Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

C. Russo;D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer;John Freeland;N. Valticos;R. Pekkanen

Mr PERSON , a businessman , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON are brothers and sister . They are all of NORP nationality . In DATE they held PERCENT of the shares in ORG , the parent company of the ORG group , which comprised CARDINAL undertakings . ORG holding in these undertakings varied from one to the other .

By a legislative decree of CARDINAL DATE the ORG ordered the expropriation in the public interest of all the shares in the companies comprising the ORG group , including those of the parent company ( LAW . The ORG , which was the beneficiary of this measure , was to take immediate possession of the expropriated property through the intermediary of ORG .

The legislative decree was confirmed on DATE by ORG . It gave rise to an appeal to ORG ( recurso de inconstitucionalidad , Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( a ) of the LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as a group of deputies contested its constitutional validity . ORG dismissed the GPE appeal by a judgment of DATE , adopted with the President ’s casting vote ; in a dissenting opinion , CARDINAL members of the court expressed the view that the expropriation procedure followed was contrary to the LAW .

In the meantime PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , published DATE in ORG ( PERSON ) , had replaced the legislative decree . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL thereof ordered the immediate expropriation and transfer of possession of the companies concerned in similar terms to those of the legislative decree ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The aim of these measures was to protect the public interest because , in order to finance the group ’s companies , its banks had taken risks considered to be disproportionate in relation to their solvency , thereby jeopardising " the stability of the banking system and the interests of the depositors , employees and third parties " .

Between the publication of the legislative decree and that of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Mr PERSON had , on DATE , both on his own behalf and on that of the other applicants and ORG , instituted summary proceedings for the restitution of the expropriated property ( interdicto de recobrar ) . On DATE ORG ( juzgado de primera instancia ) no . CARDINAL - composed of a single judge - declared the application inadmissible on procedural grounds . The first applicant had failed to adduce evidence establishing that he had been divested of the assets as alleged and showing that prior to the impugned measure the assets in question had been in his possession .

On CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON lodged a further application concerning PERCENT of the ORG shares . The other CARDINAL applicants followed suit on DATE with regard to the remaining shares , each claiming PERCENT . The CARDINAL cases were allotted respectively to ORG nos . CARDINAL , which reopened the file , and CARDINAL .

The Counsel for the State ( Abogado del Estado ) , representing the ORG , obtained , on CARDINAL and DATE respectively , a stay of DATE in each of the CARDINAL sets of proceedings to enable him to consult his superiors . The applicants’ appeals against those decisions were dismissed on CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE the Counsel for the ORG applied for the joinder of the CARDINAL sets of proceedings . Court no . CARDINAL acceded to this request on DATE , having received the consent of Mr PERSON on DATE . On DATE CARDINAL Court no . CARDINAL ordered that the file of the proceedings before it be transmitted to Court no . CARDINAL , the other CARDINAL applicants having given their agreement on DATE . Court no . CARDINAL received the file on DATE

On DATE the first applicant had requested ORG no . CARDINAL to refer to ORG a question on the conformity of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) with Articles DATE , see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE below ) . The court held hearings on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the judge invited the parties to submit observations on this matter within DATE ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on ORG , " Institutional Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL " , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the Counsel for the ORG replied that the question was not material to summary proceedings for the examination of an action to recover possession . On DATE the Attorney General ’s department also expressed its opposition to the motion . On DATE in support of their claims the applicants submitted CARDINAL memorials , respectively CARDINAL and CARDINAL pages long .

By a decision ( auto ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG no . CARDINAL referred to ORG the question of the conformity of the above - mentioned articles of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL with LAW para . CARDINAL of the LAW inasmuch as it had not been open to the applicants either to invoke in the courts their right of property in respect of the assets expropriated by legislative action or to challenge the necessity of seizing them . In the opinion of the first - instance court , the decision on the merits of the dispute depended on the validity of the provisions in issue .

ORG found the question admissible on DATE ; it then gave notice of the question to ORG , the ORG , the ORG and the Attorney General ( Fiscal General del Estado ) , who were each entitled to file observations within the same DATE period ( Article QUANTITY para . CARDINAL of Institutional Law no . CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG received the observations of the Attorney General ’s department and of the Counsel for the ORG on CARDINAL and DATE respectively ; on DATE the Speaker of ORG indicated that the ORG did not intend to submit observations .

On DATE Mr PERSON complained of the delay in the proceedings ; he relied in this connection on LAW para . CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Convention ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . ORG joined the application ( recurso de queja ) to the file on DATE , but did not pursue the matter because the applicant lacked locus standi .

On DATE he again applied to ORG , alleging that the decision of DATE infringed LAW . He also maintained that he had locus standi in respect of the constitutional proceedings by virtue of his status as a party in the main proceedings . On DATE ORG confirmed its earlier decision .

Following the election to ORG of CARDINAL new members , on CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON challenged CARDINAL of these judges for lack of impartiality . He claimed that CARDINAL of them was well - known to be a friend of the Prime Minister and the other had already been involved in the case as adviser to the Minister of ORG and had , among other things , participated in preparing the speech to ORG on the expropriation of ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the challenge on the ground that the applicant lacked locus standi .

By a judgment of DATE , it held that ORG and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL were compatible with LAW . It found that legislative expropriation - even by means of a special statute concerning a specific case - was not contrary to LAW . Although this admittedly meant that the persons concerned suffered restrictions on the judicial protection of their rights , as they could not challenge in the courts the necessity of the seizure of their assets , it was always open to them to contest the measure in the administrative courts and to ask those courts to refer a question to FAC on the constitutional conformity of such action . In addition an appeal ( amparo ) , founded on the right to equality before the law , lay against the final decision of the administrative courts . Finally , the law in issue had in no way deprived the persons concerned of their right to appropriate compensation , a right which they could assert before ORG ( jurado provincial GPE ) - the competent administrative body - , and then in the administrative courts .

CARDINAL judges expressed the view , in a dissenting opinion , that the expropriation procedure used had deprived the applicants of their right of access to the courts .

This judgment was communicated to ORG no . CARDINAL on DATE . The following day that court dismissed the action for restitution .

On DATE the applicants appealed to the Audiencia provincial of GPE , which declared the appeal admissible on CARDINAL DATE .

The examination of the appeal began on DATE . The court communicated the file to each of the parties in turn , each party having DATE to study it . The hearing was initially set down for DATE , but was adjourned at the request of the applicants’ lawyer , who was unable to attend . As soon as the hearing opened on DATE , the applicants sought a stay of the proceedings until ORG and ORG had had an opportunity to rule on their application to GPE . In the alternative , they requested the LOC provincial to refer to ORG a new question concerning the compatibility of LAW and CARDINAL of Law no . DATE with ORG DATE . CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The court ordered an adjournment so as to allow the applicants to submit documents in support of their first request . On DATE they supplied a translation of the correspondence from ORG . After a further hearing on DATE , the court refused to stay the proceedings . On DATE it overruled the applicants’ objection to this decision .

On DATE it had invited the parties and the Attorney General ’s department to give their views on whether the above - mentioned question as to constitutional conformity should be submitted to ORG ( Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of Institutional Law no . CARDINAL , see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . After having received their comments , the Audiencia provincial referred the question to ORG on DATE .

The latter court declared it admissible on DATE , then communicated it to the institutions of the ORG listed in LAW para . CARDINAL of Institutional Law no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Speaker of ORG replied on DATE that the ORG did not intend to submit observations ; on DATE and the following day respectively , Counsel for the ORG and the Attorney General ’s department filed their submissions .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the contested articles of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL to be compatible with ORG and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the LAW . CARDINAL judges expressed a dissenting opinion .

The Audiencia provincial was notified of this on DATE and set down a hearing for DATE . On that occasion the applicants made a further application for the proceedings to be stayed . The court dismissed their appeal by a judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged an application for the interpretation of that judgment ; their application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant Articles of LAW are worded as follows :

" NORP shall be equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way on account of birth , race , sex , religion , opinion or any other condition or personal or social circumstance . "

" CARDINAL . Every person has the right to obtain the effective protection of the judges and the courts in the exercise of his legitimate rights and interests , and in no case may he be denied that protection .

Likewise , all persons have the right of access to the ordinary courts as predetermined by law ; to the defence and assistance of a lawyer ; to be informed of the charges brought against them ; to a public trial without undue delays and with full guarantees ; to the use of evidence pertinent to their defence ; not to make self - incriminating statements ; not to declare themselves guilty ; and to the presumption of innocence .

" CARDINAL . Private property rights ... are recognised .

CARDINAL may be deprived of his property and rights , except on justified grounds of public interest against proper compensation and in accordance with the provisions of the law . "

The jurisdiction of ORG is defined as follows :

" ORG has jurisdiction over the whole of NORP territory and is competent to hear :

( a ) appeals against alleged unconstitutionality of laws and regulations having the force of law ... ;

( b ) individual appeals for protection ( recurso de amparo ) against violation of the rights and liberties referred to in LAW para . CARDINAL of the LAW , in the circumstances and manner laid down by law ;

( c ) conflicts of jurisdiction between the ORG and ORG or between GPE themselves .

Only the rights guaranteed under ORG DATE LAW may be the subject of an amparo appeal , which is not therefore available in respect of the right to property secured under LAW .

" If a judicial body considers , in the course of proceedings , that a regulation with the status of law which is applicable in those proceedings and upon the validity of which the judgment depends may be contrary to LAW , it may bring the matter before FAC in the circumstances , manner and subject to the consequences to be laid down by law ; such consequences shall in no case be suspensive . "

" CARDINAL . The judgments of the Constitutional Court shall be published in ORG , together with any dissenting opinions . They have the force of res judicata with effect from DATE following their publication , and no appeal may be brought against them . Those which declare the unconstitutionality of a law or of a rule with the force of law , and all those which do not merely recognise an individual right , shall be fully binding on all persons .

Unless the judgment rules otherwise , that part of the law not affected by unconstitutionality shall remain in force . "

LAW of LAW on ORG is entitled " On questions of constitutionality submitted by judges and courts " and is worded as follows :

" CARDINAL . When a judge or court , ex proprio motu or at the request of a party , decides that a provision having the status of law which applies in the case in issue and on the validity of which his or its decision depends might be contrary to the LAW , he or it shall refer the matter to ORG , in accordance with the provisions of the present law .

Judges or courts shall not refer such a question until the case is ready to be tried and they must do so within the time - limits laid down for ruling on the case . They must specify which law or provision having the status of law is alleged to be unconstitutional and which article of the LAW is considered to have been breached . They must also state the precise reasons why the outcome of the proceedings depends on the validity of the contested provision . Before taking a final decision on whether to refer the question to ORG , the judge or court must first hear the views of the parties to the proceedings and the Attorney General ’s department in order to give them the opportunity , within a single and non - extendable DATE time - limit , to submit any observations they may wish to make concerning the pertinence of the question . The judge shall then announce his decision , without taking any further steps , within DATE . No appeal shall lie against this decision . However , the question as to constitutionality may be raised again in subsequent proceedings until the judgment has become final . "

" A question as to constitutionality referred to ORG by a judge or court must be accompanied by a certified copy of the main file and , in so far as there are any , the observations provided for in the preceding article . "

" CARDINAL . On receipt of the file the Constitutional Court shall follow the procedure laid down in paragraph CARDINAL of the present article . However , the ORG may declare the question inadmissible , in a decision stating its reasons , after hearing only the Attorney General , when the procedural requirements are not satisfied or when the question is manifestly ill - founded .

The Constitutional Court shall give notice of the question to ORG and the ORG via their respective Speakers , to the Attorney General and via ORG to the Government . If the question raises an issue concerning a law or another provision having the status of law adopted by ORG , notice thereof shall also be given to its legislative and executive authorities . All these authorities may appear before the court and submit observations on the question referred within a single and non - extendable DATE time - limit . When this time - limit has expired , the court shall give judgment within DATE , except when it considers a longer period , which may not exceed DATE , to be necessary , in which case it must state the reasons for its decision . "


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE region , GPE .

On an unspecified date , the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno - miskyy ORG against her former employer , ORG ( Управління по гасінню териконів в/о „ Артемвугілля ” ) , to recover salary arrears . On CARDINAL DATE the court awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( “ UAH ” ) ( GPE Центрально-міського районного суду PERSON ) .

On DATE the Tsentralno - miskyy ORG ( ORG виконавчої служби Управління юстиції Центрально-міського району PERSON ) initiated the enforcement proceedings . On DATE the applicant was paid UAH CARDINAL . From DATE until DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed because of the bankruptcy proceedings instituted against the debtor . On DATE the applicant was paid further ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

On an unspecified date , the applicant instituted proceedings in the Tsentralno - miskyy ORG of the town of ORG against the Tsentralno - miskyy ORG for failure to enforce the court judgment in her favour . On DATE the court rejected the applicant 's claim , finding no fault had been committed by ORG . The court stated that ORG had acted properly in enforcing the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The court noted that the debtor 's property was in a tax lien and that , according to the PERSON on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property , on DATE a ban on the forced sale of assets belonging to undertakings in which the ORG held PERCENT of the share capital had been introduced .

On DATE the ORG submitted that the applicant had further received ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL in DATE . The applicant did not contest these submissions . According to the applicant , the rest of the sum due to her remains unpaid .

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


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . On DATE the fourth applicant , Mr PERSON , passed away . By a letter of DATE his wife , PERSON and his sons , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , informed the ORG that they wished to continue the present application in his stead . The remaining applicants live in GPE .

Prior to DATE all CARDINAL applicants occupied leading positions in ORG ( the government ) and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG opened preliminary investigation against CARDINAL former members of ORG and the Secretariat of ORG of the ORG , including the CARDINAL applicants and PERSON and PERSON O. GPE , whose applications relating to the same criminal proceedings were decided by ORG in DATE and DATE ( PERSON v. GPE , judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE , and GPE v. GPE , no.CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . On an unspecified date the applicants were charged with abuse of office and misappropriation on the ground that DATE they had participated in the adoption of decisions to provide financial assistance or extend loans , totalling CARDINAL old NORP levs , to foreign countries and political parties .

DATE and DATE the prosecution authorities carried out a number of investigations .

After DATE the criminal proceedings were stayed for undetermined periods of time on CARDINAL occasions . The last such occasion was on CARDINAL DATE . The proceedings were resumed on DATE .

By a decision of the GPE city public prosecutor ’s office of DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicants were terminated . The prosecution found that the actions of the accused , including the CARDINAL applicants , had not been punishable under domestic criminal legislation at the time : the funds in question had been included as expenditure in the ORG budget , the decisions had been adopted without exceeding the powers granted to the accused under the existing legislation and the provision of such aid was in conformity with the ORG ’s international obligations . Reference was made to this ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( cited above ) where it had been concluded in respect of the same domestic proceedings that :

“ ... no evidence has been adduced to show that such decisions were unlawful , that is to say contrary to GPE ’s LAW or legislation , or more specifically that the decisions were taken in excess of powers or were contrary to the law on the national budget ” ( § CARDINAL ) .

On DATE and DATE the decision of the GPE city public prosecutor ’s office to terminate the proceedings was upheld by the PERSON appellate public prosecutor ’s office and ORG , respectively .

NORP Under GPE Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) individuals can in certain circumstances seek damages for unlawful acts of the authorities . The LAW does not mention excessive length of proceedings as a ground for an action for damages . Nor is there any practice in the domestic courts of awarding damages for excessive length of proceedings .


CASE OF TRPESKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

He worked in a company for production of chemical products ( “ the employer ” ) .

On DATE a second - instance commission of ORG ( “ the Fund ” ) declared the applicant completely and permanently incapacitated due to a work - related eye - disease . On DATE the applicant 's employment terminated ipso jure . On DATE the ORG determined the amount of his disability pension .

NORP In other proceedings that ended with ORG decision of DATE , it was established that the applicant had contracted a work - related eye - disease .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against his employer requesting the then ORG to award him compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary loss sustained as a result of his disease .

On CARDINAL hearings listed DATE and DATE the applicant specified his claim , submitted new evidence or requested additional expert examination .

On DATE ORG ( “ the first - instance court ” ) dismissed the applicant 's claim finding that the damage to his eye was to be regarded as a disease and that the employer could not be held responsible for the applicant 's disease . It based its decision on a range of evidence : the expert report of ORG DATE ; its supplement of DATE ; the oral evidence of the ORG 's experts produced on a hearing of DATE ; the statements of CARDINAL co - workers and a physician working with the employer . On DATE ORG quashed ORG this decision instructing the lower court to obtain an alternative expert opinion from a hospital since the ORG 's experts were not eye - disease specialists .

On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicant 's claim again . The alternative expert examination confirmed that the damage to the applicant 's eye could not be regarded as work - related . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG an appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) which was dismissed by a decision of DATE . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


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

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

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

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was put on a waiting list with a view to provision with state housing . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was put on a waiting list for participation in cooperative housing construction . On DATE it was established that the applicant was entitled to a CARDINAL - room cooperative flat .

On DATE ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) ruled that the applicant be provided with a CARDINAL - room cooperative flat regardless of his order of priority on the waiting list . The regard was had to the fact that the applicant , who was married with CARDINAL minor children , was living in a room in a communal flat .

On DATE ORG ruled that the applicant may obtain the membership in the housing construction cooperative ZhSK-CARDINAL ( the “ NORP ” ) .

On DATE ORG quashed its decision of CARDINAL DATE noting that no CARDINAL - room flat was available in the ORG to be given to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim against ORG with ORG GPE seeking provision of a cooperative flat for his family .

On DATE the court held a preparatory hearing . It sent a request to the ORG to obtain certain documents and scheduled the first hearing for DATE .

On DATE the applicant partially modified his claims . He claimed that the payment for the cooperative flat be made by the ORG due to the authorities’ failure to fulfil their obligation with regard to provision of his family with housing . He also lodged claims against the ORG and asked the court to obtain certain documentary evidence from it . The court adjourned the hearing until DATE pending receipt of the documents .

The court adjourned the hearing on DATE due to the applicant ’s failure to appear . The court further adjourned the hearing of the matter on DATE and CARDINAL May and DATE , granting the applicant ’s request to obtain new documentary evidence and serve process on a witness .

On DATE the court adjourned the hearing pending receipt of the documents requested earlier . The next hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE . It was adjourned due to the failure of the applicant ’s representative to appear .

On DATE the applicant asked the court to obtain certain documentary evidence . The court granted the applicant ’s request and adjourned the hearing until DATE pending the receipt of the documents .

On DATE the respondent ’s representative failed to appear . The court further adjourned the hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE due to the applicant ’s failure to appear .

The court heard the matter and dismissed the applicant ’s claims on DATE . The court relied on the decision issued by ORG DATE where it noted that no CARDINAL - room flat was available . The court also dismissed the applicant ’s monetary claims . Neither the applicant nor his representative were present .

On DATE the St. Petersburg City Court upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE the applicant brought another claim with ORG against ORG . The applicant alleged that the respondent party had failed to take certain measures to ensure his membership in a housing construction cooperative . The first hearing took place on DATE . It was adjourned pending receipt of documentary evidence requested by the applicant .

The next hearing took place on DATE . The applicant challenged the authenticity of the documents received and asked the court to obtain certified copies . The court granted the request and adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE the respondent ’s representative failed to appear and the court adjourned the hearing until DATE .

The court further adjourned the hearing of the matter on CARDINAL DATE due to the failure of the applicant ’s representative to appear , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE pending receipt of the documents requested by the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE due to the applicant ’s failure to appear .

On DATE the applicant challenged the authenticity of the materials in the case file . The court granted the request lodged by ORG to obtain original copies of the said materials .

The applicant further asked for adjournment of the hearing on DATE and CARDINAL DATE pending consideration of his complaint by another court and his representative ’s illness respectively . On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s representative did not appear and the hearings were adjourned .

The court adjourned the hearing on DATE granting the applicant ’s request for other documentary evidence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims . GPE upheld the judgment on appeal on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought another action against ORG and other state bodies and a housing construction cooperative seeking annulment of an agreement signed by them .

On DATE ORG of GPE discontinued the proceedings due to the applicant ’s repeated failure to appear in court . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request to resume examination of the claim . On DATE GPE upheld the decision on appeal .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against the ORG and ORG seeking enforcement of the decision of DATE to obtain the membership in the ORG and be provided with a CARDINAL - room flat .

On DATE the Moskovskiy District Court of GPE discontinued the proceedings noting that the applicant ’s claims were similar to the ones already pending before ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision and remitted the case for examination on the merits .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . The court noted that there was no CARDINAL - room flat available in the ORG to be granted to the applicant . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a new examination . The court held that ORG had relied in its findings only on the testimony of the chairman of the ORG that was not confirmed by any documentary evidence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . On DATE GPE upheld the judgment .

On DATE the applicant challenged a decision of ORG DATE concerning his entitlement to a cooperative flat .

On DATE the court adjourned the hearing due to the failure of the applicant ’s representative to appear . On DATE the court further adjourned the hearing pending receipt of the documentary evidence requested by the applicant . The documents were not delivered on time and the court adjourned another hearing on DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court adjourned the hearing due to the failure of the applicant ’s representative to appear .

On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s claims . GPE upheld the said judgment on appeal on DATE .


CASE OF UKRAINIAN MEDIA GROUP v. UKRAINE

Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , the ORG “ ORG ” ( ORG “ PERSON ” ) , is a privately owned legal entity , registered and situated in GPE , GPE . It owns a DATE newspaper DATE ( газета “ NORP ” ) .

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

On DATE The Day published an article by PERSON PERSON entitled “ Is this a second PERSON for poor PERSON , or a NORP version of GPE ? ” The article read as follows :

“ Epigraph : All of this is about her , our PERSON as well as yours . About the position that a progressive socialist , PERSON , may or may not hold - depending on which of the scenarios from NORP [ the name of the street where ORG is situated ] will eventually win the “ tender ” offered by office No . CARDINAL . Certainly , allowing for a certain margin of error , it will be possible to forecast which of the nominees would be easier to manipulate from the said office .

The first version [ concerning her position ] was predicted by DATE as far back as the spring , and was based on the assumption that , from the point of view of NORP , PERSON [ leader of ORG ] was not “ nice or bright ” enough for the role of “ a scarecrow ” in the pre - election scenario à la russe : “ the reformer against the red threat ” . PERSON , with her “ Uranium mines ” , and PERSON are much more impressive and the best political scientists and sociologists told us , therefore , that she was the only person able to defeat PERSON in the second round of the elections with a predicted PERCENT of the poll . Political scientists and sociologists were soon proved wrong and PERSON rating substantially decreased . However , this is due perhaps to the freedom of scientific debate and discord around the main body [ that of the President ] rather than PERSON real ratings . Of course , it is hard to believe that CARDINAL of the country 's population , watching a TV programme where PERSON battered a deputy who had been knocked to the floor with the help of PERSON 's fists , would choose not to call an ambulance and medical help , but instead would race to vote for “ progressive socialism ” . It is evident , however , that the “ Zhirinovsky percentage ” of PERCENT is a normal result in a normal country , but not one where the society is mainly composed of sick people and beggars ... PERSON special role was confirmed by the “ painful ” recounting of the number of signatures in support of her [ registration as a candidate ] at ORG ( ORG ) . DATE the highly respected President of the ORG , Mr PERSON , told us how wrong ORG was when it ignored the required CARDINAL signatures and compelled the ORG to register the nominated candidates for the position of President in neglect of this norm . But only recently the same NORP shared his insights with the public which , if translated from the confidential - emotional language used , could sound like this : all the candidates registered by the ORG ( acting on its own ! ) should not have been registered , because if the signatures submitted by the nominees had been subjected to serious scrutiny , none of the candidates , including PERSON , would have withstood verification . What then was the criterion ? Was it a presumption on the part of the ORG and its President about which scenario would be the best at the pre - election stage ? For the ORG as well , apparently , it is not a secret which discussions preceded the decision of NORP to register PERSON , who had problems for various reasons . Perhaps PERSON , who left our country prematurely and in a very untimely manner , might be able to disclose the details ? Or maybe PERSON 's election agent , PERSON PERSON , who fought for and won PERSON 's registration ?

As was discovered , it was not the apprehension , in the event of her failure to register , of having PERSON as a wild force that could break loose which influenced the final decision of NORP , but the scenario “ PERSON v. PERSON ” , which is urgently being modified because of ORG [ PERSON 's ] alleged unreliability . The issue concerns the certainty repeatedly demonstrated by the Speaker [ of ORG ] PERSON , that they [ Bankova ] would manage to agree with PERSON , and the steady position of ORG ( CPU ) ideologists who believe that the CPU does not want a clear loss , or a clean victory ( referring to GPE ) . This provoked even more commotion in NORP . The NORP scenario that was used in the past is rusting away , and there is nothing else ! Therefore an improved scenario was introduced : taking PERSON to the second round , nominating her against PERSON - with the certainty that the fear of having PERSON and PERSON managing the country would line everyone up to vote for PERSON , including the left - wing .

The boys at NORP are desperate gamblers because their venture might be answered adequately . For instance , the headquarters of all the main candidates who have already dropped out of the competition might negotiate and decide to let their supporters vote freely . Of course , they would not ask them to support PERSON , but to work in such a way that the motto “ Anyone but PERSON ! ” would be as topical as ever . Ultimately , it is no less immoral than the scenarios of PERSON 's headquarters . And if our “ green ” democracy has to have “ the mumps ” , the earlier the better : the acquired immunity would be stronger , as children 's diseases have to be contracted in childhood .

In a country under President PERSON it would be both frightful and enjoyable , but not for long . Like in the GPE under PERSON . And what country - wide insanity that was / ... / At the beginning it was bizarre and then funny . He would come out , yell in front of the people , so self - assured , artistic , his voice so confident , metallic , everything clear , elderly ladies screaming and sobbing , trying to kiss his hands ... And not a single institution obeying him . He seized an automatic gun and rushed to replace the head of the police . [ He ] replaced him . But nobody cared about the new one . Then he rushed to the ORG [ Security Service of GPE ] . And here they spoke to him politely , and they threw the people he had just appointed down the stairs and promised they would have something torn out ... ORG flies and the differently coloured opposition is becoming united , the gangsters who left are returning , public servants from housing maintenance offices up to Government officials are sabotaging [ him ] , PERSON [ ORG ] is imposing restrictions on presidential powers - all of them are gathering against ORG , life is not getting any better , his personal charisma is falling to pieces , people are sobering up . Some people say : this was the LOC , it was backed by GPE . But we are not going to dwell upon the matter of who backed it and when they appeared . However , the point is that ORG is not the ORG . Had there been an army , everything would have been over sooner , citizens ... PERSON of course will seek to order General PERSON about and make him resign . This would be something worth seeing ... And PERSON will become such a friendly body , and constitutional amendments will be adopted without delays ! The heyday of parliamentarism ! Are pre - term presidential elections likely to be held in spring ? PERSON , may God give her health , will finally put an end to disputes about whether the NORP soil can bear its own “ Newtons ” in skirts . And the only prospective evil as a result of this experiment might be the complexities that will confront PERSON as a female candidate during the next elections ... Some people say : and what about the country and the people ! ? Ladies and gentlemen , do not prevent people from exercising their own sacred right to vote , if you are NORP . And do not prevent the same people from facing the consequences of their choice and their responsibility for it ...

However , we are unlikely to see the full extent of the people 's joy or our PERSON 's triumph , as long as there remain a few “ real raving madmen ” in NORP . As a result , apparently , the blueprint of the NORP headquarters will be developed directly along the lines of the “ NORP scenario ” . And here we will discover great news about who can claim the role of GPE in our country , who had been appointed to ORG prior to the elections and later surrendered to the incumbent President [ PERSON ] , and thus largely determining the latter 's victory during the new elections . According to an information source , the scenario of “ the homegrown GPE ” emerging before the first round of the elections is as follows . At DATE it is planned to launch a mass media campaign supporting the idea of setting up ORG ( Alas ! But PERSON seems to have already mentioned the need to revive this structure ) . In DATE , at the numerous requests of the workers , the President will issue a decree setting up this committee . It will start functioning immediately . CARDINAL of the events that will be widely covered by the media is to be held in conjunction with the ORG and is to prevent violations of electoral law . At the same time , the media will launch an anti - PERSON campaign ( only the pro - presidential media will move with this idea and they will be fully involved in it ) . And then the President , in accordance with the plan , should make a speech sternly demanding that the dirty propaganda campaign against the people 's defender be terminated . The people will applaud the President and then , at DATE , he will appoint the grateful PERSON as the Head of ORG . This would be followed by an official statement of candidates - PERSON and PERSON - as a result of which CARDINAL candidate will remain . PERSON will be dancing NORP . It means that she is still unlikely to hear the “ swan song ” of her political career , but the NORP script writers are rubbing their hands with glee , waiting for the electoral campaign to be over with a feeling that their strategic duty has been completely fulfilled . One should admit that the scenario is not weak . The matter to be addressed is the extent to which PERSON is ready for the originality of those who are using her , and to what extent she is aware of the level of cynicism of the system that has been preparing the background for DATE to allow this progressive socialist to demonstrate her brilliant abilities in accounting and auditing on behalf of the people ? The chain is getting tighter and the leash is getting shorter ... However , the PERSON - guided PERSON was quickly dismissed from his post and he eventually landed , with his [ PERSON 's ] help , in rich territory . The headquarters ' script writers , commissioned by the NORP oligarch , are unlikely to have the same long - term and prospective intentions for our PERSON . However , it is quite possible that , even perceiving the danger of this for herself , PERSON will be compelled to understand that she has been made an offer she can not refuse . It is hardly a coincidence that the GPE governor , PERSON , is telling the media that he financially supported the LOC 's [ ORG of GPE ] ORG . Then PERSON will also recollect how he promoted PERSON in GPE . And here Mr Rabinovych , who started work on PERSON ratings ( “ Rabinovych v. Moroz ” ... despite the feelings that Rabinovych may arouse in the majority of the population ) , following the advice from ORG , will recollect the LOC 's prospects ... And then it will be corroborated that PERSON had been helping PERSON not only because their family and that of Mr Razumkov were on friendly terms . It is possible that no one will have any more doubts that the cool opposition member is just “ a loudspeaker ” of the administration of the President of GPE , whose role is that of ORG ( as some slanderers would say ) and is employed and paid personally . The role is simple : you might say whatever you like , but act “ correctly ” , without making the Father [ the President ] grieve , whilst undermining his enemies .

So , if the theme of the “ People 's audit ” is outlined , the NORP plan will be launched . And PERSON 's competitor will be PERSON . The electoral palette will increasingly gain more clear - cut contours . PERSON and PERSON [ MPs ] have initiated another electoral block , an alliance that constitutes an alternative to that of the “ CARDINAL whales ” : Marchuk - Moroz - Tkachenko – the reasons are quite understandable . However , PERSON 's “ Rukh ” [ ORG ] appears and disappears now and then . But definitely there are still NORP [ MP ] and other loyal followers of the tactics of PERSON [ leader of another fraction of the “ GPE at the time ] , even though they were knocked down [ by PERSON 's “ Rukh ” ] . Fidgeting behind the ORG authorities on an ideological underlay with anti - left colouring . It will be determined here , DATE , which CARDINAL of the “ Rukhs ” is better prepared for defending the national - patriotic masses . Poor PERSON who is used to various kinds of “ kydalovo ” ( deception ) could not possibly answer the question : “ If they promise you the TIME 's office , will you go against PERSON ? ” After the centre - right had been joined by the “ green ” GPE [ a member of ORG ] whose main idea was to avoid PERSON 's anger while not working for him , there were no more doubts that the ideology of the block lies in self - preservation . And PERSON , an “ unidentified object ” who joined them , has crafty ideas himself . The general perception has not therefore changed .

Thus , only the “ triple alliance ” of Marchuk - Moroz - Tkachenko joined by “ an active bayonet , ” PERSON , still remains within NORP 's firing line , and on this alliance depends how successful all the candidates will be in NORP 's game aimed at ORG 's victory . ... Sometimes it really seems that our country deserves PERSON , or PERSON ... Are we poor PERSON indeed ? And had there not been the fear that the election results might be declared null and void - such fears being unanimously expressed by the pro - presidential people - it might have been possible to think that they were all right ... ”

On DATE PERSON ( leader of the LOC ) lodged a complaint with ORG of GPE against DATE , seeking compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage because the information contained in the article published on CARDINAL DATE was untrue and damaged her dignity and reputation as a Member of ORG . On DATE the ORG of GPE allowed her claims in part and ordered DATE to pay Ms Vitrenko UAH CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . It also found that the whole article published in DATE was untruthful , since the applicant had failed to prove the truth of the information which it had published . It further ordered the newspaper to publish rectification of this information , within DATE , in one of the forthcoming issues of DATE , alongside the operative part of the judgment of DATE . In particular , the court held :

“ ... the court disagrees with the arguments raised by the defendants , since the information disseminated by them in DATE of CARDINAL DATE was untrue . This article was published on page CARDINAL in the column entitled “ Details ” and “ Prognosis ” . However it was not specified to the reader of the newspaper how he or she could distinguish “ the prognosis for the future ” from the facts and , moreover , the “ details ” ...

... the above - mentioned section DATE of ORG has a specific list of circumstances which exempt the editorial board from liability . This list does not include a “ prognosis with the details ” , and therefore the liability of the defendants is engaged regardless of “ whether they intended to evaluate the developments in the course of the previous presidential elections in GPE ...

... the expressions “ a second PERSON for poor PERSON or a NORP version of GPE ” , “ our and your PERSON , “ a scarecrow ( strashylka ) ” , “ a loudspeaker of ORG , acting as PERSON in GPE ” , as used by the author , may be [ regarded as ] ... the author 's imagination and are not “ generally accepted political rhetoric ” . They are , moreover , the author 's own “ value judgments ” ...

... Also , the court disagrees ... that this article pertains to PERSON as a candidate for the Presidency of GPE , but not to [ her ] private life ... The article pertains not to PERSON herself but deals with the existence of certain plans of the “ NORP ” [ the administration of the President of GPE ] and how PERSON could be manipulated by it ... The court considers that the personal life of the plaintiff as a person , a human being , is closely connected with her political views and beliefs and with her role in the political structure of society . Therefore the role of a “ scarecrow ” which , according to the prognosis of the defendant , PERSON PERSON , was planned by ORG of GPE , is untruthful . The court considers this to be the product of the author 's imagination ...

The court considers that such “ value judgments ” defame the honour and dignity of the plaintiff and her reputation , whereas she is the leader of the LOC , ... a member of PERSON , and a candidate for the position of President ... This means that the article concerns her both as a public and a private person . ... ”

On DATE ORG upheld this decision . In particular , it stated that the findings of the ORG of GPE were correct since the appellants had failed to prove , and the court did not establish , that the disseminated information was true .

On DATE The Day published an article by Ms Tetiana PERSON entitled “ On FAC and the Little Sparrow : Leader of the CPU as ORG 's Last Hope ” . The relevant extracts of the article read as follows :

“ ... ORG was allegedly visited by a person resembling PERSON , PERSON 's election agent , who allegedly told the CPU leader : “ If you withdraw from the race [ presidential elections ] , you will lose your head . You withdraw your name from the list [ of candidates ] DATE - you will be buried DATE ...

... they are ready to go to the very “ end ” , following the resolutions of the ORG [ of ORG ] and after PERSON 's election , to collaborate with him and have the Government delivered to them as a present for their services ...

... ORG might be offended by DATE again . In vain . Here a parable has just dawned on me . In bitter weather a little sparrow was frozen while flying and collapsed . A cow was passing by and a cowpat fell directly onto the little sparrow . He warmed up , put his little head out and started chirping , in a gleeful mood . And at this point a cat enters , sneaks up on him and there is no more little sparrow . The moral : if you get into dung , just sit there and do not chirp . And remember , not everyone who excretes on you is your enemy and not everyone who pulls you out of the dung is your friend . I apologise for being so straightforward . ”

NORP In DATE Mr PERSON ( the leader of ORG ) lodged a complaint with the Minsky ORG of GPE against DATE and PERSON PERSON , alleging that the information contained in the publication was untrue . He also sought to defend his honour , dignity and reputation and to obtain compensation for non - pecuniary damage . On DATE the ORG of GPE partly allowed Mr PERSON 's complaints and ordered DATE to pay him UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . It also ordered the newspaper to publish a rectification of the information found to be untrue alongside the operative part of the judgment of DATE . In particular , it held that :

“ ... in examining this case , account has to be taken of the fact that PERSON Petro M. PERSON is a political leader and the article relates to the area of his activity as a politician , and not that of an average citizen . ...

As to the other extracts from the article referred to by the plaintiff in his claim , the court considers that they were found to be untrue during the court hearing , since the defendant could not provide the court with evidence proving the truth of the information contained in the publication . ...

The defendant 's representative maintained during the hearing that these extracts were merely presumptions of the author of the article . However , he failed to confirm this . The court is sceptical , since from the text of the article it can not be understood that the journalist refers to her statements as presumptions and that the reader has to identify the text as a presumption . The comparison of the plaintiff to “ a little sparrow ” is in his [ the plaintiff 's ] opinion humiliating . Moreover , there was no evidence of an existing agreement before the elections between PERSON Petro PERSON and the officials in office as implied by the headline of the article “ The Leader of the CPU as PERSON 's Last Hope ” .

... this [ non - pecuniary ] damage resulted from the fact that the article was published before the presidential elections , in which the plaintiff was also a candidate . Therefore ... he was compelled to explain to the electorate the issues raised in the article . ... The applicant considers that this article accused him of betraying his party members , colleagues and the electorate . Damage was inflicted on him as a man of honour , taking into account the metaphors that the author used in her article . Thus , ORG published information that it had not verified and disseminated data that was untrue ... and PERSON invented information that was not true and disseminated it .... ”

The court also concluded that the following should be adjudged untrue :

“ ... the headline of the article on the first page “ On FAC and the Little Sparrow : The leader of the CPU as ORG 's last hope . ”

... that ORG was allegedly visited by a person resembling PERSON , PERSON 's election agent , who allegedly told the CPU leader : “ If you withdraw from the race [ presidential elections ] , you will lose your head . You withdraw your name from the list [ of candidates ] DATE - you will be buried DATE ” ...

... they are ready to go to the very “ end ” , following the resolutions of the ORG [ of ORG ] and after PERSON 's election , to collaborate with him and have the Government delivered to them as a present for their services . ... ”

On DATE ORG upheld this decision . In particular , it stated that the Minsky ORG of GPE came to the correct conclusion that the respondent in this case had not proved the truth of the information disseminated about PERSON PERSON . It also held that the conclusions of the court were based on the case file and complied with the legislation in force .

The recent ORG Recommendation “ Freedom of Expression in the ORG in LOC ” ( No . CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) concerned the persecution of the media and journalists in GPE following publications criticising politicians and officials in power .

The relevant extracts from the PACE Resolution No . DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG refers to its LAW ( DATE ) , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , DATE ) , CARDINAL ( DATE ) and in particular to LAW ( DATE ) on the honouring of obligations and commitments by GPE , adopted by the ORG on DATE . ...

The ORG condemns the very high incidence of violence against journalists ( the most prominent among them being the killings of PERSON in DATE and PERSON in DATE ) , and the low number of such crimes which have been solved . It is also concerned by the continued abuse of power , particularly in the provinces , with regard to taxation , regulations and police powers in order to intimidate opposition media . It reiterates its call on the NORP authorities to conduct their media policy in a way which will convincingly demonstrate respect for the freedom of expression in the country . ...

The ORG is concerned about the presidential administration 's attempts to establish ever tighter control over the ORG - run , oligarch - controlled and independent media . In this respect it welcomes the resolution adopted by PERSON on DATE on the issue of political censorship in GPE and , in particular , the amendments adopted on DATE concerning a number of laws dealing with freedom of expression , as the aim of these amendments is to offer better legal protection to journalists , particularly in relation to the question of their liability for the dissemination of information and their access to official documents . It expresses the firm hope that these provisions will be effectively implemented at all levels of administration ( national , regional and local ) . ”

Relevant extracts from ORG read as follows :

“ ... PERSON whereas freedom of expression in GPE is coming under further threat , and an increasing number of serious violations against independent media and journalists are taking place , such as direct pressure and intervention from official services against certain media , arbitrary administrative and legal actions against television stations and other media outlets and harassment of , and violence against , journalists ,

... CARDINAL . Calls on the Government of GPE to respect freedom of expression and undertake sustained and effective measures to prevent and punish interventions against a free and independent media , arbitrary administrative and legal actions against television stations and other media outlets and harassment of , and violence against , journalists ... ”

The relevant extracts from the Report of CARDINAL DATE concerning freedom of expression read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Freedom of expression and media freedom in GPE , which have already been the subject of expert reports and comments by the NORP authorities ... , remain a matter of major concern . ...

... CARDINAL . Some of the new provisions of the new Civil Code that came into force at DATE ( text not available ) also seem to pose problems with regard to freedom of expression and information , according to information gathered by ORG . This concerns in particular LAW , which stipulates that “ negative information shall be deemed to be false ” and LAW , which provides that “ information communicated by the ORG organs is truthful ” . These provisions could lead journalists to engage in self - censorship in order to avoid prosecution under them . This is another cause for concern , even though NORP courts have not yet ruled on the provisions , given the recent entry into force of the new LAW .

Specific recommendations : ... The NORP authorities should implement ORG recommendations aimed at aligning the NORP laws concerning the media with the relevant ORG . They should ensure that any draft law dealing with freedom of expression and information strictly respects the standards , as set out in particular in LAW . ”

Relevant extracts from the LAW read as follows :

“ ... Everyone is guaranteed judicial protection of the right to rectify incorrect information about himself or herself and members of his or her family , and of the right to demand that any type of information be rectified , and also the right to compensation for material and moral damage inflicted by the collection , storage , use and dissemination of such incorrect information . ”

“ Everyone is guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech , and to the free expression of his or her views and beliefs .

Everyone has the right to freely collect , store , use and disseminate information by oral , written or other means of his or her choice .

The exercise of these rights may be restricted by law in the interests of national security , territorial indivisibility or public order , with the purpose of preventing disturbances or crime , protecting the health of the population , the reputation or rights of other persons , preventing the publication of information received confidentially , or maintaining the authority and impartiality of justice . ”

Relevant extracts from LAW read as follows :

“ A citizen or an organisation shall be entitled to demand in a court of law that information be refuted if it is not true or is set out untruthfully , degrades their honour and dignity or reputation , or causes damage to their interests , unless the person who disseminated the information proves that it is truthful .

... Information disseminated about a citizen or an organisation that does not conform to the truth and causes damage to their interests , honour , dignity or reputation shall be subject to rectification , and pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage can be recovered . A limitation period of DATE shall apply to claims concerning rectification of such data and compensation . ”

Relevant extracts from the new Civil Code read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A person shall have the right to compensation for moral damage in the event of an infringement of his / her rights . ”

“ ... CARDINAL . Any kind of negative information disseminated about a person shall be considered untruthful .

... CARDINAL . A person , whose rights were infringed ... shall have the right to a response and rectification of information in the same mass media source and in accordance with the procedure established by the law .

... Rectification of untruthful information shall not depend on the actual guilt of the person that disseminated it .

The untrue information shall be rectified in the same manner as it was disseminated . ”

Relevant extracts from LAW provide :

“ ... Liability for the infringement of data legislation shall be borne by the persons found guilty of infringements such as :

... dissemination of information that does not correspond to the truth ;

... dissemination of information that is untrue or defames a person 's honour and dignity ; ... ”

Relevant extracts from the Printed Media ( Press ) Act provide :

“ ... A journalist is obliged to :

... CARDINAL ) provide objective and truthful information for publication ; ... ”

“ ORG , legal entities and ORG bodies and their legal representatives have the right to demand rectification of information published about them or data that does not correspond to the truth or defames their honour and dignity .

If the editorial board does not have any evidence of the fact that the information published by it corresponds to the truth , it has to rectify this information at the request of the plaintiff in the next issue of the printed media or to publish a rectification on its own initiative . ... ”

“ The editorial board and journalists are not liable for the publication of information that is untrue , defames the honour and dignity of citizens and organisations , infringes their rights and lawful interests or constitutes abuse of the freedom of activity of the media and the rights of journalists if :

CARDINAL ) NORP this information was received from the news agencies or from the media owner ( co - owners ) ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the information contains responses to a formal request for access to official documents or to a request for written or oral information , provided in accordance with LAW ;

CARDINAL ) the information is a verbatim reproduction of any official address of the officials of ORG bodies , organisations and the citizens ' unions ;

CARDINAL ) the information is a verbatim reproduction of materials published by other printed media which refer to that information ;

CARDINAL ) the information contains secrets that are specifically protected by law , but the journalist received this information lawfully . ”

The relevant extract from Resolution No . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE “ on ORG in Cases of Compensation for Moral ( non - pecuniary ) Damage ” reads as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL . ... The critical assessment of certain facts ... could not serve as a basis for allowing claims for compensation for non - pecuniary damage . However , if other rights of a person protected by law were violated ( for instance confidential information was disseminated without his / her consent ) , then this could lead to the award of compensation for moral damage [ by the court ] ... ”

The relevant extract from Resolution No . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE “ on the Application of ORG , ORG ” reads as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL . In accordance with LAW the defendant [ in a defamation case ] has to prove that the information disseminated by him corresponds to the truth . The plaintiff only has the obligation to prove that the defendant has disseminated defamatory information about him . The plaintiff also has a right to provide evidence of the untruthfulness of such information . ”

The relevant extract from the ruling of ORG of DATE in the case of PERSON v the newspaper ORG ( “ Family and ORG ” ) reads as follows :

“ ... when considering cases that concern the protection of honour and dignity [ the courts ] have to take into account that the critical assessment of facts and deficiencies , thoughts and opinions , [ or ] critical reviews of works of art , can not serve as a basis for allowing compensation claims for moral damage . ”

The Government have provided the ORG with the following domestic court decisions that from their point of view contained an assessment of value judgments :

judgment of DATE of ORG of Kyiv ;

judgment of DATE of the Radiansky ORG of Kyiv ;

judgment of DATE of the Shevchenkivsky ORG of GPE ;

judgment of DATE of ORG of GPE ;

judgment of DATE of ORG of GPE ( upheld by ORG on DATE ) ;

judgment of DATE of the ORG of GPE ;

judgment of DATE of ORG ;

judgment of DATE of ORG of Mykolayiv ;

judgment of CARDINAL DATE of the GPE ORG of Sevastopol ;

extracts from the judgments with regard to the application of LAW by the domestic courts , as referred to in the book of the Deputy President of ORG , Judge PERSON ORG , “ Application of the ORG by the NORP courts ” ( pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The relevant extract from ORG statistics for DATE reads as follows :

“ In DATE there were CARDINAL cases that concerned the protection of honour , dignity and business reputation . Of these , CARDINAL applications were considered on the merits , which constitute PERCENT of the total number of cases in which the proceedings were terminated ; the claims were allowed in CARDINAL cases , or in PERCENT ( PERCENT ) of the total number of cases , with a decision being adopted . MONEY were awarded to the plaintiffs in these cases . There were CARDINAL claims lodged with the courts against mass media sources , of which CARDINAL cases were considered on their merits , CARDINAL claims were allowed , or PERCENT ( PERCENT ) of the cases considered , and ... judgments were delivered in these cases . The total amount of the claims allowed was ORG CARDINAL . ”

“ In DATE there were CARDINAL cases that concerned the protection of honour , dignity and business reputation considered by the courts ; CARDINAL cases were considered on the merits and the proceedings terminated . In CARDINAL cases the claims were allowed ( PERCENT [ PERCENT ] of the total number of cases ) and judgment adopted . The total amount of claims allowed came to ORG CARDINAL . Among the aforementioned cases , there were CARDINAL cases initiated on the basis of the claims lodged against the mass media , that is PERCENT less than in DATE . Of these claims , CARDINAL cases were considered and CARDINAL applications were allowed , that is PERCENT [ PERCENT ] of the cases that were considered . The total amount of the claims allowed was ORG CARDINAL . ”

The systematic “ legal harassment ” of the NORP media by the ORG and the latter 's attempts to control the media , and information disseminated by the media , are mentioned in the report of ORG ( DATE , PERSON . CARDINAL , No . CARDINAL(D ) ) .

Relevant extracts from the Report of ORG provide :

“ a. Freedom of Speech and Press

... ORG has downgraded the country 's rating from “ partly free ” to “ not free ” because of the ORG censorship of television broadcasts , continued harassment and disruption of independent media , and the failure of authorities to adequately investigate attacks against journalists .

... The use or threat of civil libel suits continued to inhibit freedom of the press , but the number of cases during DATE reportedly decreased .

... On DATE , the PERSON passed a law that set limits on the amount of damages that can be claimed in lawsuits for libel . The law requires that the plaintiff deposit a payment of PERCENT of claimed damages in the form of collateral , which is forfeited if the plaintiff loses the lawsuit . Additionally , the law waives press responsibility for inoffensive , non - factual judgments , including criticism . Despite these measures , ORG indicated concern over the “ astronomical ” damages awarded for alleged libel .

... Government entities used criminal libel cases or civil suits based on alleged damage to a “ person 's honour and integrity ” to influence or intimidate the press . According to ORG ( ORG ) , CARDINAL actions were brought against the mass media and journalists for libel during DATE . ORG estimated that government officials initiated PERCENT of these suits . LAW allows anyone , including public officials , to sue for damages if circulated information is untrue or insults a person 's honour or dignity .

The new Civil Code , enacted during DATE and scheduled to take effect in DATE , provides that negative information about a person shall be considered untrue unless the person who spread the information proves to the contrary . Journalists and legal analysts have expressed concern that this Code will have a negative impact on freedom of speech and the press . ”

Relevant extracts from ORG in GPE ( paragraph CARDINAL “ Freedom of expression and defamation ” ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . GPE : ... In DATE there were CARDINAL suits against the media , for more than UAH CARDINAL billion , of which MONEY were brought by public officials . Reportedly MONEY of these cases were bogus and brought to influence the media 's output . In DATE it was reported that ORG ' [ DATE ] newspaper had been sued CARDINAL times for a total of MONEY . The situation was not dissimilar in DATE . Some lower courts still order that newspapers ' accounts be frozen pending a trial in civil defamation cases , and newspapers ' assets may well be confiscated to coerce the media into paying fines .

... Consequently , many journalists publish anonymously , using a pseudonym to avoid being personally targeted when addressing politically sensitive issues . In particular , journalists feel that , although criticism of PERSON and ORG is relatively safe , the opposite is true for criticism of the President .

Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Civil Code ... defamation contains the double requirement that a statement be false and harms one 's reputation in order to be regarded as defamatory , in compliance with international standards on defamation . However , it also includes protection against harm to other “ interests ” , which is too vague and therefore open to interpretation and possible abuse : other interests , such as privacy , should be protected through specific provisions , while the exact scope of a defamation law needs to be clearly and narrowly defined .

... Moreover , LAW states that refutation in defamation cases can be claimed if a statement is false or lowers one 's reputation ...

... Instead , in order to exercise the right of reply in a defamation case , the information has to be false and harm one 's reputation . ... LAW ) , on compensation of moral damage ' , states that : “ Moral damage caused to citizens or organisations by another person who violated their legal rights is paid by the person who caused the damage if this person can not prove that moral damage was not his / her fault . Moral damage is compensated in pecuniary or other material form according to the ruling of the court irrespective of compensation of property damage . ... The provision places the burden of proof on the person who disseminates the information .

A positive development has been the passing of the LAW “ on the Introduction of Changes to Certain Laws of Ukraine which Guarantee LAW ” , stating that public bodies which take defamation suits can only claim refutation of false information but not compensation . The same law introduced a provision “ on State Support of ORG ” , stating that , in cases taken by public officials against the media , moral damages may be imposed only when malicious intent by a journalist is proven , and that non - pecuniary remedies , such as refutation , should have priority over pecuniary ones . It is clearly stated that journalists should benefit from a defence of reasonable publication .

Journalists have been receiving better legal representation in court and have therefore been able to win more cases , also thanks to the legal training received from international organisations .

... LAW ... to come into force on DATE , establishes that “ negative information disseminated about a person shall be considered false ” . “ Negative information ” is to be understood as any form of criticism or description of a person in a negative light .

This provision is not only a breach of the right to freedom of expression but turns reality on its head to the extent that something that is true but negative will be considered false . It can not possibly be justified as necessary , since it will often be a matter of great public interest to disseminate negative facts , as well as opinions , about people . The exposure of corruption , for example , may well require both .

... To conclude , the situation remains critical ... GPE have achieved some progress towards media freedom , yet journalists face immense challenges on a DATE basis , which can make engaging in professional journalism a dangerous endeavour . Coalitions and solidarity among members of the journalistic profession , media groups and civil society , with the support of international institutions , are vital in strengthening the democratic processes and for the creation of an environment in which the media can flourish . Cross - border regional initiatives can be instrumental in this context , by facilitating the transfer of experience and know - how , so as to mutually strengthen democratisation movements . ”


CASE OF NEUMEISTER v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)

Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The PERSON case was referred to the Court on DATE by ORG hereinafter referred to as " the Commission " ) and on DATE by ORG ( hereinafter referred to as " the Government " ) . The case has its origin in an application against GPE submitted to the Commission by an NORP national , Mr. PERSON , in DATE . The applicant complained , inter alia , of the length of time he had spent in detention while on remand from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , that is , DATE , and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , that is DATE , DATE and DATE .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG , while rejecting CARDINAL other complaints of the applicant , held that there had been a breach of LAW ) ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW in that the detention of PERSON had been continued for longer than a reasonable time ( first point of the operative part of the judgment and CARDINAL of the reasoning ) .

On DATE , ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE severe imprisonment for aggravated fraud ; the CARDINAL above - mentioned periods of detention on remand were reckoned as part of the sentence . ORG upheld that decision on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , PERSON presented to ORG a claim for a provisional overall sum of MONEY compensation in reparation of the damage he had allegedly sustained by reason of the violation so found by ORG . On DATE , the GPE ( revenue department of the Attorney General ’s office ) informed him that GPE could not accept that he was entitled to such compensation since the conditions required therefore under the law in force were not satisfied .

Considering this reply as a final decision under the law , the applicant addressed his claim to the ORG on DATE , referring to the judgment of DATE and to Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) of the LAW . He stated that , by reason of his second detention on remand ( CARDINAL DATE ) , he had suffered considerable financial loss , not to mention personal injustice and humiliation . He alleged that the sudden cessation of his services had ruined his business ; that not only had he lost important business contacts , but contracts in hand had had to be left unfulfilled or carried out incompletely ; that this had resulted in a serious decline of the PERSON company and an almost total loss of the company ’s capital . Reserving his right to present further claims , PERSON for the time being estimated the loss at QUANTITY at least . He requested the Commission to accept his claim and to initiate the proceedings provided in this connection .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON , ORG of the Commission in the earlier proceedings , transmitted the applicant ’s request to the Registrar .

After consultation with the judges , the President of the ORG directed that the examination of this aspect of the case should be conducted by the ORG which had given judgment on DATE . Mr. O’Donoghue , a substitute judge since an additional drawing of lotson CARDINAL DATE , has been called upon to sit by reason of the death ( DATE ) of Mr. PERSON , President ; Mr. PERSON has become President of the ORG . In DATE Mr. PERSON , appointed by the Government in DATE as an ad hoc judge when the elected judge of NORP nationality , Mr. PERSON , was prevented from attending , found in agreement with the President , Mr. PERSON , that he was no longer able to sit to hear the case ; in these circumstances Mr. PERSON has resumed ex officio his place in the ORG . Mr. PERSON , a member of the ORG in DATE and of ORG until DATE , was not able to exercise his functions ( Rule CARDINAL ) : he was appointed as a member of the Government of GPE and subsequently as ambassador , and he has been replaced by Mr. PERSON , substitute judge .

On the instructions of the President of the ORG , the PERSON requested the Agent of the Government to present his written observations on the question of the application of LAW ) in this case . The Registrar received these observations on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , ORG informed the Registrar that they would not reply to the Government ’s observations for the time being but would do so later , in writing or at the hearing , as the ORG might decide .

By telex message received on CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the ORG that he had " initiated negotiations with a view to reach a friendly settlement of Mr. PERSON ’s claims for compensation " ; he explained that " the aim of these negotiations ( was ) a pardon concerning the remaining part of the sentence Mr. PERSON would have to serve " ; the Agent asked the ORG to adjourn the oral hearings " since the proceedings to bring about such settlement take DATE " .

On being consulted by the President of the Chamber through the Registrar , the Delegates of the ORG stated that they had " no objections to make " , observing that the applicant had informed them that he agreed to an adjournment . On DATE , the President of the ORG adjourned the hearings .

The ORG has since received additional information concerning the events which preceded the dispatch of the telex message . On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer , Mr. PERSON , had an interview at ORG to negotiate an agreed settlement . DATE a meeting took place at ORG , with Mr. PERSON and his client on one side and the Agent of the Government and several senior officials on the other . An arrangement was contemplated on that occasion , but its precise terms have been disputed before the ORG : according to the ORG , PERSON undertook to waive all claim to monetary compensation if the remainder of his sentence were remitted by an act of grace ; the applicant ’s account is that there was also mention of GPE abandoning claims for money it was entitled to bring against him arising out of his conviction .

In DATE , the President of the ORG directed the Registrar to make enquiries about the progress of the negotiations for an agreed settlement which had begun in DATE

By letter received on DATE , the Agent of the Government informed the Registrar that " the Federal President of GPE on DATE ( had ) granted a pardon to PERSON in respect of the unserved part of the sentence pronounced by ORG in GPE on DATE ... This pardon ( had ) the effect that PERSON ( was ) to be considered under probation concerning the remainder of his sentence for the time of DATE " .

The observations and documents filed subsequently with the ORG make it possible to reconstruct the events which occurred DATE and DATE :

( a ) On DATE , PERSON addressed to ORG a request for remission of sentence by an act of grace . Referring to the proceedings pending before the ORG and to the negotiations between the Agent of the ORG and his lawyer , he stated , inter alia , that it was clearly impossible to wipe out ( ungeschehen zu machen ) the detention on remand which he had had to endure from DATE to DATE , but that partial reparation would be possible in his case if GPE forbore to insist on his serving the remainder of his sentence . He added that for his part he was prepared to waive all claims for material reparation ( materielle Ersatzansprüche ) against GPE . In an addendum of DATE , he stressed that he had offered in his letter of CARDINAL May to withdraw , in the event of his obtaining the settlement under negotiation , the claim for compensation which he had made to the Commission .

( b ) In a report of DATE prepared for the Federal President of the Republic after consultation with ORG and ORG , ORG stressed that conditional remission , by an act of grace ; of the part of the sentence remaining unserved would be a more adequate reparation than monetary compensation . ORG , to whom the report was submitted subsequently , made a note on the file to say they shared the opinion of ORG : the procedure contemplated seemed to them the most likely to show the public that GPE was disposed to observe its obligations under the LAW . The Federal Chancellery , for its part , made comments along the same lines and noted that PERSON would be agreeable ( ware einverstanden ) to this form of reparation and would waive ( würde verzichten ) all claims to monetary compensation .

( c ) It was on the basis of this proposal that , on DATE , the Federal President of GPE granted PERSON remission of the part of his sentence remaining unserved , i.e. , DATE , DATE and DATE . The decision , which bears the signature of the President and is countersigned by the Minister of Justice , is worded as follows : " I assent to the proposal for pardon , PERSON . ORG . CARDINAL , for PERSON " .

Remission has the effect of a conditional sentence subject to a probationary period of DATE . In order to conserve the benefit of the act of grace , PERSON must comply with the conditions – and them alone - laid down in LAW of LAW on Conditional Sentences .

On the instructions of the President of the ORG , the PERSON invited ORG , on DATE , to present by DATE any observations they might have to make on the letter received on DATE from the Agent of the Government ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In a reply of DATE , the Delegates enquired " what ( was ) , in ORG opinion , the significance of the information submitted by the Government in relation to Mr. PERSON ’s claim under LAW ) of the Convention " .

On DATE the President of the ORG , through the Registrar , accordingly requested the Government to provide explanations in writing by DATE as to the significance they attributed to that information for the purposes of the proceedings pending in the case before the ORG .

In a letter received on DATE , the Agent stressed that the judgment delivered by ORG on DATE had been " an essential element motivating the Federal President ... to grant the pardon to Mr. PERSON " ; he furthermore expressed the opinion - which , he stated , had been " shared by Mr. PERSON ... during the conversations which ( had ) preceded the granting of the pardon – that this pardon ( had ) to be considered as a form of compensation in the largest sense of the word for any disadvantages Mr. PERSON might have experienced through the violation " of LAW ( LAW ) .

On the instructions of the President of the ORG , the PERSON invited ORG , on DATE , to send him by CARDINAL May their observations on that letter .

The Delegates’ reply was received at ORG May : the applicant ’s lawyer , Mr. PERSON , had confirmed to the Secretary of the Commission that his client had been granted a pardon : Mr. PERSON was now expecting " an agreement to be concluded between ORG or the GPE and Mr. PERSON by which GPE ( would ) waive any claims against Mr. PERSON resulting from " his conviction and sentence on DATE .

Again at the direction of the President of the Chamber , the PERSON wrote to the Agent of the Government and the Delegates of the Commission on DATE .

He requested the Delegates to send him by DATE any observations they wished to make on the CARDINAL latest communications received from the Agent ( paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

In his letter to the Agent of the Government the Registrar asked him to present , also by DATE , his observations on the above - mentioned letter of DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) and informed him that the President of the ORG especially wished to have explanations concerning the negotiations mentioned in that letter , their progress and the nature of GPE claims against the applicant arising out of the judgment of DATE .

In their reply which was received on DATE , the Delegates considered that " pending a final clarification of the ... situation " they could do no more than communicate to the ORG information which they had received from Mr. PERSON . That information concerned the conversations which had taken place on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) and also a further discussion on DATE between another of the applicant ’s lawyers , Mr. PERSON , and several senior NORP officials , including the Agent of the Government .

In a letter received at ORG DATE , the Agent of the Government provided the ORG with additional information from his side relating to the discussions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ( paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . He stated that the granting of the pardon on DATE " was not connected with any request by the competent NORP authorities that Mr. PERSON should waive his claim for monetary compensation , since on the one hand such a waiver appeared to be a logical consequence of the whole arrangement and , on the other hand , an act of grace by the Head of ORG could not be considered to be part of any ‘ deal’ " . The Agent concluded by stating that his " Government ( was ) not in the position to take any further measures in respect of any new requests of Mr. PERSON aiming at a friendly settlement of the case . If the ORG " - unlike the Government -"should not consider the act of grace ... as sufficient and just compensation it ( had ) to be assumed that the attempt to reach a friendly settlement ( had ) ultimately failed " .

It was through the CARDINAL last - mentioned replies that the ORG was apprised of the meeting which had taken place on DATE ; further details concerning it have been furnished since .

At that meeting , Mr. PERSON stated that his client was now withdrawing all his claims connected with the proceedings before the ORG on condition that GPE waived all possible claims against Mr. PERSON which might have arisen out of the facts leading to his conviction .

As to what transpired later in the discussion CARDINAL divergent versions have been given to the ORG . According to the ORG , the parties agreed to inform the organs at GPE " of the mere fact of the granting of the pardon to Mr. PERSON " and the Agent referred Mr. PERSON " to the competent finance authorities " in so far as the additional requests were concerned . The applicant maintains on his side that on DATE it was agreed in principle that GPE would drop all claims it had against him arising out of his conviction in return for which he himself would waive his claim for compensation pending before the ORG .

However that may have been , it was immediately after the meeting that the Agent of the Government informed ORG granting of the pardon to the applicant .

On the instructions of the President of the Chamber , the Registrar invited the Delegates of the Commission , on DATE , to send him in writing by CARDINAL DATE any observations and submissions they wished to make . In their reply , received at ORG , the Delegates submitted certain observations on the applicant ’s claim for compensation . They also transmitted to the ORG a letter of CARDINAL DATE which they had received from PERSON and which , in view of the adjournment of the hearings fixed for CARDINAL DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) , they had not thought appropriate to forward to ORG at the time .

In that letter , the applicant gave further particulars of , and developed , his initial claim ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He estimated the total damage allegedly caused to his firm at MONEY at the very least , and the loss of his salary and allowances as manager as additional damage of not CARDINAL schillings . He further claimed that he had spent in vain QUANTITY in lawyers’ fees in order to obtain his release . Finally , he considered that he was entitled to CARDINAL schillings damages for the injustice he had suffered . He pointed out , however , that the total amount he claimed , MONEY , should be reduced somewhat as his business losses resulting from his arrest had been calculated on estimated gross profits . Noting that the damages due to him by GPE considerably exceeded the total sum originally claimed , he reserved his right to make a corresponding increase in his claim and in addition he asked for payment of interest at an official rate of MONEY per annum .

In accordance with the directions of the President of ORG , on DATE , invited the Agent of the Government to send him by DATE any observations he wished to make . On DATE and at the request of the Government , the time was extended to DATE .

The Government ’s memorial entitled " further additional observations " was received at ORG on DATE . When transmitting it DATE to the Delegates of the Commission , the Registrar , in accordance with the instructions of the President of the ORG , requested them to submit as soon as convenient and if possible by DATE , any available evidence concerning the applicant ’s claim which they might think useful to furnish to the ORG . The Delegates submitted in reply , on DATE and with some brief comments , several documents which PERSON had appended to his above - mentioned letter of CARDINAL DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) , including the balance sheets of the PERSON company for DATE .

On DATE and on the instructions of the President of the ORG , the PERSON requested the Agent of the Government to send him , if possible by DATE , a copy of the act of grace of DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to indicate on the same occasion the condition or conditions to which the remission of the applicant ’s sentence was made subject unless the same appeared from the terms of the act of grace itself .

That document and the information requested were received at ORG on DATE and DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL ( c ) above ) .

By Order of DATE , the President of the ORG decided that the oral hearings should open on DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

The public hearings took place on CARDINAL and DATE in FAC at GPE .

There appeared before the Court :

- for the Commission :

- for the Government :

and

The ORG heard the addresses and submissions of these representatives as well as their replies to questions put by several judges .

The Government produced to the ORG a copy of the request for pardon made on CARDINAL DATE and several other documents relating to the meetings and consultations which had preceded the decision of the President of the Republic taken on DATE ( paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The Delegates of the Commission produced copies of correspondence exchanged on DATE and CARDINAL DATE between Mr. PERSON and ORG . They , furthermore , handed in to the ORG a statement of account dated DATE in which PERSON put his costs for ORG fees at CARDINAL schillings .

On DATE , the Registrar informed the Agent of the Government that the President had fixed at DATE the time within which the Agent was to file any observations in writing he might wish to make on the above mentioned statement of account of DATE . Observations were received at ORG DATE and DATE .


Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) remanded him in custody on suspicion of murder .

Subsequently , the applicant ’s pretrial detention was extended by decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE , and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .

The domestic courts justified the applicant ’s pretrial detention by the existence of strong evidence against him and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed , as well as by the need to secure the proper course of the proceedings . The authorities emphasised that the applicant had to undergo psychiatric observation at the hospital and that a number of expert reports had to be obtained .

On an unspecified date the applicant was indicted for murder , namely , intentionally strangling his former wife .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and CARDINAL years’ deprivation of public rights .

Pending appeal , on DATE ORG ( FAC ) dismissed a request by the applicant to lift the preventive measure and decided to further extend his detention .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the judgment in the part concerning the deprivation of public rights and upheld the remainder of the judgment .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the first and second - instance judgments and remitted the case to ORG .

In a separate decision of DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention , relying on the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed .

On DATE ORG dismissed a request by the applicant for the preventive measure in question to be lifted and decided to further extend his detention . To justify the applicant ’s protracted detention the court reiterated the grounds which had previously been relied on and noted , in addition , that the applicant ’s chronic illness or his family situation did not warrant his release on humanitarian grounds . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

Similarly , on DATE the Łódź Regional Court dismissed a request by the applicant for the preventive measure in question to be lifted and decided to further extend his detention .

Subsequently , the applicant ’s detention was extended by decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE and DATE .

To justify the extension of the applicant ’s detention the courts relied on the original grounds given . Moreover , the authorities noted that the proceedings could not be completed for objective reasons , such as the fact that samples of the victim ’s nails , which were necessary to perform DNA tests , had been lost and that it was necessary to examine a few more witnesses .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal in the case .

Throughout the entire proceedings the applicant was represented by legal counsel of his choice ; initially by CARDINAL attorneys and later , upon the remittal of the case , by CARDINAL .

The applicant was detained in FAC on the following dates :

- from DATE to DATE ;

- from DATE ;

- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and

- from DATE to DATE .

Subsequently , the applicant was held in PERSON , FAC and ORG . On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC , where he currently remains .

The applicant submitted that ORG was overcrowded and that the sanitary and hygienic conditions were inadequate . Initially , the applicant was held with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell designed for QUANTITY persons . Subsequently , he was transferred to a cell which measured CARDINAL ORG and was shared by CARDINAL persons , including the applicant .

The remand centre had not been renovated and was dirty . There was mould on the walls and the cells were infested with bugs . The furniture was scarce and shabby .

In his correspondence with the ORG , the applicant repeatedly submitted that unspecified persons had drugged him before his trials , subjected him to electric shocks and used various auditory and visual methods in order , in the applicant ’s opinion , to force him to plead guilty to the crime he was charged with .

Lastly , the applicant , who suffers from psoriasis and had been , in the past , treated for hepatitis C , asserted that throughout his detention in various penitentiary facilities he had not received adequate medical care and had not been able to follow the diet he had been prescribed by his doctor when he was at liberty . The applicant maintained that his health had significantly deteriorated since his arrest . He did not , however , specify what ailments he was currently suffering from and did not provide any medical records to support that submission .

The applicant submitted that he had complained to the penitentiary authorities about different aspects of his detention but had never received any reply .

The file contains a copy of a letter issued by an unspecified authority on DATE . It is confirmed in the letter that the applicant had lodged numerous complaints with the administration of PERSON and FAC . It is further explained that the applicant ’s complaints that the authorities had subjected him to electric shocks and caused him to have auditory and visual hallucinations were considered manifestly ill - founded .

A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing conditions of detention in GPE and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that their conditions of detention are inadequate are set out in the ORG ’s pilot judgments given in the cases of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) on DATE ( see § § DATE and § § CARDINAL respectively ) . More recent developments are described in the decision given by ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) on DATE ( see § § DATE ) .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pretrial detention ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other , socalled “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . GPE , § § DATE , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .