The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . She is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

A.

On DATE the applicant was convicted of an offence and committed to a psychiatric institution pursuant to ORG . Following the entry into force of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) the applicant continued to be detained as a “ restricted patient ” under sections DATE and CARDINAL of the DATE Act .

On DATE the applicant was conditionally discharged but she was recalled on DATE by warrant of the Secretary of ORG pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . She was then detained at a medium secure unit until DATE when she was transferred to another ward from where , on DATE , she was moved to a community - based ward .

DATE and DATE , the continuing grounds for applicant ’s detention were reviewed twice by ORG ( “ MHRT ” ) . In DATE the applicant made a third application to the ORG , but then changed her mind and withdrew it . On DATE she made a further application which was received by the MHRT on DATE By letter dated DATE , the ORG informed the applicant ’s solicitor that his client had made an application to have her case reviewed . The solicitor took instructions from the applicant and applied for legal aid on her behalf . Legal aid was granted by telephone on DATE , and expenditure of up to GBP CARDINAL was approved in respect of an independent psychiatric report .

The following day the applicant ’s solicitor wrote to a consultant psychiatrist , asking him to prepare a report . The psychiatrist informed that applicant ’s solicitor that he was not free to examine the applicant until DATE . On DATE , therefore , the applicant ’s solicitor wrote to the ORG asking that the case should not be listed for hearing until DATE to allow for the preparation of the independent psychiatric report . The appointment with the psychiatrist had subsequently to be postponed until DATE .

The ORG received the statutory reports , namely ORG on DATE , and ORG on DATE . Copies of these reports were sent to the applicant ’s solicitors , who received them on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE respectively . ORG comments on these CARDINAL reports were received by the ORG on DATE , and forwarded to the applicant ’s solicitors on DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s solicitor wrote to the psychiatrist instructed on behalf of the applicant to remind him that the independent psychiatric report was still outstanding . The report , dated DATE , was finally received by the applicant ’s solicitor on DATE . The applicant claims that her solicitors wrote to the ORG on DATE , but the ORG has no record of this letter . According to the applicant , the ORG then telephoned her solicitor on DATE suggesting a hearing date of DATE , but the applicant ’s solicitor rejected this date since he was not available . It is not in dispute that the solicitor wrote to the ORG on DATE , reminding the tribunal that the matter was outstanding and enclosing the psychiatric report prepared on the applicant ’s behalf .

The case was then listed for hearing on DATE . Copies of the psychiatric report prepared on behalf of the applicant were sent to the other parties for their comments , and these comments were sent to the applicant ’s solicitors before the hearing .

On DATE the ORG decided not to recommend the applicant ’s discharge .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) empowers a ORG to order a person ’s admission to and detention in a specified hospital ( a “ hospital order ” ) . The court can only make a hospital order if it is satisfied on the evidence of CARDINAL registered medical practitioners that the offender is mentally disordered , that the disorder is of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for the person to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment and that a hospital order is the most suitable method of disposing of the case .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act empowers a ORG , when making a hospital order , to make a restriction order without limit of time . A restriction order may be made if it appears to the court , having regard to the nature of the offence , the offender ’s antecedents and the risk of her committing further offences if set at large , that it is necessary for the protection of the public from serious harm to make the order .

Under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act a person who is subject to a hospital order and restriction order ( “ a restricted patient ” ) , and who is detained in hospital , can apply to a ORG ( “ MHRT ” ) after being detained for DATE . After CARDINAL months’ detention the patient can re - apply DATE . Under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act the Secretary of ORG may at any time refer the case of a restricted patient to a ORG and must do so when the case has not been considered by a ORG for DATE .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , read with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , where an application is made to a ORG by a restricted patient who is subject to a restriction , the ORG is required to direct the absolute discharge of the patient if satisfied -

( a ) ( i ) that the patient is not then suffering from mental illness , psychopathic disorder , severe mental impairment or mental impairment or from any of those forms of disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for the patient to be liable to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment ; or

( ii ) that it is not necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons that the patient should receive such treatment ; and

( b ) that it is not appropriate for the patient to remain liable to be recalled to hospital for further treatment .

By virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a patient who is absolutely discharged ceases to be liable to be detained by virtue of the hospital order and the restriction order ceases to have effect .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , where the ORG is satisfied as to either of the matters referred to in paragraph ( a ) above , but not as to the matters referred to in paragraph ( b ) above , it is required to direct the conditional discharge of the patient . By virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , a patient who has been conditionally discharged may be recalled by the Secretary of ORG under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and must comply with the conditions attached to her discharge . In contrast to the case of absolute discharge , a conditionally discharged patient does not cease to be liable to be detained by virtue of the relevant hospital order .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Velenje .

On DATE the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a mine . The applicant ’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE he requested that a date be set for a hearing .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE none was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

During the proceedings the court appointed CARDINAL medical experts .

At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) . On DATE he amended the appeal . ZT cross - appealed .

On DATE the court allowed both appeals in part , annulled a part of the first - instance court judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court for re - examination .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG sodišče ) . ZT cross - appealed .

On DATE the court dismissed both appeals .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the first - instance court held a hearing and decided to deliver a written judgment .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against the part of the judgment concerning costs and expenses of the proceedings .

On DATE the court dismissed the appeal . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE and DATE the applicant instituted CARDINAL separate sets of proceedings in ORG against ORG GPE Zavod ” ( the “ GPE ) , seeking recovery of salary arrears . By decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s claims and ordered the ORG to pay the applicant a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in salary arrears .

On DATE and DATE PERSON instituted enforcement proceedings concerning the decisions of DATE and DATE , respectively .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the decisions in her favour had not been executed due to the substantial number of enforcement proceedings against the debtor and the debtor ’s lack of funds .

On DATE the applicant was paid the amounts due to her in full .

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


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

NORP In DATE the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the GPE nuclear plant disaster . As a result the applicant suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions . In DATE the applicant underwent medical examinations which established the link between the applicant ’s poor health and his involvement in the GPE events . The applicant was awarded compensation , to be paid DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant sued a local pension authority ( ORG социальной защиты г. Шахты , “ the authority ” ) for allegedly erroneous calculation of his DATE compensation and demanded arrears and damages .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE granted the applicant ’s claim and ordered the authority to recalculate his DATE compensation for the period between DATE and DATE , to pay the applicant the arrears of PERSON in this respect and DATE compensation of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL with further indexation until any subsequent changes of legislation .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE was not appealed against by the parties and came into force DATE , on DATE .

NORP Some time thereafter the authority applied to ORG requesting to re - open the applicant ’s case by reference to newly discovered evidence , such as his pay statements for DATE preceding the disabling incident .

On DATE ORG granted the application and re - opened the proceedings .

It appears that the defendant authority and ORG failed properly to notify the applicant of the re - opening proceedings and the decision of DATE .

NORP The applicant challenged the decision of DATE by way of supervisory review by reference to this failure . His appeal also stated that the piece of evidence referred to by the authority could not be considered as newly discovered since it had been fully available to ORG during the first instance proceedings .

On DATE the Rostov ORG acting as a supervisory review instance set aside the decision of DATE . The court upheld the applicant ’s arguments in full and by the same decision dismissed the authority ’s arguments as unfounded .

On DATE the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE reached the baillifs and on DATE they opened the enforcement proceedings in this connection .

According to the Government , the authority complied with the judgment by CARDINAL bank transfers , dated DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . As of DATE the applicant has been in receipt of the DATE compensation of RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , with no debts outstanding .

According to the applicant , to date the judgment of CARDINAL DATE has not been enforced in part relating to indexation of his DATE compensation until any subsequent changes in the legislation .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE a company controlled by PERSON purchased real estate . In DATE Mr A. transferred the control over the company to another person who , on DATE , met the applicant for the first time . On DATE the applicant sold the real estate , in accordance with this other person ’s instructions , on behalf of the company to another company . On DATE was declared personally bankrupt while he was at the same time charged with dishonesty by a debtor ( velallisen epärehellisyys , oredlighet som gäldenär ) . On DATE , when the first swearing of the inventory of the bankruptcy estate was held , PERSON refused to swear the inventory . The inventory did not include the real estate . On DATE , when the second swearing of the inventory of the bankruptcy estate was held , PERSON swore the inventory .

On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for having concealed and obliterated , DATE and DATE by , inter alia , drafting contracts and transferring moneys , the true nature and origin of the real estate , in reality owned by ORG , knowing that this property was obtained by a criminal act .

On DATE the GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the applicant in the context of money laundering , inter alia , of an aggravated receiving offence ( törkeä kätkemisrikos , grovt häleri ) and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of DATE and DATE and to removal from office as a professor of commercial law . The conviction was based on a principal offence committed by PERSON was convicted on DATE by ORG of aggravated debtor ’s fraud ( törkeä velallisen petos , grovt gäldenärsbedrägeri ) and sentenced to imprisonment . The court found that PERSON had not declared all his assets when swearing the inventory of his personal bankruptcy estate in DATE .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) requesting , inter alia , that he be acquitted .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG , except for the fact that the applicant ’s prison sentence was converted into a conditional CARDINAL .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) .

On DATE ORG granted leave to appeal to Mr A. The applicant was granted leave to appeal only in respect of the removal from office and the obligation to pay costs and expenses to PERSON bankruptcy estate . As to the merits , the court upheld ORG judgment . The court found that the information PERSON had declined to give in DATE was not such that it would in all probability have provided a basis for his conviction . PERSON had thus not had any right to decline to give this information and he was thus guilty of aggravated debtor ’s fraud . As concerns the applicant , the court acquitted him of the obligation to pay costs and expenses to PERSON bankruptcy estate . As to his removal from office , the court did not change the earlier judgments . The judgment included several dissenting opinions .

DATE , on DATE , the ORG delivered its judgment in the case GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) in which it found that there had been a violation of the applicant ’s right to silence and his right not to incriminate himself guaranteed by LAW . In that case the applicant was charged with for having previously given false accounts of his assets at the time when coercion was used to obtain information from him . The circumstances of that case were identical to that of PERSON with the only exception that PERSON had been subject to enforcement while PERSON was subject to personal bankruptcy proceedings . They were both under threat of a similar default fine and even imprisonment if they did not agree to declare all their assets . This information could have been used against them in other pending criminal proceedings .

On an unspecified date PERSON filed an extraordinary appeal with ORG requesting re - opening of his case on the basis of the ORG ’s judgment in the PERSON case .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant also filed a re - opening request with ORG as his conviction was ancillary to that of PERSON also requested that the execution of his sentence be stayed as far as the removal from office was concerned .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused the request to stay the execution due to the fact that the removal from office had taken effect on the date of the judgment , namely , on DATE , and that there was thus no execution measure to be stayed .

On DATE ORG , sitting in plenum , re - opened Mr A. ’s case , dismissed all the charges against him and freed him from the sentence imposed . The court found that PERSON had had a right to remain silent as he could not rule out that the information given could be used against him in criminal proceedings . Mr A had thus been entitled to decline to declare , inter alia , the real estate .

On DATE ORG , sitting in plenum , rejected the applicant ’s request for re - opening . The court found that even though PERSON had had a right to remain silent , this did not mean that the applicant ’s acts to conceal assets , namely the real estate , from ORG ’s creditors were justified . The effects of the right not to incriminate oneself were limited only to the person who was asked to submit information . A person could be convicted of a receiving offence even if the perpetrator of the principal offence was freed from criminal liability . The applicant ’s right to a fair trial had not been violated as no information received in violation of the right not to incriminate oneself had been used as evidence vis - à - vis the applicant .

The referendary and CARDINAL justices gave a joint dissenting opinion . According to them , there was no domestic law or jurisprudence on whether the right not to incriminate oneself could have effects on other persons connected to the crime in question . ORG had already found that PERSON had not committed the debtor ’s fraud of which he was accused . Therefore the applicant could not have been guilty of receiving the assets that PERSON had acquired through debtor ’s fraud , as indicated in the charges . There were no other charges against him . Consequently , the applicant ’s case should be re - opened , all charges against him dismissed and he should be freed from all sanctions imposed on him .

Chapter DATE , sections CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki ; strafflagen , Act no . DATE , as in force at the relevant time ) provide the following :

“ Fraud by a debtor

A debtor who , in order to obtain unlawful financial benefit for himself or herself or another in bankruptcy , enforcement , debt adjustment or restructuring proceedings

( CARDINAL ) conceals his or her property ,

( CARDINAL ) reports a liability that is false in full or in part , or based on a sham transaction ,

( CARDINAL ) NORP gives other false or misleading information on a circumstance that is significant from the point of view of the creditors , or

( CARDINAL ) fails to report a liability ,

shall be sentenced for fraud by a debtor to a fine or to imprisonment for DATE .

If the debtor rectifies the misleading information or otherwise prevents the effect of his or her act on the proceedings before he or she attests to the correctness of the estate inventory or before the misleading information otherwise affects the proceedings , the act is not deemed fraud by a debtor .

Aggravated fraud by a debtor

If in the fraud by a debtor

( CARDINAL ) considerable benefit is sought or

( CARDINAL ) the debtor attests in court to the correctness of the false or misleading information

and the fraud by the debtor is aggravated also when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated fraud by a debtor to imprisonment for DATE and at DATE . ”

Chapter DATE , section CARDINAL , of LAW no . DATE , as in force at the relevant time ) provides the following :

“ Receiving offence

A person who hides , procures , takes into his or her possession or conveys property obtained from another through theft , embezzlement , robbery , extortion , fraud , usury or means of payment fraud or through fraud by a debtor , aggravated fraud by a debtor or intentional deceitfulness by a debtor , or otherwise handles such property although he or she knows that the property was thus obtained shall be sentenced for a receiving offence to a fine or to imprisonment for at DATE and DATE .

A person shall also be sentenced for a receiving offence if he or she

CARDINAL ) NORP receives , converts , conveys or transfers funds or other property although he or she knows that they were acquired through an offence or replace funds or property acquired through an offence , in order to conceal or obliterate their illegal origin or to assist the offender in evading the legal consequences of the offence , or

CARDINAL ) NORP conceals or obliterates the true nature , origin , location or disposition of or rights to property referred to in paragraph CARDINAL , or conceals information about such a circumstance which he or she is obliged to disclose under law . ”

According to LAW , section CARDINAL , of the same Code :

“ Aggravated receiving offence

If the object of the receiving offence is very valuable property and the receiving offence is aggravated also when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for an aggravated receiving offence to imprisonment for DATE and at DATE . ”

According to LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW no . CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time ) ,

“ [ w]here a special circumstance vindicates , mitigates or aggravates an act , it applies only to the perpetrator , inciter or abettor to whom the circumstance pertains .

An inciter or abettor is not exempted from penal liability by the fact that he or she is not affected by a special circumstance related to the person and said circumstance is a basis for the punishability of the act by the perpetrator . ”

LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångs balk , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides the following :

“ If the request for the reversal of a final judgment is upheld and it is deemed necessary to retry the case , the ORG shall order the deadline , the court and the manner in which the case is to be brought for a retrial . However , the ORG shall have the right to immediately rectify the judgment , if the case is found to be clear and the request does not concern the reversal of a judgment in a criminal case to the detriment of the defendant . ”


Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . At the time of the events complained of , he was detained in a secure institution , ORG “ Veldzicht ” in GPE , GPE ; in DATE he was transferred to the secure institution “ PERSON ” in GPE , near GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicant hit his wife , PERSON , on the head , the shoulders and the back with the blunt edge of a meat cleaver , choked her and kicked her in the face . PERSON was injured but survived .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempted manslaughter . In the light of a psychiatric report which found the applicant 's mental powers to be deficient and the chance of his re - offending to be high , it sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and ordered his placement at the ORG 's disposal ( terbeschikkingstelling PERSON ) with confinement in a secure institution .

On DATE the ' s - ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( cassatie ) with ORG ( PERSON ) , which was dismissed on DATE .

NORP The time which the applicant had spent in detention on remand counting towards the sentence , the order placing the applicant at the ORG 's disposal therefore went into force on DATE .

The placement order was prolonged for DATE in DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's placement order for a further DATE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( gerechtshof ) .

A hearing was held on DATE . The Government state that the registrar ( griffier ) took notes and that these were kept in the case file .

The Court of Appeal gave its decision on DATE ; it found that the applicant 's continued placement at the ORG 's disposal remained necessary in the interest of public safety and accordingly upheld the decision of ORG . Summaries of an expert report and of statements made at the hearing by an expert and by the applicant 's counsel are contained in this decision ; they cover approximately a page and a CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant 's counsel wrote to ORG asking for a copy of the official record of the hearing of DATE .

A reply dated DATE , on stationery bearing the letterhead of the vice - president of ORG in charge of criminal cases ( the signature is illegible ) , contains the following passage :

“ In reply to your request of DATE last I must inform you that no official records are usually made of hearings of the criminal division concerning prolongations of placements at the ORG 's disposal . The reason is that no ordinary remedy lies against the decisions concerned and the workload of ORG does not admit of structural activities ' just to fill the archives ' ( voor het archief ) . For that reason , also , the decisions in question tend to render the statements made more extensively than would be the case if in fact an official record were prepared ( in addition ) . ”

A person who has been found guilty of certain serious crimes and who , at the time of committing the offence , suffered from a mental deficiency or derangement may be placed at the ORG 's disposal if required in the interests of the safety of others or , more generally , in the interests of the safety of persons or goods . Such a measure , which is not considered a punishment , may be imposed instead of or together with a prison sentence ( Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . The sentencing court may further decide that the person concerned shall be confined in a secure institution in the interests of public safety ( LAW ) .

According to Article PERSON of LAW , the person concerned shall be placed at the disposal of the Government for an initial period of DATE which may be prolonged , at the request of the public prosecutor , for a further period of CARDINAL or DATE . The period of placement can not be extended beyond a total of DATE unless the crime committed by the person concerned was a crime of violence committed against , or causing danger to , CARDINAL or more persons , or such further extension is necessary for the protection of other persons ( Article PERSON ) .

A hearing shall be held in public by the review chamber ( raadkamer ) of ORG ( LAW ) .

An appeal against the decision of ORG lies to ORG ( LAW ) .

ORG decision , which shall contain the specific reasons underlying it , is final ; no ordinary legal remedy is available to challenge it ( Article CARDINALx § CARDINAL ) .

The provisions of LAW prescribing the content of the review chamber 's decisions and the official record of its hearings are the following :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The decision taken by the review chamber shall be reasoned . If it is laid down that the hearing shall be public , the decision shall be pronounced publicly .

NORP The decision shall state the names of the judges of the chamber ( college ) which gave it and the date on which it was given . It shall be signed by the president and the registrar who attended the hearing .

NORP If the president is prevented from signing , another judge of the review chamber shall sign . If the registrar is prevented from signing , this shall be mentioned in the decision .

Unless otherwise provided , the decision shall be transmitted to the suspect and other participants in the proceedings without delay .

“ CARDINAL . The registrar shall prepare an official record of the hearing by the review chamber , which shall contain the summary content ( den zakelijken inhoud ) of the statements made and of any further events that have occurred at that hearing .

NORP If a suspect , a witness or expert , or a suspect 's counsel or a lawyer desires any statement to be recorded in his own words , that shall be done as far a possible in so far as the statement does not exceed reasonable limits .

NORP The official record shall be finalised ( vastgesteld ) by the president or CARDINAL of the other judges of the review chamber and the registrar [ together ] and signed as soon as possible after the end of the hearing . Should the registrar be prevented , this shall be done without his co - operation and the fact of his having been thus prevented shall be mentioned at the end of the official record .

NORP The official record shall be added to the case file together with the decision and any other documents submitted during the hearing . ”

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON ( GPE Law Reports ) DATE , no . CARDINAL , ORG declared null and void a decision of a trial court because the official record of the hearing at which it was delivered was not contained in the case file , so that it could not be established that delivery had taken place in accordance with the prescribed formal requirements , including that of publicity . ORG accepted that the judgment 's delivery in public was noted in the judgment itself , but that was not sufficient since , with regard to formalities to be observed at hearings , the law had attributed evidentiary value only to the official record .

In CARDINAL other judgments , delivered by ORG on DATE ( PERSON , no . CARDINAL ) and on DATE ( PERSON , no . CARDINAL ) respectively , decisions were declared null and void on the ground that , there being no official record in each case of the hearing in camera , it had to be assumed that no such hearing meeting the appropriate formal requirements had in fact been held .


No violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);No violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);No violation of Art. 13

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant was conscripted into ORG to perform his mandatory military service . He was serving in a regiment in the town of GPE . In DATE the regiment doctor relieved him from physical exercise and DATE duty because of illness . Nevertheless , on TIME CARDINAL July CARDINAL he was assigned to night duty .

After finishing his duty , in TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was sent , together with other soldiers from his regiment , to shooting practice at a military shooting range near the town of GPE . During the practice soldiers from the applicant 's regiment and another regiment were present on the range . The applicant performed his task , which consisted of firing CARDINAL rounds . After that he handed back all spent cartridge cases and was sent to a watchtower to guard against outsiders penetrating into the range . The tower was a square concrete construction QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide . In the middle it had a threemetrehigh chimney .

At TIME after climbing up the tower , the applicant was shot in the abdomen . According to the findings of the ensuing investigation , the shot was fired at close range from his own automatic rifle , whose breechblock he was trying to fix without following the applicable safety procedures . The applicant disputes those findings and asserts that the shot was in all probability fired by another soldier from afar .

After the shot the applicant fell down on the roof of the tower , screaming and moaning . Chief PERSON , who was sitting with a few soldiers from his regiment at the foot of the tower , rushed up the stairs . He brought the applicant down with the help of soldier T. and medical officer GPE , who were also at the foot of the tower and climbed up after the shot .

After that the applicant was put into an ambulance and transported , accompanied by medical officer GPE , to ORG in GPE , where he underwent lifesaving surgical operations on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE his condition was found to be serious but stable . He was discharged from hospital on DATE , and later received a medical discharge from the army .

On DATE of the incident a military investigator , notified by the military police , opened a preliminary investigation whose aim was to “ determine the causes and the circumstances in which [ the applicant ] shot himself ” .

At TIME the investigator inspected the scene of the incident . He found that it had not been preserved intact . He described in detail everything he found . He also identified , on the basis of the statement of Chief PERSON , the likely positions of the applicant 's body and of his rifle “ after the shot ” . He impounded the rifle , a halfscrubbed and oxygenated cartridge case , some pieces of dark reddish matter , dactyloscopic traces from the rifle , and traces from the surface of the tower .

DATE the hospital where the applicant had been operated upon sent the investigator the piece of skin surrounding his entry wound and acetone smears from his palms . The applicant 's commander handed over to the investigator the shirt he had been wearing during the shooting and some of his personal items .

DATE , DATE , the investigator interviewed Chief PERSON , a sergeant responsible for counting the targets at the shooting range , the applicant 's mother , and PERSON , the officer in charge of the shooting practice . He also ordered a complex ballistic , microbiological and physicochemical report and a medical expert report .

Chief PERSON said that while he was sitting at the foot of the watchtower he heard a single shot from above , much louder than those coming from the firing range , and then heard screaming from the top of the tower . He climbed up the stairs and saw the applicant lying on the ground , moaning and tossing his upper body up and down . He noticed that the applicant 's shirt was unbuttoned and that he had a wound on the left side of his abdomen . The wound did not have a clear shape and looked more like a star than a hole . It was surrounded by a round black patch with a diameter of QUANTITY and consisting of many black spots close together . The lieutenant saw another wound on the applicant 's back , with a clear round shape , QUANTITY in diameter , with a little blood on it . He also saw the applicant 's rifle , which did not have a round in its chamber , had its safety lever down and was in semiautomatic mode .

Captain PERSON handed over to the investigator the order and the plan for the shooting practice , and described the safety briefing given to all soldiers before the start of the shooting practice . He said that after the briefing a chief lieutenant checked the weapons of all soldiers taking part in the practice , and ordered CARDINAL soldiers to step aside and clean their weapons . Then the captain announced to the soldiers the manner in which the practice would be conducted and the safety measures . They were to fire solely upon his command , and stop firing immediately if he so ordered , or if they received a visual signal from the watchtower , or if they noticed people , animals or machines near the targets . The firing range was delimited by markers at both ends . It was strictly forbidden , under any circumstances , to point a firearm outside the firing range . If a firearm jammed , the soldier had to report it immediately , remain still , put the safety catch down and not touch the firearm . The soldiers fired in groups of CARDINAL , with those waiting their turn having unloaded weapons . The soldiers first went to the starting point , received magazines containing CARDINAL rounds , and put them in their bags , while keeping their rifles on their backs . When they received the order to fire , they had to run to the firing position with their rifles pointing towards the firing range . Then , on a further order , they had to take the magazines out of the bags , put them onto the rifles , load a round , lift the safety catch and report that they were ready to fire . When ordered to fire , after the captain had made sure that each of them had loaded his weapon and was ready to fire , they put the safety catch in automatic firing mode and started firing . After finishing firing , they had to report , remove the magazine , and , when ordered , fire a control shot towards the firing range and put the safety catch on . After that they had to stand up , have their rifles checked by the captain with the magazine removed , fire a second control shot , and hand back the spent cartridges . At the time of the incident a group of soldiers was firing , with the captain standing QUANTITY behind them . Immediately after hearing the applicant 's screams the captain ordered the soldiers to stop firing and empty their weapons , and then checked the weapons .

The order for the shooting practice , issued by the head of the regiment , designed a commanding officer , an officer , a sergeant and a soldier ensuring the sealing off of the area , a technician , an emergency medical officer , a standby ambulance , CARDINAL guards , CARDINAL of whom was the applicant , and a head of the ammunition supply point . It directed the commanding officer to ensure compliance with the safety measures in line with the applicable instructions . An annex to that order shows that all the soldiers confirmed that they had been briefed about the safety measures .

On DATE the investigator interviewed medical officer GPE , ORG , the person in charge of ammunition safety during the shooting practice , and soldier ORG of the applicant 's regiment .

N.G. said that , while sitting at the foot of the watchtower , she heard a loud whizzing sound and then screaming . She climbed up the tower and saw a wound on the applicant 's abdomen . It was a small hole with a round darkbrown patch around it . Later , the officer was with the applicant in the ambulance , she noticed another wound , with a diameter of QUANTITY , on the left side of his lower back . In the ambulance , she repeatedly asked the applicant how he had sustained the injury , but he kept silent . At CARDINAL point , he said “ I wanted to fix it ” . She pressed him for more , but he said “ Oh , leave me , leave me ” and asked whether they had already reached the hospital .

G.I. said that following the incident , when he had been counting the cartridge cases spent during the shooting practice , somebody , probably Lieutenant M. , threw a cartridge case on to the pile , and it got mixed up with the others . When PERSON enquired about the case 's origin , lieutenant PERSON had replied that it had come from the scene of the incident . Later , with a view to identifying the case , the officer in charge of the practice ordered G.I. to divide the cases up into lots . He found CARDINAL with a diverging serial number , and handed it over to the investigator . G.I. also said that he was certain that the applicant had earlier returned to him CARDINAL cases of the cartridges allotted to him for the shooting practice .

R.V. said that the applicant had been in a good mood on DATE of the incident , that both of them had had their rifles checked and returned their spent cartridge cases after the shooting practice , and that , prior to climbing up the watchtower , the applicant did not have a magazine on his rifle .

On DATE the investigator interviewed the applicant , who was still in the intensive care unit of the emergency surgical department of ORG in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the record of this interview , the applicant said that while he was on the watchtower he tried to fix his rifle 's sling . He knelt down on his right knee and laid the rifle on the ground with the muzzle pointing towards him . He noticed that the safety catch was in automatic firing position and the breechblock was not in position . With his right hand he pushed the breechblock forward . It jammed and he used force to push it , with the rifle 's barrel lying on his left hand and the magazine holder pointing upwards . When the breechblock moved into position , he heard a shot . He became short of breath and started crying for help .

The applicant strongly disputes the accuracy of this record and maintains that , being in a very serious medical condition , he could not remember how this interview unfolded or the statements he made during it . He submits that the only reliable statements were those which he made during a subsequent interview on DATE , DATE after his discharge from hospital . At that interview he said that before going to the tower he fired all CARDINAL cartridges at the shooting range and then returned the spent cases to ORG When going up the tower , he noticed CARDINAL sergeants there , talked to them for a while and then remained alone . When standing with his left side toward the shooting range and his rifle slung over his shoulder , he suddenly felt powerless , weak in the knees and short of breath , but did not hear a shot close by . He started shouting for help and TIME later someone came up to him .

On DATE and DATE the investigator interviewed Captain PERSON , a staff doctor from the applicant 's regiment , and CARDINAL soldiers serving with the applicant . All of them said that they had not seen any signs of depression in the applicant prior to the incident .

The medical expert report ordered by the investigator was drawn up on DATE by PERSON , deputy chief of ORG . He had not examined the applicant but based his report on the existing medical documentation . The report read as follows :

“ ... The entry wound is situated on the front left side of the abdomen , slightly above the navel and on the midclavicular line , with burns on the surrounding skin . The exit wound is on the left side of the back , under the corner of the scapula .

If the body was in an upright position the channel of the wound would go slightly upward from the front to the back .

The entry wound 's description in the medical documents shows that it was the result of a shot from a very close range . To determine precisely the distance of the shot it is necessary to carry out a ballistic testing of the clothes worn by [ the applicant ] at the time when the shot was fired .

When passing through the body the projectile ( the bullet ) , in addition to damaging the soft tissues , broke the twelfth rib on the left , ruptured the front and the back walls of the stomach , the transverse colon , the splenic flexure ( in CARDINAL places ) , and the spleen . As a result , there was a flow of faeces and a massive haemorrhage in the abdominal cavity , causing a temporarily lifethreatening medical condition .

The above necessitated an emergency lifesaving surgery , consisting of a full midline laparotomy , with a drainage of the blood and the faeces from the abdominal cavity and a resection of the omentum , a wedge - shaped resection and stitching of the stomach , partial resection of the transversal colon and of the splenic flexure , with a removal of a bitruncular colostoma , surgical removal of the spleen , treatment of the fractured rib , lavage and drainage of the abdominal cavity , and laparostoma .

After that surgical intervention the bleeding was stopped and the risk to [ the applicant 's ] life was averted , i.e. the case concerns loss of the spleen .

It should be borne in mind that without a timely and highlyqualified medical intervention death would have occurred very rapidly .

After the surgical intervention [ the applicant ] was placed in an intensive care unit . Following ORG data about a haemorrhage in the left pleural cavity on DATE , a left - side thoracentesis ( drainage of the pleural fluid ) was carried out . On DATE a surgical bandage was made , and on DATE – a second laparotomy with a revision of the laparostoma and of the abdominal cavity was carried out , a local aesthetic was applied on the mesentery , ileostomy and debrissage of the small intestine through it were performed , and a new laparostoma was placed . After the surgical intervention the [ applicant ] was again placed in an intensive care unit . On DATE his condition was assessed as being stable but serious . ”

On DATE a biology expert drew up a report saying that the blood - red dry matter taken from the scene of the incident was indeed human blood . However , as a result of the depletion of the sample , it was impossible to determine its type or to tell whether it was identical with the applicant 's blood . The applicant 's shirt had blood on it .

In a report of DATE CARDINAL experts stated that the applicant 's rifle was in good working order and able to produce a shot . The force needed to be applied to the trigger in order to fire was within the acceptable limits . They further found that the rifle had been fired since it had last been cleaned , and that the cartridge case handed over by ORG to the investigator did not come from that rifle .

In a physicochemical report of CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL experts said that they had been unable to conclude whether the gunpowder from the rifle 's barrel was identical to that taken from the applicant 's shirt . They also said that the smears from the applicant 's palms and wrist - bands did not contain traces of a shot .

On DATE the investigator proposed discontinuing the investigation . He found that the applicant had shot himself at close range . There was no evidence pointing to breaches of the regulations on conducting shooting exercises or the applicable safety rules . Nor was there any indication that the applicant had had psychological problems or depression which could push him to commit suicide , or that he had tried to damage his health with a view to evading military service . The evidence thus led to the conclusion that his injury was the result of an accidental shot fired because of his improper handling of his firearm .

On DATE the Sofia Military Regional Prosecutor 's Office decided to discontinue the investigation , repeating the reasons given by the investigator verbatim .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He argued , among other things , that the authorities had explored solely the version that he had shot himself . No expert report had been drawn up on the identity of the firearm which had produced the shot . It was absurd to think that this was the rifle he had been carrying while on the watchtower , because it had not been loaded and had its safety catch down . His clothes had not been examined by an expert and it was therefore impossible to conclude whether or nor the shot had been fired at close range . The medical expert report was not based on primary medical documents and had thus come to the erroneous conclusion that the bullet had left his body , producing a second wound on his back . There were indications , such as the noise of the shot , noted by the witnesses , that he had been wounded by a ricochet and that the bullet had shattered .

