Violation of Art. 34 with regard to transmission of letters;Inadmissible under Art. 34 with regard to alleged pressure on applicant;Inadmissible under Art. 6-1

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant was convicted by ORG and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for participation in an organised armed gang . On DATE the conviction was upheld on appeal by ORG of GPE . The applicant serves his sentence in a correctional colony ( the prison ) .

On DATE and DATE the applicant submitted letters addressed to ORG , in which he complained under LAW that he had not had a fair trial in the above domestic proceedings , to the prison ’s ORG , the office exercising censorship and general supervision over all ORG correspondence . On DATE and DATE the prison administration refused to dispatch the letters . The competent officials , the head of the ORG major PERSON and the deputy warden of the prison major O. , pointed out that the application to the ORG would not be accepted for dispatch unless and until the applicant applied to the Chairman of ORG and to ORG with requests for a supervisory review of his conviction , or filed an application with ORG of GPE . The applicant complied , as he had no other means to have his mail sent outside prison . However , his applications were unsuccessful .

On DATE the applicant sent an application to the ORG , in which he complained of an unfair trial . He also explained that he had exceeded DATE time - limit set out in LAW , as he had been prevented by the prison administration from dispatching his application earlier .

After the questions were put by the Rapporteur to the respondent Government under Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG , on DATE the Chief Penitentiary Directorate of ORG of GPE ( ORG управление исполнения наказаний PERSON юстиции Российской PERSON ) issued a circular letter to its subordinate departments and bodies prohibiting hindering the dispatch of applications addressed to the ORG .

On DATE the Chief Penitentiary Directorate of ORG of GPE designated officials authorised to monitor the unhindered dispatch of applications to the ORG from penitentiary institutions .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General issued a circular letter calling upon the regional prosecutors to take measures to secure unhindered exercise of the right of individual petition by detainees . It mentioned in particular that any pressure , including intimidation , discouragement or dissuasion , was unacceptable .

On DATE a commission of ORG office visited the prison to conduct an inquiry into the refusal of the prison administration to post the applicant ’s letters to ORG . The result of this inquiry , if any , remains unknown to the ORG .

On DATE the prison director classified the applicant as a persistent contravener of prison discipline , and on DATE transferred him to a stricter security level .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to another penitentiary institution , following his request based on allegations of a conflict with the prison administration .

At present the applicant continues to serve his sentence .


Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen

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

NORP The applicant is a professor at ORG . During a meeting in preparation for a national congress he had a verbal disagreement with another professor ( “ Mr A.T. ” ) , who was PERSON in which the applicant worked . The applicant called PERSON ORG a “ thief ” for having allegedly distributed to students , without his permission , several pages of a book written by the applicant ( as well as an article ) under PERSON ORG ’s own name .

Following the disagreement , the applicant initiated civil proceedings against Mr PERSON for plagiarism and PERSON , in turn , lodged a complaint against the applicant with the public prosecutor , alleging defamation and threatening behaviour .

On DATE ORG found against Mr PERSON in respect of plagiarism .

During the criminal proceedings conducted against him at ORG , the applicant , in his defence statements dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE , requested the court to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment if he could not be acquitted .

On DATE , after having heard the testimonies of CARDINAL witnesses , ORG acquitted the applicant of threatening behaviour , but convicted him of defamation . However , having recourse to the provisions of LAW , the court suspended the pronouncement of the judgment on account of the applicant ’s previous good record and the unlikelihood of his committing a further offence . On DATE ORG dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant and upheld the decision .

The relevant parts of LAW no . CARDINAL ) provide as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the accused , who had been tried on the charges brought against him , has been sentenced to a judicial fine or to a term of imprisonment of DATE , the court may decide to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment .... The suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment means that the judgment would not have any legal consequences for the offender .

( CARDINAL ) A decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment may be given provided that :

( a ) the offender has never been found guilty of a deliberate offence ;

( b ) the court is convinced , taking into account the offender ’s character and his behaviour during the proceedings , that there is little risk of any further offence being committed ;

( c ) the damage caused to the victim or to society is repaired by way of restitution or compensation . ( Additional Sentence : LAW no . DATE entered into force on DATE ) If the accused does not agree to this , the pronouncement of the judgment shall not be suspended . ( ... )

( CARDINAL) If the pronouncement of the judgment is suspended , the offender shall be bound by a supervision order for DATE . ( ... )

( CARDINAL ) If the offender does not commit another deliberate offence and abides by the obligations of the supervision order , the suspended judgment shall be cancelled and the case discontinued .

( CARDINAL ) If the offender commits another deliberate offence or breaches the obligations of the supervision order , the court shall then impose a sentence of imprisonment . Nevertheless , after evaluating the offender ’s situation , the court may decide to reduce CARDINAL of the term imposed . If conditions so permit , the court may also choose to suspend the sentence or commute it to other optional penalties .

( CARDINAL ) An objection may be lodged against the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment . ”

Provisional LAW no . CARDINAL , which entered into force on DATE , provides as follows :

“ If persons in respect of whom pronouncement of the judgment has been suspended apply to the courts within DATE after the entry into force of this section , the decision shall be retracted by the court and a judgment will be rendered . ”


Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13+2

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

The applicants are :

CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) Mr GPE , who was born in DATE ,

CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE , and

CARDINAL ) PERSON Akhmatova , who was born in DATE .

The applicants live in LOC , GPE . The first and the second applicants are the parents of PERSON ( also spelled PERSON ) , who was born in DATE . The third applicant is his sister and the fourth applicant is his wife .

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

At the material time PERSON was a DATE student at ORG ; he received positive character references from his neighbours , the head of the LOC department of the interior ( the ROVD ) and the imam of the LOC district .

At TIME on DATE the first applicant went with PERSON to the LOC town centre to run errands . In the centre the first applicant realised that she had left a document at home . She returned to the family house , situated at CARDINAL FAC in LOC , whereas her son remained in the town centre as he was going to talk to his cousin Mr PERSON , who worked in the ROVD .

TIME after the applicant returned home she heard shooting coming from the former medical storehouse located about CARDINAL metres from her house . The first applicant thought the NORP military were conducting a special operation to catch one of their neighbours , Mr R.Ch . , who was an active member of illegal armed groups .

Having fetched the document , the applicant walked back to the town centre . On her way there she approached the storehouse and saw that the area was cordoned off by NORP military servicemen , who were not letting people in or out of the cordon . TIME the applicant saw the military leaving in CARDINAL APCs ( armoured personnel carriers ) . CARDINAL masked soldiers in new camouflage uniforms with white stripes on their sleeves were on each vehicle . CARDINAL of the APCs was painted in camouflage colours .

As soon as the military left , the applicant and other locals went to the site . There the applicant found a white bandage with traces of blood on it and blood spattered around it on the ground .

After that the first applicant went to the town centre where she was supposed to meet her son . She did not find him there and decided to ask their relative Mr PERSON whether PERSON had called in at his office . She went to the ROVD , where she was told that her son had stopped off , looking for Mr PERSON , but the latter had not been in the office and the applicant 's son had left .

Meanwhile , the second applicant informed the ROVD that his son 's yellow cap had been found at the site of the shooting . When the first applicant returned home , she was told that her son 's cap had been found on the site of the medical storehouse .

After that CARDINAL of the applicants ' neighbours , Mr GPE . , told the applicants that at TIME he had been walking through the yard of the medical storehouse when he had met PERSON and had a brief conversation with him . According to Mr GPE . , after that he had continued walking to the town centre when , TIME , he had heard shooting coming from the direction in which PERSON had gone .

According to the applicant 's neighbour , PERSON . , at TIME on DATE she was walking home when she saw a group of masked armed men in camouflage uniforms surrounding the medical storehouse . These men were in CARDINAL APCs ; they were shooting and not letting anybody on to the site . From a distance she saw that the armed men were dragging a young man in black clothing with a sack over his head . They forced the man into one of the APCs and drove away .

According to another resident of PERSON , Ms R.Kh . , at TIME she was walking down the applicants ' street when she saw military servicemen in CARDINAL APCs . The servicemen were surrounding the former medical storehouse and were shooting . Then the witness had seen the servicemen putting a young man with a plastic bag over his head into CARDINAL of the APCs ; after that they had driven away in the direction of the town centre .

According to the applicants ' neighbours , the family PERSON , on DATE of PERSON abduction they were driving home in a tractor when they saw the military servicemen who had surrounded the former medical storehouse . The servicemen were taking CARDINAL young man to an ORG and dragging another one . They put both men into the ORG and drove away .

In support of their statements the applicants submitted the following documents : a statement by the first applicant dated DATE ; a statement by PERSON . dated DATE ; a statement by PERSON . dated DATE ; a statement by PERSON . dated DATE ; a statement by PERSON dated DATE , and a statement by Mr D.A. dated DATE .

The Government did not dispute the matter as presented by the applicants .

At TIME on DATE , DATE , representatives of the ROVD and the NORP district prosecutor 's office ( the district prosecutor 's office ) visited the applicants ' house . In the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE .

After that the investigators went to the former medical storehouse with the applicants and other local residents . There they collected cartridge cases left by the servicemen after the shooting and found CARDINAL spots of blood , CARDINAL of them containing just a few drops of blood and the other looking like a puddle of blood . The investigators from the district prosecutor 's office collected the blood for forensic examination . A child from PERSON also found a service identification document which he handed over to the investigators .

On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL investigators from the district prosecutor 's office , PERSON . and PERSON . , returned to the medical storehouse and examined it again together with the applicants and other local residents . According to the first and second applicants investigator PERSON . told them that the cartridge cases collected by the investigators from the scene of the shooting would assist the authorities in identifying the weapon and the officer to whom it belonged .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office initiated an investigation into the disappearance of PERSON under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE ( in the submitted documents it was referred to as DATE ) .

On DATE the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG of the Interior ( ORG ) forwarded the applicants ' complaint about the abduction of PERSON to the ROVD for examination . In response , on DATE the ROVD informed the applicants that they were “ taking measures to establish his whereabouts ” .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office forwarded the applicants ' requests for assistance in the search for PERSON to the district prosecutor 's office for examination . In response , on DATE and DATE the investigators informed the applicants that the operational - search measures aimed at establishing PERSON whereabouts were under way .

On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of ORG ( the ORG ) forwarded the applicants ' complaint about the abduction to the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . ORG . In response , on DATE the latter informed the applicants that military unit no . ORG had not participated in a special operation on DATE and had not detained PERSON . On DATE the military prosecutor 's office of the ORG confirmed this information .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that the operational - search measures aimed at establishing PERSON whereabouts and identifying the culprits were under way .

On DATE ORG of ORG in GPE informed the applicants that PERSON was not being held in their detention centres .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office forwarded the applicants ' request for assistance in the search for PERSON to the district prosecutor 's office for examination . In response , on DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that on DATE they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case .

On DATE the LOC military commander 's office ( the district military commander 's office ) informed the applicants that they , with the ROVD and the district prosecutor 's office , were searching for PERSON .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office again forwarded the applicants ' request for assistance in the search for PERSON to the district prosecutor 's office for examination . In response , on DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that on DATE they had suspended the investigation in the criminal case .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that their complaint had been examined and included in the investigation file .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office again forwarded the applicants ' request for assistance to the district prosecutor 's office for examination .

On DATE ORG of the Execution of Punishment informed the applicants that PERSON was not being held in their detention centres .

In DATE the first applicant visited the district prosecutor 's office to request information about the progress of the investigation . The investigator , who was in charge of the case at the time , Mr R.Ya . , told her that the investigation file did not contain any information about the collection of the blood samples and the cartridge cases from the crime scene .

On DATE the second applicant wrote to the district prosecutor . He described in detail the circumstances of his son 's abduction and stated that during the crime scene examination the investigators had collected cartridge cases and blood samples ; that the investigator , PERSON . , had told him that this collected evidence had been forwarded to the expert evaluation centre in PERSON - on - Don and that the results were supposed to be received in DATE ; that the investigator had explained to him that the cartridge cases would allow the experts to identify the weapons used during the shooting , as the latter were supposed to be individually registered . The applicant requested the district prosecutor to provide him with a copy of the crime scene examination report of DATE and a copy of the decisions ordering the expert evaluation of the evidence collected at the crime scene .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor 's office informed the applicants that on the same date they had resumed the investigation in the criminal case .

On DATE the ROVD informed the applicants that on DATE ( it appears that the date is incorrect ) they had opened search file no . DATE to establish the whereabouts of PERSON and that a search for the applicants ' relative was under way .

On DATE the second applicant again wrote to the district prosecutor . He stated that in spite of the numerous pieces of evidence , such as the cartridge cases left by the perpetrators , the APCs and the fact that on DATE the Shali law enforcement agencies had conducted a special operation to find a leader of illegal armed groups , Mr R.Ch . , the investigators had failed to identify the servicemen who had conducted this operation and abducted PERSON . He further stated that his son 's whereabouts had not been established for DATE and that the investigation file in the criminal case did not contain the evidence collected from the crime scene on DATE . The applicant requested the prosecutor to provide him with access to the investigation file , to allow him to make a copy of its contents and to resume the investigation in the criminal case . No reply was received from the authorities .

On DATE the second applicant complained to the district prosecutor 's office that his son had been abducted “ by military servicemen in CARDINAL APCs ” . He wrote that the servicemen had been masked , armed and that they had had white strips on the sleeves of their uniforms . He further stated that his son 's cap , with bloodstains next to it , had been found at the scene after the abductors had driven away .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office initiated an investigation into the disappearance of PERSON under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) .

On DATE the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned . He stated that his son had been abducted by servicemen who had been masked , armed with automatic weapons , had white strips on the sleeves of their uniforms and had been driving around in APCs .

On DATE the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicants were not informed about this decision .

On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was resumed and the decision concerning the suspension of the criminal proceedings was overruled by the supervising prosecutor as unlawful for the following reasons :

“ ... The examination of the investigation file demonstrated that the investigation in the criminal case had not been actually conducted at all as the investigator had taken CARDINAL investigating steps : he granted the father of the disappeared man victim status in the criminal case and questioned him .

No witnesses had been identified and questioned , the crime scene had not been examined , no replies had been received to the requests forwarded to various law - enforcement bodies and a number of other investigating steps had not been taken ... ”

On DATE the supervising prosecutor issued orders for the investigators of the criminal case who were to take , inter alia , the following steps :

“ CARDINAL . Make a plan of investigating steps to be taken ...

Examine the crime scene ...

From the witness statement of PERSON [ the second applicant ] it follows that he learnt from his acquaintance named PERSON that his son [ PERSON ] had been detained by military servicemen who had arrived in CARDINAL APCs . In connection with this , it is necessary to identify the man named PERSON and question him about the circumstances of the abduction .

Identify other witnesses of the crime , including the woman ( the father of the abducted man knows her ) who had also seen the military servicemen detaining and taking away PERSON and another man ... it is necessary to question her about the events .

Take measures to identify where the APCs were from ...

If the involvement of military servicemen in the abduction is established , it is necessary to forward the criminal case to the military prosecutor 's office for further investigation ... ”

On DATE ( in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as DATE ) the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the investigators conducted the crime scene examination . Nothing was collected from the scene .

On DATE the investigators questioned Mr A.M. , who stated that in the morning of DATE he had seen a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks in CARDINAL APCs . The men had dragged PERSON into one of the vehicles and had then driven away .

DATE . On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that in TIME of DATE several military APCs had arrived in her street with men who were armed , masked and in camouflage uniforms . They had put PERSON and another man into one of the APCs and taken them away .

On DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation of DATE as premature and unsubstantiated . The investigation was resumed owing to the need to take additional investigative measures . The prosecutor criticised the investigation and ordered the following measures to be taken :

“ ... the examination of the investigation file demonstrates that the investigation is being conducted passively and that investigating and operational - search measures are of a formal nature . There is no control over the execution of the investigators ' requests and orders . The decision to suspend the investigation was taken prematurely , without the necessary steps having been taken ...

It is necessary that the investigation take the following steps :

- ... request information concerning the vehicles which left the premises of the PERSON military commander 's office on DATE ;

- identify witnesses to the abduction from among the residents living near the place of the events ;

- establish the identity of the second man who had been abducted with PERSON ... ”

On DATE the Shali department of ORG ( the ORG ) informed the investigators that they did not have any information concerning PERSON involvement in illegal armed groups and that they had not conducted any special operations in the town on DATE .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , who stated that his acquaintance Mr PERSON had told him that he had clearly seen military servicemen placing PERSON in an ORG and that PERSON had already provided this information to the investigators . Then the applicant provided the investigators with detailed information about PERSON , who had witnessed the abduction of his son by military servicemen in APCs .

On DATE the investigators also questioned the first applicant , who stated that her son had been abducted on DATE by armed men in camouflage uniforms ; that she had learnt from the witnesses that he had been taken away in an ORG . The applicant described the events of DATE of the abduction ; her description was the same as the one provided to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigators also questioned PERSON . I. who stated that late in the morning of DATE he had been at home when his wife had told him that military servicemen had been conducting a special operation in their street . He had gone out on the street where in QUANTITY on the LOC of the former medical storehouse he had seen a military ORG with groups of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms . A number of local residents had gone outside of their houses and witnessed the events . After that he had gone back in the house . Later , after the military had left , he had learnt that the servicemen had taken away PERSON and that his cap had been found afterwards in the storehouse area .

On DATE the investigators also questioned Mr S.A. , who stated that at TIME on DATE he had been outside his house when he had seen a group of CARDINAL masked men in military camouflage uniforms surrounding the site of the former medical storehouse . The men had been armed with automatic weapons ; they had had white stripes on the left sleeves of their uniforms . The men had arrived in CARDINAL or CARDINAL APCs and QUANTITY other armoured military vehicle of a khaki colour . None of the vehicles had had registration or hull numbers . Then the men had opened fire on the storehouse . The witness had heard the men speaking among themselves in unaccented NORP . From their conversations he had understood that they were servicemen working in the police and that they were taking part in a special operation . The operation lasted for TIME ; local residents had not been allowed to access the cordoned - off area . The servicemen had detained PERSON on the site of the storehouse and taken him away .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant 's neighbour Mr PERSON , who stated that on TIME DATE he had been at work in the ROVD when PERSON had dropped by , looking for his relative Mr PERSON The latter had not been in the office and PERSON had left . In TIME the witness had learnt that military servicemen had abducted PERSON .

On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that at TIME on DATE she had seen a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms ; the men had been of NORP appearance and had been in APCs . They cordoned off her street along the perimeter of the former medical storehouse . Then she had seen the men beating and forcing her neighbour PERSON into one of the APCs . It appeared that PERSON had been wounded in the leg .

On DATE the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated . He pointed out that the investigators had failed to take a number of investigative steps and ordered that the investigation be resumed .

On DATE the investigators again suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated . He pointed out that the investigators had failed to take a number of investigating steps , such as :

“ ... The investigation file contains information concerning the use of automatic weapons by the abductors . However , the investigation did not take measures to establish whether any of the cartridge cases had been found [ at the scene ] by the relatives and the neighbours of the disappeared man ;

The investigators failed to request and include in the file information concerning the possible conduct of a special operation in LOC on DATE by military units stationed in GPE .

The investigators did not take steps to establish the identity of the man who had been abducted with PERSON ... ”

On DATE the second applicant complained to the PERSON prosecutor and requested to be granted access to the investigation file ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigators rejected his request , stating that the applicant was entitled to have access to the file only on completion of the investigation .

On DATE the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioned her . She stated that on DATE her son PERSON had been abducted from the former medical storehouse by armed men in APCs ; that she and her relatives had complained about it to the prosecutor 's office and that the investigators had arrived at the scene on DATE . She further stated that in her presence and that of a number of her neighbours the investigators had collected from the scene a number of cartridge cases and that at some point later the investigator PERSON . had told her that the collected evidence would enable the authorities to identify the firearms used by the abductors and would assist in establishing their identities . The applicant stated that her son had most probably been abducted as a result of a special operation conducted against Mr R.Ch . , a leader of illegal armed groups , who lived near the storehouse .

On DATE the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated . He pointed out that the investigators had failed to verify whether the evidence had been collected from the crime scene and that they had not complied with the orders of the supervisory prosecutor of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigators collected from the first applicant PERSON cap , found at the crime scene by his relatives , for inclusion in the investigation file as evidence .

DATE . On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON , who stated that on TIME DATE military servicemen had conducted a special operation in a nearby street ; that they had cordoned off the area and that local residents had not been allowed to move within its perimeter . Later on the same date he had learnt that his neighbour PERSON had been taken away by armed men in military uniforms in APCs . He further stated that a group of investigators had arrived at the scene and that they had collected cartridge cases and pieces of bloody bandage for the expert evaluation .

On DATE the second applicant again complained to the PERSON prosecutor and requested to be allowed access to the investigation file ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigators refused the request , stating that the applicant was entitled to have access to the file only on completion of the investigation . The applicant was not informed about the refusal .

On DATE the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision of CARDINAL DATE and partially allowed the applicant 's complaint , stating that the applicant was entitled to familiarise himself with the transcripts of the investigative actions taken with his participation .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant 's neighbour Mr A.Ch . , who stated that on DATE he had learnt that armed men in military uniforms who had arrived in APCs had abducted his neighbour PERSON . He further stated that on the same date the investigators had arrived at the scene , found a pool of blood there and collected a number of cartridge cases left by the abductors .

On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the applicant 's neighbours PERSON and PERSON . , whose statements about the events were similar to the one given by PERSON .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant 's relative PERSON . , whose statement concerning the events was similar to the one given by PERSON . In addition , the witness stated that he had seen the cartridge cases which had been collected from the scene by the investigators . According to the witness , the cartridge cases were black , of PERSON . calibre and numbered . He thought that they probably belonged to a special type of weapon . The investigators had also collected a white sleeve stripe from the scene . The crime scene examination had been conducted in the presence of a number of local residents and that the investigators had been taken there by Mr NORP , who worked in the ROVD .

On DATE the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators .

DATE . On DATE the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated . He pointed out that the investigators had failed to comply with the orders of the supervisory prosecutor of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as well as to question former investigator PERSON . about the circumstances of the collection of the evidence from the crime scene on DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON , an expert from ORG . He stated that on DATE he had arrived at the crime scene in PERSON with the investigators from the district prosecutor 's office and the ROVD and that cartridge cases had been left by the abductors , as well as a cap with traces of blood next to it . The witness did not remember whether the investigators had collected the evidence from the scene , but he had personally taken photographs . He did not know whether the expert evaluation of the collected evidence had been carried out at all , but stated that no such evaluation had been carried out by the PERSON expert evaluation centre , where he worked at the time .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants ' relatives , PERSON and PERSON , whose statements concerning the events were similar to the ones given by PERSON . and PERSON . ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the investigators collected from the first applicant a photograph of PERSON for inclusion in the investigation file .

On DATE the FAC of GPE informed the investigators that no special operations had been conducted by their branches in PERSON on DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants ' relative PERSON . whose statement concerning the events was similar to the one given by PERSON .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators questioned police officers Mr DATE . and Mr GPE , who stated that in DATE they had worked in LOC , but they did not remember whether they had participated in the crime scene examination on DATE .

On DATE the investigators questioned the former investigator of the district prosecutor 's office PERSON . , who stated that due to the passage of time he did not remember the details of the crime scene examination of the place where PERSON was abducted , and that he did not remember the conversation with the applicants concerning the collected evidence .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the supervisory prosecutor issued a decision “ On remedial actions to be taken in connection with violations of the federal criminal procedure regulations during the investigation of the criminal case ” . He criticised the investigation of the abduction and ordered the investigators to take the following measures :

“ ... the investigation of the criminal case has been conducted superficially , without taking all necessary steps ... in violation of LAW .

... it has not been established for what reasons the investigator ORG . , who had visited the crime scene on DATE , had subsequently conducted a crime scene examination only on DATE ...

... the investigators still have not questioned the officers of the ROVD who had gone to the crime scene [ on DATE ] , that is Mr R.Kh . , PERSON

.... from the witnesses ' statements it is clear that there had been gunfire during the special operation of the military servicemen and the abduction of PERSON ... a large number of local residents had witnessed the military servicemen cordoning off the area around the former medical storehouse . However , the investigators did not take any steps to identify additional witnesses and obtain information about special operations conducted by the military units ...

.... no instructions were issued for Mr D.Sh . , the member of the investigators ' team from the military prosecutor 's office of military unit no . DATE , in order to check the theory of the involvement of military servicemen [ in the abduction ] ... ”

On CARDINAL DATE the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated . He pointed out that the investigators had failed to take a number of investigative actions and ordered the steps be taken ( see the above paragraph ) and that the investigators found and included in the investigation file the cartridge cases collected from the crime scene .

On DATE the investigators suspended the investigation in the criminal case for failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the supervisory prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated . He pointed out that the investigators had failed to take a number of investigative actions and ordered that those actions be taken ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned Mr R.Kh . and PERSON , officers of the ROVD , who stated that due to the passage of time they did not remember the details of the crime scene examination of the place where PERSON was abducted .

On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , who provided them with the names of PERSON closest friends .

On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants ' neighbours Mr A.T. and PERSON . Both of them stated that they had learnt from their neighbours about PERSON abduction by military servicemen .

On DATE the supervisory prosecutor again issued a decision “ On remedial actions to be taken in connection with violations of the federal criminal procedure regulations during the investigation of the criminal case ” . He criticised the investigation of the abduction and ordered the investigators to take a number of investigative actions .

On DATE the investigators resumed the investigation in the criminal case .

The investigating authorities sent numerous requests for information to the relevant ORG agencies and took other steps to have the crime resolved . The investigation found no evidence to support the involvement of NORP servicemen in the crime . The law - enforcement authorities had never arrested or detained PERSON on criminal or administrative charges ; no criminal proceedings had been initiated against him . No special operations had been carried out in respect of the applicants ' relative .

The Government further stated that even though the investigation had failed to establish the whereabouts of PERSON , it was still in progress .

Despite specific requests by ORG did not disclose the full contents of criminal case no . DATE , providing only “ the main documents ” from the investigation file , running to up to CARDINAL pages . They stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained personal data concerning witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

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


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

The applicant is the mother of a child born out of wedlock in DATE . The child ’s father is married to another woman and lives with her and their CARDINAL children in GPE near GPE .

On DATE ORG ( sąd rejonowy ) ordered the child ’s father to pay maintenance in an amount of CARDINAL old NORP zlotys ( PLZ ) corresponding to MONEY ( ORG ) at the exchange rate prevailing at the material time . Thereafter the applicant applied to ORG ( ORG ) for an increase in the child maintenance . On DATE the applicant and the child ’s father concluded a settlement before the ORG according to which the father agreed to pay a further DATE maintenance sum of DEM CARDINAL in addition to the sum fixed by the NORP court . Apparently the father initially paid the total maintenance sum of DEM CARDINAL on a regular basis .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , designated in GPE as ORG pursuant to ORG on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance , received a letter from the applicant dated DATE containing a request for an increase in the DATE maintenance payments . On DATE she reduced her initial claim to DEM CARDINAL .

Pursuant to the Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance , ORG , as the competent ORG on the NORP side , was informed by ORG of this request . On DATE , after having investigated the father ’s last known place of residence , ORG contacted the child ’s father and requested him to disclose his financial situation .

On DATE the child ’s father , represented by a lawyer , drew the attention of ORG to the settlement reached on DATE . On DATE he submitted information concerning his ability to pay . On DATE ORG informed ORG of the state of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that she was currently receiving DATE maintenance payments for her son from a relative of the child ’s father in an amount of MONEY ( PLN ) corresponding at the material time to DEM CARDINAL .

At DATE the competent employment office informed ORG that the child ’s father had been unemployed for a certain time and DATE that he was unemployed since DATE .

Having received no further information on his financial situation from the child ’s father despite several reminders , namely of DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG brought an action against him on behalf of the child before ORG ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG received the child ’s maintenance claim together with a request for legal aid . After an extension of the time - limit , observations of the child ’s father on the child ’s maintenance claim were received by ORG in DATE . In reply to a request of ORG of DATE , ORG set the child support , as requested by the applicant , at the amount of DEM DATE . On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s son legal aid . ORG was informed about the proceedings .

On DATE a hearing was held before ORG . The child and ORG were represented by ORG . ORG had regard to the fact that the child ’s father had been again unemployed since DATE and , with the consent of both parties , ordered the stay of the proceedings . Following the hearing , ORG informed ORG of this decision .

On DATE and DATE the competent employment office informed ORG that the child ’s father was still unemployed .

In a letter to ORG of DATE the applicant stated that the child ’s father was the owner of a house and several cars in GPE . ORG forwarded this letter to ORG and recommended an investigation into this matter by the NORP authorities , since for the time being there was no possibility under NORP law to obtain an increase in maintenance payments .

By a default judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the child ’s father to pay DATE maintenance in an amount of PLN MONEY ( MONEY ) . On DATE ORG communicated to ORG a letter of the applicant dated DATE in which she had confirmed that the amount of the child allowance had been increased and paid on a regular basis and that there were no arrears .

The Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance was adopted and opened for signature on DATE by ORG on Maintenance Obligations . The LAW came into force on CARDINAL DATE and was ratified by GPE and GPE . As an agreement on legal assistance which concerns merely the receipt and the transmission of maintenance claims , it complements the existing legal remedies existing under domestic or international law . Pursuant to the LAW , the Receiving Agencies of maintenance claims designated by the Contracting Parties shall take on behalf of the claimant all appropriate steps fort he recovery of maintenance .

The relevant provisions of the Convention read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The purpose of this Convention is to facilitate the recovery of maintenance to which a person , hereinafter referred to as claimant , who is in the territory of CARDINAL of the Contracting Parties , claims to be entitled from another person , hereinafter referred to as the respondent , who is subject to the jurisdiction of ORG . This purpose shall be effected through the offices of agencies , which will hereinafter be referred to as ORG .

The remedies provided for in this Convention are in addition to , and not in substitution for , any remedies available under municipal or international law . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall , at the time when the instrument of ratification or accession is deposited , designate CARDINAL or more judicial or administrative authorities , which shall act in its territory as ORG .

ORG shall , at the time when the instrument of ratification or accession is deposited , designate a public or private body , which shall act in its territory as ORG . ”

“ Where a claimant is on the territory of CARDINAL ORG , hereinafter referred to as the ORG of the claimant , and the respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of ORG , hereinafter referred to as the ORG of the respondent , the claimant may make application to a ORG in GPE the claimant for the recovery of maintenance from the respondent . ”

“ The Transmitting Agency shall transmit the documents to ORG of ORG respondent , unless satisfied that the application is not made in good faith . ”

“ The Transmitting Agency shall , at the request of the claimant , transmit , under the provision of LAW , any order , final or provisional , and any other judicial act , obtained by the claimant for the payment of maintenance in the competent tribunal of ORG , and , where necessary and possible , the record of the proceedings in which such order was made . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall , subject always to the authority given by the claimant , take on behalf of the claimant , all appropriate steps for the recovery of maintenance , including the settlement of the claim and , where necessary , the institution and prosecution of an action for maintenance and the execution of any order or other judicial act for the payment of maintenance .

The Receiving Agency shall keep ORG currently informed . If it is unable to act , it shall inform ORG of its reason and return the documents .

Notwithstanding anything in this Convention , the law applicable in the determination of the questions arising in such action or proceedings shall be the law of the ORG of the respondent , including its private international law . ”


Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 8

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

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

The applicants alleged that their homes , as well as other immovable properties , had been in the districts of GPE and PERSON ( northern GPE ) . In DATE , as the NORP troops were advancing , they had been forced to leave their houses and belongings .

NORP The properties claimed by the applicants were described as follows in the ORG 's final decision on the admissibility of the application .

Properties of applicant no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON :

( CARDINAL ) GPE , Livera , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL m² Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL m² , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL respectively ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , PERSON , PERSON Trikomou / PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , PERSON , NORP , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL m² , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL in total ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , PERSON , NORP , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL in total ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Mantres PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL) GPE , PERSON , Mantres PERSON , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , GPE , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , ORG DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Use : Shop A ORG , Share : No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Use : Shop D - Lordos Cyprian Court , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block A , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land and buildings , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Block D , Area CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Land and building CARDINAL shops , QUANTITY flats , CARDINAL underground stores , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block E , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , ORG , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block J , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP , PERSON , ORG . CARDINAL , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : Land under development , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land in industrial area , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , ORG . DATE , LOC , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : FAC site , Share : CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL respectively ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . DATE , ORG : . CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land under development , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building sites , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building sites , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL/CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , ORG . DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : Building site , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Land and buildings , CARDINAL shops , CARDINAL bedroom ( offices ) , CARDINAL underground stores , Share CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL . Block A , Area : CARDINAL , Use : ORG ( CARDINAL star ) ( CARDINAL rooms , reception room , bar , cafeteria , restaurant ) , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , ORG , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : PERCENT , Block A , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP , PERSON , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Use : PERSON ( CARDINAL double rooms , billiard room , sitting room ) , Share CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block A , Area : Unknown , Use : Studio No . CARDINAL ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block A , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : MONEY , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Shop No . CARDINAL- PERSON , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No.CARDINAL DATE Floor FAC , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALth Floor FAC , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No CARDINAL CARDINALth Floor , PERSON , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( DATE ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedroom ground floor - ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALth ORG ;

( DATE ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALst ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALnd ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - Ground Floor Lordos ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( DATE ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALth ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALrd ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALrd ORG , Share : CARDINAL ;

( DATE ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALth ORG , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , FAC , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : MONEY , Area : Unknown , Use : ORG , GPE facing sea furnished and rented as hotel apartments , Share : PERCENT ;

( DATE ) GPE , FAC , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Use : Shops , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , FAC , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Use : CARDINAL Flats facing the sea in ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.IV , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : PERSON Court- ORG facing sea , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.IV , Area : Unknown , Use : CARDINAL bedroom flat , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , ORG Number - Unknown , Area : Unknown , Use : ORG - CARDINAL CARDINAL bedroom flats - CARDINAL bedroom flat - CARDINAL bedroom flats , Share : PERCENT ;

( DATE ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Seaside land near GPE , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Seaside land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Seaside land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Use : CARDINAL Building sites , Share : CARDINAL ;

( DATE ) GPE , GPE , Plot and ORG . Unknown , Area : CARDINAL PERSON , Use : Land abutting main NORP GPE new road ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , ORG . Unknown , Area : CARDINAL PERSON , Use : FAC at PERSON , PERSON ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , FAC , ORG . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Use : CARDINAL Building sites in ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building land , Share : CARDINAL/CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE Street , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : unknown , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Share : PERCENT with exception of Plot No . CARDINAL where share CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , FAC , Plot No . Unknown , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Use : Building site , ORG plantation , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . Unknown , ORG : CARDINAL + CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Use : Building site No . CARDINAL , ORG , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL , Use : Building land : CARDINAL PERSON abutting main FAC , ORG , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP : PERSON , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL + CARDINAL/CARDINAL.W.CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL PERSON , Use : CARDINAL Building sites , Share : CARDINAL ;

( DATE ) PERSON , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : CARDINAL PERSON , Building sites in the vicinity of LOC , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Share : ¼.

On DATE the representative of applicant no . CARDINAL declared that his client wished to add further properties to those indicated above . The Government considered that the ORG should not take into consideration additional claims submitted after the adoption of the decision on admissibility .

Properties of applicant no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON :

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL m² , Use : Residence on CARDINALst floor and rented shops and offices on ground Floor , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Use : ORG with a garden , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , ORG CARDINAL , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Buildings & buildings sites all for rent , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block E , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : multi - storey building complex of hotel apartments all for rent , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL ORG : CARDINAL Block D , Area : CARDINAL m² , Use : Building & offices , CARDINAL of which was the applicant 's office , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , FAC , Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for development or sale , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , FAC , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Building site for development or sale , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL) GPE , FAC , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Building site for development or sale , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , FAC , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block D , Area : Unknown , Use : Building site for development or sale , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , FAC , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block D , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site for development or sale , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , FAC , Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Plot of land for development or sale , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , FAC , Registration No . CARDINAL , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Plot of land for development or sale , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , FAC , Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Plot of land for development or sale , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block B , Area : Unknown , Use : Plot of land with a well , Share : PERCENT .

Applicant no . CARDINAL also referred to CARDINAL properties which were registered in the name of his wife , PERSON . PERSON , and CARDINAL property which was registered in the name of his mother , PERSON .

- GPE , ORG , PERSON , Registration No . CARDINAL , Plot No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Residence along with other buildings and land , Share : PERCENT .

Applicant no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , claimed that his father , Mr PERSON , was the owner of the following property :

- GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL m² , Use : Residence , Share : PERCENT .

Properties of applicant no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON :

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , ORG DATE , ORG : CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.IV Block E , Area : Unknown , Use : Shop G - ground floor , ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL – Block A , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Land and buildings , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Block D , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : CARDINAL shops , CARDINAL flats , CARDINAL underground stores , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block E , Area : CARDINAL : CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , ORG . DATE , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Land under development , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land in industrial area , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL) GPE , GPE , ORG . FAC , DATE , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL . W.CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Block D , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Land under development , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block D , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Block D , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Land , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , ORG . DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Building sites , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block D , Area : CARDINAL , Use : CARDINAL shops , CARDINAL bedrooms - offices , CARDINAL underground stores , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block A , Area : CARDINAL , Use : ORG ( CARDINAL star hotel , CARDINAL rooms , reception room , bar , cafeteria , restaurant , upper ground floor ) , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , ORG , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block A , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , ORG . DATE , CARDINAL , ORG : DATE , Area : Unknown , Use : PERSON ( CARDINAL double rooms , billiard room , sitting room ) , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Shop No . CARDINAL - FAC , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALth ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALth ORG , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedroom - CARDINALnd Floor , ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : Studio No . DATE ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALth ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - ground floor , ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALnd floor , ORG , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALrd floor , ORG , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Flat No . CARDINAL bedrooms - CARDINALth Floor , ORG , Share : CARDINAL ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , GPE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site , Share : ¼.

Property of applicant no . CARDINAL , Mr ORG Evangelides :

- GPE , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : Unknown , Use : Home , Share : PERCENT according to the documents submitted at the admissibility stage , CARDINAL according to the expert report submitted with the just satisfaction claims .

Applicant no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , claimed that his wife , PERSON Hadjimanoli , was the owner of the following property :

- GPE , PERSON , Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL . IV , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Residence , Share : PERCENT .

Properties of applicant no . CARDINAL , Mr GPE :

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , Plot No . , Area , Sheet / Plan and Registration Number could not be obtained . Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , Plot No . ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , GPE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . CARDINAL , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL Sheet / Plan : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , Plot No . ORG , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , ORG . CARDINAL , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , ORG . DATE ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , Plot No . ORG , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG Registration No . DATE , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building site for sale or development , Share : PERCENT .

Applicant no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , claimed that his wife , PERSON PERSON , was the owner of the following property :

- Famagusta , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.IV , Block B , Area : Unknown , Use : the CARDINALnd floor was a residence and the ground floor were shops for rent , Share : PERCENT .

Property of applicant no . CARDINAL , PERSON ( alias Lenia ) PERSON :

- Famagusta , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : CARDINAL m² , Use : Residence , Share : ½.

Property of applicant no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON :

- GPE , ORG , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , ORG , Area : Unknown , Use : Apartment , residence ( CARDINAL flats ) , Share : PERCENT ;

Applicant no . CARDINAL also claimed that ORG and ORG , CARDINAL companies of which he and his sister Athina were the sole shareholders , were the owners of the following properties :

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Registration No . CARDINAL , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block E , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Hotel apartments for rent ( DATE flats ) and cafeteria on ground floor ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Registration No . CARDINAL , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block E , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Hotel apartments for rent ( DATE flats ) and cafeteria on ground floor ;

( CARDINAL ) GPE , PERSON , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block C , Area : Unknown , Use : Beach hotel ( CARDINAL star with CARDINAL rooms ) ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , PERSON , Plot No . DATE , ORG : CARDINAL , Block D , Area : CARDINAL:CARDINAL:CARDINAL , Use : Building consisting of ground floor shops , offices and apartments , investment income property ;

( CARDINAL ) ORG , ORG , Plot No . CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL , Block E , Area : CARDINAL , Use : Plot of land on the GPE destined for a hotel .

Applicant no . CARDINAL owned PERCENT of the shares in the CARDINAL limited companies , while PERCENT belonged to PERSON .

In support of their claim to ownership , the applicants submitted either copies of the relevant original title deeds or copies of certificates of affirmation of ownership of NORP - occupied immovable property issued by GPE after DATE . Applicant no . CARDINAL failed to produce evidence supporting his claim that he was the owner of the building site in GPE described in paragraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) above .

In its final decision on the admissibility of the application the ORG noted that the respondent Government did not challenge any of the titles regarding the immovable properties described above .

The applicants alleged that since DATE they had not been able to return to their homes and had been continuously prevented from using and enjoying their properties .


The applicant [ PERSON ] , a NORP national born in DATE , is a primary - school teacher and lives in GPE ( GPE ) . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , both of LOC .

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

The applicant was appointed as a primary - school teacher by the GPE cantonal government ( ORG d’Etat ) on DATE , having taught at ORG in GPE since the DATE .

After a period of spiritual soul - searching , the applicant abandoned the NORP faith and converted to ORG in DATE . On DATE she married an NORP national , PERSON . The marriage has produced CARDINAL children , born in DATE , DATE and DATE .

The applicant began wearing an NORP headscarf in class towards the end of the DATE - CARDINAL school year , her intention being to observe a precept laid down in the Koran whereby women were enjoined to draw their veils over themselves in the presence of men and male adolescents .

The applicant went on maternity leave from DATE to DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to DATE .

In DATE the schools inspector for the ORG district informed LOC that the applicant regularly wore an NORP headscarf at school ; the inspector added that she had never had any comments from parents on the subject .

On DATE a meeting was held between the applicant , the Director General of Primary Education ( “ the Director General ” ) and the head of the teaching - personnel department concerning the fact that the applicant wore a headscarf . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Director General confirmed the position she had adopted at the meeting , requesting the applicant to stop wearing the headscarf while carrying out her professional duties , as such conduct was incompatible with section CARDINAL of LAW .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested the Director General to issue a formal ruling on the matter .

On DATE the Directorate General for ORG confirmed its previous decision . It prohibited the applicant from wearing a headscarf in the performance of her professional duties on the grounds that such a practice contravened section CARDINAL of LAW and constituted “ an obvious means of identification imposed by a teacher on her pupils , especially in a public , secular education system ” .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to the GPE cantonal government .

The cantonal government dismissed the appeal in an order of DATE , on the following grounds :

“ Teachers must ... endorse both the objectives of the ORG school system and the obligations incumbent on the education authorities , including the strict obligation of denominational neutrality ...

The clothing in issue ... represents ... , regardless even of the appellant ’s intention , a means of conveying a religious message in a manner which in her case is sufficiently strong ... to extend beyond her purely personal sphere and to have repercussions for the institution she represents , namely the ORG school system . ”

On a public - law appeal lodged by the applicant on DATE , in which she had alleged a violation of LAW and submitted that the prohibition on wearing a headscarf interfered with the “ inviolable core of her freedom of religion ” , ORG upheld the GPE cantonal government ’s decision in a judgment of DATE , which was served on DATE .

It held , in particular :

“ Firstly , it should be observed that the appellant ’s main argument is that her clothing , consisting of items that may be purchased at the hypermarket , should be treated not as a religious symbol but in the same way as any other perfectly inoffensive garments that a teacher may decide to wear for his or her own reasons , notably for aesthetic reasons or in order to emphasise or conceal part of his or her anatomy ( a scarf around the neck , a cardigan , a hat , etc . ) . She accordingly submits that the impugned decision is tantamount to prohibiting teachers , without sufficient justification , from dressing as they please .

However , there is no doubt that the appellant wears the headscarf and loose - fitting clothes not for aesthetic reasons but in order to obey a religious precept which she derives from the following passages of the Koran .

The wearing of a headscarf and loose - fitting clothes consequently indicates allegiance to a particular faith and a desire to behave in accordance with the precepts laid down by that faith . Such garments may even be said to constitute a ‘ powerful’ religious symbol – that is to say , a sign that is immediately visible to others and provides a clear indication that the person concerned belongs to a particular religion .

What is in issue , therefore , is the wearing of a powerful religious symbol by a teacher at a ORG school in the performance of her professional duties . No restrictions have been imposed on the appellant as regards her clothing when she is not teaching . Nor does the case concern the wearing of a religious attribute by a pupil or the wearing of outlandish or unusual clothing with no religious connotations by a teacher at school .

Similarly , by LAW , freedom to manifest one ’s religion or beliefs may be subject to restrictions ( see ORG Rights’ judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE , Series A no . CARDINAL , § DATE , and GPE and PERSON , PERSON , CARDINALnd ed . , DATE , note CARDINAL on Article CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Conversely , freedom of thought is absolute ; since it can not by nature give rise to any interference with public order , it is not subject to any restrictions ( see PERSON and GPE , ORG européenne des droits de l’homme , GPE , DATE , note CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .

In the instant case , even if it is particularly important to the appellant and does not merely represent an expression of a particular religious belief but complies with an imperative requirement of that belief , the wearing of a headscarf and loose - fitting clothes remains an outward manifestation which , as such , is not part of the inviolable core of freedom of religion .

The appellant maintains that the impugned order does not have a sufficient basis in law .

Serious interferences with constitutional freedoms must be clearly and unequivocally provided for , as to their substance , by a law in the strict sense ( ORG [ ORG fédéral GPE ] , vol . CARDINAL I , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL ) , at p. CARDINAL , and vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground FAC ) , at pp . CARDINAL ) . However , where interference with freedom of conscience and belief results from a rule of conduct that is very specific or would be regarded by the average citizen as being of minor importance ( in this case , prohibiting a teacher from wearing a headscarf at school ) , the requisite basis in law can not be too precise . In such circumstances it is sufficient for the rule of conduct to derive from a more general obligation laid down by the law in the strict sense .

Furthermore , the decision appealed against concerns the appellant in her capacity as a civil servant of the GPE of GPE . Civil servants are bound by a special relationship of subordination to the public authorities , a relationship which they have freely accepted and from which they benefit ; it is therefore justifiable that they should enjoy public freedoms to a limited extent only . In particular , the legal basis for restrictions on such freedoms does not have to be especially precise . The manifold , varying nature of DATE relations between a civil servant and the authority to which he or she is answerable means that it is impossible to lay down an exhaustive list of types of conduct to be restricted or prohibited . It is therefore sufficient for the law to give a general indication , by means of indeterminate legal concepts , of the values which must be adhered to and which may subsequently be made explicit in an order or in an individual decision . However , as to their substance , any restrictions on public freedoms must be justified by the aim pursued and by the proper functioning of the institution . Lastly , observance of the principles of public interest and proportionality is to be monitored all the more rigorously where the interference with the civil servant ’s interests is serious and the basis in law imprecise ( ORG , vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL(a ) , at p. CARDINAL ; vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL ) , at p. CARDINAL ; vol . CARDINAL I a , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL , at p. CARDINAL ; SJ [ La Semaine Judiciaire ] , DATE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL ; ZBl [ PERSON Staats- und PERSON ] CARDINAL/CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL(b ) ; PERSON , ORG administratif , GPE , vol . III , DATE , note DATE . , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and note PERSON . , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; vol . I , DATE , note PERSON . , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ; PERSON , Die dienstrechtliche ORG i m GPE , thesis , GPE , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ; PERSON , ‘ PERSON der PERSON , in PJA [ PERSON juridique actuelle ] DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . , in particular p. CARDINAL ) .

In GPE , section CARDINAL of the cantonal LAW of DATE provides : ‘ The public education system shall ensure that the political and religious beliefs of pupils and parents are ORG . It also follows from ORG CARDINAL et seq . of the cantonal LAW that there is a clear separation between ORG and ORG in the GPE , the ORG being secular ( PERSON , PERSON i m pluralistischen ORG , thesis , GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL , and PERSON , op . cit . [ PERSON fédérale ] , notes CARDINAL - CARDINAL on DATE ) . In the education system , this separation is given practical effect by section ORG ) of LAW , which provides : ‘ Civil servants must be lay persons ; derogations from this provision shall be permitted only in respect of university teaching LANGUAGE .

In the instant case the measure prohibiting the appellant from wearing a headscarf that clearly identified her as a member of a particular faith reflects an increasing desire on the part of the GPE legislature , as expressed in the provisions cited above , to ensure that the education system observes the principles of denominational neutrality ( cf . LAW ) and of separation between ORG and ORG . Accordingly , even if the impugned order entailed serious interference with the appellant ’s freedom of religion , it had a sufficient basis in law .

( a ) The appellant further submits that there were no public - interest grounds for the impugned decision .

In displaying a powerful religious attribute on the school premises – indeed , in the classroom – the appellant may have interfered with the religious beliefs of her pupils , other pupils at the school and the pupils’ parents . Admittedly , there have been no complaints from parents or pupils to date . But that does not mean that none of them has been affected . Some may well have decided not to take any direct action so as not to aggravate the situation , in the hope that the education authorities will react of their own motion . Moreover , the matter has caused a stir among the public , the appellant has given numerous interviews and ORG [ cantonal parliament ] has passed a resolution along the same lines as the decision taken by the cantonal government . In addition , while it is true that the education authorities did not intervene by taking a decision immediately after the inspector had informed them of the appellant ’s clothing , that attitude should not be construed as implicit approval . It is understandable that the authorities should first have attempted to settle the matter without resorting to confrontation .

The impugned decision is fully in accordance with the principle of denominational neutrality in schools , a principle that seeks both to protect the religious beliefs of pupils and parents and to ensure religious harmony , which in some respects is still fragile . In this connection , it should be noted that schools would be in danger of becoming places of religious conflict if teachers were allowed to manifest their religious beliefs through their conduct and , in particular , their clothing .

There are therefore significant public - interest grounds for prohibiting the appellant from wearing an NORP headscarf .

( b ) It remains to be determined whether the impugned order observes the principle of proportionality ; the interests at stake must be weighed up with the utmost care ( NORP , op . cit . , note CARDINAL on DATE ) .

Here , the appellant ’s freedom of conscience and belief should be weighed against the public interest in ensuring the denominational neutrality of the school system ; in other words , the appellant ’s interest in obeying a precept laid down by her faith should be set against the interest of pupils and their parents in not being influenced or offended in their own beliefs , and the concern to maintain religious harmony in schools . Lastly , regard must also be had to the need for tolerance DATE a further element of the principle of denominational neutrality – between members of different religious faiths ...

It should , however , be emphasised at the outset that religious freedom can not automatically absolve a person of his or her civic duties DATE or , as in this case , of the duties attaching to his or her post ( ORG , vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL ) , at p. CARDINAL ) . Teachers must tolerate proportionate restrictions on their freedom of religion ( PERSON , GPE chiede la tolleranza per i simboli religiosi , FAC CARDINAL/CARDINAL , note III / DCARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL ) .

( aa ) Before the points in issue are examined in greater detail , it may be helpful to consider the solutions adopted by other countries in identical cases or by ORG in similar cases .

Freedom of conscience and belief requires the ORG to observe denominational and religious neutrality ; citizens may assert individual rights in this domain ( ORG , vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL ) at p. CARDINAL , and ground CARDINAL(e)(aa ) at p. CARDINAL ; vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL at p. CARDINAL ) . There may be an infringement of freedom of religion where the ORG unlawfully takes sides in religious or metaphysical disputes , in particular by offering financial support to CARDINAL of the protagonists ( ORG , vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL(e)(aa ) at p. CARDINAL ) . However , the neutrality requirement is not absolute , as is illustrated by the fact that national churches recognised by public law are allowed to exist ( ORG , vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL(e)(aa ) at p. CARDINAL ; vol . QUANTITY , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL ) at pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Neutrality does not mean that all religious or metaphysical aspects are to be excluded from the ORG ’s activities ; however , an attitude that is anti - religious , such as militant secularism , or irreligious does not qualify as neutral . The principle of neutrality seeks to ensure that consideration is given , without any bias , to all conceptions existing in a pluralistic society . The principle that the ORG may not discriminate in favour of or against anybody on religious grounds is general in scope and results directly from ORG DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW ( ORG , vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL(e)(aa ) at p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , ‘ LOC Religionsfreiheit’ , op . cit . [ in Revue du droit GPE ( ‘ RDS’ ) DATE I , p. CARDINAL ] at pp . CARDINAL ; idem , PERSON [ der Religionsfreiheit in der GPE ] , op . cit . [ GPE , DATE ] , p. CARDINAL ) . Lastly , the secular nature of the ORG entails an obligation to remain neutral , which means that in all official dealings it must refrain from any denominational or religious considerations that might jeopardise the freedom of citizens in a pluralistic society ( ORG , vol . CARDINAL GPE , p. CARDINAL , ground CARDINAL(e ) at p. CARDINAL , and the references cited ) . In that respect , the principle of secularism seeks both to preserve individual freedom of religion and to maintain religious harmony in a spirit of tolerance ( see PERSON , op . cit . [ ‘ PERSON in öffentlichen Räumen i m säkularen Staat’ , in RDS DATE I , p. CARDINAL ] , note CARDINAL at p. CARDINAL ; and PERSON , op . cit . [ ‘ Glaubens- und ORG , in ZBl CARDINAL/CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ] , at pp . DATE ) .

This neutrality assumes particular importance in State schools , because education is compulsory for all , without any distinction being made between different faiths . In this respect , LAW of LAW , according to which GPE shall be possible for members of all faiths to attend State schools without being affected in any way in their freedom of conscience or LAW , is the corollary of freedom of conscience and belief .

Accordingly , the attitude of teachers plays an important role . Their mere conduct may have a considerable influence on their pupils ; they set an example to which pupils are particularly receptive on account of their tender age , their DATE contact with them – which , in principle , is inescapable – and the hierarchical nature of this relationship . Teachers are both participants in the exercise of educational authority and representatives of the ORG , which assumes responsibility for their conduct . It is therefore especially important that they should discharge their duties – that is to say , imparting knowledge and developing skills DATE while remaining denominationally neutral . ”

After a lengthy discussion of the scope of the neutrality requirement , ORG concluded as follows :

“ ( cc ) In the instant case , on the one hand , as was outlined above , prohibiting the appellant from wearing a headscarf forces her to make a difficult choice between disregarding what she considers to be an important precept laid down by her religion and running the risk of no longer being able to teach in State schools .

On the other hand , however , the headscarf is a manifest religious attribute in this case . Furthermore , the appellant teaches in a primary school ; her pupils are therefore young children who are particularly impressionable . Admittedly , she is not accused of proselytising or even of talking to her pupils about her beliefs . However , the appellant can scarcely avoid the questions which her pupils have not missed the opportunity to ask . It would seem somewhat awkward for her to reply by citing aesthetic considerations or sensitivity to the cold DATE the approach she claims to have adopted to date , according to the file – because the children will realise that she is evading the issue . It is therefore difficult for her to reply without stating her beliefs . However , the appellant participates in the exercise of educational authority and personifies school in the eyes of her pupils ; as a result , even if other teachers from the same school display different religious views , the manifestation of such an image of oneself appears hard to reconcile with the principle of non - identification with a particular faith in so far as her status as a civil servant means that the ORG must assume responsibility for her conduct . Lastly , it should be emphasised that the GPE of GPE has opted for a clear separation between ORG and ORG , reflected in particular by the distinctly secular nature of the ORG education system .

It must also be acknowledged that it is difficult to reconcile the wearing of a headscarf with the principle of gender equality ( see PERSON , ‘ NORP en terre européenne’ , in FAC , pp . CARDINAL et seq . , in particular section ( d ) at p. CARDINAL ) , which is a fundamental value of our society enshrined in a specific provision of LAW ( LAW ) and must be taken into account by schools .

Furthermore , religious harmony ultimately remains fragile in spite of everything , and the appellant ’s attitude is likely to provoke reactions , or even conflict , which are to be avoided . When the various interests at stake are weighed up , regard must also be had to the fact that allowing headscarves to be worn would result in the acceptance of garments that are powerful symbols of other faiths , such as soutanes or kippas ( in this connection , the principle of proportionality has led the cantonal government to allow teachers to wear discreet religious symbols at school , such as small pieces of jewellery – an issue that does not require further discussion here ) . Such a consequence might undermine the principle of denominational neutrality in schools . Lastly , it may be observed that it is scarcely conceivable to prohibit crucifixes from being displayed in State schools and yet to allow the teachers themselves to wear powerful religious symbols of whatever denomination . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Canton of LAW of DATE provides :

“ The public education system shall ensure that the political and religious beliefs of pupils and parents are respected . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides :

“ Civil servants must be lay persons ; derogations from this provision shall be permitted only in respect of university teaching staff . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of CARDINAL DATE reads :

“ It shall be possible for members of all faiths to attend State schools without being affected in any way in their freedom of conscience or belief . ”


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in LOC prison .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of a criminal profit - making organisation and carrying out illegal activities on its behalf .

On DATE the investigating judge at ORG ordered the applicant ’s pre - trial detention .

On DATE a bill of indictment was filed against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons with ORG , accusing them of forming a criminal profit - making organisation and of being involved in incidents of murder , extortion and fraud .

On DATE the first - instance court acquitted the applicant and the other accused of the former charge on the ground that the mental elements of the crime had not been established on their parts . It followed that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the other charges brought against them and transferred the proceedings to ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court , noting that the latter had erroneously acquitted the applicant and his co - accused of the charge concerned . In its decision , the court held that all components of forming a criminal profit - making organisation had been sufficiently established against the accused .

Subsequently , the case was remitted to the first - instance court .

Following the abolition of ORG by Law no . CARDINAL , ORG resumed the criminal proceedings .

During the proceedings , ORG reviewed the lawfulness of the applicant ’s continued detention regularly at the end of each hearing or , at the latest , DATE , of its own motion , without holding any oral hearing .

At the hearing on DATE ORG decided , once more , to extend the applicant ’s continued detention on account of the reasonable grounds of suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged , and the state of the evidence in the case file .

On DATE having regard to the period he had spent in detention , ORG released the applicant .

On the basis of the range of evidence in the case file , on DATE ORG convicted the applicant of a number of crimes ; including forming a criminal profit - making organisation , murder , abduction and extortion . Subsequently , the court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment .

According to the information in the case file , the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , before which the proceedings are currently pending .

The relevant sections of LAW ) can be found in the judgment of LAW v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .