Violation of Art. 3;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant , at that time DATE , was taken by CARDINAL police officers , lieutenant NORP , chief - sergeant NORP , and a driver , to ORG in the town of GPE . The arrest took place in connection with a complaint filed DATE by CARDINAL of the applicant ’s neighbours , PERSON , in which she had alleged that the applicant had beaten her with a stick .

Once on the LOC of ORG , the applicant was placed in a detention room , where she spent some time . Then she was brought into the office of lieutenant PERSON in the room were also PERSON , Mr T. ( her husband ) and chief - sergeant NORP The applicant was confronted with PERSON in order to establish whether the facts alleged in the complaint were true . The applicant denied the allegation and an argument erupted between her and PERSON left the room to take some documents from another office . As the argument between the applicant and PERSON continued , chief - sergeant NORP led the applicant out of lieutenant NORP ’s office , into the corridor .

According to testimony given later by chief - sergeant NORP and another police officer , sergeant PERSON , after being led out of the office and into the corridor , the applicant , who was irritated , called chief - sergeant NORP a “ brat ” , a “ piss - pants ” and a “ sniveler ” , and slapped him on the face . He then grabbed her hands and pushed her back but she kicked him in the ankle . Then sergeant PERSON intervened to help chief - sergeant NORP , and the CARDINAL forced the applicant into a detention room , from where she continued screaming insults at them . Then both officers left the detention room . Both officers denied having hit the applicant or having pushed her to the floor .

The applicant ’s version of the facts significantly differed . She denied having insulted or hit chief - sergeant NORP She submitted that after taking her out of lieutenant NORP ’s office , chief - sergeant NORP and sergeant PERSON had guided her to a detention room , where they had started beating her in order to extract a confession . The applicant stated that sergeant PERSON had been holding her while chief - sergeant NORP had been hitting her face and temple and kicking her torso . Her nose had started bleeding and sergeant PERSON had taken her to the toilet to wash the blood . He had also made the applicant wash the basin and had brought her back to the detention room , where the CARDINAL had continued beating her . Chief - sergeant NORP had kicked her and , while falling on the floor , the applicant had bumped her head against the edge of a table . She had lost consciousness for some time . After that she had spent an unspecified amount of time lying in the detention room .

In his testimony given at the applicant ’s trial lieutenant NORP relayed that TIME he had come to the detention room and had found the applicant squatting on the floor . The applicant had told him that she “ [ had been ] killed , [ that ] her waist [ had been ] broken ... that she [ had been ] beaten ” . He had not seen any blood or visible traces of injury on the applicant but she had told him that her nose and mouth had been injured . The lieutenant had helped her sit on a chair . He had presented her a procèsverbal establishing the fact that the previous evening the applicant had beaten PERSON and had asked her to sign it . The applicant had written “ I am not guilty ” and had signed . Lieutenant PERSON had led the applicant to the hallway of the police station and had left her there . She had told him that she could not walk .

After being left by lieutenant NORP at the hallway , the applicant asked several police officers to call an ambulance or a taxi to take her to hospital , but apparently no one responded to her request . Then the applicant crawled out of the police station on her hands and knees . She was seen crawling by a boy , PERSON , whom she asked to help her reach the nearest payphone by letting her lean against his bicycle . Shortly thereafter a driver , PERSON , came across them with his car and took the applicant to the surgical ward of the local hospital . Mr Y. later testified that he had not seen visible traces of injury on the applicant but that she had been crying and had said that she had been beaten at the police .

The on - duty surgeon , PERSON , arrived at the hospital at TIME and examined the applicant . For the investigation Dr PERSON stated that at the time of the examination he had not observed visible traces of injury , but at the applicant ’s trial he testified that she had come to him with traumas on her head and back . The one on the head had been a dull trauma in the left temporal zone , without skin rupturing . The one on the back had been also a dull trauma under the right scapula , with a visible sub - cutaneous haematoma . In his view , the injuries in question could have been caused by a blow with or against a blunt object .

Dr S. directed the applicant to a consultation with a neurologist from the local emergency ward . The neurologist examined her at TIME and noted that the applicant had “ [ PERSON capitis . ... [ c]ommotio cerebri ” . His opinion was that she had to be hospitalised and treated .

In TIME the applicant went back to her house and spent TIME there .

The following morning , on DATE , the applicant was admitted to the surgical ward of ORG in GPE . The doctors found :

“ Head – painfulness upon palpation in the left temporal zone ; behind and above the left ear – sub - cutaneous haematoma ... Thorax – sub - cutaneous blue - yellowish haematoma , measuring QUANTITY in the right thoracic CARDINAL , in the lower end of the right scapula . ”

The applicant stayed in hospital until DATE . She was treated with analgesics and neuroleptics . The doctors also prescribed rest and calm .

On DATE the applicant went to the hospital for an examination . The report drawn by the examining doctor stated that at that time the applicant was complaining of “ strong vertigo , headache , nausea and vomiting ” . The diagnosis again was “ [ PERSON capitis ... [ c]ommotio cerebri . ”

On DATE the applicant was admitted to the neurological ward of ORG in GPE . It appears that at that time the applicant was treated mainly for high blood pressure . She remained in hospital until DATE .

On DATE of incident , DATE , chief - sergeant NORP , the police officer who had allegedly beaten the applicant , submitted a report to the head of ORG in GPE . He alleged that the applicant had hit him and had used abusive language against him and asserted that he had put her in the detention room to prevent her from carrying on .

On the basis of this report ORG initiated an inquiry and charged lieutenant NORP , CARDINAL of the officers who had arrested the applicant , to conduct it . The lieutenant finished the inquiry in DATE and on DATE submitted a report concluding that the facts warranted the opening of a criminal investigation against the applicant .

On DATE an investigator from ORG in PERSON opened a criminal investigation against the applicant for having caused a light bodily injury to an official and for having insulted him during the performance of his duties , offences under LAW ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ CC ” ) . The injury in question was the result of the applicant having allegedly slapped chief - sergeant NORP on the face and kicked him in the ankle . No medical evidence was presented . On DATE the investigator heard chief - sergeant NORP , lieutenant NORP , sergeant PERSON , PERSON DATE , on DATE , the investigator sent the material to ORG with a recommendation that the applicant be indicted . The case was assigned to prosecutor PERSON who filed a bill of indictment with ORG .

When the applicant ’s trial opened her counsel requested a medical expert report in order to determine whether the injuries sustained by the applicant could have been the result of beating by the police officer accusing her of violence against him . ORG did not appoint an expert but instead remitted the case to the prosecution with instructions to carry out the steps requested by the applicant ’s defence . However , no report was made , as the prosecutor in charge of the case held that the mechanism of the injuries had already been ascertained by the doctors who had examined the applicant upon her admitting to hospital .

When the trial resumed on CARDINAL and DATE , counsel for the applicant renewed her request for an expert report but it was denied by the court , which held that the facts of the case had already been established on the basis of the available evidence .

In the proceedings before ORG the applicant testified that she had been beaten by chief - sergeant NORP

In her closing argument at trial counsel for the applicant pointed out that the applicant had been beaten , had sustained injuries , had been treated for them in hospital and that a complaint had been filed with ORG .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

On the basis of the testimony given by chief - sergeant NORP and sergeant PERSON ( the court held that PERSON and PERSON testimony was not credible because their relations with the applicant had been strained ) the court found that the officers had led the applicant out of lieutenant PERSON ’s office and into the corridor . There , some verbal exchange had taken place between the applicant and chief - sergeant NORP , while sergeant PERSON had stepped aside . The applicant had then slapped chief - sergeant NORP on the face , had tried to kick him and had called him a “ brat ” and a “ sniveler ” . The court noted that the applicant presented a completely different version of the facts , namely that it was her who had been subjected to violence . However , it went on to hold that PERSON , the surgeon who examined the applicant on DATE of the incident , had not found blood on the applicant but only a dull trauma on her right scapula . That could have been occasioned by a blow by or onto a blunt object . Thus , it was possible that the applicant had inflicted the injury on herself . Therefore her allegations of savage beating , kicks , pushing , falling down etc . did not correspond to the testimony of the doctors who had examined her . The fact that there had been no visible traces of beating on the applicant was also established through the testimony of PERSON , the boy who had helped her move out of the police station , and of PERSON , the driver who had taken her to the hospital .

However , the court noted that the inquiry whether the applicant had been subjected to violence was not part of the subject - matter of the case before it .

The applicant appealed to ORG , which upheld the conviction and sentence on DATE . The court noted , inter alia , that if the applicant ’s allegations of police ill - treatment were true , she could request the opening of criminal proceedings against the police officers involved .

The applicant then petitioned ORG for review . At the hearing before that court a prosecutor of ORG appeared who pleaded for the dismissal of the applicant ’s petition . ORG dismissed the petition in a judgment of DATE .

In its judgment ORG held , inter alia :

“ Counsel for [ the applicant ] calls into question the testimony of [ chief - sergeant NORP ] , who , she asserts , is ‘ very interested in the outcome of the ORG , this interest being presumed from the allegations of [ the applicant ] that NORP had ‘ savagely beaten her’ . This argument is groundless ... The [ applicant ’s ] assertions that she had been beaten are completely unsubstantiated . In fact , the traces of the ‘ savage ORG were a subcutaneous haematoma above the left ear and an identical haematoma in the lower part of the right thoracic half ... That could have been caused by a blow or a self - inflicted blow with or onto a blunt object ... These injuries and the statements of [ the applicant ] that she fell unconscious , had vertigo , nausea and had vomited DATE for the ascertaining of which no objective medical criteria exist – led to her hospitalisation during which no indications of brain damage were found ...

Beside being unproven , the allegation of [ the applicant ] that ... she was the victim of an offence on the part of the police officers is also illogical . The police officers did not have any reason to be rude toward [ the applicant ] , or , in any event , not until [ she ] by words and conduct demonstrated her disparagement toward [ them ] and their work ... ”

On DATE , after the applicant was admitted to hospital , her daughter filed a complaint with ORG , alleging that her mother had been beaten by chief - sergeant NORP The complaint was dealt with by prosecutor PERSON , the same prosecutor who drew up the indictment in the criminal case against the applicant . On DATE he ordered that the complaint be sent for verification to ORG . In the accompanying letter he requested that the following facts be established within DATE :

“ Who brought [ the applicant ] to ORG [ ? ] When and for what reasons [ ? ] Was she hit [ ? ] With what [ ? ] In which part of the body [ ? ] What injuries did she sustain [ ? ] ”

On DATE the head of ORG assigned the verification to lieutenant NORP , the officer who had arrested the applicant and who had conducted the inquiry against her .

On CARDINAL DATE lieutenant PERSON concluded the verification . He sent a report to the head of ORG , asserting that the applicant had not been beaten and recommending that no criminal investigation be opened . The applicant submits that the lieutenant did not independently establish the facts but instead relied on testimony given in the criminal investigation against her to corroborate his conclusion .

On DATE the results from the verification were sent to ORG and given to prosecutor PERSON Apparently no further investigative actions were undertaken by the prosecution with regard to the complaint . No decision to open or to refuse the opening of a criminal investigation was issued .

In a separate effort to initiate an investigation , on DATE the applicant ’s daughter filed a complaint with ORG in GPE . ORG requested information form ORG in GPE , which in turn requested information from ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter also filed a complaint with ORG , which DATE ordered ORG to conduct an inquiry .

On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant ’s daughter and to the Ministry , stating that it had not been established that chief - sergeant NORP had engaged in any unlawful actions . The letter added that an investigation had been opened into the matter , citing the case - number of the criminal investigation against the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG sent a reply to the applicant ’s daughter , stating that the prosecution authorities were handling the case and that the ORG would announce its position after they prosecution had finished dealing with it .

NORP In DATE ORG published a report under the heading : “ GPE : Shootings , deaths in custody , torture and ill - treatment ” ( AI Index : EUR CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , in which , on page CARDINAL , the case of the applicant was described . Upon receiving a query from ORG , ORG sent a reply , in which it relayed that the applicant had been put in the detention room by sergeants NORP and NORP , but asserted that the applicant had not been beaten or ill - treated during her stay in the police station .

In its issue of CARDINAL DATE a national DATE newspaper , “ CARDINAL Hours ” , published an article describing the case of the applicant , the criminal prosecution against her and the investigation into her daughter ’s complaints under the heading “ A granny battered a police officer on his place of work ” .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the material time , read , as relevant :

“ ... police [ officers ] may use ... force ... when performing their duties only if they [ have no alternative course of action ] in cases of :

NORP resistance or refusal [ by a person ] to obey a lawful order ; ...

NORP attack against citizens or police [ officers ] ; ...

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that the use of force had to be commensurate to , inter alia , the specific circumstances and the personality of the offender . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) imposed upon police officers the duty to “ protect , if possible , the health ... of persons against whom [ force was being used ] . ”

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG make it an offence to cause a light , intermediate or severe bodily injury to another . LAW ) provides that if the injury is caused by a police officer in the course of , or in connection with , the performance of his or her duties the offence is an aggravated one . This offence is a publicly prosecuted one LAW ) .

Under NORP law criminal proceedings for publicly prosecuted offences can be opened only by the decision of a prosecutor or of an investigator ( LAW ( “ ORG ” ) ) . The prosecutor or the investigator must open an investigation whenever he or she receives information , supported by sufficient evidence , that an offence might have been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG ) . During the relevant period the ORG provided that if the information to the prosecuting authorities was not supported by evidence , the prosecutor had to order a preliminary inquiry ( verification ) in order to determine whether the opening of a criminal investigation was warranted ( LAW .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are married and had CARDINAL sons : PERSON , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE . They all lived in an apartment situated on the second floor of a block of flats at DATE FAC , ORG .

During TIME the applicants and their sons were asleep at home . At TIME a group of CARDINAL armed men wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and carrying torches entered the applicants’ flat , having broken down the door . The men did not identify themselves . The applicants claimed that the men were members of the NORP military , since they spoke NORP and could move around freely in PERSON during the curfew .

The men kicked the first applicant and beat him with machine guns . They aimed their guns at both applicants and ordered them to be silent .

Thereafter the men proceeded to the applicants’ sons’ room . Without producing any documents to authorise their actions , the men searched the room and arrested PERSON and PERSON . As the applicants’ younger son resisted , he was knocked off his feet , handcuffed and blindfolded . Then the men took away the PERSON brothers , who only had their underwear on and were barefoot . CARDINAL of the men also took a pair of shoes and a tape recorder . The second applicant ’s attempts to obstruct the detention of her sons failed as the men threatened her with firearms . According to the applicants , the men assured them that they would check their sons’ identities and release them immediately afterwards .

In TIME the applicants found their sons’ identity documents on a bedside table in the room . The room was in a mess and a sofa was broken .

The applicants submitted that the neighbours had told them later that on TIME armed men wearing masks , with torches , had been standing on all the landings of their building , between the first and the ninth floors . CARDINAL of the women neighbours told them that she had been asked about the PERSON brothers and that she had replied that they were “ good boys ” .

NORP In support of their statements , the applicants submitted CARDINAL written accounts signed by CARDINAL of their neighbours from the building , including Mr NORP , and CARDINAL account from a man who lived in the building opposite theirs , QUANTITY away . They confirmed the ORG submissions and stated that in TIME of CARDINAL September CARDINAL the doors of CARDINAL flats in that building had been broken down by a group of men wearing training shoes and armed with automatic rifles . They asked the neighbours about the PERSON family , with whom the neighbours were on good terms . CARDINAL of the neighbours saw the group of armed men walking afterwards towards the military roadblock at the intersection of GPE and FAC .

The applicants have had no news of their sons since .

The Government did not dispute the circumstances of the PERSON ORG detention as presented by the applicants . They submitted that during TIME DATE unidentified persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks and armed with automatic weapons had arrested the brothers PERSON and ORG at DATE FAC , apartment no . CARDINAL , and taken them away to an unknown destination . The same persons had caused physical injuries to the first applicant .

On DATE , in the morning , the first applicant was taken by his neighbours to Hospital no . CARDINAL and underwent a medical examination .

The examination established that he had a craniocerebral injury , an avulsed wound ( with detached tissue ) in the temple area , a haematoma of the head as well as concussion , temporary blindness , a haematoma of the thorax and the subcutaneous stomach tissue , a haematoma of the scrotum , uraemia , fractured ribs and a contusion of the liver , of the kidneys and of the bladder .

The first applicant submitted that he had had to stay in bed for DATE to recover .

According to the Government , the first applicant had first notified the authorities of the beatings in DATE . The first applicant argued that he had talked about his injuries to the investigators who had questioned him on DATE , and that he had mentioned the beatings in a letter to the prosecutor of GPE dated DATE , a copy of which had been submitted to ORG .

On an unspecified date the ORG ( “ the PERSON prosecutor ’s office ” ) ordered a forensic medical examination of the first applicant so as to ascertain whether there was a causal link between his injuries and the actions of unknown servicemen who had raided his flat on DATE and beaten him .

This examination was carried out on DATE . The report relied on a medical record indicating the results of the medical examination carried out on DATE and confirmed that the injuries in question could have been sustained during the period and in the circumstances described by the first applicant .

It appears that the first applicant ’s allegations were investigated in the context of criminal proceedings brought in respect of the abduction of his CARDINAL sons and that on DATE he was granted victim status in that connection .

In DATE the investigating authorities ordered another forensic medical examination on the ground that the results of the examination of DATE were unreliable . On DATE experts reported that they had not found any signs of injury to the first applicant ’s head , face or body , and that X - ray examinations had not disclosed any damage to the first applicant ’s heart , lungs or ribs . With reference to the medical record made in GPE no . CARDINAL on DATE the experts concluded that the injuries complained of by the applicant had been acquired on that date , and that the first applicant had been likely to have sustained those injuries during the period and in the circumstances described by him . The report also stated that there were no objective data to confirm the conclusion of the examination of DATE that the applicant had had fractured ribs , concussion and contusions of the liver , of the kidneys and of the bladder .

Since DATE the applicants have repeatedly applied in person and in writing to various public bodies , including the district office of ORG ( “ the ROVD ” ) , prosecutors at various levels , a military commander ’s office , the administrative authorities of GPE and the Special Envoy of the NORP President in GPE . They have been supported in their efforts by CARDINAL NGOs : PERSON and the PERSON . In their letters to the authorities the applicants referred to their sons’ detention and asked for assistance and details of the investigation . Mostly these enquiries have remained unanswered , or purely formal replies have been given in which the ORG requests have been forwarded to various ORG offices .

The first applicant has also visited a number of detention centres and prisons in GPE as well as further afield in LOC , but has received no information as to the whereabouts of his sons .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office instituted a criminal investigation into the disappearance of the applicants’ sons under LAW ( kidnapping of CARDINAL or more persons by a group using firearms ) . The case file was assigned no . DATE .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office granted the second applicant victim status . According to the Government , she was notified of that decision DATE . From the applicants’ submissions it appears that they were not informed of that decision until DATE , when they received a copy of it .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor ’s office suspended the criminal proceedings for failure to establish the identity of those responsible .

On DATE the first applicant wrote to the public prosecutor ’s office of GPE ( “ the GPE prosecutor ’s office ” ) and stated the circumstances of his sons’ detention and of his injuries . He stated that his children had never taken part in the activities of illegal armed groups and asked for the persons who had committed the crime to be identified .

In a letter of DATE the GPE prosecutor ’s office informed the applicants that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been set aside .

On DATE the investigation of the disappearance of PERSON and PERSON was resumed .

On DATE the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE were adjourned , since no culprits had been identified .

On DATE the second applicant submitted a complaint to the GPE prosecutor ’s office . In it she outlined the circumstances of her sons’ detention and mentioned that in DATE she had seen a list of persons who had allegedly been detained at the GPE military base and that the name of PERSON - PERSON , detained on DATE , had been on that list .

In a letter of DATE , in response to a request from ORG on the applicants’ behalf , the GPE prosecutor ’s office stated that the decision of DATE had been quashed , and the investigation of the abduction of the PERSON brothers reopened .

In a letter of DATE the GPE prosecutor ’s office informed the applicants of the decision to reopen the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE .

According to a letter from the ORG prosecutor ’s office dated DATE , the criminal proceedings were again suspended on DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the GPE prosecutor ’s office informed the applicants that the investigation of the disappearance of their sons had been suspended on DATE , as the perpetrators had not been found .

It appears that some time later the investigation was resumed , as in a decision of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor ’s office of LOC ( “ the NORP district prosecutor ’s office ) declared the first applicant to be a victim of crime in case no . DATE .

On DATE the PERSON , on behalf of the applicants , requested the NORP district prosecutor ’s office to give them an update of the investigation of the kidnapping of the PERSON brothers and to allow the applicants , as victims , access to the investigation file . In DATE the district prosecutor ’s office replied that the investigation had been adjourned on DATE and that all the necessary investigative measures had been taken . The second applicant was invited to access the file at the prosecutor ’s office during TIME .

On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that the investigation had been resumed . On DATE the first applicant was informed that the investigation had been adjourned and of his right to appeal .

NORP The applicants submitted that their health had deteriorated significantly since the events of DATE and the disappearance of their sons . They presented a number of medical documents , according to which the first applicant was suffering from the consequences of a stroke and the second applicant had chronic hypertension and rheumatological problems .

In their observations the Government did not dispute the information concerning the investigation of the abduction of the PERSON brothers as presented by the applicants . Relying on information obtained from ORG , they referred to a number of other procedural steps taken by the investigation which had not been mentioned by the applicants . However , despite specific requests from the ORG and CARDINAL reminders , the Government did not submit copies of most of the documents to which they referred ( see below ) .

With reference to the information provided by ORG , the Government submitted that the investigation of the abduction of PERSON and PERSON and the inflicting of injuries to the first applicant by “ unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms with machine guns ” had commenced on DATE . They further submitted that an investigator from the ORG prosecutor ’s office had examined the scene of the incident on DATE , but “ had not found any evidence of crime ” . The investigator also questioned the applicants .

The first applicant was questioned further on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , and the second applicant was questioned as a witness on DATE and DATE . The applicants were granted victim status on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

In DATE new charges were brought against the same unidentified persons who had stolen the applicants’ property . The Government submitted that in DATE the investigation had sent requests to all the district departments of the interior in GPE with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of the pair of shoes and video player stolen from the applicants .

As the Government stated , the investigation questioned a number of witnesses . On unspecified dates CARDINAL of the applicants’ neighbours , including Mr. PERSON , testified that during TIME “ unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had burst into their flat , checked their documents and then left ” . Mr NORP had been additionally questioned in DATE and DATE , when the investigation decided that no further criminal investigation would be opened , as the witness had not sustained any damage .

In DATE and DATE the investigation questioned QUANTITY persons , some of them the applicants’ relatives and neighbours . According to the Government , they confirmed the arrest of the PERSON brothers in DATE by unidentified armed men . Apparently , the witnesses were mostly aware of this event by hearsay . According to the Government , it was impossible to find other witnesses in the case .

The Government submitted that the investigating authorities had sent a number of queries to various ORG bodies on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and had taken other investigative measures , but did not specify what those measures had been . They also submitted that in DATE the investigation had sent requests to all district departments of the interior in GPE with the aim of establishing the whereabouts of the PERSON brothers ; however , no relevant information had been obtained . The ORG referred to a reply from the criminal police GPE of ORG , which had stated that the CARDINAL men had not been detained by that body and had not been delivered to the law - enforcement authorities .

According to the documents submitted by the ORG , DATE the investigation was suspended and resumed on CARDINAL occasions , and has so far failed to identify those guilty . In the latest decision to resume the investigation , dated DATE , the deputy prosecutor of the NORP district prosecutor ’s office criticised the progress of the investigation and stated that a number of important investigative steps should be taken without delay . These included the following actions :

“ – to collect his sons’ identity documents from [ the first applicant ] ;

- to obtain full descriptions of the brothers ORG and PERSON ;

- to question the applicants further in order to find out which language the abductors spoke ;

- to make a legal assessment of the actions of the persons who unlawfully broke into the apartments of [ the applicants ] and [ their neighbour Mr. PERSON ] ;

- to question the sister of the CARDINAL kidnapped men ;

- to question the inhabitants of the nearby houses in order to find out whether they saw servicemen walking to the checkpoint that night . ”

The Government further submitted that the progress of the investigation was being supervised by ORG . According to the Government , the applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation .

Despite specific requests by ORG did not disclose most of the contents of criminal case no . DATE , providing only copies of decisions to suspend and resume the investigation and to grant victim status , as well as of several notifications to the relatives of the adjournment and reopening 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 the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the PERSON applied on the applicants’ behalf to ORG of PERSON ( “ the ORG ” ) , complaining that the ORG prosecutor ’s office had failed to investigate the disappearance of PERSON and PERSON effectively .

On DATE ORG dismissed that complaint , having found that the investigating authorities had taken all necessary measures to find the PERSON brothers and those involved in their abduction . The applicants did not appeal against that decision . In their submissions to the ORG they alleged that they had been unable to do so , as they had not been notified of the court session and that the decision in question had been taken in their absence . From the copy of the court decision submitted by the Government it transpires that the first applicant attended the court session .

Until DATE criminal law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( CCP ) .

Article CARDINAL of the new ORG establishes the rule that data from a preliminary investigation may not be disclosed . Part CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that information from an investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission .


The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and presently in the penitentiary of ORG for the Former GPE ( ORG ) at GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ( GPE ) .

At the time when he lodged his application with the ORG the applicant was in custody in GPE ORG , ORG , in the context of criminal proceedings pending against him before ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) for kidnapping , murder and participation in a group that committed a crime .

On DATE the applicant was indicted by the ORG on CARDINAL counts including crimes against humanity , grave breaches of LAW and violations of the laws and customs of war .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be handed over to the ORG . Both ORG , upon the applicant ’s appeal , upheld that decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG CARDINAL request which was not granted by decision of the President of the Fourth Section of the same day .

He is presently in custody in the penitentiary of the ORG at GPE , the GPE , in the context of criminal proceedings pending against him .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings

On DATE a murder was committed in the village of PERSON . A preliminary investigation against an unknown perpetrator was opened on DATE .

On DATE another individual , PERSON , was arrested on unrelated charges . He later confessed to having committed the murder on DATE and to having shot the victim , but claimed to have been incited to do so by the applicant .

On DATE the home of the applicant was searched by the police .

The applicant was questioned as a witness on DATE . He admitted to having been present at the time of the murder , but denied that he had incited PERSON and claimed to have run away fearing that he might also be killed .

On DATE Mr K. was charged with the murder of CARDINAL DATE and for unlawful possession of firearms .

Mr PERSON gave detailed statements to the investigation in the presence of his lawyer and claimed , inter alia , that it was the applicant who had known the victim , had indicated him as a possible target for a robbery and had insisted that they shoot him in order to avoid subsequent identification .

On DATE the applicant was arrested , detained on remand and charged with being an accomplice to the murder with an avaricious intent and for inciting PERSON to commit the offence .

NORP Throughout the criminal proceedings the applicant was represented by counsel . He maintained his innocence , contested the version of events presented by PERSON and claimed that the latter was solely responsible for the murder .

On an unspecified date an indictment was filed against the applicant for being an accomplice to the murder of CARDINAL DATE with an avaricious intent .

Three hearings were conducted before ORG DATE and DATE . On the latter date , the court remitted the case to the investigation stage as it found that the offence should be reclassified as a robbery accompanied by murder , which required additional investigative procedures to be performed . No such were subsequently conducted .

On DATE the charges against the applicant were amended and on DATE a revised indictment was filed against him and PERSON for attempted robbery accompanied by murder .

Seven hearings were conducted before ORG DATE and DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant and his co - accused guilty of attempted robbery accompanied by murder , sentenced each of them to DATE imprisonment and ordered them to pay damages to the victim 's family .

Following an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG quashed the lower court 's judgment and , for reasons not indicated by the parties , remitted the case to the investigation stage .

On DATE a revised indictment was filed against the applicant and PERSON for attempted robbery through use of force which resulted in murder .

The Plovdiv Regional Court started rehearing the case on CARDINAL DATE and conducted a total of CARDINAL hearings until DATE . The victim 's family joined the proceedings as civil claimants on DATE .

In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of being an accomplice to attempted robbery resulting in murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . Mr PERSON was also found guilty of attempted robbery resulting in murder , as well as for unlawful possession of firearms , and was sentenced to DATE and DATE imprisonment . They were also ordered to pay damages to the victim 's family .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of ORG . PERSON did not appeal against the said judgment .

In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the lower court 's judgment , but decreased the sentence of the applicant to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant filed a cassation appeal .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the lower courts ' judgments .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained on remand under an order of an investigator , which was confirmed by a prosecutor later on DATE .

The parties did not provide details about DATE of the applicant 's detention .

On DATE the applicant appealed against his detention , claiming , inter alia , that it was no longer justified . The applicant maintained that there was no danger of him absconding and argued that if that was his intention he would already have done so as he had had sufficient forewarning that the authorities were actively investigating the murder . Purportedly , he had had ample time to abscond , if that had been his intention , between the time of the arrest of Mr PERSON , the search of his home on DATE and his arrest on DATE . Separately , the applicant maintained that there was no danger of him obstructing the investigation or re - offending .

The appeal was scheduled to be heard by ORG on DATE but the applicant withdrew his appeal at the start of the hearing on DATE purportedly in order not to delay the criminal proceedings in which a hearing had been scheduled for DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE a new appeal was filed by the applicant against his detention citing grounds similar to those in his previous appeal . On DATE the applicant 's father passed away and he informed the court on DATE of the additional circumstances for consideration when assessing the grounds of his appeal . A hearing of the appeal was set for DATE , but was then postponed for DATE . The applicant claimed , which the ORG did not refute , that the courts failed to rule on his appeal .

On DATE the applicant filed another appeal against his detention in which he reiterated his previous arguments and complained of a violation of Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . A hearing date was set for DATE . The applicant claimed , which the Government did not refute , that the courts failed to rule on his appeal .

On DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment . Following an appeal by the applicant , the judgment was quashed on DATE and the case was remitted to the investigation stage . The rehearing of the case started on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a new appeal against his detention on grounds similar to those in his appeal of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on unspecified grounds .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision to ORG . He argued , inter alia , that there could no longer be any danger that he might abscond , re - offend or hamper the investigation .

On an unspecified date ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal . The applicant contended , which the Government did not challenge , that the court relied on the seriousness of the offences with which he had been charged to justify his continued detention .

On DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment . The sentence was upheld on appeal and became final on DATE .

The Government did not provide copies of the relevant documents concerning the applicant 's appeals .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( the “ ORG ” ) and the NORP courts ' practice before DATE are summarised in the ORG 's judgments in several similar cases ( see , among others , ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . ORG , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-II ; PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § § DATE , DATE ; and ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL ( extracts ) ) .

As of DATE the legal regime of detention under the ORG was amended with the aim to ensure compliance with ORG ) . The effected amendments and the resulting practice of the NORP courts are summarised in the ORG 's judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

On the basis of the relevant law before DATE , when ruling on appeals against pre - trial detention of a person charged with having committed a “ serious ” offence , the domestic courts generally disregarded facts and arguments concerning the existence or absence of a danger of the accused person 's absconding or committing offences and stated that every person accused of having committed a serious offence must be remanded in custody unless exceptional circumstances dictated otherwise ( see decisions of the domestic authorities criticised by ORG in the cases of NORP and PERSON , both cited above , and PERSON v. GPE , no . PERSON , CARDINAL DATE ) .

In DATE , interpreting the amended provisions on pre - trial detention , ORG stated that when examining an appeal against pre - trial detention the courts ' task was not only to verify whether the initial decision on remand in custody had been lawful but also to establish whether continued detention was still lawful and justified . In such proceedings the courts had to examine all available evidence on all relevant aspects , including the amount of the recognisance as the case may be ( ORG ) .


The first applicant is an NORP national , born in DATE in Ajab - Shahr , GPE . He is currently living in GPE , GPE , with his wife ( the second applicant ) and their CARDINAL children ( the remaining applicants ) . His wife and children are all NORP nationals . The family are subject to a deportation order under which they are to be expelled to GPE . The applicants are represented before the ORG by ORG in collaboration with ORG , both GPE - based organisations .

The facts , as presented by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .

The first applicant was an activist in the NORP People Fedaee Guerrillas ( IPFG ) , a NORP - Leninist organisation , and had taken part in the DATE uprising against GPE . ORG ’s opposition to the NORP government installed after the uprising led to the organisation being banned and its members arrested and executed .

In DATE or DATE , the applicant was shot and wounded in the leg when trying to evade an arrest operation carried out by the NORP security forces against opponents of the regime . He was subsequently detained without trial for DATE in a prison in the town of GPE . The first applicant claims that during his detention he was severely and frequently tortured in order to compel him to confess to his illegal political activities , including by means of mock executions and beatings . He was given a summary trial and sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . Following his release in DATE , he moved to GPE where he lived under another name and continued his activities in the IPFG . He married the second applicant who had been involved in a branch of the ORG and had been arrested in DATE along with her brother . Their CARDINAL children were born DATE . The family had to change addresses frequently because of fear of arrest .

Fearing that the authorities would discover his true identity and whereabouts and that he would be arrested and tortured again , the first applicant determined to flee GPE with his family .

The applicant ’s wife and children entered GPE legally on DATE . On DATE she was interviewed by the NORP branch of ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) . On DATE the family was granted a temporary residence permit by the NORP authorities with instructions to reside in the town of ORG . On DATE the second applicant was notified by the ORG that her asylum claim had been rejected and was subsequently served with a deportation order by the NORP authorities . Following her appeal against the execution of the order , the authorities agreed on DATE to extend the family ’s residence permit for DATE .

On DATE the first applicant entered GPE illegally and on DATE he lodged a request with the GPE office of the ORG for political refugee status . At his interview , which was conducted in the absence of an interpreter , he maintained that he was a member of the ORG and was wanted by the NORP authorities .

The applicant was subsequently interviewed by the NORP authorities , again without the assistance of an interpreter , and was granted a temporary residence permit with instructions to live in the NORP - NORP border town of GPE . On DATE the authorities authorised the first applicant to join his family in ORG for a period of DATE and he moved there the following day .

On DATE the ORG interviewed the first and second applicants separately . The second applicant alone was provided with an interpreter . On DATE the ORG rejected their asylum claims and considered that they were on that account ineligible for resettlement in a third country .

ORG appealed successfully to the ORG in DATE to reconsider the first applicant ’s case , which they did . However their decision remained unchanged .

On DATE ORG served a deportation notice on the first applicant ordering him and his family to leave GPE within DATE . On DATE the applicant requested the authorities to review their decision . Having regard to the fact that the Commission had acceded to the first applicant ’s request for interim measures under Rule CARDINAL of its Rules of Procedures , the validity of the family ’s residence permit was extended to DATE . ORG declared the first applicant ’s application inadmissible on DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant and his family to leave GPE . The applicants were informed of this decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicants contested this decision . On DATE ORG rejected their appeal and instructed the ORG police to have the applicants escorted to the border .

On DATE the applicants filed proceedings before ORG , requesting a stay in the execution of the expulsion decision . On DATE the court , on the basis of the dossier submitted by the applicants , rejected their request .

Following his request to ORG , the first applicant was examined by a panel of doctors . According to the applicants , the doctors found that the first applicant had behavioural symptoms which were consistent with his claim that he had been ill - treated when in detention .


CASE OF SAVINSKIY AND SHEVCHENKO v. UKRAINE

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

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

By a judgment of DATE ORG ( NORP міський суд ) awarded Mr Savinskiy CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) in salary arrears and other payments to be paid by his former employer , the ORG company Pershotravenskoye shakhtostroyitelnoye PERSON .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG ( NORP міський суд ) awarded Mr PERSON CARDINAL in salary arrears to be paid by his former employer , ORG ( ВАТ ORG завод GPE ) , a joint stock company in which the ORG holds PERCENT of the share capital . By a judgment of DATE the same court additionally ordered the debtor company to pay Mr PERSON MONEY in payments owed to him upon retirement .

After the above judgments had become final , the relevant departments of ORG instituted proceedings to enforce them .

Subsequently , the insolvency and later the liquidation proceedings against the debtor companies were instituted and ORG terminated the enforcement proceedings . The above - mentioned liquidation proceedings are apparently still pending .

The judgments in the applicants ' favour remain unenforced .

The relevant domestic law is set out in the judgment of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE ) .


STICHTING VOOR EDUCATIE EN BEROEPSONDERWIJS ZADKINE v. THE NETHERLANDS

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

The applicant , PERSON ( hereafter “ the applicant institution ” ) is a foundation ( ORG ) possessing legal personality under GPE law and domiciled in GPE , GPE . It was represented before the ORG by Mr W.E. Pors , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

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

The applicant is an educational institution that provides adult education and secondary vocational training at a number of locations in the GPE area . Although primarily dependent on Government funding , the applicant institution is a private legal entity . In matters of funding and tuition fees , the applicant institution is bound by law .

In so far as the applicant institution could not command income from private sources , it depended on Government grants paid by the Minister of Education , ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG , “ the Minister ” ) ; the necessary powers were delegated to , and exercised by , a Deputy Minister ( staatssecretaris ) . The precise amount of public money payable to each educational institution was calculated DATE by dividing a sum of money budgeted for educational institutions collectively by the total number of students registered across the country and multiplying the resulting figure by the number of students per institution . A detailed formula was applied which made allowance for , among other things , individuals in part - time education .

It was possible for students to register for CARDINAL course at the same time .

On DATE and again on DATE the Deputy Minister granted Government funding to the applicant institution . The precise amounts were calculated in accordance with the law in force , based on information provided by the applicant institution itself .

The applicant institution had in DATE reported a number of students as having registered for CARDINAL course , tuition fees for the additional courses to be met by it from its own budget instead of by the students themselves . The applicant institution admits that in actual fact there was no provision for additional tuition fees in its books .

In DATE , following findings of irregularities , the Deputy Minister ordered an investigation into the accounting practices of educational institutions that provided adult education and secondary vocational training . All such educational institutions were asked to clarify their reporting practices . This investigation became known as the “ ORG ” ( PERSON ) .

The applicant institution stated to the investigators , as relevant to the case before the ORG , that a number of students had entered for CARDINAL course at the same time . They were counted as separate students in respect of each course – meaning that , for the purpose of calculating the applicant institution ’s share of Government funds , a number of individual students were counted for DATE the additional tuition fees being covered by the applicant institution itself out of its private funds .

The report of ORG , which synthesised the submissions of the various educational institutions , came out on DATE . It was forwarded to ORG in DATE .

An investigating committee , known as the “ ORG ” after the name of its chairman PERSON ( a former member of ORG ) , was set up and tasked with , among other things , examining specific cases of abuse with a view to the recovery of monies paid to educational institutions in excess of their entitlement .

In DATE and again in DATE the Deputy Minister responsible granted the applicant institution a share of the available funds based on the applicant institution ’s own figures .

On DATE ORG published its report , entitled “ Share and share alike : Investigation into irregularities in the funding of higher education and secondary vocational education ” ( Eerlijk delen : NORP naar onregelmatigheden in de bekostiging van het hoger onderwijs en het middelbaar beroepsonderwijs ) , which among other things singled out particular educational institutions which had received funding in excess of their entitlement . The applicant institution was among those mentioned .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant institution that it had found the applicant institution to have received funding unlawfully and would advise the Deputy Minister to recover the sums concerned .

On DATE the Deputy Minister gave a decision modifying the earlier decisions of DATE and DATE . This decision was based on the findings of ORG of which the applicant institution had been informed on DATE . It stated that the applicant institution had unlawfully waived tuition fees but had received Government funding in respect of the students concerned . The grants for DATE were reduced retrospectively , the applicant institution being ordered to repay MONEY ( ORG ) which would be set off against the funding due in DATE .

The applicant institution submitted an administrative objection ( bezwaar ) to the Deputy Minister .

A hearing was held before an advisory board on DATE . On DATE the Deputy Minister gave a decision dismissing the objection .

The applicant institution appealed to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE .

ORG gave its decision on DATE . It established as fact that the applicant institution had misreported the number of students and obtained government funding exceeding its entitlement , so that the Deputy Minister had , in principle , the right under section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of LAW ( Algemene wet bestuursrecht ) to reclaim the excess . Nonetheless ORG quashed the Deputy Minister ’s decision on the following grounds : the applicant institution ’s lack of good faith had not been proved ; the Deputy Minister had been aware of the applicant institution ’s reporting methods ( or ought to have been so aware ) at the time when the subsidies were granted ; and the repayment order was disproportionate in the light of , firstly , a policy rule according to which repayment would not be demanded if it could be shown from bookkeeping records that the additional tuition fees were adequately covered by the applicant institution itself using funds obtained from non - governmental sources , and secondly , the finding that the applicant institution ’s income from non - governmental sources appeared adequate and the students concerned had actually followed the courses , so that there was no misapplication of public funds .

The Deputy Minister appealed to the final appellate Court : Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . ORG appointed to hear the case included Councillor NORP , an ordinary councillor of ORG , and CARDINAL extraordinary councillors . It held a public hearing on DATE and gave its decision on DATE .

ORG quashed ORG decision .

It found as a matter of fact that the applicant institution did not deny having misreported the number of students to be counted for the Government subsidy .

Admittedly the Deputy Minister had been aware of the applicant institution ’s misreporting as DATE when the report of the “ Self - Cleansing Investigation ” became available , but the funding decision of DATE antedated this report . The Deputy Minister had therefore been unaware of the said misreporting when the decision of DATE was taken , from which it followed that that decision could lawfully be reconsidered in the light of information subsequently becoming available .

As regards the subsidy grant of DATE , it had transpired at ORG hearing that the funding decision had been provisional and might have to be revisited in the light of the outcome of further investigations , in particular the investigation of ORG . That being so the Deputy Minister had been entitled to reconsider the latter grant of subsidy also .

The Deputy Minister ’s decision had not been disproportionate as that expression had to be understood in the light of ORG case - law . In particular , while it might have been the case that the applicant institution could have evaded its obligations to repay the excess subsidy by means of a simple administrative expedient , that was not a fact that the Deputy Minister had failed to take into account but which would have required a deviation from otherwise quite reasonable Government policy .

ORG and LAW , as relevant and applicable at the time of the events complained of , provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If the need arises as a result of the fixing of the ORG budget , the Minister ( sc . of ORG , ORG ) may , within DATE after the budget has been fixed , make corrections to the ORG contribution . The Minister shall inform the competent authority of a correction as referred to in the first sentence within DATE after the ORG budget has been fixed . The correction shall be set off against the ORG contribution for DATE concerned or paid in DATE .

PERSON If it appears from the [ institution ’s ] DATE statement , from the statement of the accountant [ as to the reliability of the DATE statement ] , an investigation [ into the propriety of the institution ’s expenditure and the efficiency of its management , ordered by the Minister ] or an investigation [ by an accountant appointed by the Minister ] that the ORG contribution was determined on incorrect grounds or was improperly spent , the Minister may make corrections to the ORG contribution within DATE after receiving the DATE statement . The Minister shall inform the competent authority of any correction as referred to in the first sentence within DATE after receiving the DATE statement . The correction shall be set off against the ORG contribution for DATE or paid in DATE . ”

“ CARDINAL . Any person wishing to be able to use educational and examination facilities shall have themselves registered as a student by the competent authority . ... ”

“ Registration shall not be made conditional on any monetary contribution other than those regulated by or pursuant to the law . ”

ORG , as relevant and applicable at the time of the events complained of , provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Tuition fees shall be payable in order to follow publicly - funded training on courses .

Any persons wishing to be admitted to training on a course shall have themselves registered in order to follow training in DATE of the course .

Registration shall not take place unless and until proof has been submitted that the tuition fee due has been paid or will be paid .

NORP The tuition fee referred to in the first paragraph , the charging and payment thereof , and the registration referred to in the second paragraph shall be regulated by delegated legislation ( algemene maatregel van bestuur ) . ... ”

“ If the competent authority of a non - State school ( bijzondere school ) or a municipal school or course does not abide by the rules set by or pursuant to this LAW , the Minister may decide that public funding ( vergoeding uit de openbare kas ) shall be withheld in whole or in part . ”

The delegated legislation referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG is the DATE School and Tuition Fees Schedule . As relevant and applicable at the time of the events complained of , it provided as follows :

“ In this schedule , the following expressions shall have these meanings :

student ( cursist ) : a person following a course ( degene die een opleiding volgt ) ...

person owing the tuition fee ( cursusgeldplichtige ) : a student or , if he or she is a minor , their legal representative ; ... ” [ emphases in the original ]

“ CARDINAL . An application to register as a participant for a course can be submitted only by the person from whom the tuition fee shall be due on the ground of such registration . ...

Registration shall not take place unless and until :

the tuition fee has been paid , unless section CARDINAL applies [ sc . an exemption limited to persons DATE in certain cases ] ;

an arrangement for deferred payment has been agreed ... ”

“ CARDINAL . NORP The tuition fee shall be payable ( verschuldigd ) by the person owing the tuition fee . ... ”

The General Administrative Law Act contains the following substantive provisions relevant to the case before the ORG :

“ CARDINAL . The expression ‘ subsidy’ shall mean : any claim to financial means issued by an administrative body with a view to particular activities of the claimant , not being payment for goods or services supplied to the administrative body .

[ The following legal provisions relating to subsidies ] shall apply by analogy to the funding of education and research . ”

“ CARDINAL . An administrative body may revoke a subsidy award or change it to the detriment of the recipient :

on the ground of facts or circumstances of which , at the time the subsidy was awarded , it could not reasonably be aware and based on which the subsidy would have been set lower than the sum actually awarded ;

if the award of subsidy was incorrect ( onjuist ) and the recipient of the subsidy knew this or ought to have been aware of it ; ... ”

“ Subsidy monies and advances that have been paid but were not owed may be recovered in so far as the lapse of time after DATE on which the subsidy was awarded ... is DATE . ”

ORG is composed of ordinary and extraordinary councillors . Its tasks include advising the ORG and ORG on proposed legislation and acting as appellate court of administrative jurisdiction . The judicial function is exercised by ORG .

Ordinary councillors may be called to take part in both of ORG functions , unlike extraordinary councillors who participate only in the ORG ’s jurisdictional tasks .

For a detailed description of ORG organisation and functions , see PERSON and Others v. the GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . ORG , ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVI .

Councillors sitting as judges of ORG in a particular case may be challenged on the ground of facts or circumstances which may affect their impartiality ( section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of LAW in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( Wet op de Raad van State ) ) .

Judicial decisions of ORG shall be based on the statement of grounds of appeal ( beroepschrift ) , the documents submitted , the findings of the preliminary investigation , and the examination of the case at its hearing . ORG is explicitly empowered to supplement the facts and the law ex officio ( section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of LAW in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ) .


The applicant , ORG , 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 was an anti - communist dissident . On DATE he was charged with parasitism ( příživnictví ) and detained on remand . On CARDINAL DATE he was released . On DATE the criminal proceedings were discontinued under the presidential amnesty of CARDINAL DATE , the criminal offence being re - qualified as a minor offence ( přečin ) . The decision was served on the applicant 's lawyer on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( okresní státní zástupce ) discontinued the criminal proceedings on the ground that the act imputed to the applicant did not constitute an offence .

On DATE the applicant sued ORG ( okresní ředitelství policie ) for damages under LAW . He claimed that , in the criminal proceedings instituted against him , the police officers had acted unlawfully . These proceedings were still pending in DATE , after being examined at several instances , with discontinuances due to the applicant 's failure to specify his claims fully , decisions being quashed on CARDINAL occasions and the case being re - considered accordingly .

In a letter of DATE addressed to ORG ( NORP telecom ) , the applicant complained that his name and address had been included in the telephone directory , contrary to an amendment to his contract with this company on DATE , and that his telephone had been intercepted . He claimed damages of CZE CARDINAL .

On DATE NORP Telecom apologized for the administrative mistake concerning the publication of the applicant 's name and address , assuring the applicant that the mistake had been rectified in the meantime . They informed him that the telecom network connected to his telephone line had been controlled and that any unlawful interception had been excluded .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to institute criminal proceedings against ORG of GPE ( Bezpečnostní a informační služba ČR ) and ORG on the ground that they had illegally intercepted his telephone and had handled his personal data . On DATE the applicant was heard in this connection at the police station . His request was examined but no criminal proceedings were brought .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant alleged that he and certain lawyers had agreed that “ the genocide of fundamental human rights in GPE is so vast that it extends to ORG ” . He asked the ORG to send its decision , which he expected to be negative given his view as to the partiality of ORG staff , in a registered letter . He insisted that the decision be fully reasoned . In connection with his previous case [ Application no . CARDINAL was declared inadmissible by a committee of CARDINAL judges on DATE . The applicant was informed of this by the ORG 's letter of DATE , pursuant to Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG , which provides that “ In accordance with LAW , the ORG may , by a unanimous vote , declare inadmissible an application or strike it out of the ORG 's list of cases where such a decision can be taken without further examination . This decision shall be final . The applicant shall be informed of the ORG 's decision by letter . ” ] , the applicant noted :

[ Translation ]

“ ... not even criminal communist tribunals sent their decisions without reasoning .... What you have done is tantamount to approval of theft and , therefore , amounts to a crime from the position of a sort of ' terrestrial God ' . The proof of this is not only the NORP [ part of ORG ] 's ignorant reaction to my justified request to be provided with the ' preparatory ' materials on the basis of which ' decision was taken ' . ” I do not consider the decision of a sort of section , assisted by your NORP colleagues , to be a decision of the ORG as such . ”

[ Original ]

“ ... ani zločinné komunistické soudy nezasílaly svá rozhodnutí bez zdůvodnění ... To , co jste tedy učinili , rovná se schvalování zlodějin a PERSON zločinu z pozice jakéhosi ' pozemského boha ' . PERSON ignorantství ze strany české [ části kanceláře PERSON ] na můj oprávněný požadavek zaslat mi ' zpracované ' materiály , na zákl . kterých se ' rozhodovalo ' , jet toho důkazem . PERSON jakési sekce za spolupráce PERSON bulharských kolegů proto nepovažuji za rozhodnutí PERSON jako takového .

In a letter of DATE , the applicant accused , inter alia , the NORP membership of ORG having successfully “ disguised ” the applications of democratically orientated citizens with a view to depriving them of human rights “ once and for all ” , and of having accomplices in the form of NORP , NORP or other left - leaning - and therefore partial - judges and administrators of the ORG .

On DATE , in reply to a letter of CARDINAL March CARDINAL from ORG , the applicant said that the latter in fact confirmed “ that the co - creators of the criminal communist regime and supporters of the freakish communist ideology ( [ NORP members of the registry ] ) ... ORG ] your ORG well given that this ORG employ[ed ] them ” . He continued as follows :

[ Translation ]

“ ... DATE , when I know that your glorious ORG is full of ORG and ORG [ The secret services of former GPE and GPE ] agents , I 'm not surprised that you defend people who , thanks to their week characteristic qualities , pushed themselves forward to achieve their personally advantageous goals ( troughs ) ( koryta ) [ This term , meaning a trough , is used to refer to the attainment of personal aims even where the rights of others are violated ] collaborating with the freakish communist regime which they helped to establish , and scrambling on the backs of those who suffered and suffer because of the communist regime . ...

Your Court , with the great help of and thanks to ORG ... liquidates fundamental human rights ! ... I have my own former experience when the ORG prevented me from freely using [ my ] property and left it at the mercy and for the benefit of the NORP thieves , without any reasoning whatsoever ! ( see my application no . CARDINAL ) . In doing so , your glorious Court consecrated crimes of the communist regime and communist tribunals . Thank you ! ... ”

[ Original ]

“ To , že se zastáváte lidí , kteří se díky svým špatným charakterovým vlastnostem drali ke svým osobně prospěšným cílům ( korytům ) prostřednictvím kolaborace s komunistickým zločineckým režimem , který spoluvytvářeli a lezli po ORG těch , kteří komunistickým režimem trpěli a trpí , PERSON dnes , kdy vím , že i Váš slavný PERSON přesycen agenty PERSON a ORG , vůbec nepřekvapuje . ...

PERSON , za velkého přispění a díky české kanceláři ... likviduje základní lidská práva ! ... Sám mám již předchozí zkušenost , kdy mi ' PERSON ' zabránil svobodně vlastnit a užívat [ můj ] majetek a tento ponechal na pospas a ku prospěchu komunistickým zlodějům . To bez jakéhokoli zdůvodnění ! ( viz má stížnost č . CARDINAL ) . PERSON komunistického režimu a komunistických soudů PERSON slavný PERSON tak posvětil . Děkuji ! ... ” .


The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( ORG ) . She is a regular warrant officer in ORG .

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

The applicant is a regular member of the armed forces and has been married to CARDINAL of her colleagues since CARDINAL DATE . Since joining the army she has received an “ unmarried person ’s ” service allowance which is designed to compensate for the unique requirements that service life imposes on military personnel .

After she married she requested her service allowance to be re - calculated at the higher “ head of the family ” rate paid to her husband . She relied on the LOC judgment of CARDINAL DATE in which the ORG d’Etat had declared obsolete the reference to the notion of head of the family in the light of the provisions of LAW of DATE . This judgment had had the effect of making servicewomen married to servicemen eligible for the “ head of the family ” service allowance instead of the “ unmarried person ’s ” service allowance for the same family situation .

Relying on that case - law authority , the applicant asked the military authorities to bring her service allowance into line with the higher allowance paid to her husband . Her request was refused .

On DATE she appealed to the Chief of ORG of ORG .

Basing his decision on the decree of CARDINAL DATE governing service allowances , the Chief of ORG dismissed her appeal on DATE on the ground that , where a serviceman and servicewoman were married to each other , family expenses could not be taken into account twice and the “ head of the family ” allowance paid to both spouses .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG for judicial review of ORG decision . In her submission , no provision of the DATE decree supported the ministry ’s refusal to grant her a “ head of the family ” allowance and the ministry ’s interpretation of the decree had been discriminatory .

On DATE the court set aside the ministry ’s decision on the following grounds :

“ Firstly , the provisions of LAW of DATE have rendered otiose the notion of head of the family referred to in the aforementioned decree of CARDINAL DATE governing service allowances and secondly , ORG has no legislative or regulatory power to treat PERSON as an ‘ unmarried person’ for the purposes of the aforementioned provisions in refusing her the allowance requested . It follows , without there being any need to examine the ground submitted under LAW of DATE , that PERSON is justified in requesting judicial review of the aforementioned decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing her a ‘ head of the ORG service allowance from DATE . ”

On DATE ORG passed LAW for DATE , which came into force on the date of its publication in ORG ) on DATE . Section CARDINAL-II of that LAW provides :

“ Subject to final court decisions , individual service allowances that are challenged on the basis of the effects of LAW of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) on the provisions of Decree no . DATE of CARDINAL DATE governing service allowances are hereby validated . ”

On DATE the Minister of Defence appealed against ORG judgment relying on , inter alia , section CARDINAL-II of DATE .

In an order of DATE the President of ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

The Minister of Defence appealed to the PERSON d’Etat , which , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , set aside the judgment of ORG . It held that the ground of appeal based on the submission that the notion of the “ head of the family ” referred to in the decree of CARDINAL DATE had become obsolete was no longer valid following the enactment of the legalising LAW DATE . The ORG d’Etat noted , among other things , that

“ The effect [ of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the decree of CARDINAL DATE ] is that any married member of the armed forces , regardless of sex , may receive the “ head of the family ” service allowance but , where both spouses are members of the armed forces , the higher family allowances are non - cumulative and are paid to the head of the household alone . PERSON and her husband ’s entitlement to a service allowance was determined on that basis . It is not disputed that the applicant ’s husband has already received the “ head of the family ” allowance . The Minister of Defence ’s subsequent dismissal of the applicant ’s claim for the head of the family allowance on the ground that her husband had already received it does not in itself infringe the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work ... ”

Civil Code

Under LAW ( LAW of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) ) “ spouses are jointly responsible for the family ’s moral and material well - being . They are responsible for their children ’s upbringing and for preparing their future ” .

Legislative and regulatory provisions governing service allowances

“ Officers and rank - and - file personnel in receipt of a DATE salary shall be paid an expenses allowance known as a ‘ service ORG to compensate for the various specifically military obligations and in particular frequent changes in postings . ”

“ The service allowance shall vary according to the recipient ’s rank and their family and housing situation . ”

“ The DATE rates of the service allowance shall be determined by joint order of the Minister of Defence , the Minister for ORG and Finance and the Minister of State for ORG .

“ The following shall be regarded as the head of the family:-

married members of the armed forces ;

other military personnel having CARDINAL dependent child or living with their widowed mother , on condition that she habitually lives under their roof and is not liable for income tax .

The definition of ‘ dependent child’ shall be that used in the tax legislation . ”

“ Military personnel in receipt of the head of the family service allowance who receive a change of posting for the requirements of the ORG entailing a relocation within the meaning of the above - mentioned decree of CARDINAL DATE shall be paid a flat - rate salary supplement ... ”

“ Military personnel in receipt of the head of the family service allowance shall also be paid an extra flat - rate supplement on the occasion of each posting imposed for Service reasons and entailing a relocation within the meaning of the aforementioned decree of DATE . This supplement shall be payable from the seventh posting for officers , and from the fourth posting for the rank and file , calculated DATE in respect of non - commissioned officers and senior corporals DATE from the date on which they qualify for a DATE salary and DATE in respect of corporals and soldiers – from the date on which they qualify for a special incremental salary ... ”

In the GPE decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d’Etat ruled as follows :

“ In refusing PERSON , née GPE , who is a ORG captain , a flat - rate supplement to the service allowance ... , the Minister of Defence had regard solely to the fact that she was receiving an ‘ unmarried person’s’ allowance ... and to the fact that Lieutenant PERSON , her husband , receives the ‘ head of the family’ service allowance .

Firstly , the provisions of LAW of DATE have rendered otiose the notion of head of the family expressly referred to in the aforementioned decree of CARDINAL DATE governing family expenses allowances and , secondly , ORG does not have any legislative or regulatory power to treat PERSON , née GPE , as an ‘ unmarried person’ in refusing to grant her the allowance requested . It follows that PERSON , née GPE , is justified in maintaining that , in the decisions complained of , ORG wrongly refused to award her the flat - rate supplement to the service allowance . ”

In the Minister of Defence v. ORG judgment of DATE , the ORG d’Etat held :

“ Bonuses paid to military personnel for skills and meritorious service are claims that must be regarded as possessions within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL to LAW . The aforementioned provisions of section CARDINAL of the DATE Act were enacted after the ORG d’Etat , sitting in its judicial capacity , had decided on DATE that military personnel serving abroad continued to enjoy all the permanent fringe benefits and after the decree of CARDINAL DATE had amended the decree of CARDINAL DATE to prevent non - commissioned officers serving abroad from receiving the allowances . These provisions , which came into force after Mr ORG had brought his dispute with the ORG before ORG , had the effect of depriving him retroactively of his entitlement to the allowances . Neither the aim of preventing military personnel serving abroad from maintaining the benefits in question during the transitional period preceding publication of the decree of DATE , nor the aim of avoiding any discrimination arising between civil servants and members of the armed forces or between servicemen and women who have taken legal proceedings and those who have not , nor the concern to avoid the financial consequences of the aforementioned decision of the ORG d’Etat qualify as grounds of public interest of a kind to justify the interference with PERSON ORG ’s possessions brought about by the retroactive deprivation of the bonus for skills and meritorious service to which he was legally entitled during his postings abroad . Accordingly , we reject as ill - founded the Minister of Defence ’s submission that ORG erred in law in ruling that the provisions of section CARDINAL were incompatible with those of LAW No . CARDINAL to ORG . ... ”


Violation of Art. 8;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant is a GPE national , born in DATE and living in GPE . He has been a practising lawyer ( advocaat ) since DATE .

At DATE , the applicant agreed to act as defence counsel for a PERSON in criminal proceedings brought against the latter . At that time , PERSON was in pre - trial detention . In connection with this case , the applicant met several times with PERSON , who at that time was Mr PERSON 's wife .

At some point PERSON told PERSON that on DATE the applicant had made sexual advances towards her . PERSON informed the police officer investigating his case , Officer PERSON , of this , who in turn informed the public prosecutor in charge of the investigation against Mr K. , Public Prosecutor T. The latter gave instructions that a criminal complaint against the applicant should be filed with the vice squad . On this basis , Officer PERSON contacted both PERSON and Officer NORP of the vice squad .

PERSON was initially reluctant to lodge a criminal complaint against the applicant as she feared that her word – the only evidence available – would be insufficient against that of the applicant .

Following discussions between Officers NORP and PERSON of the vice squad and Public Prosecutor T. , the suggestion was made to PERSON to connect a tape recorder to her telephone in order to allow her to tape incoming conversations with the applicant . Police officers subsequently connected a cassette tape recorder to PERSON telephone in her home and suggested that she steer her conversations with the applicant towards the latter 's advances . PERSON was shown how to operate the device . The police came to her home twice in order to collect the recordings and load new cassette tapes into the tape recorder .

PERSON recorded CARDINAL conversations with the applicant , which were transcribed by the police . These transcripts were added to the case - file on the investigation against the applicant .

The case was reported in the press . This induced CARDINAL other women to come forward and lodge criminal complaints against the applicant : CARDINAL PERSON , who claimed to have been raped and sexually assaulted by the applicant , and one PERSON , who also complained that she had been sexually assaulted by the applicant .

The applicant was subsequently summoned to appear on DATE before ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE on charges of sexual assault and rape .

In its judgment of DATE , following adversarial proceedings in the course of which a hearing was held on DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of having sexually assaulted PERSON and PERSON , and acquitted him of the charges brought in respect of PERSON sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment , DATE of which were suspended for DATE .

Both the applicant and the public prosecutor lodged an appeal with ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE .

In its judgment of DATE , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , convicted the applicant of having sexually assaulted PERSON and PERSON and acquitted him of the charges in respect of PERSON It sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE , and a fine of MONEY . It based the applicant 's conviction on statements taken from the applicant , PERSON , Mrs C. and CARDINAL other persons . The recorded telephone conversations were not relied on as evidence .

The applicant 's subsequent appeal on points of law was rejected by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

In so far as is relevant to the case before the ORG , the applicant complained under inter alia LAW that ORG had wrongly rejected his argument that the prosecution should be declared inadmissible or that evidence had been unlawfully obtained in respect of the recordings made of his telephone conversations with PERSON ORG dismissed this complaint in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . It is ... correctly assumed in the grounds of appeal on points of law that no interference by any public authority is permitted in the exercise of the right to ' respect for his private life and his correspondence ' guaranteed by LAW unless , and to the extent , provided for by law .

What is decisive in the instant case is therefore the answer to the question whether , noting the part played by the police in the recording of the telephone conversations that PERSON has had with the suspect , there has been an interference by the police in the exercise of the right of the accused to ' respect for his private life and his correspondence ' .

Against the background of the facts and circumstances ... the finding of ORG that the police has not acted in such a directive manner – in which finding ORG apparently had in mind the entire part played by the police in the recording of the telephone conversations by DATE that there has been an interference by any public authority within the meaning of LAW is not incomprehensible , and furthermore it does not reflect an incorrect understanding of the law , in particular , not as regards the contents of that provision of the Convention ...

After all , [ the case ] concerns in essence a ( female ) victim of a sexual offence , this woman not having any other prima facie evidence than her own account and to whom the police has given information about a possibility for her to obtain additional proof and to whom and to this end the police has subsequently provided practical ( technical ) aid for performing certain acts – the recording , in her own home and in the absence of the police and with the aid of a device connected by the police to her own telephone line , of an incoming telephone conversation which the perpetrator conducts with her DATE , which act does not , for that woman , she being a party to the telephone conversation recorded , constitute an act prohibited by law .

Nor does the finding that the circumstance that the suspect in his capacity of practising lawyer has a ' privileged status ' is not relevant in this matter reflect an incorrect understanding of the law . On the above grounds , ORG could conclude that this was not a situation referred to in LAW . The findings of ORG are sufficiently reasoned . ”

At the relevant time , Articles CARDINALf - h of LAW ( Wetboek van Strafvordering ) provided as follows :

Article CARDINALf

“ CARDINAL . In case of discovery in flagrante delicto of a criminal offence in respect of which detention on remand is permitted , or of the criminal offence referred to in Article CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) < i.e. bugging and the unlawful interception of communications by computer > , any person employed by the holder of the concession referred to in LAW , first paragraph , of LAW ( Wet op de telecommunicatievoorzieningen ) ( ... ) shall , when so required , provide to ORG , or during the preliminary judicial investigation ( gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ) , to the investigating judge , all desired information concerning all traffic not intended for the public that has taken place through the telecommunication infrastructure and in respect of which there is a presumption that the person suspected of the offence has taken part in it .

Articles CARDINAL – CARDINAL shall apply by analogy . ”

Article CARDINAL g

“ During the preliminary judicial investigation the investigating judge is empowered , if the investigation urgently so requires and if it concerns a criminal offence in respect of which detention on remand is permitted , to determine that data traffic through the telecommunications infrastructure that is not intended for the public , and in respect of which there is a presumption that the person suspected of the offence is taking part in it , shall be tapped or recorded by an officer with powers of investigation ( opsporingsambtenaar ) . An official record of the tapping or the recording shall be made within TIME . ”

Article ORG

“ CARDINAL . The investigating judge shall order the destruction in his presence , as soon as possible , of the official records and other objects from which information can be derived that he has obtained as a result of the information referred to in Article CARDINALf , or that has been obtained by tapping as referred to in the preceding Article , and which is of no importance to the investigation . An official record of the tapping or the recording shall be made without delay .

NORP The investigating judge shall , in the same way , order the destruction without delay of official records and other objects as referred to in the previous paragraph in so far as they relate to statements made by or to a person who , pursuant to LAW , would be able to decline to give evidence if he were questioned as a witness as to the content of those statements .

The investigating judge shall add the other official records and other objects as referred to in the first paragraph to the case - file no later than the moment at which the decision to close the preliminary judicial investigation becomes final .

NORP The public prosecutor shall order the destruction in his presence of the official records or other objects from which information can be derived that he has obtained as a result of the information referred to in LAW , if he does not seek the opening of a preliminary judicial investigation within DATE after obtaining that information . He shall make an official record of the destruction . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , which is referred to in the provisions quoted above , provides as follows :

“ Persons who , by virtue of their position , their profession or their office , are bound to secrecy may ... decline to give evidence or to answer particular questions , but only in relation to matters the knowledge of which is entrusted to them in that capacity . ”

Guidelines for the Interception of Telephone Conversations ( PERSON ) of DATE , a copy of which could be obtained by any interested person , set out the way in which the power to intercept telephone conversations was to be exercised in practice . These Guidelines , which were in the nature of published policy and official instructions rather than “ law ” , were issued in the form of a circular letter from the senior public prosecutors to the police . The model of this circular letter was published in , inter alia , ORG ( Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Mensenrechten ) of DATE , pages CARDINAL and following . According to these Guidelines , the procedure to be followed was this :

The interception and recording of telephone conversations should be considered only if it could lead to the detection of crimes which , in view of their nature or frequency or the organised context in which they were committed , constituted a serious interference with the legal order . It should be limited to those cases in which the aim pursued could not reasonably be achieved otherwise .

A police officer in charge of an investigation who considered such a measure indicated was , after consulting his commanding officer , to discuss the matter with the public prosecutor . The latter , if he agreed with the police officer , was to discuss it with the investigating judge . If the public prosecutor decided that the measure was necessary , the police officer in charge of the investigation was to provide certain necessary factual information in the form of a written report . The public prosecutor would then submit this report to the investigating judge and ask for permission in writing to proceed with the measure .

An official record was to be made of all interceptions , even if they yielded nothing useful , within TIME . Any recordings , transcripts or documents were to be kept in such a way that they were not accessible to persons not involved in the case . The tapes , with a final report , should be submitted to the investigating judge , with an indication of the number of copies still in the hands of the police . If the investigating judge decided that any part of the recordings or transcripts was to be destroyed , the copies too should be handed to him for that purpose .

Articles CARDINALf - h of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were repealed by LAW of DATE , Staatsblad ( Official Gazette ) DATE , no . CARDINAL , with effect from DATE . It is now provided that the public prosecutor may order the recording of telecommunications if the investigation urgently so requires ; if the criminal offence concerned is CARDINAL in respect of which detention on remand is permitted ; and which , in view of its nature or its connection with other criminal acts committed by the suspect , the criminal offence concerned constitutes a serious interference with the legal order ( LAW ) . The requirement of a preliminary judicial investigation no longer applies , nor is there any involvement of an investigating judge .