fear and caution . The intelligence services’ procedures are not known , but probably take a wide variety of forms , e.g. physical surveillance , compulsory reporting for the various officials , monitoring through communication technology , mass media monitoring etc . It is well known that civil servants are constantly shifted within the administrations and executive departments where they work , to prevent strong , opposing alliances from forming that could threaten the regime . According to experts , this reshuffling of staff strongly contributes to bureaucracy and administrative inefficiency .

Evidence strongly suggests a recent restructuring of the intelligence NORP methods . They now seem to be less generalised , instead focusing more directly on clearly defined opposition groups and individuals . This change may be a result of the regime wishing to project a more open and less repressive image , or possibly feeling less under threat at present . ”

As to controls on those arriving in GPE :

“ Fairly strict checks are also performed on individual travellers arriving in GPE . The control routines do not appear to be related to the duration and purpose of the visit abroad ( at least not at present ) . We were told that a blacklist is kept . Although it is difficult for outsiders to judge whether this is true , the possibility can not be ruled out . ”

As to the deportation of NORP and their return :

“ The NORP authorities can issue documents to facilitate onward travel or return to GPE . For instance , it is known that NORP authorities on GPE provide NORP with at least provisional travel documents to facilitate their journey . It is not known whether the NORP authorities have special criteria for travel documents in order for NORP to be allowed to enter or return to their native country . It is less likely that the possibility of deportation depends on the possession of certain documents . If a NORP returns without any documents whatsoever , it is natural that the NORP authorities should want to question him to find out the reason for this , and especially to ascertain whether he is actually a NORP citizen . ...

When return or deportation is necessary in a particular case , the NORP should preferably be given the opportunity to contact the NORP authorities to gain the necessary documents for re - entry to GPE . Failing this , deportation without documents should also be an option .

There is strong evidence that almost all NORP have passports and other documents , and voluntarily show them ‘ in a tight GPE ( this has been noted both by ORG and in certain other countries in several cases where deportation was necessary ) . In the case of deportation , escorting deportees all the way to NORP territory should be avoided as far as possible , and the NORP should thus normally make the final part of the journey alone . ”

In its conclusions , the report noted :

“ There has been a noticeable liberalisation and softening of NORP society in DATE , and this trend is still in progress . Possible contributing factors include GPE ’s strong desire to resolve the GPE issue and the related sanction policies , and the events of DATE in GPE .

It has become significantly easier for NORP to travel abroad . It is now much easier to obtain passports , and exit permits are no longer required . Many ORG countries appear to have very generous visa policies with regard to NORP .

The NORP authorities’ attitude and procedures do not appear to be linked to the duration or purpose of the stay abroad .

The control procedures on entry/ exit for individual travellers remain strict .

An application for asylum abroad will not , in itself , put a NORP at risk on returning to GPE .

GPE has a sophisticated and active intelligence service , both inside and outside the country .

The government is vigilant towards opposition against the regime , and particularly towards NORP fundamentalism . The intelligence services are increasingly favouring an individual rather than a general approach to political security issues .

Political opposition and NORP fundamentalism appear not to exist in GPE , or are at least marginalised . There are several minor opposition groups outside GPE , particularly in the GPE and GPE . However , this opposition is divided , and does not currently appear to pose a threat to the regime . ... ”

As to the forced repatriation of NORP and their treatment on return , the report stated as follows :

“ CARDINAL NORP nationals - men , women and children - who had been detained in GPE without charge or trial for DATE following the DATE bombing of the Saudi Arabian National Guard training centre in GPE were forcibly returned to GPE in DATE or DATE ( see GPE entry ) . They were arrested following their arrival in GPE and their whereabouts at DATE were not known . ...

A NORP family ... were forcibly returned to GPE by GPE in DATE allegedly because of ... opposition activities ... . The family had been granted refugee status in the GPE in DATE and travelled to GPE in DATE for the pilgrimage . [ Some members ] were released in GPE but [ CARDINAL family member ] continued to be held , reportedly without charge or trial , at DATE . ”

As to the forced return of NORP nationals to GPE , the report noted :

“ Forcible return of refugees

Following the suspension of sanctions against GPE in DATE , refugees and asylum - seekers were at increasing risk of being forcibly returned to GPE . Some of those forcibly returned were detained and there were reports that some had been the victims of serious human rights violations , including torture .

In DATE , CARDINAL NORP nationals suspected of being NORP sympathisers were forcibly returned to GPE by the NORP authorities .

In DATE , CARDINAL NORP suspected of being NORP sympathisers were forcibly returned from GPE . [ CARDINAL of their ] applications for asylum were still under consideration when they were deported , while the other CARDINAL men were reportedly residing and working legally in GPE . Their whereabouts following their return to GPE were unknown . ”

There was no specific mention of forced returns of NORP nationals or of the treatment on return of failed asylum seekers .

In response to the present applicant ’s solicitor ’s query , ORG stated :

“ Thank you for your query about ORG current position on the return of failed asylum seekers to GPE .

ORG continues to be extremely concerned about the fate of rejected asylum seekers who have been returned to GPE following the establishment of air links .

ORG has followed up cases of forcible return to GPE since DATE . In all cases followed by ORG we either learned that the returned asylum seeker had been detained upon return and remains in detention or we were not able to receive any information . In several cases ORG has received confirmed information that the forcibly returned persons were subjected to serious human rights violations including torture .

In DATE , ORG expressed its concern about the decision by the NORP authorities to return CARDINAL NORP nationals to GPE . The people concerned had been detained in GPE on suspicion of being sympathisers of NORP groups . In DATE it was widely reported that CARDINAL of the men had been killed after their return . ORG I requested information from the NORP authorities concerning the alleged killings and detention , but received no response .

In the case of the asylum seeker PERSON , who was rejected in the GPE and forcibly returned in DATE , ORG has obtained information that he was detained following his return to GPE . ORG has expressed concern about his safety in communications to [ ORG ] ( in GPE ) and to the NORP authorities DATE and has requested to be informed about any findings concerning his whereabouts . We have , to date , received no such information .

It continues to be true that follow up of the situation of forcibly returned persons in GPE is very difficult . There are no independent human rights organisations existent in GPE , who could monitor cases of returnees . A climate of fear in GPE continues to prevent victims of human rights violations or their relatives from communicating information to the outside world , as they would be at risk of retaliation by the authorities .

In DATE CARDINAL political prisoners , including CARDINAL prisoners of conscience detained since DATE , were released . What can be considered as a positive step needs to be considered with caution : their release was long overdue , and the general situation remains dramatic . According to ORG information , CARDINAL of other political prisoners reportedly remain in prison .

In DATE , families of CARDINAL of prisoners were informed by the authorities that their relatives died in prison , but were not told the date or cause of death . Several cases of ‘ disappearance’ have still not been clarified . In DATE , CARDINAL possible prisoners of conscience were sentenced to death . Reports of torture continued to be received : no investigations are known to have been carried out . Legislation remains in force criminalising non - violent political activities and providing for unfair trials .

ORG is concern that information about the history of cases of asylum seekers and overstayers in the GPE is readily available to the NORP authorities . In the eyes of ORG , making a refugee claim is an act of opposition , and any government opponent is at risk of being brutally punished . ”

The most recent ORG on human rights’ practices in GPE was published on DATE . The report observes , in the introductory paragraphs , that :

“ The country maintained an extensive security apparatus , consisting of several elite military units , including PERSON ’s personal bodyguards , local ORG , ORG , and ‘ ORG . The result was a multilayered , pervasive surveillance system that monitored and controlled the activities of individuals . The various security forces committed numerous serious human rights abuses . ...

The Government ’s human rights record remained poor , and it continued to commit numerous , serious abuses . ORG did not have the right to change their government . PERSON used summary judicial proceedings to suppress domestic opposition . Security forces tortured prisoners during interrogations and as punishment . Prison conditions were poor . Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained persons , and many prisoners were held incommunicado . Many political detainees were held for DATE without charge or trial . The Government controlled the judiciary , and citizens did not have the right to a fair public trial or to be represented by legal counsel . The Government infringed on ORG privacy rights , and citizens did not have the right to be secure in their homes or persons , or to own private property . The Government restricted freedom of speech , press , assembly , association , and religion . The Government imposed some limits on freedom of movement . The Government prohibited the establishment of independent human rights organizations and of free trade unions . ... ”

Under the heading “ Exile ” the report stated :

“ The Government did not impose forced exile as a form of punishment , and it continued to encourage citizen dissidents abroad to return , promising to ensure their safety . It was unclear whether such promises were honored . During DATE , the Government continued to repatriate family members of suspected citizens who were members of the terrorist group PERSON . Students studying abroad have been interrogated upon their return ” .

The case concerned the proposed deportation to GPE of a NORP national and alleged supporter of the NORP movement PERSON GPE Al’Libya from ORG following the refusal of ORG ’s asylum application by the NORP authorities . ORG concluded :

“ ORG has pointed out that none of the CARDINAL arrests to which the complainant was subjected , were related to his political activities . It also submits that the complainant would not have been able to have his passport stamped on his departure from GPE if he had been exposed to persecution at that time and that the ORG medical report provides no objective indication that he was subjected to gross outrages . Furthermore , the events that motivated the author ’s departure date far back in time and his family has not been sought or harassed on account of the complainant since his brother ’s release in DATE . ORG considers , on the basis of the information provided , that the political activities that the complainant claims to have carried out , are not of such a nature as to conclude that he runs a real risk of being tortured upon his return . Indeed , he does not seem to be particularly exposed to persecution by the NORP authorities . ORG has stated that NORP citizens who return to GPE DATE after their legal or illegal departure are frequently detained and questioned , but then released after TIME .

On the basis of the above considerations , the ORG considers that the complainant has not proved his claim that there are substantial grounds to support his claim that he would risk torture if returned to GPE . ”

The applicant in that case was a NORP national convicted of a serious sexual offence in GPE . He was granted asylum in DATE but was subsequently convicted of another serious sexual offence , following which he was served with a deportation order . The Secretary of ORG had formed the view that the conditions prevailing at the time in GPE allowed his removal . The ORG rejected A ’s appeal , finding that although asylum had been granted because it was feared that the NORP authorities would impute opposition to the regime from the appellant ’s failure to return earlier :

“ However , there is no reason to suppose now that that is how the NORP authorities would see him . He would return as someone deported for having committed a serious crime , which would account for the fact of his return . He would have a ready and truthful account of why he had stayed in GPE DATE he was married on CARDINAL occasions to NORP citizens , the first marriage being in DATE before the call to return ; he had had CARDINAL children ; he had also served a substantial period in custody .

This would put him in a better position vis - à - vis the NORP authorities than those who simply returned as failed asylum seekers because it would provide truthful reasons for his absence and his return . ”

Moreover , it was correct to give “ very substantial weight ” to the assurances made in the above - mentioned ORG letter , given the high level of the Ambassador ’s contact and the Ambassador ’s judgement and experience in dealing with him . The ORG ’s decision continued :

“ We also concluded that the background evidence permitted and supported the conclusion that , in this particular instance , [ A ] could be safely returned .

The ORG letter of DATE referred to people seeking visas who had not returned immediately in DATE , most of whom did not appear to have had long term problems ; although this was his experience , there had been no monitoring and no numbers were provided . ORG refers to students generally being interrogated on return , but takes it no further than that and recognises the limitations on its sources .

Returning failed asylum seekers became in effect refugees because they were interrogated , and imprisoned for showing disloyalty as shown by the DATE ] CIPU Bulletin and [ another domestic case ] . That general proposition is not removed by ORG . There is some but unspecific evidence to the contrary from the NORP mission . But there is another factor of importance . As we have said , [ A ] would not return as a failed , or indeed , successful asylum seeker ; he would return with a truthful story as to his marriages and imprisonment . Further , there is more specific guidance as to how failed asylum seekers or deportees might be treated in the letter of DATE from the ORG ... : a claim of asylum would not lead to problems if it could be explained as being based for economic or other non - political reasons . If the NORP discovered or assumed that such a claim had been made , in the absence of actions against ORG , detention for any length of time was unlikely . Asylum seekers at large in GPE were known to ORG .

All this has to be set in the context of background evidence showing the continued detention of prisoners of conscience and the killing of some returned NORP asylum seekers . But the general picture is of a softening of political and social conditions , a notable drop in the number of political prisoners and an increased focus by the security agencies on specific opposition groups . [ A ] is not a member of any NORP group , which groups appear to be particularly targeted , nor is he a member of any opposition group . This is not to say that there is no risk ; it is rather that the specific assessment made for this Appellant is supported and not contradicted by the changing tone of the more recent background evidence . ”

It is not known if A requested leave to apply for judicial review of this decision .


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

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

A.

On DATE the police arrested red - handed CARDINAL persons who were carrying out a robbery at a bank in GPE . A third accomplice had escaped .

On DATE ORG attached to ORG requested that the applicant be remanded in custody on grounds that there was a serious indication of his guilt , the applicant having been identified on the basis of a video filmed during the robbery and recognised by QUANTITY police officers and by some others witnesses . Moreover , there was a significant risk that he would commit other similar offences , tamper with evidence , interfere with witnesses or abscond .

On DATE the Judge for Preliminary Investigations of Terni issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant .

The applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the Judge for Preliminary Investigations to revoke the decision to detain him on remand , arguing that there was no serious indication of guilt . The evidence submitted by the applicant included declarations from CARDINAL of his colleagues stating that on DATE of the robbery he was at work , transporting goods on behalf of his employer , together with invoices and tacograph print - outs .

On DATE the Judge for Preliminary Investigations rejected the application . Having found out that the tacograph of the truck was not functioning properly and the invoices had not been signed by the applicant , the Judge considered that the evidence submitted by the latter was not sufficient to eliminate the serious suspicion against him . Moreover , custody was the only way of preventing the risk of tampering with evidence or absconding .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision of the Judge for Preliminary Investigations . The outcome of these proceedings is not known .

On DATE , the CARDINAL persons charged together with the applicant made a statement to the effect that the applicant was innocent and implicated another person .

On DATE the Judge of ORG revoked the remand in custody and the applicant was accordingly released , since further investigations had led to the implication of another suspect .

On DATE , following the guilty plea of the latter , the Judge of Preliminary Investigations dismissed the charge against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the police officers who had recognised him “ beyond any doubt ” as the third person participating in the robbery and against ORG and the Judge of Preliminary Investigations who had remanded him in custody .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure set out the conditions of applicability of preventive measures , namely the existence of serious indications of guilt ( “ gravi indizi di colpevolezza ” ) in respect of a crime punishable with life imprisonment or detention for DATE .

LAW sets out the grounds for preventive measures namely : prevention of interference with the course of justice ( LAW ) , danger of flight ( CARDINAL ) and prevention of crime ( CARDINAL.c )

Under LAW of LAW , a person who has been detained in remand during a criminal prosecution is entitled to compensation if prosecution is discontinued or the accused is acquitted .

Under LAW , a person whose detention on remand has been found , in a final decision , to have been ordered or maintained in breach of ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure is entitled to compensation . In a judgement of DATE , no . DATE , ORG sitting in Plenary held that , when an applicant is released while his appeal against the decision to put him in detention on remand is still pending , he still has an interest to pursue the appeal in order to obtain a final determination that his detention on remand was unlawful , and this for the purpose of obtaining compensation in pursuance of LAW .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the Modra municipality sued the applicant before the Bratislava - vidiek ORG . The plaintiff sought to have a contract of lease terminated in respect of a flat which had been earlier allocated to the applicant .

DATE and DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings . The applicant did not appear . On CARDINAL occasions he informed the court that he was ill and on another two occasions he stated that his duties prevented him from attending the court hearings .

On DATE a different judge was assigned to deal with the case . A hearing was held on DATE at which the applicant failed to appear . ORG therefore imposed a fine on the applicant as well as on a witness who had also failed to appear .

At a hearing held on DATE the applicant appealed against the decision on a fine and he also challenged the ORG judge dealing with the case . The file was transmitted to ORG . On DATE the latter quashed the decision on the fine and refused to exclude ORG judge from dealing with the case .

The file was returned to ORG on DATE . A hearing was scheduled for DATE . The court had difficulties in serving the summons on the applicant . On DATE the applicant requested that the hearing be adjourned as he was ill .

On DATE the case was again adjourned due to the absence of the applicant . The court requested a doctor to submit information on the applicant ’s health . Both the applicant and the plaintiff ’s lawyer informed ORG that they could not attend a hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to jointly deal with the above case and an action of DATE seeking termination of the applicant ’s contract of lease on a different ground .

On DATE the applicant requested that a hearing scheduled for DATE be adjourned as he was ill .

On DATE the ORG heard the parties .

In the context of a reform of the judiciary the case was transferred to GPE ORG . The new judge received the file in DATE . In DATE she scheduled a hearing for DATE . On DATE the applicant informed the court that he was ill . The case was adjourned as both the applicant and the plaintiff had failed to appear .

On DATE the applicant made a counter - claim .

On DATE ORG heard the applicant . On DATE the applicant requested that a witness should be heard . Subsequently the case was transferred to a different judge .

A hearing was held on DATE .

On DATE and on DATE the case was adjourned due to the applicant ’s absence .

On DATE the Bratislava III ORG dismissed the action . The decision became final on DATE .

By a judicial decision which became final in DATE the applicant ’s former wife was ordered to pay a sum of money to the applicant .

On DATE , on the applicant ’s request of DATE , the Bratislava - vidiek ORG started enforcement proceedings in which the sum due was to be obtained by means of selling the defendant ’s car .

On DATE the defendant appealed . She alleged that she no longer owned the car in question . On CARDINAL DATE the appellate court upheld ORG decision on enforcement of the judgment in question . On CARDINAL DATE the new owner of the car requested that it should be excluded from the enforcement . In DATE the police withheld the documents relating to the car at the court ’s request .

On DATE the court heard the persons concerned . The defendant submitted a sales contract concerning the car in question and informed the court that she had started paying the debt to the applicant . Subsequently the case was transferred to a different judge . On DATE the judge requested that the parties should submit further information and documents . The applicant was asked to specify , inter alia , the outstanding sum which the defendant owed him .

On DATE the applicant informed the court that he did not agree to the instalments which the defendant had proposed to pay to him . On DATE ORG asked the applicant to submit further information including the sum which the defendant had already paid to him .

On DATE a different judge was assigned to deal with the case . On DATE the case was transferred to another judge .

DATE and DATE the file was submitted for examination to a judge dealing in a different set of proceedings with the applicant ’s claim for compensation against his former wife . On DATE the applicant requested that additional evidence should be taken .

On DATE the case was taken over by GPE ORG as the Bratislava - vidiek ORG had ceased to exist .

On DATE the President of GPE Court admitted , in reply to the applicant ’s complaint , that there had been undue delays in the proceedings . The letter stated that the judge dealing with the case had left the judiciary and that the vacant post had not yet been filled .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that the defendant had paid a part of the debt and specified the relevant sum . The court therefore discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of that sum .

On DATE the Bratislava III ORG found that the claim for enforcement was inadmissible as the defendant had sold the car in question on CARDINAL DATE . The sum due could not , therefore , be enforced as claimed by the applicant .

On DATE the Bratislava III ORG formally discontinued the enforcement proceedings which had been brought on CARDINAL DATE .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant married ORG In DATE ORG gave birth to their daughter , D.Z.

In DATE , following a conflict between the spouses , the applicant moved out of their place of residence .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) to regulate contact with his child .

On DATE the ORG allowed the application and regulated contact with the applicant 's daughter . In particular , the court granted him the right to visit his daughter on given days of DATE and to spend DATE with her in DATE without the presence of the child 's mother .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to seize his daughter 's passport . He reasoned his request by a reasonable fear that ORG , who had many contacts in NORP countries , could try to take their daughter to GPE . It is unclear from the case file whether the request was granted .

NORP On DATE , following an appeal by ORG , ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the decision of ORG of DATE .

The court 's order was not enforced and therefore , on DATE , the applicant requested the court to impose a fine on his former wife .

NORP In DATE the applicant 's former wife and their daughter moved from GPE to GPE , so the case file had to be transmitted to the court with jurisdiction there . The relevant decision was taken on DATE . However , the transfer did not take place until DATE .

On an unspecified date ORG filed for divorce . The issue of the applicant 's visiting rights was therefore examined by the divorce court .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision regulating the applicant 's contact with his daughter . In particular , the court granted him the right to visit his daughter every DATE TIME and TIME at a location other than the flat in which she lived with her mother . The applicant was also allowed to collect his daughter from kindergarten . The contact was to take place in the presence of a court officer ( kurator sądowy ) .

The decision of DATE was not complied with by the applicant 's former wife , who prevented the applicant from exercising his visiting rights .

DATE and DATE the applicant saw his daughter on CARDINAL occasions . A further CARDINAL meetings were cancelled for various reasons : CARDINAL for the daughter 's failure to appear , CARDINAL at ORG 's request , CARDINAL for the applicant 's failure to appear and CARDINAL for the guardian 's failure to appear .

On DATE , relying on LAW , the applicant requested the court to impose a fine on ORG

The applicant 's request was not examined by the court .

In DATE the applicant 's former wife moved from GPE to GPE , so ORG transmitted the case file concerning the application for a fine to be imposed on ORG to ORG .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision and gave ORG DATE to comply with the court order . At the same time the court conditionally imposed on her a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) in the event of default .

ORG continued to prevent the applicant from exercising his visiting rights .

On DATE the applicant again requested the court to impose a fine on his former wife .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG gave a new decision regulating the applicant 's visiting rights . The decision was similar to the previous one , but the court additionally obliged ORG to prepare the child to be picked up by his father on given dates ( przygotowania dziecka i wydania w terminie wyznaczonym ) .

On DATE ORG granted a divorce . It also indicated the manner in which the parental authority should be exercised . The court made a residence order under which the child was to live with her mother , but the applicant was granted visiting rights , in particular the right to visit his child on given days of DATE , without the presence of the mother and the right to spend DATE , DATE and DATE with his daughter . The court also ordered that all decisions crucial for the child 's upbringing were to be taken by both parents .

The judgment was not challenged by ORG

ORG still did not comply with the court order . She prevented the applicant from collecting his daughter from kindergarten ( by instructing the staff not to let the applicant collect the child ) and organised the child 's holidays in such a way that she was abroad with her mother or grandparents for the whole DATE .

On DATE the ORG imposed on ORG a fine of PLN CARDINAL for her failure to comply with the court 's order as regards the applicant 's visiting rights . The court also gave ORG DATE to make it possible for the applicant to exercise his visiting rights and held that , should she fail to comply with this order , another fine of FAC CARDINAL would be imposed on her .

On an unspecified date ORG appealed against this decision and , on DATE the decision was upheld by ORG .

NORP However , these decisions were once more not enforced .

On DATE the ORG again ordered ORG to pay the fine of PLN CARDINAL and gave her DATE to allow the applicant to exercise his visiting rights . The court also held that , should she fail to comply with its order , a further fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL would be imposed on her .

On DATE , following an appeal by ORG , ORG upheld that decision .

The court 's orders still remained unenforced .

On DATE the applicant again requested the court to impose a fine on ORG

On DATE the court fined ORG PLN CARDINAL .

On DATE M.N. appealed against that decision . It is unclear from the case file whether the decision of DATE was upheld by the second - instance court .

On DATE the ORG again regulated the applicant 's visiting rights and ordered that the contacts would take place in the ORG ( ORG ) in the presence of a psychologist , on DATE , TIME

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant requested the court to change the rules governing his contact with his daughter .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision and regulated the applicant 's visiting rights , ordering that contact should take place on DATE between TIME and CARDINAL p.m. , outside the applicant 's daughter 's place of residence . The court also ordered ORG not to disrupt this contact .

Both parties appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's contact with his daughter by ordering that it should take place TIME specified in ORG decision . The court dismissed ORG 's appeal .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision and ordered ORG to fulfil an obligation imposed on her in ORG decision of DATE and ORG decision of DATE under pain of a fine in the amount of ORG CARDINAL .

The applicant made several attempts to contact his daughter but , according to his submissions , the doors of the apartment where she lives were locked .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG for assistance in establishing the current address and place of residence of his daughter .

ORG submitted to the court a medical certificate indicating that she would not be able to appear before the court in person until DATE .

According to the applicant , he is deprived of any contact with his daughter .

DATE . On an unspecified date ORG tried to have criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant . She accused him of having sexually abused their daughter . According to an expert 's opinion the testimony of GPE had been influenced by a third party . The proceedings against the applicant were discontinued .

The relevant domestic law concerning the enforcement of a parent 's visiting rights is set out in the ORG 's judgment in the case of P.P. v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .

According to ORG resolution , if a parent who has been obliged by a court decision to respect the other parents ' contact rights refuses to comply with it , contact decisions are liable to enforcement proceedings . The provisions of LAW on enforcement of non - pecuniary obligations are applicable to enforcement of court decisions on parental rights or contact rights ( resolution of ORG of DATE , III CZP CARDINAL/CARDINAL , OSNCP CARDINAL DATE ) .

“ CARDINAL . If the debtor is obliged to take measures which can not be taken by any other person , the court in whose district the enforcement proceedings were instituted , on a motion of a creditor and after hearing the parties , shall fix the time - limit within which the debtor shall comply with his obligation , on pain of a fine ( ... ) .

If the debtor fails to comply with this obligation , further time - limits may be fixed and further fines may be imposed by a court . ”

If the court obliges a parent exercising custody rights to ensure access to a child to the other parent , LAW is applicable to the enforcement of this obligation .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows :

“ In CARDINAL decision the court may impose a fine not exceeding MONEY ( ORG ) unless the fine had been already imposed CARDINAL times and this had proved ineffective . The total amount of fines in the same case may not exceed LAW ( ... ) . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure in its relevant part provides as follows :

“ The court , while imposing a fine , shall at the same time impose an arrest in case the fine is not paid . DATE of arrest shall be equivalent to CARDINAL of fine . The total duration of arrest in the same case shall not exceed DATE . ”

On DATE ORG , in reply to a legal question asked by ORG , adopted a resolution ( III CZP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) which read as follows :

“ Decisions regulating contact between parents and a child , ordering the parent who has the custody of the child to put the child in the disposal of the other parent and ordering the other parent to return the child ( to accompany the child back ) , are enforced in the proceedings regulated in DATE and subsequent of LAW ”

Article CARDINAL of the DATE ORG ( ORG ) provides that if a person who is ordered to return a child does not comply with the court 's order , the court will instruct the guardian to forcibly remove the persons concerned ( przymusowe odebranie osoby ) .

Under Article CARDINAL ,

“ Upon a request of a court - appointed guardian , the police are obliged to help him or her to carry out the forcible removal of [ a minor ] . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ If forcible removal of [ a minor ] is hindered because that person is in hiding or because other action is taken with the aim of stopping the enforcement of the order , the court - appointed guardian shall inform a prosecutor . ”

Pursuant to DATE ,

“ § CARDINAL The court - appointed guardian , in carrying out the removal of [ a minor ] , shall be especially careful and shall do everything to ensure that the well - being of the child is not damaged and that [ he or she ] does not sustain physical or moral harm . If necessary , the guardian shall request the assistance of the social services or another institution tasked with this function .

§ CARDINAL If the well - being of [ a minor ] would be placed at risk as a result of the removal , the guardian shall stop the enforcement of the order until the risk is over , unless by stopping the enforcement , the person would be placed at greater risk . ”


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” or “ the Service ” ) informed a prosecutor that on DATE an officer at the ORG , PERSON , acting together with the applicant , who had been driving the car , and GPE , had committed a crime of fraud by simulating a car accident and later claiming payment from an insurance company .

DATE the prosecutor asked the ORG to open a pre - trial investigation on suspicion of fraud , in accordance with LAW hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) ( see Relevant Domestic Law below ) .

DATE the ORG opened the pre - trial investigation on the basis of LAW ORG .

On DATE , at TIME , CARDINAL men , who introduced themselves as officers of the Service , went to the applicant ’s workplace , the “ LOC ” restaurant , in GPE city centre . From then on , the applicant ’s and the Government ’s versions of events differ .

The applicant stated that the CARDINAL officers had asked her to accompany them and threatened to use restraining measures should she not comply . She had not been allowed to contact anyone by telephone , except for her supervisor . She had then been taken to the ORG car and driven to the GPE headquarters of the ORG . On arrival her handbag had been searched , her mobile telephone had been taken away and the officers had read her text messages . The officers had not returned the telephone to the applicant until DATE . Immediately after the search , the officers had started interrogating the applicant about the circumstances of the car accident of DATE . She had been threatened with loss of reputation , placement in a detention facility , conviction and loss of career opportunities , unless she gave them information necessary for the insurance fraud investigation . The officers had refused the applicant ’s request for a lawyer . They had also dismissed her request that a record be made of her questioning , saying that it was for them to decide “ what to write down and what not to ” . Likewise , the officers refused to explain to the applicant what her procedural status was at that moment .

The Government did not dispute that the ORG officers had gone to the applicant ’s workplace at TIME on DATE . However , the Government submitted that no force or threats had been used against the applicant ; she had merely been invited to accompany the officers for questioning .

According to the report of the applicant ’s provisional arrest , she was arrested at TIME . Even though the arrest took place while the applicant was at the FAC headquarters of the ORG , the arrest report specifies that she had been arrested “ at GPE international airport ” on suspicion of fraud . The report stated that it had been necessary to arrest the applicant because she might flee from the investigators or prosecutor , or commit further offences .

The officers also made a record of the personal search of the applicant , which stated that the search had been conducted CARDINAL TIME on DATE .

DATE the applicant was taken to a police detention facility ; her sister had been informed of her arrest .

NORP The same day at TIME the ORG arrested GPE and questioned him , as a suspect , about the circumstances surrounding the car accident and the suspected insurance fraud .

On DATE from CARDINAL to QUANTITY the ORG tried to question PERSON , as a suspect , about the car accident and insurance fraud , but PERSON refused to give any evidence .

After further questioning as a suspect on DATE , PERSON testified that the car had been driven by the applicant , but denied any involvement in the insurance fraud .

As it transpires from the report of the applicant ’s interrogation , on CARDINAL DATE from TIME , the ORG investigator questioned the applicant about the insurance fraud . At that time her procedural status was that of a suspect ; her lawyer was present at the questioning . The applicant refused to testify .

DATE at TIME the ORG investigator decided to release the applicant , because “ there were no reasons to keep her under arrest ” . He noted that the applicant “ had been arrested on DATE on the basis of LAW .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer complained to ORG that DATE his client had been arrested by the ORG officers in breach of LAW ORG . He also maintained that she “ had been questioned before being granted the status of a suspect ( nepareiškus PERSON įtarimo ) and forced to testify ” . The lawyer contended that the pre - trial investigation had not been within the ORG ’s competence and jurisdiction , as it was related to insurance fraud .

On DATE ORG replied that the pre - trial investigation had been opened in accordance with the domestic law . The reply did not say that the decision could be appealed against .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the ORG , ORG of ORG , the Attorney General and the Director of the ORG . She stated that on CARDINAL May at TIME , CARDINAL officers of the ORG had gone to her workplace at the “ LOC ” restaurant in GPE . She had been forced to leave with them , and had been taken to the ORG ’s GPE headquarters and questioned about the car accident . The applicant reiterated that the ORG officers had refused to record her questioning , had not explained her rights to her , and had not allowed her to make telephone calls . No one had answered her question whether she could leave ; nor had they explained what her procedural status was at that time . She had been threatened with conviction , placement in a detention facility , and the end of her career unless she agreed to confirm the ORG ’s account of the car accident . Relying on LAW , the applicant argued that her right to liberty had been breached . She maintained that the ORG officers had acted in an arbitrary fashion .

By a decision of DATE , ORG found no flaws or abuse of powers in the actions of the ORG officers and refused to open a pre - trial investigation into their actions . The prosecutor noted that the applicant had been arrested on DATE at “ QUANTITY CARDINAL ” , as stated in the provisional arrest report . The following day she had been served with notice of suspicion of the crime of fraud and had been questioned as a suspect from TIME Therefore the applicant ’s allegation that she had been questioned without a record being drawn up was false . Lastly , the prosecutor held that it was only because of “ a technical mistake ” that the report of the applicant ’s arrest had specified her place of arrest as FAC .

The decision stipulated that it could be appealed against to an investigating judge . The applicant did not appeal against the decision .

On DATE and DATE , the applicant lodged complaints with ORG .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant ’s complaint valid . He noted that under LAW of the ORG investigating officers had the possibility to call a person for questioning orally , without notifying him about it in writing . This could be done , for example , by a telephone call or via family members of the person invited . He stressed that the provision simply referred to the “ transfer of a message ( informacijos perdavimas ) ” that a person ought to come for questioning . However , in the applicant ’s case , on DATE at CARDINAL , the ORG officers had not merely conveyed a message to her , but had in fact taken her in [ by force , atvesdino ] or even arrested her . On this point the ORG also referred to the written reply by the Head of ORG to the effect that the officers who went to the applicant ’s workplace had demanded ( buvo pareikalauta ) that she go with them so that she could not contact the other suspects and thereby obstruct the investigation .

In the same written reply to the ORG , the Head of ORG also said that once the applicant had been taken to their headquarters , she had told the officers that she knew nothing about the car accident ; accordingly , she had not been questioned as a witness . For the ORG , however , the ORG officers’ actions when trying to find out whether the applicant knew anything about the crime they were investigating had been nothing less than questioning . Such questioning had to be recorded in writing , in accordance with LAW ORG . Given that no record of questioning had been drawn up until TIME , the ORG considered that , until that time , the applicant had been held at the ORG headquarters without a reason , and thus unlawfully .

The ORG further noted that CARDINAL TIME the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of having committed fraud and on the ground that she might attempt to abscond from the investigation . No sufficiently strong evidence had been submitted to him to justify the applicant ’s arrest . Furthermore , the prosecutor in charge of the investigation had not subsequently asked a court to sanction the applicant ’s detention . Lastly , for the ORG , there was no reasonable explanation as to why the fraud relating to the car accident should have been investigated by the ORG officers .

Whilst conceding that it was not within his competence to assess the validity of the actions taken during the pre - trial investigation , on the basis of above considerations the ORG concluded that the conduct of the ORG investigators had had the sole aim of exerting psychological pressure on the applicant .

The ORG also considered that the actions of the ORG officers had given rise to a suspicion that they had committed a crime . As a result , he notified ORG about the matter . The Minister of the ORG was also to be informed about the episode so that such incidents could be avoided in future .

In their reply of DATE to a complaint lodged by the applicant on DATE , the ORG noted that the applicant ’s allegations about abuse of power by its officers when arresting her had already been dismissed by the prosecution . The officers who had taken part in the applicant ’s arrest and their superiors had nevertheless been urged to take into consideration the ORG ’s conclusions and to ensure that similar incidents were not repeated in future .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , criminal proceedings against PERSON for insurance fraud were discontinued because of his death . For the same reason , proceedings against PERSON in respect of other charges pending against him ( for forgery of an official document and smuggling people over the State border ) were also terminated .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE , the pre - trial investigation into the charges of fraud by the applicant was discontinued . The prosecutor noted that the applicant had been notified that she was suspected of the crime on CARDINAL DATE . However , she had refused to testify on those charges . Neither GPE nor ORG had confirmed the applicant ’s involvement in the crime . As the applicant and PERSON had been friends , it could be only assumed that she had known about the fraud . Yet , this mere assumption was not sufficient evidence to prove her guilt .

On DATE the Vilnius City ORG found that ORG had committed fraud by simulating a car accident on DATE . However , the court relieved GPE of criminal liability as he had fully acknowledged his guilt and settled with the insurance company .

The applicant instituted civil proceedings for the damage sustained as a result of her allegedly unlawful arrest and questioning . She argued that the ORG officers had exceeded their powers , because it was not within their competence to investigate crimes concerning road accidents . The applicant maintained that by being arrested at her workplace she had been humiliated in front of her colleagues and her reputation had been tarnished . Her arrest had been made public in the newspapers and on television . Her family and friends had learned about it , which had affected her relationship with them . The applicant maintained that on DATE she had been interrogated at the ORG headquarters and forced to incriminate herself . No lawyer had been present , her rights had not been explained to her and she had not been allowed to make a telephone call . She complained that her rights under LAW had been violated and claimed CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL ) for pecuniary damage , LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage and LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL for litigation costs .

At ORG hearing on DATE , the applicant ’s employer , the manager of the ORG restaurant , testified that on CARDINAL May he had received a telephone call from her . The applicant had explained that she had been arrested because of a car accident . He said that there were “ such stereotypes in society that after someone has been arrested , others regard them with considerable suspicion ” . CARDINAL waitresses who had been working with the applicant the day “ when the applicant was arrested ” testified that “ the applicant was taken away quickly ” , the officers “ showed identification of some kind ” and “ demanded that the applicant went with them ” , CARDINAL waitress had seen “ how the officers took the applicant with them ” . The applicant ’s colleagues also testified that the events had surprised them , and , although for DATE they had remained without a supervisor , “ there was no panic among the colleagues , but they asked each other what had happened . Everyone was interested to know what had happened ” . The applicant ’s lawyer maintained that his client had been taken from her workplace by force . He also argued that such actions in front of the applicant ’s colleagues had stained her reputation . The applicant had left her job DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims . It found that the applicant had been suspected of having committed fraud and arrested for fear that she would flee from justice or commit new crimes . The ORG officers had jurisdiction in the applicant ’s case on the basis of the prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court also referred to the ORG ’s judgment in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-IV ) to the effect that the fact that the applicant ’s case had not gone to trial at a later stage did not mean that her arrest during the criminal investigation had been unlawful as such . The prosecutor ’s decision to discontinue the pre - trial investigation in respect of the applicant did not mean that the investigative measures had been unlawful , since the pre - trial investigation had been discontinued because of lack of evidence .

The first - instance court noted that reports of the applicant ’s arrest and questioning as a suspect had been made “ after the applicant ’s arrest ” , although the court did not specify the exact time when the arrest had taken place . Moreover , as the applicant had conceded at the hearing , “ on DATE of her arrest ” she had been allowed to have a lawyer . Lastly , the court noted that the applicant ’s claims about her arbitrary arrest and questioning had been dismissed by the prosecutor and the ORG on CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively .

The applicant appealed , reiterating her complaint about abuse of powers by the ORG . In the applicant ’s view , it was not logical to have her arrested DATE after the car accident . The reason given to justify her arrest and detention – that she might hide from the investigators – had been even more preposterous given that there had been no evidence that she intended to flee . She invoked LAW .

At ORG hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer argued that his client had been arrested at her workplace and detained for DATE , partly in the ORG ’s GPE headquarters . She had been pressured to give evidence against PERSON The ORG officers had acted outside their jurisdiction .

The representatives of the ORG , which was the defendant in the civil proceedings for damages , maintained that the ORG did have jurisdiction to investigate the crime of insurance fraud . The applicant had been arrested “ on CARDINAL May ” and charged with fraud “ on CARDINAL May ” . Above all , they stressed that the applicant had been merely “ invited ” to accompany the ORG officers when they had arrived at her workplace . No incidents took place at the “ LOC ” restaurant and the applicant had accompanied the officers calmly .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG concurred with the lower court ’s conclusion that the prosecutor ’s decision to discontinue criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant did not mean that her arrest had been unlawful as such . Moreover , the proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued because of lack of evidence and not for reasons of rehabilitation . The appellate court noted that the applicant ’s complaints that the ORG officers had abused their powers had been dismissed by the prosecutor . That being so , the court nevertheless emphasised that it had competence to hear the applicant ’s civil claim for damages , even though she had not appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision to drop the criminal charges against the officers . On this point it referred to ORG ruling in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG also held that “ on DATE the applicant had been arrested at QUANTITY ” According to the court , the applicant had not been arrested at her workplace ; the officers had merely “ invited ” her to go with them for questioning , in accordance with LAW of LAW . There was no evidence in the case file that by inviting the applicant for questioning in the manner regulated by the above provision , the ORG officers had breached the law . For the court , “ the fact that before arresting her , notifying her of the charges and questioning her as a suspect [ all at TIME ] , the officers had discussed with her the circumstances relating to a pre - trial investigation , without making a record of that conversation , did not disclose any unlawfulness , because a conversation [ between the applicant and the officers ] and questioning were CARDINAL separate notions ” . Accordingly , the appellate court dismissed the applicant ’s civil claim , which she had based on LAW and LAW .

The applicant lodged CARDINAL appeals on points of law , which , on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , ORG refused to examine as raising only questions of fact and thus giving no grounds for cassation .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE provides that the freedom of a human being is inviolable . No one may be arbitrarily detained or arrested . No one may be deprived of his freedom , except on grounds and according to procedures established by law . A person detained in flagrante delicto must be brought before a court within TIME for the purpose of obtaining a decision , in the presence of the detainee , on the validity of the detention . If the court does not decide that the detainee should be arrested , he or she will be released immediately .

NORP In an opinion of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that LAW was in compliance with LAW .

DATE LAW provides that a person suspected of committing a crime will be guaranteed , from the moment of his or her detention or first questioning , the right to defend himself and the right to a lawyer .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides for criminal liability for fraud . The offence is punishable by community service , a fine , restriction of liberty , arrest , or imprisonment for a term of DATE . A pre - trial investigation of the crime of fraud may be started only on the basis of a complaint by a victim or by a prosecutor ’s order ( LAW ) .

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a witness is any person who has knowledge about circumstances relevant to a criminal case ( Article CARDINAL ) . A witness has the right to have an audio or video recording made of his testimony . He has the right to read the record of his testimony , make corrections and write his own testimony ( LAW and CARDINAL ) . Anyone called as a witness must testify before the pre - trial investigation officer , failing which he may be fined or arrested ( Articles DATE and CARDINAL ) .

A prosecutor or an investigator may provisionally arrest a person caught in flagrante delicto . Provisional arrest is also possible if there is a reasonable assumption that the person may obstruct the course of justice by influencing other suspects or commit further offences . Provisional arrest may last up to TIME without the authorisation of a judge ( ORG and CARDINAL ) .

The Code of Criminal Procedure also provides that any investigative measure , such as the questioning of a witness or suspect , must be recorded . The measure may be documented by audio or video recording or by other means . The record must be drawn up while the investigative measure is being taken ( tyrimo veiksmo metu ) or immediately thereafter . The record must state the place and time of the measure and the persons present . The investigating officer and all those present must sign the record . If the person in respect of whom the measure was taken refuses to sign the record , this must also be noted in the record ( LAW ) .

Concerning the way in which a person may be called for questioning , LAW reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A person shall be called for questioning by summons . The summons shall indicate : the person to be summoned and for what purpose , the place and to whom he is being summoned , the date and time when he has to appear , and the consequences of failure to appear , as provided for in LAW .

A person may also be summoned for questioning by telephone or in any other way . In such cases , coercive procedural measures provided for in LAW may not be taken for failure to appear . ”

The Code then defines the rules for questioning witnesses and suspects . Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that before questioning a witness , an investigator must explain his rights to him under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW , as well as liability for false testimony . The witness confirms that he has understood by signing the record . The investigator then asks the witness to tell everything he knows about the case . Lastly , the witness ’s testimony is recorded in accordance with LAW ( see above ) .

Before questioning a suspect , an investigator must tell him what crime he is suspected of and explain his rights to him ( LAW . The suspect is then asked whether he confesses and is offered the opportunity to testify about the circumstances of the crime . As in the case of witnesses , his questioning is recorded in accordance with the requirements of LAW .

The PERSON on ORG provides that when exercising the pre - trial investigation functions assigned to it , the ORG operates in the entire territory of ORG LAW ) . Upon receiving information that a crime may have taken place , a prosecutor decides which pre - trial investigation institution is competent to carry out a particular investigation , and assigns the case to it . Afterwards , the designated institution may take all the investigative measures provided for by LAW ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of that Code ) .

As regards civil liability for damages , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that damage caused as a result of unlawful arrest as a measure of oppression , from unlawful detention , or the application of unlawful procedural measures of enforcement , will be compensated fully by the ORG , irrespective of whether the officials involved in the preliminary investigation or prosecution were at fault . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL stipulates that in addition to compensation for pecuniary damage , the aggrieved person is entitled to compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG ruled that LAW was a directly applicable legal norm . A court of civil jurisdiction could rely on it irrespective of whether the procedural measures which had allegedly caused damage to the plaintiff had been challenged in other [ criminal ] proceedings . Furthermore , even if in criminal proceedings it had been established that the measures taken by the pre - trial investigators had been lawful , a civil court was free to find that those measures had caused damage to the claimant if all the circumstances examined in the civil proceedings so proved ( ruling in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Concerning civil liability and redress , ORG , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL , held as follows :

“ When deciding the question of redress within the meaning of LAW , ... the parties must prove all the circumstances by which they justify their claims , except where the claims are based on circumstances that [ do not have to be proven ] . These circumstances are listed in LAW . ORG has held that facts established by the decisions of the pre - trial investigation institutions ( prosecutors ) , contrary to those established by a court judgment or decision , are not binding ( prejudiciniai ) within the meaning of Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ... Therefore , according to the statutory regulations and the case - law of the courts , the court deciding questions concerning the redress provided for by LAW , where the claim for redress has been lodged regarding a remand measure unlawfully imposed by a pre - trial investigation officer , may justify its findings with any factual data , on the basis of which it shall establish the circumstances substantiating the claims of the parties and other circumstances relevant for the resolution of the case ... ”