Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant , PERSON Finozhenok , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant ’s mother , PERSON , born in DATE , and brother , Mr PERSON GPE , born in DATE , lived in GPE , GPE .

In DATE ORG launched a counter - terrorist operation in GPE . The applicant lost contact with her relatives after DATE .

It appears that in DATE the applicant , who tried to obtain information about her relatives through the local police department , was informed by ORG that her relatives had died in ORG in DATE .

In DATE the head of the Oktyabrskiy district administration of ORG informed the applicant that her relatives had been killed on CARDINAL DATE as a result of a missile strike . The applicant was informed that the bodies of her relatives and of the third man who had died as a result of the same strike were buried in ORG in DATE by the relatives of that man .

In DATE a hospital in ORG issued death certificates in respect of PERSON and PERSON and indicated that the deaths had occurred on DATE as the result of a missile attack .

In DATE the applicant wrote to the prosecutor ’s office and informed them about her relatives’ deaths . She sought the prosecutor ’s assistance in obtaining the death certificates from ORG . It appears that in DATE ORG informed the applicant that they would examine her complaint about her relatives’ deaths and notify her of the results . They also sent her copies of the death certificates obtained in the hospital in PERSON ( see above ) .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that ORG had been instructed to establish the circumstances of her relatives’ deaths .

On DATE the ORG , having conducted a check , decided not to open a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s relatives’ deaths . The investigator collected several statements and found it established that the house at CARDINAL FAC had burned down in DATE and that there had been no eyewitnesses to the deaths . He concluded that no crime had been committed . The information was sent to ORG office in DATE ; it is unclear whether the applicant was notified at that time .

It does not appear that after that date the applicant sought or received any information concerning the investigation from the prosecutor ’s office .

In DATE the applicant wrote to ORG and sought their assistance in obtaining death certificates from the civil register office .

On DATE the district court in the GPE region certified the applicant ’s relatives’ deaths . The court took into account the medical death certificates issued in DATE , the applicant ’s statements and other evidence . On DATE the district civil register office in the GPE region issued death certificates in relation of the applicant ’s mother and brother .

On DATE the Deputy Head of ORG wrote to the Head of ORG and to the applicant . According to him , a check had confirmed the applicant ’s relatives’ deaths on DATE during a missile strike .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application with LOC , GPE to restore the time - limit for her to receive her inheritance . On CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the request . It held that the applicant was the sole heir of her mother and brother and extended the time - limit for her to receive her inheritance for DATE . It does not appear that the applicant has ever formally accepted the inheritance through the notary .

In DATE she wrote to ORG and asked whether the house situated at CARDINAL FAC had been included in the list of dwellings which had become uninhabitable as a result of the military campaign . It is unclear if she received any response .

The applicant then claimed compensation for the destroyed flat and other belongings under Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see below ) . Within the same proceedings the applicant also claimed non - pecuniary damages for the suffering caused by her relatives’ deaths from ORG .

On DATE the ORG of GPE issued its judgment . The court held that the compensation constituted a personal entitlement payable to the residents of GPE who had lost their houses and other property , but not to their heirs . In any event , the applicant had not applied to the Commission set up to consider compensation claims . The court further observed that the right to sue for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage inflicted to life or health was not heritable . The court reiterated that the applicant ’s claim for non - pecuniary damages could not be directed against the Government , in the absence of a proven causal link between the actions of the Government and the damage claimed . It dismissed the applicant ’s claims . It stressed that she was still able to bring a tort action against the State . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

In DATE the applicant attempted to sue ORG for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages caused by the actions of ORG agents . On DATE ORG , as the final level of jurisdiction , refused to accept the claim , for lack of territorial jurisdiction . On DATE ORG in GPE refused to consider a similar claim , for lack of substantiating documents and failure to pay a reduced court fee of MONEY ( RUB ) . The applicant did not appeal .

The ORG submitted CARDINAL pages from the criminal investigation file opened into the deaths of PERSON and PERSON . These documents can be summarised as follows .

Following the communication of the applicant ’s complaint to the Government , on DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE not to open a criminal investigation . On DATE ORG of ORG decided to open a criminal investigation into the applicants’ relatives’ deaths . The applicant was informed DATE .

In DATE the applicant was questioned and granted victim status in the proceedings .

The investigators identified and questioned several neighbours and other witnesses , including the relatives of the third person who had died on DATE , together with the applicants’ relatives . They also examined the site of the house and found some metal objects there , which were identified by an expert report as parts of a mine . They sought information from various military and other agencies about the location and actions of military units in DATE , but it does not appear that anything of relevance was obtained . On DATE the investigation was adjourned for failure to identify the culprits ; the applicant was informed on DATE but did not appeal against that decision . It appears that on CARDINAL DATE the investigation was reopened , of which the applicant was informed .

LAW provides as following :

“ LAW . Judicial examination of complaints

Decisions of an investigator or prosecutor concerning their refusal to initiate a criminal investigation ... or any other decisions and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede ORG access to justice , may be appealed against to a district court , which is empowered to examine the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions ....

The court examines the lawfulness and the grounds for the impugned decisions or acts ... within DATE from the receipt of the complaint ...

As a result of the examination of the complaint the court delivers CARDINAL of the following decisions :

CARDINAL ) Declaring the decisions , acts or omissions of the official unlawful or unsubstantiated and obliging the official to eliminate the defects ;

CARDINAL ) Not allowing the applicant ’s complaint ... ”

The Government decree no . CARDINAL of DATE on payment of compensation for lost housing and possessions to citizens affected as a result of the resolution of a crisis in GPE and residing permanently in the region ( as in force at the relevant time ) , provided that persons who lived permanently in GPE had the right to compensation for lost housing and property . It established a Commission which was entitled to consider such claims .


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

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a town in LOC . She is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG are represented by PERSON and then by PERSON , ORG at ORG .

As a child , the applicant was imprisoned by the NORP . In DATE she hoped to receive compensation from ORG , a charity set up by the NORP and ORG .

The ORG refused compensation , and the applicant brought an action against it . On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the ORG to :

“ [ M]ake payments to [ the applicant ] in accordance with the Government ’s Decree No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE “ On the adoption of the Rules on the conditions and procedure of the payment of compensation to victims of the NORP ” . ”

On DATE the judgment became binding , but was not immediately enforced because at that time the ORG lacked funds .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that it was going to pay her the equivalent MONEY converted into MONEY , and asked the applicant for her bank details . The applicant contested this offer , alleging that the amount was too small , and that currency conversion would make it even smaller .

The applicant applied for a clarification of the judgment , but on DATE ORG rejected this request having found that the judgment was worded clearly . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

ORG operates on the basis of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE . According to section CARDINAL of this Order , the amount of compensation is determined by the ORG ’s Experts’ ORG . The ORG ’s decision may be appealed against to the ORG ’s ORG , whose decision shall be final .


Preliminary objection dismissed (victim);Violation of Art. 6-1;Non pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant , a NORP national , was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , GPE .

In DATE the applicant was seriously injured due to the fault of his teacher . As a result , he became an invalid .

On DATE the ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) ordered ORG ( the “ College ” ) , to pay the applicant a lump sum of ORG ORG and a DATE payment of ORG MONEY in compensation . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of the first - instance court . The judgment became final and was enforced in full on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal lodged against the above decisions under the new cassation procedure . On DATE the panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG rejected the request of ORG of the case in the light of newly discovered circumstances .

On DATE ORG ordered the College to pay the applicant a lump sum of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and a DATE payment of ORG in compensation .

On DATE the ORG of Kharkiv instituted enforcement proceedings .

In DATE ORG informed the applicant that the judgment could not be enforced due to the lack of State budgetary allocations in respect of the ORG 's expenditure .

On DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the debtor lacked funds .

NORP In DATE the applicant received a total of ORG CARDINAL in payment of the allowance for DATE .

On DATE the judgment was enforced in full .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant ORG against the ORG in compensation .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of the first instance court . The enforcement proceedings commenced in DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the judgment was enforced in full .

In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the same court against the ORG , seeking compensation for his medical , hygienic , and food expenses , and for loss of income . On DATE the court endorsed the friendly settlement agreement between the applicant and the ORG , according to which the latter was to pay the applicant a lump sum of ORG CARDINAL and a DATE payment of ORG CARDINAL in compensation .

In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) against ORG for failure to enforce the judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the court rejected the applicant 's complaint , finding no fault on the part of ORG . It held that the judgment could not be enforced due to the lack of State budgetary allocations in respect of the ORG 's expenditure , for which ORG was not responsible .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG found against the applicant on grounds similar to those on which it based its decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

The applicant 's appeal in cassation is still pending before ORG .

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


Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Unterasinger , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .

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

On DATE ORG filed an indictment against the applicant , accusing him of aiding and abetting embezzlement ( PERSON ) . ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objections against the indictment on CARDINAL DATE .

The trial was scheduled by ORG ( PERSON ) from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . As he had suffered a heart attack DATE , the applicant was unable to attend the trial on DATE .

Following CARDINAL expert opinions obtained on DATE and CARDINAL DATE attesting that he was temporarily unfit to stand trial , ORG decided to stay the proceedings against the applicant .

As further expert opinions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE showed that the applicant would be able to attend the trial under certain conditions , ORG scheduled hearings for DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Referring to his state of health , the applicant refused to attend these hearings .

On DATE ORG ordered that the trial be held at GPE , where the applicant resided , on DATE and DATE . On DATE the applicant asked ORG to postpone the hearing because of his poor state of health . ORG granted the request for the further postponement , having examined the applicant ’s state of health .

CARDINAL further expert opinions of DATE and DATE attested that the applicant had a limited ability to attend the trial , whereas a later opinions dated DATE raised concerns regarding the applicant ’s attendance at a lengthy trial .

On DATE ORG again decided to stay the proceedings .

CARDINAL expert reports obtained on DATE and DATE stated that the applicant ’s state of health had worsened and that , as it was unlikely to improve in the near future , he should not be exposed to major stress .

On DATE and on DATE the applicant submitted to ORG , upon its request , certificates by CARDINAL specialist doctors treating him showing that he was still unfit to stand trial .

On DATE the applicant requested that the criminal proceedings be terminated ( Einstellung des ORG ) because he considered that it was against the Convention to continue the proceedings in circumstances like his .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request on DATE . It held that since the indictment was issued the grounds for suspicion had not changed or been dissipated and that the applicant ’s state of health alone did not constitute a reason to terminate the criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s subsequent appeal against that decision . It found that it was only possible to terminate the proceedings against the applicant upon a request by ORG .

Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG again decided to stay the proceedings . An appeal against this decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The proceedings are still pending .

It appears further that , in separate proceedings , on DATE ORG convicted the applicant of fraud ( PERSON ) , on DATE the ORG convicted him of having caused negligent bodily harm ( fahrlässige PERSON ) and on DATE the ORG convicted him of theft ( PERSON ) .


CASE OF OTYCHENKO AND FEDISHCHENKO v. UKRAINE

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Stanislav Shevchuk;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

At the material time she worked at ORG “ LOC ” ( Управління житлово-комунального господарства « Котельниково GPE ) , a municipal enterprise set up and owned by local village council . The labour contract with the applicant was signed by that village council . Subsequently she resigned .

On DATE the ORG of GPE awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) in salary arrears and other payments due to her by her former employer .

This judgment became final and on DATE ORG instituted proceedings to enforce it . According to the Government , in the course of these proceedings the total amount of ORG DATE was paid to the applicant . The applicant , in her turn , contested that she had ever been paid any sum under the judgment .

In DATE the applicant instituted another set of proceedings against her former employer seeking additional compensation for salary arrears . On DATE the court dismissed her claim . The applicant did not appeal against this judgment .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated for lack of funds of the debtor enterprise . The applicant did not challenge this decision before the domestic courts ; nor had she reintroduced her writ of enforcement with ORG .

On DATE ORG of GPE initiated liquidation proceedings against the debtor enterprise . These proceedings were terminated on DATE and the enterprise was removed from the relevant enterprises’ register . The applicant did not raise her creditor claims within these proceedings .

The judgment of DATE remains unenforced .

NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , the GPE region , GPE .

On DATE and DATE ORG awarded the applicant ORG DATE and ORG CARDINAL , respectively , in salary arrears due to her by her former employer , ORG ( Комунальне підприємство водопровідно-каналізаційного господарства в м. П’ятихатки ) set up , owned and managed by local town council .

These judgments became final and on DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG instituted proceedings to enforce them .

The applicant complained to various ORG authorities about lengthy non - enforcement of the judgments in her favour but to no avail .

On CARDINAL DATE the awarded amounts were paid to the applicant .

The general provisions of domestic legislation on enforcement of judicial decisions are set out in the judgment of CARDINAL July CARDINAL in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL ) .

The provisions of LAW of DATE ( repealed on DATE ) and LAW of DATE ( in force since DATE ) on owner ’s liability for the obligations of its legal entity are set out in the case of GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and foll . , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALXII ) .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings)

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant left GPE for GPE looking for employment . On DATE he arrived in the city of GPE , GPE .

On DATE the NORP security service charged the applicant with attempting to overthrow the constitutional order , belonging to a religious group ( ORG ) and dissemination of subversive materials .

On DATE , an NORP judge issued an arrest warrant against the applicant . His name was put on a wanted list .

On DATE the NORP police arrested the applicant , who had gone to the LOC of the migration authority in order to apply for a temporary residence permit . The police relied on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ the CCrP ” ) concerning the arrest of suspects . According to ORG , the presence of the applicant ’s name on the wanted list justified his arrest ( LAW ) .

On DATE , the NORP authorities confirmed to the NORP authorities that the applicant ’s name was still on the wanted list .

A deputy town prosecutor applied to ORG of Kazan seeking the applicant ’s detention with a view to extradition . On DATE ORG confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant ’s arrest and authorised his detention until DATE in anticipation of an eventual extradition request . The court referred to Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CCrP. The court noted that the applicant was a foreign national and had no permanent place of residence in GPE ; a foreign court had issued an arrest warrant against him and his name had been put on a wanted list ; he had fled justice in GPE ; and thus there was a risk that he would flee again or continue his criminal activity .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG for asylum .

On DATE ORG sent a formal extradition request to ORG .

On DATE ORG examined a prosecutor ’s request and extended the term of the applicant ’s detention until DATE , with reference to LAW

NORP Before the expiry of the previous detention order , for unspecified reasons on CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a new detention order , extending the applicant ’s detention until DATE , with reference to LAW

The applicant considered that it was impracticable in such circumstances to appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG authorised the applicant ’s extradition .

The applicant was notified of this decision on CARDINAL DATE . He brought judicial review proceedings against the extradition order , claiming that as his asylum proceedings were pending , the enforcement of the extradition order was suspended . He also asserted that if extradited he would run a serious risk of torture or inhuman treatment .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that his asylum request had been dismissed . He appealed to a higher migration authority .

On DATE ORG of GPE held a hearing on the applicant ’s appeal against the extradition order . The applicant ’s counsel pleaded that in the event of his extradition the applicant would be subjected to torture , like many other individuals charged in relation to religious or extremist activities . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the case , considering that the allegations of ill - treatment had been based on mere assumptions and that the applicant had applied for asylum only when criminal proceedings against him had already been pending in GPE .

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG . It appears that on an unspecified date it quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered the re - examination of the extradition case .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It is stated in the detention order that “ if the defendant decides to lodge an appeal , he has the right to ask , within DATE of receipt of the detention order , for his personal participation in the appeal hearing ” . On DATE the applicant also signed a note confirming receipt of a copy of the detention order and that he had been informed of his rights to “ participate in the appeal hearing and to have legal assistance ” .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged a statement of appeal , arguing that there was no evidence that the applicant would flee justice or reoffend ; that his application for refugee status was pending ; and that the prosecutor ’s extension request had been submitted to the district court DATE before the expiry of the previous detention order , in breach of LAW of the CCrP. The statement of appeal did not contain any request for the lawyer ’s and/or the applicant ’s participation in the appeal hearing .

On DATE the prosecutor made observations in reply , stating that the applicant ’s arguments had been unfounded and that the application for refugee status had been dismissed .

According to the ORG , the applicant and his counsel had been informed in advance of the date and time of the appeal hearing . On DATE ORG of PERSON heard a prosecutor and upheld the detention order . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer had been present at the appeal hearing .

On DATE the district court extended the applicant ’s detention to CARDINAL DATE .

Having re - examined the extradition case , on DATE ORG of GPE annulled the extradition order . With reference to the international reports and other material submitted by the applicant and ORG case - law on the matter , the court considered that there was a persistent practice of torture of detained suspects or convicts in GPE and that the applicant also faced a risk of such mistreatment . The court also noted that “ in a number of judgments ORG has held that the mere fact of detention in this country created a risk of ill - treatment ” .

The applicant was released on DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined the prosecutor ’s subsequent appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE . The appeal court noted that there had been a material difference between the criminal offences mentioned in the extradition request and the corresponding offences under LAW ; that the extradition order had been issued before the final decision had been taken on the applicant ’s refugee application ; and that there had been indications of a risk of ill - treatment in GPE , in particular in the absence of any relevant assurances on the part of the NORP authorities .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) provided at the time that the parties should be informed of the date , time and place of an appeal hearing and that the court had to decide whether the defendant ’s presence was necessary . A convicted defendant , who was in detention and who had asked for his personal participation in the appeal hearing , was to be allowed to do so by way of personal presence in the courtroom or by way of a video link . A party ’s failure to appear before the appeal court was not to halt the appeal proceedings .

ORG considered that LAW ORG should be read in conjunction with LAW , DATE and DATE of the ORG , thus requiring the provision of legal assistance in appeal proceedings , if requested by the defendant or in the circumstances provided by the law ( including in cases of mandatory legal assistance ) ( decision no . CARDINAL-O-П of DATE ) .

The Constitutional Court interpreted LAW as applicable to appeal proceedings concerning the issue of detention ( decision no . MONEY of DATE ; see also decision no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG of GPE of DATE ) .


Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

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

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

The first applicant , a singer in GPE , was taken into custody and allegedly subjected to ill - treatment on several occasions for being a female singer , which is forbidden in GPE on religious grounds . On CARDINAL of those occasions the second applicant , who is her husband , was involved in a fight with a police officer in GPE . The applicants fled GPE and entered GPE on DATE .

On arrival in GPE they applied for asylum before the national authorities and requested from the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ the ORG ” ) in GPE recognition as refugees . The second applicant was registered as a dependant of the first applicant . The national authorities granted the applicants permission to reside in LOC pending asylum proceedings .

On DATE the ORG rejected the first applicant ’s refugee claim .

On DATE the applicants participated in a protest in front of ORG in GPE against the NORP regime .

On DATE the national authorities notified the applicants that their asylum claims had been rejected and that they had DATE to object to this decision . The applicants filed their objection on DATE . They were subsequently permitted to reside in PERSON pending examination of their objection .

Sometime in DATE the second applicant requested permission to settle in PERSON . The applicant ’s request was granted and the couple were issued with temporary residence permits .

Following new developments in her case , the first applicant ’s file before the ORG was re - opened on DATE . The NORP authorities were informed of the situation on QUANTITY DATE and DATE .

On DATE a second deportation order was issued in respect of the applicants , which requested the applicants to leave GPE by DATE , at the end of the applicants’ children ’s school term . The applicants subsequently informed the NORP authorities of the reopening of their file before the ORG and twice requested a stay of the execution of the deportation order . According to the information in the case file the applicants’ residence permit was extended until DATE .

Having examined the first applicant ’s refugee claim after the re - opening of the file , the ORG rejected it again on DATE .

On DATE the second applicant informed the ORG that he went back to GPE in DATE to attend his father ’s funeral . He claimed that he was arrested at the NORP border and tortured in detention in GPE for DATE before he was released on bail . He had then fled back to GPE in DATE .

On DATE the President of the ORG to which the case was allocated decided to indicate to the Government , under LAW , that the applicants should not be deported to GPE until further notice .

On DATE the Government informed the applicants that execution of the deportation order in respect of the applicants had been stayed in compliance with the ORG ’s interim measure .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Mihai Poalelungi

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

The applicant was married to DATE and the couple had CARDINAL daughter , PERSON , who was born on DATE .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s and DATE ’s separation , he brought proceedings against DATE , seeking an injunction for interim contact rights with his daughter .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s action of CARDINAL DATE . It held that the applicant could see his daughter every DATE QUANTITY at her mother ’s house or elsewhere . O.M.M. appealed against the judgment .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG allowed an appeal by O.M.M. against the judgment of DATE and ordered a retrial .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , in a second set of proceedings , allowed the applicant ’s action of DATE . It held that the applicant could see his daughter every DATE QUANTITY , at her mother ’s house or elsewhere .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against O.M.M. , seeking an injunction for exceptional contact rights on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE between CARDINAL a.m. and TIME

By a final judgment of DATE the ORG allowed the applicant ’s action in part and acknowledged his right to visit his daughter exceptionally on DATE between TIME and TIME at DATE ’s home or elsewhere , on the ground that it was in the best interest of the child to preserve family ties with her father and her relatives .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought proceedings against DATE , seeking an injunction for exceptional contact rights on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE DATE and DATE QUANTITY

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s action in part and acknowledged his right to visit his daughter exceptionally on DATE and DATE between TIME and TIME , at DATE ’s home or elsewhere , on the ground that it was in the best interest of the child to preserve family ties with her father and her relatives .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought proceedings against DATE , seeking an injunction for exceptional contact rights for DATE .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG allowed the applicant ’s action for exceptional contact rights for the DATE Holiday . It held that given the tense relationship between the parents it would be in the best interest of the child and less stressful for her if she could meet her father away from her mother ’s home . Consequently , it allowed the applicant to take the child away from her mother ’s home for DATE , starting on DATE . O.M.M. appealed against the judgment .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed O.M.M. ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE . It held that the appeal was moot , as the injunction of DATE was enforced and her daughter was returned to her after DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought divorce and child custody proceedings against O.M.M.

By a judgment of DATE the ORG allowed the applicant ’s action for divorce , awarded sole custody of the child to O.M.M. , and ordered the applicant to pay DATE child support . By relying on witness statements and on ORG ( PERSON ) social investigation and recommendation the court held that the mother was the child ’s main caregiver . Consequently , it considered that the mother was able to ensure PERSON ’s emotional and physical development , and that her presence was still essential , given the young age of the child . The judgment was final , as neither the applicant nor O.M.M. appealed against it .

On DATE GPE attached to ORG ( ORG şi Protecţia Copilului – PERSON de Intervenţie pentru PERSON ) produced a psychosocial report in respect of PERSON According to the report ORG carried out an investigation into the case after they were informed by O.M.M. that the child ’s father had behaved inappropriately towards his daughter by bathing with her without wearing underwear , and had neglected the child when she was left alone with him . The report also stated that following a discussion with both parents they accused one another of inappropriate behaviour towards the child which negatively influenced the minor ’s behaviour . In addition O.M.M. also accused the applicant of being physically aggressive towards her in DATE . Consequently , both parents were invited , and agreed , to attend psychological counselling sessions at GPE for Abused Children . The child ’s father was informed on several occasions that his behaviour in bathing naked with his daughter could influence his relationship with her and could have unforeseen negative consequences . The report concluded that the child ’s situation needed to be monitored and that the parents needed to continue the psychological counselling sessions within the centre .

On DATE ORG attached to ORG produced a psychological evaluation report in respect of PERSON The report stated , inter alia , that the child was developing normally for her age . She felt closer to her mother and evaluated her in positive terms . She started being upset when she was asked about her father . The father was represented in a negative way because of the tense situation between the parents . None of the father ’s actions were received positively , and she did not wish her father to visit , because of the tense situation with her mother . She considered her father ’s visits to be a negative process . Her father was excluded from the description of her family , which in her opinion consisted of her mother and her maternal grandparents . She refused to discuss any potential sexual abuse by her father . The report concluded that the child was scarred by the tense situation between her parents , and that consequently she did not wish to receive visits from her father . Moreover , there was no clear evidence that she had been sexually abused by either of her parents .

On DATE ORG attached to ORG informed the Government , inter alia , that attempts were being made to mediate the relationship between the applicant and his former wife to help them protect the best interest of their child . In DATE the parents were asked to attend psychological counselling sessions . After CARDINAL meetings the applicant decided that the sessions were useless and discontinued attending them .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought injunction proceedings against DATE , seeking to establish a schedule for visiting rights . He requested the court to order O.M.M. to allow him to see his daughter on DATE , on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ; DATE for ORG and CARDINAL for DATE every DATE ; in DATE ; DATE between ORG , ORG and ORG ; and to allow him to leave the country with the child for DATE during the time they spent together and in DATE .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG allowed the applicant ’s action in part , seeking to establish a schedule for visiting rights . Relying on the statements of the parties’ witnesses and on the report produced by ORG attached to ORG , the court held that the father could visit the child and spend TIME with her in the mother ’s absence . The absence of her mother would avoid any stressful situation for the child caused by the tension between the parents . Also the contact with her father would be welcomed by and beneficial for the child as long as GPE needed the attention of both parents for her balanced emotional and physical development , which could not be achieved in the presence of both parents . According to the social investigation carried out at the applicant ’s home , his living conditions were appropriate . The fact that the supplement to the social investigation , which the court did not order , mentioned that the rooms of his home looked unwelcoming , without providing details on why they would be unfit to host a child , could not be considered a well - grounded reason for refusing the applicant contact with his daughter . Moreover , DATE ’s arguments that the applicant was not capable of taking care of the child were rebutted by the available witness statements .

In respect of the applicant ’s request to be allowed to occasionally take the child out of the country the district court held that regardless of the parent ’s position , the minor had a legal right to meet her relatives , including the paternal ones . The paternal relatives met the child and had her wellbeing at heart . In PERSON ’s case , she enjoyed ties with both NORP and NORP cultures , and she could not be denied the right to maintain those direct contacts with the CARDINAL countries . In addition , no evidence supported O.M.M. ’s argument that the applicant would fail to return the child to GPE . The child had been left alone with the applicant before and he had always returned her to her mother . Moreover , the witnesses stated that whenever O.M.M. did not agree to leave the child alone with him he did not insist on DATE doing so . Also , she never expressed concern that the applicant would fail to return the child to her . The applicant ’s failure to indicate the dates for travelling abroad and for returning to GPE by providing plane tickets could not be considered arguments for the dismissal of his request , as it was the court ’s task to set those dates . Also , the applicant had provided the names and addresses of all his relatives , where he would like to take the child . Consequently , after it had been established that the schedule suggested by the applicant was not in the minor ’s best interest , the court set a contact rights programme for the applicant and allowed him to take the child away from DATE ’s home , even in her absence and without her consent : on DATE , on DATE and CARDINAL August ; DATE on DATE , a week at ORG and DATE . In addition , the court allowed the applicant to take the child out of GPE , even without DATE ’s consent , DATE at LOC and for DATE and yearly between CARDINAL and DATE . The parties appealed against the judgment . O.M.M. asked the court , inter alia , to order a psychological evaluation of the child , but the applicant contested DATE ’s request .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed O.M.M. ’s request for a psychological evaluation of the child , on the ground that it would be inconclusive for the case , and allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part . It also allowed the applicant to take the child away from DATE ’s home DATE on DATE , even in her absence , and upheld the judgment of DATE . The judgment became final on DATE , as the parties’ appeal on points of law ( recurs ) was dismissed by ORG .

On an unspecified date in DATE , following DATE ’s and his daughter ’s move to GPE on an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant brought proceedings against DATE , seeking a new contact schedule and an injunction for his daughter to be brought to his home at DATE ’s expense under the penalty of CARDINAL new NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in DATE compensation for any delay on the following dates : every second DATE ; DATE on DATE , at ORG and at DATE ; and DATE QUANTITY August .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG allowed the applicant ’s action in part . It held that the change of the child ’s residence to a different country justified the applicant ’s action for a new contact schedule . However , the court considered that the schedule suggested by the applicant was too tiring for the child , taking into account her young age and her need to attend school . In this respect the court held that the Orthodox Easter period would prove a good opportunity for the applicant to visit his daughter at her home and would give him the opportunity to meet the child in a familiar environment for the latter . For DATE , when the applicant and his daughter could spend more time together , he was allowed to take his daughter away from her mother ’s home , since there would be enough time for the child to rest and play . Moreover , the court considered that the parents must share the child ’s travelling expenses for DATE , while the travelling expenses for GPE would be incurred by the father . Furthermore , on account of DATE ’s previous obstructive behaviour with regard to the enforcement of judgments , the court ordered her to pay a ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) DATE compensation for any delay if she failed to comply with the contact schedule established by the court , as follows : DATE at ORG at the child ’s home in GPE , at the applicant ’s expense and CARDINAL DATE at both GPE expense ; and DATE every DATE at both GPE expense . The applicant appealed against the judgment .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , in part . It held that DATE at ORG , the child was to travel to GPE and stay at the applicant ’s home . The expenses would be borne by both parents and the child would be accompanied by the mother on the outbound flight from GPE and by the father on the return flight home . Moreover , the father could travel to visit his daughter DATE for DATE , while the mother had to bring the child to GPE to her father ’s home DATE for DATE . Both parents had to pay their own travelling expenses . The DATE travel visits could not take place around the LOC and DATE , when the contact schedule established by the first - instance court applied . Lastly , it upheld the remaining provisions of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant informed the ORG on an unspecified date in DATE that NORP had appealed on points of law ( recurat ) against the judgment of DATE , and that her appeal ( recurs ) had been allowed . He submitted that the contact schedule had been changed by the final judgment , in so far as he was forced to travel to GPE on DATE to see his daughter . Moreover , according to him the judgment did not refer to the mother ’s duty to bring his daughter to him for DATE . Furthermore , for GPE he would be able to see his daughter once DATE starting from DATE , but only for DATE and not for DATE . The LOC holiday was the only time the courts had ordered the mother to bring PERSON to him . The applicant did not submit a copy of the alleged final judgment to the file .

On DATE and DATE a bailiff employed by the applicant attempted to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The enforcement reports produced by the bailiff on the same dates stated that DATE had left her home with the intention of preventing the enforcement of the judgment , although she had been notified of the bailiff ’s visits ; and also that she allowed the applicant to see his daughter at her home and in her presence but did not agree for him to take her away .

On DATE a bailiff employed by the applicant attempted to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The enforcement reports produced by the bailiff on the same dates stated that DATE allowed the applicant to see his daughter at her home but did not agree for him to take her away .

On DATE a bailiff employed by the applicant attempted to enforce the judgment of DATE . The enforcement report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that O.M.M. had allowed the applicant to see his daughter at her home but did not agree that he could take her elsewhere , because PERSON refused to leave with her father . Eventually , the CARDINAL parents agreed that their daughter could leave if she was accompanied by her mother .

On DATE a bailiff employed by the applicant attempted to enforce the judgment of DATE . On DATE the bailiff notified O.M.M. that on DATE the applicant wanted to take GPE to GPE for DATE at GPE .

On an unspecified date in DATE O.M.M. contested the enforcement proceedings opened against her on DATE .

On DATE the bailiff requested ORG to delegate a representative to accompany him to O.M.M. ’s home on DATE on account of DATE ’s previous repeated refusals to allow the applicant to have contact with his daughter .

On DATE the bailiff accompanied the applicant to O.M.M. ’s home . The enforcement report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that it was impossible to enforce the judgment , as neither the mother nor the daughter were present , and O.M.M. had written to the applicant that she had gone on holiday for GPE .

On DATE ORG informed the bailiff ’s office that so far as the enforcement proceedings were concerned the ORG was not party to the proceedings , did not have legal standing and it did not have any record of the child being placed under special protection measures .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed O.M.M. ’s action contesting the enforcement proceedings opened against her on DATE , on the ground that they were lawful . There is no evidence in the file that O.M.M. appealed against the judgment .

On DATE the bailiff made a second attempt to enforce the judgment of DATE . On DATE the bailiff notified O.M.M. that the applicant would visit her home on DATE at TIME to take the child away for the period between CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE the bailiff accompanied the applicant to O.M.M. ’s home . The enforcement report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the child refused to leave with her father and consequently O.M.M. did not agree to allow her to go .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought proceedings against O.M.M. , seeking an injunction for a fine of between RON CARDINAL and RON CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) for every DATE O.M.M. refused to allow him to see his daughter as required by the final judgment of DATE .

By a final interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action for a fine . It held that according to the enforcement report produced by the bailiff on DATE had allowed the applicant to see his daughter at her home and in her presence , but that she had refused to allow him to take the child away . In these circumstances the ORG considered that O.M.M. had not obstructed the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against O.M.M. , seeking an injunction for a RON CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) security deposit and a civil fine of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for every day she prevented him from enforcing the judgment of DATE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s action of DATE in part . It ordered O.M.M. to pay a ORG CARDINAL fine for DATE she prevented the applicant from enforcing the judgment of DATE . In this respect it held that O.M.M. had prevented the applicant on several occasions in DATE from seeing his daughter , either by not being at home or by refusing to allow him to take his daughter away from her home . However , the court dismissed his claim for a security deposit , on the ground that it had already ordered O.M.M. to pay a fine for obstructing the enforcement of a final judgment . The applicant appealed against the judgment .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE , on the ground that the applicant had already been ordered to pay a fine . Moreover , forcing her to pay an additional ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL penalty would be disproportionate , and might affect the child due to the financial burden imposed on her mother . The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE in part and ordered O.M.M. to deposit on a bank account a payment of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in the applicant ’s name . In also upheld the remaining part of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It held that while the mother ’s financial stability had to be considered , the child had a right to spend time with her father . Moreover , the mother had a good income and the amount established by the court for the warranty maintained a balance between the financial burden imposed on DATE and the aim of preserving family ties .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against O.M.M. , asking the court to establish the amount of the fine O.M.M. had to pay following the judgment of DATE and seeking an injunction for O.M.M. to pay him ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for nonpecuniary damage following her repeated refusals to accept the enforcement of the judgment of DATE .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action of CARDINAL DATE . It held that the court could not establish the amount of the fine due , as the applicant had not been able to show how many times he had been obstructed in the enforcement of the judgment of DATE after DATE ’s duty to pay a fine was set by the court on DATE . Moreover , the tense relationship between the parents , reflected also in his relationship with his daughter , did not allow the applicant always to see his daughter in the circumstances he would have wished . While separation from one ’s child after divorce implied a certain suffering , this was not of such a level as to engage DATE ’s civil liability . The problems faced by the applicant , in particular his former wife ’s behaviour , had already been punished by the courts , which had obliged her to set up a security deposit in his favour . In addition , the fact that his daughter had left GPE and he had not been able to see her since DATE could not have caused him additional suffering , since he was notified about his ex - wife ’s decision , was informed of his daughter ’s address in GPE , and had brought proceedings for the contact rights schedule to be changed . Consequently , pending those proceedings , his only discomfort was caused by the fact that he did not live in the same country as his daughter any more . The applicant appealed against the judgment .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE as timebarred .

On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings against O.M.M. for obstructing the enforcement of the judgments allowing him contact rights with his daughter . He argued that although he had attempted repeatedly to enforce the judgments of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL June and DATE and the judgments allowing him exceptional contact rights with his daughter for DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE , he had been unable to do so because of DATE ’s behaviour .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s criminal complaint of DATE , on the ground that DATE ’s behaviour could not be classified as criminal . However , the court applied an administrative sanction , issuing DATE with a warning . It held , inter alia , that although O.M.M. had obstructed the enforcement of final court judgments , her conviction would not serve and adequate purpose considering that the parties have a child together and a conviction could also influence the future of the said child , particularly if O.M.M. did not change her behaviour . The applicant appealed against the judgment .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE . It underlined , inter alia , that , according to a report produced by GPE for Abused Children attached to ORG following counselling sessions with the parties which were quit by the father , the child was affected by the conflict between her parents and considered her mother to be “ good ” and her father to be “ bad ” and wanted him to “ leave her alone ” and to stop visiting her . The child was closer to her mother and was somewhat detached from her father , even rejecting him of her own accord , whether or not induced to do so by her mother . In this context , the court held that although O.M.M. obstructed the enforcement of final court judgments it could not be argued that she did not have in mind the best interest of her child . She allowed the father to visit the child at her home and in her presence . Consequently , given the tense relations between the parents and the need of the child , convicting O.M.M. would not serve any purpose , as it would preserve , inter alia , the child ’s feelings of uncertainty .

In a letter addressed to the ORG in DATE the applicant stated that from DATE until DATE he had attempted to exercise his acknowledged visiting rights CARDINAL times . All the attempts of the applicant to visit his daughter according to the schedule established by final judgments were obstructed by the categorical refusal of O.M.M. to let him take the minor away from her home , and whenever he was allowed to see his daughter he was compelled to agree to the visits taking place in her presence , or else in the presence of the minor ’s maternal grandmother . Consequently , he lodged CARDINAL criminal complaints against O.M.M. for noncompliance with the provisions of the final judgments allowing him personal contact with his daughter .

In a letter addressed to the ORG on an unspecified date in DATE the applicant stated that he had no knowledge of his daughter ’s whereabouts and that he had not seen her for DATE . His former wife had allegedly moved from the address he had known in GPE and had not notified him of the new address . Moreover , although the domestic courts had been informed about the mother ’s failure to notify him of his daughter ’s new address during the proceedings seeking to change the contact rights schedule , they did not order her to disclose it to him . Consequently , he was unable to contact or see his daughter .

The relevant domestic legal provisions are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , and GPE v. GPE ( no . GPE , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . The role and responsibilities of the local public authorities in respect of social assistance and child protection , as well as the relevant provisions of LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) , are described in the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The main applicant , Mr PERSON ( “ the applicant ” ) , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Włoczyk , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr J. PERSON of ORG .

The names and personal details of the remaining applicants ( “ the applicants ” ) and the facts pertaining to their cases are presented in the attached statements setting out the particular circumstances of each case .

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

On DATE the applicant was committed to FAC . After that date he was continuously detained in several penitentiary facilities . On DATE he was released .

The parties gave partly differing accounts of the conditions of the applicant ’s detention .

The applicant maintained that throughout his detention he had been held in overcrowded cells in conditions below the basic standard of hygiene . He further stated that in FAC detainees had been allowed to smoke in the central corridor from where the smoke had penetrated into the cells .

The Government submitted that they could not confirm whether or not during his stay in ORG the applicant had been detained in cells with a surface area of CARDINAL m² per person . They further stated that in all penitentiaries smoking had only been permitted in designated zones . The ORG maintained that in FAC CARDINAL smoking areas had been designated near the entrances to units and that the applicant had not been exposed to tobacco smoke during his detention in that establishment .

The Government did not comment on the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in the remaining detention establishments .

The applicant lodged several complaints with the penitentiary authorities regarding the conditions of his detention . He did not bring a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights .

A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing conditions of detention in GPE and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that conditions of their detention are inadequate are set out in the ORG ’s pilot judgments given in the cases of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) on DATE ( see § § DATE and § § CARDINAL respectively ) . More recent developments are described in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) on DATE ( see § § DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Z.

The applicant is suffering from schizophrenia .

On DATE the Z. no . CARDINAL Police Station lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG ( GPE državno odvjetništvo u PERSON ) against the applicant . The relevant part of the complaint reads :

“ On DATE after a physical conflict with an unknown person at TIME in front of an apartment building in PERSON , ... the suspect PERSON went into the lift of that building with his mother PERSON and son PERSON to go to a flat on the third floor , owned by his mother , and said to his son : ‘ Everybody downstairs is shouting ‘ Call the police.’ The police will come now , and it is better that I kill you rather than the police , they will kill me and then we will lie dead next to each other!’ . When they entered the flat the suspect PERSON began to carry out his threat and grabbed his son PERSON by the neck and started to squeeze it , in order to strangle him . The suspect ’s mother pushed him away and he fell against the refrigerator ... while the boy ran to another part of the flat .

After a telephone call , at TIME officers of the PERSON no . CARDINAL Police Station , GPE and GPE , went to the scene ... where they waited for the ambulance ... and then entered the flat . Police officers GPE and GPE approached the suspect who made an attempt to assault PERSON with both hands and bit him on the left arm ... after which both officers put the suspect in an elbow lock , pushed him on to the floor and handcuffed him . However , the suspect continued to resist by trying to kick the officers , but they overcame him and he was taken by ambulance to the Hospital ‘ Z.’ ... where he was placed in the closed section of the psychiatric ward . ”

The investigation in respect of the applicant on the charge of attempted murder of his son was opened on DATE in ORG PERSON u PERSON ) .

On DATE an investigating judge of the ORG heard evidence from police officer PERSON The relevant part of the written record reads :

“ ... on the date in question in DATE I joined the policemen who had already arrived at a flat at CARDINAL Š. Street . The first information I received as a police officer was that there had been a fight in front of the building , but I do not know who was involved in it , and that the fight had continued inside the flat .

When I entered the flat there were CARDINAL policemen there . I saw the accused sitting on a sofa , visibly upset . His parents were next to him . When the ambulance arrived he refused to go with them and when a doctor told him to stand up , he attempted to hit my colleague PERSON who blocked the blow , but the accused then bit him on the arm , drawing blood , and let go of him only when he was pushed on to the floor .

This was the first time I had intervened at that address . The whole incident lasted for quite a long time , because we first spent TIME talking to him .

To a question from the Deputy GPE Attorney I can say that , apart from those previously mentioned there was CARDINAL younger person , probably the accused ’s wife , and a child at the scene . His wife screamed for help and said that he had gone mad .

To a question from the defence lawyer I can not answer whether I noticed traces of any injuries on the accused DATE . He is a particularly strong person , he banged his head on the ground and the bed and I did not notice traces of any injuries on him after the intervention . Well , I have just remembered that he bled from his mouth because he banged his head all the time ; he continued to act crazily even after [ he had received ] an injection of tranquillisers and despite being tied up . We , the police officers , were not alone with him at any time ... ”

On DATE the investigating judge heard evidence from police officer PERSON The relevant part of the written record reads :

“ ... on the date in question I came for an intervention about a mentally ill person who had to be taken for hospitalisation and who lives in Š. Street no . CARDINAL in Z .. When I arrived to the flat I found his parents , a young man and I think also some children in CARDINAL room , but I did not focus my attention on that , as CARDINAL of my colleagues from the police station .

I talked with the accused for CARDINAL during which time he stood up from a sofa , sat down , wanted to have his blood pressure checked and was dressed only in his underwear . From my previous experience I knew that I had to treat him gently . After that a doctor together with a team of the medical emergency services arrived and he had to be persuaded to go with them . Just then he stood up and when I touched him on the shoulder he pushed me and I held his right arm . He resisted me but we managed to push him on to the floor when he bit me on the left arm . The bite was through my shirt . I bled only a little because he did not bite off [ any flesh ] . A colleague helped me then to overcome him .

... the accused sustained a mild haematoma when we pushed him on to the floor , I believe .

To a question from the GPE Deputy State Attorney I can say that the accused bit his tongue .

To a question from the defence lawyer I can say that when I entered the flat the accused was not injured . ... ”

On DATE the investigating judge heard evidence from GPE , the applicant ’s common - law wife . The relevant part of the written record reads ;

“ ... His father brought a hospitalisation order from a doctor , which I put into my backpack and when we were standing in front of the apartment building where ORG ’s parents live , he told me that he did not wish to go to a hospital and ... managed to take the backpack from me . We were both pulling at the backpack and the next moment , probably thinking that he wanted to hit me , some people from a nearby bar started to insult him telling him that he was a fool and to let me go and then a scuffle ensued between those people and PERSON shirt was torn . ...

After that the grandmother went into the flat with ORG and the boy ; I do not know where PERSON ’s father was at the time . I stayed out of the building ... The police arrived after TIME . During that time I waited outside and I called an ambulance . When the police arrived I went into the building with them and was approaching the door of the flat when PERSON ’s father came out carrying the boy ... and telling me that the grandmother feared that he was going to strangle him . ...

After that I went to another room and played music on a computer to distract the child ’s attention from the noise . I did not see what happened then . I waited for the arrival of the ambulance and the police and I heard awful screaming from GPE ... ”

On DATE the investigating judge heard evidence from the applicant ’s father , GPE . NORP The relevant part of the written record reads :

“ ... I approached the window and I saw PERSON and his wife , both pulling at a backpack . I decided to go downstairs and when I came out I saw a group of people from a nearby bar , probably thinking that PERSON was trying to take her backpack and not knowing that they were spouses , intervening in their conflict . PERSON made a move with his hand towards them and they towards him , and they pushed each other . PERSON ’s shirt was torn . I intervened and separated them .

... When I came back to the flat I found PERSON there with my wife and the boy . ...

ORG sat on a sofa in the small room and the boy was there . The police arrived after TIME and I did not see PERSON do anything to the child .

To a question from the judge I can say that the grandmother did not tell me that ORG had done anything to the child . I left the room where PERSON was for a short while so it is possible that I did not see everything that happened . That means that I was not in the room when the policemen tied PERSON up . ... When the policemen arrived , PERSON told them that they were his friends but I did not see him bite CARDINAL of them . There were CARDINAL policemen and later on I saw that CARDINAL of them had been bitten but I did not see at what exact moment it happened . It is difficult for me to say how long they stayed in the flat . While they were in the flat , a doctor arrived with an ambulance . She gave ORG an injection of tranquillisers .

During the intervention ORG bit his tongue . I think that was because of the pain he suffered from being kicked by the police officers when they intervened . When the police arrived PERSON was on the sofa and after that he was on the floor , which is where I saw him when I went into the room . The floor was covered in blood . ”

On DATE the investigating judge heard evidence from the applicant ’s mother , PERSON The relevant part of the written record reads :

“ ... I saw through the window the CARDINAL of them [ the applicant and his wife ] on the grass in front of the building , pulling at her backpack ... Some customers in a nearby bar were watching the incident . They probably did not know that they were spouses but thought that PERSON was attacking a passer - by and they approached them to help PERSON and these people pushed each other and my husband separated them . After that I went out with my grandson and approached my son who took me by one hand and my grandson by another . We went back to the building and went into the lift , PERSON was telling us to hurry up because the police would come and strangle us . He took the boy by the back of the neck with his hand , hurrying him to enter , in fear of the police . At that moment we were in the hall . I was shaking with fear that ORG would do something to CARDINAL of us . We stayed in the flat like that for a short while . PERSON sat on a sofa and the boy went into our bedroom to watch television . Immediately after that someone rang the bell and I saw the policemen . CARDINAL policemen arrived and CARDINAL of them had a large wooden rod .

When the policemen entered my son told them that they were his friends . Whether he swore at them after that I do not know but I saw that all of them jumped at him . In a moment he was handcuffed and his legs were tied . After that one of the policemen ordered me to leave the room and I went to the hall where my husband was , so I did not see my son bite one of the policemen . After that I heard terrible screams from my son . I could not listen to that so I went into the room and saw my son lying on the wooden floor covered in blood . I saw that he was injured because he was bleeding from the mouth . His left eye was injured . That is what I saw and I suppose that the policemen were kicking PERSON because he had injuries to his legs , but I did not see them do it . ”

On DATE charges of attempted murder were brought in ORG against the applicant . At a hearing held on DATE a forensic expert gave her evidence . The relevant part of the written record reads :

“ The medical documentation ... shows that the defendant ORG sustained injuries in the form of bruises to his head on DATE , laceration of the tongue and haemorrhage of both eyes . I also saw photographs of ORG taken at FAC ... The medical documentation and the photographs show that ORG had sustained haemorrhaging in both eyes , more pronounced in the left eye . Such an injury is typically caused by blows with a hard object and force of low to medium intensity , and in this area it is usually caused by punches ( blows with a fist ) . ... These injuries were caused with CARDINAL separate uses of force . The tongue laceration was caused by him biting it himself and amounts to a bodily injury . It is not possible to establish why he bit his tongue . The medical documentation also describes lacerations of his chest and upper right leg . ... Such injuries are typically caused by dragging an object sideways along the surface of the skin or by blows from the side , but the conclusion that they were caused by being rubbed against an obstacle or surface can not be ruled out .

To a question from defence counsel I can say that I can not rule out kicking as the cause of the haemorrhage of both eyes I can not rule out the injuries being caused in this way to ORG while he was lying on the floor .

Some of the injuries , such as the lacerations , could have been caused by falling down and hitting the wooden floor , but I am absolutely certain that the injuries to the eye area could not have been caused in this way .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of the attempted murder of his son and attempting to prevent an official from carrying out his duties . Because he was mentally ill , compulsory admission to a psychiatric institution for DATE was ordered .

On DATE the applicant ’s parents lodged a criminal complaint with the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Z. ) against CARDINAL police officers , GPE and GPE , alleging that on DATE they had caused grave bodily injuries to the applicant . The complaint stated that on DATE the applicant came to visit his parents , with T.V. and their son PERSON After the applicant had had a minor argument with ORG and their son in front of the apartment building where his parents lived , someone had called the police .

QUANTITY police officers had arrived at the applicant ’s mother ’s flat and handcuffed the applicant and then tied his legs , all in the presence of the applicant ’s parents . The mother had been in the same room , while the father had been standing in the hallway . The police officers had then ordered the mother to leave the room , closed the door and beaten the applicant . The mother had heard the applicant screaming , had gone into the room and seen the applicant lying on the floor bleeding from his mouth and eye area . He had been kicked in the head and his eyes were bulging .

An ambulance had arrived at the scene and transported the applicant to a hospital .

The medical documentation of CARDINAL DATE , drawn up at ORG in Z. , shows that the applicant had a head contusion , tongue laceration , haematoma around both eyes , haemorrhage of both eyes and lesions on the neck and right shoulder .

The witness statements given before the investigating judge in the criminal proceedings against the applicant were included in the case file ( see above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG dismissed the criminal complaint on the ground that the injuries the applicant had sustained were self - inflicted ; he had bitten his tongue and banged his head on the floor . The decision firstly reiterated the facts from the police report of CARDINAL DATE ( see above , paragraph CARDINAL ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ A report drawn up by ORG of ORG of ORG , shows that police officers ORG and GPE were sent to the scene ... in order to assist a medical team in securing the compulsory hospitalisation of ORG When they approached him he assaulted PERSON and bit him on the left arm , after which GPE and GPE pushed him to the floor and tied him up . However , he continued pushing with his legs , trying to kick the officers . While he was being pushed to the floor and tied up , because of his confused state PERSON repeatedly banged his head on the floor and bit his tongue , which caused multiple lacerations of his tongue and haematoma of the face and head . ...

During the preliminary inquiry ORG , GPE and GPE were interviewed and the medical documentation concerning ORG , ORG was consulted .

T.V. , the common - law wife of GPE ... said that ... during TIME DATE and QUANTITY DATE he had become aggressive , would not let her and their son NORP sleep , had pulled out telephone wires , insulted her , had mood swings , and banged the door . The next day his behaviour had continued to be bizarre and he had been angry for no reason and had had hallucinations , so she had tried to talk to him to calm him down but had not succeeded . When they were standing in front of the apartment building where his mother lived , PERSON had grabbed her backpack and pulled at it , scratching her face , which was seen by some passers - by , who tried to stop him . He had started a fight with them , throwing punches , and had taken his clothes off and run down the street . At CARDINAL moment she had seen him throwing their son ’s things out of the window and heard his mother shouting ‘ Help!’ from the window and calling the police . When the police had arrived she had gone into the flat with them and had seen PERSON ’s mother holding the boy in her arms ; he was naked and bleeding from the leg . She had not seen PERSON , but had heard a police officer calling other police officers for help because PERSON , whose hands and legs had been tied and who had been given CARDINAL injections , had not calmed down .

PERSON , the mother of GPE , said that ... after PERSON and PERSON had been pushing each other in front of the building , she , ORG and the boy . ... had gone into the flat , where ORG had grabbed his son by the neck and started strangling him . She had pushed him hard , and he had fallen against the refrigerator , which made him let go of the boy . After the police had arrived she had heard her son screaming and had seen him bite a policeman on the shoulder , after which they overcame him , handcuffed him and took him to hospital .

The father of GPE , GPE . NORP , was not present when the events described above took place , but said that after the police officers had arrived at their flat they had started using force against his son , handcuffed him and soon after that the ambulance had also arrived . PERSON had resisted them and they could not have given him an injection and only after the police officers had tied him up did the doctor manage to give him CARDINAL injections of tranquillisers . ...

The medical documentation in the case file shows that on the occasion in question ORG had sustained bodily injuries caused by attempted strangulation .

The same medical documentation shows that PERSON was injured by a bite from GPE

It also shows that GPE sustained bodily injuries during the incident and that he is suffering from mental illness .

... a judgment by ORG finding that ORG had ... committed the acts amounting to the criminal offence of attempted murder of a child and an attempt to prevent an official from carrying out his duties ... was also consulted .

Assessment of the above shows that on DATE V.D. , owing to permanent mental illness , schizoid - affective psychosis of mixed type , committed the criminal offence of attempted aggravated murder in respect of his minor child PERSON , an act he was prevented from carrying out by the prompt reaction of ORG officers . In view of his grave mental illness , the undisputed fact that he was resisting legal arrest by pushing with his legs and arms , trying to hit the police officers , biting his tongue and banging his head on the floor , I consider that the injuries he had sustained were self inflicted , or inflicted by lawful use of force .

In view of the above , it has been established that the use of force by the police officers was justified and lawful in accordance with LAW and that they did not commit the alleged offence or any other criminal offence liable to ORG prosecution . ”

On DATE the applicants’ parents lodged an indictment in ORG against CARDINAL of the police officers , GPE and GPE , alleging that on DATE they had caused grave bodily injuries to the applicant . They alleged that QUANTITY police officers had come to their flat following a call by an unknown person . When they arrived at the flat the applicant was sitting on a sofa . When CARDINAL of the police officers started speaking to him the applicant stood up . The police officers immediately started beating him . All QUANTITY police officers very quickly pushed the applicant on to the sofa , cuffed his hands behind his back and then tied his legs together . Both parents were present . However , once the applicant had been tied up , the police officers ordered the parents to leave the room and closed the door . The parents heard the applicant screaming and crying and after some time the mother opened the door of the room and saw the applicant lying on the floor , bleeding from his mouth and eyes , eyes bulging and with blood all over him .

The medical examination had revealed that the applicant had bitten his tongue and had bruises to the eyes , torso , abdomen and hands . Part of his tongue was later removed .

The parents argued that these injuries could not have been self - inflicted , because if what the police had said was true , that the applicant had banged his head on the floor , then he would have had injuries primarily to his nose and forehead and not his eyes . Furthermore , banging his head against the floor could not explain the numerous haematomas on his torso , hands and abdomen .

The injuries had caused the applicant permanent health damage ; the sight in his left eye was reduced , he could not speak properly and had trouble swallowing food . His hands were partly numb .

The parents also submitted their list of evidence , including medical documentation and photographs of the applicant taken soon after the incident showing his injuries , and requested that witnesses be heard and also that a medical expert report be drawn up to explain how the injuries were caused .

On DATE counsel for the applicant submitted a fresh indictment , which complied in form and content with the statutory requirements under LAW . In substance , he reiterated the allegations from the previous indictment .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u ORG ) ordered an investigating judge to take the following investigative actions : interview the QUANTITY police officers ; interview the victim ; interview the applicant ’s parents ; obtain a forensic expert report to establish how the injuries were caused and their gravity ; take other evidence if necessary .

A hearing scheduled for DATE before an investigating judge of ORG ( istražni sudac PERSON u Z. ) was adjourned until DATE because the indicted policemen wished to be legally represented .

At a hearing held on DATE PERSON stated that on DATE he and his colleague , PERSON , had intervened at the applicant ’s mother ’s flat . They had seen the applicant speaking incomprehensibly and then biting PERSON on the arm . In order to restrain him , the police officers used a take - down technique and positioned the applicant face down on the floor . He continued to resist and they tied a sheet around his ankles . The applicant had then banged his head against the floor and bitten his tongue . Then the ambulance had arrived .

S.P. remained silent .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the indictment submitted by the applicant and his parents as ill - founded . It held that the applicant ’s injuries had been self - inflicted and that the policemen had not used unnecessary force . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ ... the victim ’s wife T.V. and his father PERSON gave concordant statements and confirmed that the victim had resisted arrest and that the police officers had tied him up and that he had received an injection of tranquillisers after which he had been transferred to a hospital , while his mother said that the police officers had beaten the victim more than was necessary .

The evidence established , and in particular the defence presented by the second suspect , do not show that there is a reasonable suspicion that the actions of the first and second defendants amounted to a criminal offence from LAW . This panel considers that the first and second suspect did not hit the victim during his arrest to the extent that they caused him grave bodily injury but their use of force was lawful and justified , and they did not put at risk or infringe his physical integrity . This panel concludes that ... the victim ... owing to his mental illness , resisted lawful arrest by pushing with his legs and arms , attempted to bite a police officer and banged his head on the floor , and thus caused himself injuries which resulted in a haematoma on his face ; he also bit his tongue , which was later removed owing to necrosis of tissue ...

On DATE the applicant ’s parents lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the first - instance decision . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ ... on the basis of all documents in the case file , ORG ... finds that the conclusion of the first - instance court contained in the impugned decision that the facts did not reveal a reasonable suspicion that the suspects PERSON and GPE , acting in the described manner ... , committed the criminal offence of inflicting grave bodily injury from LAW is correct .

The case file ... reveals that on DATE the suspects GPE and GPE , in their capacity as officers of PERSON no . CARDINAL Police Station , after physical conflict between the victim and unknown persons in front of the apartment building where his mother lives , were helping a medical team with the compulsory hospitalisation of the victim , after he had grabbed his minor child by the neck and started strangling him , but had been prevented by his mother , who pushed him , whereupon he fell against the refrigerator and let go of the child . During the attempt to take him to hospital , the victim assaulted PERSON and bit him on the left arm . Then the suspects , in order to break his resistance , put him in an elbow lock , pushed him on to the floor and handcuffed him . During that ... the victim , owing to his confused state caused by his mental illness , repeatedly banged his head on the floor and bit his tongue , which caused him lacerations to the his tongue and haematomas on the face and head .

In view of the above , ORG ... finds that the first - instance court correctly , on the basis of the case file , assessed that the available evidence did not indicate that there was a reasonable suspicion that the suspects had committed the criminal offence of inflicting grave bodily injury under LAW . The case file does not show that the suspects inflicted grave bodily harm on the victim and caused permanent injury to an important organ and caused permanent disfigurement , which are crucial elements of the criminal offence of inflicting grave bodily harm ... The case file shows that all the grave bodily injuries were self - inflicted by the victim ... ”

In respect of a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant ’s parents on DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on DATE declined to examine the case .

On DATE a counsel for the applicant submitted a criminal complaint against the CARDINAL other policemen , GPE and PERSON , who had also allegedly been involved in beating up the applicant .

On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG dismissed the criminal complaint , on the grounds that the injuries the applicant had sustained were self - inflicted and that he had resisted the police intervention by biting his tongue and banging his head on the floor .

On DATE the applicant filed an indictment in ORG against GPE and PERSON , alleging that on DATE they had caused him grave bodily injuries by hitting and kicking him on the head , back , torso and legs . Until DATE , when the applicant ’s counsel enquired about the progress of the proceedings , no action had been taken in respect of the applicant ’s indictment .

On DATE a judge of ORG forwarded the case file to ORG for an investigation to be carried out .

At a hearing held on DATE before an investigating judge of ORG both PERSON and PERSON remained silent . The proceedings appear to be pending .

NORP The relevant articles of LAW ( Ustav PERSON ) provide as follows :

“ No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... ”

The relevant parts of LAW ( PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provide :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences shall be instituted by ORG in the interest of GPE and its citizens .

( CARDINAL ) In exceptional circumstances the law may provide for criminal proceedings in respect of certain criminal offences to be instituted on the basis of a private prosecution or for ORG to institute criminal proceedings following [ a private ] application . ”

“ No criminal offence is committed when an official , on the basis of his or her authority vested in him or her by a statute applies force in accordance with the law . ”

“ Whoever inflicts bodily injury on another or impairs another ’s health shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of DATE and not exceeding DATE . ”

“ A public official , or another person acting at the instigation or with the explicit or tacit acquiescence of a public official , who inflicts on another person pain or grave suffering , whether physical or mental , for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession , punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed , or intimidating or coercing him or a third person , or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind , shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of DATE . ”

The relevant part of LAW ( ORG nos . DATE Zakon o kaznenom postupku ) provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall be instituted and conducted at the request of a qualified prosecutor only . ...

( CARDINAL ) In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney and in respect of criminal offences to be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .

( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .

( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds that there are no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party as a subsidiary prosecutor may take his place under the conditions prescribed by this LAW . ”

Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL regulate the rights and duties of private prosecutors and of injured parties acting as subsidiary prosecutors . The Criminal Code distinguishes between these CARDINAL roles . A private prosecutor ( privatni tužitelj ) is an injured party who brings a private prosecution in respect of criminal offences for which such prosecution is expressly prescribed by LAW ( these are offences of a lesser degree ) . The injured party as a subsidiary prosecutor ( oštećeni kao tužitelj ) takes over criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution where the relevant prosecuting authorities , for whatever reason , have decided not to prosecute . Pursuant to LAW , where a prosecution is brought privately the charge must be lodged with the relevant authority within DATE the person bringing the prosecution learns of the offence and the identity of the perpetrator .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A request to prosecute shall be lodged with the relevant ORG Attorney ’s ORG and a private prosecution with the appropriate court .

( CARDINAL ) Where the injured party has lodged a criminal complaint ... he or she shall be considered to have thereby lodged a request to prosecute .

( CARDINAL ) Where the injured party has lodged a criminal complaint or a request to prosecute but the [ competent authorities ] establish that the criminal offence in question should be prosecuted on the basis of a private prosecution , the criminal complaint or the request to prosecute shall be treated as a timely private prosecution if it has been submitted within the time - limit prescribed for [ bringing ] a private prosecution ... ”

Pursuant to LAW , the ORG Attorney is under a duty to inform the injured party within DATE of a decision not to prosecute and of that party ’s right to take over the proceedings , as well as to instruct that party on the steps to be taken .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A criminal complaint shall be lodged with the relevant ORG Attorney in writing or orally .


Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six-month period);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

On DATE the applicants ' daughter , PERSON , then aged DATE , underwent surgery at ORG for a congenital hip dislocation . During the operation , she had a cardiac arrest and lapsed into a coma . On DATE PERSON came out of the coma , but she was unable to move her arms and legs . On DATE she was admitted to the neurosurgery department and was diagnosed as suffering from “ hypoxic brain syndrome ” . On DATE she was discharged from the hospital .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicants filed a compensation claim with the PERSON of ORG for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the alleged negligence of the medical staff who performed the operation . No response was given to the applicants within DATE period prescribed in LAW .

On DATE the applicants filed an action with ORG , requesting compensation . They also requested legal aid for the court fees .

On an unspecified date PERSON obtained a certificate from the office of the headman ( muhtarlık ) attesting to his indigence .

On DATE PERSON further applied to ORG in PERSON , requesting an official certificate as to whether he owned property in LANGUAGE .

On DATE , ORG , ORG and GPE drafted attestations stating that PERSON did not own any immovable property in Ergani .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that it had no records indicating that PERSON paid tax .

On an unspecified date ORG dismissed the case on procedural grounds . The domestic court stated that the applicants could lodge a new case within DATE following the rectification of the defects in their application .

On DATE the applicants applied to ORG , requesting exemption from paying the court fees . The court granted their request .

On DATE , after rectifying the procedural shortcomings in their first petition , the applicants lodged another case with ORG . In their petition , they repeated their request for legal aid for the court fees .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' request for legal aid . The court held that , since the applicants were represented by a lawyer , they could not be considered to be in need of legal aid . ( The applicants had had a contingency fee arrangement with their lawyer . ) In its decision , the court referred to the case - law of ORG and the provisions of LAW .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , ORG notified the applicants that they were required to pay MONEY ( TRL ) in respect of the court fees .

On DATE the applicants lodged a petition with the administrative court requesting the annulment of the decision dated CARDINAL DATE . In their petition , they stated , inter alia , that they did not have sufficient means to pay the court fees and that the rejection of their request for legal aid was in violation of their right of access to a court .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings because the applicants had not paid the necessary legal fees .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

DATE of LAW provides that when administrative court judges determine a legal aid request , they should apply the relevant provisions of LAW ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL , below ) .

Article CARDINAL states that a request for legal aid may only be granted if the claimant submits evidence in support of his / her request .

According to Article CARDINAL , in order to determine whether or not the person applying for legal aid has sufficient means , he / she shall be required to submit a certificate attesting to his / her indigence ; another certificate indicating whether or not the individual owns any property and an attestation regarding how much , if any , tax he / she had paid . These certificates should be obtained from the appropriate domestic authorities .

Article CARDINAL provides that decisions regarding legal aid are binding .

In DATE , the minimum wage in force was MONEY ( MONEY ) DATE .