Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficent

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE . Before DATE he lived in GPE . He currently lives in GPE .

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , GPE . He is married and has CARDINAL minor children .

According to the applicant , DATE he was on several occasions questioned by LOC police in connection with his alleged membership of NORP ut - GPE ( “ ORG ” ) , a transnational NORP organisation , banned in GPE , GPE and NORP republics . The applicant ’s submission stated that he was not a member of ORG .

He submitted that he had been ill - treated and threatened by the police several times , and had to sign unspecified documents , and that at some point his house had been searched without a warrant .

At some point in DATE the applicant fled to GPE . He had not applied for registration with ORG .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant returned to GPE to renew his passport , which was due to expire . He successfully renewed the document and returned to GPE .

NORP Since DATE the applicant has lived in GPE with his wife and CARDINAL minor children . The CARDINAL other children are living in GPE with the applicant ’s sister - in - law .

On DATE ORG of GPE of GPE brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of attempting to overthrow the NORP State ’s constitutional order .

On DATE the ORG ( GPE ) ordered that the applicant should be placed in custody on suspicion of attempting to overthrow the NORP State ’s constitutional order ( LAW ( b ) of LAW of GPE ) , as well as participation in and direction of religious , extremist , separatist and other prohibited organisations , and forming an armed organisation or gang to commit offences ( LAW ) . The court specified , with reference to the materials of the domestic investigation , that the applicant was suspected of membership of ORG and that he had had books and leaflets which made public calls for the overthrow of ORG and for the creation of an NORP state , which had been seized from him .

On DATE the applicant ’s name was placed on a wanted list by ORG of GPE of GPE .

On DATE the NORP authorities formally charged the applicant in absentia with attempting to overthrow the NORP State ’s constitutional order , participation in and direction of religious , extremist , separatist and other prohibited organisations , and forming an armed organisation or gang to commit offences , as well as holding a position of authority or a special position within such an organisation or gang ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and LAW ) .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by NORP police in GPE on the ground that his name had been put on a cross - border wanted list by the NORP authorities . On DATE ORG of the Interior sent ORG of the ORG ( GPE ) a request for the applicant to be kept in custody . The request contained , in particular , the following paragraph :

“ [ A ] criminal PERSON is wanted by the ... ORG of the Interior ... ”

On DATE ORG requested ORG to extradite the applicant to GPE . The request contained assurances that the applicant would be prosecuted only for the offences for which he would be extradited , that he would be able to freely leave GPE when he had stood trial and served any sentence , and that he would not be expelled or extradited to a third State without the consent of the NORP authorities .

On DATE ORG submitted a letter in connection with the applicant ’s case to ORG of GPE . The text of the document comprised CARDINAL lines and stated :

“ ORG is not aware of anything precluding ... PERSON PERSON ’s extradition to the law - enforcement bodies of GPE for criminal prosecution . ”

On DATE ORG ordered the extradition of the applicant to GPE on account of the charges under ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( attempt to overthrow the NORP State ’s constitutional order , participation in and direction of religious , extremist , separatist and other prohibited organisations ) . By the same decision ORG refused the extradition request in so far as it concerned the charges under LAW of the destination country , corresponding to LAW of GPE ( “ the CCrP ” ) ( membership of an organisation banned by a final court decision because of its extremist activities ) , since the time - limits for prosecution of the applicant under NORP law had expired .

On DATE the applicant challenged the Prosecutor General ’s order in court , arguing that he had already been subject to beatings and threatening in DATE in GPE and risked further illtreatment and torture in GPE . He further argued that according to independent international observers ill - treatment was widespread in the NORP prison system and fair trial guarantees were not respected . Referring to the ORG ’s case - law on the matter , he submitted that these findings had been disregarded by ORG office and insisted that he had not committed any crimes in GPE .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s request for application of interim measures under LAW and indicated to the Government that they should suspend his extradition to GPE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the extradition order by ORG . The court found no circumstances precluding the extradition .

NORP The court established at the outset that the applicant had not obtained LANGUAGE citizenship or applied for it in accordance with the law . It further observed that on DATE his application for refugee status had been refused by ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . The court cited the statement in the ORG decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria to be granted refugee status , for lack of a well - founded fear of persecution for reasons of race , religion , nationality , ethnic origin , membership of a particular social group , or political opinion . The court reiterated that the actions imputed to the applicant were punishable under LAW .

The court further observed , with reference to the conclusions drawn by ORG and ORG of GPE , that

“ [ there had been ] no information concerning either any politically motivated persecution of the applicant or any obstacles precluding his extradition to GPE . His extradition to GPE would not damage the interests or security of the GPE ” .

The court pointed out that ORG had given assurances in the request for extradition that the applicant would be prosecuted only for the offence for which he was to be extradited , that he would be able to freely leave GPE when he had stood trial and served any sentence , and that he would not be expelled or extradited to a third State without the consent of the NORP authorities . Thus , the court found no grounds in international agreements or the legislation of GPE to prevent the applicant ’s extradition .

The court further rejected the applicant ’s submission that he had arrived in GPE in order to avoid the risk of ill - treatment . It found that , when interviewed on the date of his arrest , the applicant stated that he had arrived in GPE looking for employment and had denied that any political charges were pending against him . The court noted from the applicant ’s testimony of DATE that in DATE he had been able to visit GPE and then return to GPE ; he had been neither persecuted nor searched for in his home country .

The court concluded that the applicant ’s submissions to the effect that he would risk ill - treatment if extradited to his home country were of a “ presumptive nature ” and “ constituted his personal opinion ” , which “ was not corroborated by the results of checks conducted by ORG of GPE and ORG of GPE in the course of the extradition proceedings ” .

It also pointed out that the issue of whether the applicant was guilty of the crimes in respect of which the NORP authorities had requested his extradition could only be assessed by a court in the requesting country examining the merits of the criminal case against him . Hence , the applicant ’s arguments that he was not guilty and that the charges against him were fabricated could not be subject to examination in the proceedings at hand . The court concluded that the extradition order was lawful and well founded .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the ORG decision , arguing that the decision on the applicant ’s extradition had been taken in violation of ORG , DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW . With reference to the ORG ’s case - law and , in particular , to the judgment in case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) he submitted that he would face ill - treatment in GPE . The applicant argued that he had been questioned by the police of GPE on several occasions since DATE , with a view to extracting a confession that he was a member of ORG . During CARDINAL of the interrogations , which took place on an unspecified date , the local police had handcuffed the applicant , severely beaten him and threatened him with torture . While he was on police premises the applicant had seen a young man being tortured by police officers . As a result , the applicant had signed unspecified documents there . The applicant ’s flat had been searched several times , and his relatives had received numerous threats from agents of the ORG . The applicant referred to written statements from witnesses to the searches of the flat and interrogations of the applicant ’s relatives , carried out in connection with the applicant ’s request for refugee status ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Finally , the applicant made reference to reports by ORG on the question of torture dated DATE and DATE , as well as to ORG report dated DATE , from which it followed that a widespread practice of illtreatment of detainees remained a problem in GPE .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined the applicant ’s appeal in the presence of his counsel . The court established that the extradition order had been issued in accordance with law . Referring to the applicant ’s complaints that he risked ill - treatment and torture in GPE , the court reiterated that the applicant had never cited a risk of persecution and ill - treatment before the NORP authorities before his arrest on DATE . Furthermore , when questioned by the prosecutor on that date , he had submitted that he had arrived in GPE in order to look for work . He had not applied for refugee status on arrival in GPE in DATE , but had only done so after he had been placed in custody .

The court further pointed out that in DATE the applicant had returned to GPE to renew his passport . The authorities had not been searching for him . He had not been ill - treated , threatened or otherwise persecuted , and was able to renew his passport and return to GPE freely and unharmed . The court further noted that CARDINAL of the applicant ’s children were living in GPE .

Finally , it rejected the applicant ’s reference to several reports by independent international human rights protection associations , including the reports referred to in the PERSON case ( cited above ) , as outdated . The court pointed out that the competent domestic authorities had conducted checks through diplomatic channels and had concluded on the absence of any obstacles to the applicant ’s extradition . It found that ORG had not been in possession of any information on human rights violations in GPE in DATE when deciding on the extradition issue . The court concluded that the applicant ’s fear of ill - treatment and persecution if extradited was unfounded , and upheld ORG judgment of DATE . The extradition order became final .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE sent a letter to ORG , in addition to the extradition request of DATE . The letter contained assurances that the applicant would not be prosecuted in GPE on political grounds , and that the criminal proceedings against him would be conducted in compliance with the domestic law of GPE and international treaties to which GPE was a party . It was pointed out in the letter that all forms of inhuman and degrading treatment were prohibited in the destination country .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP police in GPE on the ground that his name had been put on a cross - border wanted list by the NORP authorities . On DATE ORG of the ORG ( GPE ) received a request from ORG of the ORG ( GPE ) to keep the applicant in custody .

On DATE the prosecutor of ORG authorised his detention . The prosecutor observed that on DATE the applicant had been placed on a wanted list and ORG had ordered his placement in custody , and that on DATE the applicant had been charged with several offences in his home country . Therefore , the prosecution was in possession of information that the applicant had committed crimes on the territory of GPE . Accordingly , the applicant could be remanded in custody , as provided by LAW on legal aid and legal relations in civil , family and criminal cases ( the DATE Minsk Convention ) . No time - limits for the detention were set in the decision .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to extradite the applicant to GPE . The NORP authority enclosed copies of the relevant documents , apparently including a copy of the judgment of ORG of DATE . According to the ORG , the request was received by ORG on DATE .

According to the decision of ORG ( GPE ) of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE the prosecutor of ORG issued a new decision to remand the applicant in custody until DATE . The prosecutor referred to LAW ORG and LAW . The parties did not submit a copy of that decision .

At some point the Perovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor ’s Office requested an extension of the applicant ’s detention , because the necessary checks within the extradition proceedings had not been completed , further information on the applicant ’s character needed to be obtained , and the extradition proceedings were lengthy by nature .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The applicant was represented in the proceedings by a ORG - appointed lawyer . The court stated by way of justification that the applicant had been charged with serious offences in GPE , had been placed in custody on the basis of a court decision of a foreign ORG , did not have a permanent place of residence in GPE , and therefore could abscond if released . The court observed that the applicant had not applied for NORP citizenship . The court also found that further checks were needed in the course of the extradition proceedings , which would require additional time “ for objective reasons ” . When granting the extension , the court referred to the provisions of LAW

The applicant did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the decision . He subsequently attempted to challenge the decision by way of supervisory review , but to no avail .

At some point in DATE the Perovskiy ORG requested a further extension of the applicant ’s detention pending extradition , until DATE , referring to LAW ORG and § CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE by ORG of GPE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , with reference to LAW ORG , in order to secure the applicant ’s extradition to GPE . The court found that the applicant had been charged with serious offences in GPE , which were also punishable under the NORP criminal law . He had not applied for NORP citizenship and did not have refugee status in GPE . The court also took into account the applicant ’s personality , referring to the fact that he had been unemployed and had no permanent residence in GPE . The court considered that the applicant was likely to abscond if released . The court further noted that extradition proceedings were pending at the material time , and considered that the extension of the detention period was objectively justified by the need to complete the extradition procedure .

The applicant did not challenge the decision on appeal .

At some point the prosecutor of GPE requested a further extension of the applicant ’s detention . The applicant argued in reply that he had not committed any crimes in GPE . The applicant ’s lawyer pointed out that the applicant had complained to ORG , and that his case was pending before the ORG at the material time , and requested the applicant ’s release . The parties did not submit copies of those requests .

On DATE ORG extended the period of the applicant ’s detention for DATE . The court allowed the prosecutor ’s argument that the extension was necessary in order to secure the applicant ’s extradition to GPE . The period of the applicant ’s detention was assessed by the court as reasonable , since it was justified by the necessity to comply with the extradition procedure . The court found that the circumstances of the applicant ’s case requiring his placement in custody had not changed . The court pointed out that the applicant ’s argument regarding the application of the interim measure under LAW could not be taken into account , since ORG had not examined the applicant ’s case on the merits at the material time and , in any event , the application of an interim measure did not constitute a ground for release . The court further rejected the applicant ’s submission that he had not committed the offences referred to , finding that “ such an argument was rebutted by the [ above ] documents ” and , in any event , that issue could not be subject to examination in the proceedings concerning the extension of the detention period . The court further observed that the applicant did not have a permanent place of residence in GPE and had not been granted refugee status . It noted that the applicant had been charged with serious and particularly serious crimes in GPE , which were also punishable under NORP law . The court further found that the applicant had previously absconded from the NORP authorities and therefore there were grounds to believe that he would flee from justice if released . It further decided , without giving further details , that the applicant ’s family situation , medical condition and age were compatible with his detention . The court concluded , with reference to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG , that the applicant ’s detention should be further extended until DATE , that is for a total of DATE .

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed against the extension . He requested the applicant ’s release from custody , with reference to the ORG ’s decision to apply Rule CARDINAL in his case , arguing that the applicant ran the risk of illtreatment in GPE . The representative further submitted that the applicant would not constitute a threat to GPE if released from custody . Finally , the representative argued that the applicant ’s criminal prosecution in GPE had not been in accordance with law .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the extension . The court found that the decision on the applicant ’s extradition had been lawful and that it had become final . The court was not competent to review the reasonableness of the extradition decision in the proceedings at stake . When authorising the extension of the detention , the lower court had correctly found that the suspension of the extradition proceedings pursuant to the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG did not constitute a ground for the applicant ’s release . ORG found that a custodial measure had been applied with a view to securing the extradition , and on account of the fact that the applicant did not have a permanent residence in GPE .

DATE . On DATE the Perovskiy ORG ordered the applicant ’s release from detention , against an undertaking not to leave the town . The prosecutor ’s office observed that the applicant ’s detention had previously been extended several times , and that the domestic courts had upheld as lawful the Prosecutor General ’s decision to extradite the applicant to GPE . The court further noted that he had an application pending before ORG , and found that the applicant “ could reside on the territory of GPE pending [ his ] extradition ” .

On DATE the applicant was released from custody . It appears that the release order was not appealed against .

It follows from the decision of the ORG of DATE that on DATE the applicant applied to ORG of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ the ORG ” ) as a person seeking asylum on the territory of GPE . On an unknown date he was issued with a certificate of refugee status , not further specified , valid until DATE , by ORG in GPE . According to the applicant ’s representative , the applicant had been recognised as a refugee under the mandate of the ORG . The parties have not submitted any documents or further details in this respect .

On DATE , when interviewed by an assistant prosecutor of ORG immediately after his arrest , the applicant stated that he was looking for work and needed to provide his family with financial support , and gave these statements as the reasons for his moving to GPE . He submitted that since DATE , the date of his arrival in GPE , he had not registered as a foreign national temporarily residing in the country . He stated that he had not been aware of any charges against him in GPE , had not been persecuted on political grounds in his home country , and had not applied for refugee status in GPE .

The applicant was not represented by a lawyer at the interview . He produced a handwritten note to certify that he did not need the assistance of a lawyer or an interpreter .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with the ORG for refugee status in GPE . In his application he submitted , in particular , that since DATE he had been persecuted in GPE on political grounds . He was a practising NORP . He had been repeatedly arrested by LOC police and questioned in connection with his alleged membership of extremist organisations . The police had repeatedly searched his apartment in GPE without producing any documents authorising the searches . The police ordered him to report to a local police station DATE . Convinced that his persecution would continue , in DATE the applicant had left GPE for GPE , where he started working as a driver . He had settled in GPE with his family , including QUANTITY of his CARDINAL minor children . He argued that he had not committed the offences he was accused of , had never been a member of proscribed religious organisations , and had not attempted to overthrow the government . He submitted , without further details , that “ all his next of kin and friends ” had been prosecuted in GPE on political grounds . He concluded that he ran a real risk of illtreatment if returned to his home country .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the assistant prosecutor of ORG and submitted that he had been persecuted in GPE in connection with his alleged membership of ORG .

On DATE the applicant , assisted by a lawyer and an interpreter , was interviewed by ORG officers . He stated that he was being sought by the NORP authorities for political crimes and he had left GPE out of fear of ill - treatment by the local police . He practised ORG , and when in GPE he had been openly persecuted by the authorities for his religious beliefs . It appears that the applicant ’s lawyer referred to several statements by eyewitnesses to the searches of the applicant ’s flat . The statements were produced in NORP . The applicant did not submit a translation or a summary of their contents .

On DATE ORG of the ORG refused his request for refugee status , stating that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence that he risked ill - treatment if extradited to GPE . He had failed to apply for asylum in due time after his arrival in GPE . The ORG noted that on DATE the applicant had applied to ORG of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees and had been issued with “ a certificate valid until DATE ” . At the same time , the ORG noted that he had introduced his application for refugee status only after his arrest . Furthermore , when questioned on the date of his arrest in GPE , the applicant stated that he had been unaware of the charges against him and had arrived in GPE looking for employment .

At the same time , the ORG observed , with reference to the charging order by the NORP authorities of DATE , that the applicant had been placed on a wanted list and was facing serious charges in GPE . The ORG cited the testimony of the applicant ’s former colleague PERSON , who had allegedly influenced the applicant to join ORG . In DATE the applicant had allegedly spread ORG ideas among NORP youth and been active in organising local branches of ORG , despite numerous warnings by the local law - enforcement authorities .

The migration authority concluded that the applicant had failed to apply for refugee status in a timely manner , and that the grounds referred to by the applicant were insufficient to demonstrate the existence of a wellfounded fear of persecution in his home country .

The applicant appealed to ORG of GPE against the decision of DATE , submitting that the NORP authorities were persecuting him on religious grounds in connection with his alleged membership of ORG , a banned religious organisation . He reiterated that , given the nature of the charges against him , he ran a risk of ill - treatment in custody if extradited to GPE , and his family could also become subject to persecution .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s appeal in the presence of his lawyer and dismissed it . The court observed that before his arrest the applicant had been living in GPE with his wife and CARDINAL minor children . The court found no evidence that the applicant ’s arrival in GPE had been caused by any form of political persecution . It pointed out that the applicant had failed to apply for asylum within DATE of crossing the NORP border in DATE , as required by the domestic law , and an application for refugee status had only been introduced by him after the arrest . The court endorsed the ORG conclusion that the underlying reason for the applicant ’s asylum request was an attempt to avoid criminal responsibility in GPE .

On DATE ( according to the applicant ) or on CARDINAL DATE ( according to the authorities ) the applicant ’s lawyer introduced an appeal against the decision . The applicant ’s representative argued , in particular , that the applicant was being unlawfully prosecuted in GPE in violation of his right guaranteed by LAW . The ORG had disregarded the applicant ’s arguments regarding fear of persecution and ill - treatment for him and his family , as well as the ORG statements . The charges against him had been fabricated and the prosecution case was extremely weak . The applicant had not committed the offences imputed to him . Nonetheless , he had been questioned by local law - enforcement authorities , and his flat had been searched on several occasions . He had left GPE fearing further persecution . Contrary to the ORG arguments , in DATE the applicant had applied to ORG of the ORG . The applicant had not been aware that criminal proceedings had been pending against him at the time of his arrest . This is why he had not lodged a request for refugee status on the date of his arrest , but had only done so in DATE .

It appears that at some point a domestic court extended a DATE time - limit for introduction of the grounds of appeal and accepted the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment for examination . The hearing on the applicant ’s appeal was initially scheduled for DATE , but was subsequently postponed to CARDINAL DATE , due to the parties’ failure to appear .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court ’s decision in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyer . It found that the first - instance court had correctly established the facts of the case . The court observed that the applicant ’s elder brother , his sister and the applicant ’s CARDINAL minor children were living in GPE at the material time . The court further reproduced verbatim the first - instance court ’s conclusion that the applicant had failed to apply for refugee status in a timely manner and had not produced sufficient evidence that he would be subjected to persecution if extradited to GPE .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request for temporary asylum to the FMS GPE . The request emphasised the applicant ’s risk of being subjected to torture as a result of politically motivated persecution if extradited .

According to the applicant , on DATE ( or on DATE , as cited in the judgment of ORG of DATE , see paragraph DATE below ) the FMS GPE refused to grant him temporary asylum in GPE . The parties did not submit a copy of the decision in that respect . The applicant ’s statement of appeal and the firstinstance court ’s decision ( see paragraphs DATE below ) indicate that the application was rejected on the ground that there were no humanitarian grounds for temporary asylum to be granted . There was no evidence that the applicant needed medical care or that , in the event of his extradition to GPE , he would face a risk of being subjected to torture or illtreatment . According to the applicant ’s statement of appeal , the ORG found that reform of the system of administration of justice in GPE was under way , and that the destination country had signed various international human rights treaties and was pursuing a dynamic social , economic and cultural policy .

The applicant appealed against the ORG ’s decision to ORG . He argued , in particular , that he had consistently informed the authorities of his previous ill - treatment in GPE . He reiterated that on the date of his arrest he had told the authorities that he had arrived in GPE to look for work and not as an asylum - seeker , because he had not been informed of the purpose of the interview . Finally , he challenged the ORG ’s findings as regards the human rights instruments signed by GPE and recent developments in the social and economic policy of the destination country as irrelevant .

DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal for lack of humanitarian grounds which could warrant granting him temporary asylum . The court observed , in particular , that the ORG ’s decision had been based on information provided by the LOC police authorities in GPE about the charges against him in the destination country . Further , in the court ’s view , the ORG had duly taken account of the applicant ’s arrest and detention on DATE pending extradition . The court concluded that the ORG refusal to grant him temporary asylum was lawful since , first , the applicant ’s health was satisfactory and he had not furnished a medical certificate confirming that he required medical care . Second , the court found that the applicant had not referred to “ specific indications that there existed a real threat to the applicant ’s security ” or that he had been persecuted by the NORP authorities .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of the first - instance court . It appears that the appeal proceedings are pending before ORG .

In a faxed letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s representative before ORG submitted that on that date the applicant had allegedly “ signed unknown documents ” in the absence of the representative or an interpreter . The representative submitted that the applicant may have been forced to sign these documents . Neither in the letter nor in the observations submitted on DATE did the applicant ’s representative provide further details regarding either the contents of the documents or the circumstances of the applicant ’s meeting with the unspecified authorities .

Everyone has a right to liberty and security ( LAW ) . Arrest , placement in custody and custodial detention are permissible only on the basis of a court order . The term during which a person may be detained prior to obtaining such an order must not exceed TIME ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The term “ court ” is defined by LAW ( CCrP ) of DATE as “ any court of general jurisdiction which examines a criminal case on the merits and delivers decisions provided for by LAW ” ( LAW ) . The term “ judge ” is defined by the ORG as “ an official empowered to administer justice ” ( LAW ) .

A district court has the power to examine all criminal cases except for those falling within the respective jurisdictions of a justice of the peace , a regional court or ORG ( LAW ) .

LAW of the CCrP governs the application of preventive measures . Placement in custody is a preventive measure applied on the basis of a court decision to a person suspected of or charged with a crime punishable by DATE imprisonment , where it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure ( LAW ) . A request for placement in custody should be examined by a district court judge or a judge of a military court at an equivalent level ( LAW ) . A judge ’s decision on placement in custody may be challenged before an appeal court within DATE ( LAW ) . The period of detention pending investigation of a crime must not exceed DATE ( LAW ) but may be extended DATE by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level ( LAW ) . Further extensions may be granted only if the person has been charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences . In particular , extensions DATE may be granted as an exception with regard to persons accused of particularly serious criminal offences ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

LAW of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which acts or decisions of a court or public official involved in criminal proceedings may be challenged . Acts or omissions of a police officer in charge of the inquiry , an investigator , a prosecutor or a court may be challenged by “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or by “ other persons in so far as the acts and decisions [ in question ] touch upon those ORG interests ” ( Article CARDINAL ) . Those acts or omissions may be challenged before a prosecutor ( Article CARDINAL ) . Decisions taken by police or prosecution investigators or prosecutors not to initiate criminal proceedings , or to discontinue them , or any other decision or inaction capable of impinging upon the rights of “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or of “ hindering an individual ’s access to court ” may be subject to judicial review ( LAW ) .

DATE . Upon receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court , ORG or his deputy is to decide on the preventive measure in respect of the person whose extradition is sought . The preventive measure is to be applied in accordance with the established procedure ( LAW ) .

Upon receipt of a request for extradition accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign judicial body , a prosecutor may place the person whose extradition is being sought under house arrest or in custodial detention without prior approval of his or her decision by a court of GPE ( LAW ) .

Extradition may be denied if the act that gave grounds for the extradition request does not constitute a crime under LAW ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) .

Verifying the compatibility of LAW of ORG in the GPE of DATE , ORG ruled that a foreign national liable to be expelled from the NORP territory could not be detained for CARDINAL without a court order .

Assessing the compatibility of LAW of the CCrP with LAW , ORG reiterated its settled case - law to the effect that excessive or arbitrary detention , unlimited in time and without appropriate review , was incompatible with LAW in all cases , including extradition proceedings .

In ORG view , the absence of specific regulation of detention matters in LAW did not create a legal lacuna incompatible with LAW . LAW ORG provided that , in executing a request for legal assistance , the requested party would apply its domestic law , that is the procedure laid down in the GPE That procedure comprised , in particular , LAW CARDINAL of the ORG and the norms in its LAW ( “ Preventive measures ” ) , which , by virtue of their general character and position in Part I of the LAW ( “ General provisions ” ) , applied to all stages and forms of criminal proceedings , including proceedings for the examination of extradition requests .

The Constitutional Court emphasised that the guarantees of the right to liberty and personal integrity set out in LAW were fully applicable to detention with a view to extradition . Accordingly , LAW ORG did not allow the authorities to apply a custodial measure without complying with the procedure established in the ORG or in excess of the time - limits fixed in the LAW .

The Prosecutor General asked ORG for an official clarification of its decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE ( see above ) , for the purpose , in particular , of elucidating the procedure for extending a person ’s detention with a view to extradition .

ORG dismissed the request on the ground that it was not competent to indicate specific provisions of the criminal law governing the procedure and time - limits for holding a person in custody with a view to extradition . That matter was within the competence of the courts of general jurisdiction .

The Constitutional Court reiterated its settled case - law to the effect that the scope of the constitutional right to liberty and personal inviolability was the same for foreign nationals and stateless persons as for NORP nationals . A foreign national or stateless person may not be detained in GPE for more than TIME without a judicial decision . That constitutional requirement served as a guarantee against excessively long detention beyond TIME , and also against arbitrary detention as such , in that it required a court to examine whether the arrest was lawful and justified .

ORG held that LAW CCrP , read in conjunction with LAW , could not be construed as permitting the detention of an individual for DATE on the basis of a request for his or her extradition without a decision by a NORP court . A custodial measure could be applied only in accordance with the procedure established in LAW and within the time - limits fixed in the Code .

ORG dismissed as inadmissible a request for a review of the constitutionality of LAW of the ORG , stating that this provision “ does not establish time - limits for custodial detention and does not establish the reasons and procedure for choosing a preventive measure , it merely confirms a prosecutor ’s power to execute a decision already delivered by a competent judicial body of a foreign state to detain an accused . Therefore the disputed norm can not be considered to violate constitutional rights of [ the claimant ] ... ”

By a Directive Decision No . CARDINAL adopted by LAW of ORG of GPE on DATE , ( “ Directive Decision of DATE ” ) ORG issued several instructions to the courts on the application of LAW The Plenary reiterated that any party to criminal proceedings or other person whose rights and freedoms were affected by actions or inaction on the part of the investigating or prosecuting authorities in criminal proceedings could rely on LAW ORG to challenge a refusal to institute criminal proceedings or a decision to terminate them . The ORG stated that whilst the bulk of decisions amenable to judicial review under LAW also included decisions to institute criminal proceedings , refusal to admit defence counsel or to grant victim status , a person could not rely on LAW to challenge a court ’s decision to apply bail or house arrest or to remand a person in custody . It was further stressed that in declaring a specific action or inaction on the part of a law - enforcement authority unlawful or unjustified , a judge was not entitled to quash the impugned decision or to oblige the official responsible to quash it , but could only request him or her to rectify the shortcomings indicated . Should the impugned authority fail to comply with the court ’s instructions , an interested party could complain to a court about the authority ’s inaction and the latter body could issue a special decision [ частное определение ] , drawing the authority ’s attention to the situation . Lastly , the decision stated that a prosecutor ’s decision to place a person under house arrest or to remand him or her in custody with a view to extradition could be appealed against to a court under LAW ORG .

In a Directive Decision No . CARDINAL , adopted by LAW of ORG on DATE ( “ Directive Decision of DATE ” ) , it was stated that , pursuant to LAW ORG , only a court could order the placement in custody of a person in respect of whom a preliminary check of the extradition request “ an extradition check ” was pending and where the authorities of the country requesting extradition have not submitted a court decision remanding him or her in custody . Judicial authorisation of placement in custody in that situation was to be carried out in accordance with LAW ORG and following a prosecutor ’s request for that person to be placed in custody . In deciding to remand a person in custody a court was to examine if there were factual and legal grounds for the application of that preventive measure . If the extradition request was accompanied by a detention order by a foreign court , a prosecutor was entitled to remand the person in custody without a NORP court ’s authorisation ( LAW ORG ) for a period not exceeding DATE , and the prosecutor ’s decision could be challenged in the courts under LAW In extending a person ’s detention with a view to extradition a court was to apply LAW

For relevant reports on GPE in the time span DATE and , in particular , on the situation of persons accused of membership of PERSON , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and CARDINAL , DATE .

In ORG DATE on GPE , published in DATE , that organisation stated that it was continuing to receive persistent allegations of widespread torture and ill - treatment , stemming from persons suspected of being members of banned NORP groups or of having committed terrorist offences . The report stressed that the NORP authorities were continuing to actively seek extradition of those persons and , in particular , presumed members of PERSON , from the neighbouring countries , including GPE , and that most of those returned to GPE were held incommunicado , which increased their risk of being tortured or ill - treated .

NORP In DATE ORG released its DATE World Report DATE . The chapter entitled “ GPE ” states , in so far as relevant :

“ GPE ’s human rights record remains abysmal , with no substantive improvement in DATE . Authorities continue to crackdown on civil society activists , opposition members , and independent journalists , and to persecute religious believers who worship outside strict state controls ...

... Criminal Justice , ORG , and Ill - Treatment

Torture remains rampant in GPE . Detainees’ rights are violated at each stage of investigations and trials , despite habeas corpus amendments that went into effect in DATE . The NORP government has failed to meaningfully implement recommendations to combat torture that the ORG special rapporteur made in DATE .

Suspects are not permitted access to lawyers , a critical safeguard against torture in pre - trial detention . Police use torture and other illegal means to coerce statements and confessions from detainees . Authorities routinely refuse to investigate defendants’ allegations of abuse .

... On DATE , CARDINAL-year - old PERSON , imprisoned for religious offenses , died in custody . The official cause of death was anemia , but LOC had no known history of the disease . According to family , LOC ’s face bore possible marks of ill - treatment , including a swollen eye . Authorities returned his body to his family ’s home at TIME . They insisted he be buried before sunrise and remained present until the burial . Authorities have not begun investigating the death .

Freedom of Religion

Although GPE ’s constitution ensures freedom of religion , NORP authorities continued their unrelenting , multi - DATE campaign of arbitrary detention , arrest , and torture of NORP who practice their faith outside state controls or belong to unregistered religious organizations . CARDINAL were arrested or convicted in DATE on charges related to religious extremism .

ORG

The NORP government ’s cooperation with international institutions remains poor . It continues to deny access to all CARDINAL ORG special procedures that have requested invitations , including those on torture and human rights defenders ... ”

The “ GPE DATE ” chapter of the ORG DATE report DATE , released in DATE of DATE , in so far as relevant , states as follows :

“ Reports of torture or other ill - treatment continued unabated . CARDINAL of members of minority religious and NORP groups were given long prison terms after unfair trials ...

Torture and other ill - treatment

Despite assertions by the authorities that the practice of torture had significantly decreased , reports of torture or other ill - treatment of detainees and prisoners continued unabated . In most cases , the authorities failed to conduct prompt , thorough and impartial investigations into these allegations .

CARDINAL people convicted of involvement with NORP parties or NORP movements banned in GPE , as well as government critics and political opponents , continued to serve long prison terms under conditions that amounted to cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment .

GPE again refused to allow ORG on torture to visit the country despite renewed requests ....

Counter - terror and security

Closed trials started in DATE of CARDINAL defendants charged in relation to attacks in LOC and the capital , GPE , in DATE and DATE and the killings of a pro - government imam and a high - ranking police officer in GPE in DATE . The authorities blamed ORG ( IMU ) , ORG ( ORG ) and the NORP PERSON - ut - GPE party , all banned in GPE , for the attacks and killings . Among the scores detained as suspected members or sympathizers of the IMU , the ORG and ORG - ut - GPE in DATE were people who attended unregistered mosques , studied under independent imams , had travelled abroad , or were suspected of affiliation to banned NORP groups . Many were believed to have been detained without charge or trial for lengthy periods . There were reports of torture and unfair trials ...

• In DATE , ORG sentenced PERSON , her sister ORG and their relative , PERSON , to CARDINAL in prison for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order and posing a threat to public order . They were part of a group of CARDINAL women detained by security forces in counter - terrorism operations in the city of GPE in DATE . They were believed to have attended religious classes taught by PERSON in one of the local FAC . The authorities accused PERSON of organizing an illegal religious group , a charge denied by her supporters . Human rights defenders reported that the women were ill - treated in custody ; police officers allegedly stripped the women naked and threatened them with rape .

• Dilorom PERSON , an NORP refugee who had fled the country following the violence in GPE in DATE , was detained for DATE upon her return in DATE , after receiving assurances from the authorities that she would not face charges . In DATE , she was detained again and held in police custody for DATE without access to a lawyer or her family . On DATE , she was convicted of anti - constitutional activities relating to her participation in the GPE demonstrations as well as illegally exiting and entering the country . She was sentenced to DATE in prison after an unfair trial . Family members reported that she appeared emaciated at the trial and had bruises on her face ...

Freedom of religion

The government continued its strict control over religious communities , compromising the enjoyment of their right to freedom of religion . Those most affected were members of unregistered groups such as ORG congregations and NORP worshipping in QUANTITY outside state control .

• Suspected followers of the NORP theologian , PERSON , were convicted in a series of trials that had begun in DATE and continued into DATE . The charges against them included membership or creation of an illegal religious extremist organization and publishing or distributing materials threatening the social order . By DATE , CARDINAL men had been sentenced to prison terms of DATE following unfair trials . Reportedly , some of the verdicts were based on confessions gained under torture in pre - trial detention ; defence and expert witnesses were not called ; access to the trials was in some cases obstructed while other trials were closed . ”


Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility);No violation of Art. 6-2

ORG Mr. PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE , lives in GPE .

ORG On DATE , he was riding a motor cycle and was involved in a road accident . According to the police report ( PERSON ) , he had attempted to overtake a car , although the traffic situation was unclear ( unklare PERSON ) . The result had been a collision which caused damage to both vehicles .

When he was questioned , the applicant made the following statement :

" At TIME DATE , I was driving southwards along GPE , GPE - GPE .

Near the junction with ORG , I noticed a red car - which had its left indicator flashing - about to pull away from the kerb .

I was about to overtake on the left of this vehicle when it not only moved forward onto the road but turned further to the left in order to make a U - turn .

[ It ] was making its U - turn and was on the point of moving into the opposite carriageway ( Gegenfahrspur ) when I was still QUANTITY behind it . As I was not expecting it to make a U - turn , I was intending to overtake it on the left .

By the time I realised that this was no longer possible , I had already moved over quite far to the left and I tried to brake but could not avoid colliding with the car , which by now was at right angles to the flow of traffic .

I was wearing a crash helmet when the accident occurred ; I was not injured . "

ORG On DATE , on the basis of the police report , ORG ( ORG für öffentliche PERSON ) imposed on Mr. PERSON a fine ( GPE ) of DM CARDINAL , to which were added costs of DM CARDINAL , for " joint responsibility for a road accident due to overtaking in an unclear traffic situation such that a collision was caused with another road - user " .

The decision was based on section CARDINAL of LAW ( Strassenverkehrsgesetz - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW ) , CARDINAL and DATE of ORG ( Strassenverkehrs- PERSON ) . LAW ) reads :

" All road - users have a duty to conduct themselves in such a manner as not to harm or jeopardise others or inconvenience or annoy them more than may be inevitable in the circumstances . "

Regulation CARDINAL provides that motorists must overtake on the left ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , that they may overtake only if they can see that they will not thereby interfere with oncoming traffic ( paragraph CARDINAL ) and that no overtaking is allowed in an unclear traffic situation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ) .

By Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) , it is a " regulatory offence " ( PERSON ) to contravene LAW ) and CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) ; under section CARDINAL ) of LAW , such an offence is punishable by a fine .

ORG The driver of the car was likewise fined for a " regulatory offence " .

ORG DATE , Mr. PERSON , who was represented by Mr. PERSON , lodged an objection ( PERSON ) against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The appropriate authority in GPE forwarded the objection to the public prosecutor ’s office on DATE , and the latter transmitted it to ORG ( ORG ) on DATE .

On DATE , the court informed the applicant that it intended to discontinue the proceedings as they were time - barred and order costs against the ORG ( ORG ) , while the applicant would have to bear his own necessary costs and expenses ( notwendige PERSON ) .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON replied that his client naturally agreed to the stay of proceedings , but not to an order requiring him to bear his own necessary costs and expenses ; and he referred among other things to " the presumption of innocence , secured in ORG .

ORG On DATE , ORG stayed the proceedings on the ground that they were time - barred . Its decision read as follows :

" In the ‘ regulatory offence’ matter ( ORG )

against ... PERSON

concerning a breach of FAC ,

the proceedings shall be stayed .

The costs of the proceedings shall be borne by the ORG . The defendant shall bear his own necessary costs and expenses .

Reasons :

On DATE , ORG took a decision to impose a fine ( PERSON ) on the defendant for a breach of ORG . The defendant appealed against this decision . By an order made on DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office in GPE forwarded the case to ORG for a decision . After the case had been submitted , prosecution of the ‘ regulatory offence’ became time - barred under LAW ) of LAW . The proceedings must therefore be stayed by reason of there being a technical bar to prosecution ( Verfolgungshindernis ) , in accordance with Article PERSON of LAW , taken together with section CARDINAL of the Act on ‘ regulatory offences’ ( Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten ) [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] .

The decision on costs is based on LAW , taken together with section CARDINAL of the Act on ‘ regulatory offences’ .

In accordance with LAW [ sic ] , second sentence , of LAW , taken together with section CARDINAL of the Act on ‘ regulatory offences’ , the court declines to order the ORG to bear the defendant ’s necessary costs and expenses . As the file stands , the defendant would most probably have been convicted of an offence against ORG ( Nach Lage der Akten wäre der GPE hoher GPE wegen eines Verstosses gegen die StVO verurteilt worden ) . That being so , it would be unjust ( unbillig to award his necessary costs and expenses against the ORG . "

ORG On DATE , the applicant challenged this decision in so far as he had been ordered to bear his own costs and expenses .

On DATE , ORG ( Landgericht ) dismissed the appeal ( sofortige PERSON ) as being unfounded .

The court held that LAW ( article LAW ) of the Convention did not apply to the case . As it had already explained at length in an earlier decision , LAW ) protected the individual only from possible hazards in civil or criminal trials . This was clear beyond a peradventure from the wording of the provision itself . There was no reason to give LAW ( article PERCENT ) a broad interpretation such as would extend its application to other proceedings . The LAW ( article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) consequently could not apply to proceedings in connection with " regulatory offences " , as these had been excluded from the category of criminal offences , and procedure relating to them was quite distinct from criminal procedure . On the basis that LAW ( article DATE ) was not applicable , ORG had therefore been right to order the defendant to bear his own necessary costs and expenses ( under LAW , second sentence , sub - paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ) because had the prosecution not been statute - barred , " the defendant would almost certainly ( mit annähernder Sicherheit ) have been found guilty of an offence " . He had himself admitted to the police that he was not expecting the car which was moving out to the left onto the road in front of him to make a U - turn ; and that he had consequently attempted to overtake it but had been unable to avoid a collision despite his efforts to brake . Mr. PERSON had thus broken the basic rule in LAW ) of ORG and , in particular , had disregarded his duty under LAW not to overtake where the traffic situation was unclear . The court held that in such circumstances it would have been unjust to award the defendant ’s necessary costs and expenses against the ORG , especially as the prosecution had become time - barred only during the course of the court proceedings , so that until that moment the defendant was rightly being proceeded against .

ORG Mr. PERSON then applied to ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) , but on DATE a bench of CARDINAL of that court ’s judges refused to entertain the application , holding that it had insufficient prospects of success .

In ORG view , the decisions of ORG and ORG did not offend the presumption of innocence , which was founded on the principle of the rule of law and was embodied in LAW ( article DATE ) of the LAW . However strong the suspicions , the presumption of innocence precluded taking measures against a defendant ( Beschuldigter ) that amounted in effect to a penalty ( Strafe ) in anticipation of a penalty ( i m Vorgriff auf die Strafe ) . This rule was not infringed where the necessary costs and expenses of a party who had been proceeded against in respect of a " regulatory offence " were not awarded against the ORG in the event of the proceedings being discontinued . The judgment continued :

" The decision not to order the ORG to pay the costs and expenses of the party concerned obviously can not be regarded as a punishment ( ORG ) or even be equated with such . Furthermore , the decision as to costs and expenses pursuant to LAW , sub - paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW and section CARDINAL ) of the LAW on ‘ regulatory offences’ does not make any finding that the person concerned is guilty : it derives merely from the suspicion falling on him , which had given rise to his being prosecuted for a ‘ regulatory offence’ . The reasons for the order as to costs in the impugned decisions are therefore rightly confined to the finding that the defendant would most probably have been found guilty . "

ORG The subject of " regulatory offences " is governed by LAW DATE on " regulatory offences " ( PERSON über ORG ) , in its version of CARDINAL DATE ( " LAW " ) . The purpose of this legislation was to remove petty offences from the sphere of the criminal law . Included in this category were contraventions of FAC . Under section CARDINAL of LAW ( in its old version ) , commission of such contraventions had given rise to liability to a fine ( Geldstrafe ) or imprisonment ( PERSON ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE ( Einführungsgesetz zum Gesetz über PERSON ) classified them as " Ordnungswidrigkeiten " and henceforth made them punishable only by fines ( Geldbussen ) not deemed to be criminal by the legislature .

The CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act had been preceded in GPE by LAW DATE on " regulatory offences " and , to a certain extent , LAW of DATE ( ORG ) . It was most recently amended by a statute of DATE , which entered into force on DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act defines a " regulatory offence " as an unlawful ( rechtswidrig ) and reprehensible ( vorwerfbar ) act , contravening a legal provision which makes offenders liable to a fine . The fine can not be less than DM CARDINAL or , as a general rule , more than DM CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The amount of the fine is fixed in each case by reference to the seriousness of the offence , the degree of misconduct attributable to the offender and , save for minor ( geringfügig ) offences , the offender ’s financial circumstances ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

If the act constitutes both a " regulatory " and a criminal offence , only the criminal law is applicable ; however , if no criminal penalty ( Strafe ) is imposed , the act may be punished as a " regulatory offence " ( section DATE ) .

ORG " Regulatory offences " are to be dealt with by the administrative authorities ( PERSON ) designated by law , save in so far as LAW confers the power of prosecution of such offences on the public prosecutor and the trial and punishment of them on the courts ( sections DATE and DATE ) . Where an act has come before him as a criminal matter , the public prosecutor may also treat the act as a " regulatory offence " ( section CARDINAL ) .

ORG The administrative authorities will remit the matter to the public prosecutor if there is reason to suppose that a criminal offence has been committed ; he will refer the matter back to them if he does not take proceedings ( section CARDINAL ) . In the case of a " regulatory offence " having a close connection with a criminal offence in respect of which the public prosecutor has instituted proceedings , the prosecutor may extend the criminal proceedings to cover the " regulatory offence " as long as the administrative authorities have not fixed any fine ( section DATE ) .

The public prosecutor ’s decision to treat or not to treat an act as a criminal offence is binding on the administrative authorities ( section DATE ) .

Subject to the exceptions laid down in the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act , the provisions of the ordinary law governing criminal procedure - in particular LAW , LAW ( Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz ) and LAW ( Jugendgerichtsgesetz ) - are applicable by analogy ( sinngemäss ) to the procedure in respect of " regulatory offences " ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The prosecuting authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) have the same rights and duties as the public prosecutor in a criminal matter unless the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act itself states otherwise ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Nevertheless , a number of measures permissible in criminal matters can not be ordered in respect of " regulatory offences " , notably arrest , interim police custody ( vorläufige PERSON ) and seizure of mail or telegrams ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The taking of blood samples and other minor measures within the meaning of Article GPE ) § CARDINAL of LAW remain possible .

ORG The prosecution of " regulatory offences " lies within the discretion ( pflichtgemässes PERSON ) of the competent authority , which may terminate the prosecution at any time while the case is pending before it ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Once the case has been brought before a court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , power to direct a stay of proceedings rests with the court ; any such decision requires the agreement of the public prosecutor and is final ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

ORG As regards the judicial stage ( if any ) of the proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act vests jurisdiction in divisions ( ORG ) of the district courts and in chambers ( ORG ) of the regional courts , of the courts of appeal ( PERSON ) and of ORG ( ORG ) .

Investigations ( GPE ) into " regulatory offences " are a matter for the police authorities . In this connection , the police authorities enjoy a discretion ( pflichtgemässes PERSON ) ; save in so far as the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act provides otherwise , they have the same rights and duties as in the investigation of criminal offences ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

ORG Prior to any decision being taken , the person concerned ( ORG ) has to be given the opportunity of commenting , to the competent authorities , on the allegation made against him ( section CARDINAL ) .

In the case of a minor offence , the administrative authorities may give the person concerned a warning ( PERSON ) and impose on him an admonitory fine ( LOC ) ; save for any exception laid down under the applicable law , the amount of an admonitory fine ranged from DM CARDINAL to DATE at the relevant time , and since DATE has ranged from ORG CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . However , sanctions of this kind are possible only if the person concerned consents and pays the fine on the spot or within DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

ORG If necessary , the administrative authorities will officially designate a lawyer to act for the person concerned in the proceedings before them ( section CARDINAL ) .

Measures taken by the administrative authorities during the preliminary procedure can in principle be challenged before the courts ( section DATE ) .

Save in so far as the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act provides otherwise - as in the case of the matter being settled by payment of an admonitory fine - , a " regulatory offence " is punishable by an administrative decision imposing a fine ( PERSON ; section CARDINAL ) .

The person concerned may lodge an objection ( PERSON ) within a period which on DATE was increased from DATE to DATE ( section CARDINAL ) . Unless they withdraw their decision , the administrative authorities will then forward the file to the public prosecutor , who will submit it to the competent ORG and thereupon assume the function of prosecuting authority ( sections DATE and CARDINAL ) .

ORG Under section DATE , if the ORG finds the objection admissible ( section CARDINAL ) it will , unless the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act states otherwise , examine the objection in accordance with the provisions applicable to an objection against an order of summary punishment ( PERSON ) : in principle , it will hold a hearing and deliver a judgment ( ORG ) which may impose a heavier sentence ( LAW ) .

However , ORG ruling may take the form of an order ( PERSON ) if the court considers that a hearing is not necessary and provided the public prosecutor or the person concerned does not object ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . In that event , it may , inter alia , acquit the person concerned , settle the amount of a fine or terminate the prosecution , but it can not increase the penalty ( section CARDINAL ) , now renumbered ( CARDINAL ) ) .

ORG The person concerned has the option of attending the hearing but is not bound to do so unless ORG so directs ( section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) ; he may be represented by a lawyer ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

The public prosecutor ’s office may be represented at the hearing ; if ORG considers the presence of an official from that office to be appropriate , it will inform the latter accordingly ( section GPE ) ) .

ORG will give the administrative authorities the opportunity to set out the matters which , in their view , are of importance for the decision to be given ; they may address ORG at the hearing , if they so wish ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Subject to certain conditions , section CARDINAL allows an appeal on points of law ( Rechtsbeschwerde ) to be brought against a judgment or an order issued pursuant to section DATE ; save in so far as the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act states otherwise , in determining the appeal the court concerned will follow , by analogy , the provisions of LAW relating to review proceedings ( Revision ) .

ORG The administrative authorities’ classification of an act as a " regulatory offence " is not binding on the court ruling on the objection ; however , it can apply the criminal law only if the person concerned has been informed of the change of classification and been enabled to prepare his defence ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Once this condition has been satisfied , either by the court of its own motion or at the public prosecutor ’s request , the person concerned acquires the formal status of an accused ( ORG ; section PERSON ) ) and the subsequent proceedings fall outside the scope of the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

ORG A decision imposing a fine is enforceable once it has become final ( sections CARDINAL and DATE ) . Unless the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act states otherwise , enforcement of a decision taken by the administrative authorities is governed by LAW or LAW , as the case may be , on enforcement in administrative matters ( Verwaltungs - Vollstreckungsgesetze ) ( section CARDINAL ) ) . When the decision is CARDINAL taken by a court , certain relevant provisions of , inter alia , LAW are applicable ( section CARDINAL ) .

ORG If , without having established ( dargetan ) his inability to pay , the person concerned has not paid the fine in due time , the court may , at the request of the administrative authorities or , where the fine was imposed by a court decision , of its own motion , order coercive imprisonment ( Erzwingungshaft - section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The resultant detention does not replace payment of the fine in the manner of an GPE under the criminal law , but is intended to compel payment . The period of detention may not exceed DATE for CARDINAL fine and DATE for several fines ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Implementation of the detention order is governed , inter alia , by LAW ( section CARDINAL ) .

ORG As far as the costs of the administrative procedure are concerned , the competent authorities apply by analogy certain provisions of LAW ( section CARDINAL ) .

ORG Under section CARDINAL - likewise amended with effect from DATE - , the person concerned has to bear the costs of the court proceedings if he withdraws his objection or if the competent court rejects it .

For the rest , the provisions of LAW regarding payment of the costs of proceedings and of parties’ necessary costs and expenses apply by analogy ( LAW seq . of LAW and section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act ) .

By the terms of LAW , any judgment , order of summary punishment or decision terminating a set of proceedings must determine who is to pay the costs of the proceedings ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ; the judgment or decision in which the proceedings culminate shall state who is to bear the necessary costs and expenses ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Paragraph CARDINAL and paragraph CARDINAL , second sentence , sub - paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , which were applied in the instant case pursuant to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act , provide :

" CARDINAL . If the defendant ( PERSON ) is acquitted or if committal for trial ( GPE ) is refused or if the proceedings against him are discontinued , the costs of the proceedings and the defendant ’s necessary costs and expenses shall be borne by the ORG .

... The court may decline to award the defendant ’s necessary costs and expenses against the ORG where the defendant

( CARDINAL ) has avoided conviction merely because of a technical bar to the proceedings ( NORP ) . "

Inasmuch as the law does not make the reimbursement of necessary costs and expenses mandatory , the courts decide the issue on an equitable basis and have a degree of discretion in the matter .

ORG LAW , ORG and ORG and LAW ( ORG ) contain lists of " regulatory offences " punishable by a fine ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides :

" CARDINAL . It shall be a ‘ regulatory offence’ wilfully or negligently ( vorsätzlich oder fahrlässig ) to contravene a provision in a statutory instrument ( Rechtsverordnung ) made pursuant to section DATE ) or in an order ( Anordnung ) made pursuant to such a statutory instrument if the statutory instrument concerned refers to the present provision ... in respect of a given offence . Such reference shall not be required where the provision of the statutory instrument was made before DATE .

A ‘ regulatory offence’ is punishable by a fine . "

ORG , which were applied in the instant case , were contained in CARDINAL of the statutory instruments issued under section CARDINAL ) of LAW .

ORG In the case of a " regulatory offence " committed in gross ( grob ) and persistent ( beharrlich ) violation of the duties incumbent on a driver , the administrative authorities or , where an objection has been lodged , the court may at the same time disqualify the person concerned from holding a driving licence ( Fahrverbot ) for a period of DATE ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

ORG The ORG have co - operated to adopt rules ( Verwaltungs - vorschriften ) establishing a uniform scale of fines ( PERSON ) for the various road traffic " regulatory offences " ; legally , these rules are binding on the administrative authorities empowered to impose fines but not on the courts .

Section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW , which was inserted into the LAW on DATE but has not yet been implemented , provides that the Minister of Transport shall issue such rules with the agreement of the NORP and in the form of a statutory instrument ( Rechtsverordnung ) .

ORG Under LAW of LAW , a fine imposed for contravention of road traffic regulations may in some specified cases be entered in a central traffic register ( ORG ) if it exceeds a certain amount ( DM CARDINAL at the time of the events in issue , DM CARDINAL as from DATE ) ; on the other hand , no mention of it is included in the criminal records ( PERSON ) . The entry must be expunged after a maximum of DATE , unless further entries have been made in the meantime ( section CARDINAL ) .

Only certain authorities have access to the register , notably for the purposes of a criminal prosecution or a prosecution for a road traffic " regulatory offence " ( section CARDINAL ) .

ORG At the time of the events in issue , by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of FAC , the limitation period for the " regulatory offences " specified in section CARDINAL of the Act was DATE ; since DATE , it has been DATE in respect of the proceedings before an administrative authority and DATE as from the date of the decision taken by that authority .

ORG According to the unchallenged statements of the Government , LAW in practice plays a particularly important role in road traffic cases , and MONEY of fines imposed relate to road traffic offences .

In GPE , which the ORG said could be taken as representative of GPE , there were CARDINAL decisions imposing a fine in DATE . The percentage of fines of over DM CARDINAL and DM CARDINAL was CARDINAL respectively , as compared with CARDINAL for fines of ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL , CARDINAL for fines of DM CARDINAL to CARDINAL , CARDINAL for fines of ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL and CARDINAL for fines of ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL .

Of the CARDINAL road traffic offences recorded in DATE , infringements of waiting and parking prohibitions accounted for MONEY .

ORG The scope of the principle of the presumption of innocence in the context of discontinuance of criminal proceedings has recently been clarified by ORG . By a judgment delivered on CARDINAL DATE , ORG quashed , as contravening the principle , CARDINAL decisions by district courts and CARDINAL decision by a regional court whereby the courts , having held the guilt of the defendants to be insignificant ( gering ) , had stayed the private prosecutions brought against them but had awarded the costs of the proceedings against the defendants , including the costs and expenses of the complainants ( cases CARDINAL Bvr CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL Bvr CARDINAL/CARDINAL and PERSON , PERSON DATE , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

ORG held it to be inconsistent with the presumption of innocence to speak in the reasons given for a discontinuance decision of a defendant ’s guilt or to base an order as to costs and expenses on the supposition ( Annahme ) that a defendant has been guilty of an offence if the trial has not reached the stage at which the verdict can be given ( PERSON ) . It pointed out that the principle of the presumption of innocence derived from the principle of the rule of law , and it also referred to LAW ( article LAW ) of the LAW . The Convention did not have the status of constitutional law in GPE , but regard should be had to it and to the case - law of ORG in interpreting the principles and fundamental rights enshrined in LAW ) .

Reaffirming its case - law , ORG reiterated that , by virtue of the principle of the presumption of innocence , no measures amounting in effect to a penalty may be taken against a defendant without his guilt having been established beforehand at a proper trial and no defendant may be treated as guilty . The ORG added that this principle requires that guilt be proved according to law before it can be held against the person concerned . A finding of guilt will accordingly not be legitimate for this purpose unless it is pronounced at the close of a trial which has reached the stage at which a verdict can be given .

Citing the PERSON judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL ) , ORG ruled that a decision discontinuing criminal proceedings may offend the presumption of innocence if it contains in its reasoning a finding of the defendant ’s guilt without that guilt having been proved according to law . On the other hand , nothing precluded a court from making findings in such a decision as to the defendant ’s guilt and ordering him to pay the necessary costs and expenses of the complainants as well as the costs of the proceedings if it had held a hearing enabling it to reach a verdict ( ORG ) .

On the basis of these considerations , the Constitutional Court quashed CARDINAL of the CARDINAL decisions challenged but dismissed the application in the first of the CARDINAL cases concerned , as the defence had made the closing address after a trial .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant worked as an inspector at ORG ( GPE şəhəri üzrə FAC the GPE ” ) of ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) . On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his job by an order of ORG for unsatisfactory work performance .

The applicant lodged an action against ORG , claiming unlawful dismissal . By a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the applicant 's claim , ordering his reinstatement in his previous job . Moreover , the court ordered ORG to pay the applicant his unpaid salary in an unspecified amount for the period from DATE ( date of dismissal ) to CARDINAL DATE ( date of delivery of the judgment ) . No appeals were lodged against the judgment of DATE within the time - limits specified by law and , pursuant to the domestic law in force at the material time , it entered into legal force DATE after its delivery .

NORP Despite the applicant 's numerous demands and the fact that the writ of execution had been sent several times to ORG for execution , the competent authorities did not take any measures to enforce the judgment .

By a letter of DATE the Ministry informed the applicant that , upon the reorganisation of ORG , ORG had been abolished by an internal order of DATE of ORG and that therefore it was not possible to reinstate him in his previous job .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action against the Ministry , seeking compensation for non - execution of the judgment of DATE . On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment in the applicant 's favour . The court noted that the judgment of DATE was still in force and awarded the applicant CARDINAL Old NORP manats ( LOC , MONEY ( ORG ) ) as his unpaid salary calculated from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( date of delivery of this judgment ) . This amount was calculated on the basis of the applicant 's previous average salary .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , claiming a higher amount of compensation . In the meantime , it appears from the case file that ORG requested ORG to suspend the proceedings due to the ORG 's cassation appeal lodged with ORG against the judgment of DATE . After the ORG 's above - mentioned request , the proceedings before ORG were formally suspended .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court 's judgment , noting that the amount of compensation had been calculated correctly . On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .

On DATE the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was executed and the applicant received the amount awarded by the judgment ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG executed the judgment of DATE : the applicant was reinstated in his previous post and an amount of ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) was paid to him as compensation for lost earnings , in addition to compensation awarded by the judgment of DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to twenty years’ imprisonment for murder .

On DATE ORG allowed an appeal by the prosecution and increased the applicant ’s sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE , before ORG ( now ORG ) , the applicant orally withdrew his appeal , as can be seen from the court decision . According to that decision , the applicant was assisted by an officially assigned lawyer but not by an interpreter . The decision of DATE became final .

The applicant was detained in the following prisons :

from DATE until DATE he was detained in PERSON ;

from DATE to DATE he was detained in the hospital of PERSON ;

from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was detained in ORG ;

from CARDINAL DATE until DATE he was detained in PERSON ;

from DATE until DATE he was detained in ORG ;

from DATE until DATE he was detained in FAC ;

since DATE he has been detained in PERSON .

NORP The parties disagreed as to the conditions of detention in PERSON and NORP prisons .

The applicant alleges that while he was in PERSON there were CARDINAL people in one cell , and CARDINAL or CARDINAL people had to share each bed . He was moved on numerous occasions to different cells , which were all overcrowded .

The water was contaminated and had worms in it , and the food was of very poor quality . This caused the applicant ’s hospitalisation for DATE in DATE for enterocolitis .

The heating was very low in DATE and there was no ventilation in DATE . CARDINAL the showers were not working and this , coupled with the overcrowding , made it very difficult to take a shower .

The applicant alleges that the cells in ORG were overcrowded . There were always CARDINAL or CARDINAL detainees for every QUANTITY beds and occasionally people had to sleep on the floor . He alleges that to have a bed in the cell detainees had to pay , or else use force .

In a written statement signed by Mr PERSON , a cellmate of the applicant ‘ in DATE in PERSON , Mr PERSON wrote that the inmates were hungry and that he and the applicant had eaten snakes , cats and dogs .

A statement signed by B.S.A. alleged that the drinking water and the food at ORG contained worms and that there were cockroaches in the cells .

The Government argued that , in relation to the conditions of detention in PERSON , it could not give any information concerning the dimensions of the cells , the number of beds and the available space .

The Government presented a written statement from ORG ( hereafter ORG ) arguing that the food provided in PERSON was fresh and respected the rules of hygiene and standards on calorie intake .

The Government acknowledged that the detained persons were regularly searched in order to remove prohibited items such as snakes , cats and dogs . The Government contended however that on no occasion did the applicant introduce such things into his cell .

The Government argued that drinking water was provided at all times , except on DATE when the system was being repaired , or during DATE when it was not functioning properly . On such occasions the water supply was stopped for a short period of time .

The Government argued that reports have shown that the water was of good quality .

Detainees could shower DATE in a room with CARDINAL to CARDINAL showers . Every cell was allotted TIME for this .

Heating was provided on a preapproved schedule , with the exception of days when the heating system was being repaired . From DATE there was heating from DATE .

Because of malfunctions in the heating system the temperature of the water going through the water heater was CARDINALºC.

The Government contended that the applicant could participate in sport , cultural and entertainment activities and that he had the opportunity to work .

The Government stated , in connection with the conditions of detention in ORG , the applicant ’s cell was QUANTITY . m , of which the toilet had QUANTITY . m ; the bathroom ’s area was QUANTITY . m , the luggage storage area was QUANTITY . m and the food space was QUANTITY . m.

The applicant ’s room had a window measuring QUANTITY m and CARDINAL windows of CARDINAL sq . m each in the toilet and in the food area .

Light was provided by light bulbs at TIME .

Each room had CARDINAL beds , a table , chairs , a television table , a clothes hanging space , a luggage storage area and a food area .

There were never CARDINAL people in one cell .

The Government argued that during his detention in LOC the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis . As a result his diet was prescribed by the doctors and beef was substituted for pork .

A room next to the cell provided constant cold water and warm water according to a schedule . Warm water was available twice a week , for TIME each time , from TIME until TIME and from TIME

There was unlimited access to drinking water and to the toilet .

The cell was heated for TIME a day , maintaining a temperature of CARDINAL

The Government argued that from DATE the detainees had the opportunity to exercise for TIME each day and to enjoy outdoor sport activities . The schedule for these activities was approved by the director of the prison .

No evidence was provided as to the precise nature of the exercise or outdoor sport activities enjoyed by the applicant .

The Government submitted that the applicant took part in cultural activities . They provided documents from which it appeared that he was registered in DATE and DATE to attend computer classes , NORP language classes and table tennis lessons for DATE .

The Government argued that no incidents concerning the applicant ’s right to correspondence were identified after DATE .

Government Emergency Ordinance CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Ordinance no . CARDINAL ” ) regarding certain rights of convicted persons states , in LAW , that convicted persons have the right to bring legal proceedings before the court of first instance concerning the implementing measures taken by the prison authorities in connection with their rights . Ordinance no . CARDINAL has been repealed and replaced by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , which has restated the content of LAW mentioned above in LAW , which provides that a judge shall have jurisdiction over complaints by convicted persons against the measures taken by the prison authorities ( see also LOC v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

The relevant findings and recommendation of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) are described in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . In particular , the ORG notes that in the report on the DATE visits the ORG expressed concerns about the limited living space available to prisoners and the insufficient space provided by the regulations in place at that date . It also noted that prisoners were sometimes obliged to share a bed and that the toilets were not sufficiently separated from the living space .

With regard to PERSON , excerpts from the ORG ’s findings following the visits of DATE and DATE are given in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . In particular , the ORG expressed concern about the restricted living space , as the number of detainees was more than twice the prison ’s capacity , the shortage of beds , the lack of adequate separation between the toilets and the living space in the cells , and described the conditions as “ lacking privacy ” and “ an affront to human dignity ” .

There is no ORG report concerning ORG . However , a NORP NGO , ORG for ORG in GPE – ORG ) visited this establishment on CARDINAL DATE . The report prepared following this visit indicated , based on the information submitted by the authorities , that the average personal space for prisoners was QUANTITY . m. The overcrowding was obvious when visiting individual cells : CARDINAL of the cells visited , measuring QUANTITY m accommodated CARDINAL prisoners , even though it had CARDINAL beds . As regards the prison’ food , the report indicated that CARDINAL detainee had complained about its quality and that many prisoners preferred to eat the food they received from home or that they bought from the shop .

Following visits in DATE to several prisons in GPE , the ORG published a report on DATE , in which it stated , inter alia :

“ DATE . ( ... ) the ORG is gravely concerned that the lack of beds remains an ongoing problem not only in the establishments visited , but also at the national level , and has been since the first visit to GPE in DATE . It is high time that major steps are taken to put an end to this unacceptable situation . The ORG calls upon the NORP authorities to take decisive priority action to ensure that that each inmate housed in a prison has a bed .

However , ORG welcomes the fact that shortly after the visit in DATE , the official standard of living space per inmate in the cell was increased from QUANTITY ( which amounted to an area of QUANTITY per detainee ) to QUANTITY m or QUANTITY . The ORG recommends that the NORP authorities take the necessary steps to meet the standard of QUANTITY m of living space per inmate in shared cells in all prisons in GPE . ”


The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and live at FAC . They were represented before the ORG by Mr GPE , of ORG .

On DATE the applicants received notice that their personal tax affairs for DATE were to be investigated . The investigation concerned the terms on which a flat in FAC had been transferred and losses incurred on FAC , in which the applicants lived .

PERSON is the manager of ORG , the company that owns the chateau , and holds a majority shareholding in it . The Revenue served assessments to additional tax on the company on DATE and on the applicants on DATE . All the assessments were contested by the applicants . However , they were confirmed by the Revenue on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Revenue served demands for the additional tax that had been imposed on the applicants , together with interest for late payment and a PERCENT surcharge because the applicants had acted in bad faith in declaring the losses on the chateau and been late in filing the capital - gains tax return on the sale of the flat . The sums demanded came to a total of MONEY ( FRF ) for DATE and ORG CARDINAL for DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal . They argued that the Revenue had miscalculated the period for which they had owned the flat in FAC for the purposes of assessing their liability to capital gains tax on its sale in DATE . They had in fact purchased the property in DATE and were thus entitled to the exemption from capital gains tax which , by law , was granted to owners who had retained title for DATE . They also sought to be allowed to deduct certain expenditure on furnishings and staff from the ORG taxable income , on the ground that it had been incurred in order to attract visitors to the chateau and because the chateau ’s upkeep necessitated the services of a full - time housekeeper .

In the absence of a reply from the Revenue within the statutory DATE time - limit , the applicants applied to ORG for an order cancelling the income - tax surcharge and related penalties .

In a decision of DATE , ORG granted relief from the capital - gains - tax surcharge , interest for late payment and related penalties for DATE in the amount of ORG CARDINAL on the principal sum due and FRF CARDINAL on the interest and penalties .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the Revenue granted relief from the surcharges that had initially been imposed for bad faith in respect of the remaining contested tax assessments ( on income from land for DATE ) in the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for DATE and ORG CARDINAL for DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicants were granted additional relief of ORG CARDINAL in tax and ORG MONEY in penalties , in order to rectify an arithmetical error in the calculation for DATE .

In a letter of DATE , the clerk to ORG informed the applicants that , owing to a large number of pending cases , it was not possible to say when their case was likely to be heard .

Following a hearing on DATE ORG delivered a judgment on DATE in which it held that it was unnecessary to give a ruling in respect of the ORG claims up to ORG CARDINAL . It dismissed the applicants’ remaining claims ( namely for ORG CARDINAL in disputed taxes and FRF CARDINAL in interest for late payment ) .


Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings);Partly inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

NORP In DATE the FAC Governor ’s office expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants . A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot of land and the relevant amount was paid to them when the expropriation took place .

Following the ORG request for increased compensation , on DATE ORG of First - instance awarded them an additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) plus interest at the statutory rate running from DATE , the date on which the title - deed to the land had been transferred to the ORG . In the course of the proceedings , the court conducted on - site visits and requested CARDINAL expert reports which concluded that the land in question was development land ( arsa ) . In view of a judgment rendered by ORG of ORG which ruled that the lands within the vicinity of the FAC organised industrial zone should be considered as agricultural lands , the court decided that it would not take the CARDINAL expert reports into account . It therefore relied on a fourth expert report which served as a conciliation report for a calculation of the amount due to the applicants .

The applicants appealed against the judgment of ORG of First - instance . In their submissions , the applicants contested the court ’s decision to take solely the last expert report into consideration .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG of First - instance .

On DATE the ORG paid the amount of GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the applicants .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicants’ request for rectification .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Aka v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI , pp . DATE , § § DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was the deputy chairman of the pro - NORP HADEP ( PERSON – ORG ) prior to the events giving rise to the present application .

On DATE the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti - terror branch of ORG . According to the arrest protocol ( yakalama tutanağı ) signed by CARDINAL police officers and the applicant , a search warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant . When the officers saw the applicant , they asked him to show his identity card . The applicant however attempted to escape .

On DATE the deputy director of ORG sent a letter to the public prosecutor at ORG requesting that the applicant ’s custody period be extended . The deputy director maintained , inter alia , that the applicant had been taken into custody on DATE during the course of a police operation carried out against the ORG and that the police had not yet completed the detailed questioning of the applicant and the gathering of evidence .

NORP The public prosecutor referred the security directorate ’s request to ORG . On DATE , the single judge of ORG decided to extend the custody period for DATE starting from DATE , including DATE . The applicant did not appear before the judge .

On DATE CARDINAL police officers from the anti - terror branch of ORG took statements from the applicant . The applicant was questioned , in particular , about his statements made in several television programmes , broadcast on ORG , a pro - NORP channel , in which he had taken part in his capacity as deputy chairman of the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor at ORG , who questioned him about his statements during the same television programmes . Subsequently , the public prosecutor requested ORG to order the applicant ’s detention on remand .

On DATE , the single judge at ORG ordered the applicant ’s release from detention , having regard to the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence .

On DATE the public prosecutor requested that ORG file a bill of indictment , charging the applicant with aiding and abetting members of the ORG on account of his statements made during the television programmes shown on ORG .

On DATE new legislation ( Law no . DATE ) on the suspension of proceedings and the execution of sentences regarding offences committed before DATE came into force .

On DATE ORG decided to defer the imposition of a final sentence on the applicant , pursuant to PERSON no . DATE . The court held , under LAW of the same law , that the criminal proceedings against him would be suspended and a final sentence would be imposed should he be convicted of a similar offence within DATE of this decision .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .