The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national of NORP origin , born in DATE and , at the time of introduction of the application , he was detained in the GPE for expulsion purposes . He is represented before the ORG by Ms G.E.M. Later , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The applicant entered and took up residence in the GPE in DATE . On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum or , alternatively , a residence permit on humanitarian grounds . The ORG Secretary of ORG ( ORG ) rejected these requests on DATE . The applicant filed an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) against this decision with the ORG Secretary on DATE .

As , pursuant to LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet ) , this objection was denied suspensive effect as to the applicant ’s expulsion , the applicant filed a request with ORG ( ORG ) on DATE for an injunction on his expulsion pending the proceedings on his objection . On DATE , the ORG Secretary rejected the applicant ’s objection . The applicant ’s subsequent appeal to ORG was rejected on DATE .

The applicant filed an opposition ( verzet ) against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which was rejected by ORG on DATE .

In DATE the applicant participated in a hunger strike in a church in the GPE together with CARDINAL other illegal aliens who had been living in the GPE for a long time . On DATE , the ORG Secretary gave an undertaking that he would personally examine the cases of these illegal aliens . In this connection , the ORG Secretary informed the applicant by letter of CARDINAL DATE that he did not meet the conditions for a residence permit on the basis of the policy on the legalisation of illegal aliens . The ORG Secretary had further not found any reason , capable of justifying a departure from this policy , to grant the applicant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds . On DATE , the applicant filed an objection against this decision with the ORG Secretary .

On DATE , following the apprehension of the NORP leader PERSON by the NORP authorities , a protest demonstration took place in GPE in the course of which protesters occupied the residence of the NORP Ambassador and members of the Ambassador ’s household were prevented from leaving the LOC . DATE , the applicant was arrested and subsequently detained in police custody ( inverzekeringstelling ) on suspicion of vandalism and violence ( openlijke geweldpleging ) after he was found amid a group of protesters who appeared to be heading in the direction of the residence .

Upon instructions of the public prosecutor and after having been heard and served with an indictment to stand trial on charges of disobeying police orders , the applicant was handed over to the GPE police ( vreemdelingenpolitie ) on DATE , who apprehended him in order to verify his identity , nationality and residence title in accordance with LAW .

On DATE , the applicant was placed in GPE detention for the purposes of expulsion ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( PERSON ) . On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer filed a request with ORG for an injunction on his expulsion pending the proceedings on the applicant ’s objection filed on DATE against the ORG Secretary ’s decision of DATE .

On DATE , the applicant filed a second request for asylum or , alternatively , a residence permit on humanitarian grounds and , on DATE , he was interviewed by an official on the reasons for these requests .

On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal with ORG against his placement in GPE detention and he requested compensation for the time spent in GPE detention .

The applicant ’s request of DATE was rejected by the ORG Secretary on DATE . Noting that the applicant had stated that he had left GPE for the GPE in DATE because the NORP authorities had made it impossible for him to do his work as a shepherd and had exerted pressure on him to become a village guard , the ORG Secretary held that the applicant ’s submissions did not disclose any grounds for believing that he had well - founded reasons to fear persecution within the meaning of the DATE LAW . The ORG Secretary considered that the mere fact that the applicant belonged to the NORP community in GPE did not warrant such a conclusion , and neither had it appeared that the applicant had attracted the particular attention of the NORP authorities . Insofar as the applicant relied on LAW , the ORG Secretary did not find it established that the applicant , if expelled to GPE , would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to this provision of the LAW . The ORG Secretary further ordered the applicant to leave the GPE without delay .

On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE in the course of which the applicant was represented by a lawyer , ORG , in a decision pronounced in public , rejected the applicant ’s appeal of CARDINAL DATE against his placement in GPE detention . ORG considered that public order required the applicant ’s placement in GPE detention as he had resided illegally in the GPE for DATE and had apparently evaded the control of the ORG department ( vreemdelingendienst ) . Noting that the applicant had no residence title and finding that it had not been established that the applicant had sufficient means of subsistence , ORG held that there were serious grounds to believe that the applicant would seek to find ways of avoiding his expulsion .

ORG did not agree with the applicant that there were no real prospects for his expulsion and , in this respect , rejected his argument that the public prosecutor had not given his consent for the expulsion . It considered that this consent was implied in the public prosecutor ’s decision to hand the applicant over to the GPE police for expulsion purposes . As to the objection filed against the rejected request for asylum of DATE , ORG considered that this did not have such prospects of success that , on that ground , the applicant ’s placement in GPE detention should be discontinued . It further took into consideration that this request for asylum had only been filed after the applicant ’s arrest on DATE , which cast doubts as to the sincerity of his motives for making an application for asylum . It further held that there was no indication that the applicant had well - founded reasons to fear persecution in his country of origin .

ORG concluded that the applicant ’s apprehension and placement in GPE detention were lawful under the relevant statutory provisions and , after having balanced the interests involved , could reasonably be regarded as justified . Consequently , it found no grounds to award the applicant compensation for the time spent in placement in GPE detention . The parties were notified of this decision on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant filed a third request for asylum or , alternatively , a residence permit on humanitarian grounds . On DATE , he filed a second appeal with ORG against his placement in GPE detention and he requested compensation for the time spent in GPE detention .

On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE in the course of which the applicant was represented by a lawyer , ORG , in a decision pronounced in public , rejected the applicant ’s appeal of DATE . Noting that the lawfulness of this placement had already been determined in its decision of CARDINAL DATE , it limited its examination to the lawfulness of the applicant ’s continued placement in GPE detention .

As to the ongoing proceedings , ORG found no indication that these had such evident chances of success that it would be unreasonable to continue the applicant ’s placement in GPE detention . It further did not find it established that the applicant , if expelled to GPE , would run the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW . As to the argument that LAW entails the right of an accused to appear at his trial , ORG noted that the GPE authorities granted entry visas to aliens wishing to attend their trial in the GPE and that , therefore , this did not constitute an obstacle to expulsion . It further noted that the applicant was in the possession of a valid NORP passport , so that a presentation to the NORP consular authorities in order to obtain travel documents would not be necessary . It further noted that a determination of a new application for a residence permit could only be awaited in the GPE if no contraindications existed and that , in the applicant ’s case , there were such contraindications since he was suspected of having committed a criminal offence .

ORG further found no indication that , since its decision of DATE , the authorities had been lacking in diligence in their consideration of the applicant ’s case or that there were insufficient prospects of expulsion . It concluded that there was no appearance that the applicant ’s continued placement in GPE detention was contrary to the relevant statutory provisions and that , after having balanced the interests involved , it could reasonably be regarded as justified . Consequently , it found no grounds for awarding the applicant compensation for the time spent in placement in GPE detention . The parties were notified of this decision on DATE .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary informed ORG that , in view of reports on what had happened to CARDINAL asylum seekers who had been expelled to GPE , a policy decision had been taken to suspend temporarily the expulsion of NORP nationals of NORP origin . On DATE , upon an order of ORG , the applicant was released from GPE detention .

On DATE , following proceedings on appeal in the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant , ORG ( ORG ) quashed the applicant ’s conviction by ORG and declared the prosecution inadmissible , holding that the applicant ’s deprivation of liberty on DATE had been unlawful in that there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence in respect of which the legal provisions in force allowed a suspect to be taken into police custody .

The applicant ’s objection of CARDINAL DATE against the ORG Secretary ’s decision of DATE has , to date , not been decided on . No further information has been submitted as to the remaining proceedings instituted by the applicant .

LAW , insofar as relevant , provides :

“ CARDINAL . If the interests of public order , public policy or national security so require , the following categories of aliens may be detained :

a. NORP aliens whose expulsion has been ordered ;

b. aliens in respect of whom there are serious ground to believe that their expulsion will be ordered ;

c. aliens who are not allowed to reside in the GPE by virtue of any of the provisions contained in ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL < of LAW > , pending the decision on an application for a residence permit , a permanent residence permit or leave to enter as refugees .

An alien shall not be detained when , and detention shall be terminated as soon as , he intimates that he wishes to leave the GPE and is in fact in a position to do so .

Detention for the reasons set out in the first sentence of paragraph CARDINAL and for the categories referred to under b. or c. of that paragraph shall not be of longer duration than DATE .

An alien whose expulsion has been ordered can , in principle , remain in GPE detention for an unlimited period of time . The lawfulness of a placement in GPE detention can , however , be challenged before a court . Where the court is of the opinion that there are no prospects of expulsion within a reasonable time , it can order that the measure of placement in GPE detention be terminated .

It has been established in the case - law of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG that the interest of an alien to be released from GPE detention increases with the passage of time . Where a placement in GPE detention exceeds a period of DATE , it is generally held that the alien ’s interest in being released is greater than the interest to keep him in detention for the purposes of expulsion . Depending on the specific circumstances of each case , this point in time may also be reached before or after DATE have passed . It may be later where the alien frustrates the determination of his identity or nationality and it may be earlier where the alien concerned is unable to obtain travel documents for reasons beyond his control .

Pursuant to Article PERSON of LAW , ORG must examine an appeal brought against a measure of deprivation of liberty within DATE and must hand down its written decision on the appeal within DATE following its hearing on the appeal .

According to LAW ( PERSON ) , the President of ORG shall inform the parties at the closure of the hearing when the court ’s decision will be handed down . LAW provides that , within DATE of the date of the pronouncement of the decision , ORG will send a copy of the decision to the parties free of charge .

Although no appeal lies against a decision by ORG in proceedings concerning requests for release from detention for expulsion purposes , an appeal to ORG ( Gerechtshof ) is available in relation to a decision taken in the context of such proceedings on a request for compensation for the time spent in detention for expulsion purposes . Furthermore , an appeal may be admitted in which the complaint is made that in the decision challenged a fundamental principle of law has been disrespected ( cf . ORG , CARDINAL DATE , PERSON , nr . CARDINAL )

There is no time - limit for the filing of an appeal against a decision of placement in GPE detention and in principle a person placed in GPE detention may file as many appeals against this decision as he sees fit . When the lawfulness of a decision of placement in GPE detention has been determined for a first time , the examination of any subsequent appeal in this respect will be limited to the lawfulness of the continuation of the placement in GPE detention as from DATE last judicial decision taken on this point .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary of ORG requested ORG to suspend the examination of appeals , including requests for injunctions on expulsions , filed by asylum seekers of NORP origin , as it had appeared that CARDINAL such asylum seekers had encountered serious problems after they had been expelled to GPE .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary informed ORG that the results of an investigation into the facts on the basis of which the expulsion of NORP nationals of NORP origin had been temporarily suspended had led to the lifting of that suspension .


Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery .

On DATE the Prosecutor ordered the pre - trial detention of the applicant as a preventive measure .

The applicant filed a complaint on DATE with ORG of GPE and on DATE with ORG , claiming that his detention was unlawful .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for release pending trial with ORG . The application was sent by the administration of the remand prison on the same date and was received by that court on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged another application for release pending trial with ORG . On DATE ORG forwarded the applicant ’s application for release to ORG of GPE . It is unclear whether that application was the CARDINAL dated DATE or DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant again lodged applications for release pending trial with ORG . The application of DATE was sent by the administration of the remand prison on DATE and was received by that court on DATE .

The Government submitted that on DATE ORG had sent the applicant certain clarifications concerning LAW .

The applicant submitted that on DATE he had received a reply from ORG informing him that all his complaints and applications had been transmitted to ORG .

On DATE ORG forwarded the applicant ’s application to ORG . It is unclear to which of the applications this corresponded .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to a different remand prison .

On DATE the investigative authorities forwarded certain documents from the applicant ’s case file to ORG for examination under LAW .

On DATE the ORG forwarded the applicant ’s application for release pending trial to ORG referring to the fact that the applicant was being held in a remand prison within the latter court ’s jurisdiction . The application was received by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the administration of the remand prison where the applicant used to be held informed ORG that the applicant could not be conveyed to a hearing on that date because on DATE he had been transferred to LOC . It appears that the hearing was supposed to concern the application for release pending trial .

On DATE ORG forwarded the applicant ’s applications for release pending trial to ORG . It is unclear which particular applications were concerned .

On DATE the administration of the remand prison where the applicant used to be held again informed ORG that the applicant could not be conveyed to a hearing on that date because on DATE he had been transferred to LOC .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The court counted the term of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention towards the term of his imprisonment .

On DATE the judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG .

In accordance with LAW in force at the material time , complaints about a decision to apply pre - trial detention as a preventive measure and about the length of the detention could be lodged with a court by the detainee or his representative . Under LAW judicial review of the lawfulness , validity and length of the detention was carried out by a judge in camera at the place of the detention within DATE after receipt of documents justifying the arrest .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , their Agent .

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

The applicant was married to PERSON who was a member of PERSON ( bytové družstvo ) which assigned a flat to him . At that time the applicant was not a member of the cooperative . The couple lived in the flat under a lease and , by operation of law , they had the right of joint use ( právo spoločného užívania ) .

In DATE the marriage was dissolved and PERSON moved out of the flat .

In DATE ORG ( then ORG súd , at present PERSON súd ) cancelled the applicant ’s and her former husband ’s right of joint use of the flat and ruled that the sole legal tenant was PERSON The applicant was ordered to move out within DATE of the date when a substitute dwelling was provided to her . Until then , the applicant would have an absolute right to stay in the flat ( právo bývania ) .

As no substitute dwelling has ever been provided to her , the applicant continues to enjoy her right to stay in the flat .

In DATE the applicant became a so called “ non - resident member ” of the cooperative . In DATE she transferred the membership to a third person . In DATE she again became a non - resident member .

In DATE the cooperative ’s board passed a decision excluding Mr B. from its membership for breach of duties . It was noted that he had not been using the flat since DATE . PERSON appealed against this decision , but his appeal has never been formally determined .

On DATE the board annulled its decision of DATE . The validity of the annulment is disputed . It was investigated following the applicant ’s criminal complaint , but no charges were ever brought . The matter was considered to be of a private - law nature and , as such , fell to be determined by the ordinary courts . No criminal case to answer was detected .

In DATE PERSON petitioned for the applicant ’s eviction on the basis of the DATE judgment . On DATE the Bratislava III ORG ( then ORG , at present ORG súd ) dismissed the petition holding that PERSON rights under that judgment were statute - barred .

In DATE the applicant invited the cooperative to sell her the flat under special legislation - Flats and NORP - residential LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended - “ the DATE LAW ) - which provided for the transfer of ownership of flats to tenants for a regulated price . She did not receive an answer .

In DATE the cooperative sold the flat to PERSON under LAW .

The sale was registered in ORG and PERSON became the legal owner of the flat . The applicant subsequently challenged the validity of the sale in the ordinary courts . The course and outcome of her action is a separate subject - matter of the present application and is described in detail below .

On DATE , following numerous arguments and disturbances , PERSON and his lawyer , PERSON , arranged for a locksmith and a removal service to enter the flat forcibly and to start removing the applicant ’s belongings from it . The police arrived after a call from the applicant and the operation was halted .

The applicant filed a criminal complaint about the incident and joined a claim for damages to it . On her complaint , PERSON and PERSON were indicted to stand trial on a charge of having organised a breaking and entry within the meaning of LAW . They were first found guilty in summary proceedings , but the conviction was quashed on appeal . They were then acquitted in ordinary proceedings , but the acquittal was quashed on appeal . The proceedings are still pending .

On DATE the applicant lodged a separate action for damages resulting from the incident of DATE . It is still pending .

Mr B. again sought the applicant ’s eviction by way of a court action . It was stayed by ORG on DATE pending the outcome of the proceedings concerning the validity of the transfer of the flat to Mr. PERSON The action for eviction is still pending .

In DATE PERSON was registered in ORG as residing permanently in the flat . The registration was investigated following the applicant ’s criminal complaint , but no charges were ever brought . The matter was found to be entirely of a private - law nature and , as such , fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts . No criminal case to answer was detected .

On DATE the applicant brought an action in GPE ORG seeking an injunction to restrain Mr B. from disturbing her peaceful enjoyment of the flat . At the same time she sought an interim injunction preventing him from entering the flat . On DATE the matter was transmitted to the Bratislava I ORG , which had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain it . It is still pending there .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against the cooperative in the Bratislava I ORG seeking a judicial ruling declaring the contract of sale of DATE void on grounds of illegality in that PERSON had previously been deprived of his membership of the cooperative and , as such , no longer qualified to have the flat transferred to him under LAW .

On DATE the Bratislava I ORG transmitted the action to GPE ORG , which had territorial jurisdiction .

On DATE the Bratislava III ORG invited the defendant to submit observations in reply and the applicant to pay the court fee , which she did on DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG held hearings .

On DATE ORG held another hearing following which , on DATE , it dismissed the action as unfounded .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal . On ORG request , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , the applicant corrected her appeal and paid the court fee . On DATE the applicant supplemented her appeal .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . It had to be adjourned as the applicant had challenged the president of ORG chamber on grounds of bias . On DATE the applicant supplemented the reasons for the challenge .

On DATE ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) dismissed the challenge as unfounded .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE for procedural shortcomings and remitted the matter to ORG for reexamination . The court observed inter alia that the action should have been directed against both parties to the contract .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant ’s lawyer to correct the action by identifying the defendants in line with the judgment of DATE . On DATE the lawyer informed ORG that on DATE the applicant had withdrawn his power of attorney .

On DATE ORG forwarded the invitation to correct the action directly to the applicant , who responded on DATE .

On DATE , on the applicant ’s motion , the ORG admitted PERSON to the proceedings as the second defendant in the action .

In their submissions to ORG filed in DATE , respectively , the cooperative and its former in - house lawyer conceded that the re - admission of PERSON as a member in DATE had been contrary to law and to the statute of the cooperative . They also admitted that there had been shortcomings in the transfer of the flat to him and expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the internal records concerning his re - admission .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings . The hearing called for DATE was adjourned due to the absence of the applicant , her lawyer and a witness . It was also noted that , DATE previously , the applicant had challenged the ORG judge dealing with the case for bias . The applicant completed the challenge by submitting new information and documents on DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the challenge as unsubstantiated .

A hearing held before FAC on DATE was adjourned until DATE and again until DATE .

On DATE ORG held a hearing following which , on DATE , it dismissed the action . It concluded that the applicant did not have a “ pressing legal interest ” in obtaining the ruling sought , which was a conditio sine qua non under LAW ) of LAW for the ruling to be made . Her legal status as regards the flat was defined by the judgment of DATE under which she had an absolute right to stay in the flat until alternative accommodation had been provided to her . The contract of DATE did not concern her directly and its validity had no effect on her own legal position . The applicant appealed against this judgment .

On DATE , following a hearing of the appeal on DATE , ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , concurring fully with ORG findings and conclusions . The judgment became final and binding on DATE .

In DATE the applicant requested that the Prosecutor General exercise his discretionary power and lodge an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie ) on her behalf against the judgments of DATE and DATE . She argued that those judgments were legally wrong and violated her right to respect for her private life and home .

On DATE the Prosecutor General acceded to the applicant ’s request and lodged the appeal . He maintained that the applicant did have a “ pressing legal interest ” in having the action determined as she had been living in the flat for DATE , she was a member of the cooperative and had sought to obtain the flat under LAW , and that PERSON had been taking various illegal and unacceptable measures to have her evicted from it . In contrast , PERSON had vacated the flat DATE , his rights under the judgment of DATE were statuebarred , he had been excluded from the cooperative , his readmission to it was flawed and he was not eligible to have the flat transferred to him under LAW . ORG maintained that the contract of sale of DATE was illegal and should be declared void .

On DATE ORG dismissed the extraordinary appeal . The applicant had the right to stay in the flat until she had been provided with an alternative dwelling under the DATE judgment . If she was being disturbed in exercising this right , she could seek judicial protection against the trespasser . Her right to stay could not be interpreted as entailing her standing to sue . The transfer of ownership of the flat from the cooperative to PERSON had no effect on her legal position . The applicant must have known that PERSON had a recognised legal title to the flat and thus could not claim to have acted bona fide in obtaining the title herself . The applicant therefore lacked a “ pressing legal interest ” in the action and , consequently , could not challenge the contract of DATE .

On DATE the applicant , who was represented by a lawyer , lodged a complaint under LAW which she completed on DATE . She maintained that the length of the proceedings in her action of DATE , as conducted before ORG and ORG , had been excessive and that their respective decisions of DATE and DATE had been arbitrary and legally wrong and had violated her right to respect for her private life and home .

On DATE ORG ( Ústavný súd ) declared the complaint inadmissible . As to the length of the proceedings in their phase before ORG , they had ended by the judgment of DATE . Their examination thus could not bring about their acceleration . In line with ORG established practice , such an examination was not therefore required . ORG did not address the length of the proceedings before ORG .

The examination of the subjectmatter of the applicant ’s action was primarily the task of the ordinary courts . They had proceeded in accordance with the applicable procedural rules and had given adequate reasons for their decisions . ORG discerned no element of arbitrariness in the contested judgments and found that the remainder of the application was therefore manifestly ill - founded .

In DATE the applicant turned to ORG again . She sought to challenge the judgments of ORG , ORG and ORG of , respectively , DATE , DATE and DATE on the ground that they had violated her right to respect for her private and family life and her home .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as out of time in that it had been lodged outside the statutory twomonth timelimit .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking . On an unspecified date charges were brought against her and several other persons .

On DATE the ORG of LOC remanded her in custody . It referred to the gravity of the charge and found that she might abscond , reoffend , threaten witnesses , destroy evidence or impede the investigation in some other way .

The applicant appealed . She submitted that she had no intention of absconding or interfering with the investigation and asked the court to release her on bail . She had a permanent place of residence and employment , positive references and a clean criminal record .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order on appeal , finding that it had been lawful and justified . There was a well - founded suspicion of the applicant ’s involvement in drug trafficking .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , referring to the gravity of the charge , the risk of absconding , reoffending or interfering with the proceedings , and the need for a further investigation . In particular , it noted that it was necessary to listen to CARDINAL recordings of the applicant ’s phone conversations , to perform an expert analysis of those recordings , to carry out fingerprint , physico - chemical and psychiatric expert examinations , to make these expert opinions available to the defendants and counsel and to draft a bill of indictment .

The applicant appealed . She repeated her arguments advanced in the previous grounds of appeal and further claimed that ORG had not explained how she could interfere with the expert examinations or obstruct the listening to the recordings . She also submitted that her brother was terminally ill with cancer .

On DATE ORG upheld the extension order on appeal , finding that it had been lawful and justified .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , referring to the gravity of the charge , “ her active role in the commission of the crime ” , her being the leader of an organised criminal group , her refusal to cooperate with the investigator and to name her accomplices , the risk of absconding , reoffending or interfering with the proceedings , and the need for a further investigation . In particular , it noted that it was necessary to listen to CARDINAL recordings of the applicant ’s phone conversations , to perform an expert analysis of those recordings , to identify other members of the organised criminal group , to find and question witnesses who might have information about the group ’s activities , to verify whether the applicant was involved in the commission of other crimes related to drug trafficking , to bring final charges against her and her CARDINAL accomplices and to perform other investigative measures .

On an unspecified date the investigator applied for a further extension of the applicant ’s detention , submitting that the investigation had not been completed . It was necessary to listen to CARDINAL recordings of the applicant ’s phone conversations , to perform an expert analysis of those recordings and make the results available to the defendants and counsel , to find and question witnesses who might have information about the group ’s activities , to find one of the accomplices who had absconded , to find out whether the defendants were involved in the commission of other crimes related to drug trafficking , to bring final charges against them and to perform other investigative measures .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , referring to the gravity of the charge , the need for a further investigation , and the risk that she might abscond , reoffend or interfere with the investigation . On DATE ORG upheld the extension order on appeal .

On an unspecified date the investigator applied for a further extension of the applicant ’s detention , submitting that the investigation was still pending . In particular , an expert analysis of the recordings of the applicant ’s telephone conversations had not been completed and some of the applicant ’s accomplices had not been charged yet . The applicant refused to cooperate with the investigation and there was a risk that she might abscond , reoffend or put pressure on witnesses if released .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It noted that the applicant was charged with a particularly serious offence and that further investigation was necessary . The purpose of her detention was to ensure that the investigation was completed effectively and in good time and to eliminate any risk of her absconding , reoffending or hampering the proceedings .

In her appeal submissions the applicant complained that the court ’s conclusions had not been based on relevant facts . She had a permanent place of residence and employment , positive references and a clean criminal record . There was no evidence of any attempts to interfere with the investigation , either on her part or on the part of her co - defendants who were not in custody .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , referring to the gravity of the charges , the need for a further investigation and the risk of her absconding or interfering with the investigation .

The applicant appealed . In her grounds of appeal she complained , in particular , that the length of her detention had exceeded a “ reasonable time ” , contrary to QUANTITY of the Convention . She submitted that all evidence had been already collected and the investigation completed , save for certain purely administrative formalities . She further claimed that ORG conclusion that she might abscond or interfere with the investigation had been hypothetical and had not been supported by relevant facts . The court had disregarded her arguments that she had a permanent place of residence and employment , positive references , a clean criminal record and a terminally ill brother . She also complained about inhuman conditions of her detention , in particular overcrowding , insufficient number of sleeping places and poor sanitary conditions . She asked the court to apply a more lenient preventive measure .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the extension order on appeal . It noted , in particular , that the maximum DATE time - limit permitted by the domestic law had not been exceeded .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It noted that the defendants and their counsel were studying the voluminous case file and the investigator needed time to prepare the case for the committal before a court . It referred to the complexity of the case , the number of the defendants , the gravity of the charges against the applicant and her leadership of an organised criminal group . The applicant ’s arguments about her good character were insufficient to warrant release . The court found that she might reoffend , abscond , or intimidate witnesses . It also rejected the applicant ’s request to be released on bail of MONEY ( RUB , MONEY ( ORG ) ) , finding that there was no reason to amend the preventive measure .

In her appeal submissions the applicant asked to be released . She complained that the court had not given reasons for rejecting her bail offer and offered to post higher bail if the proposed amount was insufficient . She argued that the length of her detention had exceeded a “ reasonable time ” and that the investigating authorities had failed to display “ special diligence ” in the conduct of the investigation . In particular , they had procrastinated in preparing the case for remittal before a court . She further submitted that she could no longer interfere with the investigation as it had been completed , all witnesses had been questioned and material evidence collected . Finally , she again complained of overcrowding , insufficient sleeping places and poor sanitary conditions in the detention facility and submitted that the combination of those factors to which she had been exposed for DATE had already resulted in a deterioration in her health .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well - reasoned and justified .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It noted that the defendants and their counsel were studying the case file and that the investigator needed time to prepare the case for committal before a court . It referred to the complexity of the case , the number of the defendants , the gravity of the charges against the applicant and her leadership of an organised criminal group . It also noted that her drug test had been positive , therefore there were reasons to believe that she might abscond , reoffend , intimidate witnesses or interfere with the proceedings in some other way .

The applicant appealed , repeating her arguments set forth in the previous appeal submissions . She also argued that the drug test had been performed a long time ago and its results were irrelevant for the assessment of the risk of absconding , reoffending or interfering with the proceedings .

On DATE ORG quashed the extension decision and ordered that the applicant be released on bail of RUB CARDINAL . It found that ORG had not adduced sufficient reasons to justify an extension of the applicant ’s detention up to DATE . In particular , it held that under domestic law the complexity of the case could only serve as a justification for up to QUANTITY months’ detention and could not justify an extension of detention beyond that time - limit . ORG conclusion that the applicant might abscond , reoffend or interfere with the proceedings had not been supported by relevant facts or evidence . ORG had disregarded such pertinent facts as the applicant ’s positive references , permanent residence and employment and her family situation . It had failed to take into account the recent death of her brother , which mitigated the risk of her absconding as in such circumstances she naturally wished to be with her family . As the investigation had been completed and the witnesses questioned , the risk of interfering with the proceedings was also negligible . The results of the drug test were irrelevant for the assessment of the risk of reoffending , as the test had been performed immediately after the arrest , that is DATE before , and the applicant had never been medically certified as being a drug addict . ORG further referred to the applicant ’s frail health and “ her well - founded complaints about the inhuman conditions of her detention , which caused her humiliation and imperilled her health ” . Finally , it found fault with ORG for its failure to consider the possibility of applying a more lenient preventive measure , although the applicant had asked to be released on bail .

On DATE the applicant posted bail and was released . It appears that the criminal proceedings against her are still pending .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was held in detention facility no . GPE in the town of PERSON , LOC .

According to a certificate of DATE from the facility administration , produced by the Government , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m. It was equipped with CARDINAL bunks and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . CARDINAL DATE she was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m. It was equipped with CARDINAL bunks and accommodated QUANTITY inmates . The Government supported their assertions with copies of extracts from registration logs showing the number of detainees on DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . They further submitted that the applicant had at all times had a separate bunk and had been provided with clean bedding and a mattress which was QUANTITY thick .

The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements or the number of bunks . She disagreed , however , with the number of inmates asserted by the Government . According to her , cell no . DATE accommodated up to CARDINAL inmates . At times inmates did not have individual bunks and had to take turns to sleep . The metal bunks were covered with thin mattresses . The applicant , who suffered from back pain , had to stuff a layer of magazines between the metal frame and the mattress to make her bed softer .

The Government contended that the cells had natural light from the windows . Each cell had CARDINAL windows measuring QUANTITY in width and QUANTITY in length . The windows were covered with metal bars . ORG between the metal bars , measuring QUANTITY in width and QUANTITY in length , allowed natural light . The cells were also equipped with fluorescent lamps which functioned during DATE and at TIME . The applicant stated that the windows were covered with thick metal bars that blocked access to natural light . The openings between the metal bars measured QUANTITY by QUANTITY . The artificial light was dim and did not allow inmates to read or write . As the artificial light was never switched off at night the applicant ’s sleep was disturbed .

The Government submitted that each cell had a ventilation system . They were also naturally ventilated through the windows . They admitted that there was a pigsty QUANTITY away from the detention facility . They insisted however that the windows of the applicant ’s cells looked onto the opposite side . There were no insects or rodents in the detention facility , as all the cells were disinfected DATE . It follows from the certificate of DATE from the facility administration that sanitary services cleansed the cells regularly to reduce the number of rodents and insects . The applicant claimed that there was no forced ventilation and it was stifling and smoky in the cells . It was also smelly as the windows faced a pigsty . The cells swarmed with flies , mosquitoes and lice . Inmates had to do their laundry indoors , creating excessive humidity . The ceiling was covered with fungus . Some of the inmates were suffering from tuberculosis .

Relying on the certificates issued by the facility administration on DATE , the ORG stated that the average temperature in the cells was CARDINAL degrees Celsius both in DATE and in DATE . The floor was covered by wood plates which were QUANTITY thick . According to the applicant , it was very cold in the cells in DATE when the heating system was not on . She had to sleep in woollen clothes . The cells had a concrete floor covered with thin wood flooring and it was freezing to walk on .

It follows from the same certificates produced by the ORG that the cells were equipped with a lavatory bowl , a sink and a tap with running cold and hot water . This was separated from the living area by a partition QUANTITY in height in cell no . CARDINAL and QUANTITY in height in cell no . CARDINAL . Toilet articles and detergents were distributed regularly . In cell no . CARDINAL the dining table was situated QUANTITY from the toilet bowl , while in cell no . CARDINAL the distance between the toilet bowl and the dining table was QUANTITY The applicant disagreed with this description . She claimed that the lavatory bowl was placed in the corner of the cell . There was indeed a partition on one side , but the other side was left unshielded so that the person using the toilet was in view of the other inmates and the warders . The dining table was fixed to the floor less than a metre from the toilet and the bunks were QUANTITY from it . No toilet articles or detergents were distributed . There was no running hot water in the cell but detainees were permitted to use immersion heaters .

The Government further contended that inmates were allowed to take a shower once DATE and were provided at that time with clean bedding and towels . The temperature in the shower hall was QUANTITY , while the water temperature was QUANTITY . The water temperature could be adjusted by the warders upon request . According to the applicant , inmates were allowed to take a shower once a week for TIME . The water was too hot . It took time to call a warder to adjust the temperature and then inmates had insufficient time to shower . It was so cold in the changing room in DATE that the door was covered with ice .

Finally , the ORG submitted that inmates were provided with sufficient and wholesome food . There were containers with boiled drinking water in each cell . The applicant claimed that the food was insipid and she could not bring herself to eat it . Inmates were not provided with drinking water and had to drink tap water which did not meet sanitary conditions .

The Government submitted that the applicant had an TIME - long walk DATE . The yard measured QUANTITY m. It was covered by a roof to protect inmates from rain . The entire cell population was taken to the yard at once . The number of inmates walking in the yard simultaneously with the applicant varied CARDINAL .

The applicant did not dispute the yard measurements . She claimed however that CARDINAL detainees were taken into the yard at once . The walls were coated with shuba , a sort of abrasive concrete lining , designed to prevent detainees from leaning on the walls . The opening to the sky was covered with rusty metal bars . When it rained rusty water came pouring down on the detainees . The yard had a concrete floor and was freezing to walk on . It was very smoky in the yard .

“ Preventive measures ” or “ measures of restraint ” ( меры пресечения ) include an undertaking not to leave a town or region , personal surety , bail and detention ( Article CARDINAL ) . If necessary , the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear ( обязательство о явке ) ( Article CARDINAL of the CCrP ) .

When deciding on a preventive measure , the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “ sufficient grounds to believe ” that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial , reoffend or obstruct the establishment of the truth ( LAW ) . It must also take into account the gravity of the charge , information on the accused ’s character , his or her profession , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances ( LAW ) .

Detention may be ordered by a court if the charge carries a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , provided that a less restrictive preventive measure can not be applied ( LAW ) .

After arrest the suspect is placed in custody “ during the investigation ” . The period of detention during the investigation may be extended beyond DATE only if the detainee is charged with a serious or particularly serious criminal offence . No extension beyond DATE is possible ( LAW DATE ) . The period of detention “ during the investigation ” is calculated up to DATE when the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court ( LAW ) .

From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court , the defendant ’s detention is “ before the court ” ( or “ during the trial ” ) . The period of detention “ during the trial ” is calculated up to the date the judgment is given . It may not normally exceed DATE , but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences , the trial court may approve CARDINAL or more extensions of no longer than DATE each ( LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) provides that detainees should be given free food sufficient to maintain them in good health according to standards established by ORG of GPE . Section CARDINAL provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have QUANTITY of personal space in his or her cell .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

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

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

In DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the agency ” ) , further to a competitive examination , appointed the applicant in the post of economic deputy director in ORG ( “ the hospital ” ) , a public institution . The hospital was in charge with the enforcement of that decision .

NORP In DATE the agency found management deficiencies by the applicant . Therefore on DATE the agency decided to dismiss him from his position as deputy director . That decision was to be enforced by the hospital and provided for a DATE time - limit to be challenged before the courts .

Consequently , on CARDINAL DATE the hospital offered the applicant CARDINAL alternative posts , either as economist or as consultant in the accounting department , informing him that in case of refusal it would terminate his employment contract in accordance with LAW ) of LAW for professional incompatibility . The applicant declined the CARDINAL offers .

On DATE the hospital charged the applicant with pecuniary damage caused to the institution , on the basis of the above - mentioned findings .

However , on DATE the GPE jurisdictional branch of ORG annulled that decision , considering that the pecuniary damage had not been caused by the applicant and therefore he was not liable under LAW . That judgment became final .

On DATE the public prosecutor also found no grounds which would justify initiating a criminal action against the applicant .

On DATE , having regard to the decision of CARDINAL DATE and to the fact that the applicant had refused the CARDINAL alternative posts , the hospital dismissed him from his job .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before the courts , seeking reinstatement in his previous job and payment of salary arrears . In his subsequent submissions , he also challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , the post of economic director was discontinued in line with new legal provisions .

On DATE the ORG allowed that action in part and annulled the decision of DATE , considering that his dismissal under LAW ( e ) of LAW for management deficiencies had been groundless . It held that the legal grounds for terminating his employment contract should be reconsidered in a fair manner , by taking into account the applicant 's preference for ceasing or continuing in another post .

However , the court dismissed his complaint against the decision of DATE as being out of time . Consequently , even if it found that the grounds for his dismissal were unfounded , it dismissed his other claims , considering that it could not order reinstatement in his previous job and payment of salary since that decision taken by the agency to dismiss him from his post had not been examined on the merits and had not been annulled . The court concluded that the hospital was not at fault for the termination of his employment contract because the applicant had previously been dismissed from his job by the hierarchically superior body and had not opted for another position . Therefore , in spite of upholding the annulment of his dismissal , the court considered that the provisions of LAW were not applicable in the case . That Article provided that in case of annulment of a dismissal decision , the institution had an obligation to reinstate that person in his previous job and to pay him damages .

The applicant appealed , considering his reinstatement as the legal consequence of annulling the decision by which he had been dismissed . He also submitted that he had working relations with the hospital and that the decision taken by the agency was not relevant in his case .

The hospital argued that the decision to dismiss the applicant had been taken by the hierarchically superior body , which had also employed him , and that the hospital had only enforced that decision in the absence of a positive answer by the applicant to its CARDINAL alternative job proposals . The hospital also submitted that the CARDINAL contested decisions did not have the same purpose because the decision taken by the agency aimed only at dismissing the applicant from his post , thus giving the possibility to continue working relations in another post , according to his qualifications .

On DATE the ORG upheld that judgment by a final decision . It considered that the annulment of the decision of CARDINAL DATE had no influence over the previous decision of CARDINAL DATE , which had not been challenged in due time . Therefore , since the latter decision had not been annulled , it was not possible to order the applicant 's reinstatement in his previous job or payment of salary . The court also considered to be irrelevant the fact that the applicant had working relations with the hospital , since the Regulations for the organisation and functioning of the public health agencies had provided that those agencies were entitled to revoke directors ' appointments in subordinate institutions ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) .

On DATE the applicant requested the hospital to reinstate him in accordance with the judgments of DATE and DATE , considering that his employment contract was still in effect . He also submitted that he had the qualifications required for the post of accounting director or director in charge with reform . On DATE , during a meeting with the hospital 's management , the applicant was informed about the unavailability of any post of economist within the hospital . He was also informed that the post of accounting director was not vacant and that the appointment in the post of director in charge with reform was to be made by ORG , and not by the hospital .

Therefore , on DATE the hospital requested ORG ( the “ PERSON ” ) to find a corresponding job for the applicant and also informed the applicant about this action . On DATE the PERSON informed the hospital of the existence of CARDINAL available posts of economist in a certain company .

On DATE the hospital invited again the applicant to its headquarters . The applicant went on DATE , but refused to read the information sent by the PERSON , requesting to have it submitted to him by post . Eventually , the applicant refused those offers .

Therefore , on DATE the hospital terminated his employment contract under LAW ( a ) of LAW , which provided for dismissal of an employee by the institution when the post occupied by the former had been discontinued following reorganisation . In accordance with the judgments of DATE and DATE it annulled the mention in his employment record which provided that he had been dismissed because of management deficiencies . The decision further stated that the period DATE and DATE was not considered as length of service .

The applicant challenged that decision , seeking its annulment , his reinstatement in an equivalent post and payment of salary starting with DATE , the date on which the judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He submitted that the annulment of the decision of CARDINAL DATE had restored the status quo ante and therefore his employment contract was still valid .

The hospital submitted that the post occupied by the applicant had been discontinued in accordance with new legal provisions , that it had no vacancy suited to the applicant 's qualifications and that it had requested assistance from the PERSON . Since the applicant had declined those offers , the hospital reconsidered the grounds for his dismissal , as stated in the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed his action . It considered his dismissal as the only alternative , taking into account that his post had been discontinued , that the hospital had offered him another post corresponding to his qualifications and also the fact that the applicant had claimed only a post of accounting director or director in charge with reform , which could only be filled by competitive examination .

The court further noted that the judgment of DATE had only annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE by which the applicant had been dismissed from his job , but not the decision taken by the agency on DATE with a view to dismiss him from his post . As a result his employment contract continued to be in effect , but his reinstatement in his previous job was no longer possible . The court also held that the period DATE and DATE had legally been considered as not amounting to length of service , since neither the applicant nor the employer had paid social security during that period , as provided for by the legal provisions . Finally , the court dismissed as groundless his claim for overdue salary starting with DATE for the reason that he had not worked .

That judgment became final .

The order no . DATE of ORG on the organisation and functioning of the public health agencies provided that the hierarchically superior body was in charge with appointing or revoking the appointments of the directors from the subordinate institutions . Those attributes were preserved by the order no . CARDINAL of ORG on the approval of the Regulations for the organisation and functioning of the public health agencies .


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

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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC .

In DATE ORG expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants ( plot no . CARDINAL ) in the PERSON village , in ORG , in order to build the GPE dam .

On DATE the applicants brought an action before ORG for additional compensation .

On DATE ORG Instance awarded the applicants additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) plus interest at the statutory rate , running from DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the administration paid the applicants ORG DATE and ORG liras ( TRY ) respectively in additional compensation , together with interest .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant , who was a customs officer in the PERSON customs service , was indicted and sent before the criminal courts , accused of having accepted bribes , of committing forgery and of abuse of his official position , offences sanctioned by LAW , LAW and sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and DATE ) and ( d ) of PERSON no . MONEY on the prevention , discovery and sanctioning of acts of corruption .

The indictment contained detailed references to the criminal investigation started in DATE and conducted with respect to a certain Mr. PERSON It stated that in DATE the police had found that Mr. E had been illegally importing goods into GPE without paying the taxes due , allegedly with the help of some customs officers and some border policemen to whom he had allegedly given various amounts of money . The goods , which had been declared as destined for private use , had in fact been subsequently placed on the market and sold , and as such were not exempted from customs duties .

Besides Mr. PERSON and the applicant , CARDINAL customs officers were sent for trial before ORG . The customs officers , including the applicant , were charged with taking bribes , but also with improper conduct in the exercise of their professional duties , namely in the application of the customs regulations concerning the importing into the country of the goods in question .

Some customs officers and the members of the border police were not indicted on the ground that the acts committed by them lacked intention or that they had only committed professional faults , while some of them received an administrative fine .

The evidence adduced by the prosecution included the statements of Mr. E. accusing the customs officers of taking bribes , statements which he partially withdrew later before the courts , testimonials of witnesses to the effect that PERSON had declared as private goods merchandise belonging to his company , a notebook belonging to E. containing inscriptions with dates when he entered the country , initials of persons ( presumed to be those of the customs officers ) , figures placed in reference to those initials ( presumed to represent amounts of money given to those customs officers ) , the customs forms signed by the customs officers upon each entry into GPE of E. , as well as a list of telephone calls delivered by the telephone companies to the prosecution and indicating numbers called by PERSON and the duration of the calls during the relevant period .

As a result of his being sent for trial , the applicant was suspended from his public duties pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings . ORG , the applicant ’s employer , issued its decision in accordance with the provisions of section CARDINAL ) of Law no . CARDINAL on the Regulations governing Public Servants .

On DATE , DATE and DATE several local newspapers published articles about the applicant ’s case . The articles included the list of all the customs officers sent for trial . The newspapers did not disclose the source of their information and no public authority was cited in the articles ; no direct reference to documents in the prosecution file was made .

During the proceedings before it , ORG allowed further evidence to be adduced , namely documents and other testimonials . The applicant claimed his innocence , stating that he had not received any amount of money , that he had drawn up the customs forms according to the appropriate ORG and that the internal rules applied in his work provided that in order to avoid errors committed by a customs officer , random checks were to be made upon vehicles entering the country by a superior or by the border police , which had been done in the case of PERSON He further claimed that he could not be convicted for taking bribes in the absence of evidence that he had received undue amounts of money and that he had done so intentionally .

In his defence , he requested , among other things , that an accounting and customs report be produced to prove that the customs operations had been conducted by him in accordance with the customs regulations . The prosecution objected to the production of an expert ’s report . The court rejected the request as not relevant , in so far as the file contained documents drawn up in the preliminary investigation establishing the amount of the damage .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of all the crimes he had been charged with and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment . The sentence was suspended and he was given CARDINAL GPE parole . The civil claims submitted by ORG and ORG concerning alleged pecuniary damage were dismissed for belatedness .

The applicant appealed against this judgment . He claimed that the first - instance court had relied on evidence that was inconsistent and not sufficient to prove the charges brought against him , especially considering that Mr PERSON had withdrawn his statements according to which he had bribed the customs officers . The applicant also submitted that the legal classification of the alleged criminal acts was incorrect .

The parties that had submitted civil claims , namely ORG and ORG also challenged the judgment with respect to their requests concerning the alleged pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment with regard to the applicant ’s conviction and also concerning the civil claims of the public institutions .

Following the applicant ’s appeal on points of law , on CARDINAL DATE ORG and Justice held that the facts and the law applicable to the case had been established correctly by both the first - instance and appellate courts and that the applicant ’s conviction was based on sufficient evidence and was in accordance with the law .

With reference to the civil claims in the file and considering the appeal on points of law lodged exclusively by ORG , ORG quashed the previous judgments and decided to refer the case back to the first - instance court for a new assessment , in so far as their dismissal for belatedness with respect to the appellant had not been lawful .

These proceedings ended on DATE , when ORG gave its judgment , holding that the case remained without object in so far as Mr. E. had paid all the amounts owed to the ORG ’s budget . This judgment was not challenged and on DATE it became final .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL concerning Regulations governing Public Servants , as in force on DATE , provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The liability of a civil servant for offences committed in the course of his duties or in relation to his work attributions shall be established in accordance with the criminal law .

( CARDINAL ) In the event of criminal proceedings being initiated in personam ( punerea PERSON mişcare a acţiunii penale ) concerning criminal acts such as those provided for in section CARDINAL ( h ) [ crimes against the ORG , against a public authority , concerning work relations ... involving corruption or otherwise ... that would disqualify the person from exercising public office ] , the director of the public authority or institution shall order the suspension of the civil servant from the public office he / she holds .

( CARDINAL ) If the criminal proceedings are terminated or if the court pronounces an acquittal or the termination of the case , the suspension ceases , and the public servant shall be reinstated to the previously held public office and all the salary rights corresponding to the suspension period shall be granted to him / her . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the time of the relevant facts read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The act of a public servant who , either directly or indirectly , for himself or for another , claims or receives money or other undue benefits , or accepts the promise of such benefits or does not reject it , in order to perform , not to perform or to delay the accomplishment of an act with regard to his / her service duties or in order to perform an act that is contrary to these duties , shall be punished by imprisonment from DATE and the deprivation of certain rights .

( CARDINAL ) The act in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , if it has been committed by a civil servant or a person exercising a service of public interest , shall be punished by strict imprisonment from DATE and the deprivation of certain rights . ”

“ The act of a public servant , who , in the exercise of service prerogatives , knowingly fails to perform an act or performs it erroneously and by so doing causes significant disturbance to the proper operation of a public authority or institution or of a legal entity , or causes damage to its property , shall be punished by imprisonment from DATE . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The act of forging an official document when it is drawn up , committed by an employee in the exercise of his / her working duties , by certifying untrue acts or circumstances or by omitting , knowingly , to insert certain data or circumstances , shall be punished by imprisonment from DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Any attempt to commit such an act shall also be punished . ”

In DATE ORG was seized with a plea of unconstitutionality regarding LAW ( CARDINAL ) provisions of ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL regulating LAW ; the provisions , as laid out at the time , stipulated that in the event when a police officer was charged with criminal acts allegedly committed in relation with his / her job , he / she was to be suspended from his / her office , until a final judgment in the criminal proceedings was given .

In its decision delivered on DATE , ORG held that the suspension of a police officer , as it was prescribed at the time , did not breach the presumption of innocence in so far as :

Even though the suspension from office does determine the limitation of certain rights and liberties , it can not be considered to be in breach of the presumption of innocence . This measure is necessary for the protection of public order and for the proper administration of justice .

The suspension from office of a policeman is ordered when he / she has intentionally committed a criminal act that would make him / she incompatible with his office ; it is a measure taken for the protection of the employer ’s interests in its facing the danger that the illicit activity could continue and the consequences of the criminal acts could expand , the protection being accomplished by preventing similar acts to be perpetrated and by upholding the prestige of the institution .

More particulars of the domestic legislation on LAW and of ORG decision are presented in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) , in which the issue of the suspension of a police officer on account of his being arrested and sent before trial for allegedly committed criminal acts was assessed by ORG under LAW ( § § DATE ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

András Sajó;Nebojša Vučinić;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively .

On DATE the second applicant gave birth to a boy , the first applicant . In DATE the latter was diagnosed with cerebral atrophy .

On DATE the applicants lodged a medical liability action against the hospital where the first applicant was born .

On DATE the Pest Central District Court partly found for the applicants and ordered the respondent to pay them respectively MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and HUF CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and accrued interests . The respondent appealed .

On DATE ORG , acting as a second - instance court , gave judgment , upholding the first - instance decision .

On DATE a written copy of the decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer .


The applicant is an NORP national , born in DATE and living in PERSON . She is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) started preliminary investigations ( file number CARDINAL ORG ) against the applicant and CARDINAL other suspects on suspicion of large - scale fraud and breach of trust in the context of investments in a real estate fund . They were suspected of having sold so called “ partial house ownership certificates ” to CARDINAL investors with the assurance that their value was secured by real property , while in fact they had sold the real property in DATE and misappropriated the proceeds of the sale .

On DATE a search was carried out at the applicant ’s premises and on CARDINAL DATE she was heard as a suspect . Later she fled to GPE with her life companion who was also a suspect in the proceedings .

As of DATE the investigating judge was relieved of all other business and CARDINAL junior judges completing their training period ( Richteramtsanwärter ) were assigned to assist him . In DATE CARDINAL of them took over as the new investigating judge .

During the preliminary investigations , which concerned a network of CARDINAL firms , CARDINAL bank accounts were examined and CARDINAL volumes of documents were seized and studied . A special computer programme was designed in order to cope with the large volume of data . Most of the time was consumed by the preparation of an expert opinion , whereby the team of accounting experts first had to clarify the balance sheets of the companies , most of which were intertwined . A change in the team of experts became necessary in DATE due to the potential bias of some of its members . In DATE the experts delivered their opinion .

On DATE ORG , upon ORG request , issued an international arrest warrant against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in the GPE and , on DATE , she was extradited to GPE where she was remanded in custody .

On DATE the applicant was released on bail with a surety of CARDINAL NORP schillings ( ORG ) and the withdrawal of her passport . Upon the applicant ’s request , ORG reduced the amount of the surety to ORG CARDINAL on DATE . It also decided that her passport be returned and ordered the applicant to report to the court at regular intervals . On DATE the applicant requested the court to lift all measures imposed on her , which request was granted on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the proceedings against CARDINAL co - accused , against whom the indictment comprising CARDINAL pages had been preferred , were severed from the proceedings concerning the applicant .

On DATE the preliminary investigations were closed and the file was sent to ORG for a decision under LAW of LAW ( Strafprozessordnung ) , according to which ORG has to decide within DATE whether the proceedings are to be discontinued , whether they need to be supplemented or whether an indictment is to be preferred . No indictment was preferred within the prescribed time - limit since ORG , due to the complexity of the case , had filed several applications for supplementing the preliminary investigations . In order to comply with these applications , the preliminary investigations were re - opened .

On DATE the applicant informed the court of ORG failure to take a decision under section CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure within the time - limit and requested the court to inform ORG ( PERSON ) pursuant to LAW of LAW . However , the court did not comply with this request .

On DATE all applications by ORG were complied with and the preliminary investigations under file number CARDINAL Vr CARDINAL were closed . So far ORG has not taken a decision under LAW of LAW .

On DATE the investigating judge granted ORG request of CARDINAL DATE to extend and supplement the above preliminary proceedings as regards one set of facts . These proceedings were conducted under a new file number ( CARDINAL Vr CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . These further preliminary investigations were closed on DATE and the file was sent to ORG for a decision under section CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure . So far no decision has been taken .

It appears that a further set of preliminary investigations concerning related charges ( number CARDINAL Vr CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) against the applicant and other suspects , which was opened in DATE , is still pending on the ground that CARDINAL expert has not yet completed his opinion .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , which has been in force since DATE , provides as follows .

" ( CARDINAL ) If a court is dilatory in taking any procedural step , such as announcing or holding a hearing , obtaining an expert ’s report , or preparing a decision , any party may submit a request to this court for the superior court to impose an appropriate time - limit for the taking of the particular procedural step ; unless sub - section ( CARDINAL ) of this section applies , the court is required to submit the request to the superior court , together with its comments , forthwith .

( CARDINAL ) If the court takes all the procedural steps specified in the request within DATE after receipt , and so informs the party concerned , the request is deemed withdrawn unless the party declares within DATE after service of the notification that it wishes to maintain its request .

( CARDINAL ) The request referred to in sub - section ( CARDINAL ) shall be determined with special expedition by a chamber of the superior court consisting of CARDINAL professional judges , CARDINAL of whom shall preside ; if the court has not been dilatory , the request shall be dismissed . This decision is not subject to appeal . "

Section CARDINAL of the Courts Act applies to all kind of proceedings before the ordinary courts , be it civil or criminal ones .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - State to pay outstanding judgment debt;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the city of PERSON , GPE .

In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against ORG “ GPE ” to recover unpaid salary . On DATE the court awarded him CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) in salary arrears .

At DATE , the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG of GPE against the President of GPE , ORG , ORG and ORG , for compensation of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the non - enforcement of the judgment in his favour . On DATE the court found against the applicant , stating that the applicant could have lodged appropriate claims for damages against ORG and not against the above defendants , whose responsibility for the non - enforcement of the judgment had not been proved by the claimant . The applicant did not appeal against this decision under the ordinary appellate and cassation procedures .

By an order of DATE , the debtor company was liquidated and all the writs of execution were forwarded to the liquidation commission which had been established .

By a letter dated DATE from ORG to other creditors , the applicant became aware that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE would not be enforced due to the large number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor . In addition , ORG had stated that the enforcement of the judgment by an attachment of property required the special authorisation of ORG due to the location of the debtor ’s property in the GPE area , contaminated by radioactivity .

The judgment apparently remains unexecuted .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and following , § § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-XII ) .


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

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter PERSON , born on DATE , was stabbed several times with a knife by her partner PERSON on a camping - site in GPE , where they had spent their holidays . N. died shortly afterwards .

On TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed about her daughter ’s death by CARDINAL NORP police officers in GPE .

On DATE the Seine - Maritime Criminal Court convicted PERSON of manslaughter and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

Section CARDINAL , sentence CARDINAL of LAW , as far as relevant , provides as follows :

“ A person who suffered health damage within the area of applicability of this law or on a NORP ship or airplane as the result of a deliberate , unlawful attack directed against himself or against a third person ... receives on request compensation for the consequences to his health and economic situation ... ”

On DATE ORG rejected the compensation claims of another plaintiff who was informed in GPE that her CARDINAL children had been murdered in GPE on the ground that the crime had been committed outside NORP territory . On DATE ORG refused to admit that plaintiff ’s constitutional complaint without giving any reasons .


Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) and dismissed;Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against the company T. ( “ the employer ” ) in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking damages for a work - related injury .

On DATE ORG gave judgment awarding damages to the applicant in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) and the litigation costs .

On DATE the employer appealed to ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG held a hearing on DATE at which it requested the applicant to provide the minutes drawn up by the labour inspectorate concerning the incident resulting in his injury or to indicate a person or authority who possessed that document . On DATE the court repeated its request .

On DATE and DATE the applicant requested the court to invite the employer to produce the above evidence . On DATE the court did so .

At the hearing held on DATE the court decided to effect an in situ inspection ( očevid ) on DATE with the assistance of an expert , and invited the applicant to advance the costs . Since the applicant did so only on DATE , the inspection did not take place .

On DATE ORG ( Trgovački sud u GPE ) decided to open bankruptcy proceedings against the employer . It invited the creditors to report their claims by DATE and scheduled a hearing , at which the reported claims were to be examined , for DATE . In accordance with LAW , the decision was published in the “ Official Gazette ” no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant to inform it whether the bankruptcy proceedings had been opened against the employer . On DATE the applicant replied in the affirmative and requested that any future communication with the employer be conducted through its bankruptcy manager ( stečajni upravitelj ) .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings on account of the pending bankruptcy proceedings .

On DATE the applicant reported his claim to ORG . On DATE and DATE he filed CARDINAL rush notes with that court urging the delivery of a decision on his claim .

On DATE ORG , without issuing a formal decision , replied that in the bankruptcy proceedings against the employer the applicant ’s claim had never been examined .

It would appear that both the civil and the bankruptcy proceedings are formally still pending .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) complaining about the length of the civil proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . It examined the length of the proceedings in their part following the ORG ’s entry into force with respect to GPE . ORG held that the delay was attributable to the complexity of the case and the applicant ’s conduct . It found that the applicant had contributed to the length of the proceedings in that he had not responded to ORG request of DATE for DATE , that he had failed to advance the inspection costs in due time and that he had failed to request ORG to invite the bankruptcy manager to take over the civil proceedings which would have resulted in their resumption .

The relevant part of CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE – “ LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been exhausted if the competent court fails to decide a claim concerning the applicant ’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him or her within a reasonable time ...

( CARDINAL ) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this section is upheld , the Constitutional Court shall set a time - limit within which the competent court must decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision issued under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE from the date a request for payment is lodged . ”

LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) in the relevant part provides as follows :

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that proceedings shall be stayed , inter alia , if bankruptcy proceedings are opened ( against CARDINAL or both of the parties ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that proceedings shall resume when the bankruptcy manager takes over the proceedings or when the court , of its own motion or at the initiative of the opposite party , invites the bankruptcy manager to do so .

LAW ( Stečajni zakon , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) in the relevant part provides as follows :

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that bankruptcy proceedings are urgent .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that in its decision to open the bankruptcy proceedings the court shall set a date for the examination hearing ( ispitno ročište ) which shall be scheduled within DATE after the lapse of the time - limit left to the creditors to report their claims to the bankruptcy manager .

Section CARDINAL provides that creditors shall realise their claims against the bankrupt only in bankruptcy proceedings .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that creditors shall report their claims against the bankrupt to the bankruptcy manager in writing , stating the basis and the amount thereof .

Section CARDINAL provides for an examination hearing before the competent commercial court at which the bankruptcy manager shall either accept or oppose each of the reported claims . Likewise , a creditor can oppose the claim reported by another creditor .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that the claims reported within DATE after the first examination hearing may be examined at CARDINAL or more separate examination hearings . Those hearings shall be scheduled by the court at the proposal of the creditors who failed to report their claims in due time , and under the condition that they advance the costs . If the costs are not advanced , the separate hearing shall not be held and the belated reports shall be declared inadmissible .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that the court shall declare inadmissible the reports submitted after the expiry of the time - limit set forth in paragraph CARDINAL . The creditor which submitted the report shall have a right to appeal against that decision .

Section CARDINAL provides that the claim is deemed to have been accepted if no objection has been raised by either the bankruptcy manager or another creditor . The commercial court shall prepare a schedule of examined claims on the basis of which it shall issue a decision ( rješenje ) showing which claims have been accepted and which were opposed , while setting out the amount and priority of each claim .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that civil proceedings that concern a claim reported to the bankruptcy manager and that were pending at the moment of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings , shall be resumed by taking over of these proceedings ( by an authorised person in the name of the bankrupt ) . The motion to resume the civil proceedings can be made by the plaintiff whose claim has been opposed in bankruptcy or , in the name of the bankrupt , the bankruptcy manager or another creditor that opposed the plaintiff ’s claim .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a final decision establishing the claim and its priority , or establishing that a claim does not exist , shall be effective against the bankrupt and all its creditors .