TANEVA & OTHERS v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

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

The applicants , PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) , Mr PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) and Mr PERSON ( “ the third applicant ” ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

In DATE and DATE respectively , the then ORG of GPE ( Народен Одбор на PERSON ) confiscated CARDINAL adjacent plots of land ( former CARDINAL . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ORG ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL m² ) from members of the applicants’ families .

On DATE ORG allocated several plots of land ( with different numbering ) , covering an area of CARDINAL m² , to a construction company , PERSON , for the construction of a residential building . That decision became final on DATE . The second and third applicants stated that the decision had not concerned plot no . CARDINAL . According to the amended urban development plan of DATE , a larger residential and business complex was intended to be constructed on that land .

By court decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , it was established that the applicants had inherited a restitution claim ( наследник на правото на денационализација ) in respect of a property confiscated from the members of their families , and that the property included the plots at issue .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) amended the decision of ORG of DATE , allocating several plots of land ( with different numbering from those indicated in the latter decision , with CARDINAL exception ) , the total surface area of which was CARDINAL m² , to the LOC company for the construction of the residential and business complex as specified in the urban development plan of DATE . According to the second and third applicants , CARDINAL m² of plot no . CARDINAL was affected by this decision .

On DATE the first applicant submitted a request before ORG for restitution of plot no . CARDINAL , which was allegedly still undeveloped given that there were only temporary portakabins at the site .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed the request as ill - founded . On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) upheld an appeal submitted by the first applicant and annulled that decision . It found that ORG had incompletely established the facts as to whether plot no . CARDINAL had been undeveloped .

No further decision has been given in these proceedings .

On DATE the second and third applicants submitted a request to ORG for restitution of plot no . CARDINAL , which according to them was still undeveloped .

On DATE ORG dismissed this request , finding that the second and third applicants had already received compensation for the land in CARDINAL forms : CARDINAL m² had been restored to them and pecuniary compensation had been paid for the remainder . Referring to an on - site examination of DATE , it found that there had been a construction site of CARDINAL m² on the relevant land which had been allocated , pursuant to the LOC decisions of DATE and DATE , to the M. company for the construction of the residential and business complex , as specified in the urban development plan of DATE .

On DATE the second and third applicants appealed , arguing that , inter alia , CARDINAL m² of the land had been undeveloped on DATE , the date of the submission of their restitution claims , and should have been restored to them accordingly ; that ORG should have applied section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) ; that the on - site examination had not been carried out in good time ; and that the temporary portakabins had been dismantled on DATE , when the PERSON company had started construction works without any valid documentation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , under section CARDINAL of LAW , stating that the second and third applicants had already received compensation and the purpose of the confiscation had been achieved .

On DATE the second and third applicants lodged with ORG an appeal on points of law ( тужба за управен спор ) , claiming that CARDINAL m² of the relevant land had still been undeveloped on the relevant date and should have been restored to them accordingly . They further agreed to return the compensation which they had already received for part of the land .

On DATE ORG , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , upheld the dismissal of the second and third applicants’ claims for restitution of the relevant land . It further held that the land could not be regarded as undeveloped , given the ongoing construction works in accordance with the urban development plan . In this latter connection , the court referred to a construction contract of CARDINAL DATE concluded between the M. company and ORG , according to which the ORG ’s administrative offices had been located on the land in question . The fact that the restitution claim had been submitted when those offices had been demolished and the construction site had been in preparation did not mean that the land at issue had been undeveloped .

On DATE the public prosecutor informed the second and third applicants that there were no grounds for lodging a request with ORG for the protection of legality .

On DATE the first applicant appealed against the ORG ’s decision of DATE . It appears that the second and third applicants appealed against that decision as well . No evidence was provided in this latter connection .

On DATE the ORG requested ORG , as a supervisory body , to annul the ORG ’s decision as contrary to section CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG , acting of its own motion and exercising its supervisory powers ( по службена должност , а по право на надзор ) , annulled the ORG ’s decision . Referring to the ORG appeals , ORG found the impugned decision contrary to section CARDINAL of LAW .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the Attorney - General and the LOC company challenged ORG decision before ORG . No copy of these appeals was communicated to the applicants .

On DATE ORG annulled the decision of DATE , finding , inter alia , that ORG had wrongly regarded the ORG ’s decision as a legal measure or a unilateral declaration within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . It further found that the land indicated in the ORG ’s decision could not have been regarded as undeveloped for the reasons stated above ( in its decision of CARDINAL DATE ) . In addition , it referred to the construction , under the contract of CARDINAL DATE ( see above ) , of another administrative building which had accommodated civil servants from the provisional administrative offices that had previously been located on the relevant land . The applicants unsuccessfully requested the public prosecutor to institute legality review proceedings before ORG . Their requests for the reopening of the proceedings have still not been determined .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s appeal and upheld the ORG ’s decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed an appeal on points of law by the applicants and annulled ORG decision . It ruled that the applicants’ claims for restitution should have been decided as a preliminary question ( претходно прашање ) before the land was allocated for construction . It therefore instructed the Ministry to suspend ( прекинување ) the proceedings pending the outcome of the restitution proceedings .

No further decision has been given in the course of these proceedings .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that confiscated property for which compensation has been paid can not be the subject of restitution . Under subsection CARDINAL , in exceptional cases , property for which compensation has been paid can be restored . The claimant is obliged to return the compensation received , in an amount and according to a procedure regulated by a Government decree .

Section CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that ownership of building land is to be restored where the purpose of confiscation has not been achieved , as well as when that purpose has been achieved and the land , at the time of submission of the restitution claim , was undeveloped .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provides that property that is the subject of restitution can not be disposed of after the entry into force of LAW Legal measures and unilateral declarations taken contrary to subsection CARDINAL are null and void .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) , as valid at the material time , an administrative body was obliged to give a decision and serve it on the party concerned within DATE after the submission of a request . A party whose request had not been decided within that time - limit could lodge an appeal in the same way as if the request had been dismissed .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , if an appeal had been submitted in the absence of a decision at first instance , the second - instance body would set a time - limit , of DATE , within which the first - instance body should give a decision . In the event of non - compliance , the second - instance body could decide the matter by itself .

LAW of DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , which replaced LAW , provides for the same rules as LAW , as indicated above ( sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , provided that a third party directly affected by the annulment of an impugned administrative decision ( interested party ) was to be treated as a party to the proceedings .

Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , if the second - instance body did not give a decision within DATE , an interested party could lodge an appeal on points of law with ORG in the same way as if his or her appeal had been dismissed .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that an interested party could ask the second - instance body to decide on his or her request if the first - instance body had failed to issue a decision within DATE from the submission of that request . If the second - instance body failed to give a decision , the interested party could lodge an appeal on points of law under the conditions specified in subsection CARDINAL .

LAW of DATE , which replaced LAW , provides for the same rules as those laid down in section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ) .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , developed building land is land on which a structure of a permanent nature has been built in accordance with the law .

Several individuals from GPE sought restitution of part of a plot of land which was allegedly still undeveloped and , under the relevant urban development plan , was set aside for the construction of a residential building . Their claim was dismissed at first and second instance since they had received compensation for the confiscated property . In a decision of DATE ORG annulled the second - instance decision so that the facts could be established with a view to applying section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( U.br.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

In a final decision of DATE ORG accepted the first applicant ’s request and restored to her possession a different plot of undeveloped land in GPE . She was also ordered to return the compensation which had been paid to her predecessor ( Дн.бр.CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

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

On DATE the ORG Zachód ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant , a recidivist offender , was charged with CARDINAL robberies and causing minor bodily harm . On DATE ORG ordered that the case be transferred to ORG and joined with the second set of proceedings ( see below ) .

The applicant was arrested on DATE . On DATE ORG ordered him to be placed in detention pending trial on suspicion of robbery , assault and intimidating a witness . His detention was subsequently extended by ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged . It further held that the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that the applicant would be given a heavy sentence justified the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) extended the applicant ’s detention . It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question . It also had regard to the nature of the charges against the applicant and their number . Furthermore , it held that the applicant had refused to consent to an examination by psychiatrists , and had thus deliberately prolonged the investigation .

NORP In DATE the applicant was transported to FAC for treatment , where he went on a hunger strike . On DATE he was transported back to ORG . He persistently refused to undergo the relevant medical tests ( except for QUANTITY X - rays of his lungs ) .

On DATE the ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was charged with CARDINAL different offences , including threatening to kill a witness , intimidating a witness , uttering threats , CARDINAL counts of assault , extortion and a number of robberies . The applicant was the sole defendant . On DATE the prosecutor filed another bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was charged with CARDINAL robberies and causing minor bodily harm . Both sets of proceedings were joined on DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It held that it was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and to prevent the applicant from obstructing them . Furthermore , it found that the applicant , by deliberately refusing to cooperate with the prison health service , had aimed at compelling the court to release him . Thus , he had impeded the conduct of the investigation .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant , who was suspected of having contracted tuberculosis , that if he continued to refuse to undergo medical tests with a view to determining whether he could participate in the trial without posing an epidemiological danger to other persons , the court would conduct the trial in his absence .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings . It found that the applicant had refused to undergo medical tests necessary to determine whether he was suffering from GPE .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , relying on the same grounds as given in the previous decisions .

On DATE ORG applied to ORG for a further extension of the applicant ’s detention . It specified that the applicant had been charged with numerous offences against the residents of his neighbourhood . It found that there was a very significant risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings , given that it had been established in the course of the investigation that he had intimidated the victims . On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , endorsing the arguments of ORG . The applicant appealed . On DATE a different panel of ORG dismissed his appeal .

On DATE ORG resumed the trial . It noted that the applicant had persistently refused to undergo the relevant medical tests , and had thus impeded the proceedings . The applicant appealed against the decision to resume the trial . On DATE ORG quashed that decision on procedural grounds .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The decision was upheld on appeal .

On DATE ORG refused an application by the applicant for his release . It found that for DATE he had hindered the conduct of the proceedings and attempted to compel the court to release him . It further noted that the applicant had persistently refused to undergo medical tests , and that his only aim had been to use the state of his health as an argument militating in favour of his release .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings . That decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be kept in detention until DATE , invoking the grounds given in the previous decisions . On DATE ORG refused an application by the applicant for his release .

ORG held hearings on DATE and DATE . On the former date it decided to conduct the trial in the applicant ’s absence . It found that the applicant ’s obstructive behaviour was the main obstacle to the conduct of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG decided to hear evidence from the applicant in FAC . However , the applicant remained silent throughout and did not answer any of the judge ’s questions .

Further hearings were held on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE . They took place in the applicant ’s absence given that he had continuously refused to undergo medical tests . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that he could participate in the trial if he agreed to undergo medical tests and if their results showed that he did not pose a health risk to others .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , finding that the grounds previously given remained valid .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of all the offences with which he had been charged , except for CARDINAL count of intimidating a witness and CARDINAL count of robbery . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .

The applicant unsuccessfully requested the ORG to file a cassation appeal on his behalf . It appears that the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecution service , alleging that he had been ill - treated by the prison staff . On DATE the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding that no offence had been committed . It noted that the applicant had persistently refused to undergo treatment for GPE . It further found that any disciplinary measure taken against the applicant had resulted from breaches of the relevant prison rules . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the ORG nad Notecią District Court upheld the contested decision . It held that the actions of the prison staff had been motivated by the applicant ’s illness and his refusal to undergo medical treatment , and could not be considered as ill - treatment .

The applicant claimed that during his detention his correspondence was censored and/or delayed by the authorities .

The Nakło nad ORG dispatched a letter to the applicant on DATE . That letter was delivered to ORG on DATE . The envelope bears the stamp “ FAC DATE ” . However , the applicant submitted that the letter had been delivered to him on DATE , after having been censored by ORG .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant . That letter was first delivered to ORG on DATE and subsequently , according to the applicant , was sent to ORG . It was re - delivered to ORG on DATE and given to the applicant on DATE . The envelope in which the ORG ’s letter was sent bears CARDINAL stamps that read “ FAC DATE ” and “ FAC DATE ” and a handwritten note in pencil “ R[egional ] C[ourt ] FAC .

On DATE ORG sent the applicant a letter in which it acknowledged receipt of his application form . That letter was first delivered to ORG on DATE and subsequently was sent to ORG . It was re - delivered to ORG on CARDINAL DATE and given to the applicant on DATE . The envelope in which that letter was sent bears CARDINAL stamps that read “ FAC DATE ” and “ FAC CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ” and a handwritten note in pencil “ R[egional ] C[ourt ] FAC .

On DATE ORG sent the applicant a letter in which it had acknowledged the receipt of his letter . That letter was first delivered to the PERSON prison on DATE , and , was subsequently sent to ORG . It was re - delivered to the PERSON prison on CARDINAL DATE and given to the applicant on DATE . The envelope in which that letter was sent bears CARDINAL stamps that read “ FAC DATE ” and “ FAC CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ” and a hand written note in pencil “ R[egional ] C[ourt ] GPE ” .

On DATE ORG sent another letter to the applicant . That letter was first delivered to ORG on DATE and was subsequently re - delivered to ORG on DATE , where the applicant had been transferred . The applicant claims that that letter was given to him on DATE . The envelope in which that letter was sent bears CARDINAL stamps that read “ FAC DATE ” and “ FAC DATE ” .

The applicant ’s counsel posted a letter to the applicant on DATE . That letter was first delivered to ORG on DATE and subsequently , according to the applicant , was sent to ORG . It was re - delivered to ORG on DATE and given to the applicant on DATE . The envelope in which it was sent bears CARDINAL stamps that read “ FAC DATE ” and “ FAC DATE ” and a handwritten note in pencil “ R[egional ] C[ourt ] FAC .

NORP The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . GPE , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-XI ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant domestic law concerning the means of monitoring the correspondence of persons involved in criminal proceedings applicable at the material time is set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (length);Partly inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from her position at the Osijek Faculty of Agriculture ( “ the Faculty ” ) . The decision had retroactive effect as of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings challenging the lawfulness of the ORG 's decision . She claimed to have never been reinstated , as was required by a final court decision from proceedings she had previously instituted against ORG , and that she could therefore not have been dismissed .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) ruled in the applicant 's favour , ordering the Faculty to reinstate her .

Following an appeal by the Faculty , on DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) upheld the first instance judgment .

The Faculty subsequently filed a request for revision on points of law ( revizija ) . On DATE , ORG ( PERSON ) reversed the first and second instance judgments and dismissed the applicant 's claim . ORG found that the Faculty was under no obligation to reinstate the applicant and that therefore its decision was in line with the applicable law .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . She claimed that ORG judgment was in breach of her constitutional right to work , of the rule of law and of the requirement that the courts adjudicate on the basis of laws and LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed her complaint finding no violation of the alleged constitutional rights .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority)

The applicant was born in DATE . From DATE he held a post of customs inspector in ORG .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in ORG ( “ GPE ” ) of PERSON . Later on , he was moved to GPE .

On DATE the ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) remanded the applicant in custody in view of the pending criminal investigations against him . The court noted in particular that the applicant was charged with a serious crime for which he was liable to a penalty of over DATE imprisonment , and that he was unemployed . The court held , without giving any further details , that there were grounds to believe that , if left at liberty , the applicant would seek to evade investigation and trial , and obstruct the establishment of the truth in his criminal case .

By resolutions of ORG and ORG of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , the maximum period of the applicant ’s detention was extended , respectively , to DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE and DATE , in view of the pending criminal investigations against him . The courts put forward similar reasons for the applicant ’s continued detention as in the order of DATE , and held that there were no grounds for altering the preventive measure applied in the applicant ’s respect . In the resolutions of DATE and DATE the courts also noted that the applicant had been studying the case file . By the latter resolution , he was given a time - limit , until DATE , to complete his study of the file .

On DATE , the applicant requested the ORG administration to be released , stating that there was no formal decision authorising his detention after DATE . On DATE the request was refused on the ground that his continuing detention was governed by LAW and that his criminal case had been referred to the court for trial on DATE .

On an unspecified date the Shevchenkivsky District Court of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) received the case .

On DATE the applicant lodged with that court a petition alleging , among other things , that his continuing detention was unlawful .

On DATE ORG rejected his petition and ordered him to remain in detention , stating that there were no grounds for changing the preventive measure . The court ’s order , containing no further explanations or a time - limit for the applicant ’s detention , was not subject to appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected another petition for his release by the applicant relying , in particular , on a letter written by prosecutors according to which there was intelligence gathered suggesting that the applicant prepared documents to leave the country . It also relied on information obtained during the hearings indicating that the applicant intended to change his citizenship . The court did not set a time - limit for the applicant ’s detention . According to the applicant , the case file contained no documents or other evidence corroborating his intention to leave the country . As to the issue of citizenship , he stated that he had applied for renunciation of the NORP citizenship .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment with confiscation of all his property . It also stripped him of his service rank and limited his right to serve in law - enforcement agencies .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) changed the first - instance court ’s judgment . While upholding the applicant ’s conviction for abuse of office , organised crime , and forgery of official documents , the court discontinued the proceedings concerning the charges of bribery and remitted the case concerning the charges of tax evasion for additional investigation . It also reduced the applicant ’s prison sentence to DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the appellate court ’s judgment and remitted the case for fresh appellate review .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case to ORG . It also ordered further detention of the applicant . According to the latter ’s submissions , the case is pending before ORG .

According to LAW , when time limits are calculated , DATE from which they start running are not taken into account . When a time limit is expressed in DATE , it ends at TIME of DATE .

Other materials pertinent to the issue of lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention are summarised in the judgments in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALII ( extracts ) ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) .


CASE OF PAPASTAVROU AND OTHERS v. GREECE

Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved

The applicants are involved in a long - standing dispute with the ORG concerning the ownership of land in LOC in Galatsi forming part of a wider area called the “ FAC ” over which the ORG claims ownership . In DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the ORG expropriated large parts of ORG for various purposes in the public interest .

In an opinion ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) which was approved by the Minister of Finance in DATE and confirmed by the same minister in DATE , ORG said that ORG belonged to the ORG , since PERSON heirs had failed to prove that they had acquired property rights under title deeds or from adverse possession of the estate . On the basis of that opinion , ORG registered the land possessed by PERSON heirs and subsequently all the plots which had been transferred to third parties by the heirs as public estates . Various sets of proceedings brought against the ORG by PERSON heirs and third parties are still pending in the domestic courts .

In DATE the Minister of Agriculture decided to extend reafforestation in GPE to a region which included the disputed land . According to that decision , the area had “ consisted , before the destruction and deterioration of the forest vegetation ... , of pine - tree forest which [ had ] progressively deteriorated and was starting to disappear ... ” ( decision no . DATE ) .

NORP However , in a document of ORG of DATE on city planning , it was stated that CARDINAL the area concerned was agricultural and the other CARDINAL scrubland covered by bushes and just CARDINAL pine trees . ORG expressed the opinion that the area had never been forest land and could not be reafforested , since the decision of ORG of DATE excluded from the scope of reafforestation barren land or parcels owned by individuals . ORG concluded that the city development plan could be extended to the area concerned . CARDINAL previous documents of ORG , dated DATE and DATE , and an expert report concerning ORG had arrived at the same conclusion .

On DATE the prefect of GPE decided that an area within ORG , including the disputed plot of land , should be reafforested . It was expressly stated in the prefect ’s decision that the aim was “ ... to recreate the forest greenery that [ had ] been destroyed or [ had ] deteriorated by illegal quarrying and other illegal actions , such as land clearing and building , over an area covering QUANTITY . m ” .

On DATE the applicants challenged the prefect ’s decision of DATE in ORG . They claimed that they were the owners of properties that had been created by the parcelling of ORG and were located inside the area set aside for reafforestation . In particular , they contended that the prefect ’s decision sought to deprive them of any rights of possession or ownership in the contested plot . In their additional observations of DATE , they claimed that the underlying reason for the decision was an attempt by the ORG to create a dispute over the applicants’ rights of possession or ownership , despite the fact that there was no basis in law for the decision , since the area had never been a forest in the past .

On DATE the applicants invited the ORG to purchase the plot in question from them . The authorities did not reply .

On DATE ORG declared the applicants’ appeal inadmissible on the ground that the prefect ’s decision was not an operative one , since it simply confirmed the decision that had been issued by ORG in DATE . In particular , ORG held that the DATE decision remained in force because it had not been reversed by any other act of equivalent importance . Subsequent acts of the authorities , such as the interpretation of some aerial photographs , could not be considered as a fresh assessment of the situation capable of rendering the prefect ’s decision operative .

On DATE ORG , following the procedure prescribed by LAW no . CARDINAL , classified QUANTITY . m of land located within the area concerned by the prefect ’s decision of DATE . It concluded that QUANTITY . m of it was forest land and should be reafforested . ORG upheld that decision and an appeal is now pending before ORG .

In various judgments over DATE the NORP courts have been called upon to decide the property status of parts of ORG ( judgments no . CARDINAL of ORG , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG , and no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG ) . The courts have recognised that a number of plots which were situated in the greater ORG did not constitute forest land but were private properties which were included in the city development plan . Other judicial decisions ( judgments no . CARDINAL of ORG , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG , and no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG ) concluded that the greater area , which comprised the properties claimed by the applicants , had never been forest land in the past .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ The ORG is under a duty to protect the natural and cultural environment . It shall adopt special preventive or repressive measures for the conservation of the environment . Matters pertaining to the protection of forests and forest areas in general shall be regulated by law . Any change in the use of public forests and public forest areas shall be prohibited , except where agricultural development or any other use is beneficial to the national economy or dictated by the national interest . ”

“ Public or private forests or forest areas which have been or are destroyed by fire or otherwise deforested , shall not be divested for that reason of their previous status but shall be designated as reafforestation areas and not used for any other purpose . ”

The Government submitted that , for the purposes of LAW , which under ORG established case - law is directly applicable , the statutory protection of forests continues without any limitation in time and notwithstanding illegal destruction or deforestation . Moreover , the designation of an area as a reafforestation area and the prohibition of any use detrimental to reafforestation are not left to the discretion of the authorities but are mandatory .

The relevant sections of PERSON no . CARDINAL read as follows :

“ A ORG shall be established at the seat of each prefecture with jurisdiction to settle disputes over the classification of all or part of an area as forest land and over the limits of such land . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) If no forest register has been compiled , the classification of all or part of an area as forest land and the determination of the limits thereof ... shall be carried out , at the request of any person having a lawful interest or ex officio , by the competent forestry commission .

( CARDINAL ) ... The classification shall be notified to the person , legal entity or public service having submitted the request ...

( CARDINAL ) The prefect or any other person with a lawful interest may lodge an objection to the aforementioned classification within DATE from the date of notification ... with the ORG mentioned in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ... The ORG and ORG ... shall decide the objection by a reasoned decision within DATE from the date it is filed ... ”

“ Forests and forest lands which are destroyed or deforested by fire or illegal logging shall be designated reafforestation areas , regardless of any special category they may come into or their location ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The decision to designate land as a reafforestation area shall be taken by the competent prefect . It shall clearly indicate the limits of the area and be accompanied by a plan ...

( CARDINAL ) ... the decision of the prefect mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be taken following a recommendation by the competent forestry inspector . ”

The Government stressed that the aforementioned provisions establish a special judicial procedure for classifying an area as forest land and aim at settling disputes in a way that binds both the authorities and the individual .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant , acting as a participant of rescue operation on the site of the GPE nuclear disaster in DATE , applied to a local council , requesting them to grant him a flat .

Having faced a refusal , the applicant filed a suit in court .

By judgment of ORG the local authorities were ordered to grant the applicant a flat of QUANTITY . It became final on DATE .

On DATE the writ of execution was issued and sent to the bailiffs .

It appears that on DATE the local authorities , acting in agreement with the applicant and with his financial participation , purchased a CARDINAL - room flat of QUANTITY for the applicant .

The contract has been registered on DATE .

DATE , on DATE , the local authorities transferred the money for the flat to the seller 's account .

According to the Government , the judgment of DATE should be considered as fully enforced on DATE .


No violation of Art. 2 (obligation to protect the right to life);Violation of Art. 2 (obligation to provide an effective investigation);Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of Khokholskiy in LOC . He is the father of PERSON , who was found dead on DATE in a punishment cell of the prison where he had been serving his sentence . He had died of asphyxia caused by hanging . At the time of his death , PERSON was DATE and was due to be released DATE .

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

On DATE PERSON was remanded in custody in connection with criminal charges brought against him .

On DATE PERSON was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . He was serving his sentence in the correctional labour colony ( исправительно-трудовая колония ) OZH CARDINAL/CARDINAL in PERSON , GPE . He expected to be released on probation on DATE .

According to the records submitted by the Government , on QUANTITY occasions in DATE PERSON had been found to be under the influence of alcohol and placed in a punishment cell . During his second disciplinary confinement , PERSON inflicted bodily injury on himself , and during his third disciplinary confinement he attempted suicide ( see the section entitled “ Medical records ” ) .

Following the suicide attempt , PERSON was placed under regular psychiatric supervision .

On DATE a prison football team , of which PERSON was a member , took part in a match outside the prison .

On return to the prison after the match , PERSON was found to be under the influence of alcohol . At TIME a prison officer placed him in a punishment cell where he was to be kept in solitary confinement before his inspection by the prison warder TIME . At TIME PERSON was found dead , hanged by the sleeve of his jacket with another sleeve attached to a water pipe .

That evening the prison governor conducted an inquest . He examined CARDINAL documents : ( i ) the order to place PERSON in the punishment cell , ( ii ) the disciplinary offence report , ( iii ) the report drawn up on finding PERSON , ( iv ) the site inspection report , ( v ) the site plan and ( vi ) the post mortem report . On the basis of this file , he stated that PERSON had hanged himself using the sleeve of his jacket and ordered that no criminal investigation be opened , as there had been no appearance that a crime had been committed . A reference was also made to his attempted suicide in DATE , and it was stated that he had had suicidal tendencies .

On DATE an autopsy was performed on the body . In DATE a post mortem report was issued according to which abrasions and bruises were found on the nose , hand , forearm and elbow . The expert came to the conclusion that death had been caused by pressure on the neck through hanging .

The applicant was informed orally that his son had committed suicide . He asked the prison authorities to initiate a criminal investigation . The authorities did not inform him that a decision had already been taken not to do so .

In DATE the applicant requested ORG to provide him with information about the circumstances of his son ’s death . The request was transmitted to GPE supervising penitentiary institutions .

On DATE the Voronezh City Special Prosecutor ’s Office supervising penitentiary institutions informed the applicant of the decision not to investigate the circumstances of PERSON death in criminal proceedings . The applicant was informed that his son had had a record of good conduct , that he had been rewarded on several occasions and that no conflict had been registered between him and other inmates or the prison administration . He was also informed that , in the circumstances , the decision not to institute a criminal investigation was lawful and well - founded .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant of the refusal to institute criminal proceedings and invited him , on DATE , to view the case file concerning the death of his son .

On DATE the applicant arrived at the prosecutor ’s office for the appointment to view the file , but the officer in charge was absent and he could not gain access to the file .

On DATE the applicant received a copy of the prison governor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG of GPE that it order a criminal investigation into his son ’s death . The court declined jurisdiction in the matter , however , on DATE . It stated that the institution of criminal proceedings fell within the competence of the prosecutor ’s office .

After the case had been communicated to the respondent Government by ORG , ORG annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE and instituted a criminal investigation into PERSON death .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings before the same district court to have the refusal of the prison governor to institute criminal proceedings declared unlawful .

On DATE ORG of GPE held that the decision of CARDINAL DATE was unlawful . At the same time it discontinued the examination of the applicant ’s claim as no longer necessary , given the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE which had already dealt with the issue .

In DATE CARDINAL forensic examinations were carried out . First , experts were appointed to conduct a new autopsy of the body . Secondly , another group of experts carried out a posthumous examination of PERSON psychiatric and psychological condition .

The autopsy resulted in substantially the same findings as the first post mortem report , namely , that the death had been caused by mechanical asphyxia ( more specifically , strangling ) , and established a mediumdegree alcoholic intoxication at the time of death .

On DATE the posthumous psychiatric report was submitted . The experts concluded that at the time of his death PERSON had not been predisposed to suicide on account of any long or short - term psychiatric disorder . However , they concluded that he had been under the influence of alcohol and that it could have triggered his decision to commit suicide .

During the investigation the following witnesses were examined and gave the following testimonies :

( i ) Six officers who were on duty at the prison entrance when PERSON returned to the prison after the football match , testified that he had been drunk and had behaved aggressively . He therefore had to be isolated in the punishment cell . They all stated that no force had been applied to him .

( ii ) CARDINAL inmates who had been on the same football team testified that PERSON had been under the influence of alcohol on their return from the match , and that was why he had been stopped by the prison warders at the prison entrance . They stated that there had been no threats or violence at the prison entrance .

( iii ) CARDINAL other inmates who had known PERSON well testified that he had had good relations with other inmates and warders and that there had been no conflict between him and the prison administration .

( iv ) Six officers who had been on duty in the punishment ward when PERSON died , testified that he had been placed in the cell at TIME and had been found dead during the warder ’s round at TIME They stated that first aid had been administered , but that it had been too late .

( v ) Inmates PERSON and PERSON testified that they had been confined to punishment cells next to PERSON . PERSON stated that at first they had communicated through the wall , but then PERSON had gone quiet . Neither of them had heard any noises or screams .

( vii ) CARDINAL officers testified that they had witnessed PERSON previous suicide attempt in DATE and administered first aid to him . They considered that that attempt had not been a genuine suicide , but that he had rather been trying to attract attention and demonstrate his independence .

( viii ) Ms. PERSON , the psychiatrist who had supervised PERSON , testified that his first suicide attempt had been demonstrative and had not reflected a genuine wish to die . She also considered , on the basis of her observations , that he had been likely to make another attempt , also demonstrative and not aimed at causing death , and that the probability of such behaviour increased under the influence of alcohol .

On DATE the GPE Special Prosecutor ’s Office supervising penitentiary institutions terminated the criminal investigation , having established that PERSON had committed suicide .

On DATE the applicant received a copy of the termination order of DATE .

The Government submitted a collection of medical records concerning PERSON condition throughout his detention . In so far as the copies are legible , they contain the following relevant entries .

On DATE , upon his arrest , PERSON was examined by a psychiatrist and found to be in good health .

On DATE an alcohol test revealed that PERSON was under the influence of alcohol . He was placed in a punishment cell .

On DATE an alcohol test revealed that PERSON was under the influence of alcohol . He was placed in a punishment cell where he inflicted injuries on himself , recorded as follows :

“ As a protest against being put in a punishment cell [ PERSON ] inflicted CARDINAL horizontal cuts on his abdomen : measuring QUANTITY , QUANTITY and QUANTITY , each about QUANTITY deep . Minor bleeding ... ”

DATE PERSON was kept in the medical block for treatment of the self - inflicted wounds .

On DATE an alcohol test revealed that PERSON was under the influence of alcohol . He was placed in a punishment cell where he attempted to hang himself , as recorded :

“ Emergency call for an attempted suicide . PERSON detained in the punishment cell No . CARDINAL attempted to hang himself by a string attached to a water pipe ... Consultation with a psychiatrist is required . ”

Following that incident , PERSON was supervised by a psychiatrist , PERSON , who made the following entries in the records .

On DATE :

“ Complains about depression , unwillingness to live , weakness , insomnia , irritability . Psychologically [ stable ] . Enters into contact . Orientation in space and time , as regards own personality is correct . Depressed overall . Thinking is consistent . Memory and reason are intact . No acute psychiatric symptoms can be observed at the time of examination . Diagnosis : short - term depressive reaction ; suicide attempt . ( i ) [ prescription medicines ] ; ( ii ) psychotherapy . ”

On CARDINAL ) DATE :

“ Conscious . Enters into contact . Depressed . Thinking is consistent . Demonstrative behaviour . Explains the suicide attempt by saying that he is ‘ fed up with a life like ORG . The attitude to the suicide attempt is not self - critical . Memory and reason are intact . No pathological psychiatric condition . Diagnosis : short - term depressive reaction . Suicide attempt . ORG behaviour . Continue treatment . ”

On DATE :

“ Has no medical complaints . His mood is steady and positive . Goes in for sport . Thinking is consistent . Memory and reason are intact . No acute psychiatric symptoms can be observed . Self - critical attitude to the recent suicide attempt . No acute psychiatric symptoms are observed . Prescribed rational psychotherapy . The next visit is scheduled for DATE . ”

On DATE :

“ Has no medical complaints . Mood is steady . Demonstrative behaviour . Thinking is consistent . Memory and reason are intact . No acute psychiatric symptoms are observed . Diagnosis : fixation behaviour . Prescribed rational psychotherapy . The next visit is scheduled for DATE . ”

On DATE :

“ Complains about depression , weakness , irritability , insomnia , inability to work . Thinking is consistent . Memory and reason are intact . No acute psychiatric symptoms are observed . Diagnosis : hyposthenic form of neurasthenia . ”

On DATE :

“ Has no medical complaints . His mood is steady . Thinking is consistent . Self - critical attitude to the suicide attempt in DATE . Memory and reason are intact . Demonstrative behaviour . Diagnosis : hyposthenic form of neurasthenia . The next visit is scheduled for DATE . ”

On DATE :

“ Mood is changeable . Thinking is consistent . Self - critical attitude to the suicide attempt in the past . No acute psychiatric symptoms are observed . Diagnosis : hyposthenic form of neurasthenia . The next visit is scheduled for DATE . ”

On DATE :

“ Complains about depression , weakness , insomnia , irritability . No acute psychiatric symptoms are observed . Depressed . The next visit is scheduled for DATE . ”

The next entry is dated DATE , although it immediately follows the above record of DATE :

“ Condition has improved . Mood has stabilised . Thinking is consistent . Memory and reason are intact . No acute psychiatric symptoms are observed . Diagnosis : the same . The next visit is scheduled for DATE . ”

The next entry is dated DATE , although it immediately follows the above record dated DATE :

“ Has no medical complaints . Mood is steady , depressed . No acute psychiatric symptoms are observed . Diagnosis : depressive reaction . Attempted suicide in the past . No complaints at the time of examination . [ ORG ] . The next visit is scheduled for CARDINAL DATE . Rat[ional ] psychotherapy . ”

On DATE a psychological test revealed , inter alia , a potential psychiatric condition , a tendency towards impulsive reactions and , possibly , a tendency towards conflict with others .

The last record in PERSON lifetime was made on CARDINAL DATE :

“ Complains about depression , weakness , insomnia , irritability . Enters into contact . Orientation is correct . Depressed . Thinking is consistent . No acute psychiatric symptoms are observed . No suicidal thoughts . Diagnosis : short - term depressive syndrome . The next visit is scheduled for [ unclear ] . ”

On DATE the deputy prison warder in charge of the prison medical office issued a certificate that PERSON had been under permanent psychiatric supervision , having been diagnosed as suffering from neurasthenia and a psychopathic condition with depressive reactions .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE protects the right to life .

The Health Care ( General Principles ) Act of DATE provides that persons serving a sentence in prisons are entitled to medical assistance at the ORG ’s expense and , as the case may be , at institutions run by the general public health service ( LAW ) .

The Law on Penitentiary Institutions of DATE provides that penitentiary institutions are responsible for inmates’ security and health care ( section CARDINAL ) .

DATE Penitentiary Code , as it read at the material time , provided that inmates suffering from a psychiatric disorder which did not affect their capacity to serve a criminal sentence could be subjected to medical treatment at the penitentiary institutions . The authorisation of a competent court was required for any such treatment .

After recent amendments , the same provision specifies that such inmates include persons who pose a danger to others or themselves . The provisions currently in force require the penitentiary authorities to identify such inmates and to apply for a court order imposing medical treatment on them .

CARDINAL The DATE Code of Criminal Procedure , which was in force at the material time , required that a competent authority institute criminal proceedings if there was a suspicion that a crime had been committed . That authority was under an obligation to carry out all measures provided for by law to establish the facts and to identify those responsible and secure their conviction . The decision whether or not to institute criminal proceedings had to be taken within DATE of the first report on the relevant facts ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

No criminal proceedings could be brought in the absence of a corpus delicti ( LAW . Where an investigating body refused to open or terminated a criminal investigation , a reasoned decision was to be provided . Such decisions could be appealed to a higher - ranking prosecutor or to a court ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

During criminal proceedings , persons who had been granted victim status could submit evidence and file applications , had full access to the case file once the investigation was complete , and could challenge appointments and appeal decisions or judgments in the case . At an inquest , the close relatives of the deceased were to be granted victim status ( Article CARDINAL ) .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

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

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

The applicant , a philosopher by profession , is currently unemployed and was in receipt of benefits pursuant to ORG for the Unemployed ( Rijksgroepregeling werkloze werknemers ) from DATE . As of CARDINAL DATE she received benefits pursuant to ORG ( PERSON ) . Both ORG and LAW stipulated that an unemployed person was eligible for benefits provided he or she attempted to obtain and was willing to accept employment “ deemed suitable ” ( passende arbeid ) for him or her .

On DATE , FAC was replaced by ORG ( PERSON Bijstand ) .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that , as from DATE , she had to fulfil the obligations pursuant to this LAW , including the obligation to obtain and be willing to take up “ generally accepted ” employment ( algemeen geaccepteerde arbeid ) . Non - compliance would lead to a reduction of the applicant 's benefit payments .

On DATE , the applicant raised an objection against the letter , which was rejected on DATE by the Mayor and Aldermen ( PERSON ) of GPE .

By judgment of DATE ORG upheld the applicant 's appeal against the decision of the Mayor and Aldermen , but only because it considered that those authorities should have declared the objection against the letter of DATE inadmissible since the contents of that letter were not intended to have any legal consequences but served only to inform the applicant – as a recipient of benefits pursuant to ORG of the obligations she had to comply with ; it was therefore not possible to lodge an objection against the letter . Doing what the authorities should have done , ORG declared the objection inadmissible .

The applicant lodged an appeal to ORG ( ORG ) . In a decision of DATE , ORG confirmed the judgment of ORG .

Under LAW all persons DATE and lawfully residing in the GPE were eligible for benefits under LAW if they had no other means of subsistence . General welfare beneficiaries were – apart from certain exceptions – obliged to make demonstrable efforts to obtain and accept suitable employment .

On DATE , FAC was replaced by ORG . In common with the old LAW , persons DATE and lawfully residing in the GPE are eligible for benefits under LAW . However , contrary to the contents of LAW , general welfare beneficiaries are now obliged to make demonstrable efforts to obtain and take up generally accepted employment . It appears from the Explanatory Memorandum ( PERSON ) to this LAW that this new requirement has a much wider scope , as it also includes employment with which the beneficiary has no affinity and only excludes employment which is not generally socially accepted ( algemeen maatschappelijk aanvaard ) . Furthermore , the beneficiary is not obliged to obtain or accept work in respect of which he or she has conscientious objections .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was injured in a car accident . The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company GPE

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

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

DATE and DATE he made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

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

During the proceedings , the court appointed CARDINAL medical experts and a traffic expert . The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert .

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

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) .

The case is still pending before ORG .


PAULSEN-MEDALEN and SVENSSON v. SWEDEN (no. 2)

The first applicant , PERSON , born in DATE and unmarried , lives at FAC , a suburb of GPE . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , born in DATE , lives at GPE , another suburb of GPE . The third applicant is their son PERSON born on DATE . They are represented before the ORG by Mrs S. Westerberg , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The first and second applicants have never been married and have periodically cohabited . The present application is a sequel to a previous application ( no . ORG ) lodged by them and other members of the family on CARDINAL DATE with the former ORG . The previous one concerned various complaints relating to the taking into care in DATE of J. and his brother PERSON ( born in DATE ) , subsequent refusals to lift the care order and restrictions on access as well as the procedure . On DATE the Commission declared the application admissible in respect of PERSON complaint about the length of the access proceedings and PERSON complaint about the lack of a court remedy to have a determination of his right of access to his son PERSON , while declaring the remainder of the application inadmissible . Like the Commission in its report of CARDINAL DATE ( former LAW , ORG in FAC and PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports CARDINAL-I ) , unanimously concluded that there had been a violation of LAW with regard to the first applicant but not with respect to the second applicant . It further found unanimously that it was not necessary to examine his complaints under LAW .

The above - mentioned care order is still in force and the children live with their respective foster parents .

In DATE ORG limited the mother ’s access to J. in accordance with his wishes . J. has since DATE refused to see his parents more frequently than twice a year and has also stated that he does not wish to see his father alone .

In DATE the mother submitted a request to ORG for the termination of the care order . She sought in the alternative extended access rights with respect to J. Also the father made an application for a right of access .

The ORG requested an investigation by the social services , which submitted a report on DATE . The applicants have not provided the ORG with a copy , but contents of the report are summarised in the judgment of DATE referred to below , according to which the following was stated . ORG ( Stadsdelsnämnden ) was striving to increase the first applicant ’s access to J. and this would take place as soon as J. showed a sign of willingness to do so . He had however expressed that he did not wish to meet his mother more frequently or his father together with his mother and that he still refused to accompany his mother to her home . He was functioning well at school though he pursued consultations with a school psychologist . He needed calm and stability . ORG had regular contact with the first applicant concerning the children ’s situation and access . Her social situation remained on the whole unchanged .

On DATE ORG decided not to terminate the care and rejected the ORG request for extended access .

The first and the second applicant appealed against ORG decision to ORG ( länsrätten ) . The latter held an oral hearing , at which the first and second applicants were represented by a lawyer and PERSON was represented by a public counsel .

In so far as concerned J. , the first and the second applicants requested the court to grant the latter , with immediate effect , access to J. every other DATE in his home , or such other location as agreed by the first and second applicants , for instance in her home , so that the whole family could meet . The access should take place without any supervision by the social authorities or the foster parents .

The representative of ORG recalled an incident at a certain clinic in DATE when chaos had prevailed and the first applicant had struck the children . Sometime thereafter , PERSON wished to reduce the access from a normal level to twice a year , which has turned out to be satisfactory from his point of view . He did not wish to meet his father in the mother ’s absence .

The public counsel , representing ORG , submitted that it would not be reasonable to force J. to increase the access . He had openly stated that meeting his parents twice a year was enough and that he did not wish to meet them beyond that .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld ORG decision . It held inter alia :

“ ORG finds that ORG decision of DATE is lawful . ...

On DATE , when ORG reviewed the preparations for taking into public care under LAW , it found that the [ first applicant ] had such physical and psychological deficiencies that she could not provide her children with the norms and rules they needed for their social development . She was further unable to provide them with the necessary stimulation . Since the children ’s birth she has received intensive support from all levels but , despite this , her children appeared disturbed . From the children ’s birth , respectively in DATE and DATE , until theirs being taken into care in DATE , [ the first applicant ] had received extensive support as follows . After giving birth , she lived in a special home and when she later got her own home she received support in the form of contact with social welfare officers , childcare personnel , home assistance and a psychologist . For a while she even had a home therapist . Despite all of this , she did not manage to take care of her children herself . In view of this ORG found that there were such deficiencies in the children ’s care that it constituted a danger to their health and development .

According to what has emerged in the present case , it does not appear that [ the first applicant ’s ] ability to fulfil the children ’s needs has improved . It is true that the children have become older but PERSON has been disturbed in his development and has a strong need for care , including [ special education ] . Beyond that he needs continuous care of not only practical but also psychological nature , as well as a foreseeable home environment , in order for his needs to be fulfilled . His foster home offers this kind of environment ... J. is talented and is doing well at school . Nothing has come to light which suggests that he has any problems in his relations with his fellows . Since early childhood his personality carries a deep emotional disturbance , which may at times be expressed through aggressive and violent behaviour and a need for a structured environment . He has a need for a continued contact with a psychologist even after enjoying a stable home environment where his strengths and weaknesses can be met with understanding and cautious guidance . His foster home provided such a home environment . ...

As regards the question of access , this has been the subject of review on previous occasions . The competent courts had then held that closer contacts than what had been decided would prejudice the PERSON need for security and continuity in the care arrangements . As regards ORG , having regard to his fragile character and his need for structure and norms , finds his access to his mother adequate . As regards J , it finds that it is most desirable that he meets his parents more often but his own views on the matter should be respected . The access should therefore not go beyond what has been decided by ORG . On the other hand , attempts should be made to make him change his attitude in the long run . In the view of ORG it would be positive were PERSON and PERSON to meet more frequently , which could be a ground for the family to meet more often . A contact person should still be present during meetings , but in the long run , as the boys get older , ORG should try without such presence .

In its review ORG shall apply LAW . It does not find that the limitations on the right to respect for private and family life decided in the present case under LAW go beyond what can be regarded as a justified interference under LAW .

The ORG has further had regard to the DATE LAW on the Rights of the Child . It finds that ORG and ORG rights under LAW have been fully respected in the measures adopted by the social authroties . ”

Both the first and the second applicants appealed against the judgment to ORG ( kammarrätten ) of GPE . Before the latter court the second applicant also requested termination of the care order . In DATE ORG dismissed this request on the ground that he , who was not the child ’s custodian , had no locus standi of his own in that issue . For the remainder , it upheld the lower court ’s rejection . It stated inter alia :

“ Under LAW of LAW , a public care measure under section CARDINAL shall be lifted when the measure is no longer necessary or at the latest when the young person concerned has reached DATE . It is thus the young person ’s need for care which is decisive for whether the public care shall continue . A public care order may be lifted if the conditions at the [ biological parent ’s ] home are such that care outside the home is no longer justified or that the custody holder is able to provide for the special needs of the young person concerned . It must therefore be established that the conditions in the home , which grounded the taking into public care , have ceased to exist and the current situation is satisfactory . As pointed out by ORG , it must therefore be ascertained that there has been a continuing and stable improvement in the home conditions .

[ The first applicant ] lacks on the whole insight into the defects that in DATE led to the taking into public care of her sons PERSON and J. It does not emerge that there have been any decisive changes in the situation and this has not even been claimed . The fact that the children have become older is not of decisive importance , in particular as the children have different needs that must be provided for . The public care under the DATE Act shall therefore continue .

Under section CARDINAL of the Act , a young person ’s needs for contact with his parents and other person who has custody of him shall be accommodated as far as possible . If it is necessary in order to achieve the purposes of the public care , ORG may decide how access should be exercised . [ The second applicant ] is not the holder of custody with respect to J. and does not have a right of access according to a judgment or a contract . However , [ the first applicant ] , who is a custody holder , agrees that the he has the access that he claims . ORG decision and ORG judgment recognise that both of them have a right of access . There is no ground for quashing that decision in so far as concerns access .

In view of the children ’s reactions during and after access with [ the first applicant ] it must be assumed that the access which now takes place corresponds , both as to time and form , to the children ’s present needs for contact . [ The first and second applicants’ ] claim for increase access is therefore rejected . ”

Leave to appeal was refused by ORG ( regeringsrätten ) on DATE .

The decisions disputed in the present case were taken under LAW containing Special Provisions on ORG DATE ( lagen CARDINAL:CARDINAL med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga – “ the DATE LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provides :

“ ORG is responsible for accommodating as far as possible the young person ’s needs of contact with his parents or other person who has custody of him .

If it is necessary in order to achieve the purposes of care measures taken under LAW , ORG may

decide how the right of access to the young person shall be exercised by a parent or other person who has custody of him , or

decide that the young person ’s place of residence may not be disclosed to the parent or custodian .

The ORG shall reconsider at least once DATE whether such decision as referred to in the second paragraph continues to be needed . ”

According to section CARDINAL of LAW an appeal may be lodged with ORG against a decision of ORG with respect to access . ORG may review a decision by ORG in so far as its subject - matter is covered by section CARDINAL of LAW ( or LAW of LAW ; see ORG , PERSON DATE , DATE ) .

The custody of children is regulated in the Children and Parents Code ( ORG , ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL -“the Code ” ) . In so far as is relevant to the present case , LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW states that if CARDINAL parent has custody of the child and both parents wish to share the custody , the court shall , upon the GPE request , decide in accordance with their wishes provided that joint custody is not evidently incompatible ( uppenbart oförenligt ) with the best interest of the child .

A court may decide to grant joint custody even if the parents do not live together and do not intend to live together . However , the court may refuse to grant joint custody if it finds that one , or both , of the parents lack the ability to care for the child properly .

Under LAW , if a parent , who is the sole holder of custody of the child , abuses , neglects or otherwise fails to care properly for the child in a manner which risks causing permanent damage to the child ’s health and development , the court shall decide to transfer the custody to the other parent or , if more suitable , to CARDINAL specially appointed custodians . Changes under this provision are reviewed upon the request by ORG or when a parent without custody has lodged a request for custody with the court .


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

The applicant alleges that his grandfather was a victim of political repression in DATE , when he had to flee to GPE to save himself from persecution . He submits that his parents remained living in the house but were evicted in DATE without any reason .

On DATE a local court found that the applicant 's grandfather was in all probability killed during a bombing of GPE in DATE and declared him missing . The court also prolonged the term for accepting the inheritance of the applicant 's grandfather 's house in favour of the applicant 's father .

In DATE the family house and the land around it were declared “ property without an owner ” and thus State property .

On DATE the applicant 's father obtained a judgment of the local court confirming that the applicant 's grandfather had been subjected to political repression and that his house and land were nationalised .

In DATE the applicant 's father requested the return of the house and land which were by then owned by a third party . On DATE ORG found in his favour and awarded him the house and the land claimed .

In DATE the Prosecutor General filed a request for annulment of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE asking the court to reject the claim that the applicant 's father had been subjected to political repression . On DATE ORG upheld ORG request for annulment and quashed the DATE judgment . It ordered a full re - hearing of the case .

On DATE the applicant 's father died . The applicant continued the proceedings .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant the house and land . On DATE the ORG upheld that judgment in regard to the house but not in regard to the land .

On DATE , ORG set aside that judgment and rejected the applicant 's claim because the crucial factual circumstance of repression against his father had not been proven . That judgment was final .

The ORG refers to its description of the relevant domestic law and practice in its decision of even date herewith in the case of PERSON GPE ( Application no . CARDINAL ) .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE Mr Z. , the applicant 's business partner , was killed .

In DATE Mr Zh . and CARDINAL other persons were charged as an organised group with numerous counts of robbery and murder , including the murder of Mr PERSON and the planning of the murder of PERSON , PERSON girlfriend .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . He was charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Mr Z. and the planning of the murder of Ms A. The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial . His case was joined to the case of Mr Zh . and the others . The applicant 's numerous requests to disjoin the cases were rejected both by the prosecutor and the court .

On DATE the preliminary investigation was completed and the case file was transferred to ORG for consideration .

On DATE ORG scheduled the trial for DATE .

The trial lasted from DATE until DATE . The court held CARDINAL hearings . On CARDINAL occasions the court adjourned the proceedings on account of the illness of some of the defendants , a quarantine in place in their detention facilities or their lawyers ' failure to appear . The proceedings were interrupted twice on account of a security threat in the courthouse . On CARDINAL occasions the proceedings were adjourned on account of clashes in the judge 's schedule , his illness or the authorities ' failure to transport the defendants to the court house .

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

From DATE until DATE the defendants studied CARDINAL volumes of TIME of the court hearings .

On DATE ORG of GPE heard the case on appeal . The court upheld the applicant 's conviction in substance and reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in GPE remand prison . He was held in a cell measuring QUANTITY m and had to share it with CARDINAL or CARDINAL other inmates . There was no hot water or shower facility in the cell . A partition separating the toilet from the living area of the cell was installed only in DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL where he was detained until DATE .

According to the applicant , the cell where he was detained measured QUANTITY and was equipped with CARDINAL bunk beds . The minimum number of inmates detained with the applicant at any CARDINAL time was CARDINAL . In DATE the cell housed DATE inmates ; that number had increased to CARDINAL by DATE . The inmates took turns to sleep due to the lack of beds . By DATE CARDINAL inmates were kept in the cell . The cell did not have any ventilation . It was stiflingly hot in DATE and very cold in DATE . Most of the inmates smoked and the applicant , a non - smoker , was exposed the tobacco smoke of others . The cell was infested with cockroaches and lice . Disinfection of the cell was performed once DATE and was to no avail . The television and the light were constantly on . Window panes were installed only in DATE . The toilet was elevated from the floor by QUANTITY . It was separated from the living area of the cell by a partition measuring QUANTITY in height . The person using the toilet could be seen by both the inmates and the guards watching the inmates through the peep - hole in the door . The dinner table was QUANTITY away from the toilet . On several occasions HIV - infected inmates were placed in the cell . The applicant was allowed to take a CARDINAL-minute shower once a week . On CARDINAL occasion DATE and DATE the applicant did not have the opportunity to take a shower for DATE . He was allowed to be outside for TIME . The meals were of poor quality .

According to the Government , at all times the applicant was afforded CARDINAL sq . m of living space . In particular , the Government provided the following data concerning the cell measurements :

Each cell had a window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . The windows were equipped with vents which could be kept open to let additional fresh air in . The ventilation system functioned properly . Upon arrival at the remand prison , the applicant was provided with CARDINAL bed sheets , a mattress , a blanket , a pillow , a pillow case , a towel , and cutlery . Each cell had a water heater and a potable water tank . The remand prison was equipped with a central water supply , sewage system , ventilation and lighting . In DATE the lighting was on from TIME . At TIME lower - voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting for surveillance and safety reasons . The inmates were allowed to watch TV DATE . The use of the TV during the TIME - time was prohibited . The average temperature in the cells did not fall below + CARDINALC during DATE and did not exceed + CARDINAL during DATE . Window panes were installed for DATE and DATE .

Each cell had a toilet , a sink , a table and benches . The toilet was separated from the living area of the cell by a QUANTITY - high partition and a screen to ensure the privacy of the person using the toilet . The applicant could take a shower once DATE for TIME .

During the time of the trial , that is from DATE to DATE , on DATE of the court hearings the applicant was held in custody at the courthouse .

The cells at the courthouse measured QUANTITY . m. Each time the applicant had to share the cell with CARDINAL other persons . The ventilation system did not function properly and the cells were very hot in the summer . The applicant was not provided with food at all .

At the courthouse the applicant was detained in a cell measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . There was a bench in the cell . The cell was equipped with ventilation , lighting , and central heating . The metal door had a peephole . The average temperature in the cell was DATE The applicant was allowed to use the bathroom upon arrival and before departure or before the start of the court hearing , if necessary . He was provided with food and hot water .

According to the applicant , numerous newspapers and television channels covered his arrest and the circumstances of PERSON 's murder before the trial was over .

A documentary made by Mr NORP about the case was shown CARDINAL times by CARDINAL of the nationwide TV channels . The film featured footage of the applicant and PERSON aboard a sea cruiser .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office dismissed the applicant 's request for criminal proceedings to be instituted against Mr D.


Violation of Art. 6-1 on account of the quashing of the judgment;Violation of P1-1 in respect of the same fact;Not necessary to examine the complaint about the length of the civil proceedings;Not necessary to examine the complaint about the alleged lack of domestic remedies in respect of the length complaint

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant took out insurance for his DATE cottage . In DATE the cottage burnt down . The insurer , a private company ( hereinafter referred as “ the company ” ) , paid only a part of the amount claimed by the applicant . The applicant brought an action against the company claiming the rest . On DATE ORG ordered the company to pay the applicant MONEY ( RUR ) .

On DATE , upon the applicant 's request , ORG ordered the seizure of the company 's account in a private bank “ LOC . As follows from the extract of that account , provided by the “ PERSON ” , on DATE the company had ORG CARDINAL on it . There is no indication , however , that the money on that account has ever been seized .

The judgment of ORG was upheld by ORG on DATE . Following that , ORG issued an execution order against the company . On DATE the execution order was sent to the bailiff .

On DATE a bailiff initiated the enforcement proceedings . On DATE the bailiff requested from ORG information about the accounts and assets of the company . ORG informed the bailiff that by DATE the company had declared RUR CARDINAL in cash and ORG on accounts in CARDINAL private banks . According to ORG , in DATE fiscal report the company had also declared RUR CARDINAL in capital assets , RUR CARDINAL in intangible assets , and RUR CARDINAL in receivable accounts .

On DATE the bailiff visited the headquarters of the company indicated in the company 's official documents , but no property belonging to the company was found at that address . On DATE the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the defendant had no assets to seize .

DATE the applicant brought an action against the bailiff . He claimed that the bailiff had failed to take appropriate steps to find and seize the company 's property . On DATE ORG ruled in the applicant 's favour . The court found , in particular , that the bailiff had failed to withdraw the debt from the defendant 's account in “ LOC . The court also found that the bailiff had breached a number of procedural rules , in particular , as it had not informed the applicant about the initiation of the enforcement proceedings . The court ordered the enforcement of the judgment in the applicant 's favour .

A new bailiff was appointed to deal with the applicant 's case . However , he found no money on CARDINAL of the defendant 's accounts , including the CARDINAL in “ LOC ” . On DATE the enforcement proceedings were discontinued .

The applicant challenged the discontinuation of the proceedings in court . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the bailiff 's decision and ordered the re - opening of the enforcement proceedings . The court found , in particular , that the bailiff had failed to establish the real whereabouts of the company and its property . On DATE ORG dismissed ORG appeal against that decision .

On DATE the bailiff again discontinued the enforcement proceedings in view of the absence of assets belonging to the defendant . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE the applicant brought an action for damages against ORG , which is responsible for ORG . On DATE the GPE ORG recognised the liability of ORG for the non - execution of the judgment of DATE as upheld on DATE . The court granted the applicant damages in the amount of RUR CARDINAL , i.e. the sum which he had initially claimed from the company . This judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE . It was transmitted to the bailiffs for enforcement .

On DATE ORG lodged with ORG an extraordinary appeal against the judgment of DATE . The ORG also suspended the enforcement proceedings . On DATE the Presidium of ORG dismissed the appeal , upholding the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with ORG of GPE a new extraordinary appeal against the judgment of DATE . He alleged , inter alia , that the GPE ORG should have imposed responsibility for the alleged non - execution on the ORG , not ORG .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted the prosecutor 's appeal and quashed the judgment of DATE , primarily on the ground that the first instance court had not established a causal link between the alleged negligence of the bailiffs and the damages allegedly incurred by the applicant . The case was remitted to the GPE ORG for a fresh examination .

The applicant indicated that following the quashing of the judgment of DATE by ORG the hearings were repeatedly adjourned , mainly due to the defendant 's failure to appear before the court .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's claim . The court found no liability of ORG for the non - execution of the judgment . On DATE ORG , acting as a court of appeal , quashed the judgment of DATE , remitting the case to ORG .

On DATE the Presnenskiy District Court again refused the applicant 's claim . It stated that the applicant was not deprived of his property as a result of the actions of ORG . Although the court acknowledged that ORG actions prevented the applicant from recovering his money , it declared that the actions of ORG “ only hindered compensation for damage ” , but “ did not cause damage ” .

The applicant appealed against the judgment . On DATE the ORG rejected the appeal as the applicant had not paid court fees . The applicant appealed against the decision , claiming that he was exempted from paying the fees . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . However , on DATE the ORG of ORG overruled that decision , stating that the applicant should have been exempted from paying the fees .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant 's appeal . It upheld the judgment of LOC of DATE . ORG reiterated that as a result of the bailiff 's actions the applicant had not been deprived of his possession and the bailiff 's actions were only a hindrance to a full compensation for damages caused by the insurance company .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides that any acts or failure to act by ORG authorities may be appealed against to a court . Pursuant to the PERSON “ On enforcement proceedings ” of DATE , any decision of the bailiff can be challenged in court within DATE from the moment when the concerned person learned about this decision ( LAW ) . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this law stipulate that the damage caused by the bailiffs should be compensated under general rules of civil responsibility .

For relevant details concerning the supervisory review proceedings see the ORG v. GPE judgment ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , § § CARDINAL ) .