Lech Garlicki;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was charged with an unspecified offence .

On DATE the Prosecutor changed the original charges and charged the applicant with aggravated extortion . The applicant was additionally charged with drug trafficking committed DATE in GPE .

On DATE the prosecution lodged a bill of indictment with ORG ( PERSON ) . The applicant was indicted as charged . The bill of indictment comprised charges against CARDINAL accused .

On DATE the court held the first hearing .

Hearings scheduled for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE were adjourned because of the applicant ’s counsel illness .

DATE and DATE the trial court held CARDINAL hearings .

On CARDINAL occasions the applicant unsuccessfully sought the withdrawal of the judge dealing with his case .

NORP The proceedings are still pending before ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) a complaint under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint stating that that the proceedings had been conducted with the requisite speed and without undue delay .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of drug trafficking committed DATE in ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court judgment .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of vehicle break - in and theft .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) convicted the applicant of vehicle break - in and theft and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against this judgment .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to appoint a legal - aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal .

On DATE the legal - aid lawyer informed the applicant that he had not found any grounds for lodging a cassation appeal .

On an unspecified date , the applicant requested the court for leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time and to appoint another legal - aid lawyer with a view to lodging a cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request finding no basis for retrospective leave . It further refused to appoint another legal - aid lawyer .

NORP The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are stated in the ORG ’s decisions in cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII and the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL


SZEMELY ES VAGYONOROK FUGGETLEN SZAKSZERVEZETI SZOVETSEGE v. HUNGARY

The first applicant , Személy- és ORG , is an unregistered trade union . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born on DATE and lives in PERSON . He is the president of the trade union . The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr I. Barbalics , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , Agent , ORG and Law Enforcement .

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

The applicants’ previous application ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) was declared inadmissible for non - exhaustion of domestic remedies , pursuant to LAW , on DATE . After having pursued a petition for review before ORG , the applicants renewed their complaints . On DATE LAW declared the application partly inadmissible .

On DATE Mr Csánics and CARDINAL other individuals founded the applicant trade union . On DATE ORG requested its registration . He submitted the articles of association , a list of the officers and other relevant documents .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicants to amend the articles of association and to submit further information . On DATE the trade union modified its articles of association and submitted the new version to ORG .

In the ensuing non - contentious ( nemperes ) proceedings , on DATE ORG held deliberations in camera and decided to refuse to register the trade union , since the applicants had failed to submit all the information required and therefore their request had not met the legal requirements . ORG relied on the documents submitted by the applicants .

On DATE the applicants retained PERSON , a lawyer , to represent them before ORG . His power of attorney was attached to the case file . This mandate has never been withdrawn .

On the ORG appeal DATE which did not contain any argument concerning ORG in camera deliberations – ORG , acting as a second - instance court , upheld the first - instance decision on DATE .

The applicants lodged a petition for review with ORG .

On DATE the applicants retained another lawyer , PERSON to represent them before the review bench of ORG . Her power of attorney mandate was also attached to the case file .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicants to amend the petition .

On DATE the review bench of ORG upheld the second - instance decision . This decision was served on PERSON on DATE . The Government submitted the acknowledgement of receipt which had been stamped at the despatching ORG on DATE and the handwritten note , indicating that it contained a copy of this decision , showing its receipt DATE by the addressee . It appears that PERSON did not inform the applicants of the decision .

The decision of the review bench of ORG was handed over to the applicants , upon their request , on DATE .

“ ... ( CARDINAL ) If authorisations have been given to CARDINAL person , the party may be represented by any of them ; however , CARDINAL representative may proceed in each act of the lawsuit ; a contrary stipulation is invalid ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) An authorisation may concern the entirety of the lawsuit or certain individual acts in the procedure .

( CARDINAL ) An authorisation which concerns the entirety of the proceedings entitles the representative to make any and all declarations and acts concerning the case ... ”

( CARDINAL ) The restriction of an authorisation is valid only if this is evident from the mandate itself . ”

“ The termination of the authorisation flowing from withdrawal , repudiation or the death of the party shall have effect for the court from the date of its reporting , and it shall effect for the opponent from the date of its disclosure to him .

“ If the party authorised a representative to carry on the lawsuit , the judicial documents shall be served on him instead of the party ... ”


CASE OF ZJEDNOCZONE BROWARY WARSZAWSKIE HABERBUSCH I SCHIELE S.A. v. POLAND

The applicant is a join - stock company with its registered seat in ORG .

By way of an administrative decision of CARDINAL DATE a property owned by the applicant and located in GPE was expropriated pursuant to provisions of the DATE PERSON on transfer to the ORG of the ownership of the main branches of the national economy ( LOC z DATE r. o przejęciu na wlasność GPE podstawowych gałęzi gospodarki narodowej ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG an application to have the expropriation decision declared null and void . The proceedings were subsequently conducted before PERSON .

On DATE the Minister of Finance gave a decision and refused to declare the expropriation decision null and void .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer requested the Minister of Finance to re - examine the case .

On DATE the Minister of Finance upheld his own decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed both decisions of PERSON .

On DATE the Minister of Finance gave a decision and stayed the proceedings finding that the examination of the case was dependent on the establishment of the components of the applicant 's enterprise ( ustalenie składników przedsiębiorstwa skarżącego ) , which fell within the competence of the Minister of Agriculture . On DATE the Minister of Finance requested the Minister of Agriculture to resolve the preliminary issue ( zagadnienie wstępne ) referred to above . Since then , the proceedings have been pending before the Minister of Finance .

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings .

On DATE the Minister of Finance upheld the challenged decision . Since that date the proceedings have been stayed before the Minister of Finance .

On DATE the Minister of Agriculture gave a decision and stayed the proceedings .

The applicant requested a re - examination of the case .

On DATE the Minister of Agriculture upheld his decision .

On DATE ORG found the complaint well - founded and quashed both decisions of the Minister of Agriculture .

Subsequently , on DATE the Minister of Agriculture gave a decision and discontinued the proceedings .

The applicant again requested a re - examination of the case .

NORP The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed both decisions of the Minister of Agriculture .

The proceedings are pending before the Minister of Agriculture .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity on the part of the Minister of Agriculture .

On DATE ORG found the complaint well - founded and ordered that the Minister of Agriculture give a decision on the preliminary issue within DATE of the court 's judgment .

NORP The Minister failed to comply with the court 's order and therefore , on DATE , the applicant requested ORG to impose a fine on him .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint finding that on DATE the Minister had given a decision and stayed the relevant proceedings . Therefore , although he did not give a decision on the merits , it could not be said that the Minister was completely inactive .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG , which was dismissed on DATE .

Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant again complained to ORG about the inactivity on the part of LOC .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as being pointless finding that , on DATE , the Minister of Agriculture had given a decision and upheld his own decision to stay the proceedings .

The relevant domestic law on remedies for inaction on the part of the administrative authorities is set out in the ORG 's judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .


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

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the State Police instituted criminal proceedings and on DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of having committed numerous thefts and burglaries .

On DATE ORG ( Rēzeknes tiesa ) detained the applicant for DATE . The decision referred to CARDINAL previous convictions of the applicant , the risk of his absconding , the fact that the applicant had been charged with committing a particularly serious offence and that he had been detained within DATE of his release from earlier imprisonment . The decision was subject to an appeal to ORG . The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of theft in other criminal proceedings . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG , at the request of the prosecutor ’s office , decided to extend the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court established that the circumstances referred to in the initial detention order had not changed and that , if released , the applicant would abscond from the court and the investigation . The complaint was subject to an appeal to ORG . The applicant did not appeal .

Meanwhile , on DATE CARDINAL other sets of criminal proceedings involving charges brought against the applicant and CARDINAL co - defendants were joined to the criminal proceedings initiated in DATE ( see above , paragraph CARDINAL ) . On DATE the criminal case was sent for trial to ORG , which , on DATE , decided to extend the applicant ’s detention until judgment was delivered .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the trial was postponed CARDINAL times on the basis of various requests made by the defendants and their lawyers . On CARDINAL occasions the trial was postponed owing to requests made by the applicant – on DATE the applicant dismissed his lawyer owing to his alleged failure to conduct a proper defence , therefore the hearing was postponed until DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital in order to be vaccinated and the hearing was postponed until DATE . Meanwhile , the applicant ’s continued detention was examined on the following occasions .

On DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer , established that the circumstances justifying his initial detention had not changed .

It appears that after DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other co - defendants addressed CARDINAL letters to ORG in which they expressed various requests .

On DATE ORG responded to a number of the applicant ’s aforementioned letters noting , inter alia , that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had submitted an appeal against the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to examine the applicant ’s request for the preventive measure to be changed after the examination of the criminal case on the merits or if the trial were postponed .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request to lift the detention order by arguing that circumstances had not changed since DATE . The decision was subject to review together with an appeal against a judgment in the criminal proceedings concerned .

On DATE ORG examined ORG request to extend the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court established that the co - defendants were coordinating their activities by hindering the trial with the aim of reaching the maximum statutory time - limit for pre - trial detention , after which they would have to be released . The decision was not subject to appeal .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s request , ORG refused to lift the preventive measure by stating that circumstances had not changed since adoption of the last refusal , and that by submitting various requests the applicant was attempting to postpone the trial .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request to lift the preventive measure by stating that nothing had changed since adoption of the last refusal , and that the decision was subject to appeal together with an appeal against a judgment in the criminal proceedings concerned .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , the judge withdrew from the case and another judge was appointed . CARDINAL of the defendants requested legal representation and the hearing was consequently postponed until DATE .

On DATE , at the request of a prosecutor , the criminal charges against the applicant were grouped in a separate criminal case , the proceedings of which were stayed because the applicant was in hospital .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request of ORG to extend the applicant ’s detention . The decision stated that the request to extend detention did not contain any information concerning a risk that the applicant would abscond . It stated that the applicant ’s continued detention would be contrary to the principles established by LAW , in particular , proportionality and lawfulness . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant was released .

DATE the trial was postponed on various occasions owing to the applicant ’s health . On DATE the applicant was detained for committing another offence , the examination of which was joined to the initial criminal case . On DATE the applicant was found guilty of various offences and the judgment became final on DATE .

According to the applicant , in DATE he sought to institute civil proceedings before ORG while being detained . It appears that the claim was dismissed and the applicant ’s appeal to the appeal court was submitted out of time .

DATE provides that time - limits for preventive measures applied prior to the coming into effect of this PERSON are to be governed by the provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure .

Section CARDINAL of the Law of Criminal Procedure ( in force since DATE ) regulates the terms of detention . In particular :

( CARDINAL ) The term of detention of a person held on suspicion of , or accused of , committing an especially serious crime shall not exceed DATE , during which time the person shall be held in detention pending pre - trial proceedings for DATE . Both an investigating judge in pre - trial proceedings and a higher - level court judge during a trial may extend the term by DATE , if the person directing the proceedings has not allowed for unjustified delay , or if the person ’s legal representative has intentionally delayed the progress of proceedings , or if the faster completion of the proceedings has not been possible owing to the particular complexity thereof . A higher - level court judge may extend this term by DATE , if the person directing the proceedings has not allowed for unjustified delay , and public safety may not be guaranteed with the application of another security measure .

( CARDINAL) The issue regarding the extension of the term of detention shall be examined by a court judge in a closed court sitting , providing an opportunity for the person whose detention is being decided , his or her defence counsel and representative , and the public prosecutor to express their views . The decision can not be appealed against .

Section CARDINAL of the Law of Criminal Procedure ( as in force at the material time ) regulates the review of detention orders by providing that a detained person , and the representative or defence counsel thereof , may at any time submit a request to an investigating judge or court regarding an assessment of the necessity of continued detention , and that the decisions provided for in this section may be appealed against in accordance with the procedures specified in section CARDINAL of this PERSON .

Section QUANTITY provides , inter alia , that if a security measure related to deprivation of liberty is applied to a person after the criminal case had been sent to trial , and the next court session is not scheduled for within DATE , the persons concerned may submit a complaint within DATE to a court one level higher .


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

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and Mr GPE , lawyers practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , State Attorney - General .

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

On DATE the applicant , a teacher , was injured at work while accompanying a group of schoolchildren on a skiing excursion to the Pohorje mountain plateau .

On DATE she submitted a claim to the Z.M. insurance company ( “ the insurance company ” ) , with which her employer had taken out liability insurance , for payment of compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The insurance company refused the payment .

On DATE the applicant instituted compensation proceedings in ORG , ORG ( PERSON sodišče v Mariboru , Enota na Ptuju ) , claiming a total amount of CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT – MONEY ( ORG ) ) for the non - pecuniary damage sustained , and default interest with effect from the date of the judgment .

On DATE ORG ( Okrožno sodišče na Ptuju ) gained jurisdiction in the present case further to the reform of the NORP judicial system .

On DATE a hearing was held in the absence of the defendant , who had been properly summoned , and the applicant gave evidence . At the hearing the applicant reduced the amount of her claim to SIT CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ORG ) since the insurance did not provide for a higher cover .

On DATE the first - instance court upheld the applicant ’s reduced claim in the amount of SIT CARDINAL . It also awarded the applicant default interest with the effect from the date of its judgment . The insurance company appealed .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the appeal and remitted the case to the first - instance court for re - examination .

On DATE the court held a hearing , at which the applicant modified her claim and requested the payment of default interest with effect from DATE the damage had occurred , more precisely from DATE , the date of the expiry of the deadline within which the applicant considered that the insurance company was required to fulfil its obligations under the insurance contract .

On DATE the court allowed the claim in the amount of SIT CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage and default interest from DATE of the judgment , but rejected the part of the claim concerning the payment of default interest from DATE to DATE . Both parties appealed .

On DATE the second - instance court dismissed both appeals . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG .

On DATE ORG partly allowed the appeal and awarded the applicant default interest also for the period from DATE until DATE , that is , with effect from the date on which the first - instance court had delivered its first judgment in the case . However , it rejected the claim for default interest from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

In this connection it referred to well - established jurisprudence , which in the case of compensation for non - pecuniary damage did not allow default interest to be calculated from the date on which the damage had occurred , but only from the date of the first - instance court judgment . The court also referred to the LAW , which was in force at the material time and which , in the opinion of the court , formed the current legal basis for this practice . Furthermore , ORG recapitulated the reasons for adopting such an approach . It argued that it had been adopted since DATE owing to the unstable economic situation in the country and the high inflation rate and monetary depreciation in particular . In order to preserve the real value of a pecuniary obligation , default interest had also included interest for adjustment of a debt . However , since in the case of claims for compensation for non - pecuniary damage the preservation of the real value of the debt had already been ensured by determining the amount of compensation only on the date of the judgment , the compensation due to the applicant would have been adjusted twice if she were also awarded default interest for this period of time , which in the opinion of the court was unacceptable . Finally , ORG concluded that the current economic circumstances did not yet warrant a change in the case - law in question ( see also “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG ( PERSON sodišče ) .

On DATE ORG declared the appeal by the applicant inadmissible as being of a fourth - instance nature . It held that ORG had given a sound and detailed explanation of why the contested jurisprudence had been adopted and followed up to the present day , and that there was no appearance of arbitrariness whatsoever in ORG decision or in the decisions of the lower courts . Since it did not find any violation of human rights , it dismissed the constitutional appeal .

On DATE the ORG decision was served on the applicant .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the PERSON v. GPE decision ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE , and currently detained in ORG , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Ms. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their agent , Mr C.A. Whomersley of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was placed under surveillance by ORG and Excise officers after he was seen having a business meeting with CARDINAL NORP citizens , “ J ” and “ O ” , both of whom had been under investigation since DATE .

The applicant was arrested on DATE . On DATE he was charged with conspiracy to import cannabis , cannabis resin and cocaine and with the importation of cocaine contrary to Section CARDINAL ) of the ORG and Excise Management Act DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the charge against the applicant relating to the alleged conspiracy to import cannabis and cannabis resin was withdrawn .

The applicant ’s trial at the Inner London Crown Court commenced on DATE . The prosecution claimed that DATE he had conspired with J. to import large quantities of cocaine into GPE . On DATE he had smuggled in QUANTITY of cocaine , worth GBP CARDINAL , hidden in satellite receiver boxes in his car . CARDINAL of the bags had the applicant ’s fingerprints on it . It was claimed that he had used his company , “ Eurosales ” , as a cover .

The applicant gave evidence at trial . He admitted bringing the cocaine into GPE , but claimed not to have known that the satellite box contained drugs , believing instead that he was smuggling jewellery . He stated that he had had previous dealings with PERSON in connection with valuable watches and had put them in touch with his supplier . They had asked him to bring over a consignment of jewellery on his next business trip of DATE .

J. pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to evade the restrictions on the importation of both cannabis and cocaine . CARDINAL other co - defendants , O. , PERSON and NORP , pleaded guilty to conspiracy to evade the restrictions on the importation of cannabis .

Prior to the trial , the prosecution made an ex parte application to the trial judge in accordance with ORG guidelines in NORP v. PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( see below ) . The judge ruled there was no obligation on the prosecution to make further disclosure and indicated that he would review his decision during the course of the trial . The defence was notified that an application would be made , but was not informed of the category of material which the prosecution sought to withhold on grounds of public interest immunity .

At various points during the trial the judge prohibited questioning on certain issues , including whether or not ORG and Excise had relied on an informer and details relating to the manner in which surveillance of the applicant had been carried out . On DATE the judge stopped defence counsel from asking any questions about undisclosed sensitive material . When defence counsel asked how he would know if his questions were straying into sensitive areas , he was referred to a list of questions produced DATE prior to the trial .

In his summing - up the judge told the jury that there were some areas of investigation which he had not allowed to be opened up through disclosure or cross - examination . Defence counsel told the jury that there was a risk that the restrictions on questioning could result in a miscarriage of justice .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of conspiracy to contravene LAW ) of ORG in relation to the importation of a Class A controlled drug . On DATE he was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . A confiscation order in the sum of GBP CARDINAL was also imposed under LAW DATE with a consecutive sentence of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment in default of payment .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence , commenting :

“ Before the hearing we had the advantage of looking at the material which was put before the trial judge . Each member of this court has read it . We have no doubt , having read it and being fully apprised of the issues in the case and the basis upon which the defence sought to have further material disclosed , that the trial judge was correct in his ruling . [ The applicant ’s ] counsel frankly and properly indicated to this court that since he did not know what the material was and since he knew that we had seen it , he could not develop the grounds upon which he had relied beyond reasserting them and inviting us to take a different view from that taken by the trial judge . Not only do we consider that the trial judge was correct in his decision , but we consider that he followed the correct procedure to the letter in everything he did in relation to the ex parte application and the decisions arising from it . ”

ORG also concluded that the judge had been correct to withhold information regarding the manner in which surveillance had been carried out , noting that the work of ORG and Excise would be hampered if such information were made known .

At common law , the prosecution has a duty to disclose any earlier written or oral statement of a prosecution witness which is inconsistent with evidence given by that witness at the trial . The duty also extends to statements of any witnesses potentially favourable to the defence .

In DATE the Attorney - General issued Guidelines , which did not have the force of law , concerning exceptions to the common law duty to disclose to the defence certain evidence of potential assistance to it ( ( DATE ) CARDINAL Cr . App . PERSON ( “ the LAW ) ) . The LAW attempted to codify the rules of disclosure and to define the prosecution ’s power to withhold “ unused material ” . Under paragraph CARDINAL , “ unused material ” was defined as :

“ ( i ) All witness statements and documents which are not included in the committal bundle served on the defence ; ( ii ) the statements of any witnesses who are to be called to give evidence at the committal and ( if not in the bundle ) any documents referred to therein ; ( iii ) the unedited version(s ) of any edited statements or composite statement included in the committal bundles . ”

According to the LAW , the duty to disclose was subject to a discretionary power for prosecuting counsel to withhold relevant evidence if it fell within CARDINAL of the categories set out in paragraph CARDINAL . CARDINAL of these categories ( CARDINAL ) ) was “ sensitive ” material which , because of its sensitivity , it would not be in the public interest to disclose . “ Sensitive material ” was defined as follows :

“ ( a ) it deals with matters of national security ; or it is by , or discloses the identity of , a member of ORG who would be of no further use to those services once his identity became known ; ( b ) it is by , or discloses the identity of , an informant and there are reasons for fearing that the disclosure of his identity would put him or his family in danger ; ( c ) it is by , or discloses the identity of , a witness who might be in danger of assault or intimidation if his identity became known ; ( d ) it contains details which , if they became known , might facilitate the commission of other offences or alert someone not in custody that he is a suspect ; or it discloses some unusual form of surveillance or method of detecting crime ; ( e ) it is supplied only on condition that the contents will not be disclosed , at least until a subpoena has been served upon the supplier - e.g. a bank official ; ( f ) it relates to other offences by , or serious allegations against , someone who is not an accused , or discloses previous convictions or other matters prejudicial to him ; ( g ) it contains details of private delicacy to the maker and/or might create risk of domestic strife . ”

According to paragraph CARDINAL , “ in deciding whether or not statements containing sensitive material should be disclosed , a balance should be struck between the degree of sensitivity and the extent to which the information might assist the defence ” . The decision as to whether or not the balance in a particular case required disclosure of sensitive material was CARDINAL for the prosecution , although any doubt should be resolved in favour of disclosure . If either before or during the trial it became apparent that a duty to disclose had arisen , but that disclosure would not be in the public interest because of the sensitivity of the material , the prosecution would have to be abandoned .

Since DATE the Guidelines have been superseded by the common law , notably by a number of decisions of ORG . In NORP v. Ward ( [ DATE ] Weekly Law Reports p. CARDINAL ) ORG dealt with the duties of the prosecution to disclose evidence to the defence and the proper procedure to be followed when the prosecution claimed public interest immunity . It stressed that the court and not the prosecution was to be the judge of where the proper balance lay in a particular case , because :

“ ... [ When ] the prosecution acted as judge in their own cause on the issue of public interest immunity in this case they committed a significant number of errors which affected the fairness of the proceedings . Policy considerations therefore powerfully reinforce the view that it would be wrong to allow the prosecution to withhold material documents without giving any notice of that fact to the defence . If , in a wholly exceptional case , the prosecution are not prepared to have the issue of public interest immunity determined by a court , the result must inevitably be that the prosecution will have to be abandoned . ”

ORG described the balancing exercise to be performed by the judge as follows :

“ ... a judge is balancing on the one hand the desirability of preserving the public interest in the absence of disclosure against , on the other hand , the interests of justice . Where the interests of justice arise in a criminal case touching and concerning liberty or conceivably on occasion life , the weight to be attached to the interests of justice is plainly very great indeed ” .

In NORP v. PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( [ DATE ] Weekly Law Reports p. CARDINAL ) , ORG held that it was not necessary in every case for the prosecution to give notice to the defence when it wished to claim public interest immunity , and outlined CARDINAL different procedures to be adopted . The first procedure , which had generally to be followed , was for the prosecution to give notice to the defence that they were applying for a ruling by the court and indicate to the defence at least the category of the material which they held . The defence then had the opportunity to make representations to the court . Secondly , however , where the disclosure of the category of the material in question would in effect reveal that which the prosecution contended should not be revealed , the prosecution should still notify the defence that an application to the court was to be made , but the category of the material need not be disclosed and the application should be ex parte . The third procedure would apply in an exceptional case where to reveal even the fact that an ex parte application was to be made would in effect be to reveal the nature of the evidence in question . In such cases the prosecution should apply to the court ex parte without notice to the defence .


Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel);Violation of Art. 9;Violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 6;Not necessary to examine P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings;Not necessary to examine Art. 11

Mr PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) was Chief PERSON of NORP from DATE until the events complained of . Mr PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) was formerly a teacher at ORG in GPE .

In his submissions to the ORG the second applicant stated that from DATE he had also worked on a part - time basis as secretary to the Chief ORG ( NORP мюфтийство ) , the national leadership of the NORP religious organisation , and editor of GPE , its newspaper . The Government disputed these assertions .

At DATE a process of democratisation commenced in GPE . Soon thereafter some NORP believers and activists of the NORP religion in the country sought to replace the leadership of their religious organisation . They considered that PERSON , who was the Chief PERSON at that time , and the members of ORG ( Висш духовен съвет ) had collaborated with the communist regime . The old leadership , with Mr LANGUAGE as Chief Mufti of NORP , also had supporters . This situation caused divisions and internal conflict within the NORP community in GPE .

NORP Following general elections held in GPE in DATE a new government , formed by ORG ) and ORG ) , took office towards DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON по вероизповеданията ) , a governmental agency attached to ORG , declared the election of Mr LANGUAGE in DATE as Chief Mufti of NORP null and void and proclaimed his removal from that position . On DATE the ORG registered a threemember Interim ORG as a temporary governing body of the NORP ' religious organisation , pending the election of a new permanent leadership by a national conference of all NORP .

Following these events Mr GPE , who claimed that he remained Chief Mufti of NORP , challenged the decision of DATE before ORG . On DATE ORG rejected his appeal . The court found that the decision of ORG was not subject to judicial appeal . The ensuing petition for review , submitted by PERSON against ORG decision , was examined by a CARDINAL - member ORG . On DATE the ORG dismissed the petition . While confirming the rejection of Mr PERSON 's appeal , the ORG also discussed the merits of the appeal . It found , inter alia , that the ORG 's decision to declare Mr LANGUAGE 's election null and void had been within its competence . In so far as the impugned decision had also proclaimed “ the removal ” of PERSON LANGUAGE from his position of Chief PERSON , this had been ultra vires . However , it was unnecessary to annul this part of the ORG 's decision as in any event it had no legal consequences .

The National Conference of NORP , organised by the interim leadership , took place on DATE . It elected Mr PERSON ( the first applicant ) as Chief Mufti of NORP and also approved a new LAW in GPE ( Устав за духовното устройство и управление на мюсюлманите в GPE ) . On DATE ORG registered the statute and the new leadership in accordance with sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

While the leadership dispute between Mr NORP and PERSON continued , the official position of ORG , throughout DATE and DATE , remained that the first applicant was the legitimate Chief Mufti of NORP .

On DATE ORG wrote a letter to PERSON urging him to organise a national conference of all NORP to solve certain problems arising from irregularities in the election of local religious leaders . The irregularities in question apparently concerned alleged inconsistencies with the internal statute of the NORP religious organisation , and not breaches of the law .

On DATE the supporters of PERSON held a national conference . The conference proclaimed itself the legitimate representative of NORP believers , elected an alternative leadership and adopted a statute . Mr PERSON was elected President of ORG . After the conference the newly elected leaders applied to ORG for registration as the legitimate leadership of NORP .

On DATE ORG presided over by the first applicant decided to convene a national conference on DATE .

At DATE , parliamentary elections took place in GPE . ORG ( ORG ) obtained a majority in ORG and formed a new government , which took office in DATE .

On DATE ORG wrote a letter to the first applicant in his capacity of Chief Mufti urging him to postpone the conference . The letter stated , inter alia :

“ As ORG was concerned with [ the ] irregularities [ as regards the election of local muftis ] as early as DATE , it repeatedly ... urged the rapid resolution of the problems ... Unfortunately no specific measures were undertaken ... As a result the conflicts in the religious community deepened , and discontent among NORP increased , leading to the holding of an extraordinary national conference on DATE . This brought to light a new problem , related to the shortcomings of the statute of the NORP religious community ... [ The statute ] does not clarify the procedure for convening a national conference ... Issues concerning the participants , and the manner in which they are chosen ... , are not regulated .

Therefore , for the executive branch of the ORG it becomes legally impossible to decide whether the national conference is in conformity with the statute [ of the NORP religion ] and , accordingly , whether its decisions are valid . These decisions , quite understandably , could be challenged by some of the NORP in GPE . Any other national conference , except one organised by a joint committee [ of the rival leaderships ] , would raise the same problem . Moreover , the decision of DATE of ORG to hold an extraordinary national conference on DATE is signed CARDINAL legitimate members of ORG ... [ and ] ... can not be regarded as being in conformity with the statute .

ORG can not disregard the findings of the [ Chamber of the ] ORG in its decision of CARDINAL [ DATE . It is mentioned therein that the ORG had acted ultra vires when removing Mr LANGUAGE from his position of Chief PERSON and that the decision of ORG DATE could not have legal consequences .

Extremely worried as regards the current situation and deeply concerned over the well - being of the NORP in GPE , ORG supports the opinion of the Chief Mufti [ the first applicant ] that it is not advisable to rush ahead with the holding of an extraordinary conference before overcoming the conflicts in the religious community ...

Firmly convinced that the disputed questions in the religious community should not be decided by administrative means by the executive branch of the ORG ... the ORG appeals to you to show good will and reach a consensus for the holding of a united conference ... ”

On DATE ORG presided over by PERSON announced that it had postponed the national conference until DATE .

On DATE PERSON , Deputy Prime Minister of GPE , issued Decree R-CARDINAL , which reads as follows :

“ In accordance with Decree KV-CARDINAL of DATE of ORG read in conjunction with section CARDINAL of LAW , I approve the statute of the NORP religion in GPE , based in GPE . ”

The statute of the NORP religion in GPE mentioned in the decree was apparently the one adopted at the rival national conference , organised by PERSON and held on DATE . Decree KV-CARDINAL , referred to in Decree R-CARDINAL , determined that Deputy Prime Minister PERSON should be in charge of supervising the activity of ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a decision which stated that , in accordance with sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW and Decree RCARDINAL of the Deputy Prime Minister , it had registered a new leadership of the NORP community . The leadership thus registered included Mr LANGUAGE as President of ORG and , apparently , those elected at the conference of DATE .

Neither Decree R-CARDINAL nor the decision of ORG gave any reasons or any explanation regarding the procedure followed . The decisions were not formally served on PERSON , who learned about them from the press .

On DATE the newly registered leadership of the NORP community accompanied by private security guards entered the premises of the Chief Mufti 's Office in GPE , forcibly evicted the staff working there , and occupied the building . The applicants submit that the police , who arrived after the surprise action , immediately stepped in to protect the new occupants of the building . Following the action of DATE the new leadership took over all documents and assets belonging to the religious organisation of NORP in GPE and , in DATE which followed , in various other towns in the country . ORG allegedly sent letters to the banks where the NORP religious organisation had its accounts , informing them of the change of leadership . In DATE several municipalities , allegedly upon the instructions of the ORG , registered new regional muftis . Also , the staff of the Chief ORG and CARDINAL NORP teachers , the second applicant among them , were allegedly dismissed de facto as they were prevented from continuing their work .

On DATE , immediately after the take - over , the first applicant submitted to ORG ( ORG прокуратура ) a request for assistance , stating that there had been an unlawful mob action and that the persons who had occupied the building of the Chief Mufti 's Office were squatters who had to be evicted . By decisions of CARDINAL and DATE the prosecuting authorities refused to take action . They found , inter alia , that the new occupants of the building had legal grounds to stay there as they were duly registered by ORG and represented the religious leadership of the NORP community in the country .

On DATE , apparently in reply to a request from the first applicant , ORG sent him , in his capacity as a private person , a letter which stated , inter alia :

“ The NORP religious community in GPE ... has , in DATE , repeatedly changed its statute as concerns its organisational structure ... , but never as regards its religious foundation . Decree R-CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ... sanctions an [ organisational ] change , which the religious community itself wished to undertake ... ”

This letter was apparently the first document originating from the competent ORG bodies which implied clearly that the statute of the NORP religious community approved by Decree R-CARDINAL had replaced the previous statute and that the new registered leadership had replaced the first applicant .

On DATE the first applicant , acting on behalf of the Chief ORG which he headed , lodged an appeal against Decree R-CARDINAL with ORG . He stated that , on the face of it , Decree R-CARDINAL stipulated nothing more than the registration of a new religious organisation . However , from the decisions and the letter of ORG which had followed , it had become clear that what had taken place was the replacement of the statute and the leadership of an existing religious denomination . Furthermore , it transpired that the motivation behind this act had been the understanding that the NORP religion in GPE could have only one leadership and CARDINAL statute . The ORG did not have the right to impose such a view on NORP , multiple religious organisations of one and the same religion being normal in other countries , as in GPE . Therefore ORG had acted beyond its powers . The resulting interference in the internal disputes of the NORP religious community was unlawful . At the oral hearing held by ORG the first applicant also stated that there had been an unlawful interference with NORP ' religious liberties , as enshrined in the LAW .

The first applicant also submitted that the conference of DATE had been organised by people outside the NORP religious organisation over which he presided . Accordingly , they could register their own religious organisation but could not claim to replace the leadership of another . The second applicant asked ORG either to declare Decree R-CARDINAL null and void as being against the law , or to declare that it constituted the registration of a new religious community , the existing NORP organisation being unaffected .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court stated that under LAW enjoyed full discretion in its decision as to whether or not to register the statute of a given religion . ORG jurisdiction was therefore limited to an examination of whether the impugned decision had been issued by the competent administrative organ and whether the procedural requirements had been complied with . In that respect Decree R-CARDINAL was lawful . As regards the request for interpretation of Decree R-CARDINAL , it was not open to ORG , in the framework of those particular proceedings , to state its opinion as to whether it had the effect of creating a new legal person , or introducing changes , and whether after this decision there existed CARDINAL parallel NORP religious organisations .

NORP The national conference of NORP in GPE organised by Mr PERSON took place as planned on DATE . TIME of the conference establish that it was attended by CARDINAL persons , of whom CARDINAL were official delegates with voting rights . These were representatives of CARDINAL local chapters and of the central leadership . The conference adopted some amendments of the statute of the NORP community and elected its leadership . The first applicant was re - elected Chief Mufti .

On DATE the first applicant , acting as Chief PERSON , submitted a petition to ORG requesting the registration of the new statute and leadership of NORP in GPE , as adopted by the conference of DATE . On DATE he repeated the request . However , there was no response from ORG .

On an unspecified date the first applicant appealed to ORG against the tacit refusal of ORG to register the decisions of the DATE conference .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . It noted that in DATE the Chief ORG as represented by PERSON had been duly registered as a religious denomination under LAW and had thus obtained legal personality of which it had not been subsequently deprived . Therefore ORG was under an obligation , pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , to examine a request for registration of a new statute or of changes in the leadership in the existing religious denomination . Accordingly , ORG ruled that the tacit refusal of ORG had been unlawful and ordered the transmission of the file to ORG , which was required to examine it .

On DATE Deputy Prime Minister PERSON refused to register the DATE statute and leadership of the Chief ORG as represented by PERSON . He sent him a letter stating , inter alia , that ORG had already registered a leadership of the NORP community in GPE , which was that elected by the DATE conference with Mr GPE as President of ORG . The Deputy Prime Minister concluded that the first applicant 's request “ [ could not ] be granted as it [ was ] clearly contrary to the provisions of LAW ” .

On DATE the first applicant , acting as Chief Mufti , appealed to ORG against the refusal of the Deputy Prime Minister .

On DATE ORG quashed that refusal on the ground that it was unlawful and contrary to LAW . The refusal constituted “ an unlawful administrative intervention into the internal organisation of [ a ] religious community ” . ORG again ordered the transmission of the file to ORG for registration .

Despite ORG judgments ORG did not grant registration to the religious leadership headed by PERSON .

In DATE the government of ORG stepped down and an interim cabinet was appointed . At the general elections which followed in DATE ORG obtained a majority in ORG and formed a new government .

On DATE the first applicant again requested ORG to register the DATE statute and leadership . There followed informal contacts between the NORP leadership of PERSON and representatives of the government . The applicants were allegedly told that the government would only agree to register a new leadership of the NORP if it was elected at a unification conference .

ORG urged the CARDINAL rival leaderships of PERSON and of PERSON to negotiate a solution . On DATE the leadership headed by PERSON decided to accept the holding of a unification conference under certain conditions . A CARDINAL - member contact group was appointed to hold negotiations . On DATE representatives of the CARDINAL rival leaderships signed an agreement to convene a national conference of all NORP believers on DATE . The agreement , which was also signed by Deputy Prime Minister PERSON and ORG , provided , inter alia , that the parties would not obstruct the unification process , failing which the ORG would take appropriate administrative measures . In addition , the leadership of PERSON PERSON undertook not to dispose of any NORP property or assets before the conference .

ORG took an active part in organising the national conference . The mayors in many localities distributed to the local chapters forms bearing the seal of the ORG . These forms were filled out at the meetings of the local chapters which elected delegates to the national conference and were certified by the mayors ' signatures .

On DATE , CARDINAL delegates attended the conference . Only delegates whose election had been certified by the mayors were allowed to participate . The conference adopted a new statute of the NORP denomination in GPE and elected a new leadership comprising members of the leadership of PERSON and others . PERSON apparently attended the conference and approved of the new leadership . CARDINAL leaders of the group led by him were elected to the new ORG . PERSON was not among them . On DATE the government registered the newly elected leadership .

Although the religious community which accepted Mr PERSON 's authority was involved in the unification process , Mr PERSON himself and some of his supporters did not sign the agreement of DATE and did not attend the conference , considering that it was manipulated by the ORG . The conference voted a resolution authorising the new leadership to conduct an audit and seek the prosecution of PERSON for alleged unlawful transactions .

Mr GPE , who claimed that he remained the Chief Mufti , appealed to ORG ( NORP административен съд ) against the government 's decision to register the new leadership . By a judgment of DATE ORG rejected the appeal as being inadmissible . It found that the Chief Mufti 's Office of Mr Gendzhev had no locus standi to lodge an appeal as it had never been validly registered . Decree R-CARDINAL of DATE had been signed by Deputy Prime Minister PERSON , who had not been duly authorised by ORG . Decree KV-CARDINAL did not contain an express authorisation for the Deputy Prime Minister to approve the statutes of religious denominations . As a result the Chief ORG of Mr Gendzhev had never legally existed and all its acts DATE were null and void .

The relevant provisions of the DATE LAW read as follows :

LAW

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG shall be free .

( CARDINAL ) NORP institutions shall be separate from the ORG .

( CARDINAL ) NORP shall be considered the traditional religion in GPE .

( CARDINAL ) Religious institutions and communities , and religious beliefs shall not be used for political ends . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) NORP The freedom of conscience , the freedom of thought and the choice of religion or of religious or atheistic views shall be inviolable . The ORG shall assist in the maintenance of tolerance and respect between the adherents of different denominations , and between believers and non - believers .

( CARDINAL ) NORP The freedom of conscience and religion shall not be exercised to the detriment of national security , public order , public health and morals , or of the rights and freedoms of others . ”

ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE provides a legally binding interpretation of the above provisions . It states , inter alia , that the ORG must not interfere with the internal organisation of religious communities and institutions , which must be regulated by their own statutes and rules . The ORG may interfere with the activity of a religious community or institution only in the cases contemplated in LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW . An assessment as to whether there is such a case may also be undertaken at the time of registration of a religious community or institution .

The Religious Denominations Act came into force in DATE and has been amended several times since then . The relevant provisions of the LAW , as in force at the time of the events at issue , read as follows .

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) A religious denomination shall be considered recognised and shall become a legal person upon the approval of its statute by ORG , or by a Deputy Prime Minister authorised for this purpose .

( CARDINAL ) ORG , or a Deputy Prime Minister authorised for this purpose , shall revoke the recognition , by a reasoned decision , if the activities of the religious denomination breach the law , public order or morals . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) Every religious denomination shall have a leadership accountable to the ORG .

( CARDINAL ) The statute of the religious denomination shall establish its governing and representative bodies and the procedure for their election and appointment ... ”

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) The national governing bodies of the religious denominations shall register with ORG , and local governing bodies with the local municipalities , and they shall submit a list of the names of all members of these governing bodies . ”

The Act also lays down rules regarding the activities of a religious denomination , imposes requirements as regards its clergy and gives ORG certain supervisory functions . In its judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG , while agreeing that certain provisions of LAW were clearly unconstitutional , found that it was not its task to repeal legal provisions adopted prior to the entry into force of LAW , the ordinary courts being competent to declare them inapplicable .

The applicants contended that as a consequence of the provisions of section CARDINAL of the LAW , and since there is no public register for recognised religious denominations , in practice a religious community can establish its existence as a legal entity only by producing a copy of a letter or a decision to that effect issued by ORG . The same applies to the leader of a religious denomination when he needs to provide accreditation .

Under Decree no . CARDINAL of ORG DATE , as amended , the competence of ORG includes “ contacts between the ORG and religions denominations ” , assistance to central and local administrative authorities in solving problems which involve religious matters and assistance to religious organisations as regards education and publications .

There are no procedural provisions under NORP law specifically applicable to the examination by ORG , or by a deputy prime minister , of a petition for authorisation of a religious denomination . LAW ( ORG за административното производство ) , which contains a general legal regime on the procedure for the issuing of and appeal against administrative decisions , provides that the LAW is not applicable as regards decisions of ORG .


András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants , Mr PERSON , Ms E Kaygan and Mr A. Kaygan , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

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

The second applicant , whose regular check - ups during her pregnancy were carried out by a private hospital , gave birth to the third applicant on DATE . The third applicant was born with serious disabilities .

On DATE the applicants initiated civil proceedings before ORG ( hereinafter “ the GPE court ” ) against the hospital and doctors , claiming pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the GPE court requested an expert report from ORG as to the liability of the defendant hospital and the doctors . The report was delivered on DATE and found that no negligence was attributable to the defendant party . Subsequently CARDINAL more medical reports , drawn up by various specialist bodies on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE , were submitted to the GPE court . It was established in these reports that the hospital and the doctors involved had in fact been partly responsible for the third applicant ’s disabilities , which had been assessed at PERCENT .

On DATE the applicants lodged a second case with the GPE court , requesting additional compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the GPE court ordered the CARDINAL cases to be joined and on DATE it awarded the applicants their claim in full for both cases . The defendant party appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment in respect of the award granted for the first case and quashed in so far as it concerned the second case . Relying on LAW , ORG held that the second case had been introduced out of time since the first and second applicants had been aware of the serious disabilities and their extent when the third applicant was born . Thus , any claim had had to be introduced within DATE of the third applicant ’s date of birth . The case was remitted to the GPE court .

On DATE the GPE court confirmed in its earlier judgment and held that it was only by having regard to the report dated DATE that the third applicant ’s disability had been established at PERCENT . Therefore the ORG further claims had been introduced within the statutory time - limit . The case file was transferred to ORG of ORG ( Hukuk PERSON ) .

On DATE the Grand Chamber of ORG quashed the judgment of the GPE court . In its decision it discussed in detail the concept of damage , when it arose and when the statutory time - limit for claiming damages had started to run for the instant case . It noted in particular that the seriousness of the third applicant ’s disability had been visible at birth on DATE and , according to medical reports , would not change in time for better or worse . Therefore the DATE statutory time - limit for claiming damages ought to have started running at birth .

The applicants appealed . On DATE the Grand Chamber of ORG dismissed the appeal . The case was remitted to the GPE court , which held on DATE that there was no need to issue a new judgment concerning the applicants’ first claim , which had already become final , whereas their second claim had been introduced outside the statutory time - limits , as established by ORG .

The applicants appealed in respect of the costs and fees .

On DATE ORG amended the part of the judgment concerning the applicants’ costs and fees but upheld the merits .

The applicants were notified of the judgment on DATE .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant served in the army DATE and was dismissed due to his health problems . He maintained that his physical and mental health problems resulted from his military service .

On DATE he applied for a military disability pension . On DATE ORG refused to grant his request . On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision to ORG .

On DATE ORG requested an expert opinion concerning the applicant ’s health . On DATE the expert submitted his opinion . Subsequently , the court requested that CARDINAL additional medical opinions be prepared .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the court to admit another expert opinion .

On DATE another expert submitted her opinion to the court .

On DATE ORG forwarded CARDINAL expert opinions to the applicant for comment . The applicant ’s lawyer submitted his observations on DATE .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . The applicant submitted documentation on his medical treatment , which was subsequently forwarded to the medical experts . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL experts submitted their supplementary opinions .

On DATE a hearing was held .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer challenged the experts’ opinions and demanded a new opinion to be prepared by ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG requested that the applicant be examined by specialists in laryngology , neuropsychiatry and internal medicine of ORG in GPE .

On DATE the court requested the ORG to accelerate the preparation of their opinion and to return the applicant ’s medical records to the court . On DATE ORG submitted their opinion .

On DATE the court forwarded the opinion to the applicant ’s lawyer for comment .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the court to extend the time - limit for submitting his observations due to his illness .

On DATE a hearing was held .

On DATE the applicant challenged the expert opinion of DATE and requested an additional medical examination . He also submitted an opinion prepared by a privately commissioned expert . The court refused to admit this opinion as evidence in the case .

On DATE ORG submitted a supplementary opinion in which they maintained their previous conclusions . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the court to extend the time - limit for submitting his observations as the applicant was to undergo another examination .

A hearing was held on DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the presiding judge . The court rejected his motion on DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the court that he had revoked his lawyer ’s power of attorney as he could no longer afford private legal representation .

On DATE applicant requested that the hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE be adjourned because of his medical examination planned for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the court adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE ORG requested ORG for the case file of the proceedings as its examination was necessary to conduct proceedings for compensation against ORG instituted by the applicant and pending at that time before ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the request because the next hearing in the case would be held very shortly .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and delivered a judgment , dismissing the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of ORG of DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment .

ORG in GPE transferred the case file to ORG on DATE .

DATE the case file was forwarded to ORG before which another of the applicant ’s claims for compensation was pending at that time

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to accelerate the examination of his appeal . On DATE the President of the court replied that since his case concerned pension matters , the hearing would be scheduled sooner than would normally have been the case .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed his cassation appeal as being ill - founded .

For a detailed presentation of the relevant domestic law concerning the available remedies against excessive length of proceedings , see NORP v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . PERSON , CARDINAL DATE , § § DATE .


No violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-3

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation , namely PERSON ( NORP Left ) and was taken into custody .

On DATE an investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody in FAC .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused , charging them with membership of an illegal , armed organisation and participation in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the ORG . The public prosecutor sought the death penalty for the applicant , pursuant to LAW .

On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

Following a constitutional amendment in DATE , ORG were abolished and the applicant 's case was transferred to ORG . On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment . ORG quashed this judgment . The case was remitted to ORG , where it is apparently still pending .

The applicant was detained in FAC . He had various health problems and underwent several operations . He has submitted medical reports to this effect .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG / PERSON . On his arrival at the prison , the security forces and the prison guards allegedly subjected the applicant to a strip- search , which included an anal inspection . The applicant complained about this incident to the ORG public prosecutor .

NORP On DATE the applicant was to be taken to hospital for a routine medical check when he was again allegedly subjected , by force , to an anal and oral inspection . The applicant tried to resist the search , which he thought was degrading . Following this , the security forces drew up a report , stating that the applicant had objected to the search and had therefore not been taken to hospital . The applicant filed a complaint with the ORG public prosecutor about this treatment .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer complained to ORG and Prisons regarding the incident of DATE . She submitted that her client had been subjected to a degrading search and had not been taken to hospital for a medical examination . She requested that the applicant be transferred to FAC in GPE in order to facilitate his treatment and to avoid the problems related to transfers and searches .

In a letter dated DATE , the ORG disputed the content of that complaint . They maintained that the applicant had received medical treatment in the infirmary of the ORG / Kocaeli F Type Prison , as well as having been taken to ORG on DATE . They added that the prison authorities were corresponding with a hospital in GPE in order to arrange for the applicant 's subsequent medical treatment . Lastly , they maintained that a prison change was unnecessary as the applicant could be conveyed to and from the hospital in GPE if necessary .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer filed a complaint with ORG . She stated that her client had been subjected to degrading treatment during a search on DATE , and had been detained in solitary confinement because of his resistance to that measure . She asked the court to take the necessary action against the prison officers concerned . She also requested that her client be transferred back to the cell which he had shared with CARDINAL other inmates , or to another one which would allow him to mix with others in the courtyard .

On DATE ORG rejected this request . It concluded that ORG ( PERSON ) had placed the applicant in a room where he could share part of the prison courtyard with CARDINAL other inmates . The complaint concerning the acts of the prison officers was left for the public prosecutor to consider .

On DATE the public prosecutor decided that no prosecution should be brought against the prison guards of the ORG / PERSON in respect of the events of DATE . In his decision not to prosecute , the prosecutor noted that the security forces had been obliged to use force to restrain the prisoners ( including the applicant ) since they had resisted transfer from FAC to FAC . After their arrival at FAC , the prisoners had been examined by a doctor who had drawn up medical reports . He concluded that there was thus no concrete evidence to prosecute the soldiers or the prison guards .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer challenged the public prosecutor 's decision of DATE before ORG . She maintained that the public prosecutor had decided not to prosecute without having conducted a sufficient preliminary investigation . She argued that , under domestic law , it was compulsory for a public prosecutor to commence criminal proceedings where there was enough testimony to show that the security forces and the prison officers could have been responsible for the alleged ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . He was released from that prison on DATE .

In a letter dated DATE , the governor of the ORG / PERSON informed the PERSON public prosecutor that the applicant had been held in a single room DATE and DATE , though not by way of disciplinary punishment . He maintained that the applicant could share the courtyard with other inmates . He relied on the report prepared by the psychological and social services , which had recommended that the applicant be sent to another prison as he had fallen out with his friends from the organisation and therefore had no one to share the room with . The applicant maintained that the “ single room ” mentioned in the letter was a cell from where he could not share the courtyard with other inmates .


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

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

The applicant worked as an officer of ORG attached to ORG of GPE . On DATE she was dismissed for being absent from work for DATE without permission .

She brought proceedings before LOC of GPE for reinstatement and damages , alleging , in particular , that she was a single mother and could not be dismissed on the administration 's initiative .

On DATE the court examined the case and found the applicant 's allegation concerning her status as a single mother false and her dismissal lawful . On DATE ORG disallowed the applicant 's appeal and upheld the judgment .

The applicant 's subsequent applications to ORG , ORG of GPE and the prosecutor 's office pursuing the supervisory review of the judgment were rejected as well as her application for re - examination of the case due to newly discovered circumstances ( decision of LOC of GPE of DATE ) .

The functioning of ORG attached to ORG of GPE is mainly regulated by LAW on LAW of GPE ( sections DATE , CARDINAL ) , the DATE Law on ORG at ORG of GPE and the DATE PERSON on ORG PERSON ( section CARDINAL ) .

The Head of ORG is appointed to this post by the President of ORG of GPE with the consent of ORG . ORG assumed , in particular , the following functions , previously performed by the federal ORG , aimed at ensuring the activity of courts and arrangement of conditions necessary for the proper administration of justice without an interference with the latter :

- in the field of the financing of courts ( judges ' remuneration , benefits , training and pensions ; construction and maintenance of court buildings ; office equipment ; postal expenses , transport and other charges are financed by the federal budget ) : budget drafting and budget presentation to the ORG and to the federal legislature ; distribution of funds between courts ; supervision and audit of courts ' expenditure of funds .

- in the field of human resources : determination of the need of particular courts for human resources and redistribution between courts , with the consent of the President of ORG , of the newly formed vacancies of posts of judges ; assistance to ORG in the selection of candidates for the posts of judges ; judges ' training ; provision of judges ( including retired judges ) with free housing , social security and other benefits provided for by law ; undertaking measures on the security of judges and members of their families . According to the applicant , LAW on ORG of ORG approved by the Head of ORG provided that ORG of ORG also makes proposals to ORG on termination of judge 's functions .

- other administrative support : construction and maintenance of court buildings ; supply with office equipment , transport and other resources ; organization of clerical work and informational support .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13+2;Violation of Art. 13+8;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the village of GPE , ORG , GPE .

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

The applicants and their CARDINAL sons , PERSON , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE , lived together in their CARDINAL - room family house at CARDINAL FAC in the village of LOC .

On TIME the applicants and both their sons were at home . The applicants were sleeping in CARDINAL room and their sons in separate rooms .

At TIME a group of TIME armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the Betayevs’ house . Some of them stayed outside , while others forcibly entered the house . All but CARDINAL of them were wearing balaclava masks . They did not identify themselves and offered no explanation for their visit . Their commander had no mask on , and the applicants observed that he had fair hair , blue eyes , a straight nose and NORP features . The applicants inferred that the armed men were federal military or security servicemen because they spoke NORP without an accent and their uniform was similar to that of the federal armed forces .

The servicemen went to all rooms at once and CARDINAL of them entered the room where the applicants were sleeping . They turned on the light and shouted at the applicants while pointing their machine guns at them . The first applicant tried to get up , but CARDINAL serviceman hit him on the shoulder with the butt of his machine gun to push him down . Then he grabbed the first applicant by the collar of the shirt , pulled him down and ordered him to lie face down on the floor . The first applicant obeyed . The second applicant was told to face the wall and stand still without turning her head .

The applicants could hear from the next room that Ibragim PERSON was asked his full name and replied . The first applicant could also see that PERSON was woken up , ordered to get out of bed and then taken outside by CARDINAL servicemen . The applicants and their sons were not requested to show their identity papers .

One of the servicemen , who appeared to be in charge of the others , told the first applicant that CARDINAL of his fellow NORP villagers had reported that the first applicant had had a machine gun and a radio station at home . The first applicant replied that he had not had any weapon . The servicemen started searching the house ; the applicants were not presented with a search warrant and no witnesses were asked to observe the scene .

During the search the first applicant was permitted to sit on the bed , but was ordered not to turn his head and not to follow the search .

The servicemen searched the house , including the attic , the courtyard and the sheds outside , turning everything upside down . They were going to take up the floor of the house , but the first applicant asked them not to do so because , given the poor condition of the house , it might have been problematic , and the commander decided not to . The search took TIME ; after that the applicants heard the noise of an armoured personnel carrier ( “ ORG ” ) revving up outside . TIME the man who was in charge of the other servicemen told them that they were leaving . He ordered the applicants to remain in the house , threatening to shoot if they went outside before the servicemen had left .

Only then did the applicants discover that LOC and GPE PERSON had been taken away .

The second applicant went into the courtyard and saw CARDINAL military vehicles . When the vehicles started driving off the ORG went first , followed by CARDINAL ORG vehicles and then CARDINAL LOC vehicles . The applicants could hear that the vehicles were moving in the direction of the village centre of LOC and then towards PERSON without stopping or slowing down at the military checkpoint on the bridge across Argun channel , although they could not avoid it driving in that direction .

Having looked around , the applicants discovered that the servicemen had taken away some of their belongings , such as mechanical tools , an electric battery charger and some other domestic hardware . According to the written statements by PERSON and PERSON , villagers of PERSON , in TIME of DATE , the applicants’ house was in chaos after the search and the marks of military boots could be seen everywhere .

The applicants waited until TIME and then inspected the traces of the military vehicles . They found that all the vehicles , apart from the ORG , had been parked QUANTITY away from their house , while the ORG must have been parked right in the river bed of GPE , which flows QUANTITY from the applicants’ house . They could see the traces clearly because it had drizzled that TIME . According to the written statement by PERSON , she saw the ORG traces at the same spot as well . She also discovered that her fence had been broken through on TIME , so as to allow access into the courtyard of the Betayevs’ house .

The Government submitted that , according to ORG , on DATE the first applicant had reported to ORG of the ORG ( “ ROVD ” ) that at TIME unidentified persons armed with machine guns had broken into his house and taken away his sons , PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the applicants started searching for GPE and PERSON . Both in person and in writing , they applied to various official bodies trying to find out the whereabouts and the fate of their sons . It was the first applicant who made all the written submissions to various authorities on behalf of both applicants because the second applicant was illiterate . The applicants retained copies of some of the letters to the authorities and their answers , which they submitted to the ORG .

The applicants also kept up a constant search for traces of their sons through informal channels , by contacting officials and other people . They took part in the identification of numerous dead bodies found in all parts of GPE , but in vain .

Their attempts to find out the whereabouts of GPE and GPE PERSON and the criminal proceedings can be summarised as follows .

In TIME of DATE the first applicant went to the local police station in GPE and asked PERSON . , the officer on duty , about the abduction of his sons . PERSON . told the applicant that at TIME on DATE he had seen CARDINAL ORG vehicles and an ORG with men wearing camouflage uniforms sitting on it . The vehicles had been heading towards the applicants’ house . PERSON . and his colleague had unsuccessfully tried to stop them . PERSON . had informed the ROVD of this , but received an order from the latter not to intervene . The applicants provided PERSON . ’s detailed written testimony of those events .

After going to the police station in GPE , the first applicant went to the district centre , the town of ORG . There he visited the prosecutor ’s office of ORG ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) , the ROVD and the local administration . With all of them he lodged complaints concerning the abduction of his sons , in which he also mentioned that the perpetrators had broken his furniture and wrecked the floors and the ceiling . An investigator from the district prosecutor ’s office interviewed him and the first applicant related in detail the circumstances of his sons’ abduction .

On DATE the applicants regularly went to ORG to visit all district authorities and find out whether there had been any news of their sons . However , no authority acknowledged any involvement in the abduction of GPE and PERSON and all of them denied knowledge of their whereabouts .

DATE the applicants were visited by an officer from the ROVD . He briefly inspected the site , which was still in a state of disorder after the search ; he also questioned the applicants and CARDINAL neighbours , who confirmed the use of military vehicles by the armed servicemen .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that an investigation into the kidnapping of GPE and Ibragim PERSON had been opened in case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office suspended the investigation in case no . CARDINAL for failure to identify those responsible .

On an unspecified date the applicants requested the expert of ORG in respect of ORG , Mr Lyuboslavskiy , to assist them in the search for their sons . On DATE the latter wrote to ORG describing the circumstances of the search of the applicants’ house and of GPE and GPE PERSON ’s abduction and asking for information about the measures taken to investigate the unlawful arrest of the PERSON brothers .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the investigation in case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of GPE notified the first applicant that the criminal investigation into the kidnapping of his sons had been suspended and subsequently resumed .

On DATE the first applicant wrote to the district prosecutor ’s office once again complaining of the unlawful search and of his sons’ arrest and setting out all the details he considered relevant to the investigation , such as the description of the military vehicles and the reasons why he thought that the armed men had belonged to the federal forces . He also complained of lack of information on the progress in the investigation and requested an update .

On DATE the first applicant wrote PERSON Department of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) asking whether his sons had been detained by the ORG or whether they had been wanted or suspected of any criminal activity .

On DATE the first applicant again wrote to the district prosecutor ’s office reiterating his allegations that the ORG agencies had been involved in the detention of his sons . He expressed concern that their lives could be in danger , or that they may have been tortured , and asked for urgent and effective measures to be taken in the search for them . He also requested to be allowed access to case file no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor ’s office of GPE requesting that the district prosecutor ’s office be compelled to take urgent steps to investigate the disappearance of his sons .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office suspended the investigation in case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office resumed the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL and notified the first applicant at once of the suspension and resumption of the investigation .

On DATE the first applicant wrote to ORG reiterating his enquiry of DATE .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG of the failure to investigate the disappearance of his sons .

On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant received a reply from ORG . He was informed that GPE and PERSON had not been arrested by ORG of the ORG and had never been brought to its LOC . He was also informed that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against his sons and that their arrest had not been ordered .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of GPE informed the first applicant that , further to his complaint to ORG , his case had been reviewed and that some investigative actions were being taken . He was invited to address all his queries to the district prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the first applicant requested the district prosecutor ’s office to resume the investigation in case no . CARDINAL . On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office replied that all requisite investigative measures had been taken to solve the crime and that the search for the perpetrators was under way .

On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that his complaint had been forwarded to the prosecutor ’s office of GPE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instituted a criminal investigation in case no . CARDINAL into the disappearance of GPE and PERSON by unidentified armed persons under LAW of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) .

On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned . He submitted that at TIME unknown armed men had entered his house and searched it . They had taken away his sons . The second applicant was questioned on an unspecified date and made a statement identical to that by her husband .

The district prosecutor ’s office questioned CARDINAL neighbours of the Betayevs . They submitted that they had not eyewitnessed the abduction of the applicants’ sons and had heard no noise of engines on TIME .

A number of other witnesses were questioned in the course of the investigation . However , the identities of the perpetrators were not established . No proof was found supporting the allegation that servicemen of the federal forces had been involved in the crime .

DATE . On several occasions the district prosecutor ’s office instructed the ROVD to establish the whereabouts of GPE and PERSON . They also sent requests to remand prisons of GPE and adjacent regions , military units of ORG , the military commander ’s office of ORG and the departments of the ORG . Those bodies had no information on LOC and GPE PERSON ’s whereabouts .

NORP The headquarters of a military unit located not far from the village of GPE informed the district prosecutor ’s office that their servicemen had not carried out any special operations on DATE .

DATE and QUANTITY DATE the investigation was suspended CARDINAL times for failure to identify those responsible and then resumed . The first applicant was promptly notified of the decisions suspending and resuming the investigation .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office once again suspended the investigation and notified the first applicant accordingly .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of GPE quashed the decision of DATE because certain requisite investigative measures had not been taken ; in particular , the servicemen of the ROVD had not been questioned . The proceedings were resumed .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office rejected a request by the applicants to institute criminal proceedings on account of unlawful intrusion into their home on TIME to DATE for failure to comply with a DATE statutory limitation period . On DATE they extended the scope of the charges against the unidentified persons who had kidnapped the applicants’ sons to an offence under LAW ( aggravated theft ) and allowed the first applicant to join the criminal proceedings as a civil party .

On DATE the investigation was again resumed .

Despite specific requests by ORG did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case no . CARDINAL , providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status and of several notifications to the relatives of the suspension and resumption of the proceedings . Relying on the information obtained from ORG , the ORG stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant suffered a road accident while driving , due to a burst tyre , and was seriously injured . He subsequently brought an action in compensation against the tire company and its retailer before ORG on DATE .

In its interlocutory judgment of DATE the ORG established the respondents ' liability for damages , which was finally upheld by the review bench of ORG on DATE .

After obtaining the opinion of CARDINAL forensic experts , ORG awarded the applicant compensation on DATE . In the absence of an appeal , the judgment became final on DATE . The judgment was rectified for a clerical error on DATE .