Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 8 with regard to initial period;No violation of Art. 8 with regard to later period;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

On DATE ORG ( PERSON обласний суд ) convicted the applicant of the murder of QUANTITY persons and the attempted murder of CARDINAL person and sentenced him to death .

On DATE the Administration of the Zaporozhie Isolation Block of ORG of ORG ( адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ PERSON областi ) decided to move the applicant to a separate cell to await execution , in accordance with the ORG - trial ORG ( hereinafter “ the Act ” ) .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON суд ) upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , on an extraordinary appeal by the applicant 's mother , found that the national courts had properly assessed all the evidence adduced before them and had reached sound legal conclusions . He held that the appeal was manifestly ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant filed a plea for pardon with the President of GPE .

On DATE and DATE the Vice - President of ORG refused CARDINAL further extraordinary appeals by the applicant 's wife and mother .

A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of GPE on DATE . In a judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG held that the provisions of LAW concerning the death penalty were contrary to LAW . The death penalty was abolished and replaced by life imprisonment by Act no . CARDINAL of DATE .

On DATE ORG commuted the applicant 's death sentence to CARDINAL of life imprisonment .

The evidence of the applicant was taken by ORG in PERSON no . CARDINAL on DATE . ORG was composed of Judges PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The statements of certain witnesses were taken in PERSON no . CARDINAL . The evidence taken may be summarised as follows :

The applicant was admitted to PERSON no . DATE before ORG visit . Previously , he had been detained in PERSON no . CARDINAL , where he had stayed for DATE . On DATE of ORG visit , he confirmed that he had been informed about his rights and obligations . However , the practice in PERSON no . CARDINAL had been different . He described it as follows : “ Whenever a commission from GPE came - they do not care much when the local commission from the supervising prosecutor 's office comes - the prison authorities distributed a sheet of paper with rules , posted it on the walls and DATE took it off . Although the paper was not on the walls in the cells , we were informed about it . ”

NORP In PERSON no . CARDINAL , the applicant changed cells DATE and DATE , having generally been detained alone . This practice had still been in force DATE . According to him , the windows in his cells had been covered and there was no water tap . The cells for CARDINAL inmates were the same size as those in FAC no . CARDINAL , but those for CARDINAL inmate were much smaller , even twice as small , as the cell where he was detained on DATE of the Delegates ' visit . The applicant acknowledged that he had been detained alone at his own request . However , when the prison administration of PERSON no . CARDINAL had insisted that he share the cell with somebody else , he had agreed .

NORP The applicant had not been officially informed about the moratorium on execution of death sentences , learning about it from the radio and other inmates .

When he had been transferred to death row , CARDINAL inmates had been taken out to be executed . The executions had been carried out in FAC . Although inmates had rarely been informed about any execution taking place , they could observe that the inmates concerned had been handcuffed and taken away without their personal belongings , which had been recovered by the prison administration officials later .

According to the applicant , cells in PERSON no . CARDINAL had been very cold in the wintertime until the heating was switched on and had been hot in the summertime .

NORP The applicant had repeatedly complained of the conditions of detention in FAC no . CARDINAL , but had always been told that there were no financial resources for improving them . He alleged that certain of his written complaints had not reached their addressees .

He had suffered from stomach aches and high acidity , but the prison medical staff had not given him medication because they did not have any , and had prescribed the wrong drugs , which had not helped him . A medical assistant had usually seen inmates once or DATE , registering those wishing to see a doctor . However , a visit to the doctor had been permitted upon application to the prison governor . The applicant had visited the doctor outside his cell once or twice during his stay in FAC no . CARDINAL . He said that he had probably applied to see a doctor only once because , on the first occasion , he had been examined not by a general practitioner but by a psychiatrist , and had been told that his stomach was fine , even though during the examination he had felt pain in his stomach . The applicant had then been allowed to have dietary food for DATE .

The applicant said that some of his teeth had not been treated , but only extracted . His relatives had suggested bringing all the necessary medication for proper dental treatment , but the prison administration had refused . He said that , according to the regime , dental treatment had not been provided by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

The applicant had not been allowed to watch TV , but his relatives had brought him books and newspapers . He felt that in PERSON no . CARDINAL there was a humane attitude among the prison staff , unlike PERSON no . CARDINAL , where he had been psychologically ill - treated . According to him , inmates ' relatives had also been treated in a very improper manner .

The lamp in the applicant 's cell in PERSON no . CARDINAL where he was detained on DATE of the Delegates ' visit was permanently switched on and daylight was let in through the window . The lamp in his cells in PERSON no . CARDINAL had been much stronger .

The applicant had started to have DATE outdoor walks DATE before the Delegates ' visit . He had been allowed to walk for TIME , and sometimes for TIME without handcuffs . The prison administration had not informed him how long walks had to last according to national law . His wife had brought a copy of the prison rules which specified that walks had to last for DATE . To the Delegates ' question : “ When you were informed by your wife about those rules , did you complain that you had not been allowed to have meetings with your wife for TIME or to have walks according to these rules ? ” the applicant answered : “ We filed complaints . Regarding the meetings , we were told that there were too many inmates , especially those who were still under investigation , and that the prison did not have enough facilities to allow all inmates to have longer meetings . ” To the Delegates ' next question : “ Does that mean that this practice continued all the time ? ” the applicant answered : “ Thanks to my wife , we found out that the prison rules adopted in DATE allowed us to have TIME meetings . ”

When the applicant learnt that walks should TIME , the prison administration prevented him from taking them . In practice , when other inmates went for an outdoor walk , he was summoned to a meeting . As soon as the meeting was over , the exercise period was over too . This had lasted until the applicant 's wife and mother said that they would complain to the ORG , and had stopped CARDINAL or DATE before the Delegates ' visit .

After the applicant 's death sentence had become final , he was allowed to receive CARDINAL parcel DATE . Once he had been given permission to go for outdoor walks , his correspondence had been limited to CARDINAL letter per month and CARDINAL small packet weighing QUANTITY every six months , including food , toiletries and clothes . According to him , these allowances were not sufficient , taking into account the poor quality of the food in prison and the fact that at that time he had not been able to buy goods in the prison shop . He said that DATE prior to the Delegates ' visit a new rule was introduced allowing him to purchase goods for an amount equal to PERCENT of the statutory minimum wage . The applicant confirmed that he always had sufficient money in his prison bank account to buy goods from the prison shop .

As far as correspondence with his relatives was concerned , the applicant confirmed that at the date of the Delegates ' visit he could send and receive an unlimited number of letters . He further confirmed that he had the right to receive CARDINAL parcel of QUANTITY and CARDINAL small packets DATE .

The witness was the governor of PERSON no . CARDINAL . He had a staff of CARDINAL officers .

The witness said that there were CARDINAL detainees in the prison , of whom CARDINAL were serving a prison sentence , including CARDINAL on death row . He confirmed that the applicant had been transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL recently .

He confirmed that a document with prisoners ' rights and obligations was posted in cells . Inmates could read it and familiarise themselves with the contents of the document . He said that several changes for death row prisoners had taken place since the moratorium on executions had been introduced : previously , they had not been allowed to go for DATE outdoor walks and could receive CARDINAL small packages per year and CARDINAL letter per month . He confirmed that the prison administration had informed the death row prisoners about the moratorium .

As to the number of prisoners in the cells , the prison administration complied with national law requiring that CARDINAL prisoners should be held in one cell . The administration respected inmates ' wishes to be detained alone , as the applicant himself had requested . During DATE , cells were heated to CARDINAL

Inmates could complain to him or to the public prosecutor , but the witness had not received any complaints . He said that DATE an official from ORG and ORG walked around the cells and collected complaints . Inmates complained of their sentences , but not of the detention conditions .

The witness visited death row inmates DATE . On several occasions he had met the applicant , who had not complained of his detention conditions .

He confirmed that a member of the prison medical staff visited the cells on a DATE basis . If need be , the inmate was transferred to the prison medical unit for appropriate treatment , or if necessary to a hospital .

NORP The death row prisoners had started to take DATE TIME outdoor walks in DATE . The changes concerning parcels and correspondence had been introduced on DATE . The prisoners were not handcuffed during their outdoor walks . Moreover , they had the right to have CARDINAL TIME meeting with their relatives per DATE and could receive CARDINAL parcels and CARDINAL small packets per year .

