CASE OF SIGURÐUR A. SIGURJÓNSSON v. ICELAND

Violation of Art. 11;Not necessary to examine Art. 9;Not necessary to examine Art. 10;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG Mr PERSON is an NORP national . He is a taxi driver and resides in GPE .

ORG On DATE he was granted a licence to operate a taxicab by the " licence issuers " ( a body later named ORG " ; see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The decision was taken under PERSON no . CARDINAL on ORG ( " the DATE LAW ) and Regulation no . CARDINAL ( " LAW " ) issued by ORG under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant had applied for a licence using a printed form addressed to ORG ( " Frami " ) . This standard form contained a statement to the effect that the applicant was aware of the obligation to pay membership fees to ORG on becoming a member .

When he was granted the licence , the applicant undertook to observe the conditions provided for in LAW , on the understanding that a failure to do so could lead to its suspension or revocation . CARDINAL such condition was that he apply for membership of GPE ( LAW ) , which he had done on DATE .

ORG After joining ORG , the applicant paid membership fees to the association until DATE , when he stopped doing so . As a result , ORG advised him on CARDINAL DATE that it intended to exclude him and his taxicab from taxi station services until the fees were paid ( LAW ORG ) .

In reply , the applicant , by letter of CARDINAL DATE , indicated that he did not wish to be a member of ORG ; he refused to accept the obligation to remain a member of and to pay membership fees to it . Furthermore , he explained that he had accepted the licence " without first ascertain[ing ] [ his ] legal position with regard to membership " because he had lacked sufficient funds to take the necessary steps . Also he had preferred to avoid time - consuming litigation which would have delayed the granting of the licence .

ORG On DATE the ORG upheld a request by ORG for the revocation of the applicant ’s licence , especially because he had ceased paying membership dues .

ORG In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG ( " the Ministry " ) the applicant protested against the revocation of his licence and requested the suspension of the revocation pending the decision of a court action which he intended to take .

ORG In its reply dated DATE , ORG , referring to ORG and CARDINAL of Regulation no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , confirmed the revocation . A copy of this letter was addressed to the GPE Chief of Police .

ORG By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer informed the Chief of Police that the applicant considered the revocation unlawful ; he intended to bring the matter before the courts and asked the police not to interfere with his taxi business . However , on DATE , while driving his taxi , the applicant was stopped by the police , who removed the plates identifying his vehicle as CARDINAL for public hire .

ORG On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against both ORG and ORG before ORG , seeking a declaration that the revocation was null and void .

ORG dismissed his claim on CARDINAL DATE .

ORG The applicant appealed to ORG .

By judgment of DATE , ORG , sitting in plenary with CARDINAL members , unanimously rejected his claim that , in view of LAW , he could not be obliged to remain a member of GPE . In its opinion , the drafting history of this Article showed that it was intended to guarantee only a right to " form associations " , not a right to remain outside one . The applicant had not made out his allegation that , if construed in this manner , LAW conflicted with the relevant provisions of international instruments . Finally , it could not be inferred from the Article that a business licence could not lawfully be made conditional upon membership of an association .

On the other hand , ORG , by a majority of CARDINAL , annulled the revocation of the applicant ’s licence . It found that the provision in the DATE Regulation imposing trade - union membership as a prerequisite for granting a licence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) lacked a statutory basis .

ORG Following the above - mentioned ruling by ORG , PERSON ( ORG ) enacted new legislation - Law no . CARDINAL on ORG ( " the DATE LAW ) - which made operating licences conditional upon trade - union membership . This entered into force on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG In a letter to ORG dated DATE , a copy of which was transmitted to ORG , the applicant stated that , in the light of the new legislation , he had no choice but to be a member of the association and that he therefore agreed to pay membership fees . At the same time he stressed that membership was contrary to his own wishes and interests ; not only did ORG ’s ORG contain provisions contrary to his political opinions , but the association also used the revenue from membership fees to work against his interests . In addition , he maintained that the new legislation providing for obligatory membership was incompatible with the LAW and expressed his intention to pursue the matter before the Convention institutions .

ORG At the time when the applicant was granted a taxicab licence , such licences were governed by the DATE Law on Motor Vehicles for Public Hire and the DATE Regulation . The latter was subsequently amended by Regulation no . CARDINAL ( " LAW " ) : the body previously called the " licence issuers " was thereafter to be known as ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the DATE PERSON and the DATE Regulation were replaced by the DATE Law on Motor Vehicles for Public Hire and Regulation no . DATE ( " LAW " ) . The applicant ’s original complaint to the ORG was concerned only with the situation after the entry into force of the DATE legislation on DATE ( see under the heading " Complaints " , in Appendix II of the ORG ’s report ) .

ORG Under LAW , the ORG may , at the request of a trade union ( stéttarfélag ) of automobile drivers and on the recommendation of the town council and the regional board , limit the number of motor vehicles for public hire within the trade union area .

Restrictions on the number of taxicabs are set out in LAW which provides , inter alia , that within GPE ’s area , which comprises GPE and CARDINAL surrounding communities , the number of taxicabs is to be limited to CARDINAL . Such limitations are to be effected by the issuing of licences , each licence - holder being required , among other conditions , to own a passenger car and to use it as a taxi himself as his main occupation ( DATE LAW ) . Taxi business within the area in issue is to be carried on from a taxi station approved by the municipal council ( LAW ) .

ORG In a trade - union area where limitations have been placed on the number of vehicles for public hire , ORG composed of CARDINAL members appointed by ORG is set up . CARDINAL of the members are nominated ; CARDINAL by the relevant trade union , the other by the municipality . The third member chairs ORG DATE Law ) . ORG adopts its own rules of procedure , subject to endorsement by ORG ; it takes its decisions by a majority and reports DATE to ORG DATE LAW ) .

The ORG ’s task is to " supervise and control " , within the area of the trade union in question , the implementation of laws and regulations relating to the operation of vehicles for public hire ; the issuing and revocation of operating licences ; and the manner in which taxi stations provide their services ( LAW ) .

Frami ( until DATE named PERSON ) was formed in DATE by professional automobile drivers in GPE . Its Articles , which may be amended by the association itself ( clause CARDINAL of the ORG ) , are not subject to governmental approval . According to clause CARDINAL of the ORG , the purpose of the association is : ( CARDINAL ) to protect the professional interests of its members and promote solidarity among professional taxicab drivers ; ( CARDINAL ) to determine , negotiate and present demands relating to working hours , wages and rates of its members ; ( CARDINAL ) to seek to maintain limitations on the number of taxicabs and ( CARDINAL ) to represent its members before the public authorities .

The ORG are currently under revision .

ORG Under the DATE rules , associations such as ORG have certain administrative functions , namely :

( a ) they propose such limitations as mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above ( LAW ) ;

( b ) they serve as a depository for licences ( LAW ) ;

( c ) they approve the suitability of vehicles for use as taxicabs ( LAW ) ;

( d ) within narrow limits specified in the DATE rules , they regulate , and decide on requests for , temporary exemption from the requirement that the licence - holder personally operate his own taxicab ( LAW and LAW ) .

ORG In addition to the above , according to material submitted by the Government , GPE carries out the following tasks :

( a ) it supervises the performance of taxi services ;

( b ) it reports to the ORG instances of failure by a licence - holder to observe the licence conditions ;

( c ) it regulates the operation of taxicabs to ensure that the level of services corresponds to the significantly higher demand at DATE ;

( d ) it monitors the fulfilment by licence - holders of registration and insurance requirements and payment by them of requisite charges ;

( e ) it fixes the rates for taxi services , subject to approval by the price - control authorities .

ORG does not engage in collective bargaining on behalf of its members and is therefore not affiliated to ORG .

ORG LAW provides that within a trade - union area where a limitation on the number of vehicles for public hire applies ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , operators of vehicles of the same category are to be members of the same trade union . If there is a trade union of taxicab operators for a particular area , persons not possessing an operating licence are prohibited from carrying out taxi services in that area .

Pursuant to LAW , an operating licence may be granted only to a person who is a member , or has applied for membership , of the relevant trade union . It follows from LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that GPE is the relevant association for taxi licence - holders in GPE . The membership condition continues to apply after a licence has been granted .

ORG In the case of violations by a licence - holder of laws or regulations relating to motor vehicles for public hire , he may receive an admonition from ORG , his licence may be suspended or , in the event of serious or recurring violations , revoked by ORG and the licence - holder may be liable to pay a fine ; if it is revoked , he may , on certain conditions , reapply for a licence after DATE ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW CARDINAL of the DATE Regulation ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born respectively in DATE and DATE . Both applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr Vladimir Grosu .

As with the applicants in the pilot judgment of ORG and others ( ORG and others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , the applicants in the instant cases complained of a breach of their rights guaranteed under LAW and under LAW as a result of the authorities’ failure to comply with final judicial decisions delivered by domestic courts in their favour .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled in favour of PERSON and ordered ORG , together with ORG and the NORP local authorities , to provide him with accommodation .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled in favour of Mr PERSON and ordered ORG , together with ORG and the NORP local authorities , to provide him with accommodation .

On DATE Mr PERSON signed a contract by which the NORP local authorities handed over to him property rights in respect of an apartment situated in GPE . The contract was registered with the cadastral authorities on DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON signed a similar contract in respect of another apartment situated in GPE . The contract was registered with the cadastral authorities on DATE .

Following communication of the applications , on DATE the Government informed the ORG that the final judgments in favour of PERSON PERSON and PERSON PERSON had been enforced , respectively , on DATE and DATE . The Government also attached copies of sale contracts signed by the applicants and other relevant documents .


MELERO ECHAURI AND OSTIZ MELERO v. SPAIN

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in GPE ( GPE ) in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are mother and daughter and work as associate lawyers in their law firm in GPE . They are represented before ORG by PERSON , the first applicant .

On DATE , as the result of disciplinary and criminal proceedings brought by GPE civil judge no . CARDINAL against the first applicant for defamation , the applicant was admonished by ORG for a minor infraction , of lack of respect to a judge and a fellow lawyer . In fact , the applicant , acting in her capacity as counsel in separation proceedings , had submitted a brief in which she had accused the judge in the case of general malfeasance in favouring a lawyer with whom the judge appeared to be friendly , to the detriment of the rights to defence and to a fair hearing of her clients and of other ORG clients .

On DATE the first applicant requested the GPE judge responsible for the allocation of cases ( “ the GPE judge ” ) to have the case allocation rules of the courts of GPE altered so as to guarantee her clients the right to defence and to a fair hearing . In her view , these rights would be seriously jeopardised if her cases and those of her daughter were allocated to GPE civil judge no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the GPE judge refused the applicant ’s request and invited her to make use , whenever she found it appropriate , of a request for withdrawal . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE , on the occasion of a civil action against CARDINAL of her clients , the first applicant submitted a request for withdrawal of GPE civil judge no . CARDINAL . That request was refused by the judge on DATE on the ground that , pursuant to LAW , in civil , social and adversarial administrative proceedings only the parties and the public prosecutor had standing to request that a judge withdraw from a case .

The first applicant introduced an appeal against that decision before the same civil judge no . CARDINAL , arguing that the fact that that judge had introduced criminal and disciplinary proceedings against her in the past disqualified the judge from deciding in cases in which the first applicant acted as counsel , and that it was a legal absurdity to request that her clients submit a request for withdrawal since , according to the legislation in force , the request would not be successful , in so far as no enmity could be said to exist , in principle , between the judge and her clients . The appeal was orally dismissed on DATE , the judge insisting that if there were to be such a request it could only be submitted by the applicant ’s client .

The applicant introduced an amparo appeal that was declared inadmissible on DATE by ORG on the ground that the applicant lacked standing . That decision was served on DATE .

DATE LAW reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to obtain the effective protection of judges and the courts in the exercise of his or her legitimate rights and interests , and in no case may he or she go undefended .

Likewise , everyone has the right of access to the ordinary courts as predetermined by law ; to the defence and assistance of a lawyer ; to be informed of the charges brought against them ; to a public trial without undue delays and with full guarantees ; to the use of evidence appropriate to their defence ; not to make self - incriminating statements ; not to declare themselves guilty ; and to be presumed innocent . ”

Section CARDINAL of Organic Law DATE , on the ORG identifies those who have standing to request the withdrawal of a judge . It reads as follows :

“ The withdrawal of a judge can only be requested :

In civil , social and adversarial administrative proceedings by the parties ; the public prosecutor shall have also standing to request the withdrawal of a judge in those cases in which , by the character of the rights in dispute , he could or should intervene ” .

Article CARDINAL of the Organic Law on the ORG enumerates the reasons for abstention and withdrawal of judges . The relevant part of LAW of this case reads as follows :

“ Grounds for abstention and , if appropriate , for withdrawal are ...

A close friendship with or a manifest enmity towards any of the parties ... ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

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

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE the applicant applied for widows’ benefits . On DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed but the appeal was eventually stayed .

The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jean-Paul Costa;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant , a NORP aged eleven at the material time , was enrolled in DATE of a state secondary school in PERSON for DATE . From DATE she wore a headscarf to school .

On CARDINAL occasions in DATE the applicant went to physical education and sports classes wearing her headscarf and refused to take it off despite repeated requests to do so by her teacher , who explained that wearing a headscarf was incompatible with physical education classes . The teacher sent CARDINAL reports to the headmaster dated DATE and DATE .

At a meeting on CARDINAL DATE the school 's pupil discipline committee decided to expel the applicant from the school for breaching the duty of assiduity by failing to participate actively in physical education and sports classes .

The applicant 's parents appealed against that decision to the appeal panel .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Director of Education for ORG upheld the decision of the school 's pupil discipline committee , after obtaining the opinion of the appeal panel which was based on CARDINAL grounds :

i ) the duty of assiduity ( as defined in section CARDINAL of the Education ( General Principles ) LAW no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ; LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on ORG ; and the school 's internal rules ) ;

ii ) the provisions of the school 's internal rules stipulating that pupils must wear clothing that “ complies with the health and safety rules ” and attend physical education and sports classes in their sports clothes ;

iii ) a memorandum ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) on pupils ' safety during school activities , which specified that “ rigorous compliance with the rules governing teaching staff 's liability shall not eclipse the very broad personal discretion left to the individual teacher when dealing with actual concrete situations ” and that “ while managing his or her class the teacher must be capable of identifying and putting a stop to any behaviour on the part of pupils DATE other than sudden or unforeseeable conduct – that may present a danger ” ;

iv ) a decision of the ORG d'Etat dated DATE in which it had held that wearing a headscarf as a sign of religious affiliation was incompatible with the proper conduct of physical education and sports classes .

The applicant indicated that she subsequently took correspondence courses in order to continue her school studies .

On DATE the applicant 's parents , acting on their own behalf and as their minor daughter 's legal guardians , applied to ORG to have the decision of ORG set aside .

On DATE the court rejected their application . It considered that , by attending physical education and sports classes in dress that would not enable her to take part in the classes in question , the applicant had failed to comply with the duty to attend classes regularly . It also found that the applicant 's attitude had created an atmosphere of tension within the school and that on the basis of all the factors involved her expulsion from the school had been justified , regardless of the proposal she had made at DATE to wear a hat instead of her headscarf .

The applicant 's parents appealed against that judgment . On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal , on the same grounds as the lower court , finding that the applicant , by behaving as she had done , had overstepped the limits of the right to express and manifest her religious beliefs on the school premises .

The applicant 's parents lodged an appeal on points of law with the ORG d'Etat , relying , inter alia , on their daughter 's right to freedom of conscience and expression .

On DATE the ORG d'Etat declared the appeal inadmissible .

In GPE , the exercise of religious freedom in public society , and more particularly the issue of wearing religious signs at school , is directly linked to the principle of secularism on which GPE was founded .

Arising out of a long NORP tradition , the concept of secularism has its origins in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of DATE , LAW which provides that “ No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions , including his religious views , provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law . ” It also appears in the key Education Acts of DATE and DATE , which introduced state primary education on a compulsory and secular basis . The real keystone of NORP secularism , however , is LAW of DATE , known as the PERSON on the Separation between Church and ORG , which marked the end of a long conflict between the NORP , born of the French Revolution , and ORG . LAW provides : “ The Republic shall ensure the freedom of conscience . It shall guarantee free participation in religious worship , subject only to the restrictions laid down hereinafter in the interest of public order . ” The principle of separation is affirmed in LAW : “ the Republic may not recognise , pay stipends to or subsidise any religious denomination . ” A number of consequences flow from this “ secular pact ” both for public services and users . It implies an acknowledgement of religious pluralism and ORG neutrality towards religions . In return for protection of his or her freedom of religion , the citizen must respect the public arena that is shared by all . The principle was then enshrined in the LAW to LAW of DATE , which has had constitutional status since a decision of ORG DATE , which states : “ The ORG guarantees equal access for children and adults to instruction , vocational training and culture . The provision of free , public and secular education at all levels is a duty of the ORG . ” Lastly , the principle acquired actual constitutional status in LAW DATE , which provides : “ GPE shall be an indivisible , secular , democratic and social Republic . It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law , without distinction of origin , race or religion . It shall respect all beliefs . ”

From DATE the NORP secular model was confronted with the integration of NORP into society , particularly in schools .

DATE saw the first of the “ NORP headscarf ” cases . At the beginning of the school year a number of incidents occurred in secondary schools and in particular in ORG , in the département of the PERSON , when CARDINAL pupils were suspended for refusing to remove their headscarf despite being requested to do so by the teaching staff and the principal of the school . The case quickly became a highly topical issue . As there was no clear legal answer , and in accordance with a request from the Minister for Education , the PERSON d'Etat , in an advisory opinion of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , stated the position that should be adopted when pupils manifested their religion .

DATE more and more issues relating to the headscarf had arisen and the advisory opinion does not appear to have provided a lasting solution to the difficulties . According to a report prepared for the Minister for Education in DATE , “ the matter appears to have taken on considerable proportions because having started with CARDINAL headscarves in GPE in DATE , the Minister referred to CARDINAL such cases when addressing the ORG in DATE . ” In GPE , the troubles have given rise to various forms of collective mobilisation regarding the question of the place of NORP in NORP society . It is in this context that , on DATE , the President of the Republic instructed a commission to study the application of the principle of secularism in the Republic . That commission , known as the “ ORG commission ” , after the name of its chairman , produced a report for the President of GPE DATE . The picture it presented of the threat to secularism bordered on the alarming . It said

“ instances of behaviour and conduct that run counter to the principle of secularism are on in the increase , particularly in public society . ... The reasons for the deterioration in the situation ... [ are the ] difficulties in integrating experienced by those who have arrived in GPE during DATE , the living conditions in many suburbs of our towns , unemployment , the feeling experienced by many people living in GPE that they are the subject of discrimination , or are even being driven out of the national community ; these people explain that they thus lend an ear to those who incite them to fight what we call the values of the Republic . .... In this context it is natural that many of our fellow citizens demand the restoration of NORP authority and especially in schools . It is with these threats in mind and in the light of the values of our Republic that we have formulated the proposals set out in this report . ... [ Regarding the headscarf , the report states that ] for the school community ... the visibility of a religious sign is perceived by many as contrary to the role of school , which should remain a neutral forum and a place where the development of critical faculties is encouraged . It also infringes the principles and values that schools are there to teach , in particular , equality between men and women ” .

It is on the basis of these proposals that LAW was enacted ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Act of DATE provides :

“ Pupils must comply with the duties inherent in their studies . These include assiduity at school and compliance with the rules and community life of the school .

In keeping with the principle of respect for pluralism and the principle that ORG education must be neutral , in lower and upper secondary schools pupils shall have freedom of information and freedom of expression . The exercise of these freedoms shall not interfere with teaching activities . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Decree of CARDINAL DATE concerning local state educational establishments provides :

“ The duty of assiduity referred to in LAW requires pupils to adhere to the teaching periods determined in the school timetable . This applies to compulsory classes and to any optional classes in which pupils have enrolled . Pupils shall perform the written and oral work requested of them by their teachers , respect the content of the curriculum and sit any tests that are set them . Pupils can not refuse to undergo health tests or check - ups organised for them . The school 's internal rules shall specify the manner in which LAW is implemented . ”

The internal rules of ORG in force at the material time provided :

I c ) Attendance . ... Any pupil who misses a lesson or study period without prior authorisation or leaves the school grounds without permission shall be punished for serious misconduct ; ...

II b ) ORG dress . ... All pupils are required to dress discreetly and decently and in accordance with the rules of health and safety . ... Discreet signs manifesting the pupil 's personal beliefs , such as their religious convictions , shall be accepted in the establishment , but conspicuous signs which are in themselves of proselytising or discriminatory effect shall be prohibited ; ...

IV d ) All pupils must attend GPE classes in sports clothes . ”

On DATE , at the request of the Minister for Education , the ORG d'Etat , sitting in plenary , gave a ruling on the compatibility with the principle of secularism of wearing signs at school indicating affiliation to a religious community . It gave the following opinion :

NORP ...

The principle of secularism in state education , which is CARDINAL aspect of the secular nature of the ORG and the principle that all public services must be neutral , requires teachers and the school curriculum to respect both this neutrality and pupils ' freedom of conscience . In accordance with the principles laid down in these same laws and with GPE 's international commitments , it prohibits any discrimination in access to education on grounds of a pupil 's religious convictions or beliefs .

The freedom thus conferred on pupils includes the right to express and manifest their religious beliefs on the school LOC , in compliance with the requirement of respect for pluralism and the freedom of others , without interfering with teaching activities , the content of the curriculum or the requirement of assiduity .

The exercise of that freedom can be restricted if it hinders the public education service in the role devolved onto it by the legislation . In addition to providing the means whereby children can acquire a culture and preparing them for professional life and their responsibilities as men and citizens , that role consists of contributing to the development of the pupil 's personality , inculcating respect for the individual , his or her origins and differences , and securing and promoting equality between men and women .

It follows from what has just been said that pupils wearing signs in schools by which they manifest their affiliation to a particular religion is not in itself incompatible with the principle of secularism in so far as it constitutes the exercise of the freedom of expression and manifestation of religious beliefs , but that this freedom should not allow pupils to display signs of religious affiliation , which , inherently , in the circumstances in which they are worn , individually or collectively , or conspicuously or as a means of protest , might constitute a form of pressure , provocation , proselytism or propaganda , undermine the dignity or freedom of the pupil or other members of the educational community , compromise their health or safety , disrupt the conduct of teaching activities and the educational role of the teachers , or , lastly , interfere with order in the school or the normal functioning of the public service .

NORP The wearing of signs of religious affiliation in schools may , if necessary , be subject to rules designed to implement the principles set out above ...

In secondary schools these rules fall within the province of the board of governors of the school which , ... , adopts , subject to scrutiny of the lawfulness thereof , the school 's internal rules ...

The disciplinary authorities shall decide , subject to the scrutiny of the administrative courts , whether the wearing by a pupil , on the LOC of a state school or other educational establishment , of a sign of religious affiliation in breach of CARDINAL of the conditions posited in point CARDINAL of this opinion or the school 's internal rules constitutes a breach justifying the institution of disciplinary proceedings and the application , after compliance with the safeguards instituted by such proceedings and the rights of the defence , of CARDINAL of the penalties provided for in the applicable provisions , CARDINAL of which may be suspension from the school .

Suspension from a primary or secondary school is an option , despite the fact that education is compulsory , provided that the child can be educated , ... , either in a state school or a freely accessible school or in the family by the parents , or CARDINAL of them , or any other person of their choice , and , in particular , that the pupil can be enrolled in a state centre for correspondence courses ....

On DATE a circular by the Minister for Education , entitled “ Secularism , wearing of religious signs by pupils and compulsory education ” , was sent to the directors of education , school inspectors and school principals . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ Secularism , a constitutional principle of the Republic , is one of the cornerstones of state education . At school , like anywhere else , an individual 's religious beliefs are a matter of individual conscience and therefore free choice . At school , however , where young people mix without any discrimination , the exercise of the freedom of conscience , in keeping with the requirement of respect for pluralism and the principle that the public service shall be neutral , requires that the entire educational community be shielded from any ideological or religious pressure .

Having regard to a number of recent events , it is my intention , in compliance with the requirement that each and everyone 's rights must be respected , to prevent infringements of the principle of secularism . ...

The controversies caused by certain young girls of the NORP faith wearing the headscarf have prompted me , in view of the difficulties of interpretation of the relevant law , to refer the matter to the ORG d'Etat . ...

Where a conflict arises regarding the wearing of religious signs , I would ask you and your teaching staff to adopt the following approach . A dialogue must immediately be sought with the pupil and his or her parents so that , in the interests of the pupil and out of concern for the proper functioning of the school , the pupil agrees to stop wearing the sign(s ) in question . ...

Accordingly , pupils must refrain from displaying any conspicuous sign , whether in their dress or otherwise , that promotes a religious belief . Any proselytising behaviour that goes beyond mere religious beliefs shall be proscribed ...

A pupil 's dress must not in any circumstances prevent him or her from engaging in the normal way in the exercises inherent in physical education and sports classes or tutorials or workshops organised in certain subjects . Likewise , any dress that is liable to hinder the running of a class or the proper conduct of a lesson shall be banned .

Furthermore , the health and safety requirements shall be unequivocally binding on all pupils . Pupils must dress in such a way that they pose no danger to themselves or others in schools . ...

There shall be no interference with any teaching activities , the content of the curriculum or the pupils ' duty to attend classes regularly . The freedom of expression conferred on pupils shall not contravene these obligations . ...

Pupils must follow all lessons corresponding to their school level . ... Accordingly , a pupil can not in any circumstances refuse to study certain parts of the school curriculum or exempt him or herself from certain lessons . ...

Anyone who fails to comply with these obligations shall be liable to penalties . ”

On DATE a further circular by the Minister for Education specified a number of points regarding the wearing of religious signs . The relevant parts were worded as follows :

“ For DATE now many incidents have been occurring in schools on the occasion of ostentatious demonstrations of affiliation to a particular religion or community .

School principals and teachers have repeatedly expressed their desire for clear instructions ....

... there is an unacceptable presence , in ever growing numbers , of signs so ostentatious that their signification serves precisely to distance certain pupils from the school 's common rules of conduct . Such signs are inherently of proselytising effect , especially if certain lessons or disciplines are challenged as a result , pupils ' safety is jeopardised or the principle of coexistence at school is undermined .

I therefore ask you to propose to the boards of governors that , when drafting the internal rules , they impose a ban on such conspicuous signs , while remaining mindful that the presence of more discreet signs that merely denote an attachment to a personal belief can not be subject to the same restrictions , as has been observed by the ORG d'Etat and in the case - law of the administrative courts . ”

NORP Since its opinion of DATE the ORG d'Etat has had an opportunity to rule in its judicial capacity and specify the scope of that opinion . It has , for example , annulled the internal rules of schools that have imposed a strict ban on the wearing of any distinctive religious sign in classes or on the school LOC on the grounds that the terms used were too general ( DATE , no . DATE , GPE , and DATE , no . DATE , PERSON ) . Likewise , penalties for merely wearing a headscarf in a school can not be upheld if it is not established that the behaviour of the pupil in question amounted to an act of pressure or proselytism or interfered with public order in the school ( DATE , no . DATE , Mlle ORG , and DATE , no . DATE , époux PERSON ) . The administrative courts have , however , upheld expulsions from school based on failure to comply with the duty of assiduity , such as a pupil 's refusal to remove her veil during physical education and sports classes ( DATE , no . DATE , époux GPE , and CARDINAL October CARDINAL , no . DATE , Aït PERSON ) or refusal to attend such classes ( DATE , no . DATE , GPE and PERSON ; no . ORG , ORG ; and DATE , no . CARDINAL PERSON and Others ) .

On DATE ORG enacted PERSON no . ORG , known as the PERSON “ on secularism ” , regulating , in accordance with the principle of secularism , the wearing of signs or dress manifesting a religious affiliation in ORG primary and secondary schools . The legislation inserted a new LAW in LAW which provides :

“ In ORG primary and secondary schools , the wearing of signs or dress by which pupils overtly manifest a religious affiliation is prohibited .

The school rules shall state that the institution of disciplinary proceedings shall be preceded by dialogue with the pupil . ”

As indicated in the circular of CARDINAL DATE , that Act concerns only “ ... signs ... , such as the NORP headscarf , however named , the kippa or a cross that is manifestly oversized , which make the wearer 's religious affiliation immediately identifiable . ”

According to the report on the application of the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a total of CARDINAL religious signs were recorded in DATE . That total of CARDINAL is PERCENT of the signs recorded DATE . In CARDINAL cases pupils opted for alternative solutions to the pupil discipline committee ( enrolment in a private school , correspondence classes ) and in CARDINAL cases the pupil was suspended . The report states that the remaining pupils decided to remove the religious sign in question . At the start of DATE , no incident of note was recorded . It has not , however , been possible to obtain relevant official statistics for DATE .


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

A.

On DATE the applicant married an NORP national before the competent authorities in GPE . At the time of their marriage his wife was already pregnant and the applicant knew that he was not the father of the future child . After their marriage , the applicant and his wife moved to GPE . They separated in DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's wife gave birth to a daughter . As the applicant and his wife were still married , the child was deemed to be their legitimate daughter in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ) and was entered in the birth register as such . The applicant submits that he was not aware of this legal presumption or the fact that the husband can only bring an action to contest the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock within a DATE time - limit after its birth , while after that only ORG can do so . Moreover , he claims that his wife had assured him that the name of the natural father had been entered in the birth register .

In DATE the applicant and his wife filed a petition for divorce by consent with ORG . The applicant submits that it was only in the course of the divorce proceedings that he became aware of the fact that the child was considered to be his daughter . By then the DATE time - limit for contesting the child 's legitimacy had already expired .

On DATE the applicant , referring to section CARDINAL of LAW , requested ORG ) to institute proceedings to contest the legitimacy of the child .

On DATE ORG heard the applicant 's wife . She stated that she had not had any sexual relationship with the applicant before their marriage and that Mr. PERSON was the child 's father . PERSON was questioned by a NORP court under letters rogatory . He conceded having had a sexual relationship with the applicant 's wife before her marriage , but claimed that he was not the only one .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it did not see any reason to bring an action to contest the legitimacy of the child . Such an action would not be in her interests as PERSON , whom the mother considered to be the child 's natural father , had also denied his paternity . As the action could result in the finding that the applicant was not the child 's father , she risked losing her maintenance claim against him , and it appeared uncertain in the circumstances whether or not it would ever be possible to determine who her natural father was .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant 's request to instruct ORG to file an action to contest the legitimacy of the child . It confirmed ORG assessment of her interests and added that the said action was not required by any public interest as the applicant had already known when he married that his wife was pregnant with another man 's child .

On DATE ORG ( ORG für Justiz ) rejected the applicant 's further request to instruct ORG to file an action to deny his paternity , on the ground that the applicant could not claim to have a right to the initiation of proceedings by ORG .

The Ministry noted that the DATE limitation - period during which the husband could lodge an action to contest the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock served the purpose of limiting any uncertainty as regards the status of the child . Thus , it served legal certainty and , as a general rule , the interests of the child . Nevertheless , the legislator had accepted as a consequence that paternity based on the presumption of legitimacy and natural paternity will in some cases not coincide . Following expiry of the time - limit , only ORG could bring such an action if it was required in the interests of the child or in the public interest .

The applicant had argued that the public interest required an action in his case , as he had not been familiar with NORP law and had therefore failed to comply with the time - limit . However , the ORG noted that , according to his own submissions , he had known that his wife was pregnant with another man 's child when they were married . Given that they separated before the child 's birth , he could have been expected to seek legal advice , all the more so as NORP law contains a similar time - limit for such actions . The applicant had further argued that the action was required in the interests of the child , who had no contact with him and did not regard him as its father . Her maintenance would not be endangered as GPE was a welfare ORG . In this regard the ORG found that ORG had rightly assessed the situation . It did not suffice that the child 's interests were not endangered ; the action had to be required in its interest . This was not the case , as it was by no means sure that eventual paternity proceedings against PERSON would be successful .

On DATE ORG Verfassungsgerichtshof ) refused to deal with the applicant 's complaint and referred the case to ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's complaint on the ground that he had no right to appeal . As he had failed to introduce an action within the DATE time - limit , he no longer had any right to contest the child 's legitimacy himself . Nor did he have a right to have such proceedings introduced by ORG . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

B. Relevant domestic law

According to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW a child who is born while its mother is married is presumed to be legitimate . This presumption may only be rebutted by a judicial decision establishing that the child is not the child of the mother 's husband .

Section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that the mother 's husband may contest the legitimacy of the child within a DATE time - limit , which starts running from the moment when the husband learns about the circumstances which cast doubt on the child 's legitimacy , but not before the birth of the child .

Section CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that , in case the husband has not contested the legitimacy of the child within the DATE time - limit , or in case he has died or his whereabouts are unknown , ORG may contest the legitimacy of the child , if he deems that this is required in the public interest or in the interests of the child or its descendants .


CASE OF STOIANOVA AND NEDELCU v. ROMANIA

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

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

Following an incident on DATE in which GPE was robbed of some gold jewellery after being set upon and thumped by a group of people , the applicants were arrested and remanded in custody on DATE .

In an indictment of DATE issued by the public prosecutor 's office at ORG , the applicants were committed for trial on a charge of robbery , an offence punishable under LAW .

By a judgment of DATE , they were acquitted and released . The court held that the facts in respect of which they had been prosecuted could not be attributed to them .

The prosecution appealed . ORG gave judgment on DATE holding that the steps taken by the prosecution in the criminal proceedings were null and void . It therefore set the judgment of CARDINAL DATE aside and referred the case back to the public prosecutor 's office . It noted , in particular , that the steps taken by the prosecution against the applicants had been taken in the absence of a lawyer and that , furthermore , the prosecution had omitted to question certain witnesses during the investigation and had failed to examine a number of essential facts that could have led to the identification of the perpetrators of the incident that had occurred on DATE .

NORP That decision became final after being upheld by ORG in a judgment of DATE . Subsequently , the criminal proceedings were reopened by the public prosecutor 's office at ORG .

In an order of DATE , the prosecutor ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings . In his order he stated that , although the facts of which the victim , GPE , had complained had actually happened , it could not be proved beyond all doubt that the responsibility lay with the applicants . The prosecutor also pointed out that a long period of time had elapsed since the incident in question and ordered the police to take no further action in the case .

NORP The prosecution served that decision on the applicants , at their request , by letters dated DATE and DATE respectively .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG at ORG set aside the order of DATE and , relying on ORG and CARDINAL of LAW , ordered the proceedings to be reopened against the applicants for robbery and inciting third parties to give false evidence , offences punishable under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code respectively . The public prosecutor 's office considered that the decision of the hierarchically lower public prosecutor 's office had been inconsistent with the evidence on the file and that , furthermore , the prosecution had been incomplete because various steps had not been taken , such as bringing the presumed perpetrators face to face in the presence of their lawyers and taking evidence from certain witnesses .

On DATE a police officer who had investigated the charges brought against the applicants asked the prosecuting authorities to stop the prosecution .

On DATE the prosecuting authorities sent the investigation file back to the same police authority . No procedural steps were taken DATE and DATE . On DATE the police referred the case to the public prosecutor 's office at ORG , which referred it back to the police authority on DATE for them to continue the investigation in respect of the applicants .

On a number of occasions in DATE and DATE , the prosecuting authorities summoned the applicants , the injured party and several witnesses for questioning in relation to the incident that had occurred on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The documents provided show that the witnesses refused to comply with the summons on the ground that they could no longer recall the matters about which the prosecution wanted to question them .

In an order of DATE , the public prosecutor 's office noted that the special limitation period for prosecuting the applicants , which was DATE having regard to the maximum sentence for which they were liable for robbery , had expired on DATE . It accordingly ordered the criminal proceedings to be discontinued .

The Code of Criminal Procedure contains the following relevant provisions :

“ Where the prosecutor finds that a procedural step or measure taken in the course of the criminal investigation is not in conformity with the law , he shall invalidate it by a reasoned order . ”

“ The investigation shall be resumed in the event of ... reopening of the criminal proceedings . ”

“ CARDINAL . The prosecutor may order criminal proceedings to be reopened if , subsequent to a decision discontinuing the proceedings , it is established that the ground on which his earlier decision was based did not actually exist or no longer exists .

Proceedings shall be reopened following an order of the prosecutor to that effect . ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , ORG .

On DATE the applicant bought sugar from PERSON He paid with a MONEY note . When PERSON attempted to exchange the note for NORP roubles , she was told that the note was counterfeit . Ms D. lodged a complaint with ORG alleging that the applicant had given her a counterfeit note .

On DATE police officers stopped the applicant ’s car and arrested him on suspicion of fraud and use of counterfeit currency . During his arrest the applicant attempted to pass MONEY notes to his friend , who returned the notes to the applicant following an order from a police officer .

The applicant was taken to LOC police station .

According to the applicant , he refused to answer the investigator ’s questions and police officers hit him several times with rubber truncheons on the head , back and legs . The beatings alternated with admonitions to confess his guilt . A police officer twice punched the applicant on the ear and once hit him on both ears with both hands at the same time . The police officers continued hitting the applicant ’s legs and head with rubber truncheons . The applicant tried to shy away from the punches , but once he bent forward on the chair , he received a series of truncheon blows to his chest and back . The applicant fell on the floor . The policemen continued hitting and kicking him on the back and legs . They forced the applicant to confess to the use of counterfeit currency .

The Government submitted that after the applicant had been taken to the police station , an investigator of ORG , PERSON , had questioned him . The applicant confessed that he had been involved in the distribution of the counterfeit bills . In particular , he stated that he had bought QUANTITY MONEY notes from an unidentified man and had asked his friend , PERSON . , to exchange those notes for NORP roubles . Mr PERSON . had told him that the notes were counterfeit and had refused to take them . On DATE the applicant had bought sugar from Ms D. and had paid with CARDINAL of those notes . The Government enclosed a copy of the applicant ’s confession and the record of his questioning . At the bottom of his confession statement the applicant noted as follows :

“ The confession statement is handwritten by me ; no moral or physical pressure [ was ] applied ” .

The Government noted that the applicant had been advised of his right to the services of counsel prior to the entry of his guilty plea . However , he had expressly waived that right , making a handwritten entry to that effect in the interrogation record .

On DATE the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility of the LOC police station . According to the Government , on his admission to the facility the applicant signed an entry in a registration log that he had “ a slash wound on his left forearm and a bruise on the left side of the body which he had inflicted on himself on DATE in LOC police station ” and that he had no complaints about the state of his health . The Government submitted an extract from the registration log copied by hand by a warder and certified by the head of the detention facility . According to the extract , submitted by the Government , on DATE the applicant was also examined by a prison otolaryngologist , who did not establish any signs of an ear trauma .

On DATE the applicant was brought to ORG who authorised his placement in custody due to the gravity of the charges against him . The applicant complained to the prosecutor that the police officers had severely beaten him up after his arrest . On DATE , upon a prosecutor ’s request , the police investigator , PERSON , ordered a medical expert examination of the applicant . The relevant part of the investigator ’s decision read as follows :

“ On DATE , when [ the applicant ] was brought to ORG for an authorisation of his placement in custody , [ he ] complained that he had been beaten up by police officers . The police officers , who had arrested [ the applicant ] , stated that during the arrest [ the applicant ] had lost consciousness twice . ”

The investigator put several questions to an expert concerning possible injuries on the applicant ’s body , their severity and nature .

TIME , at TIME , the medical expert examined the applicant . The relevant part of his report , issued on DATE , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL When examined : [ there is ] a bruise of a crimson and bluish colour in the projection of the CARDINAL - CARDINAL ribs on the left side , along the scapular line ; [ it is ] moderately saturated , has a shape of a stripe [ and ] measures QUANTITY in width and QUANTITY in length . In the projection of the right edge of the right shoulder - blade [ and ] on the right side of the parietal region of the head [ there are ] abrasions having an elongated form , [ which are ] covered with dry and somewhat raising crusts and [ which ] measure QUANTITY in width and QUANTITY in length and QUANTITY in width and QUANTITY in length , respectively . No other injuries were discovered .

Conclusions .

During the medical expert examination of [ the applicant ] the following injuries were discovered : a bruise on the left side of the lumbar region , abrasions on the right shoulder - blade and the right side of the parietal region of the head .

These injuries were caused as a result of traumas to the indicated body parts by a blunt firm object having a narrow , possibly elongated surface : can not be considered as causing damage to health .

The type , character and intensity of those injuries allow the conclusion that they were caused within DATE before the expert examination , thus not excluding the possibility that they were caused ... on DATE .

It is impossible to assess those injuries with a view to determining whether they were caused as a result of a fall or an impact ( impacts ) with a certain object , as the circumstances of the alleged “ fall ” are unknown . ”

On DATE a medical emergency team was twice called to the applicant following his complaints of severe heart pain and dizziness .

On DATE the applicant complained to warders of severe pain in the right side of the chest and back . An emergency team was called and he was taken to the Lipetsk Regional hospital . The applicant , without providing any further explanation , complained to the hospital doctors that he had been beaten up on DATE . The hospital report on the applicant ’s medical examination stated the following :

“ CARDINAL . Consultation of a urologist . Diagnosis : an injury to the right kidney . Treatment of this injury in the urological department for DATE . Subsequent supervision by a surgeon at the place of residence .

Consultation of an otolaryngologist . Diagnosis : CARDINAL - sided adhesive otitis media , posttraumatic , deformation of the external nose and nasal septum deviation . The patient has suffered from those CARDINAL conditions for a long time and [ they ] were not caused by a head injury received DATE .

Consultation of a neurosurgeon . Diagnosis : Posttraumatic asthenic syndrome . [ The applicant ] needs supervision by a neurologist at the place of residence ... ”

The report also indicated that the applicant had bruises to the ribs and the right side of the back .

The applicant remained in the hospital until DATE .

On DATE an assistant prosecutor of LOC , PERSON , dismissed the applicant ’s complaint about the beatings . The CARDINAL - page decision read as follows :

“ On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of LOC of Lipetsk received documents ... pertaining to the inquiry into [ the applicant ’s ] complaints about the beatings by police officers on DATE .

During the interview [ the applicant ] refused to give explanations about the beatings in the lawyer ’s absence . After [ he ] was told that the lawyer ’s presence was not necessary in this case , [ the applicant ] again refused to provide any explanations and did not substantiate his refusal .

Therefore , it is impossible to establish the circumstances of the event .

On the basis of the abovementioned .... [ the applicant ’s ] request for institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers is dismissed because there is no indication of a criminal offence . ”

On DATE ORG ordered an additional inquiry into the applicant ’s ill - treatment complaints .

DATE the applicant unsuccessfully requested the investigator to authorise an additional medical expert examination and complained again about the beatings .

On DATE the assistant prosecutor , PERSON , issued a report confirming the lawfulness of her decision of DATE . The assistant found as follows :

“ While being questioned , [ the applicant ] explained that on DATE he had been arrested ... and brought to the LOC police station in PERSON . At the police station he had been questioned by police officers , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . During the interrogation the police officers , PERSON and PERSON . , had beaten [ the applicant ] , hitting him on the head , in particular on the ears and the back of the head , and on the right side of the back and kicking him in the groin . PERSON had not taken part in the beatings . Following the beatings , [ the applicant ] had written a confession statement .

Mr S. , who was questioned on the facts , stated that on DATE he , together with PERSON . and PERSON , had talked to [ the applicant ] in an investigation room of the LOC police station ; [ the applicant ] had been arrested on suspicion of use of counterfeit notes . [ The applicant ] had voluntarily provided an explanation of the circumstances leading to his arrest . No moral or physical pressure had been applied to [ the applicant ] . After having talked to [ the applicant ] , Mr S. and Mr PERSON . had left , and PERSON had stayed with [ the applicant ] .

Mr PERSON . gave identical statements .

PERSON gave statements similar to those of PERSON and Mr PERSON . , adding that after Mr S. and Mr PERSON . had left the room , [ the applicant ] had been apprised of his [ rights ] guaranteed by LAW and the circumstances mitigating the punishment had been explained to him . [ The applicant ] had expressed a wish to write a confession statement ... pertaining to his crime : a sale of counterfeit NORP dollars .

During confrontation interviews in which [ the applicant ] participated ... PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . confirmed their statements .

As follows from expert report no . CARDINAL issued on DATE , [ the applicant ] had a bruise to the left side of the back , abrasions to the right shoulder - blade and the right side of the head , which could not be considered as causing damage to [ his ] health .

As follows from statements by PERSON , police officers ... from the Lipetsk Town Police Department , who had taken part in [ the applicant ’s ] arrest on DATE , when [ the applicant ] had been brought to the LOC police station , he had lost consciousness in the duty unit and had fallen from his own height on to the concrete floor . After he had regained consciousness , [ the applicant ] had explained that he had had a heart attack and had asked for medicines . They think that [ the applicant ] faked the fainting .

Mr PERSON . , a police officer ... from ORG , who had also taken part in [ the applicant ’s ] arrest , gave identical statements .

During an examination of [ the applicant ] by an otolaryngologist ... on DATE , no signs of an ear trauma were discovered .

There is entry no . CARDINAL made on DATE in the registration log ... of the temporary detention facility of the ORG concerning [ the applicant ] in which he noted that “ he had inflicted a slash wound to his own right forearm and a bruise to the left side of the body on DATE in the LOC police station . He had had no complaints about the state of his health . ” That entry had been made by [ the applicant ] ; [ the fact ] is corroborated by his signature .

In his statement made to ORG [ the applicant ] asked for an additional medical examination because he had sustained a kidney injury and had spent DATE from DATE in ORG undergoing treatment . Taking into account those circumstances , a forensic medical examination was performed with a view to determining the severity of the injuries sustained by [ the applicant ] and establishing a causal link between the sustained injuries and [ the applicant ’s ] stay in ORG where he had been diagnosed with “ a kidney injury ” .

As follows from report no . CARDINAL of the forensic medical examination issued on DATE , [ the applicant ’s ] stay in the hospital for the treatment of an injury to the right kidney was not connected to [ his ] injury sustained on DATE , as the initial examination had not established bruises on the chest and back , although they had been recorded on admission to ORG . Thus , it can be concluded that those injuries could have been sustained by [ the applicant ] after his examination by the medical expert on DATE .

Taking into account the above - mentioned , it should be concluded that during the inquiry [ the investigator ] did not obtain any objective data showing that the actions of the police officers contained elements of a criminal offence , and thus there are no grounds for quashing the decision of DATE by which an institution of criminal proceedings was refused . ”

The applicant learned about the decision of DATE at the trial .

The applicant was additionally charged with theft and forgery of documents . On DATE the authorised period of his detention expired . DATE he was committed to stand trial before FAC of Lipetsk . The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , alleging that he had been ill - treated by the police officers after his arrest .

At the trial the applicant repeated his statements given on DATE , save for the fact that prior to his arrest he had known that the MONEY notes were counterfeit .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of theft of documents and use of counterfeit currency , acquitted him of the remaining charges and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . ORG based its judgment , in particular , on the applicant ’s testimony , statements by witnesses , a record of the search on the applicant ’s person and seizure of the MONEY notes , and an expert opinion indicating that the notes were counterfeit . Having examined the expert report of CARDINAL DATE , the hospital report of CARDINAL DATE , extracts from the detention facility ’s registration logs pertaining to the applicant ’s admission on DATE and the prosecutor ’s decisions of CARDINAL October and DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s ill - treatment complaint as unsubstantiated .

The applicant ’s lawyer lodged an appeal statement , complaining , in particular , that the applicant had been beaten up by the police officers after the arrest .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . ORG found that ORG had lawfully concluded that the fact of the ill - treatment had not been proven . Several police officers testified that the applicant had fallen in the police station and had hit his head .

The RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force until DATE , “ the CCrP ” ) established that a criminal investigation could be initiated by an investigator upon the complaint of an individual or on the investigative authorities’ own initiative when there were reasons to believe that a crime had been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . A prosecutor was responsible for general supervision of the investigation ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . He could order a specific investigative action , transfer the case from CARDINAL investigator to another or order an additional investigation . If there were no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation , the prosecutor or investigator issued a reasoned decision to that effect , which had to be notified to the interested party .


The applicant is a NORP national . He was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

The applicant came into GPE in DATE when he was DATE and lived there continuously with his family until he was deported to GPE in DATE . He has CARDINAL brothers and sisters , CARDINAL of whom have NORP nationality . He received all his school education in GPE . On DATE he married a NORP national . He also has a DATE daughter of NORP nationality from a previous relationship .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG sentenced the applicant , who had a residence permit valid from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for attempted burglary , but did not enforce his previous suspended sentences . The court also dismissed his application for the prison sentence to run concurrently with the sentence imposed by the same court on DATE for a handling offence . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that judgment after noting , inter alia , that the applicant already had a number of earlier convictions .

The applicant did not apply for renewal of his residence permit when it expired on DATE .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , together with a DATE prohibition on residing on NORP territory , for theft offences and possession of narcotics .

In a judgment of DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment , together with a DATE prohibition on residing on NORP territory , for unlawfully entering NORP territory . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that judgment . On DATE it dismissed an application to have the exclusion order lifted .

On DATE the LANGUAGE - sur - Saône Criminal Court sentenced the applicant to QUANTITY months’ imprisonment , together with a DATE prohibition on residing on NORP territory , for burglary and illegally staying in GPE . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG increased the prison sentence to DATE . It noted , among other things , that the applicant had entered GPE illegally in DATE and had since been staying there without a valid residence permit . The applicant appealed on points of law , but did not lodge any grounds in support of his appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .

On DATE the applicant was deported .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to have the order excluding him from NORP territory lifted . In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed his application on the following grounds :

“ PERSON has applied for the additional measure prohibiting him from residing on NORP territory to be lifted on account of the material and financial difficulties he has encountered in GPE since being forcibly repatriated .

PERSON left GPE on DATE and wrote to the court on DATE . The difficulties he has encountered , assuming them to be genuine , are surmountable and do not in any way justify lifting the prohibition order especially as the individual in question has been convicted under different identities , lives by his wits and has no clear profession .

The said application must accordingly be dismissed ” .

On DATE the applicant got married in GPE to a NORP national , GPE On CARDINAL DATE the marriage - certificate details were entered in ORG at FAC in GPE . On DATE S.C. had a son , GPE

In DATE the applicant lodged a further application for the order excluding him from NORP territory to be lifted . He stated that he wanted to live in GPE again with his family and explained that he had had a NORP girlfriend at the time of his deportation . In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed his application on the ground that the applicant had no official address , no job and no stable home in GPE .

At DATE the applicant , for whom the exclusion order had ceased to be effective on DATE , applied for a short - stay visa for GPE . He requested leave to stay there in DATE in order to comply with a summons from the GPE tribunal de grande instance issued in divorce proceedings filed by his wife . ORG in GPE requested him to produce the summons in question . The applicant sent the ORG a summons to a hearing on DATE . His application for a visa was refused on an unknown date . According to the Government , it was refused because it was inconsistent .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence in a prison in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on suspicion of killing a person on behalf of the ORG . DATE he was placed in police custody , where CARDINAL statements were taken from him by police officers .

On DATE he was brought before a prosecutor and a judge , who questioned him further . The judge remanded the applicant in custody pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court , accusing the applicant and CARDINAL other persons of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory . He sought the death penalty under LAW .

Criminal proceedings began before ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) on DATE .

During DATE hearing held on DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer requested the trial court to release the applicant on bail . In the request the lawyer also referred to a number of judgments adopted by ORG in cases concerning LAW . The request for release was refused by the trial court . The objection lodged against the refusal was also rejected on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to death . The death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment on DATE . An appeal lodged by the applicant against his conviction was dismissed by ORG on DATE .


The applicant is a joint stock company with registered office in ORG . It is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant company filed an action with ORG ( ORG súd ) claiming that it was entitled to obtain MONEY of the shares of another limited company . At the same time the applicant company requested ORG to take an interim measure ordering the defendant , ORG , not to sell the shares at issue pending the outcome of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG granted the request for an interim measure . On DATE ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) upheld this decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the defendant 's request for annulment of the interim measure . The defendant appealed and on CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the interim measure without having heard the parties .

The applicant company petitioned ORG Ústavný súd ) and alleged a violation of its right to a fair and public hearing in the proceedings leading to ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the petition . It noted , inter alia , that the interlocutory proceedings in question did not determine the merits of the applicant company 's action .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of kidnapping for profit and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment conditional on DATE probation . Neither the applicant nor the prosecutor appealed .

On an unspecified date the applicant asked ORG for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE . He alleged that the court had erred in defining his actions as kidnapping for profit . He further challenged the findings of the trial court as to the circumstances of the matter . He claimed that he had freed the kidnapped victim of his own will and should have been exonerated from the kidnapping charges as provided for in GPE .

By a letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that the supervisory - review proceedings had been instituted and that the ORG would examine his application on DATE . According to the stamp on the letter , it reached the penitentiary establishment where the applicant was serving a prison sentence on DATE . The applicant indicated that the letter had been handed over to him on DATE .

On DATE the applicant sent written submissions to ORG .

In DATE the applicant received the text of the ORG ’s decision on his application for supervisory review . The hearing had taken place on DATE . The court had reviewed the applicant ’s case and granted his application in part . It had reclassified the charges as simple kidnapping . The sentence , however , had remained unaffected .

On DATE the applicant was arrested , together with Mr T. and Mr Z. , by officers of ORG on suspicion of extortion .

On DATE the applicant was formally charged and remanded in custody .

On DATE the ORG of LOC convicted the applicant and PERSON of extortion and sentenced the former to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .

According to the applicant , on DATE during and after the arrest he was beaten up by the police officers .

On DATE the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility ( ORG ) located within the police station . On admission he was examined by an officer on duty and a paramedic , who did not observe any injuries on his body . The applicant did not bring an oral or written complaint about the alleged beatings .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand centre no . CARDINAL of PERSON . On arrival he was examined by a general practitioner who noted several bruises in the lumbar region measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and QUANTITY . A relevant entry was made in the applicant ’s medical file .

It appears that on DATE the administration of the remand centre prepared a report concerning the applicant ’s injuries and forwarded all the relevant materials to the prosecutor ’s office for further inquiry . According to a certificate issued by the remand centre on DATE , the copies of those materials stored at the remand prison had been destroyed after the expiry of the time - limit for their storage on DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that he had been beaten up by police officers on DATE .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of PERSON issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment . The prosecutor based his findings on the statements made by the alleged perpetrators , who denied the applicant ’s allegations , and the medical documents from the applicant ’s file . In particular the prosecutor stated as follows :

“ The inquiry conducted did not confirm the [ applicant ’s ] allegations . The police officers PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON ... denied that they had put any pressure on [ the applicant ] . Upon arrival at [ the temporary detention facility ] , he did not complain that he had been beaten up by the police officers ... According to [ the applicant ’s ] medical file , upon his arrival at [ the remand centre ] ... several bruises were noted in the lumbar spine area . However , according to the certificate , issued by the head of [ the temporary detention facility ] , upon his placement [ there ] [ the applicant ] had been examined and questioned by an officer on duty as to whether he had any injuries . [ The applicant ] had not complained of his condition or had any visible injuries . Nor had the results of the applicant ’s examination by a paramedic on DATE been any different . When transferred to [ the remand centre ] , [ the applicant ] did not complain of his condition either . Accordingly , the injuries noted at [ the remand centre ] can not have been caused by the [ police officers ] in the circumstances described by [ the applicant ] . ”

NORP The applicant complained to a court , claiming that the scope of the prosecutor ’s inquiry had been insufficient because he had never been interviewed by a prosecutor with regard to his allegations of ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor ’s decision , finding that the scope of the inquiry had been adequate given the lack of evidence supporting the applicant ’s allegation of ill - treatment . In particular , the court found as follows :

“ The PERSON prosecutor ’s office carried out a proper investigation into the allegations concerning the use of unlawful investigation techniques by the police officers . PERSON , PERSON . , and PERSON were questioned . They explained that they had not put any physical or psychological pressure on [ the applicant ] during his arrest . [ The applicant ] did not confess to the crime . It is true that on [ CARDINAL ] DATE after his transfer from [ the temporary detention facility ] to [ the remand prison ] bruises on the small of [ the applicant ’s ] back were detected . However , earlier , when [ the applicant ] had been brought to [ the temporary detention facility ] , he had been examined and questioned by an officer on duty . At that time [ the applicant ] had no injuries and did not complain of the alleged ill - treatment or his condition . Having regard to those facts , the PERSON prosecutor ’s office drew a justified conclusion that the [ bruises ] detected upon the applicant ’s arrival at [ the remand prison ] could not have been caused by the policemen in the circumstances described by [ the applicant ] . There are no other materials in the court ’s possession to prove that the policemen had committed any unlawful acts vis - à - vis [ the applicant ] . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against that decision .

The parties to the criminal proceedings , including the defendant and his or her counsel and the prosecutor , may ask a superior court for supervisory review of judgments rendered by the courts of first or second levels of jurisdiction ( Article CARDINAL of the Code of the Criminal Procedure ( the “ CCrP ” ) .

In the event that the court decides to open supervisory - review proceedings , it should notify the interested parties of the date , time and place of the hearing within DATE . The parties to the proceedings should inform the court if they wish to participate in the hearing . The parties present at the hearing may make oral submissions to the court ( Article CARDINAL of the CCrP ) .

The court may uphold , amend or quash any of the earlier judgments on the matter , discontinue the proceedings or remit the matter for fresh consideration to a trial or appeal court ( LAW of the ORG ) . In particular , a judgment will be quashed if there is an inconsistency between the conclusions reached by the court in the judgment and the facts established ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CCrP ) .

The court is not bound by the scope of the application for supervisory review and may consider the matter in its entirety . It may commute the sentence or reclassify the offence as a less serious one ( Article CARDINAL of the CCrP ) . It can not , however , increase the sentence or reclassify the charges as a more serious offence ( Article CARDINAL of the CCrP ) .

NORP In response to a complaint of a criminal offence , the investigator is under obligation to verify the complainant ’s allegations ( Article CARDINAL of the CCrP ) .

Should there be sufficient grounds to believe that a crime had been committed , the investigator initiates a criminal investigation ( Article CARDINAL of the CCrP ) .

The complainant may appeal against the investigator ’s refusal to open a criminal investigation to the investigator ’s superior , a prosecutor or a court ( Article CARDINAL of the CCrP ) .


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

Alvina Gyulumyan;Anatoly Kovler;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant lent a sum of money to a private person , PERSON amount of the debt was linked to the exchange rate of GPE dollar . Mr PERSON failed to repay the full amount in due time , and on DATE the applicant brought a civil action against him . The applicant sought to recover MONEY ( RUB ) on account of the outstanding debt , plus statutory interest for the period of delay ( проценты за неисполнение денежного обязательства ) . The amount of statutory interest was calculated on the basis of the refinancing rate of ORG .

In the domestic proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer . PERSON , the defendant , claimed that he had returned RUB MONEY to the applicant . However , he acknowledged the remainder of the principal debt , and accepted the calculations of statutory interest .

On DATE the ORG of GPE partially granted the applicant ’s claim . The court found that a part of the debt ( RUB CARDINAL ) had already been paid to the applicant . Given the exchange rate of the GPE dollar at that moment , the court awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL ( equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) ) on account of the outstanding debt , plus RUB MONEY ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as statutory interest under LAW for DATE of delay in paying the outstanding debt . To calculate the interest the court applied the DATE refinancing rate of ORG , which amounted to PERCENT at the time .

The applicant appealed . In the points of appeal he contested the finding of the first - instance court that a part of the principal debt had been returned to him .

On DATE ORG examined the appeal and dismissed it . The issue of statutory interest was not raised by the parties during the appeal proceedings . However , the court proprio motu reduced the amount of statutory interest awarded to RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , stating as follows :

“ In addition to the principal debt the court ordered recovery of statutory interest , in accordance with LAW of GPE .

At the same time , in the opinion of the court of appeal , the amount of interest MONEY DATE is disproportionate to the consequences of the breach of the obligation and is excessive .

Consequently , the appeal court ( кассационная инстанция ) deems it necessary , pursuant to LAW of GPE , to reduce the amount of the penalty to MONEY . ”

The overall amount awarded to the applicant was therefore reduced to RUB CARDINAL . That decision became final .

LAW ( “ Responsibility for non - compliance with a monetary obligation ” ) provided , insofar as relevant , as follows :

“ For the use of monetary assets belonging to another person , as a result of their unlawful withholding , or the failure to pay them back ... a [ statutory ] interest should be paid .... The amount of that interest is defined as the refinancing rate [ of ORG ] ... applicable in the place of residence of the creditor ... on DATE of the execution of the monetary obligation . If the monetary debt is recovered through the court , the court may award [ statutory ] interest on the basis of the refinancing rate applicable on DATE of lodging of the claim , or on DATE of the delivery of the judgment . These rules are applicable unless another rate has been fixed by the law or by an agreement [ between the parties ] ... ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( “ LAW ) , insofar as relevant , stipulates as follows :

“ If a penalty due [ for a violation of a contractual obligation ] is obviously out of proportion to the consequences of the violation of the civil obligation , the court has the right to reduce the amount of the penalty ... ”

Pursuant to Joint Ruling no . CARDINAL by ORG and ORG of DATE , Article CARDINAL is applicable to the statutory interest provided under LAW . In deciding whether or not to reduce the statutory interest payable , the courts “ should take into account the fluctuation of the refinancing rate of ORG during the period of delay , as well as other circumstances which may affect the rates of interest ” .

Article CARDINAL ( “ Scope of review of the case by the court of appeal ” ) of LAW of DATE , then in force , stipulated :

“ The [ court of appeal ] shall verify the legality and reasonableness of the first - instance court judgment within the scope of the appeal . It may examine new evidence and establish new facts . The court shall examine newly submitted evidence if it considers that the evidence could not have been submitted to the first - instance court .

In the interests of legality , the court of appeal may examine the decision of the first - instance court in its entirety . ”


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

He is the proprietor and managing director of ORG , a publishing house which in DATE published a novel by PERSON entitled “ PERSON ” ( “ The forbidden phrases ” ) . The book conveyed the author 's views on philosophical and theological issues in a novelistic style . CARDINAL copies of it were printed in a single run .

In an indictment of DATE , the GPE public prosecutor ( “ the public prosecutor ” ) charged the applicant under the third and fourth paragraphs of LAW with blasphemy against “ God , the Religion , the Prophet and the Holy Book ” through the publication of the book in question .

NORP The public prosecutor 's indictment was based on an expert report drawn up at the request of the press section of the GPE public prosecutor 's office by Professor PERSON , dean of the theology faculty of ORG at the material time . In his report of CARDINAL DATE the expert observed :

“ ... the author arbitrarily uses theories about the physical substance of the universe , creation and the existence of natural laws to sway readers ' minds towards the conclusions he wishes to be drawn from the book . In particular , in the passages on theology he imprisons readers within the limits of his own views , which are devoid of all academic rigour . ... He criticises the beliefs , ideas , traditions and way of life of NORP society by adopting the independent and nonconformist viewpoint of the leaders , thinkers and scientists of the ORG in order to enlighten and advise our people as he sees fit . ... This way of thinking , based on materialism and positivism , leads to atheism in that it renounces faith and divine revelation ... Although these passages may be regarded as a polemic in support of the author 's philosophical views , it may be observed that they also contain statements that imply a certain element of humiliation , scorn and discredit vis - à - vis religion , the PERSON and belief in God according to NORP ... In the author 's view , religious beliefs and opinions are mere obscurities , and ideas based on nature and reason are described as clear - sighted . The author describes religious faith as a ' desert mirage ' , a ' primitive idea ' and ' desert ecstasy ' , and religious practices as ' the primitivism of desert life ' . ... ”

NORP In his report the expert quoted numerous passages from the book under review , in particular :

“ ... just think about it , ... all beliefs and all religions are essentially no more than performances . The actors played their roles without knowing what it was all about . Everyone has been led blindly along that path . The imaginary god , to whom people have become symbolically attached , has never appeared on stage . He has always been made to speak through the curtain . The people have been taken over by pathological imaginary projections . They have been brainwashed by fanciful stories ...

... this divests the imams of all thought and capacity to think and reduces them to the state of a pile of grass ... [ regarding the story of PERSON sacrifice ] it is clear that we are being duped here ... is God a sadist ? ... so PERSON is just as murderous as the God of PERSON ... ”

The expert concluded his report as follows :

“ The passages which I have quoted from the book form the actus reus of the offence provided for in LAW . As regards the mens rea , my analysis shows that it has been made out , especially since the author entitled his book ' The forbidden phrases ' . ”

In a letter of DATE to ORG , the applicant contested the expert report . He requested a second opinion , arguing that the book was a novel and should have been analysed by literary specialists , and questioned the expert 's impartiality .

On DATE a committee of experts , composed of ORG , PERSON and PERSON , submitted its report .

In a letter of DATE to ORG , the applicant disputed the accuracy of the second expert report and argued that it was a copy of the first report .

On DATE the applicant submitted before ORG that the book was neither blasphemous nor insulting within the meaning of the third paragraph of LAW and merely conveyed its author 's philosophical views .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and a fine . It commuted the prison sentence to a fine , so that the applicant was ultimately ordered to pay a total fine of MONEY ( equivalent at the time to MONEY ) . In its reasoning the court referred to the second expert report and cited the following passage from the book :

“ Look at the triangle of fear , inequality and inconsistency in the Koran ; it reminds me of an earthworm . God says that all the words are those of his messenger . Some of these words , moreover , were inspired in a surge of exultation , in PERSON 's arms . ... God 's messenger broke his fast through sexual intercourse , after dinner and before prayer . PERSON did not forbid sexual relations with a dead person or a live animal . ”

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . In his grounds of appeal he submitted that in the book in question the author had merely expressed his views , and challenged the content of the expert reports .

On DATE ORG upheld the impugned judgment .

The applicant was notified of the final judgment by means of a payment order postmarked DATE .

The third and fourth paragraphs of LAW provide :

“ It shall be an offence punishable by DATE imprisonment and a fine of MONEY to blaspheme against God , CARDINAL of the religions , CARDINAL of the prophets , CARDINAL of the sects or CARDINAL of the holy books ... or to vilify or insult another on account of his religious beliefs or fulfilment of religious duties ...

The penalty for the offence set out in the third paragraph of this Article shall be doubled where it has been committed by means of a publication . ”

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

“ With regard to offences committed through the medium of publications other than periodicals , criminal responsibility shall be incurred by the author [ or ] translator ... of the publication which constitutes the offence , and by the publisher . ... ”


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

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , and live in the town of LOC .

The applicants were all employed as manual workers by ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) until their contracts of employment were terminated by ORG on DATE .

On various dates in DATE the applicants brought proceedings before ORG of First Instance against ORG and claimed their unpaid salaries and other pecuniary rights to which they were entitled under the applicable legislation .

The applicants ' claims were partly accepted by ORG in its decisions adopted on DATE and DATE .

DATE the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings against ORG and sought to obtain the sums awarded to them by ORG together with statutory interest .

The sums claimed by the applicants were as follows :

In the course of the enforcement proceedings , the applicants unsuccessfully attempted to recover their monies from ORG bank accounts at the ORG owned ORG . The bank refused to make the payments on the ground that the monies deposited there by ORG had been allocated to a special fund earmarked for public services . Following this , ORG transferred all their monetary assets to the special fund to circumvent ORG decisions .

At the time of the adoption of the present judgment the applicants ' attempts at recovering their monies were still continuing .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law and practice , see GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , QUANTITY and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


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

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

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) . She asked for an easement ( right - of - way ) to be granted to her .

The proceedings were terminated on DATE . On DATE , the date on which the application was lodged with the ORG , they were pending before ORG .

On DATE the Law of CARDINAL DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) entered into force . It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act reads , in so far as relevant :

Section CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . A complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings shall be lodged while the proceedings are pending . ... ”

Section CARDINAL provides for measures that may be applied by the court dealing with the complaint . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall dismiss a complaint which is unjustified .

NORP If the court considers that the complaint is justified , it shall find that there was an unreasonable delay in the impugned proceedings .

At the request of the complainant , the court may instruct the court examining the merits of the case to take certain measures within a fixed time - limit . Such instructions shall not concern the factual and legal assessment of the case .

NORP If the complaint is justified the court may , at the request of the complainant , grant ... just satisfaction in an amount not exceeding PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid by ORG . If such just satisfaction is granted it shall be paid out of the budget of the court which conducted the delayed proceedings . ”

Section CARDINAL lays down transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the ORG . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE after the date of entry into force of this law persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by LAW ... , may lodge a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings on the basis of the provisions of this law if their complaint to ORG had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) adopted a resolution ( no . III SPP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it ruled that while LAW produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force ( DATE ) , its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied .