Violation of P1-3;Remainder inadmissible

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They are both NORP ethnics and NORP politicians .

GPE is situated on a territory which used to be part of GPE before World War II . Its population had NORP citizenship but lost it after the annexation of the territory by GPE in DATE .

In the Declaration of Independence of DATE , ORG condemned , inter alia , the NORP annexation of the territory from GPE in DATE and proclaimed the independence of the country within the boundaries of the former NORP Soviet GPE .

In DATE the ORG of GPE adopted a PERSON on NORP nationality and proclaimed as its citizens , inter alios , all persons who had lived in the territory of the former NORP Soviet GPE before the NORP annexation and their descendants .

Both applicants obtained NORP nationality as descendants of persons living on the territory of GPE before DATE .

Also in DATE ORG adopted a new law on citizenship making it possible for former NORP nationals and their descendants who had lost their nationality before DATE , for reasons notimputable to them , to re - acquire their lost NORP nationality .

Initially GPE did not allow its nationals to possess other nationalities other than in exceptional cases . However , the prohibition remained inoperative as very many PERSON , especially of NORP descent , used the provisions of NORP law to re - acquire their lost NORP nationality . At the same time , many Moldovans , usually of other ethnic backgrounds , acquired other nationalities such as NORP , NORP , NORP , NORP and others .

In DATE the constitutional provisions prohibiting multiple nationality were repealed . On DATE ORG amended GPE and repealed the restriction preventing NORP nationals from holding other nationalities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the amendments , the holders of multiple nationality have equal rights to those holding only NORP nationality , without exception .

On unspecified dates the applicants obtained NORP nationality . Their current NORP passports were issued in DATE and DATE . Subsequently , they made public their holding of NORP nationality .

The total number of ORG who have obtained NORP citizenship DATE is unknown as ORG have never made it public . It has been estimated that CARDINAL Moldovans obtained NORP nationality DATE .

On DATE the President of GPE stated in an interview that there were CARDINAL Moldovans with pending applications for NORP nationality and that his Government expected the number to reach CARDINAL , of the total of CARDINAL Moldovans , before DATE .

As to the number of Moldovans holding as a second nationality other nationalities than NORP , this figure is equally unknown . However , it appears to be considerable and it appears that NORP nationality is the second most popular after NORP . On DATE the NORP Ambassador to GPE stated in a televised interview that there were CARDINAL NORP with NORP passports on both banks of the Dniester river . ORG indicated in their observations that CARDINAL of the population of GPE had dual nationality while a NORP MP , PERSON , advanced during the ORG 's debates concerning PERSON No . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the number of CARDINAL as an approximate total number of NORP with dual nationality .

During DATE ORG of GPE was the dominant political party in the country with the largest representation in ORG .

Beside ORG , there are over CARDINAL other political parties with considerably less influence . Their exact number is difficult to tell because of continuous fluctuation . Because of their weaker position , very few of them managed to clear the MONEY electoral threshold in the past legislative elections and to enter ORG .

In the DATE elections ORG was the only party , besides ORG , from the CARDINAL participants in the elections , which succeeded in clearing alone the electoral threshold by obtaining MONEY of the votes . CARDINAL other parties which merged into an electoral block ( a common list ) were able to obtain some MONEY of the votes . ORG obtained MONEY of the votes and after the proportional distribution of the wasted votes it obtained CARDINAL of the CARDINAL seats .

In DATE the electoral legislation was amended . The CARDINAL per cent electoral threshold was kept while a new MONEY threshold was provided for electoral blocks composed of CARDINAL parties and MONEY for those composed of CARDINAL parties .

In the DATE elections out of CARDINAL participants , ORG was again the only party , besides ORG , which managed to clear the electoral threshold by itself with MONEY of the votes . CARDINAL other parties , united into an electoral block , obtained some CARDINAL per cent of the votes while ORG obtained CARDINAL per cent of the votes . After the proportional distribution of the wasted votes , ORG obtained CARDINAL of the CARDINAL seats in the ORG .

In DATE , following persistent criticism by international observers and ORG , the ORG amended LAW , setting the electoral threshold for parties at MONEY and for electoral blocks at MONEY . ORG ( “ the GPE Commission ” ) and ORG “ LOC ) praised the lowering of the electoral threshold and suggested a similar threshold for electoral blocks , which , in their view , were to be encouraged in order to provide more cooperation and stable government .

In the local elections of DATE , ORG obtained MONEY of the votes in the local legislative bodies . Since there is no electoral threshold in local elections , it became an opposition party in the majority of the local councils .

The mandate of the current ORG expires on DATE . According to LAW the next general elections are to take place within DATE from the expiry of the mandate of the current ORG ; however , the exact date of the next elections is unknown on DATE of this judgment .

In DATE Mr PERSON became the Vice - President of ORG , an opposition party , and in DATE , in a confrontation with a candidate of ORG , won the local elections in the capital city of PERSON with a majority of PERCENT and became mayor .

On DATE Mr PERSON declared in an interview that he would actively participate in the legislative elections of DATE but that he would not give up his position of mayor of PERSON even if he was elected . He made it clear that his sole intention was to help his party gather more votes in the elections and remain mayor afterwards . The holding of a dual mandate is prohibited in the electoral law of GPE . On DATE Mr PERSON reiterated in an interview his intention to participate in the legislative elections without repeating that he would keep his position of mayor after the elections . However , on DATE he made a statement similar to that of DATE .

Mr PERSON is a lawyer who entered politics recently . In DATE he became member of ORG and subsequently was elected Vice - President of ORG , an opposition party created in DATE .

On DATE the ORG carried out a reform consisting of CARDINAL major amendments to the electoral legislation : an increase of the electoral threshold from MONEY back to MONEY , a ban on all forms of electoral blocks and coalitions and a ban on persons with dual or multiple nationality becoming members of ORG .

The latter amendment to the electoral legislation ( Law no . CARDINAL ) was adopted in its first reading by ORG long before that date , on CARDINAL DATE . According to the draft law prepared by ORG , only persons having exclusively NORP citizenship were entitled to work in senior positions in the government and in several public services and be candidates in legislative elections . This provision was not applicable to persons living in GPE . In an explanatory note to the draft the Vice - Minister of ORG stated :

“ Having analysed the current situation in the country in the field of citizenship , we observe that the tendency of Moldovans to obtain citizenships of other countries is explained by their desire to obtain privileges consisting of unrestrained travel in ORG , social privileges , family reunion , employment and studies .

At the same time , persons holding other nationalities have political and legal obligations towards those states . This fact could generate a conflict of interest in cases in which there are obligations both towards GPE and towards other states , whose national a particular person is .

In view of the above , and with a view to solving the situation created , we consider it reasonable to amend the legislation in force so as to ban holders of multiple nationalities from public functions ...

This will not mean , however , that those persons will not be able to work in GPE . They will be able to exercise their professional activities in fields which do not involve the exercise of state authority ... ”

During the debates in ORG numerous opposition members requested that the draft be sent to ORG for a preliminary expertise . However , the majority voted against this proposal . In exchange , the opposition was invited to challenge the new law before LAW . No such challenge was made . Numerous MPs from the opposition argued that the proposed amendment was contrary to LAW but the Vice - Minister of ORG expressed a contrary view and argued that , in any event , it was open to ORG to denounce that ORG if there were any incompatibility .

On DATE the draft law in question was adopted by ORG in a final reading ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; however , later the President of the country refused to promulgate it and returned it to ORG for re - examination .

The draft law was further amended and the list of positions in the government and in the public service closed to holders of multiple nationality was reduced . The provisions concerning legislative elections were also amended in the sense that persons with dual or multiple nationality are allowed to be candidates in legislative elections ; however , they are obliged to inform ORG about their other citizenships before registering as candidates and give them up before the validation of their MP mandates by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the new draft law was again put before ORG by ORG of ORG and adopted . On DATE the President promulgated it and on CARDINAL DATE it was published in ORG , thus entering into force . The other CARDINAL amendments to the electoral legislation were also enacted and entered into force in DATE .

On DATE ORG against Racism and Intolerance ( “ ECRI ” ) made public a report dated DATE in which it expressed concern in respect of the amendments concerning dual and multiple nationalities :

“ CARDINAL . ECRI notes with interest that LAW , in full accordance with LAW , which has been ratified by GPE , provides that NORP citizens who are also citizens of another ORG and who have their lawful and habitual residence in GPE enjoy the same rights and duties as other NORP citizens . In this respect , ORG would like to express its concern about a draft law on the modification and completion of certain legislative acts adopted in its first reading by ORG on DATE . According to this draft law , only persons having exclusively GPE citizenship are entitled to work in senior positions in the government and in several public services . From the information it has received , ORG understands that if this draft law enters into force as it stands , NORP citizens with multiple citizenship would be seriously disadvantaged compared with other NORP citizens in access to public functions . It thus appears that , if the law enters into force as such , this could lead to discrimination , i.e. unjustified differential treatment on the grounds of citizenship . ECRI understands that a wide - ranging debate is occurring within GPE at the time of writing this report as far as this draft law is concerned and that many sources both at the national and international level have stressed the need to revise the text thoroughly before its final adoption in order to ensure its compatibility with national and international standards .

ECRI strongly recommends that the NORP authorities revise the draft law of CARDINAL DATE ... in order to ensure that it neither infringes the principle of non - discrimination on the grounds of citizenship nor undermines all benefits of the recent changes made to the law on citizenship and allowing for multiple citizenship . ”

On DATE the head of ORG , NORP Foreign Minister , PERSON , stated that it was important that GPE should conduct its parliamentary elections in DATE in line with international standards and expressed concern at the latest amendments to the electoral law , which increased the electoral threshold to MONEY .

In a report dated DATE , ORG Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of ORG stated , inter alia , that :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG appreciates the efforts made by the NORP authorities in order to assess the degree of implementation of the recommendations made by ORG experts . However , all new draft legislation in areas relating to the commitments to ORG must be submitted to expertise and discussed with ORG experts prior to adoption .

In their DATE report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by GPE ( Doc . DATE ) , the co - rapporteurs of ORG welcomed the changes made to LAW in DATE . In particular , the threshold for party lists was lowered to PERCENT for lists presented by individual political parties and PERCENT for coalitions of political parties ...

ORG was ... alarmed by the recent legislative developments with regard to LAW . In DATE , ORG amended LAW again to raise the threshold for party lists PERCENT . Moreover , the establishment of “ electoral blocs ” – joint lists submitted by a coalition of political parties - was prohibited . These measures have raised concern and the committee decided at short notice to hold an exchange of views with the GPE delegation on DATE . The electoral legislation should not be changed every DATE according to political imperatives . It should allow a wide spectrum of political forces to participate in the political process to help build genuinely pluralistic democratic institutions . The co - rapporteurs will closely examine the recent amendments as well as the reasons behind the recent legislative developments during the observation of the preparation of the forthcoming parliamentary election to be held in DATE . ”

Concern was also expressed in ORG Resolution No . CARDINAL adopted on DATE :

“ The ORG ... regrets the recent decision of ORG to raise this threshold for party lists to PERCENT ” .

The problem of the electoral reform was also raised on DATE by the President of ORG of ORG , PERSON , in a speech to ORG :

“ ... I strongly encourage you to obtain the approval by ORG in respect of the recent amendments to the legislation which will apply in the next elections , namely in what concerns the electoral threshold , the electoral blocks and the dual nationality . These are delicate problems and it is necessary to find the right balance between the preoccupations which guided you to make these amendments and the concern of the international community that these amendments are compatible with the principles of ORG . ”

On DATE ORG made public a report concerning the amendments to LAW made in DATE . The report expressed critical views in respect of all the aspects of the reform . As to the amendments concerning holders of multiple nationality it stated the following :

“ CARDINAL . A new paragraph to article CARDINAL ) denies the right to “ be elected ” in parliamentary elections to “ persons who have , beside GPE nationality , another nationality for the position of deputy in the conditions of Art . CARDINAL ” . Article CARDINAL ) states that a person may stand as a candidate with multiple citizenship , provided he / she upon election denounces other citizenships than the GPE . This must be considered as an incompatibility .

Beyond the mere question of the wording , restrictions of citizens ' rights should not be based on multiple citizenship . LAW quotes LAW , ratified by GPE in DATE , which unequivocally provides that ' Nationals of a ORG in possession of another nationality shall have , in the territory of that ORG in which they reside , the same rights and duties as other nationals of that ORG . '

Moreover , this restriction could be a violation of ORG , articles CARDINAL of the first LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW read :

Article CARDINAL . Compliance with international treaties

( CARDINAL ) GPE is obliged to respect LAW and the treaties to which it is a party ...

LAW . The right to vote and to be elected

( CARDINAL ) The right to be elected is guaranteed to NORP citizens who enjoy the right to vote , within the conditions of the law .

Article CARDINAL . The right to participate in the administration

( CARDINAL ) The citizens of GPE shall have the right to participate in the administration of public affairs in person or through their representatives .

( CARDINAL ) Every citizen shall have access , in accordance with the law , to public functions .

According to LAW may be seized only by the President of the country , the Government , the Minister of Justice , ORG , ORG , ORG , the MPs , the parliamentary factions and the ombudsman .

According to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of the Law on Moldovan Citizenship , as amended on DATE , multiple nationality is permitted in GPE and the obtaining by a NORP national of another nationality does not entail loss of the NORP nationality .

The relevant provisions of Law no . CARDINAL adopted by ORG on DATE , but not promulgated by the President , read :

Section X

“ Candidates for the office of MP shall be DATE on DATE of the elections , shall have exclusively GPE citizenship , shall live in the country and shall fulfil the conditions provided for in the present code . ”

The relevant provisions of Law no . CARDINAL , which entered in force on CARDINAL DATE , provide as follows :

Section IX

“ ( CARDINAL ) Candidates for the office of MP shall be DATE on DATE of the elections , shall have GPE citizenship , shall live in the country and shall fulfil the conditions provided for in the present code .

( CARDINAL ) At the moment of registering as a candidate , any person holding the citizenship of another country shall declare that he or she holds another citizenship or that he or she has applied for another citizenship .

( CARDINAL ) At the time of validation of the MP mandate , the person indicated in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) shall prove with documents that he or she has renounced or initiated the procedure of renunciation of the citizenship of other GPE or that he or she has withdrawn an application to obtain another citizenship .

( CARDINAL ) A failure to declare the fact of holding another citizenship at the moment of registering as a candidate for the office of MP or the fact of obtaining another citizenship during the exercise of a MP mandate , shall be sufficient grounds for ORG to annul the MP mandate at the request of ORG . ”

Section XXI

( CARDINAL ) The incompatibilities provided for in the present law shall apply to persons living in GPE only in so far as they are stipulated in the legislation concerning the special legal status of GPE .

The relevant provisions of Law No . CARDINAL concerning ORG , in so far as relevant read :

Section CARDINAL . Compliance with international treaties

“ International treaties shall be complied with in good faith , in accordance with the principle pacta sunt servanda . GPE can not invoke the provisions of its internal legislation as a justification for non - compliance with an international treaty to which it is a party .

Section CARDINAL . The application of international treaties

The provisions of the international treaties which , according to their wording , are susceptible to be applicable without there being need for enactment of special legislative acts , shall have an enforceable character and shall be directly applied in the NORP law system . For the realisation of other provisions of the treaties , special normative acts shall be adopted . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW , which entered into force in general and in respect of GPE on DATE , provide :

Preamble

“ Recognising that , in matters concerning nationality , account should be taken both of the legitimate interests of GPE and those of individuals ;

Noting the varied approach of GPE to the question of multiple nationality and recognising that each ORG is free to decide which consequences it attaches in its internal law to the fact that a national acquires or possesses another nationality ; ”

DATE Other possible cases of multiple nationality

The provisions of this Convention shall not limit the right of a ORG to determine in its internal law whether :

a. its nationals who acquire or possess the nationality of another ORG retain its nationality or lose it ;

b. the acquisition or retention of its nationality is subject to the renunciation or loss of another nationality .

LAW and duties related to multiple nationality

“ Nationals of a ORG in possession of another nationality shall have , in the territory of that ORG in which they reside , the same rights and duties as other nationals of that ORG .

The provisions of this chapter do not affect :

the rules of international law concerning diplomatic or consular protection by ORG in favour of CARDINAL of its nationals who simultaneously possesses another nationality ;

the application of the rules of private international law of ORG in cases of multiple nationality . ”

The Explanatory Report to LAW of ORG ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL rev ) , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ CARDINAL . Stability of the law is crucial to credibility of the electoral process , which is itself vital to consolidating democracy . Rules which change frequently – and especially rules which are complicated – may confuse voters . Above all , voters may conclude , rightly or wrongly , that electoral law is simply a tool in the hands of the powerful , and that their own votes have little weight in deciding the results of elections .

In practice , however , it is not so much stability of the basic principles which needs protecting ( they are not likely to be seriously challenged ) as stability of some of the more specific rules of electoral law , especially those covering the electoral system per se , the composition of electoral commissions and the drawing of constituency boundaries . These CARDINAL elements are often , rightly or wrongly , regarded as decisive factors in the election results , and care must be taken to avoid not only manipulation to the advantage of the party in power , but even the mere semblance of manipulation .

It is not so much changing voting systems which is a bad thing – they can always be changed for the better – as changing them frequently or just before ( within DATE of ) elections . Even when no manipulation is intended , changes will seem to be dictated by immediate party political interests .

... under LAW persons holding dual nationality must have the same electoral rights as other nationals . ”

The ORG , having conducted a comparative review of the legislations of CARDINAL countries , members of ORG , noted that the majority of them permit dual or multiple nationalities . In some of the countries which ban double nationality , in practice the provisions aimed at preventing multiple nationalities have remained a dead letter ( for instance GPE ) . There are CARDINAL countries in which beside a ban on dual nationality , there is a supplementary provision in the electoral laws or Constitutions banning persons with other nationalities from being elected to ORG . Those countries are GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . There are CARDINAL countries in which dual nationals are ineligible for election to ORG only in certain circumstances : as GPE and GPE . In GPE persons who possess dual nationality and occupy in a foreign country a public or elected office are ineligible to stand as a candidate . In GPE , beside the main territory of the country there are CARDINAL constituencies , CARDINAL covering the territory of the NORP countries , and the other covering all other countries and the territory of GPE . A NORP national holding , for instance , the nationality of GPE , will not be able to stand for ORG in the constituency covering the territory of the NORP countries . However , he will be able to stand in the other CARDINAL constituencies .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicants are a family comprising the husband and wife ( the first and second applicants ) and their CARDINAL children ( the third and fourth applicants ) . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the town of PERSON in LOC .

In DATE the first applicant arrived in GPE with a valid visa and married the second applicant . In DATE , after his visa had expired , the first applicant was deported to GPE .

In DATE the first applicant obtained a work visa valid until DATE and resumed his residence in GPE . The visa was later extended until DATE .

On DATE the first applicant applied for a residence permit .

On DATE the police department of LOC rejected his application by reference to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . No further reasons were provided .

The first and the second applicants challenged the refusal before a court . They complained , in particular , that the police department of LOC had not given any reasons for the refusal . The first applicant had never been charged with any criminal offence or engaged in any subversive activities . The applicants also claimed that the refusal had interfered with their right to respect for their family life and had caused them non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG found that the decision of DATE had been lawful and rejected the ORG claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It found that the police department of LOC had received information from ORG that the first applicant posed a national security risk . That information was a ORG secret and could not be made public .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . It reiterated that , according to the information from ORG , the first applicant posed a national security risk . That information was a ORG secret and was not subject to judicial scrutiny .

On DATE the police department of LOC prepared a decision that the first applicant ’s presence on NORP territory was undesirable and submitted it to the head of ORG for approval . The draft decision indicated that the first applicant had been unlawfully resident on NORP territory and had been repeatedly fined under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for his failure to leave GPE after the expiry of the authorised residence period . On DATE the head of ORG confirmed the decision and it became enforceable .

On DATE the police department of LOC asked ORG to order the first applicant ’s deportation . On DATE the head of ORG ordered the first applicant ’s deportation by reference to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . No further reasons were provided . The applicants were not informed of the decision until DATE .

On DATE the first and second applicants lodged an application with ORG under LAW . They complained , in particular , that the refusal to grant a residence permit to the first applicant and the subsequent decision to deport him to GPE had entailed a violation of the right to respect for their family life .

In its judgment of DATE the ORG found a violation of LAW ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . It found that the applicants’ relationship amounted to family life and that the refusal to grant the first applicant a residence permit and his deportation order constituted interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life . That interference had a basis in domestic law , namely section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and section CARDINAL of LAW .

NORP However , the ORG noted that the domestic courts were not in a position to assess effectively whether the decision to reject the first applicant ’s application for a residence permit was justified , because it was based on classified information . The failure to disclose the relevant information to the courts deprived them of the power to assess whether the conclusion that the first applicant constituted a danger to national security had a reasonable basis in fact . It followed that the judicial scrutiny was limited in scope and did not provide sufficient safeguards against arbitrary exercise of the wide discretion conferred by domestic law on ORG and ORG in cases involving national security .

As to the deportation order against the first applicant , the ORG observed that it had been issued by ORG on the initiative of a local police department . Both agencies were part of the executive and took such decisions without hearing the foreign national concerned . It was not clear whether there was a possibility of appealing against those decisions to a court or other independent authority offering guarantees of an adversarial procedure and competent to review the reasons for the decisions and relevant evidence .

The ORG concluded that the interference with the applicants’ family life was based on legal provisions that did not give an adequate degree of protection against arbitrary interference and therefore did not meet the Convention ’s “ quality of law ” requirements . Accordingly , in the event of the deportation order against the first applicant being enforced , there would be a violation of LAW .

On DATE the judgment became final .

On DATE ORG annulled the decision of DATE stating that the first applicant ’s presence on NORP territory was undesirable , and the decision of CARDINAL DATE ordering his deportation .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the head of the local department of ORG notified the first applicant of the decision of CARDINAL August CARDINAL . She further reminded the first applicant that he was unlawfully residing on NORP territory . To make his residence lawful , he had to leave for GPE , obtain a NORP entry visa and then apply for a residence permit . If he failed to leave , he would be fined and administratively removed to GPE under LAW .

On DATE the first and the second applicants applied to ORG for a reconsideration of the judgment of DATE , as upheld on DATE , referring to the ORG ’s judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed their request , quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered a reconsideration of the case .

On DATE the first and the second applicants submitted an amended statement of claim , asking that the first applicant be issued with a residence permit and that compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage be paid to each of the applicants . The statement of claim mentioned that the first and the second applicants were acting on their own behalf and on behalf of their minor children , the third and the fourth applicants .

On DATE ORG relinquished jurisdiction in favour of ORG . The judge noted that one of the main criticisms of ORG expressed in the judgment of DATE was the failure by ORG to review documents containing classified information . This factor had prevented an effective assessment of whether the finding that the first applicant constituted a danger to national security had a reasonable basis in the facts and , consequently , of whether the decision to reject his application for a residence permit was justified . The judge concluded that the case should be referred to ORG which , unlike ORG , had competence to review documents containing ORG secrets .

During the hearing ORG examined the classified documents from ORG containing information about the security risks allegedly posed by the first applicant . The first and second applicants were informed of the contents of those documents after they had undertaken not to disclose that information . They asked the court to call the police informants who had accused the first applicant of subversive activities to the witness stand and have them questioned . Their request was however refused .

On DATE ORG found that the refusal of a residence permit to the first applicant had been lawful . It referred , in particular , to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and held as follows :

“ ... if the security services discover that certain actions [ of a foreign national ] create a threat for the security of GPE or for the citizens of GPE , they are bound [ by law ] to inform the local department of ORG of [ the existence of such threat ] . [ The law ] does not require that the security services reveal the substance of the threat .

The procedure for the preparation and approval of the materials in respect of a specified foreign national to whom a NORP DATE residence permit is to be refused is established by [ unpublished ] Instruction no . DATE , “ On organisation of the activities of ORG in respect of the examination of materials concerning residence permits for foreign nationals ” , of DATE .

During the hearing the court examined the requirements contained in the ORG and the ‘ classified’ documents which had formed the basis for the refusal , by the security services , of permission to grant a DATE residence permit to NORP national PERSON . It finds that ORG of ORG complied with the requirements contained in the Instruction .

The court has established that the security service revealed circumstances and discovered factors representing a danger for the vital interests of individuals , society and the ORG . The security service made the finding that there were circumstances warranting the refusal of a NORP DATE residence permit to PERSON on the basis of information obtained in the course of its intelligence activities conducted in accordance with the procedure established by the laws of GPE , when discharging its [ the security service ’s ] duties and within its competence .

The court takes into account that issues relating to national security are special , in particular because the factors that represent a threat to national security are assessed by the competent authorities on the basis of information received from various sources , including sources not subject to judicial scrutiny .

Moreover , section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] does not specify which actions may be qualified as representing a threat for the security of GPE or its citizens . This means that the competent security services have discretion in classifying various actions of a foreign national as a threat [ to national security ] .

Thus , there are no reasons to hold that the refusal by ORG of ORG of permission to grant a DATE residence permit to PERSON was unlawful .

After the receipt of news of the refusal of permission by the security service , the application of PERSON for a DATE residence permit was rejected by the police department of the GPE region , by decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , on the basis of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] .

The court concludes from the above that the mentioned decision of the police department of LOC was lawful and justified ... ”

The court then cited LAW and certain paragraphs of the ORG ’s judgment of DATE reiterating the general principles under LAW . It continued as follows :

“ Given that the instant case does not concern an expulsion order against PERSON and that during the court hearing statutory circumstances warranting a restriction of the right of NORP national PERSON to obtain a NORP DATE residence permit have been established , the court does not see any grounds to satisfy the GPE request for an injunction to examine PERSON application for a DATE residence permit and grant such residence permit on the basis of ORG on the Rights of the Child . ”

Finally , referring to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) , ORG found that the first applicant was not entitled to receive a DATE residence permit either . A DATE residence permit could be issued only to a person who had lived in GPE for DATE on the basis of a DATE residence permit . As the first applicant had never had a DATE residence permit , he was not eligible for a DATE residence permit .

ORG dismissed the applicants’ claims in full .

The first and second applicants appealed to ORG of GPE . They complained , in particular , that they had not been given access to the classified materials but merely informed about their contents in general terms . They had therefore been denied an opportunity to contest the accusations levelled at the first applicant . They referred to the cases of PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and ORG , ECHR CARDINALX ) , and ORG and Others v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG DATE ) , claiming that the refusal to disclose the relevant evidence had violated their right to a fair trial . They also argued that by refusing to provide the first applicant with a residence permit the authorities had showed disrespect for their family life .

A representative of the local department of ORG commented on the ORG appeal submissions . He submitted , in particular , that the decision to refuse a residence permit to the first applicant had been lawful and had been taken in accordance with the procedure established by law , in particular Instruction no . DATE . That instruction and the classified materials from the security services had been examined by ORG in the applicants’ presence and had been attached to the case file . Accordingly , the applicants had had full access to those materials .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well - reasoned and justified . ORG had examined the classified materials in the applicants’ presence . ORG was therefore convinced that the security services’ assertion that the first applicant was a danger to national security had a basis in the facts . In those circumstances the public interest had absolute priority over any private interests that might be involved . There was no reason to depart from the findings made by ORG , as those findings had been compatible with the domestic and international law . The applicants had been given access to all relevant evidence and materials and no other procedural defects had been established . Accordingly , their right to a fair trial had not been violated .

On DATE several policemen went to the second applicant ’s place of work in search of the first applicant . They took the first applicant to the nearby police station . An officer from the local department of ORG drew up a report on the commission of an offence under LAW and ordered that the first applicant pay a fine of MONEY ( RUB ) . The first applicant was then released .

The applicants challenged the decision of DATE before the ORG .

On DATE the ORG reversed the decision of DATE . It observed that the statutory limitation period for continuous administrative offences was DATE starting to run from DATE the offence was discovered . In the first applicant ’s case the continuous offence of living in GPE without a valid residence permit had been first discovered in DATE . Accordingly , the administrative offence proceedings were time - barred . The parties did not appeal and the decision became final .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office asked ORG to quash the decision of DATE as incorrect .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had incorrectly interpreted and applied the legal provisions concerning limitation periods and that the administrative offence proceedings against the first applicant were not time - barred . However , LAW did not provide for a procedure for quashing or reconsidering a court decision that had become final . It therefore rejected the prosecutor ’s office ’s application .

NORP On DATE several policemen went to the second applicant ’s place of work and arrested the first applicant . He was taken to the police station , where an officer from the local department of ORG drew up a report on the commission of an offence under LAW . The report was transmitted to a judge .

On DATE the ORG held that the first applicant had infringed the residence regulations by living in GPE without a valid residence permit . It further held as follows :

“ The offender ’s arguments that some members of his family ( his wife and children ) are living in GPE have been discussed . It has been found that these circumstances can not prevent an administrative removal , as in the judgments mentioned above [ the judgments of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ] the same circumstances were considered insufficient for granting PERSON a residence permit ... ”

ORG ordered the first applicant ’s administrative removal and detention pending removal . It also ordered that he pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL . The first applicant was placed in a detention centre in GPE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE the first applicant was expelled to GPE .

Until DATE temporary resident foreign nationals were not required to apply for a residence permit . Their presence in GPE was lawful as long as their visa remained valid . On DATE Law no . CARDINAL-FZ on ORG in GPE ( “ LAW ” ) was passed . It introduced the requirement of residence permits for foreign nationals .

A foreign national married to a NORP national living on NORP territory is entitled to a DATE residence permit ( section QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) ) .

A DATE residence permit ( “ разрешение на временное проживание ” ) may be refused only in exhaustively defined cases , particularly if the foreign national advocates a violent change to the constitutional foundations of GPE or otherwise creates a threat to the security of GPE or its citizens ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . Nor may a DATE residence permit be issued during the DATE period following a person ’s administrative removal or deportation from GPE ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

The local department of ORG ( before DATE , the local police department ) examines an application for a DATE residence permit within DATE . It collects information from the security services , the bailiffs’ offices , tax authorities , social security services , health authorities and other interested bodies . Those bodies must , within DATE , submit information about any circumstances within their knowledge which might warrant refusal of a residence permit . After receipt of such information the local department of ORG or the local police department decides whether to grant or reject the application for a DATE residence permit ( section QUANTITY and CARDINAL ) .

DATE . During the validity of the DATE residence permit a foreign national may apply for a renewable DATE residence permit ( “ вид на жительство ” ) . Such application is possible only after the foreign national has lived in GPE for DATE on the basis of a DATE residence permit ( section QUANTITY ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE provides that a foreign national who infringes the residence regulations of GPE , including by living on the territory of GPE without a valid residence permit or by non - compliance with the established procedure for residence registration , will be liable to punishment by an administrative fine of RUB CARDINAL and possible administrative removal from GPE . Under Article MONEY § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) a report on the offence described in DATE is drawn up by a police officer . LAW the report to be transmitted within DATE to a judge or to an officer competent to examine administrative matters . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the determination of any administrative charge that may result in removal from the NORP Federation shall be made by a judge of a court of general jurisdiction . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL guarantees the right to appeal against a decision on an administrative offence to a court or to a higher court .

A competent authority , such as ORG or ORG , may issue a decision that a foreign national ’s presence on NORP territory is undesirable . Such a decision may be issued if a foreign national is unlawfully residing on NORP territory or if his or her residence is lawful but creates a real threat to the defensive capacity or security of the ORG , to public order or health , etc . If such a decision has been taken , the foreign national has to leave GPE or will otherwise be deported . That decision also forms the legal basis for subsequent refusal of re - entry into GPE ( section CARDINAL of the PERSON on the Procedure for Entering and Leaving GPE , no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE , as amended on DATE , “ LAW ” ) .

A foreign national who has been deported or administratively removed from GPE may not re - enter it during the DATE period following such deportation or administrative removal ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The Civil Procedure Code provides that only those persons who have reached DATE may participate in civil proceedings . Minors participate in civil proceedings through their parents or guardians ( Articles QUANTITY ) .


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

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

On DATE the applicant married . On CARDINAL DATE his wife gave birth to a boy . In accordance with Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , the applicant was presumed to be the child ’s father .

In DATE the applicant ’s wife moved to a different place together with the child .

On DATE the Banská Bystrica District Court granted the request of the applicant ’s wife that she be granted the custody of the child . It further ordered the applicant to contribute to the child ’s maintenance . On DATE the ORG upheld ORG judgment .

Subsequently the applicant claimed that the marriage be dissolved . In his action he alleged , inter alia , that he had had sexual intercourse with his wife in DATE for the last time , and that they had not lived in a common household since DATE . The applicant further requested that the child be placed in his custody .

On DATE ORG granted the divorce of the applicant and of his wife . The child was placed in the custody of the mother and the applicant was ordered to pay maintenance .

The applicant appealed against the decision on the child ’s maintenance and claimed that he had not fathered the child .

On DATE the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the relevant part of ORG judgment . The appellate court ’s decision stated that the applicant was presumed to be the child ’s father in accordance with Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE the applicant requested that ORG bring proceedings on his behalf with a view to determining whether or not he had fathered the child born to his former wife . He explained that he did not consider himself to be the natural father of the child and that the issue could reliably be determined only by means of a blood test . The applicant further stated that he was ready to bear the costs of such a test .

On DATE the Banská Bystrica Regional Prosecutor ’s Office informed the applicant that it had been open to him to deny the paternity in respect of the child within DATE after the child ’s birth in accordance with Section ORG ) of LAW . The letter further stated that it had not been reliably shown that the applicant had not fathered the child . Furthermore , a blood test could not be carried out because of disagreement of the applicant ’s former wife . In those circumstances , the requirements laid down in LAW of LAW for a paternity action to be filed on the applicant ’s behalf were not met .

On DATE the applicant claimed before ORG that he had not fathered the child . He requested that a blood test be ordered with a view to determining this issue . The applicant explained that his last sexual intercourse with the child ’s mother had taken place in DATE , whereas the child had been born in DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim as having been lodged out of time . The judgment stated that the applicant had failed to file the action within DATE after the child ’s birth as requested by Section ORG ) of LAW . In the judgment ORG pointed out that the applicant ’s arguments did not appear reliable as he had started contesting his paternity in respect of the child only after his former wife had left him in DATE . ORG further noted that public prosecutors had established no grounds for bringing paternity proceedings on the applicant ’s behalf pursuant to ORG ) of LAW .

The applicant appealed and alleged that his rights under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG had been violated as a result of the dismissal of his action and the refusal to carry out a blood test .

On DATE the ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE . The judgment stated that the CARDINAL months’ time - limit laid down in Section ORG ) of LAW was preclusive . As a result of the applicant ’s failure to comply with it , his right to directly challenge the paternity of the child before a court had lapsed .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that no reasons had been found for filing an extra - ordinary appeal on points of law against ORG judgment of DATE .

Pursuant to Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON o rodine ) , the husband of a woman who gives birth to a child during the marriage or not DATE after its dissolution shall be considered the child ’s father .

Section ORG ) provides that a husband can deny paternity before a court within DATE after he has learnt that his wife has given birth to a child .

Under LAW ) , when the time - limit for denying the paternity by the parent concerned has expired , ORG may file an action for disproof of paternity provided that the determination of the issue is justified by the interests of society .

According to the practice of the public prosecutors , an action under LAW ) of LAW can only be filed when there is reliable evidence that the mother ’s husband did not father the child .


Violation of Art. 34;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Rīga .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested by the police and subsequently remanded in custody on suspicion of burglary and drunk driving . While in detention , on CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was allegedly beaten , kicked and assaulted by policemen . The applicant ’s subsequent requests for criminal proceedings to be instituted in respect of the alleged ill - treatment by the police eventually remained unsuccessful ; by a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG refused to open a criminal investigation against the police officers .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated burglary and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG fully upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . On DATE the ORG of ORG by a final decision dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . The applicant ’s repeated requests to the Prosecutor General for supervisory review of his conviction were dismissed on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE respectively .

On DATE the Rīga City Kurzeme District Court examined the drink - driving charges against the applicant . The applicant was represented by defence counsel of his choice . The applicant was found guilty of that offence and sentenced to DATE in prison . The court added to that sentence the sentence imposed on the applicant by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and imposed a final sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . On DATE ORG , acting as a court of appeal , reduced the applicant ’s final sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The applicant was represented at the appellate court by defence counsel . The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG refused leave to appeal , finding that the arguments invoked by the applicant did not constitute any valid ground for appeal in cassation according to LAW .

On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to LAW prison to serve his sentence .

In DATE , the applicant was subjected to disciplinary punishment in the form of detention in a punishment cell for DATE on the basis of a report that he had harassed another detainee . The applicant began a hunger strike to protest against the allegedly unjust penalty . On DATE of the hunger strike the disciplinary penalty was lifted .

On DATE the applicant handed in to the prison administration a letter addressed to the ORG of ORG . It appears the application was not forwarded to the addressee but instead was transmitted to the ORG , which , in turn , forwarded it to ORG , which dismissed the complaints contained in the letter as unfounded . No letter of that date has been received by ORG . On DATE the applicant , having become aware that his application of CARDINAL DATE had not been sent to the intended addressee , announced that he was going on hunger strike . The hunger strike gave rise to a disciplinary sanction of CARDINAL days’ detention in a disciplinary cell . The applicant further alleged that in response to his complaint a member of the prison administration had threatened him with a transfer to a prison “ from which [ he ] will never come out ” .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from Jelgavas prison to PERSON prison , located in Daugavpils . On DATE the applicant was placed in a punishment cell to serve the remainder of the disciplinary penalty that had been imposed in Jelgavas prison .

After his release from the punishment cell , the applicant handed to the prison administration a complaint addressed to ORG for Places of Detention ( PERSON vietu prokuratūra ) . According to the applicant , the prison administration refused to accept his complaint for despatch . On an unspecified date the applicant started a hunger strike to protest against that refusal . As a result , on DATE a new disciplinary punishment of CARDINAL days’ detention in a punishment cell was imposed on him .

On DATE the applicant ’s complaint was transferred to ORG for Places of Detention . On DATE a prosecutor from that office dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as unsubstantiated . The applicant appealed to a hierarchically superior prosecutor . However , the appeal was examined by the same prosecutor who had examined the original complaint . He dismissed that appeal on DATE , finding that the substance of the applicant ’s complaint had already been examined once and that it had been dismissed for the reasons set out in the letter of DATE . According to the applicant , a further complaint he made to ORG was again dealt with by the same prosecutor , who again informed him that the matters complained of had already been examined .

On DATE the deputy director of ORG ( PERSON vietu pārvalde ) replied to a complaint , which apparently concerned the conditions of detention in PERSON prison . The reply noted that a complex inspection had been carried out in that prison from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE and no violations of the LAW or the internal regulations mentioned in the applicant ’s complaint had been found .

On DATE the applicant handed a letter together with copies of documents to the prison administration in order to have it despatched to the ORG . No such letter has been received at the ORG . However , in a letter of DATE a prosecutor of ORG ( NORP vairāku nozaru prokuratūra ) wrote to the applicant , informing him , inter alia , that his letter had been sent to GPE on DATE that it had been handed to the prison administration .

On DATE the applicant allegedly wrote to an unspecified public prosecutor ’s office , complaining about his ill - treatment in PERSON prison , the conditions of detention therein and the allegedly unlawful character of the disciplinary penalties imposed on him . The applicant asked for criminal proceedings to be instituted in that regard . It appears that he did not receive any reply .

On DATE the applicant started a hunger strike in order to demonstrate to the authorities that the disciplinary penalties imposed on him were unlawful , that his rights had been infringed and to protest that his application of CARDINAL DATE had not been sent to GPE . As a result , he was again penalised with CARDINAL days’ solitary confinement in a punishment cell . According to the applicant , a prison staff member , C. , prepared a special cell for this penalty , in order to intentionally increase the severity of the punishment . The applicant alleges that a fan installed in the wall of the cell was purposefully switched on , causing a flow of cold air from the outside . A window was kept open at all times . As a result , the air temperature inside the cell was QUANTITY Before his removal to the punishment cell the applicant was made to change his clothes to thinner ones , which did not provide sufficient warmth . The equipment of the cell consisted of a single metal bed with no mattress , blanket or bedding .

During his solitary confinement the applicant was subjected to full body searches on several occasions . In his submission , during these searches he was taken out of the punishment cell into a corridor and forced to strip naked . According to the applicant , the only real reason for conducting the searches had been to humiliate him .

On DATE , which was DATE of his confinement , the applicant was transferred to the medical department of the prison . On DATE he discontinued the hunger strike for health reasons . On DATE the applicant received a penalty of CARDINAL days’ solitary confinement for “ failure to obey the rules of a hunger strike ” .

After his release from the punishment cell , the applicant allegedly requested CARDINAL staff members of the prison to forward his complaints concerning his alleged ill - treatment and torture . However , the applicant assumes that his complaints were never sent to the intended addressees , since he did not receive any replies .

On DATE the applicant requested a member of the prison administration to despatch a complaint concerning his ill - treatment . On DATE a prosecutor of ORG replied to the applicant ’s complaint and noted , inter alia , that the applicant ’s complaint “ that [ he was ] being tortured by representatives of prison administration could not be verified ” , and the prosecutor thus considered that the applicant ’s grievances consisted merely of “ unsubstantiated statements ” . The prosecutor further wrote to the applicant that “ if you choose to damage your own health by starvation , you are the only one to blame ” . Finally , it was noted that an appeal could be lodged against the response to a hierarchically superior prosecutor of the same prosecutor ’s office . It appears that the applicant did not formulate such an appeal .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from ORG prison to NORP prison .

On DATE he submitted a complaint to ORG . On DATE the Deputy Director of ORG replied to the applicant ’s complaint . The reply summarised the applicant ’s complaints as being about

“ serious conflicts [ he was having ] with the administrations of Grīvas and LAW prisons [ , ] ... PERSON prison director ’s and staff ’s unfair and prejudiced attitude towards [ the applicant ] , [ i]ncessant pressure put on [ him , and ] about corruption in the PERSON prison administration , and about existing financial violations ”

and other issues . ORG reply stated , inter alia , that on DATE an inspection had been carried out in PERSON prison and no breaches of prison rules on the part of the prison administration had been found .

The applicant alleges that in DATE and DATE he applied to ORG and to the President of ORG , complaining , inter alia , about ill - treatment by the PERSON prison authorities . The complaints were subsequently transferred to ORG . On DATE a prosecutor of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaints addressed to ORG and to the President of ORG as unsubstantiated .

On DATE and DATE ORG carried out a regularly scheduled inspection in PERSON prison , in the course of which certain deficiencies were discovered . Specifically it was found that problems existed with regard to the placement in cells of active tuberculosis carriers , the execution of sentences of juvenile criminals , and the adequacy of procedures for changing imprisonment regimes . No other problems were noted .

In DATE , upon arrival at Daugavpils prison , the applicant ’s personal belongings such as washing powder , shampoo , newspapers , shoe polish , a hairbrush and certain items of stationery were seized by the prison administration .

In DATE the applicant handed to the prison administration a letter addressed to ORG . The letter and the attached documents had been placed in a hand - made envelope , since the applicant lacked sufficient means to buy standard size envelopes . However , on DATE the letter was returned to the applicant and he was informed that the postal service had refused to despatch the letter because of the non - standard envelope size .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to Valmieras prison and on DATE he was released from prison after serving his sentence .

On DATE the administrative commission of ORG prison decided to transfer the applicant from the “ higher ” or most lenient type of prison regime to the stricter “ medium ” regime , due to his persistent breaches of the internal rules of the prison . Neither the applicant nor his defence counsel were present at the meeting of the administrative commission . The Government indicated that immediately after the meeting the members of the administrative commission , with a public prosecutor , visited the applicant in the punishment cell where he was being held at that time . The applicant refused to talk to them and refused to sign the decision of the commission . According to the applicant , he was unable to talk to the members of the commission because he “ was lying on the floor with a bleeding face ” . The Government submitted that the applicant’ right to appeal against that decision had been explained to him . The applicant alleged that he was unable to lodge an appeal , since in the punishment cell the use of writing materials was forbidden by order of the director of ORG prison . In a report of DATE a prosecutor of ORG noted that the applicant had appealed against the administrative commission ’s decision . No documents in that regard were produced before the ORG by either of the parties .

On DATE the administrative commission decided to transfer the applicant from the “ medium ” regime to the “ lower ” or the strictest type of regime on the basis of persistent breaches of the internal rules of the prison . The applicant alleged that the director of the prison had rejected his request to ensure legal representation . The applicant himself participated in the meeting of the commission .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE and dismissed it by a final decision . The applicant participated in the hearing . According to the applicant , in his appeal he brought his complaints of ill - treatment to the attention of the court but received no reply . The decision of the court noted that the applicant had argued that the disciplinary infractions that he was alleged to have committed had been insignificant . In response , the court briefly indicated that the applicant had systematically violated the internal rules of the prison and therefore the decision of the administrative commission was appropriate .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW ( PERSON ) prohibits torture , as well as any cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

The relevant parts of the PERSON on ORG ( Prokuratūras likums ) as applicable at the material time read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In his or her activities a prosecutor shall be independent of the influence of any other institution or official exercising ORG authority or administrative power , and shall be bound only by the law .

( CARDINAL ) The ORG , ORG , ORG and local government institutions , ORG and local government civil servants , all types of enterprises and organisations , as well as all persons are prohibited from interfering in the work of prosecutors during the investigation of cases or during the performance of other functions of prosecutors .

( CARDINAL ) ORG actions may be appealed against in the cases and in accordance with the procedures specified by this law and procedural laws . Complaints regarding questions which fall within the exclusive competence of prosecutors shall be submitted to a chief prosecutor of a hierarchically superior prosecutor ’s office , but regarding the actions of a prosecutor of ORG to ORG . The decisions taken by the aforementioned officials shall be final .

( CARDINAL ) A prosecutor of a superior rank may take over any case file , but may not compel a prosecutor to carry out actions against his or her belief .

( CARDINAL ) Attempts to unlawfully exert influence on a prosecutor or to interfere with the work of a prosecutor ’s office shall be prosecuted in accordance with law . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Lawful orders of a prosecutor shall bind all persons in the territory of GPE .

( CARDINAL ) Persons shall be prosecuted in accordance with law for any failure to comply with the lawful orders of a prosecutor . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) In accordance with the procedures prescribed by law , prosecutors shall supervise the execution of court - imposed sentences of deprivation of liberty and supervise the places where persons arrested , detained or under guard are held , and shall take part in court hearings relating to changes in the specified length of sentences or the conditions of sentences .

( CARDINAL ) A prosecutor ’s protest with regard to an unlawful penalty imposed on a person held in a place of deprivation of liberty shall suspend the execution of the penalty until the protest has been dealt with . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Having received information concerning a breach of law , a prosecutor shall carry out an examination in accordance with the procedures prescribed by law if :

CARDINAL ) the information concerns a crime ;

CARDINAL ) the rights and lawful interests of ... detainees ... have been violated .

( CARDINAL ) A prosecutor has the duty to take measures required for the protection of rights and lawful interests of persons and the ORG , if :

CARDINAL ) the Prosecutor General or a chief prosecutor recognises the necessity for such examination ; ...

CARDINAL ) such a duty is provided for by other laws . ...

( CARDINAL ) A prosecutor shall also carry out an examination if a submission from a person regarding a violation of his or her rights or lawful interests is received and if this submission has already been reviewed by a competent state institution and it has refused to rectify the violation of law referred to in the submission or it has given no reply within the term specified by law . ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) When examining an application in accordance with the law , a prosecutor has the right :

CARDINAL ) to request and to receive regulatory enactments , documents and other information from administrative authorities ... , as well as to enter the LOC of such authorities without hindrance ;

CARDINAL ) to order heads and other officials of ... institutions and organisations to carry out examinations , audits and expert - examinations and to submit opinions , as well as to provide the assistance of specialists in the examinations carried out by the prosecutor ;

CARDINAL ) to summon a person and to receive from him / her an explanation on the breach of law ...

( CARDINAL ) When taking a decision on a breach of law , the prosecutor , depending on the nature of the breach , has the duty :

CARDINAL ) to bring an action to the court ;

CARDINAL ) to initiate a criminal investigation ; or

CARDINAL ) to initiate [ proceedings on ] administrative or disciplinary liability . ”

“ ... ( CARDINAL ) If the requirements stated in an application [ of a prosecutor to an authority ] are not complied with or no reply to it is provided , the prosecutor is entitled to submit to a court or to any other competent institution a request to subject [ the responsible ] person to liability prescribed by law . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) For a person who intentionally inflicts [ upon another person ] bodily injuries which have not caused damage to health or the general ongoing loss of ability to work ( minor bodily injuries ) , as well as who intentionally [ subjects another person ] to beating which has not caused the consequences mentioned , the applicable sentence shall be custodial arrest , or community service , or a fine not exceeding CARDINAL times the minimum DATE wage .

( CARDINAL ) For a person who intentionally inflicts [ upon another person ] minor bodily injuries which cause temporary damage to health or insignificant general ongoing loss of ability to work , the applicable sentence shall be deprivation of liberty for a term not exceeding one year , or custodial arrest , or community service , or a fine not exceeding CARDINAL times the minimum DATE wage .

( CARDINAL ) For a person who [ subjects another person to ] systematic beating having the nature of torture , or any other kind of torture , provided these acts have not [ caused injuries of medium severity or very severe injuries ] , the applicable sentence shall be deprivation of liberty for a term not exceeding DATE , or custodial arrest , or community service , or a fine not exceeding CARDINAL times the minimum DATE wage . ”

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW in force at the material time , the aforementioned offence belonged to the category of private prosecution cases which had to be brought by the plaintiff directly before the court with jurisdiction . The statutory limitation period for this offence expired after DATE ( section DATE ) of LAW ) . Section CARDINAL ) provided that normally pre - trial investigation was not conducted in private prosecution cases , except if a court , a judge or a prosecutor decided to conduct CARDINAL “ in order to protect the interests of the state or of society or rights of certain persons ” .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG izpildes kodekss ) at the relevant time provided that prison inmates may appeal against disciplinary penalties to hierarchically superior staff members .

The Rules of ORG ( PERSON vietu pārvaldes nolikums ) that were in force at the relevant time provided that the head of ORG had the obligation to accept and reply to complaints , enquiries and suggestions and had the right to quash unlawful orders or decisions of any staff member of ORG or prisons .

At the material time , LAW provided that civil courts were competent to deal with , among others , cases arising from actions or decisions of state or municipal agents where those had impinged on private NORP rights ( section CARDINAL ) . LAW of that LAW set out the rules and procedures to be followed in such cases , from which it followed that civil courts could deal with disputes for which the law did not provide for another settlement mechanism .

NORP The relevant findings of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . CARDINAL of the most effective means of preventing ill - treatment by prison officers lies in the diligent examination of complaints of ill - treatment and the imposition of suitable penalties . Prisoners should have avenues of complaint open to them both within and outside the prison system , including the possibility of confidential access to an appropriate authority .

In all prisons visited , prisoners could , in principle , submit a complaint to the establishment ’s Director . In addition , complaints could be addressed to ORG and ORG .

However , the ORG is concerned by the manner in which ORG complaints were processed in practice . Many prisoners interviewed in the establishments visited indicated that they did not have any trust in the current complaints system , since they were obliged to hand their complaint - even those addressed to judicial authorities DATE in an unsealed envelope to a prison officer . Not surprisingly , only a few complaints were recorded in the establishments visited . Means must be found of enabling complaints to be submitted to ORG and ORG in a truly confidential manner . ”

“ CARDINAL . As in DATE , the confidentiality of external complaints was not always guaranteed ( i.e. prisoners were obliged to hand complaints in an unsealed envelope to the prison administration or to give an oral explanation to members of ORG on the reasons for lodging a complaint ) . The ORG reiterates its recommendation that steps be taken to enable prisoners to submit complaints to ORG and ORG in a truly confidential manner . ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the city of GPE , GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agents – Mrs V. ORG , succeeded by PERSON .

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

In DATE the applicant 's employer - ORG ( hereinafter – the “ SMCF ” ) put the applicant 's name on a priority housing list ( position no . CARDINAL at the material time ) for obtaining a dwelling to which he was entitled according to the relevant law after having been appointed as a “ young specialist ” . This priority list was designated for persons who were entitled to receive a dwelling without waiting their turn in the general housing list . The applicant was provided with a room in a hostel ( where he is currently residing ) as temporary accommodation in the meantime .

By a judgment of DATE , the ORG of GPE found that the applicant had a right to obtain a dwelling from his employer without waiting his turn ( позачергово ) , and obliged the SMCF to provide him with such accommodation . The court stated in particular :

“ Having heard the claimant and the representative of the ORG , and having examined the case - file , the court considers that the claims of Mr. PERSON are well - founded since , as a young specialist who arrived for work at the enterprise after graduation , he was entitled to receive an individual dwelling without waiting his turn , as indicated in certificate no . DATE . However , after his name was put on the priority housing list ... under no . CARDINAL , Mr. PERSON [ now holds ] ... priority ... under no . DATE , and the SMCF does not [ yet ] have the possibility to provide him with a dwelling . Since the applicant continues his labour relations with ORG , which did not fulfil its obligations to the applicant , the SMCF [ must ] fulfil its obligation to provide the applicant with a separate dwelling . ...

The court has therefore decided to oblige the ORG to provide Mr. PERSON with a separate dwelling . ”

On DATE ORG of the Krasnogvardeyskiy ORG of Justice initiated enforcement proceedings on the basis of a writ of execution dated DATE .

On DATE , upon the bailiff 's request , the judge who had decided the case provided explanations as to the enforcement of the judgment . The judge held that :

“ under the [ court ] decision , the ORG , where Mr. PERSON has worked and continues working , “ is obliged to provide Mr. PERSON with a separate dwelling ” ... There were no grounds during the examination of the case , and there are no grounds now , for providing the claimant with a dwelling immediately or ahead of his turn in the housing list ... ”

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated on the ground that the applicant 's name had been put on the priority housing list ( no . CARDINAL at the material time ) .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG of GPE found for the applicant and declared the decision of DATE , terminating the enforcement proceedings , null and void .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Head of ORG of LOC informed the applicant that he was now no . CARDINAL on the priority housing list .

In DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he had lodged a claim against ORG for failure to enforce the judgment of DATE . The proceedings are pending before the first instance court .

The relevant extracts of LAW read as follows :

“ Everyone has the right to housing . The ORG creates conditions that enable every citizen to build , purchase a property , or to rent housing .

ORG in need of social protection are provided with housing by the ORG and bodies of local self - government , free of charge or at a price affordable to them , in accordance with the law .

No one shall be forcibly deprived of housing other than on the basis of the law , pursuant to a court decision . ”

“ Everyone has the right to a standard of living sufficient for himself or herself and his or her family , which includes adequate nutrition , clothing and housing . ”

“ ... Judicial decisions are adopted by the courts in the name of GPE and are mandatory for execution throughout the entire territory of GPE . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides for categories of persons entitled to a dwelling in an order of priority , including persons appointed to work outside the area of their habitual residence . The LAW further stipulates that the persons concerned shall be included in a priority housing list . However , the LAW does not set down any time - limits for the allocation of such dwellings .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Decree provides that the employees sent for permanent work outside the area of their habitual residence shall be provided by their employer with priority accommodation , without having to wait their turn .