On DATE the Military Appellate Prosecutor 's Office dismissed the appeal . It noted that during his interview on DATE the applicant had stated that he had shot himself . Moreover , the medical expert had found that he had both an entry and an exit wound . The medical documents showed that the wound was from a shot fired at close range . Noone else was around the applicant at the time of the shot . The lower prosecutor 's findings were thus correct .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He asserted that his statement of DATE was far from reliable . At that time he had been in hospital , in a very bad condition following several lifesaving operations . It was therefore surprising to see that the official record of this statement seemed so detailed and logical . No expert report had been drawn up on the identity of the firearm which had produced the shot , whereas the evidence showing that it had been fired by his rifle was unreliable and was called into doubt by other evidence . There was no evidence showing that the shot had been fired at close range . Lastly , no consideration had been given to the fact that he had been ordered to take part in the shooting exercises after night duty and while he was ill .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It observed that the testing of the piece of skin surrounding the applicant 's entry wound showed that the shot had been fired at close range . This was consistent with the applicant 's statement of DATE and the statement of medical officer PERSON It was impossible to examine the bullet , because it had not been found . It was established that the spent cartridge case handed over to the investigator by ORG did not come from the applicant 's rifle . However , it could not be ruled out that ORG had mistakenly identified it as the CARDINAL thrown on to the pile by lieutenant PERSON , given that the pile contained in total CARDINAL spent cartridge cases . Even if all of them were to be tested , which was impossible in view of the time elapsed since the events , that would not have led to a definite conclusion about the firearm 's identity . The lower prosecutors had thus correctly found that the applicant had injured himself by handling his rifle improperly . There was no indication that other soldiers had shot him or that he had injured himself deliberately .

On DATE the applicant 's representative before the ORG wrote to PERSON , the head of the forensic department of ORG . He sent him the relevant medical documents and asked for his opinion on ( a ) whether the description of the applicant 's wound was comprehensive ; ( b ) whether it was possible to determine , on the basis of that description , the distance from which the shot had been fired ; ( c ) what could be the exact basis for such determination ; ( d ) what could be the possibility for error ; and ( e ) what type of data would allow a more precise determination of the distance from which the shot had been fired .

Dr PERSON 's opinion , drawn up on DATE , read as follows :

“ The questions you pose in your letter ... may be answered like this :

NORP The description , which says ' visible entry wound in the abdominal area , at the midclavicular line , slightly above the navel , with burns ' , is not detailed – the shape of the wound , the condition of the edges , the size of the wound ( diameter or diameters ) , the size of the ' burn ' and its position relative to the edges of the wound – concentric or eccentric – are lacking .

NORP On the basis of that description , one could make the very general conclusion that the wound was the result of a shot from a close distance . Indeed , the shot could have been even a contact one , if it was fired through several layers of clothing , or thicker , or damp clothing .

In forensic medicine , shot distances are categorised in CARDINAL ways : contact shots ( complete or incomplete ) , closedistance shots ( within the range of action of the shot 's additional effects ) , and longdistance shots ( outside the range of action of the shot 's additional effects ) , without this being linked with a concrete distance in QUANTITY or meters .

NORP The basis for the conclusion in point CARDINAL is the fact that the wound was surrounded by a ring , described as a ' burn ' .

In the case of closedistance shots ( and sometimes in the case of contact shots ) , one can see traces of unburned powder , metal particles , grease , etc . around the wound ( the socalled ' stain ring ' or ' blackened ring ' ) . The range at which those can make an impact ( in the case of a shot with a PERSON rifle ) is TIME QUANTITY . With the increase in the distance , the intensity of those additional effects of the shot diminishes .

There is no burning around an entry firearm wound because the action of the flame and the hot gases is short - term . Sometimes one can find traces of the high temperature – slight burning of thin or more tender hairs or of artificial tissues .

The ' stain ring ' around the wound is a result of the mechanical action of the blacks and of the other particles and their ramming into the skin , as well as of the chemical action of the powder gases and the other residues from the shot .

It is also possible that the so - called ' burn ' was in fact a ' muzzle mark ' – a bruise around the entry wound resulting from the impact of the muzzle in the case of a full contact shot . MONEY are characteristic for shots in the head or in areas having a solid surface ( bone ) underneath , but can sometimes occur in cases of shots in the abdominal area . The available description does not allow a more specific conclusion to be drawn .

The possibility for error when concluding that a shot has been fired from a close distance on the basis of a ' stain ring ' is minimal . The medical literature refers to the so - called ' phenomenon of ORG ' , in which such a ring appears after a shot from a distance of even QUANTITY . However , such occurrences are rare and do not correspond to the description of the wound in the present case . The description of the wound allows CARDINAL to conclude that the shot was fired either from a close distance or that it was a contact shot . A long - distance shot is to be excluded .

It would be possible to make a more specific assessment of the distance from which the shot has been fired on the basis of :

– a more detailed medical description ( as mentioned in point CARDINAL ) ;

– more information about the conditions in which the shot was fired ( clothes , type of bullet , etc . ) ;

– a special analysis determining the composition of the stain around the wound or on the clothes ;

– experimental shots with the same weapon and in the same conditions as the shot under consideration . ”

Article CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Code of Criminal Procedure , as in force at the material time , provided that proceedings concerning publicly prosecutable offences could be initiated only by a prosecutor or an investigator . When military courts had jurisdiction to hear a case , as for example when it concerned soldiers or army officers ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Code ) , the responsibility for conducting the preliminary investigation lay with military investigators and prosecutors .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time , prosecutors were to discontinue an investigation if they found that the matters alleged did not amount to a criminal offence . Until DATE their decisions to do so could be appealed against before the superior prosecutor ( paragraph CARDINAL of that Article , as in force until DATE ) .

Paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the Code , as in force DATE and DATE , provided that after the discontinuance the prosecutor had to send the case file and his decision to the superior prosecutor 's office , which could confirm , modify or quash it . If it confirmed the decision , it had to send the case file to the appropriate court , which had to rule in private as to whether the discontinuation was or was not warranted ( Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , as in force at that time ) . Paragraph CARDINAL of that Article provided that no appeal lay against the court 's decision . No provision was made for the victim of the offence to be notified of the discontinuance .

Article CARDINAL of the Code was completely changed with effect from DATE and from that point on provided that the prosecutor 's decision to discontinue the proceedings was to be served on the accused and on the victim of the offence . Either of them could then seek judicial review .

Under LAW , which superseded LAW on DATE , a prosecutor 's decision to discontinue an investigation is served on the accused and the victim of the offence and is subject to judicial review by the relevant firstinstance court . An appeal lies against the court 's decision to the higher court , whose decision is final ( Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL of that Code ) .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a burglary together with PERSON , his underage son , and PERSON , also a minor . His flat was searched . He was brought to a temporary detention centre , where he was held until DATE ( the parties disputed the relevant date ) . He received very little food and water and did not have access to medical assistance . During that period he was questioned on several occasions in the absence of a lawyer and beaten up by police officers , who wanted him to confess . According to the applicant , his lawyer ’s signature was later added to the transcript of his questioning .

On DATE the GPE ORG authorised the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . In particular , the court noted as follows :

“ Pursuant to the materials submitted , [ the applicant ] is charged with criminal offences entailing a custodial sentence exceeding DATE , he is not officially employed and , if released , might abscond . Furthermore , the court discerns no grounds rendering possible the imposition of a less strict restrictive measure . ”

The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial . ORG extended his detention on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The applicant did not appeal against those decisions .

On DATE ORG opened the trial . The applicant was represented by ORG - appointed counsel .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL - and - a - half years’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was detained at remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

The Government ’s submissions as regards the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL can be summarised as follows :

All the cells were equipped with a ventilation system ensuring adequate fresh air circulation . Each cell had CARDINAL windows measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY covered with metal grilles that had QUANTITY QUANTITY openings . The grilles installed did not prevent access to natural light . The windows had small vents which could also be kept open to ensure access to fresh air . The electric lighting was constantly on . From CARDINAL TIME four CARDINAL-watt electric bulbs were used . For the rest of the time CARDINAL CARDINAL-watt electric bulbs were used .

The toilet in each cell was separated from the living area by a QUANTITY high brick wall and a door . The distance between the toilet and the dining table was QUANTITY . There was a sink with hot and cold running tap water .

The inmates were allowed TIME DATE outdoor exercise in designated exercise areas measuring QUANTITY on average . The exercise areas were covered with steel mesh , with openings measuring QUANTITY . The mesh did not prevent access to natural light or fresh air .

The applicant accepted the ORG ’s submissions in part concerning cell measurements and the number of sleeping places . He challenged the data submitted by the Government as regards cell population . According to the applicant , at all times the cells were severely overcrowded . The number of inmates was CARDINAL times as high as the cells’ design capacity . The number of sleeping places was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep . In particular , in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL there were from CARDINAL inmates detained together with the applicant ; cell no . CARDINAL housed from CARDINAL to CARDINAL inmates . The applicant did not contest the information submitted by the Government in respect of the number of inmates detained in cell no . CARDINAL .

There was no ventilation system in any of the cells . The electric lighting was insufficient . The glass panes were missing from the windows and it was extremely cold in the DATE and extremely hot in DATE . The windows were covered with several layers of metal grilles and bars which prevented access to natural light . Nor was there running hot water .

The applicant was allowed outdoor DATE exercise in the specially designated areas only during the period of his detention in cell no . CARDINAL , in other words from CARDINAL DATE . For the rest of the time he was taken outdoors to a semi - circular area measuring from QUANTITY . However , in view of the large number of inmates brought to that area , it was impossible to exercise or walk around . The applicant did not have DATE clothes and was not allowed to exercise outdoors during DATE .

NORP In cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL the toilet was not separated from the living area of the cell . The cells were infested with lice , bed bugs and other insects . The toilet was foul smelling . No bed linen was provided . The only mattresses provided were dirty , covered with blood stains and infested with lice . Sometimes detainees suffering from tuberculosis , hepatitis and AIDS were placed in the cell . The food was of a very low quality . The library was closed . Nor were the inmates provided with board games .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was admitted to the hospital at remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE . He claimed that he did not receive proper medical assistance there .

NORP The time frame of the applicant ’s detention in correctional colonies nos . IK-CARDINAL and IK-CARDINAL in the GPE region where the applicant served a prison sentence can be presented as follows :

According to the Government , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in the colony ’s hospital , in ward no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and equipped with CARDINAL beds . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in ward no . QUANTITY and equipped with CARDINAL beds . The Government did not specify the number of inmates detained there . The wards were equipped with a ventilation system . The windows in the wards ensured adequate access to daylight . They were not covered with grilles or shutters . The electric lighting was adequate . The bathroom was located outside the ward . Both the hospital and the transit area of the correctional colony had outdoor exercise areas .

According to the applicant , upon arrival to the hospital on CARDINAL DATE , he was placed in disciplinary cell no . QUANTITY measuring QUANTITY . m. since there were no beds available in ordinary wards . The toilet was located QUANTITY away from the dining table . He was transferred to hospital ward no . CARDINAL only on DATE .

Disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL was infested with insects and rats . The walls were dirty . The windows there were covered with metal grilles . The mattresses were dirty and covered with blood . No bedding was provided . It was impossible to sleep in those beds because of metal springs sticking out . The lighting there was insufficient . Ward no . CARDINAL was much cleaner than the disciplinary cell . There were no metal grilles on the windows . The lighting was sufficient .

The applicant was provided with an individual bed at all times . The food was scarce and of a very low quality . During TIME the applicant was unable to sleep because of hunger . He spent TIME in the bathroom reading the bible . The bathroom was in a satisfactory condition . The number of inmates detained together with the applicant sometimes was twice as high as the number indicated by the Government . The applicant was not allowed any outdoor exercise .

Without indicating specific time periods , the ORG submitted the following information as regards the number of inmates detained together with the applicant in correctional colony no . ORG in the GPE region :

The living LOC in the colony were equipped with a ventilation system . The inmates could also open vents in the windows to ensure access to fresh air . The windows were not covered with metal bars or grilles . The electric lighting in the dormitories was sufficient . The sanitary area in each unit was equipped with CARDINAL toilets separated by QUANTITY high non - transparent screens .

The inmates were able to partake in outdoor exercise in areas adjacent to blocks CARDINAL and CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY respectively .

The applicant did not challenge the veracity of the ORG ’s submissions concerning the surface area of the dormitories in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL at the time of his detention there . He claimed , however , that the number of inmates assigned with him to the dormitories was much higher than the figures provided by the Government . According to the applicant , the beds in the dormitories were arranged in CARDINAL - tier bunks offering very little personal space to the inmates . His bed was located near the window and he could read easily during DATE . In the evening , however , the electric light was insufficient for reading . The hygienic conditions of the dormitories were also poor due to the large number of detainees assigned to them . The dormitories were equipped with a ventilation system . The windows were not covered with metal grilles . The bathrooms located were in satisfactory conditions . The applicant had sufficient opportunity for an outdoor exercise .

On DATE the ORG in the GPE LOC released the applicant on parole . The court noted , inter alia , that the applicant demonstrated his remorse for the crimes he had committed and regretted them .

The applicant appealed , claiming that he had never admitted that he had actually committed the crimes he had been convicted of and that ORG had erred in stating the contrary in the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The parties did not inform the Court of the outcome of the appeal proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygiene requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have CARDINAL four square metres of personal space in his or her cell . Moreover , detainees should be given , free of charge , sufficient food for the maintenance of good health in line with the standards established by ORG of GPE ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW on LAW DATE , as amended , provides that the personal space allocated to each individual in a dormitory should be QUANTITY . Inmates are to be provided with individual sleeping places , bed sheets , toiletries and seasonal clothes .


CASE OF KOBENTER AND STANDARD VERLAGS GMBH v. AUSTRIA

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

The first applicant , an NORP national born in DATE and living in GPE , is an editorial journalist at the newspaper “ FAC ” . The second applicant is the owner and publisher of this newspaper .

On DATE a group of homosexuals , the “ NORP Forum of NORP and NORP ” ( “ GPE Schwulen- PERSON ” , ORG ) held a demonstration in GPE Pölten , at which the editors of the magazine “ Der CARDINAL . – Zeitung der Katholiken für GPE und Kirche ” ( DATE Newspaper of NORP for ORG ) took pictures of participants and published them together with an article written by PERSON in its issue of CARDINAL DATE . That article reflected a negative and hostile position towards homosexual relationships , suggesting , inter alia , that “ they [ homosexuals ] ought to be disciplined ' gender - specifically ' with whips and pizzles ! ( sie gehören ' geschlechtsspezifisch ' PERSON und ORG zurechtgewiesen ) ” and that “ nazi - methods should be applied to them ! ” It read further that “ homosexuals now crawl like rats out of their holes and are fed ' lovingly ' by politicians and church officials ” .

Subsequently CARDINAL homosexual persons filed a private prosecution ( PERSON ) against the author PERSON for defamation and a compensation claim under LAW against the owner and publisher of “ LAW . ”

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) found that certain passages of the article constituted the offence of insult ( PERSON ) under LAW of LAW ) and ordered the owner and publisher of “ Der CARDINAL . ” to pay compensation to CARDINAL plaintiffs who could be identified on the pictures . It dismissed the compensation claim as regards the other plaintiffs and acquitted PERSON The court found that PERSON NORP had not mentioned any of those plaintiffs ' name in his article and that it could not be established that he had known that his text would be illustrated by these pictures . On pages CARDINAL the judgment contained an excursus about the nature of homosexuality , referring to a book called “ Lexicon of love ( PERSON der PERSON ) ” and the results of an opinion survey on this topic . It read , inter alia , that “ in truth , homosexuality includes also the lesbian world and , of course , that of animals ” , which was followed by a long passage describing in detail examples of same - sex practices among different animals .

Subsequently , politicians and representatives of ORG publicly criticised the deciding judge PERSON for the text and style of this judgment , which was documented in a number of press releases by ORG ( ORG ) of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , including an article published by “ Der Standard ” with the title “ The judge and the dear cattle ( Der Richter und das liebe Vieh ) ” on DATE .

On DATE “ Der Standard ” published CARDINAL articles written by the first applicant , whereby the first one referred to the commentary ( ORG ) at issue on page CARDINAL , which read as follows :

“ The punishment chamber ( PERSON )

PERSON

It is strange how often the avowed defenders of western values are inclined to adopt draconian methods when they feel them to be jeopardised by people with different beliefs , ideas or lifestyles . If a writer in some odd rag just says he would like to flog gay people or beat them with bulls ' pizzles , that would not normally be worth mentioning , other than to say that everyone is entitled to live out his sexual fantasies and obsessions as he pleases , even in words , as long as the objects or subjects of his desires derive as much pleasure from it as he does .

Where such matters are being dealt with in court , however , we might expect at DATE that a judge of even minimal enlightenment would , at the very least , deliver a judgment that differs more than somewhat from the traditions of medieval witch trials . A judge in GPE , PERSON , has achieved the feat of acquitting a defendant who was given the benefit of the doubt although no doubt was apparent – on the contrary , the judge 's reasoning handed the flogger enough arguments to justify the threats of punishment he had made so enthusiastically , even if only in writing . That flies in the face , for a start , of any conception of law which sees the courtroom as more than just a punishment chamber for all possible tendencies .

Lending support to a homophobe 's venomous hate campaign with outrageous examples from the animal kingdom casts doubt on the intellectual and moral integrity of the judge concerned . The fact that public clarifications are now needed to the effect that homosexuals are not animals prompts concern about the state of this country . ”

On DATE judge PERSON decided that the above - mentioned excursus on pages CARDINAL be taken out of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

NORP Subsequently disciplinary proceedings were opened against judge PERSON B. On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) , acting as disciplinary authority , imposed the disciplinary penalty of a warning . On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) confirmed this decision .

In the meantime , judge PERSON filed a private prosecution against the first applicant for defamation ( Üble Nachrede ) and a compensation claim under LAW against the second applicant on account of the above article published on DATE .

On DATE the ORG convicted the first applicant of defamation under LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW and imposed a fine of ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) on him , suspended on DATE . It also ordered the second applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation to judge PERSON under LAW of LAW and to publish the judgment . It found in particular that the following statements were capable of lowering judge PERSON in the public esteem , constituting the slanderous reproach that he had violated his obligations under the law and the rules on professional conduct ( Gesetzes- und Standespflichten ) , required of a judge :

a ) the judgment delivered by the private prosecutor would only differ somewhat from the traditions of medieval witch trials ( das vom Privatankläger gefällte ORG würde sich nur “ marginal PERSON mittelalterlicher ORG abheben ” ) and

b ) that judge PERSON would lend support to a homophobe 's venomous hate campaign with outrageous examples from the animal kingdom ( und dieser würde “ die geifernde Hetze eines LOC DATE aus dem Tierreich stützen ” ) .

The ORG noted , inter alia , that even if the reasoning of that judgment contained irrelevant annotations , it could not be inferred from it that the private prosecutor PERSON believed that different rights were accorded to homosexuals and heterosexuals , nor that he had compared homosexuals with animals or that he had put them on an equal footing .

On DATE the applicants appealed against this judgment , claiming that the article at issue criticised exclusively the reasoning of the judgment and not the way in which judge PERSON had conducted the trial . The statements were permissible value judgments based on facts and , thus , protected under LAW . Arguing that journalistic liberty also allowed a certain degree of exaggeration and even provocation , and considering the public discussion caused by the reasoning of the judgment not only in various media but also among judges , the polemical style of the article was not disproportionate either .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' appeal and confirmed ORG judgment . It found that an average reader , interested in the subject - matter , would understand by the first statement that the private prosecutor had grossly violated fundamental procedural rights , such as the principles of impartiality and adversarial hearings , which were regularly breached in medieval witch trials . Thus , this reproach of violating the rules on professional conduct required of a judge consisted in concrete facts , which were not proved true by the records of the trial . The second statement was not only a value judgment , but also insinuated that judge PERSON had sided with the accused PERSON and had , thus , been partial . As it was not mentioned in the article that judge PERSON had impartially conducted the trial and that only certain passages of the judgment were subject to that criticism , the statements could not be considered as value judgments based on facts . Rather , in their context , they were disparaging statements of facts , falling outside the scope of protection of LAW . Since certain passages of the above judgment proved to be legally superfluous , as affirmed by the private prosecutor 's decision of DATE taking them out , they could have been subject to ( fair ) comment .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides for the strict liability of the publisher in cases of defamation ; the victim can thus claim damages from him . In this context “ defamation ” has been defined in LAW ) , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . As it may be perceived by a third party , anyone who makes an accusation against another of having a contemptible character or attitude , or of behaving contrary to honour or morality , and of such a nature as to make him contemptible or otherwise lower him in public esteem , shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding DATE or a fine ( ... )

Anyone who commits this offence in a printed document , by broadcasting or otherwise , in such a way as to make the defamation accessible to a broad section of the public , shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine ( ... )

The person making the statement shall not be punished if it is proved to be true . As regards the offence defined in paragraph CARDINAL , he shall also not be liable if circumstances are established which gave him sufficient reason to assume that the statement was true . "


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a chimney sweeper by profession .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for an industrial licence ( ORG ) for chimney sweeping in PERSON . On DATE he filed an alternative request to start chimney sweeping in a specified administrative area ( ORG ) . Following a new regulation concerning the division of those administrative areas which entered into force in DATE , the applicant , on DATE , modified his request into CARDINAL for an industrial licence as a chimney sweeper in a different specified administrative area .

As the Upper Austria Regional Governor ( PERSON ) did not deal with his request , the applicant , on DATE , filed a request for the transfer of jurisdiction ( PERSON ) with the Federal Minister of Economic Affairs ( PERSON für wirtschaftliche GPE ) .

On DATE the Federal Minister allowed his request for transfer but dismissed his application for the industrial licence under LAW ) . Referring to the submissions of the competent municipalities , he noted that there was no need for further chimney sweepers in the concerned area .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG . He complained in particular that the Federal Minister had not made sufficient investigations for his findings .

On DATE ORG Verwaltungs - gerichtshof ) quashed the decision on procedural grounds .

On DATE the Federal Minister rejected the applicant ’s request for a transfer of jurisdiction , finding that , according to the amended LAW ( Gewerbeordnung ) , the authority now competent for applications of the applicant ’s kind was ORG , namely ORG ( Magistrat ) . Therefore , the Regional Governor ( PERSON ) was competent to rule on any request for transfer of jurisdiction .

On DATE ORG confirmed this decision .

As ORG did not decide on his request , the applicant , on DATE , filed a request for the transfer of jurisdiction with the Regional Governor .

On DATE the Regional Governor dismissed the applicant ’s request .

Following the information in this decision as to further remedies ( Rechtsmittelbelehrung ) , the applicant on DATE filed against this decision a complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG Verfassungsgerichtshof ) declined to deal with the applicant ’s complaint and , upon the applicant ’s request , transferred the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint for non - exhaustion of administrative remedies as he had failed to file an appeal with the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs .

Referring to the erroneous information as to further remedies in the decision of the Regional Governor of DATE , the applicant requested reinstitution into the proceedings ( Wiedereinsetzungsantrag ) and at the same time filed an appeal against that decision with the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs

On DATE the Regional Governor allowed the reinstitution into proceedings . On DATE the Federal Minister for Economic Affairs dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

Meanwhile , however , ORG , on DATE , again dismissed the applicant ’s request for an industrial licence .

On DATE the Regional Governor confirmed this decision .

On DATE ORG declined to deal with the applicant ’s complaint and , upon the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE , transferred the case to ORG .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant , in compliance with ORG order to remedy certain procedural effects , filed further submissions .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as being unfounded . This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz ) deals with the administrative authorities’ duty to decide . Its relevant part reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Subject to any contrary provision in the administrative regulations , the authorities must give a decision on applications by parties ... and appeals without unnecessary delay , and at DATE after the application or appeal has been lodged .

( CARDINAL ) If the decision is not served on the party within this time - limit , jurisdiction will be transferred to the competent superior authority upon the party ’s written request ( PERSON ) . ... This request has to be refused by the competent superior authority if the delay was not caused by preponderant fault of the authority .

( CARDINAL ) The period for giving a decision by the superior authority runs from the date the request for transfer of jurisdiction was lodged with it . ”


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ms I. Kalmerborn , ORG .

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

Following a tax audit of the applicant ’s taxi firm , ORG ( skattemyndigheten ) of GPE considered that revenues from the firm had not been accounted for in the applicant ’s tax returns for DATE , i.e. DATE . Accordingly , by decisions of CARDINAL DATE , ORG revised upwards his taxable income by MONEY ( SEK ) and increased his liability to employer ’s contributions by SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . By a further decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG increased his liability to value - added tax ( mervärdesskatt ) by SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Moreover , as the information supplied by the applicant in his tax returns was found to be incorrect and the turnover of the applicant ’s business had been revised upwards under a discretionary assessment procedure , ORG ordered him to pay tax surcharges ( skattetillägg , avgiftstillägg ) amounting to PERCENT of the increased tax liability , depending on the type of tax involved . As a result of the decisions , tax surcharges of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) were levied on the applicant . Of this amount , SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL related to income tax , SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL to employer ’s contributions and SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL to value - added tax . It appears that the amounts were payable in DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for a stay of execution with regard to the employer ’s contributions and related surcharges .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( länsrätten ) of GPE against ORG taxation decisions . While , at that time , the formal decision on value - added tax had not yet been taken , the appeal letter referred to all the tax issues reviewed by ORG , i.e. income tax , employer ’s contributions and value - added tax . He also requested that the execution of payment of the amounts assessed be stayed .

On DATE he complained to ORG that the time until the taxes became due was too short . By letters of CARDINAL and DATE , ORG called on the applicant to pay the disputed amounts .

On DATE ORG reconsidered its decision on a stay of execution with regard to the employer ’s contributions but decided not to change it . ORG did not find that the outcome of the tax case was uncertain or that payment of the amount in question would result in considerable damage for the applicant or would otherwise appear unjust , and thus concluded that the prerequisites laid down in DATE , subsection CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Uppbördslagen , DATE ) had not been fulfilled .

On DATE , and upon review , on DATE , ORG also refused a stay of execution with regard to the income tax and related surcharges assessed on DATE .

The applicant appealed against ORG decisions to refuse stays of execution . By judgments of DATE , ORG rejected the appeals . It noted that the disputed amounts of income tax , employer ’s contributions and corresponding surcharges and late - payment fees had already been paid , inter alia through execution levied by ORG ( kronofogdemyndigheten ) on DATE . As a consequence , the amounts could only be refunded in the event of the applicant being successful in the main tax cases , and there was therefore no reason to grant a stay .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( kammarrätten ) in GPE . On DATE ORG stated to the appellate court that all tax amounts had been paid and that there was therefore no ground on which to grant a stay . In a letter to the applicant of DATE , ORG stated , however , that late - payment fees of CARDINAL remained due and that the applicant had been granted a stay of execution with regard to this amount .

According to a case note in the appellate court ’s file , ORG had stated , on DATE , that no taxes and fees were due following the levying of execution of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL on DATE and the payment by the applicant of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL on DATE .

By a judgment of DATE , subscribing to the reasons given by ORG , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG ( Regerings - rätten ) refused leave to appeal concerning the stay - of - execution issue .

On DATE ORG reported the applicant to ORG ( regionåklagarmyndigheten ) in GPE , claiming that proceeds in the amount of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL had not been accounted for in the applicant ’s bookkeeping .

While accepting the applicant ’s objections concerning certain amounts , the public prosecutor , on DATE , indicted him for a suspected bookkeeping offence relating to undeclared proceeds of SEK CARDINAL as well as undeclared salaries paid to various taxi drivers .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( tingsrätten ) of PERSON found the applicant guilty of having intentionally failed to enter proceeds of MONEY as well as substantial salary payments in the books . This constituted a bookkeeping offence under LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON hovrätt ) upheld ORG judgment . On DATE ORG ( Högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal .

As the applicant had been convicted of a bookkeeping offence , ORG ( länsstyrelsen ) of GPE , reviewed his eligibility for a traffic licence ( trafiktillstånd ) . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , it decided that an admonition was sufficient , having regard to the time that had passed since the offence had been committed . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against this decision .

As mentioned above , on DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decisions on taxes and tax surcharges . On DATE the ORG reconsidered its decision relating to income tax but did not change it .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld ORG decision on income tax . The court considered that the documentation on which the impugned decision was based was reliable . In this connection , it had regard to previous judgments by ORG and ORG where the computerised control material from GPE , an association to which the applicant was affiliated , had been examined and found reliable . It took into account other evidence as well in finding that the applicant had failed to account for revenues from the taxi business in his tax returns . In regard to the applicant ’s objection that the public prosecutor , in the criminal proceedings , had only indicted him for undeclared proceeds of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL whereas the basis for ORG taxation decision was that there were undeclared proceeds of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the court noted that , whereas a criminal conviction required proof beyond reasonable doubt , the standard of proof was lower in tax proceedings . In upholding the tax surcharge , the court had regard to LAW and the case - law of ORG and found that a criminal conviction did not prevent the imposition of a surcharge . Moreover , no grounds for remission of the surcharge were at hand .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG why his appeals concerning employer ’s contributions and value - added tax had not been examined . DATE the court informed the applicant that no cases concerning these issues had been registered with the court , that ORG had stated , on DATE , that it did not have any such cases either and that the court , on DATE , had sent a copy of the applicant ’s appeal letter to ORG for possible action .

The applicant appealed against ORG judgment to ORG , requesting that his income tax liability be fixed in accordance with his tax returns and that the tax surcharge be set aside . He claimed that , as a surcharge was involved , in order for the hearing to be fair under LAW , the standard of proof of criminal proceedings had to be applied . Moreover , the surcharge should be set aside on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings in the case and the prohibition on double jeopardy .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment , subscribing to the reasons given by the latter court in regard to the income tax . With respect to the tax surcharge , the appellate court referred to case - law of ORG concerning the possibility of remission due to lengthy proceedings and the prohibition on double jeopardy . It concluded that there had not been any irregularities in the handling of the case which could involve a violation of the applicant ’s rights under LAW . As the surcharge could not be remitted on this basis or on any other ground , the applicant ’s complaints in this respect were rejected .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal in the income tax case .

In a letter of DATE , the applicant asked ORG what had happened to his appeals against the decisions on employer ’s contributions and value - added tax . On DATE ORG made reconsideration decisions , in which it set aside the associated tax surcharges , but upheld the amounts of employer ’s contributions and value - added tax as such . On DATE , as a consequence of the reconsideration decisions , ORG adopted new taxation decisions , in which it stated that the surcharges relating to employer ’s contributions and value - added tax had been quashed due to the excessive length of the proceedings and mistakes made in the handling of the applicant ’s appeals . In DATE ORG repaid to the applicant the quashed tax surcharges with interest .

The applicant appealed to ORG in regard to the amounts of employer ’s contributions and value - added tax . By a judgment of DATE , the court upheld ORG decisions . Following an appeal to ORG , no further information has been provided as to the progress of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant requested compensation from the Chancellor of Justice ( NORP ) . He referred to the issues on which the ORG , in the present case , had invited the ORG to submit observations , namely the enforcement of ORG decisions before a court determination , the length of the proceedings , the presumption of innocence , and ORG original failure to examine the appeals concerning employer ’s contributions and value - added tax .

By a letter of DATE , the Chancellor of ORG informed the applicant that , given the still unsettled ORG practice as to when compensation could be given for possible violations of the Conventions , it was unlikely that the Chancellor would exercise the authority to settle compensation claims on behalf of the ORG out of court . Instead , the applicant was advised to initiate court proceedings in the matter .

On DATE the applicant instituted compensation proceedings against the ORG before ORG . He claimed ORG CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages , CARDINAL for lack of effective access to court and CARDINAL for excessive length of proceedings . He also claimed SEK CARDINAL in pecuniary damages for what he perceived as the difference between a correct tax amount and the amount that had actually been fixed by ORG and SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL in legal costs . Finally , he requested interest on the amounts as from DATE .

In reply , the ORG acknowledged that the length of the proceedings had violated the ORG and submitted that compensation in the amount of ORG plus interest would be reasonable in this respect . The ORG , however , disputed the applicant ’s other claims .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG found that the time that had passed between the applicant ’s appeals in DATE and ORG latest reconsideration decisions in DATE had been excessive and in breach of LAW . It further considered that the applicant had not had effective access to court under that provision , as the examination of his request for a stay of execution had been precluded by the immediate enforcement of the taxes and surcharges . However , noting that the complaint relating to the allegedly excessive tax amount concerned the substance of the tax case which had already been examined by the courts on the basis of the evidence presented , ORG found no violation of the applicant ’s rights under LAW in this respect .

ORG awarded the applicant compensation for the CARDINAL Convention violations found with an overall amount of EUR CARDINAL . As to legal costs , it refused compensation for costs relating to the proceedings before ORG . In regard to the remaining amount of ORG , accrued in the compensation proceedings , ORG took into account that the applicant had been unsuccessful with CARDINAL of his claims and decided to grant him CARDINAL of that amount , or SEK CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

The applicant appealed to ORG , reiterating the claims made before ORG . The ORG contested the appeal and requested that the judgment of ORG be upheld . The case is at present pending before the appellate court .