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

A.

The applicant ’s requests to institute criminal proceedings against third parties

In DATE ORG discontinued criminal proceedings against PERSON , who lived in the house purchased by the applicant . In DATE the court imposed fines on other members of the same family for assault , unlawful entry to the applicant ’s home and for insulting the applicant . In DATE ORG discontinued criminal proceedings against another member of the PERSON family .

On DATE ORG discontinued criminal investigations agains a certain PERSON on suspicion of uttering threats against the applicant .

On DATE ORG refused to institute , on the applicant ’s request , criminal proceedings against various persons , finding that they had no case to answer and that the altercations between these persons and the applicant had originated against the background of a long - standing conflict between him and the tenants of apartments in the building of which he was the owner .

On DATE ORG discontinued investigations concerning allegations that various criminal offences had been committed against the applicant .

Administrative proceedings concerning the construction permit for the annex to the applicant ’s house

In DATE ORG ordered the applicant to demolish the annex to his house which he had built , considering that he had not obtained the required construction permit .

In DATE the decision of ORG was set aside as the applicable laws did not require a permit for a construction of an annex which would not significantly enlarge the original building .

Criminal proceedings concerning an alleged offence against construction laws

In DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of an offence against construction laws and imposed a fine on him . The applicant apparently requested that the case be reconsidered by a court in criminal proceedings .

In DATE ORG decided that an expert opinion of psychiatrists be obtained in order to establish the applicant ’s mental health at the time of the critical events .

On DATE the police arrested the applicant and brought him to PERSON psychiatric hospital . He was discharged from the hospital on DATE . Apparently , the criminal proceedings concerning the charges were later discontinued .

Criminal proceedings concerning charges of offences committed in DATE

In DATE ORG ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric observation in the context of criminal proceedings on suspicion of coercion and destruction of property committed by removing windows from the apartments of tenants living in his house . In DATE ORG hospital invited the applicant to report for examination . As the applicant refused to comply , in DATE he was arrested by the police and brought to the hospital . He was discharged after DATE . Later in DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant was submitted to ORG .

On DATE this court ordered that the applicant should be examined in a mental hospital , the opinion prepared on the basis of his stay in hospital in DATE not reflecting his current health . As he refused to comply , on DATE the police arrested him and brought him to PERSON psychiatric hospital . He was discharged on DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of coercion and defamation , and imposed on him a fine of CARDINAL PLZ ( old ) . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . On DATE the Minister of ORG refused to lodge an extraordinary appeal against it .

Criminal proceedings concerning charges relating to offences committed in DATE

On DATE ORG charged the applicant with coercion , destruction of property , exposure to loss of health , assault and defamation . On DATE the charges against the applicant were supplemented by further ones . On the whole , he was charged with commission of CARDINAL offences . The Prosecutor ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination on an out - patient basis . As the psychiatrists found that it was impossible to give an objective assessment of the applicant ’s health on the basis of CARDINAL examination and as the applicant refused to comply with the order , on DATE the Prosecutor ordered that he should be placed in ORG psychiatric hospital for DATE observation . This decision was later quashed on the request of the hospital and the applicant ’s examination in ORG hospital was ordered . The applicant was invited to report to the hospital for examination , but he refused .

Apparently later the case was transferred to the office of ORG . On DATE the applicant was arrested on the order of ORG . On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody . He lodged an appeal against the detention order , however , and following a decision by ORG allowing his appeal , he was released on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG sent an indictment against the applicant to ORG .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against the applicant . The ORG found that the applicant had in his numerous letters proffered insults against various persons , including judges , prosecutors , agents of the ORG administration and psychiatrists involved in his psychiatric observations . However , the court observed that the applicant had been involved in many proceedings in which he had acquired a profound conviction that he had become a victim of an insidious and widespread conspiracy against him , and that , as a result , he developed a very strong negative emotional attitude towards the persons acting in their official capacity of ORG organs , bordering on psychosis . Thus , his actions could be regarded as being subjectively justified . On the objective side , the court analysed the applicant ’s conduct and considered that , despite its repetitive character and the violence of his verbal insults , it could not be considered as representing a serious danger , and in view thereof found that the applicant had no case to answer .

Proceedings concerning the applicant ’s claim for compensation for wrongful detention from CARDINAL to DATE

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG an action against ORG , claiming compensation for unjustified arrest on DATE and for detention on remand from DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim , finding that the arrest had been justified . The applicant lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG set aside the decision under appeal and awarded to the applicant compensation of CARDINAL PLZ ( old ) . The court found that the Prosecutor had informed the applicant , by a letter of DATE , that the date of his psychiatric examination had been fixed for DATE at TIME The Prosecutor had further warned the applicant that in case of his failure to comply with the summons , he would be taken to the hospital by the police . On DATE the Prosecutor ordered the police to arrest the applicant on DATE . The ORG considered that this order had in fact made it impossible for the applicant to comply with the summons to the hospital . The ORG further noted that , given that the criminal proceedings against the applicants had not been conducted diligently and that the applicant had been already questioned on several occasions by the Prosecutor , there was no indication that his arrest was , as argued by the Prosecutor in the order imposing detention on remand , necessary in order to secure the proper course of criminal proceedings . Moreover , there were no indications that the applicant ’s remaining at liberty would jeopardise the proper conduct of the proceedings in any manner . The court concluded that the applicant ’s detention was unjustified and in breach of the provisions concerning arrest and detention on remand .

Subsequently the Minister of ORG General lodged an extraordinary appeal against this judgment with ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the Minister ’s extraordinary appeal , quashed the decision of DATE , considering that in the view of the applicant ’s repeated refusals to comply with the summonses to psychiatric examinations , his arrest and detention had been justified .

Criminal proceedings concerning charges of uttering threats , instituted in DATE

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having uttered threats . On DATE the applicant was charged with uttering threats .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant should be examined by CARDINAL psychiatrists and a psychologist so that his mental condition could be established .

By a letter of DATE ORG invited the applicant to report to ORG psychiatric hospital on DATE . On DATE the Prosecutor issued an order for the police to carry out the applicant ’s arrest on DATE .

On DATE at CARDINAL QUANTITY the applicant was arrested by the police . Later the police brought him to ORG hospital . He was discharged from the hospital at CARDINAL . TIME Apparently the applicant was later examined by a psychologist , who , in a report of CARDINAL DATE , concluded that he could be suffering from a situational paranoid syndrome .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of uttering threats , considered that the applicant had at the critical time a diminished ability to understand the meaning of his acts , and sentenced him to a fine of CARDINAL PLZ ( new ) .

The applicant lodged an appeal . On DATE ORG imposed on him a fine of CARDINAL PLZ , considering that the appeal contained vulgar insults of the court .

On DATE ORG set the judgment under appeal aside and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant . The court found that the findings of fact made by the lower court were well founded . The court went on to state that , taking into account the applicant ’s personal situation , the long - standing conflict between the applicant and the victims , the fact that the material events had occurred in broad daylight and in a public place so it had not been likely that the victims could have had a justified fear that he would realise his threats , the danger of the offence was minimal and the proceedings should be discontinued .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Suwałki Regional Court a civil action for compensation for his arrest on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action .

The applicant lodged an appeal . He claimed in particular that he should be awarded compensation in a sum of CARDINAL PLZ .

On DATE ORG amended the decision under appeal in that it awarded to the applicant a compensation of CARDINAL PLZ . The court observed that on DATE the Prosecutor had ordered that a psychiatric opinion be obtained as to the applicant ’s mental health . In DATE the applicant had failed to comply with the summons for an out - patient examination . By a letter of DATE the Prosecutor invited the applicant to report to a hospital for an examination , and on DATE he ordered the police to proceed to the applicant ’s arrest in order to ensure that he be examined on DATE . The court considered that the ORG had thereby made it impossible for the applicant to comply with its own invitation to come to the examination of the applicant ’s own free will , which was clearly not in accordance with the purposes of arrest as set out by the applicable legal provisions . The court further observed that in the light of these provisions arrest had to be resorted to with prudence , as it was a coercive measure leading to a deprivation of liberty . In the present case , the applicant ’s arrest could have been lawfully ordered not earlier than on DATE , i. e , had it become already clear that the applicant had failed to report to the hospital as requested by the ORG ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE . The court referred to LAW ( b ) of the LAW and stated that in the light of the foregoing considerations , the applicant ’s arrest had been arbitrary and , consequently , it was not compatible with that provision of the LAW .

On thesatisfaction .

The applicant apparently lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment . On DATE the prosecutor likewise lodged such an appeal . The cassation proceedings are apparently pending .

Civil proceedings lodged by ORG in which the applicant was a defendant

In DATE ORG lodged with ORG an action against the applicant claiming restitution of a plot of land on which the applicant had begun building of an annex and which was the property of the municipality .

In a judgment of DATE ORG ordered the applicant and his wife to restore to the municipality CARDINAL plots of land of QUANTITY , having found that these plots , which were used by the defendants , constituted the property of the municipality .

The applicant lodged an appeal , claiming that he had purchased the litigious land from a third party and , consequently , that these plots should remain in his possession .

On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .

On DATE the Minister of ORG refused to lodge an extraordinary appeal against this judgment , finding that it was in conformity with the law .

Civil proceedings against the NORP ORG

On DATE the applicant ’s wife lodged with ORG a civil action against the NORP ORG , claiming that her and the applicant ’s property be connected to the gas supply installations from which it had been disconnected following his failure to pay certain sums due . Later on the applicant submitted a power of attorney to the court authorising him to represent his wife in the proceedings .

A hearing was held on DATE .

On DATE ORG imposed a fine of CARDINAL PLZ on the applicant for having insulted the court in CARDINAL of his pleadings .

On DATE a hearing was held .

At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE ORG imposed on the applicant a disciplinary penalty of DATE of imprisonment , apparently for proffering insults against the court .

On DATE the court dismissed the claim of the applicant ’s wife .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in order to serve the penalty imposed by a decision of CARDINAL DATE . He was released on DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal lodged by the applicant ’s wife against the judgment of DATE , quashed this judgment and ordered that the case be reconsidered .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s wife ’s action . She lodged an appeal . On DATE ORG dismissed it .

On DATE ORG rejected the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant as it did not comply with the applicable legal requirements in that it had not been submitted and signed by a lawyer .

On DATE the same court exempted the applicant ’s wife from the court fees and ordered that she should be assigned a lawyer paid by the legal aid scheme . Apparently later the lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with ORG . The cassation proceedings are pending .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim for compensation against the ORG for damage caused by allegedly unlawful detention in a psychiatric hospital from CARDINAL to DATE and on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against this judgment . Cassation proceedings are pending before ORG .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - General measures);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and are married to each other .

NORP In DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicants were granted disability pensions by ORG Republički fond za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje zaposlenih ; hereinafter “ the SPDIF ” ) – Branch Office in GPE .

Having lived in GPE for DATE , in DATE they moved to ORG , GPE proper ( i.e. the territory of GPE excluding GPE ) , as documented in their personal identity cards issued by the respondent ORG ’s ORG ( ORG unutrašnjih poslova ) .

The first and second applicants regularly received their pensions until DATE and DATE , respectively , when the DATE payments stopped without any explanation having been provided by the ORG .

On DATE the applicants sought that the payment of their pensions be resumed .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the ORG adopted formal decisions to suspend payment of the ORG pensions as of DATE and DATE , retroactively . In so doing , it noted that GPE was now under international administration which was why the pensions could no longer be paid .

NORP By CARDINAL separate judgments of DATE ORG ( Okružni sud ) in ORG annulled ( poništio ) the impugned decisions , noting , inter alia , that they did not refer to the relevant domestic law or provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the payment of the ORG pensions should be suspended . In respect of the latter , ORG effectively re - stated parts of ORG Opinion of DATE , but did not formally cite it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The ORG thereafter filed CARDINAL separate appeals on points of law ( dva zasebna zahteva za vanredno preispitivanje presude ) in respect of ORG rulings of DATE . In its appeal as regards the second applicant the ORG , inter alia , stated that , since the respondent ORG has been unable to collect any pension insurance contributions in GPE as of DATE , persons who had already been granted ORG pensions in this territory could not continue receiving them . In support of this position the ORG cited ORG ( ORG socijalna pitanja ) of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and noted that it considered this opinion binding .

On DATE and DATE ORG ( PERSON ) rejected the said appeals on points of law . Whilst the appeal as regards the second applicant was rejected as incomplete , the same remedy concerning the first applicant was rejected on its merits . In the latter case , ORG confirmed the impugned decision of ORG .

By means of CARDINAL separate decisions of DATE the ORG suspended the proceedings instituted on the basis of the applicants’ requests for the resumption of payment of their pensions until such time , as stated in the operative provisions , when the entire issue shall be resolved between the NORP authorities and the international administration in GPE . The PERSON decisions had an appearance of printed templates where merely the applicants’ names , their place of residence and case identification data were entered by hand .

The applicants maintain that they filed administrative appeals against these decisions . The Government contests this claim . The applicants have provided the ORG with copies of postal certificates indicating that correspondence of some sort had been sent to the ORG , as well as ORG ( Ministarstvo rada , zapošljavanja i socijalne politike ) , but have not supplied the ORG with copies of the appeals in question .

Without formally deciding to resume the stayed proceedings , on DATE the ORG requested ( zaključkom o obezbeđenju dokaza ) the applicants to provide them with the decisions granting their pensions . It would appear that the applicants complied with this request . They have also provided this ORG with copies of the decisions in question .

There seem to have been no procedural developments thereafter .

In DATE GPE was placed under international administration .

The applicants submitted that all ethnically NORP pensioners from GPE had continued receiving their pensions normally , as have many NORP , GPE , NORP and NORP . They further contended that they also could have solved their pension problem had they been willing to “ bribe those in charge ” .

On DATE ORG , in response to a prior query , informed GPE ’s ORG that the pension system in GPE was based on the concept of “ ongoing financing ” . Specifically , pensions were secured through current pension insurance contributions . It followed that since the NORP authorities have been unable to collect any such contributions in GPE as of DATE , persons who had already been granted ORG pensions in GPE also could not expect , for the time being , to continue receiving them . Further , the ORG noted the adoption of Regulation CARDINAL/CARDINAL on pensions in GPE , providing for a separate pension system for persons living in the territory ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE , following the destruction of their house , the applicants moved from ORG to ORG located in GPE proper .

On DATE the ORG certified , inter alia , that the first applicant ’s maiden family name had been PERSON .

Both applicants are suffering from serious heart - related conditions , and are living under very difficult financial circumstances . They maintain , however , that they have never applied for pensions in GPE .

Article ORG provides , inter alia , that administrative proceedings before the ORG may be reopened , at the request of the insured person or ex proprio motu , if new relevant facts or evidence become known or if in the original proceedings such facts or evidence were not presented .

Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that one ’s pension and disability rights shall be terminated if it transpires that one no longer meets the original statutory requirements . However , should an entitled pensioner secure an additional pension before another pension and disability insurance fund established by CARDINAL of the other GPE formed in the territory of the former GPE , his or her pension paid by the ORG , unless stipulated otherwise by an international agreement , shall be reassessed ( recalculated ) based on the pensionable employment period ( penzijski staž ) already taken into account by the former .

Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the ORG ’s assets consist of : pension and disability insurance contributions ; its own property ; earmarked sums in the States’ budget ; subsidies and donations , return on various investments ; and a certain portion of the funds obtained through the privatisation of ORG - owned and socially - owned capital .

These decisions set out details concerning the procedural competence of various branches of the ORG as regards the entitlements of insured persons from GPE .

These Opinions state , inter alia , that the pension system in GPE is based on the concept of “ ongoing financing ” . Specifically , pensions are secured through current pension insurance contributions . Since the NORP authorities have been unable to collect any such contributions in GPE as of DATE , persons who have been granted ORG pensions in GPE also can not expect , for the time being , to continue receiving them . Further , it is noted that Regulation CARDINAL/CARDINAL on pensions in GPE , adopted by ORG , provides for a separate pension system for persons living in the territory , which in itself amounts to a serious issue ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG ( ORG ) has consistently held that Opinions and ORG issued by various Government ministries do not amount to legislation ( ne predstavljaju propis ili opšti pravni akt ) , and are instead merely meant to facilitate the implementation thereof ( see , for example , ORG of DATE and IUo-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) .

NORP In response to the situation in GPE , this ORG states , inter alia , that one ’s recognised right to a pension may only be restricted on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In view of LAW , one ’s recognised pension rights can not either depend on whether or not current pension insurance contributions can be collected in a given territory ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG further explains that administrative proceedings ( upravni postupak ) and , if needed , judicial review proceedings ( upravni spor ) would be the appropriate avenue to challenge any restriction of one ’s pension rights .

Lastly , the ORG notes that the civil courts shall , in this context , only be competent to adjudicate cases involving claims of malfeasance ( nezakonit i nepravilan rad ) on the part of the ORG .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL provide , inter alia , that judicial review proceedings may be brought against an administrative decision issued by a competent ORG body or public authority .

Article CARDINAL provides that should a second instance administrative body fail to decide on an appeal filed DATE , and should it again fail to do so in DATE , upon receipt of the claimant ’s repeated request to this effect , the latter may directly institute a judicial review suit , i.e. as if his or her appeal had been rejected .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the competent court may not only quash the impugned administrative act but may also rule on the merits of the plaintiff ’s claim , should the facts of the case and the very nature of the dispute in question allow for this particular course of action .

Article CARDINAL provides that statutory interest shall be paid as of the date of maturity of a recognised monetary claim in NORP dinars until the date of its settlement .

Article CARDINAL states that such interest shall be calculated on the basis of the official consumer price index plus another PERCENT DATE .

These regulations provide for a separate pension system whereby , inter alia , all persons “ habitually residing ” in GPE , aged DATE or above , shall have the right to a “ basic pension ” .

On DATE ORG adopted this LAW which , essentially , endorsed the pension system as set up by the two Regulations cited above but transferred the functional competencies from ORG in GPE to the Kosovan authorities .


Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated in respect of the applicant , who was suspected of fraud .

On DATE he was taken into custody . He was released on DATE . An obligation not to leave his place of residence was imposed on him .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant ’s property , including his share in a house and his bank accounts , was attached . CARDINAL of the bank accounts was released on DATE ; the house was attached until DATE . The remaining bank accounts were released by a judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE the applicant was committed for trial before ORG .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of fraud .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was acquitted by ORG . It was noted in the judgment that the applicant had no right to compensation under LAW ( Riigi poolt isikule alusetult vabaduse võtmisega tekitatud kahju hüvitamise seadus ) for the period of detention from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , since his detention had been ordered because he had evaded the criminal proceedings ; in such a case the law did not provide for compensation .

On DATE ORG declined to accept an appeal lodged by ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim for compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage he had allegedly sustained as a result of the criminal proceedings . ORG was of the opinion that the length of the proceedings before the courts DATE and DATE had not been excessive , and that DATE of that period were attributable to the applicant .

NORP On DATE the Police and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) rejected a claim by the applicant for compensation . In respect of the deprivation of liberty it was noted that the applicant had not appealed against ORG judgment whereby it had been determined that he was not entitled to compensation . With regard to the criminal proceedings , it was found that the case had been complicated and that no unlawful measures had been taken in respect of the applicant . ORG considered that no non - pecuniary or pecuniary damage had been proved that would justify an award of compensation . The applicant was informed in the ORG ’s refusal that a complaint against its decision could be lodged with ORG within DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to pay the applicant compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage he claimed in respect of the criminal proceedings against him . ORG considered that the restrictions imposed on the applicant during the criminal proceedings ( attachment of his property , obligation not to leave his place of residence ) had been lawful and not exceptionally harsh .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a claim for compensation for pecuniary damage caused by the criminal proceedings . The case ( no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) was transferred to ORG , which had jurisdiction over the matter . By amendments he had made to his claim on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had also claimed compensation for the non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the obligation not to leave his place of residence . In the course of the proceedings before ORG the applicant also referred to his application pending before ORG ( that is , the present case ) and mentioned the sum proposed to him by the ORG under the friendly - settlement procedure .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claim in part . It awarded him MONEY ( ORG ) as compensation for the non - pecuniary damage caused by the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and the obligation not to leave his place of residence . In determining the sum of the award , the court also made reference to the sum proposed to the applicant in the friendly - settlement procedure . The compensation claim for pecuniary damage was dismissed .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of PERSON ( no . DATE ) ORG declared LAW ( ORG seadus ) unconstitutional in so far as it did not provide for compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by excessive length of a preliminary investigation in criminal proceedings , and awarded the complainant a sum of money . It further considered that the enactment of a special regulation for compensation for damage arising from criminal proceedings was required ( for a more complete summary of the judgment , see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 14;No violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 5;No violation of Art. 6;No violation of Art. 7;No violation of Art. 11;No violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 14+5;No violation of Art. 14+6;No violation of Art. 14+7

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant claimed that his home had been in PERSON , a village in LOC ( northern GPE ) . He had lived there with his parents , who ran a grocery store , and CARDINAL siblings in a house with a yard ( covering an area of QUANTITY ) , registered under plot no . CARDINAL , sheet / plan CARDINAL/CARDINAL and owned by his father . On DATE , the applicant 's father transferred ownership of this house to Mr Georgios Asproftas ( the applicant 's brother ) by way of gift .

Since the DATE NORP intervention , the applicant has been deprived of his home , which was located in the area under the occupation and control of the NORP military authorities . The latter had prevented him from having access to and from using the house at issue .

On DATE , the applicant joined an anti - NORP demonstration in the ORG area in GPE in which the applicants in the GPE and PERSON v. GPE and PERSON v. GPE cases ( see below ) also took part .

According to an affidavit sworn by the applicant before ORG on DATE , the demonstration of DATE was peaceful and was held on DATE of the NORP intervention in GPE , in support of the missing persons and to protest against human rights violations . The applicant joined the demonstration as a reporter for the newspaper Exormisis .

During the demonstration CARDINAL of armed NORP policemen and soldiers moved towards the demonstrators . The ORG peacekeeping cordon broke up and vanished . The NORP forces started to beat some women with batons , to kick them and drag them by the arms , legs and hair . While he was trying to help some of these women , the applicant was grabbed and beaten by NORP policemen . He was hit in the face and other parts of the body and taken at gunpoint with others who had also been arrested during the demonstration . His photographic equipment was seized despite him showing his press card . He was then led to a bus through an angry crowd of CARDINAL civilians who shouted abuse and threats . As the applicant was walking without police protection , the crowd had an opportunity to rush at him . He was dragged and beaten until CARDINAL policemen came and accompanied him onto the bus . He was transported to the so - called “ FAC ” , where a body search was carried out and all his personal effects were taken . The crowd outside the garage was shouting and throwing stones , some of which came through the roof .

While at the garage the applicant saw a policeman in civilian clothes who told him “ GPE will kill you ” . TIME he was interrogated by an officer who spoke perfect NORP . The applicant did not give wholly accurate answers to some of the questions , preferring to lie about some of the detail . The interrogator then started a political discussion and tried to convey his own ideas to the applicant in a very friendly and diplomatic manner . The applicant refused to sign a statement written in NORP , as he considered it would have been tantamount to recognising the “ GPE ” ( the “ GPE ” ) . When CARDINAL of the women detainees ( PERSON – see application no . DATE ) was beaten , all the other prisoners remained silent , fearing for their fate . At TIME DATE the applicant and some other men were ordered onto a police bus . He was taken to ORG , where , after a body search , he was held in a cell that was filthy , dirty and dark . During his stay in the cell the applicant heard the screams of other demonstrators .

At TIME , he was given back his personal effects and taken to court together with CARDINAL other prisoners . No proper translation was provided at the hearing . A policeman acted as translator but translated only part of what the judge and the witnesses said . The accused explained why they were taking part in the demonstration and in what capacity . The applicant was remanded in custody for DATE and then taken to FAC , where all his personal effects were removed again . He was put with other men in a dormitory block . TIME , he was blindfolded and led to another area of the prison where he was interrogated by CARDINAL army officers who could not speak any NORP . A translator was present . After the interrogation , which touched on political and military subjects , he was taken to another room to talk to a television anchorman .

On DATE the applicant was again taken to court together with CARDINAL other people . He had no legal representation and no proper interpretation was provided . The interpreter had difficulties in translating some of the words and was occasionally helped by the television anchorman . CARDINAL of the accused ( the Bishop of Kitium ) spoke on behalf of the others and said they would only accept as defence counsel a NORP - Cypriot or a ORG lawyer . The trial judge replied that she could only appoint a lawyer registered with the “ TRNC ” bar association . The accused pleaded “ not guilty ” and stated that they did not recognise the legitimacy of the “ TRNC ” and of its tribunals . CARDINAL witnesses were called by the prosecution . The Bishop of Kitium put some questions to the first witness . Those considered of a political character were ruled inadmissible by the trial judge . The ORG then made the following statement : “ since cross - examining the pseudo - witnesses of your pseudo - court may be regarded as indicating that we recognise the procedure , we say that we have nothing else to say and we shall not cross - examine any other pseudo - witness ” . From then on the accused did not participate in the procedure . After the trial hearing , the applicant and his co - accused were taken back to prison . Their pictures were taken .

On DATE the applicant was taken to court again . A baying crowd gathered outside the courtroom . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and a fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) DATE ( EUR ) – with DATE in prison in default of payment within TIME . There was an angry crowd in the court area shouting , swearing and making obscene gestures at him and the other detainees .

The applicant was detained in FAC from CARDINAL until DATE . During this period he refused to eat anything in order to protest against the prison director 's refusal to give to the Bishop of ORG the church vestments and holy vessels , which had been sent in order to allow the ORG to celebrate mass . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was locked in an isolation cell as punishment for refusing food . That cell was extremely small and unbearably hot ( DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant was released in front of journalists and television cameras . He was handed over to the ORG soldiers at the last NORP sentry box and transported back to the southern part of GPE .

In support of his claim of ill - treatment , the applicant produced CARDINAL medical certificates , which read as follows :

( a ) ORG issued on DATE by Dr. PERSON PERSON , consultant surgeon at ORG in GPE :

“ [ Mr Tasos Asproftas ] is suffering from osteoarthritis of the cervical cord . I have recommended that he should stay at home and undergo physiotherapy from CARDINAL until CARDINAL . ”

( b ) Certificate issued on an unspecified date by Dr. PERSON , orthopaedic surgeon in PERSON :

“ Mr Tasos Asproftas is suffering from cervical disc disease and is unable to work from PERSON until CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ”

( c ) Certificate issued on DATE by the medical and public health services PERSON department DATE :

“ Rear central hernia of the disc . Rear lateral right osteophyte in the area of chronic hernia of the disc ACARDINAL-ACARDINAL .

Rear lateral left osteophyte in the area of chronic hernia in discs GPE and FAC .

Straight cervical spine due to muscles ' spasm .

Stenosis of the middle sections of the spinal cord ACARDINAL-ACARDINAL , GPE . ”

( d ) Certificate issued on an unspecified date by Dr. PERSON . ORG , neurosurgeon in GPE :

“ It is recommended that Mr Asproftas be granted sick leave from CARDINAL until CARDINAL for investigation and treatment of the cervical middle spinal disc . ”

( e ) Certificate issued on DATE by Dr. PERSON , specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation sport medicine in GPE :

“ Diagnosis : Severe left cervicobranchial syndrome ( rapiculitis CCARDINAL )

Instructions for physiotherapy : CARDINAL sessions .

ORG current

Short wave diathermy

Mild cervical massage . ”

The applicant alleged that the above health problems were the result of the savage blows he had received from the NORP policemen , soldiers and civilians in DATE .

The Government alleged that the applicant had participated in a violent demonstration with the aim of inflaming anti - NORP sentiment . The demonstrators , supported by the NORP - Cypriot administration , were demanding that the “ GPE ” in GPE should be dismantled . Some carried NORP flags , clubs , knives and wire - cutters . They were acting in a provocative manner and shouting abuse . The demonstrators were warned in NORP and LANGUAGE that unless they dispersed they would be arrested in accordance with the laws of the “ GPE ” . The applicant was arrested by the NORP - NORP police after crossing the ORG buffer zone and entering the area under NORP - Cypriot control . The NORP - NORP police intervened in the face of the manifest inability of the NORP - Cypriot authorities and ORG in GPE to contain the incursion and its possible consequences .

No force was used against demonstrators who did not intrude into the “ GPE ” border area and , in the case of demonstrators who were arrested for violating the border , no more force was used than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances in order to arrest and detain the persons concerned . No one was ill - treated . It was possible that some of the demonstrators had hurt themselves in the confusion or in attempting to scale barbed wire or other fencing . Had the NORP police , or anyone else , assaulted or beaten any of the demonstrators , the ORG Secretary General would no doubt have referred to this in his report to ORG .

The applicant was charged , tried , found guilty and sentenced to a short term of imprisonment . He pleaded not guilty , but did not give evidence and declined to use the available judicial remedies . He was asked if he required assistance from a lawyer registered in the “ TRNC ” , but refused and did not ask for legal representation . Interpretation services were provided at the trial by qualified interpreters . All the proceedings were translated into NORP .

NORP In his report of DATE on the ORG operations in GPE , the ORG Secretary General stated , inter alia :

“ A serious situation , however , arose in DATE as a result of a demonstration by NORP Cypriots in GPE . The details are as follows :

( a ) In TIME of DATE , some CARDINAL NORP Cypriot demonstrators , mostly women , forced their way into the ORG buffer zone in the ORG area of GPE . The demonstrators broke through a wire barrier maintained by ORG and destroyed an ORG observation post . They then broke through the line formed by ORG soldiers and entered a former school complex where ORG reinforcements regrouped to prevent them from proceeding further . A short while later , NORP - Cypriot police and security forces elements forced their way into the area and apprehended QUANTITY persons , CARDINAL of them women ;

( b ) The ORG school complex is situated in the ORG buffer zone . However , the NORP forces claim it to be on their side of the cease - fire line . Under working arrangements with ORG , the NORP - Cypriot security forces have patrolled the school grounds for DATE within specific restrictions . This patrolling ceased altogether as part of the unmanning agreement implemented DATE ;

( c ) In TIME of QUANTITY DATE , CARDINAL NORP Cypriots gathered at the main entrance to the ORG protected area in GPE , in which the ORG headquarters is located , to protest the continuing detention by the NORP - Cypriot authorities of those apprehended at PERSON . The demonstrators , whose number fluctuated CARDINAL , blocked all ORG traffic through this entrance until DATE , when the NORP - Cypriot authorities released the last QUANTITY detainees ;

( d ) The events described above created considerable tension in the island and intensive efforts were made , both at the ORG headquarters and at GPE , to contain and resolve the situation . On DATE , I expressed my concern at the events that have taken place and stressed that it was vital that all parties keep in mind the purpose of the ORG buffer zone as well as their responsibility to ensure that that area was not violated . I also urged the NORP - Cypriot authorities to release without delay all those who had been detained . On DATE , the President of ORG announced that he had conveyed to the representatives of all the parties , on behalf of the members of ORG , the ORG 's deep concern at the tense situation created by the incidents of DATE . He also stressed the need strictly to respect the ORG buffer zone and appealed for the immediate release of all persons still detained . He asked all concerned to show maximum restraint and to take urgent steps that would bring about a relaxation of tension and contribute to the creation of an atmosphere favourable to the negotiations . ”

The applicant produced CARDINAL photographs taken at different times during the demonstration on DATE . Photographs CARDINAL to CARDINAL were intended to show that , notwithstanding the deployment of the NORP - NORP police , the demonstration was peaceful . In photographs CARDINAL members of the NORP - NORP police are seen breaking up the ORG cordon . The final set of photographs show members of the NORP - NORP police using force to arrest some of the women demonstrators .

The NORP translation of the “ GPE ” ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE indicates that the applicant , together with CARDINAL other men , was charged with CARDINAL offences : entering “ GPE ” territory without permission ( contrary to sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and entering “ GPE ” territory other than through an approved port ( contrary to subsections CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration Law – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The judgment was given in the presence of the accused and of an interpreter . The trial judge noted the following :

( i ) the accused did not accept the charges against them and stated that they did not wish to use the services of a lawyer registered in the “ GPE ” ;

( ii ) the public prosecutor called CARDINAL witnesses , whose statements were translated into NORP for the accused 's benefit ;

( iii ) the witnesses ( mainly police officers on duty at the time of the demonstration ) declared that the accused had illegally entered the “ GPE ” territory , shouted abuse at the NORP - Cypriot forces and resisted arrest by pulling and pushing ; knives and other cutting objects had been found in the bags of some of the demonstrators who had been arrested ;

( iv ) the applicant stated that he was a journalist , that he had been arrested while he was following the demonstration even though the peace keeping forces had given him permission to do so ;

( v ) the accused had been told that they could cross - examine witnesses in turn and , if they so wished , choose CARDINAL of their number to cross - examine the witnesses on behalf of all the accused ; however , they had not done so ; CARDINAL of the accused had put a few questions to CARDINAL of the prosecution witnesses ;

( vi ) before the “ GPE ” ORG passed sentence , the Bishop of GPE , speaking on behalf of all the accused , made a statement , saying that their struggle was peaceful , that their aim was to encourage NORP and NORP to live together in peace , that they carried no weapons and that they had asked for ORG protection ;

( vii ) relying on statements by the prosecution witnesses , which had not been undermined by the statements made by some of the accused , the “ GPE ” ORG came to the conclusion that the accused had crossed the borders of the “ GPE ” at an unapproved entry point and without permission and had resisted by various means the ORG and NORP forces which had tried to stop them ;

( viii ) the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt , so that the accused were guilty on both counts ;

( ix ) in deciding on the sentence , the “ GPE ” ORG had taken into account the seriousness of the offence , and the fact that the accused had shown no remorse and continued to deny the validity of the “ GPE ” .

Section CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :

“ Where CARDINAL or more persons assembled with intent to commit an offence , or , being assembled with intent to carry out some common purpose , conduct themselves in such a manner as to cause persons in the neighbourhood to fear that the persons so assembled will commit a breach of the peace , or will by such assembly needlessly and without any reasonable occasion provoke other persons to commit a breach of the peace they are an unlawful assembly .

It is immaterial that the original assembling was lawful if , being assembled , they conduct themselves with a common purpose in such a manner as aforesaid .

When an unlawful assembly has begun to execute the purpose , whether of a public or of a private nature , for which it assembled by a breach of the peace and to the terror of the public , the assembly is called a riot , and the persons assembled are said to be riotously assembled . ”

According to section CARDINAL of LAW , any person who takes part in an unlawful assembly is guilty of a misdemeanour and liable to imprisonment for DATE .

Section CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides :

“ Any person who carries in public without lawful occasion any offensive arm or weapon in such a manner as to cause terror to any person is guilty of a misdemeanour , and is liable to imprisonment for DATE , and his arm or weapons shall be forfeited . ”

According to LAW , it is an offence to carry a knife outside the home .

The relevant part of LAW , section CARDINAL of GPE states :

" ( CARDINAL ) Any officer may , without warrant , arrest any person -

( b ) who commits in his presence any offence punishable with imprisonment ;

( c ) who obstructs a police officer , while in the execution of his duty ... "

Section CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL states :

" ... Any person who enters a prohibited military area without authorization , or by stealth , or fraudulently , shall be tried by a military court in accordance with LAW ; those found guilty shall be punished . "

Subsections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No person shall enter or leave the Colony except through an approved port .

Any person who contravenes or fails to observe any of the provisions of subsections ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding QUANTITY or to both such imprisonment and fine . ”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Conditional) (Belarus);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , who was born in DATE , is a NORP youth activist and musician . He is currently detained in ORG no . CARDINAL ( hereinafter , “ the GPE ” ) in PERSON ( ORG слідчий ізолятор ) , GPE .

In DATE the applicant and NORP were charged with the murder ( under LAW of LAW ) and robbery of PERSON According to the above LAW , the death penalty is foreseen , inter alia , as a sanction for murder .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant and NORP In particular , the court emphasised that during their interrogations the applicant and NORP had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure and had been forced to confess , and therefore their confessions during the pre - trial investigation could not be taken into consideration .

On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE these decisions were quashed by the Presidium of ORG under the extraordinary review procedure upon an application ( “ protest ” ) lodged by a prosecutor , and the criminal proceedings were resumed .

In DATE the applicant moved to GPE , where he was registered by the GPE passport service . He travelled several times to GPE and married in DATE . Therefore , according to the applicant , he has not been hiding from justice .

On DATE ORG stayed the criminal proceedings since the applicant ’s whereabouts were unknown .

NORP On DATE the Brestskiy Regional Prosecutor decided to search for the applicant .

On an unspecified date an international search warrant for the applicant was issued .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE , GPE . The applicant stated that during his arrest the policemen had fired several shots in order to intimidate him and that he had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure .

On DATE the ORG of Sevastopol ordered the applicant ’s detention for DATE with a view to his extradition to GPE .

On DATE ORG of Belarus requested ORG of GPE ( hereinafter , “ the ORG ” ) to extradite the applicant . In its request ORG indicated that “ PERSON would be tried only for the crimes he was extradited for , and he would not be sentenced to the death penalty ” .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant should remain in detention pending extradition .

On DATE , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , the President of the ORG ’s Fifth Section indicated to the Government of GPE that the applicant should not be extradited to GPE .

On DATE ORG of Belarus informed the ORG that in the event of the applicant ’s extradition he would not be tortured , ill - treated or discriminated against and would be given a fair trial . If necessary , he would be provided with medical assistance and treatment .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that his request for release could not be considered as the current legislation did not foresee the possibility of challenging detention pending extradition .

On DATE and DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s further requests for release since the law in force did not foresee the possibility of replacing his detention pending extradition by another non - custodial preventive measure .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in ORG in cell no . CARDINAL ( ORG ізолятор тимчасового утримання ) ( hereinafter , “ the ORG ” ) . He submitted that in his cell , which measured CARDINAL x QUANTITY , CARDINAL persons had been detained , while it had been equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places . There were no sheets , pillows or blankets but only a couple of dirty mattresses . The cell was very dirty , without ventilation or proper lighting , and infested with different insects . Nearly all of the detainees smoked and this caused the applicant intense suffering since he has bronchial asthma . The ORG did not contain a shower and the detainees could not go for a walk . The applicant stated that the DATE food had been limited to a piece of bread , a plate of poor - quality soup and water . The applicant was not provided with any medical assistance in spite of suffering from asthma . On DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL with similar conditions of detention .

From DATE the applicant has been detained in the GPE . The applicant submitted that during his transportation from the ORG to the GPE he had been placed in a special van together with CARDINAL other people while there had been space available for CARDINAL . The temperature in the van reached CARDINAL and there was neither drinking water nor ventilation .

In the GPE , according to the applicant , he is detained in a CARDINAL x QUANTITY cell together with CARDINAL other detainees . The cell has no ventilation or sufficient lighting and all of the detainees smoke apart from the applicant . The detainees can shower only once a week . The applicant stated that the medical assistance he received in the GPE was inadequate .

On DATE the applicant arrived at the ORG . He was questioned about his state of health by the officer on duty but the applicant did not complain about his health problems . During his stay in the ORG ( CARDINAL June-CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) the applicant did not complain about his health problems either .

From DATE until DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL . The cell measured QUANTITY m. At the material time from CARDINAL persons were detained there .

From DATE until CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY CARDINAL other persons were detained at that time together with the applicant .

Every cell was equipped with a WC and a wash - basin . The detainees were provided with bed sheets and were served hot food CARDINAL times a day . The cells are regularly cleaned and disinfected . The detainees take a hot shower at DATE or during DATE if they so wish .

The ORG has a ventilation system which functions non - stop . The detainees also have a DATE TIME walk in CARDINAL specially equipped yards .

The cells are equipped with CARDINAL electric light - bulbs and the detainees also have access to daylight .

During the applicant ’s stay in the GPE , since DATE , he has been detained in CARDINAL different cells ( nos . CARDINAL , DATE ) , which measure between QUANTITY . m and QUANTITY m. Together with him , from CARDINAL to QUANTITY persons have been detained during different periods of time .

The cells are equipped with the necessary number of sleeping places , sufficient electric and natural light , separated WCs , wash basins , tables and chairs . There is ventilation and the conditions of the applicant ’s detention have complied with the sanitary standards . The applicant has been able to take a shower once DATE .

On DATE of his arrival the applicant was examined in the GPE hospital wing and diagnosed with asthma . During his stay in the GPE the applicant has been further examined and treated on numerous occasions .

On DATE the applicant was transported from the ORG to the GPE and on DATE he was returned to the ORG . On DATE he was again taken to the GPE .

Specially equipped vehicles and railway carriages were used for the transportation . Every vehicle can carry CARDINAL persons and every railway carriage up to CARDINAL . The special police forces in charge of the transportation of prisoners transported the applicant in compliance with the requirements of the national legislation .

The relevant international and domestic law and practice in respect of the applicant ’s extradition are summarised in the PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and § CARDINAL , DATE ) and NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) judgments .

Under LAW , detainees must be provided with everyday conditions that meet sanitary and hygiene requirements . The cell area for CARDINAL person may not be CARDINAL sq . m.

“ ... CARDINAL . Such abuses take different forms , including :

the continued use of the death penalty and the particularly cruel , secretive method of execution by gunshot , without informing the condemned persons themselves or their families until TIME . GPE is the last country on the NORP continent that still implements the death penalty . The existence of the death penalty excludes the extradition to GPE of any person accused of a capital offence by member states of ORG ... ”

“ ... CARDINAL . The ORG regrets that capital executions can still be carried out in GPE , despite the reduction of the categories of crimes for which they can be inflicted , a decrease in the number of death sentences handed down in such cases and the fact that no executions have been carried out since DATE according to official statements . The ORG recalls that , in DATE LAW , the death penalty is considered as a transitional measure and that no legal impediment prevents either the President or the ORG from introducing a moratorium on executions ... ”

“ ... The Special Rapporteur regrets that ORG , in DATE as in DATE and DATE , has not responded favourably to his request to visit the country and has in general not cooperated with him in the fulfilment of his mandate ...

... CARDINAL . Since his last report , the Special Rapporteur has remained concerned that GPE is the last country in LOC to apply the death penalty . The situation in the country is still characterized by harsh conditions of pre - trial detention , the practice of torture and other inhuman treatment , and excessive use of force by the police ... ”

“ ... The situation of human rights in GPE in DATE continued to significantly deteriorate , as documented in the reports of ORG and the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in GPE , which found that systematic violations of human rights continue to take place in GPE ...

... CARDINAL . [ The ORG ] expresses deep concern :

( a ) About the continued use of the criminal justice system to silence political opposition and human rights defenders , including through arbitrary detention , lack of due process and closed political trials of leading opposition figures and human rights defenders ;

( b ) About the failure of the Government of GPE to cooperate fully with all the mechanisms of ORG , in particular with the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in GPE , while noting the serious concern relating to the continued and systematic violations of human rights in GPE ... ”

ORG on Human Rights Practices of the US ORG ( hereafter “ the Reports ” ) for DATE , released on CARDINAL DATE , noted with respect to GPE :

“ The government ’s human rights record remained very poor as government authorities continued to commit frequent serious abuses ...

... Prison conditions remained extremely poor , and reports of abuse of prisoners and detainees continued . Arbitrary arrests , detentions , and imprisonment of citizens for political reasons , criticizing officials , or for participating in demonstrations also continued ...

c. Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman , or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The law prohibits such practices ; however , ORG ( ORG ) , the Special Purpose Detachment riot police ( PERSON ) , and other special forces continued to beat detainees and demonstrators ...

... Police also beat individuals during arrests and in detention for organizing or participating in demonstrations or other opposition activities ...

... On DATE , ORG ( FIDH ) in cooperation with the domestic human rights NGO " Vyasna " released a joint report , ORG in GPE , based on interviews with CARDINAL persons . The report noted " substantial evidence " of the use of torture and mistreatment of suspects during criminal and administrative investigations ...

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

The constitution provides for an independent judiciary ; however , the government did not respect judicial independence in practice . Corruption , inefficiency , and political interference were prevalent in the judiciary .

There was evidence that prosecutors and courts convicted individuals on false and politically motivated charges , and that executive and local authorities dictated the outcomes of trials ... ”

“ ... Death penalty

... According to media reports , CARDINAL people were executed during DATE ...

... In DATE , GPE abstained on a ORG resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions ... ”

The relevant extracts from ORG read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Prison conditions that infringe ORG human rights are not justified by lack of resources .

CARDINAL ORG apply to persons who have been remanded in custody by a judicial authority or who have been deprived of their liberty following conviction .

CARDINAL The accommodation provided for prisoners , and in particular all sleeping accommodation , shall respect human dignity and , as far as possible , privacy , and meet the requirements of health and hygiene , due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space , cubic content of air , lighting , heating and ventilation .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL In all buildings where prisoners are required to live , work or congregate :

a. the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system ;

b. artificial light shall satisfy recognised technical standards ; and

CARDINAL.CARDINAL Specific minimum requirements in respect of the matters referred to in DATE and CARDINAL shall be set in national law .

CARDINAL National law shall provide mechanisms for ensuring that these minimum requirements are not breached by the overcrowding of prisons .

CARDINAL Prisoners shall have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy .

CARDINAL Adequate facilities shall be provided so that every prisoner may have a bath or shower , at a temperature suitable to the climate , if possible DATE but at least twice DATE ( or more frequently if necessary ) in the interest of general hygiene .

Every prisoner shall be provided with a separate bed and separate and appropriate bedding , which shall be kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness .

CARDINAL Prisoners shall be provided with a nutritious diet that takes into account their age , health , physical condition , religion , culture and the nature of their work .

CARDINAL The requirements of a nutritious diet , including its minimum energy and protein content , shall be prescribed in national law .

CARDINAL Food shall be prepared and served hygienically .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL There shall be CARDINAL meals a day with reasonable intervals between them .

CARDINAL Every prisoner shall be provided with the opportunity of TIME of exercise every day in the open air , if the weather permits .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL The transport of prisoners in conveyances with inadequate ventilation or light , or which would subject them in any way to unnecessary physical hardship or indignity , shall be prohibited . ”

Relevant extracts from the reports of ORG following the ORG ’s visits to GPE in DATE can be found in the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , ( no . DATE , § § CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the NORP ORG Commissioner for Human Rights , after her visit to the penitentiary institutions of GPE ( hereinafter , “ the ARC ” ) , in her address to the members of PERSON of the ARC , published on the NORP ORG Commissioner ’s Internet site , mentioned the overcrowding in the PERSON , lack of daylight in the cells , the absence of outside walks and insufficient nutrition . In the majority of the ITTs visited by her , the detainees were provided with food only once a day . In ORG there were CARDINAL persons detained while there were CARDINAL places .

On DATE the press service of the NORP ORG Commissioner for Human Rights published a press release on the Commissioner ’s further visit to the penitentiary institutions of the ARC . ORG was described as the worst . The cells were dirty , without sufficient daylight and ventilation , and outside walks were not regular . The detainees were not provided with mattresses , covers or bed linen . The cells were overcrowded and the detainees slept in turns . The conditions of transportation between ORG and the PERSON were unbearable . In particular , on DATE , CARDINAL detainees were taken to ORG but after spending TIME locked in the vehicle were sent back to GPE because of overcrowding in the ORG . The trip lasted TIME and the detainees were practically not allowed to use the toilet and were not provided with water or food .


CASE OF THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND IVANOV v. BULGARIA

Violation of Art. 11;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings

Ilinden is an association based in southwest GPE , in an area known as the GPE region or the geographic region of LOC . It has chapters in , inter alia , the towns of PERSON , PERSON and ORG .

Ilinden was founded on DATE . In DATE it applied for registration . The courts refused , holding that “ its statute and programme were directed against the unity of the nation ” ( see PERSON and ORG v. GPE , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIX ) . Its second and third attempts to register in DATE and DATE likewise failed ( see ORG and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .

During the period DATE Ilinden DATE tried to organise meetings at sites in LOC to commemorate certain historical events . All these commemorations were banned by the authorities ( see PERSON and ORG , cited above § § DATE ) .

On DATE the second applicant and CARDINAL other members of ORG informed the mayor of PERSON that the organisation indented to organise a meeting on DATE at the PERSON monastery to commemorate DATE of the death of a historical figure buried there – PERSON . On DATE the mayor informed them that he prohibited the meeting , as the municipality was preparing a commemoration and as another association , which , according to the Government , was hostile towards ORG , had already notified the mayor of its intention to hold a meeting at the same time and place . Upon that the second applicant and the other members of ORG informed the mayor that in view of this scheduling conflict they decided to move the event to an earlier date , DATE . On DATE the mayor replied that he could not assent to that either , as in the meantime the other association had informed him that their commemoration would last from CARDINAL until DATE .

On DATE and on DATE Ilinden lodged applications for judicial review of the mayor 's refusals with ORG .

On DATE it also advised the head of the local police station of its intention to hold the meeting on DATE .

On DATE the police conducted a search at the home of a member of ORG , which served as a club of the organisation , and at another member 's home , and seized a copy machine , newspapers , books , leaflets , and some other items .

On DATE ORG issued a decree , ordering the police to take measures to prevent ORG from holding a meeting . The decree , which was based on LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , stated that the holding of the meeting would constitute an offence under LAW CARDINALa of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE the police summoned the second applicant and several other members of ORG . They were issued written warnings informing them that the planned meeting had been banned by ORG .

On DATE a number of members and followers of Ilinden from towns and villages in GPE tried to approach PERSON by cars and by buses . All were turned back by the police who were placed at checkpoints on the roads leading to the monastery . The passengers of CARDINAL bus were forced off and the driver was fined for allegedly driving a vehicle in a state of disrepair . It seems that CARDINAL person coming by car was taken into custody by the Sandanski police for TIME for allegedly failing to produce an identification document , and was illtreated .

On DATE ORG informed Ilinden of its refusal to examine the applications for judicial review on the merits as they had been submitted on behalf of an unregistered organisation and were vague . It invited Ilinden to rectify those deficiencies within DATE .

On DATE the second applicant and several other members of ORG filed complaints against the CARDINAL DATE search and seizure with ORG and requested the return of the seized items . It seems that no reply was received .

On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the coercive actions of the police before and during the planned commemoration . It seems that he did not receive an answer .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of ORG that it planned to hold a meeting in the area of PERSON krepost on DATE . On DATE the mayor replied that he could not allow the holding of a meeting , as another meeting had been planned for the same date and place by a municipal child centre .

On DATE Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with ORG , arguing that for DATE its meetings had been banned . It also stated that the area where it planned to hold the meeting was large enough for CARDINAL parallel events ; if that was deemed impracticable , it was prepared to reschedule the meeting for another date .

NORP The court dismissed the application in a judgment of DATE . It held that ORG was not duly registered “ in accordance with the laws of the country ” . As a result , it was unclear who would be the organiser of the event and who would be responsible for the order during the meeting , in accordance with sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The court concluded that the lack of clarity as to the organisers of a public event endangered public order and the rights and freedoms of others .

On DATE ORG issued a decree under LAW ORG , ordering the police to take measures to prevent ORG from holding a meeting . It reasoned that ORG was not registered and hence had no right to organisational or political activities ; the holding of a meeting would therefore constitute an offence under LAW of the ORG . Furthermore , ORG was advocating changes in the constitutional order in GPE and the holding of a meeting would thus also constitute an offence under LAW ORG .

On DATE a number of members and followers of Ilinden travelled by car to PERSON krepost . All roads leading to the site were blocked by the police who were stopping the cars and turning them back . TIME members from PERSON gathered at a bus station in order to go to the site . Several police officers approached them , informed them that the meeting had been banned by ORG , and warned them not to try to reach the site . The plans of ORG to have the meeting at the planned spot having failed , its members decided to hold it at the organisation 's club in GPE . On the way there they tried to lay flowers and wreaths at the memorial of a poet . The police blocked their way . Apparently CARDINAL person was arrested and held for TIME in custody .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of ORG that it planned to lay wreaths on DATE at the memorial of a prominent historical figure – PERSON , situated in the centre of the town , to observe the QUANTITY alleged killing of certain NORP activists by agents of the NORP government . As no reply was forthcoming , the head of the local chapter of ORG telephoned the secretary of the municipality to enquire about the matter . The secretary informed him that ORG would not receive a written answer and that the municipality would advise the police so that it could prevent the event .

The applicants submitted that on DATE Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with ORG , but that it was not examined within the statutory time - limit . The Government submitted that the records of the court did not indicate that an application had indeed been lodged .

On DATE ORG issued a decree under LAW ORG , ordering the police to take measures to prevent ORG from holding a meeting . It reasoned that ORG was not registered and hence had no right to organisational or political activities . Also , it was advocating changes in the constitutional order of GPE and expressed anti - NORP views . Thus , the holding of a meeting would lead to the commission of offences under LAW CARDINALa LAW .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the police visited the house of the head of the local chapter of GPE and warned him that if he tried to organise the event he would be criminally prosecuted .

On DATE members and followers of Ilinden tried to approach the memorial of PERSON , but the police blocked their way . They informed them that ORG had banned the event and read them the decree , but refused to give them a copy .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of PERSON that it planned a commemoration at PERSON monastery on DATE . On DATE the mayor informed ORG that it would receive a reply after presenting a document establishing that it was a registered organisation .

The applicants submitted that on DATE Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with ORG , but that the court did not reply .

On an unspecified later date several members of ORG were warned by the police to not organise a meeting on DATE .

On DATE members and followers of Ilinden tried to approach PERSON by cars . The police , who had dispatched patrols at all roads leading to the monastery , blocked their way and turned them back . Some drivers were fined , allegedly for driving vehicles in state of disrepair . On the way back members of the PERSON chapter of PERSON tried to lay flowers at the bust of PERSON , but the police seized the flowers and allegedly arrested CARDINAL person .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of ORG that it planned to lay wreaths at the memorial of PERSON on DATE

On DATE the mayor invited Ilinden to present a document establishing that was a registered organisation .

On DATE a member of ORG lodged an application for judicial review with ORG . The court refused to examine the application by an order of CARDINAL May , as it was unclear who was the organiser of the planned event . Moreover , the court was competent to deal with applications against orders banning meetings ; no such order had been issued .

On DATE members and followers of Ilinden who tried to approach the memorial were stopped by the police who informed them that ORG had issued a decree prohibiting the event . The police read out the decree , but refused to give them a copy .

On DATE Ilinden complained to ORG about the coercive actions of the police and the authorities . On DATE that ORG refused to open criminal proceedings , reasoning that , since ORG had not been registered , the ban of its meeting had been lawful and that the police had acted in pursuance of their duty to preserve public order .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of ORG that it planned to hold a meeting at Samuilova krepost on DATE . On DATE the mayor replied that he could not allow the holding of a meeting , as another meeting had been planned for the same date and place by another organisation .

On DATE Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with ORG , stating that it was prepared to move its meeting to TIME of the day or to hold it on some of the hills adjacent to PERSON krepost , so as to avoid interfering with the other meeting . The court dismissed the application in a judgment of DATE . It held that ORG was non - existent as it was not registered . As a result , it could not be considered as the organiser of , and be responsible for order during the meeting , as required by sections CARDINAL of LAW . In the court 's view , that lack of clarity as to the organisers of the event endangered public order . Moreover , another meeting had been scheduled for the same date and place .

On DATE ORG issued a decree under LAW ORG , ordering the police to take measures to prevent ORG from holding a meeting . It considered that the holding of a meeting would constitute offences under LAW CARDINALa and LAW ORG .

It seems that no meeting was held on DATE at PERSON krepost by any other organisation . When that DATE members and followers of PERSON tried to approach the site by cars , they were stopped by police stationed at the roads leading to the site .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of PERSON that it intended to organise a commemorative meeting on DATE at PERSON monastery . On DATE the mayor made an order prohibiting the meeting , apparently on the ground it would endanger public order . Ilinden did not seek judicial review of this order .

On DATE members and followers of Ilinden tried to approach PERSON by cars . They were stopped at police checkpoints , where some of the drivers were fined , allegedly for traffic violations . It seems that the police also seized material intended for the decoration of a stage which the members of ORG planned to set up at the site . A vehicle transporting musicians and their instruments was not allowed to continue . The cars were stopped again at a second police post near the monastery and some written materials were impounded . However , some of the members and followers of Ilinden were allowed to approach the site , which was heavily guarded by police . The applicants alleged that a plain - clothes police officer was filming the participants despite their objections . They laid flowers and made a short speech , apparently denouncing the “ assimilation policy ” led by ORG . After that they left the site .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of PERSON of its intention to hold a commemorative meeting on DATE at ORG krepost . By a letter of DATE the mayor replied that he could not allow the event , as another association had already applied for authorisation to organise a meeting on DATE .

Ilinden lodged an application for judicial review with ORG . It argued that the site was large enough for CARDINAL events to take place simultaneously . The court dismissed the application in a judgment of DATE . It found that ORG had not been registered and apparently had links with a political party , “ FAC PIRIN ” , which had been declared unconstitutional by ORG on DATE for acting against the territorial integrity of the country ( see ORG PIRIN and Others v. GPE , no . GPE , § § DATE , DATE ) . The holding of a meeting by ORG could therefore pose a threat to the territorial integrity of the country . Moreover , another , duly registered , association intended to organise a meeting on DATE . The parallel holding of CARDINAL events could endanger public order .

Nevertheless , on DATE certain members and followers of Ilinden were able to hold a meeting at ORG krepost . It seems that the police did not interfere .

On DATE Ilinden informed the mayor of ORG that that it wanted to hold a commemoration at the memorial of PERSON on DATE . The mayor did not reply . PERSON then lodged an application for judicial review with ORG , but did not get an answer .

On DATE ORG issued a decree under LAW ORG , ordering the police to take measures to prevent ORG from holding a meeting . It reasoned that the holding of a meeting would constitute an offence under LAW ORG .

On DATE members and followers of Ilinden tried to approach the memorial , but were stopped by the police . A police officer read out the decree prohibiting the commemoration , but refused to furnish a copy of it .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of PERSON that it would organise a meeting on DATE at PERSON monastery . The mayor did not reply .

On DATE members and followers of the organisation assembled at the site . CARDINAL police officers were also present . The applicants averred that at some point during the meeting CARDINAL members tried to place a wreath covered with a band with an inscription on the grave of PERSON . Allegedly CARDINAL policemen moved towards them and ordered that the band be removed . When the persons carrying the wreath refused , the police seized it and arrested CARDINAL of them . He was taken to a nearby village , released and warned not to try to return to the meeting . Additionally , a poster brought by the members of ORG was allegedly taken away by a plainclothes police officer . The police also prevented the placing on the podium of loudspeakers the members of ORG had brought . The applicants also alleged that local catering companies were prohibited by the municipal authorities from sending staff and facilities to the site during the meeting . The Government submitted that during the meeting a member of ORG stated that “ there have been and will be NORP . Death to the enemies ! Not a single NORP will remain living ... ” . According to them , CARDINAL person who was drunk was taken out of the area where the meeting was taking place .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of ORG that it indented to lay flowers at the memorial of PERSON on DATE The mayor did not reply .

On DATE a group of members and followers of Ilinden attempted to approach the memorial to lay a wreath covered with a band with an inscription . The applicants alleged that the police intervened and ordered them to remove the band with the inscription , citing a decree made by ORG . Apparently the members and followers of ORG refused and several plainclothes police officers diverted them from the memorial . The members and followers of PERSON headed for a nearby church , followed by the police who were allegedly shouting insulting words at them . The applicants averred that CARDINAL police officers seized a camera held by CARDINAL of the members . The members laid the wreath at a grave in the churchyard . TIME CARDINAL unknown persons took it away . According to the Government , the police had to disrupt the ceremony and direct the members and followers of Ilinden to the nearby church because other persons who were standing nearby became agitated upon the arrival of news that members of ORG PIRIN ( see paragraph DATE above ) had tried to assault the NORP ambassador in GPE .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of ORG of its intention to hold a meeting on DATE at ORG krepost . By a letter of DATE , which was allegedly delivered at the home of a member of ORG on DATE a DATE – the mayor prohibited the meeting because another meeting had been planned for DATE by a municipal child centre .

On DATE ORG issued a decree under LAW ORG , ordering the police to take measures to prevent ORG from holding a meeting . It reasoned that the holding of a meeting would constitute offences under LAW CARDINALa and LAW ORG .

On DATE a group of CARDINAL people tried to approach PERSON krepost by buses and cars . They were turned back by the police QUANTITY before the site . The applicants allege that the police told them that military exercises were to take place and that they could not continue . According to the Government , they were informed of the prosecutor 's decree prohibiting the event . After they were stopped , the members and followers of Ilinden decided to lay flowers at the memorial of a poet in GPE . CARDINAL police officers blocked their way . Apparently the second applicant , Mr PERSON , and another person were arrested and kept TIME in custody .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of ORG that it wanted to hold a commemoration at the memorial of PERSON in the centre of ORG on DATE . The mayor did not reply .

At TIME on DATE members and followers of Ilinden , who had gathered at a meeting point situated at a little QUANTITY from the memorial , started marching toward it . However , at first that proved impossible because the memorial was surrounded by a group of CARDINAL persons who were shouting insults . Several persons from that group attacked individual members and followers of ORG , broke the flagstaff CARDINAL of them was carrying , tried to take another flag , tore a poster and took the ribbon from a wreath carried by CARDINAL of the members of ORG . A member of ORG was filming with a camera . CARDINAL person attacked him from behind and tore the electrical cables of the camera . The police was present and had formed a cordon between the members and followers of Ilinden and the hostile group , but apparently failed to prevent the above incidents . However , they secured the members and followers of Ilinden access to the memorial , where they laid a wreath . The president of ORG tried to make a short speech , which was constantly interrupted by the shouting of the hostile group . The members and followers of ORG then retreated from the memorial under police escort .

On DATE PERSON complained to ORG about the actions of the hostile group . ORG ordered a preliminary verification , but apparently nothing ensued .

On DATE Ilinden complained to ORG about the inactivity of the police officers present during the CARDINAL DATE meeting and about their failure to secure the peaceful holding of the event . That office carried out a preliminary verification and on DATE refused to open criminal proceedings . On appeal of ORG its decree was upheld by ORG on DATE . ORG further appealed to ORG , which upheld the refusal in a decree of DATE , reasoning that ORG 's allegations were not supported by the facts established during the preliminary verification . The police had strictly complied with the relevant legal provisions . Although certain members of the organisation had acted provocatively , the officers had showed restraint and had performed their duties .

On an unspecified date in DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of ORG that it planned to hold a meeting at Samuilova krepost on DATE , to commemorate the CARDINAL anniversary of the ORG uprising . Apparently the mayor assented and on DATE members and followers of Ilinden gathered at PERSON krepost . There was a TIME programme . During the entire event a plainclothes police officer was filming . When the chairperson of ORG tried to remove the camera , there ensued a scuffle and the police attempted to arrest him .

On DATE Ilinden notified the mayor of ORG that on CARDINAL DATE it intended to organise a commemoration at the memorial of PERSON . In its notification it stated that the purpose of the event was to honour the memory of the “ victims of the genocide ... inflicted by ORG on the NORP nation ” . In a letter of DATE , which was posted on CARDINAL and arrived on DATE , the mayor informed ORG that in principle every citizen of GPE had the right to commemorate national heroes as PERSON . However , the remarks contained in the notification were unconstitutional and provocative . They were indicative of actions which would infringe the rights of others and would lead to conflicts , as had already happened in the past . Also , in order to organise events , PERSON had to be registered . Finally , there was no need for the planned event to take place in front of the memorial of PERSON and its timing was inopportune , because another event had been planned for the same time and date . If PERSON chose another place for holding its commemoration , the mayor would reconsider the matter .

On DATE Ilinden objected to the mayor 's decision . It stated that it was willing to shift the time of its commemoration to TIME , but that the place was closely bound to a specific occasion and could not be changed . DATE the organisation filed an application for judicial review with ORG .

DATE . On DATE the police summoned CARDINAL members of ORG and cautioned them in writing to refrain from organising the event planned for DATE .

On DATE the mayor of ORG informed ORG that he prohibited the planned event , because it would create conditions for the disruption of the public order and would endanger the rights of others .

On DATE members and followers of Ilinden gathered in the centre of ORG with a view to marching to the memorial of PERSON . CARDINAL police officers were also present . Several officers approached the members and followers of Ilinden and read out a decree of ORG prohibiting the commemoration .

In a decision of DATE ORG declared the application for judicial review inadmissible . It found that it had been filed with the court on DATE and had been brought to the attention of a judge - rapporteur at TIME on DATE . By section QUANTITY ) of ORG , the time - limit for ruling on the application was DATE . As of DATE the issue whether to allow the event planned for DATE had become moot and there was no need for the court to rule on that .

The relevant provisions of the LAW of DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right to peaceful and unarmed assembly at meetings and marches .

NORP The procedure for organising and holding meetings and marches shall be provided for by act of ORG .

Permission shall not be required for meetings to be held indoors . ”

“ Organisations whose activities are directed against the sovereignty or the territorial integrity of the country or against the unity of the nation , or aim at stirring racial , national , ethnic or religious hatred , or at violating the rights and freedoms of others , as well as organisations creating secret or paramilitary structures , or which seek to achieve their aims through violence , shall be prohibited . ”

The legal requirements for the organisation of meetings are laid down in ORG of DATE . Its relevant provisions are as follows :

“ Meetings , rallies and marches may be organised by individuals , associations , political or other civic organisations . ”

“ Every organiser [ of ] or participant [ in a march or a meeting ] shall be responsible for damage caused through his or her fault during the [ event ] . ”

“ Where a meeting or rally is to be held outdoors , the organisers shall notify the [ respective ] ORG or mayor 's office in writing TIME before its beginning and shall indicate the [ name of ] the organiser , the aim [ of the meeting or rally ] , and its venue and time . ”

“ The organisers of the meeting shall take the measures necessary to ensure order during the event . ”

“ CARDINAL . The meeting shall be presided over by a president .

NORP The participants shall abide by the instructions of the president concerning the preservation of [ public ] order ... ”

The prohibitions against meetings are also set out in LAW of DATE :

“ CARDINAL . Where the time or venue of the meeting or rally or the itinerary of the march would create a situation endangering public order or traffic safety , the President of ORG of ORG , or the mayor , respectively , shall propose their modification .

NORP The President of ORG of ORG or the mayor shall be competent to prohibit the holding of a meeting , rally or march , where reliable information exists that :

it aims at the violent overturning of ORG public order or is directed against the territorial integrity of the country ;

it would endanger public order in the local community ;

it would breach the rights and freedoms of others .

The prohibition shall be imposed by a written reasoned act not TIME after the notification .

NORP The organiser of the meeting , rally or march may appeal to ORG of ORG against the prohibition referred to in the preceding paragraph . ORG shall decide within twentyfour TIME .

Where ORG of ORG has not decided within [ the above ] timelimit , the march , rally or meeting may proceed .

If the appeal is dismissed , the dispute shall be referred to the respective district court which shall decide within DATE . That court 's decision shall be final . ”

The Meetings and Marches Act was enacted in DATE , when the LAW of DATE was still in force . Under LAW of DATE the executive local state organs were ORG of the district ORG . The mayors , referred to in some of the provisions of that LAW , were representatives of ORG acting in villages and towns which were under the jurisdiction of the respective ORG .

DATE . The LAW of DATE abolished ORG and established the post of mayor , elected by direct universal suffrage , as the “ organ of the executive power in the municipality ” ( LAW ) .

Former LAW of the ORG , as in force at the material time ( it was repealed in DATE ) , provided that the prosecutor was bound “ to take the necessary measures to prevent a crime , for which there [ was ] reason to believe that it [ would ] be committed . [ These measures could include ] the temporary impounding of the means which could be used for committing the crime ” .

Article CARDINALa § CARDINAL of the ORG makes it an offence for the organiser of a public meeting to , inter alia , hold a prohibited meeting in violation of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG of DATE .

Chapter CARDINAL of the special part of the ORG regulates offences against the Republic ( attempted coup d'état , terrorist offences , mutiny , espionage , sabotage , advocating a fascist or other antidemocratic ideology , etc . ) .