He said that outgoing letters were not censored , although they were opened and looked through . Incoming letters from ORG and ORG were never opened , as provided for in ORG . Unlike letters to and from prisoners ' relatives , parcels were registered in a special file . The witness said that no inmates had complained that letters had not been sent or received . As far as letters to inmates ' legal representatives were concerned , prisoners usually applied for a visit by a lawyer . The witness confirmed that the procedure of not registering letters had been introduced on DATE .

The witness was the prison doctor and had been working in PERSON no . CARDINAL for DATE . She knew the applicant personally . She confirmed that the prison administration could provide all necessary dental treatment inside the prison . According to her , there was no difference in the medical regime between death row prisoners and other inmates .

The witness was the governor of PERSON no . CARDINAL . He took up his duties on DATE .

He said that on DATE of the Delegates ' visit , CARDINAL persons were detained in the prison , all of them in pre - trial detention . He confirmed that the applicant had recently been transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL .

The witness personally knew the applicant , who had not complained about his detention conditions , although in DATE he had criticised the duration of his meetings with his relatives , alleging that they should have lasted for TIME . The head of the department and the first deputy to the regional prosecutor had investigated the facts and found that the applicant 's complaint was well - founded . However , the prison administration could not grant the applicant longer meetings , having regard to the large number of prisoners waiting for such meetings . In general , inmates ' complaints were registered in a journal and , at the same time , in their personal files . A reply was delivered to the inmate concerned for information and signature .

The witness confirmed that , before their sentences became final , inmates on death row could not send or receive correspondence , but CARDINAL parcels per month were allowed . After the sentence became effective the regime changed .

The witness said that the applicant had moved from one cell to DATE in accordance with the rules , having been confined alone in a double cell as he had requested . He confirmed that all CARDINAL death row cells in the prison facility were double cells of the same size . On DATE Delegates ' visit CARDINAL of them were empty .

He confirmed that he had met the applicant 's wife when she had asked for a meeting with her husband , but he had never heard any complaints from her regarding the applicant 's conditions of detention .

The witness was the doctor in PERSON no . CARDINAL , where she had been working since DATE . She had heard about the applicant , although he had never applied to her for any medical assistance .

She confirmed that DATE the feldscher ( фельдшер ) ( medical assistant ) walked around the cells and registered complaints and requests to see a doctor . She had not heard about the applicant 's stomach problems , and denied that the applicant would have been refused dental care . According to her , the prison administration had a high - level professional dentist , and all inmates were entitled to his assistance .

The prison medical unit contained CARDINAL persons including a radiologist , a dermatologist , a psychiatrist , a dentist , a physician and feldchers . The unit had all the necessary equipment and medication to provide qualified medical assistance . If inmates ' relatives brought medicines or vitamins , the inmates received them through the medical unit . The witness confirmed that an inmate 's consent was necessary for an HIV test . According to her , it was not possible that an inmate suffering from tuberculosis would be held together with another inmate : on arriving at the prison he underwent an X - ray examination , the results of which were ready on DATE . If he was diagnosed with tuberculosis , he was kept separately . If he came from preliminary detention , he had his medical record with him .

The Delegates visited the cell where the applicant was detained . The cell was QUANTITY . It was renovated , in order and clean . There was an open toilet , a washbasin with a cold water tap , CARDINAL beds and a table fixed to the floor , central heating and a window with bars . There were some books , a newspaper , and a stock of soap and toilet paper . The cell was sufficiently ventilated .

The Delegates saw the prison shower area , which seemed to be renovated and was clean . They also visited the exercise yard .

The Delegates visited CARDINAL cells intended for inmates sentenced to death , which were empty on DATE of their visit . The size of the cells was QUANTITY . There was an open toilet , a washbasin with a cold water tap , CARDINAL beds fixed to the floor , central heating and a window with bars . The cells were properly ventilated .

The Delegates saw the prison shower area shortly after a group of female detainees had taken a bath . The area included CARDINAL rooms without windows . They were very humid and dirty .

The Delegates were not allowed to visit cells which were occupied by death row inmates .

According to the prison records , the applicant 's wife and mother applied to visit the applicant on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . They visited the applicant on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . His mother also visited him on DATE and his wife , on DATE and DATE .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , the applicant received packages from his wife and mother . They generally contained food and toiletries , but also clothes .

The applicant regularly purchased goods from the prison shop . According to the prison shop records , in DATE and DATE he spent CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) and UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL . In DATE and DATE he bought different articles for ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL and UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL . On DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , DATE ( UAH MONEY ) , DATE ( ORG MONEY ) , DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL DATE ( UAH MONEY ) , he purchased food and toiletries . In DATE and DATE he spent UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL and UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

According to the prison records , the applicant received money in his prison bank account on DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) , DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) , DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) and DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) .

According to the prison records , the applicant sent letters on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . However , the document submitted to ORG did not specify the addressees .

On DATE ORG informed a certain PERSON that the prosecutor , on a complaint by her , had inspected PERSON no . CARDINAL . He had found that none of the death row inmates had complained of any violation of the LAW . As far as the regime and conditions of detention were concerned , the prison administration followed the provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He further said that PERSON suspicion about tuberculosis being spread in the cells of the death row inmates had not been well - founded . He acknowledged that CARDINAL inmate had died in DATE but his cell and those of his neighbours had been cleaned and disinfected . Moreover , inmates regularly underwent X - ray examinations and , so far , no inmates had had to be treated for tuberculosis .

Under LAW and DATE , the LAW is directly applicable . There is a guaranteed right to lodge an action in defence of the constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual and of the citizen directly on the basis of LAW .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that international treaties , which are in force and agreed on as binding by the Verkhovna Rada of GPE , are part of the national legislation of GPE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL prohibits censorship .

Under LAW the legal order in GPE is based on the principles according to which no one may be forced to do what is not envisaged by the legislation . State authorities and local self - government bodies and their officials are obliged to act only according to these principles , within the limits of their authority , and in the manner envisaged by the LAW and the laws of GPE .

Article CARDINAL provides that human and citizens ' rights and freedoms are guaranteed and may not be diminished by the adoption of new laws or the amendment of laws that are in force .

DATE . Under LAW and CARDINAL no one may be arrested or held in custody other than pursuant to a reasoned court decision and only on grounds and in accordance with procedures established by law . Everyone arrested or detained must be informed without delay of the reasons for his arrest or detention , apprised of his rights , and from the moment of detention must be given the opportunity to defend himself in person , or to have the assistance of a defence lawyer .

Under LAW and CARDINAL , everyone is guaranteed the right to challenge the decisions , actions or omissions of ORG authorities , local self - government bodies , officials and officers of a court of law . After exhausting all domestic legal remedies everyone has the right to appeal for the protection of his rights and freedoms to the relevant international judicial institutions or to the relevant authorities of international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant .

Under LAW everyone has the right to legal assistance . Such assistance is provided free of charge in cases envisaged by law . Everyone is free to choose the defender of his rights . In GPE the Bar ( адвокатура ) ensures the right to a defence against charges and the provision of legal assistance in deciding cases in courts and before other ORG authorities .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that a convicted person enjoys all human and citizens ' rights , subject only to restrictions determined by law and established by a court ruling .

Under LAW , human and citizens ' rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW may not be restricted , except in cases envisaged by LAW .

Conditions on death row in the NORP prison system were successively governed by an ORG of DATE on conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment ( hereinafter “ the Instruction ” ) and by Temporary Provisions of DATE on the conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment in the isolation blocks ( hereinafter “ the Temporary Provisions ” ) .

The Instruction provided that after the sentence had become final , persons sentenced to death had to be kept in isolation from other prisoners in specially designed cells . Save in exceptional cases , CARDINAL such prisoners were to be detained in one cell . The cell area allocated to CARDINAL prisoner in a single cell had to be not QUANTITY and in a double cell not QUANTITY . The prisoners were provided with an individual sleeping - place and with bed linen . They wore a uniform designed for the category of especially dangerous recidivists . Reference was also made to their legal status and obligations . This determined the frequency of meetings with relatives and the number of letters inmates could send and receive : they were allowed CARDINAL visit per month and could send CARDINAL letter per month . There was no limitation on the correspondence they could receive . The inmates could receive CARDINAL small packets a year . They were allowed to have a DATE TIME walk in the fresh air . Outside their cells , inmates were handcuffed . They were not allowed to work .

Prisoners were also allowed to read books , magazines and newspapers borrowed from the prison library and/or bought through the prison distribution network ; they could receive money transfers ; they could keep personal objects and food in their cells and buy food and toiletries in the prison shop DATE ( up to the value of the statutory minimum wage ) , and play board games . They could meet lawyers . Medical treatment was provided in accordance with national legislation .

The prisoners could lodge complaints with ORG authorities . Such complaints had to be dispatched within DATE . Complaints to ORG were not censored .

The Temporary Provisions extended the rights of persons sentenced to capital punishment in comparison with the ORG . In particular , prisoners were allowed to have TIME of sleep during TIME ; they could receive CARDINAL parcels and CARDINAL small packets per year , buy food and toiletries in the prison shop ( up to the value of PERCENT of the statutory minimum wage ) , pray , read religious literature and have visits from a priest , and write complaints to ORG authorities . They were allowed to send and receive letters without any limits and to have DATE visits of TIME from their relatives . A prison official had to be present during visits .

DATE . According to LAW , pre - trial detention is a preventive measure in respect of an accused , a defendant or a person suspected of having committed a crime punishable with imprisonment , or a convicted person whose sentence has not yet been enforced .

In accordance with section CARDINAL ) , persons sentenced to capital punishment whose sentence had not become final were held separately from all other detained persons .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides inter alia that detainees have the right ( a ) to be defended in accordance with the rules of criminal law , ( b ) to be acquainted with the rules of detention , ( c ) to take a TIME DATE walk , ( d ) to receive DATE a parcel weighing QUANTITY and to receive unlimited money transfers and amounts of money by way of remittance or personal delivery , ( e ) to buy foodstuffs and toiletries to the value of DATE statutory minimum wage , paying by written order , as well as unlimited amounts of stationery , newspapers and books in prison shops , ( f ) to use their own clothing and footwear and to have with them documents and notes related to their criminal case , ( g ) to use TV sets received from relatives or other persons and board games , newspapers and books borrowed from the library in their previous place of imprisonment or bought at shops , ( h ) individually to perform religious rituals and use religious literature and objects made of semi - precious materials pertaining to their beliefs , provided that this does not lead to a breach of the rules applicable to places of pre - trial detention or restrict the rights of other persons , ( i ) to sleep TIME a night , during which time they are not required to participate in proceedings or to do anything else except in cases of extreme emergency , and ( j ) to lodge complaints and petitions and send letters to ORG authorities and officials in accordance with the procedure prescribed by LAW .

Under LAW , detainees are required to be provided with everyday conditions that meet sanitary and hygiene requirements . The cell area for CARDINAL person may not be QUANTITY . Detainees are to be supplied with meals , an individual sleeping - place , bedclothes and other types of material and everyday provisions free of charge and according to the norms laid down by the Government . In case of need , they are to be supplied with clothes and footwear of a standard form .

In accordance with section CARDINAL ) , permission for relatives or other persons to visit a detainee ( in principle , once a month for TIME ) can be given by the administrative authorities of the place of detention , but only with the written approval of an investigator , an investigative authority or a court dealing with the case . Under paragraph CARDINAL , detainees have the right to be visited by defence counsel , whom they may see alone with no restrictions on the number of visits or their length , from the moment the lawyer in question is authorised to act on their behalf , such authorisation being confirmed in writing by the person or body dealing with the case .

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , detainees can exchange letters with their relatives and other persons and enterprises , establishments and organisations with the written permission of an authority dealing with the case . Once a sentence starts to run , correspondence is no longer subject to any limitations .

According to LAW ( Main requirements of the regime in detention institutions ) , the main features of the regime in detention establishments are : the compulsory isolation and permanent supervision of sentenced persons , so as to exclude any possibility of the commission of new crimes or other acts against public order ; strict and continuous observance of obligations by these persons ; and various detention conditions dependent on the character and gravity of the offence and the personality and behaviour of the sentenced person .

Sentenced persons must wear a uniform . They must also be searched ; body searches must be conducted by persons of the same sex as the person searched . Correspondence is subject to censorship , and parcels and packages subject to opening and checking . A strict internal routine and rules must be established in corrective labour establishments .

Sentenced persons are prohibited from keeping money and valuables , or other specified objects , in corrective labour establishments . Any money and valuables found are to be confiscated and , as a rule , transferred to the ORG in accordance with a reasoned decision of the governor of the institution , sanctioned by a prosecutor .

A list of objects which sentenced persons are allowed to possess , showing the number or quantity of each item , and the procedure for confiscating objects whose use is prohibited in corrective labour establishments , must be established by the internal regulations of such establishments .

Under the procedure established by the Code , sentenced persons are allowed to buy food and toiletries , paying by written order , to be visited , to receive parcels , packages , postal packages and money by remittance , to correspond and to send money to relatives by remittance .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( Purchase of food and toiletries by sentenced persons ) provides that sentenced persons are allowed to buy food and toiletries , paying by written order , from the money received by remittance .

Article CARDINAL provides inter alia that a lawyer may be given permission to meet his client on presentation of his licence and identity card . Visits are not limited as to their number and length and , at the lawyer 's request , may be carried out without a prison warder being present .

Under LAW ( Receipt of parcels and small packets by persons sentenced to imprisonment ) sentenced persons held in corrective labour GPE ( виправнo-тpудова колонія ) are allowed to receive , per year : CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the general regime ( колонія загального режиму ) , CARDINAL parcels in colonies subject to the strengthened regime ( колонія посиленого режиму ) and CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the strict and special regime ( колонія суворого режиму ) . Sentenced persons held in educational labour GPE ( колонія виховно-трудова ) are allowed to receive per year : CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the general regime and CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the strengthened regime .

Convicted offenders serving their sentence in a prison are not allowed to receive parcels .

Irrespective of the type of regime under which they are held , sentenced persons are allowed to receive not CARDINAL small packets per year , and to buy literature through the sales distribution network without any restrictions .

The quantity of parcels and small packets of all types is not restricted for sentenced persons held in corrective labour colony camps ( виправнo-тpудова колонія-поселення ) .

A list of foodstuffs and toiletries which sentenced persons are allowed to receive in parcels and small packets , as well as the procedure for their receipt by and delivery to the sentenced persons , is to be established in the internal regulations of corrective labour establishments .

Under LAW ( Receipt and sending of money by sentenced persons by remittance ) sentenced persons are allowed to receive unlimited amounts of money by remittance , as well as to send money to their relatives and , if this is permitted by the authorities of the corrective labour establishments , to other persons . The money received by remittance is transferred to the personal account of the sentenced person .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( Correspondence of persons sentenced to imprisonment ) provides that sentenced persons held in prisons may receive unlimited mail and may send letters as follows : CARDINAL letter per DATE for those held under the general regime and CARDINAL letter DATE for those held under the strengthened regime .

According to section CARDINAL ) , the public prosecutor deals with petitions and complaints concerning breaches of the rights of citizens and legal entities , except complaints that are within the jurisdiction of the courts . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that an appeal lies from the prosecutor 's decision to the supervising prosecutor and , in certain cases , to the court . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that the decision of ORG is final .

NORP Under section CARDINAL the prosecutor or his deputy has the power to make a request to a court for any material in a case where a judgment or another decision has come into force . If there are any grounds for reopening the proceedings , the prosecutor challenges the court judgment or any other decision .

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) the matters subject to the public prosecutor 's supervision are : adherence to the legal rules on pre - trial detention and corrective labour or other establishments for the execution of sentences or coercive measures ordered by a court , adherence to the procedures and conditions for holding or punishing persons in such establishments ; the rights of such persons ; and the manner of carrying out by the relevant authorities of their duties under the criminal law and legislation on the enforcement of sentences . The public prosecutor may at any time visit places of pre - trial detention , establishments where convicted persons are serving sentences or establishments for compulsory treatment or reform , in order to conduct interviews or peruse documents on the basis of which persons have been detained , arrested or sentenced or subjected to compulsory measures ; he may also examine the legality of orders , resolutions and decrees issued by the administrative authorities of such establishments , terminate the implementation of such acts , appeal against them or cancel them where they do not comply with the law , and request officials to give explanations concerning breaches which have occurred .

In its ORG , the ORG deplored the executions which , reportedly , had been carried out recently in GPE , GPE and GPE . In particular , it condemned GPE for apparently violating its commitments to introduce a moratorium on executions of the death penalty upon its accession to ORG . It called upon this country to honour its commitments regarding the introduction of a moratorium on executions and the immediate abolition of capital punishment , warning it that further violation of its commitments , especially the carrying out of executions , would have consequences under Order No . CARDINAL ( DATE ) .

The ORG confirmed in this ORG that it had received official information that , in DATE , CARDINAL executions had been carried out in GPE , and regretted that the NORP authorities had failed to inform it of the number of executions carried out in DATE . The ORG was particularly shocked that executions in GPE had been shrouded in secrecy , with apparently not even the families of the prisoners having been informed , and that the executed prisoners had been reportedly buried in unmarked graves . It condemned GPE for having violated its commitment to put into place a moratorium on executions , deplored the executions that had taken place , and demanded that it immediately honour its commitments and halt any executions still pending .

In these texts , the ORG noted that GPE had clearly failed to honour its commitments ( CARDINAL persons had been executed DATE and DATE , according to official sources ) . At the same time , it noted that since DATE a de facto moratorium on executions had been in effect in GPE . The ORG insisted that the moratorium be reconfirmed de jure and that the PERSON Rada ratify LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . It stressed the importance of the de facto moratorium on executions and firmly declared that , if any further executions took place , the credentials of the NORP parliamentary delegation would be annulled at the following part - session of the ORG , in accordance with Rule CARDINAL of its Rules of Procedure .

Delegates of the ORG visited places of detention in GPE in DATE , and DATE . Reports on each of the visits were published on DATE , together with the Responses to the Reports of ORG .

The visit of the delegation , which took place from CARDINAL to DATE , was the ORG 's first periodic visit to GPE . In the course of the visit the delegation inspected , inter alia , the pre - trial prison ( GPE ) ( “ investigation isolation ” establishment ) No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in ORG . On the ground floor of building No . CARDINAL of GPE No . CARDINAL were housed at the time of the visit CARDINAL prisoners who had been sentenced to death , although as was recorded in a footnote to the ORG , the delegation had received assurances that since DATE a de facto moratorium on executions had been observed .

In its ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , the ORG expressed at the outset its serious concern about the conditions under which these prisoners were being held and about the regime applied to them . It was noted that prisoners sentenced to death were usually accommodated CARDINAL to a cell , the cell measuring CARDINAL - CARDINAL m² . The cells had no access to natural light , the windows being obscured by metal plates . The artificial lighting , which was permanently on , was not always sufficiently strong with the result that some cells were dim . To ventilate the cells , prisoners could pull a cord that opened a flap ; despite this the cells were very humid and quite cold ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The equipment in the cells was described in the ORG as being rudimentary , consisting of a metal bed and/or sloping platform ( equipped with a thin mattress , sheets of dubious cleanliness and a blanket which was manifestly insufficient to keep out the cold ) , a shelf and CARDINAL narrow stools . Prisoners were supposed to be able to listen to radio programmes via a speaker built into the wall of the cell , but it had been reported to the delegation that the radio only functioned sporadically ( ibid . ) .

All the cells had un - partitioned toilets which faced the living - area ; as a result , a prisoner using the toilet had to do so in full view of his cellmate . As regards toiletries , prisoners sentenced to death were in a similarly difficult situation as many of the other inmates ; items such as soap and toothpaste were rarities ( ibid . ) .

It was further recorded that prisoners sentenced to death had no form of activity outside their cells , not even an hour of outdoor exercise . At best they could leave their cells once DATE to use the shower in the cell - block , and for TIME a month , if they were authorised to receive family visits . In - cell activities consisted of reading and listening to the radio when it worked . Apart from the DATE visits which some inmates received , human contact was limited essentially to the occasional visit by an NORP priest or a member of the health - care staff , who spoke to the prisoners through a grille in the cell - door ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The ORG summarised its findings in this regard as follows :

“ In short , prisoners sentenced to death were locked up for TIME a day in cells which offered only a very restricted amount of living space and had no access to natural light and sometimes very meagre artificial lighting , with virtually no activities to occupy their time and very little opportunity for human contact . Most of them had been kept in such deleterious conditions for considerable periods of time ( ranging from DATE to over DATE ) . Such a situation may be fully consistent with the legal provisions in force in GPE concerning the treatment of prisoners sentenced to death . However , this does not alter the fact that , in the ORG 's opinion , it amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment . ” ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

It was further recorded that the delegation had received numerous complaints from prisoners sentenced to death about the fact that they lacked information with regard to their legal situation the progress of their cases , follow - up to applications for cases to be reviewed , examination of their complaints etc . ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In its ORG to the DATE Report , ORG recorded that a number of organisational and practical steps had been taken to resolve the problems identified by the ORG . In particular , LAW had been introduced to guarantee to prisoners sentenced to death the right to be visited once DATE by relatives , to be visited by a lawyer to get legal assistance , to be visited by a priest and to receive and send correspondence without limitation . It was further noted

( i ) that prisoners sentenced to death would have DATE walks in the open air and that for this purpose QUANTITY of the pre - trial prisons had been rebuilt or re - equipped ;

( ii ) that , in order to improve natural lighting and air of all cells , the blinds and metal peakes over cell windows had been removed ; and

( iii ) that , for the purposes of informing inmates sentenced to death of their rights and legal status , extracts from LAW had been placed on the walls of each cell .

A ORG delegation visited GPE from DATE in the course of which they again inspected GPE No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE where , at the time of the visit , there were detained CARDINAL prisoners who had been sentenced to death . The ORG noted that certain changes had occurred since the previous visit . In particular , the cells had natural light and were better furnished and the prisoners had an hour of exercise per day in the open air , although it was observed that there was insufficient space for real physical exercise ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The ORG further recorded that important progress had been made in the right of prisoners to receive visits from relatives and to correspond ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . However , the ORG noted certain unacceptable conditions of detention including the fact that prisoners continued to spend CARDINAL out of TIME a day in their cells and that opportunities for human contact remained very limited ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

A third visit to GPE took place from DATE , in the course of which the delegation inspected , inter alia , the pre - trial prison ( GPE PERSON ) in PERSON . The ORG welcomed the decision of the NORP authorities to abolish the death penalty and noted that most of the CARDINAL prisoners subject to the death sentence had had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment .

NORP Despite these welcome steps , the ORG recorded that the treatment of this category of prisoner was a major source of concern to ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . It was noted that , further to a provisional instruction issued in DATE and pending the establishment of CARDINAL high - security units specifically intended for life prisoners , such prisoners were subjected to a strict confinement regime ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . While living space in the cells was generally satisfactory and while work had started on refurbishing cells in all the establishments visited , there were major deficiencies in terms of access to natural light and the quality of artificial light and ventilation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Moreover , life - sentence prisoners were confined in their cells for TIME a day with no form of organized activities and , by way of activities outside their cells , were entitled to TIME outdoor exercise , which took place in unacceptable conditions . There was virtually no human contact : since the entry into force of the DATE instruction , visits from relatives had been forbidden and prisoners were only allowed to send CARDINAL letter DATE , although there were no restrictions on receiving letters ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In their Response to the Report the Ukrainian Government noted further legal amendments which ensured that life prisoners had TIME of exercise per day and CARDINAL family visits of TIME . Further , to ensure adequate access to light , metal shutters had been removed from windows in all cells .


The applicants are NORP nationals , born in DATE and DATE respectively and living in GPE , GPE .

They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE

A.

s , may be summarised as follows .

In DATE a bank instituted civil proceedings against the applicants and some others before ORG ( kihlakunnanoikeus , häradsrätt ) . The bank claimed for repayment of a loan of MONEY from the applicants as they had stood surety for the principal debtors . The applicants opposed the claim . In CARDINAL hearings before ORG the principal debtors , CARDINAL of the applicants and CARDINAL witness called by the applicants ( MT ) gave evidence . On DATE ORG found for the plaintiff .

B. Relevant domestic law

According to LAW , LAW , of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalk ) , ORG holds , when necessary , an oral hearing , where parties , witnesses and experts may be heard , and other evidence may be taken .


CASE OF DRUŽSTEVNÍ ZÁLOŽNA PRIA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Reminder inadmissible;Damage - reserved

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

On DATE ORG ( PERSON pro dohled nad družstevními záložnami ) ( “ the LOC ” ) placed the applicant credit union in receivership ( nucená správa ) for a period of DATE under section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , on the ground that it had contravened the legislation in question , having engaged in activities outside its remit without authorisation . A receiver ( nucený správce ) was appointed to replace the applicant credit union ’s decision - making bodies . The ORG was acting under section ORG ) of the LAW read in conjunction with section PERSON ) of LAW ( zákon o bankách ) .

Referring to an audit of the applicant credit union ’s activities , the PERSON noted that the applicant credit union had on DATE concluded CARDINAL contracts with CARDINAL , a limited liability company , under the terms of which the latter had assigned to the applicant credit union receivables due to it from CARDINAL debtor companies , amounting to CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in total , for an agreed price of CZK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) . The ORG ruled that the applicant credit union had thereby purchased the receivables of a third party by effectively covering the latter ’s debt . It qualified the transaction as a loan to a third party . Since section CARDINAL of the LAW prohibited credit unions from providing loans to non - members , the ORG concluded that the applicant credit union had acted in flagrant breach of the Act .

The PERSON further noted that the auditors had discovered that the applicant credit union had entered into a contract on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE to grant a loan of CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) to a limited liability company , ORG , and had signed CARDINAL contracts on DATE with ORG , a joint stock company , for the purchase of securities ( cenné papíry ) at a total price of CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The ORG ruled that these transactions were also illegal , as section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) read in conjunction with section CARDINAL of the Act did not allow credit unions to acquire securities other than public bonds ( dluhopisy ) , municipal bonds ( komunální obligace ) or mortgage bonds ( hypoteční zástavní listy ) .

The receivership became effective on DATE , when the applicant credit union was notified of the ORG ’s decision .

On DATE the applicant credit union lodged a constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) with ORG ( GPE PERSON ) against the receivership order and applied at the same time for an order striking down certain provisions of the LAW . It relied , inter alia , on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of LAW , which enables ORG to hear a constitutional appeal even if domestic remedies have not been exhausted , if it substantially affects the appellant ’s personal interests .

On DATE , following an administrative appeal by the applicant credit union , ORG upheld the receivership order of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE a petition to adjudge the applicant credit union bankrupt ( konkusní řízení ) was filed with ORG ( krajský soud ) . During DATE a large number of creditors joined the proceedings .

On an unspecified date the applicant credit union applied for judicial review ( správní žaloba ) of the imposition of receivership under Article CARDINAL et seq . of LAW , asserting that the statutory conditions for such a step on the part of the ORG had not been met .

On DATE Act no . CARDINAL entered into force , extensively amending the LAW ( hereinafter “ the amended LAW ” ) . The powers of supervisory boards of credit unions were confined to the right to appeal decisions adopted by the LAW .

On DATE the OSCU granted the receiver permission to suspend withdrawals from deposit accounts held with the applicant credit union in view of its precarious financial situation . According to its findings , the sum owed by the applicant credit union on outstanding term deposits amounted to MONEY CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , while the cash available in its current accounts was MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG renewed the receivership order under LAW as the previously identified deficiencies remained . It referred , inter alia , to the first receivership order and to CARDINAL decisions by which it had prohibited or restricted the applicant credit union ’s activities , including withdrawals from deposit accounts ( decision nos . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant credit union ’s constitutional appeal for non - exhaustion of ordinary remedies under section GPE ) of LAW . It reiterated that the principle requiring the exhaustion of ordinary remedies could be derogated from in exceptional circumstances if the effective protection of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms was endangered . It found that , contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provides , inter alia , that “ a constitutional appeal may be introduced by any natural person who claims to be the victim of a breach of the fundamental rights or freedoms recognised in a constitutional law or an international treaty by a valid decision taken in proceedings to which he was a party ” , the applicant credit union had lodged its constitutional appeal before the receivership order had become effective .

On DATE the applicant credit union , represented by the president of its supervisory board , applied for judicial review , challenging ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ( decisions ORG . ORG , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) , the ORG allowed the receiver to suspend withdrawals from deposit accounts held with the applicant credit union .

According to the Government , on DATE the ORG granted the receiver permission to file on its own a petition with a court to adjudge the credit union bankrupt , which he did on DATE .

On DATE ORG appointed an interim trustee ( předběžný správce ) .

On DATE the ORG again placed the applicant credit union in receivership . It based its decision on the applicant credit union ’s report of DATE which included a statement of its outstanding debts and available funds . It was noted in the report that the applicant credit union was insolvent , as it had MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) at its disposal , which was insufficient to enable it to honour its outstanding debts of CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . Moreover , because of its lack of liquid assets the applicant credit union had omitted to pay an DATE contribution to the LOC that had fallen due on DATE . The ORG further noted that the applicant credit union ’s financial statements as of DATE disclosed negative equity to the tune of CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the third receivership order .

On DATE the applicant credit union , represented by the president of its supervisory board , filed an application for judicial review of the ORG ’s decision .

On DATE the applicant credit union filed a claim for damages with ORG under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG withdrew the applicant credit union ’s licence ( povolení působit jako družstevní a úvěrní záložna ) . It found irregularities in the way the applicant credit union had conducted its affairs , as attested by its inability to meet its liabilities , and considered that no improvement could be expected . It observed that by DATE , the applicant credit union had recorded overdue liabilities totalling MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , while having at its disposal MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) . The cumulative value of the ratios reflecting the balance between assets and liabilities was PERCENT , whereas section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the liquidity and solvency requirements for credit unions required a cumulative value from DATE of PERCENT .

The LOC found that as of DATE the applicant credit union had disclosed a negative capital value of CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) , whereas under section CARDINAL ) of ORG Decree no . GPE on the capital adequacy requirements for credit unions , cooperative savings associations were obliged to have achieved by DATE , and to maintain thereafter , a capital adequacy of PERCENT . The ORG further stated that on DATE the applicant credit union had submitted a report on its financial management results which showed that the irregularities in the applicant credit union ’s affairs , including its failure to comply with the capital adequacy , liquidity and solvency requirements , were so serious that there was no reasonable prospect of their being remedied .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant credit union ’s claim for damages . On DATE the applicant credit union , through its legal representative empowered by the presidents of the board of directors and the supervisory board , brought an action for damages against ORG .

In a judgment of DATE ORG ( Vrchní soud ) dismissed the applicant credit union ’s first request for judicial review as being unsubstantiated , finding that the applicant credit union had been placed in receivership in accordance with the national legislation then in force and that the ORG had not decided outside its discretionary power ( volné uvážení ) . The court held , inter alia , that :

“ Placing a credit union in receivership is CARDINAL of the measures which the [ OSCU ] may apply in addition to or instead of other sanctions specified in section CARDINAL ) of [ the Act ] . ...

Admittedly , the [ OSCU ] chose the strictest measure . However , [ it ] did not breach the [ Act ] and did not proceed contrary to the [ Act ’s ] aims , which are the only grounds on which [ the ORG ’s ] decision may be quashed ( LAW ) ... If the [ OSCU ] found ... that the amount of available assets reserved for direct payments to members of [ the applicant credit union ] within DATE had decreased to PERCENT of deposits ( the Act lays down a minimum of PERCENT ) ... as a consequence of ... a number of ... financial transactions entered into by the [ applicant credit union ] , and if the [ OSCU ] discovered other breaches of the [ Act ] and the applicant credit union ’s articles of association , then there is no ground for this court to find that the OSCU , when imposing the receivership , decided outside its discretionary powers . ”

On DATE the ORG appointed its liquidator ( likvidátor ) . On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant credit union , ORG upheld the appointment .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant credit union had lodged a constitutional appeal against ORG judgment , alleging a violation of LAW and Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( Listina základních práv a svobod ) , as well as Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE concerning the appointment of the interim receiver .

On DATE ORG rejected the constitutional appeal of DATE as manifestly unfounded .

On DATE CARDINAL shareholders of the applicant credit union joined the proceedings concerning its action for damages .

On DATE the Prague CARDINAL ORG ( obvodní soud ) dismissed the applicant credit union ’s action for damages on the ground that it had been lodged by an unauthorised person . It stated , inter alia , that members of the board of directors and of the supervisory board were not entitled to bring the action on behalf of the applicant credit union . At the same time , the court severed the CARDINAL ORG claims , ruling that they should be heard separately .

On DATE the applicant credit union appealed . However , on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , stating in particular :

“ Section CARDINAL(d)(CARDINAL ) of [ the LAW ] grants the supervisory board of a credit union the right to challenge the conduct of receivership , but an action for damages sustained as a result of the receivership can not be equated with the right of the supervisory board to appeal against decisions of [ the ORG ] under section CARDINAL(d)(CARDINAL ) of [ the LAW ] . ”

On DATE ORG ( GPE správní soud ) rejected the second application for judicial review , lodged by the applicant credit union on DATE against ORG decision of DATE upholding the second receivership order . The court , referring to section PERSON ) of the amended LAW , found that the application had been lodged by an unauthorised person , as only the receiver had authority to lodge such an appeal .

On DATE the applicant credit union lodged a constitutional appeal against the decision of ORG .

NORP On DATE ORG ( městský soud ) upheld ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG , on a petition filed by CARDINAL creditors , shareholders of the applicant credit union , declared the applicant credit union to be insolvent . A trustee ( správce konkurzní podstaty ) was appointed , accordingly .

On DATE a PERSON meeting ( schůze věřitelů ) was held , at which the PERSON committee ( věřitelský výbor ) was elected . On DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , CARDINAL review meetings took place .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG had dismissed the applicant credit union ’s latest constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG received a list of the applicant credit union ’s assets . The realisation of the assets included in the list is , according to the Government , under way . In connection with this insolvency dispute , ORG has registered CARDINAL judicial disputes .

It would appear that the third application for judicial review filed by the applicant credit union is still pending before ORG .

According to ORG as it stands , the applicant credit union is still the subject of insolvency proceedings .

LAW provides that expropriation or other forcible limitation of ownership rights is possible only in the public interest and on the basis of law , and against compensation .

Under LAW § CARDINAL anyone may assert his or her rights under a set procedure before an independent and impartial tribunal , and in specified cases before another organ . Under paragraph CARDINAL , anybody who claims that his or her rights have been violated by a decision of a public administrative organ may apply to a court for a review of the legality of that decision , unless the law provides otherwise . However , the review of decisions affecting the fundamental rights and freedoms listed in the LAW may not be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that everybody is entitled to compensation for damage caused to him or her by an unlawful decision of a court , another organ of the ORG or the public authorities , or by maladministration . Under paragraph CARDINAL , the conditions and detailed provisions in this respect are determined by statute .

Under LAW § CARDINAL nobody may be denied access to his lawful judge . The jurisdiction of the court and the competence of the judge are determined by statute . LAW provides that everybody is entitled to have his or her case considered in public without unnecessary delay and in his or her presence , and to comment on all submitted evidence . The public may be excluded only in cases specified by law .

Section CARDINAL provided that a credit union is a legal entity governed by the provisions of the Commercial Code on ORG unless the LAW provides otherwise .

Section CARDINAL stipulated , inter alia , that credit unions may provide loans to and receive deposits from their members , other credit unions and banks .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provided that the head of the ORG is appointed and removed from office by the Minister of Finance and that he is empowered , subject to the Minister ’s approval , to decide on the status , remit and policy of the LOC .

Under section ORG ) the ORG must have exercised its powers with due diligence and efficiently while respecting the interests of credit union shareholders .

In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) the ORG may have imposed sanctions for any breach of the LAW or other statute by a credit union or its organs or members .

Under section CARDINAL ) the LOC was empowered , inter alia , to impose receivership for a period of DATE instead of or together with the sanctions provided for in the preceding subsection .

In accordance with section DATE ) the LOC may have issued repeated receivership orders .

NORP Under section PERSON ) receivership was governed by LAW , which applies mutatis mutandis .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that a decision on receivership may have been appealed before ORG within DATE of its service .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) stipulated that proceedings before the LOC are governed by LAW unless the LAW provides otherwise .

The newly inserted section CARDINAL(d)(CARDINAL ) provides that the powers of all the organs of a credit union , with the exception of its supervisory board , are suspended on service of a receivership order and are assumed by the appointed receiver . The supervisory board is entitled to appeal the ORG ’s decisions .

Section CARDINALc(CARDINAL ) provides that a receiver is appointed , removed and employed by the ORG , which decides on his or her remuneration .

Section PERSON ) provided that a bank may be placed in receivership by ORG without any prior notice or invitation to remedy deficiencies identified in its business .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) stipulated , inter alia , that business transactions to the detriment of a bank ’s clients or transactions which constitute a risk to the stability and security of the banking sector of the financial market ; infringements of LAW or other statutes or secondary legislation adopted by ORG ; and a situation where the total volume of reserves and provisions set aside by the bank is not sufficient to cover the risks arising from the volume of classified assets recorded by it , are considered to be deficiencies within the meaning of the Act .

Under section CARDINAL ) proceedings on receivership were governed by the administrative procedure legislation unless LAW provides otherwise .

According to section CARDINAL ORG may have imposed receivership where deficiencies in a bank ’s activities endangered the stability of the banking system and the shareholders had not taken the necessary steps to eliminate them .

Article CARDINAL ) provided that a court , while reviewing a decision adopted by an administrative authority within its discretionary power granted by a statute , may have examined only whether such a decision had been taken in conformity with rules laid down by a statute .

Article CARDINAL et seq . entitled individuals or legal entities claiming that their rights had been curtailed by a decision of an administrative authority to apply for judicial review to determine the legality of that decision .

Under LAW the court , when reviewing the legality of the decision , must have relied on the facts as they stood at the time of delivery of the impugned decision ; no evidence was taken .

DATE . The Code entered into force on DATE , replacing Part V of ORG .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL(d ) and ( e ) provides that a plaintiff is obliged to substantiate the relevant factual and legal grounds on which the action is based and to identify evidence in its support .

Under LAW the administrative court bases its decision on the facts and the law as they stood at the time of the impugned ruling . It may take evidence in this respect under LAW .

Under LAW § CARDINAL an appellate authority has full jurisdiction to examine a contested decision . If need be , it may complete the proceedings in question and remedy any shortcomings identified .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the supervisory board of a cooperative is entitled to request from the board of directors any information concerning the financial situation of the cooperative . The board of directors is obliged to inform the supervisory board without delay of any fact which might have serious consequences for the financial situation of the cooperative or the status of the cooperative or its shareholders .

ORG

Section CARDINAL provides that an audit made by a controlling authority may be contested by objections which have to be raised within DATE from the service of the audit on a controlled person .

Under LAW an employee of a controlling authority is empowered to decide on raised objections . A controlled person may appeal that decision before the head of that authority within DATE from that decision . The decision on the appeal is irrevocable .

According to LAW is not applicable on proceedings under LAW .

ORG Plenary of DATE ( no . CARDINAL )

Articles DATE [ Part V ] of the Code of Civil Procedure , in so far as they governed procedure of administrative courts , were repealed as of DATE by this ruling . In its reasoning ORG found these provisions contrary to LAW as they , inter alia , limited jurisdiction of administrative courts to review administrative acts to issues of legality . It found that that the legislation in question empowered administrative courts to quash merely illegal decisions , not those embodying errors in fact . In other words , as ORG put it , deliberation of administrative authorities could not be replaced , according to those provisions , by that of independent courts .


CASE OF EMRULLAH KARAGÖZ v. TURKEY [Extracts]

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE he was arrested by gendarmes and taken into custody at the ORG gendarmerie command .

On DATE the gendarmes took a statement from him . He was suspected of having assisted and supported the ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan ) , an illegal organisation under NORP law . He allegedly signed his statement while blindfolded . At the end of his detention in the gendarmes ' custody , he was examined by a forensic medical expert . No signs of ill - treatment were observed on his body .

On DATE , after being interviewed by the public prosecutor , the applicant was brought before a judge of ORG , who ordered his detention pending trial . Before both the prosecutor and the judge the applicant denied the accusations against him . He was subsequently taken to ORG .

On DATE , ruling on applications by the governor of the state of emergency region and the public prosecutor , and on the basis of LAW no . CARDINAL on additional measures to be taken in connection with the state of emergency , the judge granted leave for the applicant to be sent back to the gendarmerie command for questioning for a period not exceeding DATE . The applicant was returned to the gendarmes ' custody at TIME DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed an objection by the applicant 's family , on the ground that the length of his detention was consistent with the limits laid down in domestic law .

On DATE the judge extended the applicant 's detention at the gendarmerie command by DATE , again on the basis of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL .

On DATE an objection by the applicant 's representative was dismissed by ORG .

On DATE the applicant was taken back to prison .

On DATE the governor of the state of emergency region and the public prosecutor , again on the basis of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL , asked the judge to extend the applicant 's detention at the gendarmerie command by a further DATE .

On DATE the judge refused that request on the ground that the case file did not contain any evidence to substantiate it and that such an omission was attributable to the authorities .

NORP The public prosecutor lodged an objection against that decision .

On DATE ORG allowed the objection and observed that the applicant was the subject of CARDINAL other investigations . It granted a further DATE extension and leave for the applicant to be taken from prison for questioning .

On DATE the applicant was handed over to the gendarmes .

On DATE the judge extended the applicant 's detention at the gendarmerie command by a further DATE .

On DATE the applicant was taken back to ORG .

Each time the applicant left and returned to the prison , he was examined by a doctor . The reports subsequently drawn up did not mention any signs of blows to the applicant 's body .

In an indictment of DATE , the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against the applicant under LAW , by which it is an offence to be a member of an armed gang .

At a hearing on DATE , ORG ordered the applicant 's provisional release .

On DATE he was acquitted in the absence of any evidence other than his initial statement to the gendarmes .

On DATE the judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant 's representative lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor at ORG against the gendarmes , alleging that they had ill - treated the applicant in order to obtain a confession from him . He asked for the applicant to be given a thorough medical examination . He further submitted that the applicant 's recurring periods of detention at the gendarmerie command had breached both the provision of the LAW governing the maximum length of detention in police custody and LAW .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG ruled that he did not have jurisdiction and forwarded the file to the ORG public prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed by the ORG public prosecutor . He asserted that he had been sprayed with cold water , had been insulted , threatened and beaten , had had his testicles squeezed and had been placed naked in front of a fan blowing cold air . He lodged a criminal complaint against the gendarmes involved in questioning him . He also requested a medical examination and treatment .

In a letter of DATE to the ORG public prosecutor , the applicant 's representative reiterated his allegations of torture and asked for his client to be examined at a specialist medical department .

On DATE the public prosecutor ordered thorough medical examinations to be carried out at the urology department and a testicular scintigram and pelvic ultrasound scan to be carried out at the nuclear medicine department of ORG in order to detect any signs of ill - treatment .

In a document of DATE , addressed to the ORG provincial governor , the public prosecutor sought leave to bring proceedings against the gendarmes in whose custody the applicant had been held .

A urological ultrasound scan of DATE and a testicular scintigram of CARDINAL DATE did not reveal any abnormalities .

A preliminary investigation was opened by ORG in respect of the gendarmerie commander .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided , in the absence of sufficient evidence , not to open an investigation with a view to prosecuting the official in question .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against that decision with ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision . The ORG public prosecutor 's office subsequently discontinued the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against the decision to discontinue the proceedings .

On DATE the appeal was dismissed in view of the decision by the ORG provincial governor 's office .

As amended by PERSON no . DATE of DATE , LAW provides :

“ Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person .

No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with the formalities and conditions prescribed by law : ...

The arrested or detained person must be brought before a judge within TIME at the latest or , in the case of offences committed by CARDINAL person , within DATE ...

The close relatives of persons who have been arrested or detained shall be notified immediately of their circumstances . ...

Compensation must be paid by the ORG for damage sustained by persons who have been victims of treatment contrary to the above provisions , in accordance with the general rules governing the right to compensation . ”

In addition , LAW provides that anyone who has been arrested or detained pending trial may confer in private with his or her legal representative , who does not need to have been given an authority to act .

Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE on additional measures to be taken in connection with the state of emergency strengthened the powers of the governor of the state of emergency region . LAW ) provides that , on a proposal by the governor , at the request of the public prosecutor and by order of a judge , persons who are detained after being convicted or pending trial may be taken from prison for questioning for a period not exceeding QUANTITY days . They must undergo a medical examination on leaving and returning to prison .

No court action may be brought against decisions of the governor of the state of emergency region .

Article CARDINAL of the legislative decree provides :

“ No criminal , financial or legal liability may be asserted against ... the governor of a state of emergency region or provincial governors in that region in respect of decisions taken , or acts performed , by them in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by this legislative decree , and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to that end . This shall be without prejudice to the rights of individuals to claim reparation from the ORG for damage which they have been caused without justification . ”

ORG dismissed applications for review of LAW no . CARDINAL , finding that they were inadmissible ratione materiae on the ground that the legislative decree was not subject to constitutional review , in CARDINAL judgments delivered on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , published in ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .

Since DATE the state of emergency in force in CARDINAL provinces of south - eastern GPE ( ORG and PERSON ) has been permanently lifted . As a result , Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL has ceased to apply since that date .


The applicants [ Mr PERSON and PERSON ] are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC ) . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , of the Paris Bar .

The applicants are the joint owners of a pharmacy in Salleboeuf .

On DATE CARDINAL women arrived at the same time at the applicants’ pharmacy to be told in turn that they could not be supplied with the contraceptives prescribed to each of them by their doctors in prescriptions whose validity has never been called into question .

On DATE the CARDINAL women in question filed a complaint against the applicants for refusing to sell contraceptives on a doctor ’s prescription , an offence provided for and punished by DATE , paragraph CARDINAL of Decree no . DATE of DATE and LAW . They lodged a civil - party claim in which they were joined by an association .

The applicants argued before ORG that the refusal to sell of which they were accused was justified on the legitimate ground that no statutory provision required pharmacists to supply contraceptives or abortifacients . They relied on LAW of LAW , under which pharmacists were not required to supply single or compound preparations based on oestrogens .

In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of the offences of which they had been accused . ORG noted the following : “ LAW , on which the defendants rely , does not in any way concern contraceptive medicines but only abortifacients ” ; the products that the applicants had refused to supply were contraceptive medicines “ which [ could ] not be regarded as the equivalents of abortifacients ” . ORG added : “ Ethical or religious principles are not legitimate grounds to refuse to sell a contraceptive . There is no legislation which authorises pharmacists to refuse to supply contraceptives , unlike the provisions relating to doctors , midwives and nurses as regards the termination of pregnancy ( LAW ) ” . In conclusion ORG held as follows : “ Consequently , as long as the pharmacist is not expected to play an active part in manufacturing the product , moral grounds can not absolve anyone from the obligation to sell imposed on all traders by the law ( LAW ) ” . The applicants were sentenced to a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) each and ordered to pay , jointly and severally , ORG CARDINAL in damages to the CARDINAL complainants .

The applicants appealed against that judgment . In a decision of DATE , ORG upheld ORG judgment . It noted that the applicants had never disputed that they had committed the acts of which they were accused and that they had stated that their conduct was dictated by religious reasons . It further observed : “ The offences of refusing to sell for which the defendants stood trial did not stem in any way from a practical impossibility to satisfy their customers but were committed in the name of religious convictions which can not be interpreted as a legitimate reason within the meaning of LAW . Thus the failure to stock this type of product in their dispensary was not the cause but indeed the consequence of this refusal on principle ” . ORG also noted that the defendants’ pharmacy was the only one in Salleboeuf . It upheld ORG finding that the products which the applicants had refused to sell were not covered by LAW of LAW .

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment . They relied in particular on LAW , asserting that the freedom to manifest one ’s religion implied that a pharmacist was entitled not to stock contraceptives whose use amounted to an interference with their religious beliefs . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed that appeal . It agreed with ORG finding that “ personal convictions ... [ could ] not constitute for pharmacists , who have the exclusive right to sell medicines , a legitimate reason within the meaning of LAW . ORG decision was served on the applicants by a letter from the prosecuting authorities of ORG dated DATE and posted on DATE .

“ It is prohibited to refuse to sell a product or provide a service to a customer for no legitimate reason , to make the sale of a product conditional on the purchase of a compulsory quantity or the concomitant purchase of another product or payment for another service or to make the provision of a service conditional on the provision of another service or the purchase of a product .

This provision shall apply to all the activities contemplated in the last paragraph of LAW . ”

“ The rules relating to the scope of Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE cited above are laid down by LAW , which provides as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL : The rules laid down in the present ordinance apply to all production , distribution , and service activities , including those that are carried out by public bodies , particularly under agreements on the delegation of public service activities . ”

NB : LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE as set out above was repealed by Ordinance no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE . ”

“ The offer for sale of products or provision of services in breach of the provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE shall be punishable by the fines applicable to minor offences ( contraventions ) of the fifth class .

If the offence is repeated , the fines imposed for repeated minor offences of the fifth class shall be applicable . ”

( Transferred into RCARDINAL - CARDINAL and RCARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Consumer Code ) .

“ It is prohibited for any person in any way whatsoever to display , offer , cause to be offered , sell , put on sale , distribute or cause to be distributed the medicines or substances , intra - uterine probes or other similar objects capable of causing or facilitating abortion listed in a decree issued after consultation of the PERSON d’Etat .

Pharmacists may , however , sell the medicines , substances and objects specified above but only on a medical prescription which must be transcribed into a numbered register initialled by the mayor or the police superintendent .


CASE OF SARI AND ÇOLAK v. TURKEY [Extracts]

Violation of Art. 5-3;Not necessary to examine Art. 5-1-c;Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

András Baka;Jean-Paul Costa;Karel Jungwiert;Mindia Ugrekhelidze

The applicants , Mr Sarı and PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . At the material time they lived in GPE .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody by officers of the GPE security police in connection with an investigation into the illegal organisation ORG Dev PERSON ( ORG Front – Revolutionary Way – Revolutionary Movement ) .

NORP The applicants’ detention in police custody was extended , under LAW of PERSON no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , initially until DATE , on the authorisation of the public prosecutor at ORG , and subsequently until DATE ( inclusive ) by order of a judge of that court .

Before the end of their police custody period , on DATE at TIME , the applicants were questioned by the public prosecutor . They were not brought before a judge until TIME , that is to say on DATE . The judge ordered PERSON to be released for the duration of the proceedings and remanded Mr Sarı in custody .

By a bill of indictment of DATE , the public prosecutor committed the applicants to stand trial before ORG . He called for their conviction , under LAW , on a charge of belonging to an armed gang .

Following a hearing on DATE before a trial court , PERSON was granted provisional release .

In a judgment of DATE , after reclassifying the offence , ORG found the applicants guilty of aiding and abetting an armed gang , an offence punishable under LAW . It sentenced them to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment each , and banned them from holding public office for DATE .

The applicants appealed on points of law against that judgment .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG quashed the judgment on account of an erroneous classification of the offence .

ORG , in a judgment of DATE , deferred its decision on the ORG case .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(a ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL on procedure in the national security courts , the offences provided for under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts . At the material time , section CARDINAL of that PERSON provided that any person arrested in connection with CARDINAL of those offences had to be brought before a judge within TIME at the latest , or , if the offence was a joint one committed outside the region under emergency rule , within DATE , not including the time needed to convey the prisoner to the judge .

The fourth paragraph of LAW provides that any person who has been arrested , or whose police custody period has been extended on the order of a public prosecutor , is entitled to challenge that measure before the appropriate judge with a view to securing his or her immediate release . Such an application may also be lodged by the person ’s lawyer , legal representative , close relatives or spouse .

The third paragraph of LAW , amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , reads as follows :

“ After an arrest has been made , and upon a decision of the public prosecutor , [ the authorities ] shall promptly inform a relative , or other person designated by the arrested person , that he or she has been arrested or that his or her police custody period has been extended . ”


Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

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

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

In DATE the applicant inherited a house with a plot of land . She subsequently had a land dispute with her neighbours , PERSON and PERSON , as to the limits of their respective plots .

On DATE the ORG of GPE found for the applicant in her dispute with PERSON concerning the border between their plots of land . On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration . The proceedings were subsequently terminated . On DATE the first - instance court issued a ruling on reversal of execution of the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG of Kyiv ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) decided that the limits of the plots should be in accordance with technical reports which had been drawn up in DATE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE found against the applicant in her dispute with PERSON as to the use of a shed situated on the border of the applicant ’s and G ’s plots of land . The court decided that , despite the fact that according to the technical reports of DATE the shed was situated on the applicant ’s plot of land , there were no documents which could prove the property rights for the shed in question . The court further found that according to the testimonies of witnesses , since DATE the shed had been used by the household in which PERSON lived .

On DATE ORG upheld in cassation the decision of the first - instance court .

On DATE , following the above judicial decisions , ORG invalidated its decision of DATE and approved the current limits of the plots in question . This decision was to the applicant ’s disadvantage .

In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the Shevchenkivsky ORG of GPE against PERSON , PERSON and ORG , challenging the decision of DATE and requesting that all obstacles to her free use of her land be removed .

In DATE and DATE the court ordered forensic expert reports to be drawn up in the case . The first concluded that the actual limits of the land plots did not correspond to the technical documentation , and the second concluded that the actual limits corresponded to the decision of ORG of DATE .

At the court hearing of DATE the applicant sought to introduce an additional claim seeking the invalidation of land ownership certificates issued to PERSON and NORP in DATE . The defendants objected to this new claim as unrelated and noted that the applicant could submit it separately . The court subsequently rejected this additional claim within the impugned proceedings .

On DATE the Shevchenkivsky ORG of GPE found against the applicant , having established that she had challenged the decision of DATE outside the statutory time - limit and that the actual border between the plots of land , as confirmed by the forensic report , corresponded to the decision of DATE . Given the validity of the decision of DATE the court rejected the remainder of the applicant ’s arguments as unfounded .

On DATE the ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . On DATE the applicant posted a cassation appeal , which was received by the court on DATE .

On DATE the Shevchenkivsky ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for a cassation appeal as having been submitted too late . The court stated that , under the new wording of LAW ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) , which had entered into force on DATE , the time - limit for lodging an appeal in cassation was DATE , and that the applicant had exceeded that time - limit by only submitting her appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the ruling of DATE , stating that the applicant had lodged her appeal on DATE , which had been outside the new DATE time - limit established by law , and had not requested an extension of the time - limit for lodging such an appeal .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative lodged an appeal in cassation against the rulings of DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG returned the appeal to the first - instance court to decide on compliance of the appeal with procedural formalities , namely on the fact that the applicant ’s representative had submitted the cassation appeal on her own behalf and not on behalf of the applicant .

By a ruling of DATE the ORG requested that the applicant ’s representative bring the cassation appeal in compliance with procedural formalities and fixed the deadline for doing so at DATE . The representative resubmitted the appeal with the same shortcomings .

On DATE the first - instance court returned the cassation appeal without consideration for failure to comply with procedural formalities .

On DATE ORG upheld the ruling of DATE .

The applicant appealed in cassation .

On DATE the ORG requested that the applicant ’s representative bring the cassation appeal in compliance with procedural formalities and fixed the deadline for doing so at DATE .

By ruling of CARDINAL DATE the same court extended the deadline for the applicant ’s representative to submit her corrected cassation appeal to DATE .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation against the rulings of DATE and DATE .

At the time of the second - instance decision on appeal , the first paragraph of LAW ORG provided that a cassation appeal should be lodged within DATE of the decision on appeal or within DATE of the decision of the first - instance court , if the latter decision was not appealed against under the normal appeal procedure .

On DATE ORG passed a law amending the ORG ( hereafter “ LAW ” ) , including LAW in question . It came into force on DATE . The new wording of Article CARDINAL created a DATE time - limit for lodging a cassation application against the decision of an appellate court .