No violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 7;No violation of Art. 7;No violation of Art. 14;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Ján Šikuta;Javier Borrego Borrego;Jean-Paul Costa;Khanlar Hajiyev;Loukis Loucaides;Luzius Wildhaber;Nicolas Bratza;Peer Lorenzen;Snejana Botoucharova;Stanislav Pavlovschi;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at FAC .

NORP On DATE the applicant was found guilty by ORG on CARDINAL counts of premeditated murder committed on DATE , under , inter alia , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG sentenced him to mandatory life imprisonment in respect of each count . The applicant had planted an explosive device under a car and detonated it , causing the death of PERSON and his CARDINAL children , aged DATE . The applicant had been promised the sum of QUANTITY by someone who he has not identified for the murder of PERSON .

In its judgment passing sentence on the applicant , ORG observed that the prosecution had invited the court to examine the meaning of the term “ life imprisonment ” in LAW and , in particular , to clarify whether it entailed imprisonment of the convicted person for the rest of his life or just for DATE as provided by ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE ( hereinafter “ the Regulations ” ) , adopted under section CARDINAL of the Prison Discipline Law ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) . If the court found that the latter was applicable , then the issue of whether the sentences should be imposed consecutively or concurrently would arise and the prosecution would propose consecutive sentences .

ORG relied primarily on the findings of ORG in DATE in the case of GPE v. PERSON , alias PERSON ( judgment of CARDINAL DATE , case no . ORG ) and accordingly stated that it was not competent to examine the validity of the ORG or take into account any possible repercussions they could have on the sentence . ORG held that the term “ life imprisonment ” used in LAW meant imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the convicted person . In view of this , the court did not consider it necessary to examine whether the sentences it imposed would run concurrently or consecutively .

NORP In particular , in its judgment ORG stated the following :

“ The PERSON on the basis of which the accused has been found guilty on CARDINAL counts of premeditated murder , provides that :

‘ Whosoever shall be convicted of premeditated murder shall be liable to imprisonment for life’ .

It follows , therefore , that for the offence in question life imprisonment is imposed by the court as a mandatory sentence .

PERSON , on behalf of the Prosecution , has invited the court to examine the meaning of life imprisonment and decide whether it means imprisonment of the convicted person for the rest of his life or whether it means , as provided by ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE ( hereinafter “ the Regulations ” ) as provided by LAW of DATE and ORG of DATE ( hereinafter “ the Regulations ” ) , adopted under section CARDINAL of the Prison Discipline Law ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) , imprisonment for DATE . PERSON has suggested that in the event that the court concludes that life imprisonment is interpreted as being for DATE , an interpretation which , if we understood him correctly , he claimed as the correct one , then the issue as to whether the sentences should be imposed consecutively or concurrently would arise . It was , finally , his suggestion , which was in fact the purpose for which he referred to this matter , that , if this was the outcome , it would be correct in the present case , taking into account the special circumstances of the commission of the offences , that the sentences should be served consecutively .

The same issue , in substance , was put before ORG in case no . ORG between GPE v. PERSON , alias Yiouroukkis . In that case ORG , in its detailed judgment , in which reference is made to the general principles governing the issue and also to the jurisprudence , concluded that the meaning of life imprisonment lies in the clear meaning imparted by the words , and that ORG was not competent to examine the validity of any regulations or to take into account any possible repercussions they could have on the sentence . We completely agree with this judgment to which we refer . Concerning the validity of the ORG , the Attorney - General of the ORG could probably have looked for other mechanisms for deciding the matter at the time when the competent authorities attempted to implement the specific regulation . We do not make mention here of the constitutional right of the President to grant pardon . With regard to the court ’s observation that the repercussions of such regulations , if it is assumed of course that they are valid , are not taken into account , we refer in addition to the decision in PERSON . App . NORP p. CARDINAL , PERSON CARDINAL Cr . App . NORP p. CARDINAL and NORP v. PERSON ( DATE ) Crim . ORG CARDINAL .

We consider that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the convicted person ’s life . It is therefore pointless to consider whether the sentences will run concurrently or whether they will be served consecutively . ”

When the applicant was admitted to prison to serve his sentence , he was given written notice by the prison authorities that the date set for his release was DATE . In particular , he was given an CARDINAL form titled “ Personal File of Convict ” , “ I.D. no . CARDINAL ” . On the form , under the heading “ Sentence ” , it was marked “ Life ” and then “ DATE ” ; under the heading “ Period ” it was marked “ From CARDINAL DATE to DATE ” and under the heading “ Expiry ” it was noted “ Ordinary Remission DATE ” . The applicant ’s release was conditional on his good conduct and industry during detention . Following the commission of a disciplinary offence on DATE , his release was postponed to DATE .

The applicant appealed against his conviction .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal upholding his conviction .

On DATE in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , ( DATE ) CARDINAL A.A.D. CARDINAL ) , ORG , in the context of a habeas corpus application lodged by a life prisoner who was not released on the date given by the prison authorities , declared the Regulations unconstitutional and ultra vires ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the Prison Law of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) was enacted , repealing and replacing LAW .

By a letter of DATE , the applicant applied , via ORG , to the President of the Republic at the relevant time for pardon or the suspension of the remainder of his sentence in order to help care for his wife who was suffering from leukaemia .

By a letter of DATE , the Attorney - General at the material time refused his request . In particular he informed the applicant that , following an examination of his application , he was of the opinion that a recommendation to the President to suspend or commute his sentence under LAW was not justified .

The applicant was not released on DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted a habeas corpus application to ORG ( first - instance jurisdiction ) challenging the lawfulness of his detention . In this context he relied upon LAW . ORG , after considering the above - mentioned provisions , dismissed the application on DATE .

In his judgment PERSON stated , inter alia , the following :

“ ... What is of importance in the present case is the principle set out in the case of PERSON and not the differences in the details of the facts . The principle then that has been laid down in the case of PERSON is that LAW applies only to the sentence that is imposed and not to the manner of serving the sentence . LAW CARDINAL does not prohibit a retrospective change in the law or in practice concerning release or conditional release from prison of a prisoner .

I am therefore of the view that the principle set out in GPE can be applied in the present case . Everything that the learned counsel of the applicant has pleaded has to do with the practice of release from prison . In the instant case ORG imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the applicant and explained to him at the same time that life imprisonment meant imprisonment for the remainder of his life . What the prison authorities then did , with the CARDINAL form , constitutes an action concerning the execution of the sentence . After the case of LAW on the basis of which the prison authorities gave the applicant the CARDINAL form , have ceased to apply , with the result that the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the applicant by ORG is applicable . What happened was a change in the legal situation concerning the time of the applicant ’s release . As in the PERSON case , LAW is not applicable .

I endorse the principle set out in GPE . I consider that the applicant can not derive a right to judicial review on the basis of LAW because of the alleged change in the date of his release from prison which does not change the legal basis for his detention . It should be emphasised that his detention is founded on the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on him by ORG and this had been explained to him as ‘ imprisonment for the remainder of his life’ . It follows that the relevant suggestion by PERSON does not stand and is dismissed .

On this occasion , I should add that the decision of the Commission on the issue of interpretation of LAW is in line with the jurisprudence of ORG ( see PERSON , Ooms and PERSON v. GPE ( ‘ LOC cases ) DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) ...

The fact that PERSON is a decision of the ORG does not render it less persuasive . It constitutes a decision of a specialised organ with vast experience in interpreting the LAW . It therefore constitutes an authority of great persuasiveness . I am satisfied about the correctness of the ORG ’s decision in GPE , which I have endorsed .

It was further the suggestion of Mr PERSON that ‘ this kind of sentence imposed on the applicant without the possibility of examination by ORG does not conform with LAW .

I endorse the above approach [ in GPE ] . Its essence is that the change in release policy does not constitute a violation of LAW . The existence or not of ORG does not form part of the ratio of the decision . This answers the suggestion of Mr PERSON concerning the absence of ORG in GPE . Consequently , his suggestion based on LAW does not stand and is dismissed .

Finally , I must note that the applicant has sought his release from prison through an order of habeas corpus . As stated , however , in the case of PERSON ( Civil Appeal no . DATE , DATE ) , adopting the relevant position of LANGUAGE jurisprudence ( see GPE ’s ORG , CARDINALth edition , Volume CARDINAL , § § DATE and CARDINAL ) :

‘ In general the writ of habeas corpus will not be granted to persons convicted or in execution under legal process , including persons in execution of a legal sentence after conviction on indictment . The writ of habeas corpus will not be granted where the effect of it would be to review the judgment of CARDINAL of the superior courts which might have been reviewed on appeal or to question the decision of an inferior court or tribunal on a matter within its jurisdiction ; or where it would falsify the record of a court which shows jurisdiction on the face of it.’

Consequently , the granting of a habeas corpus order in the present case would have been tantamount to reviewing the sentence that had been imposed by ORG , whereas this could have been done in the context of an appeal . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( appeal jurisdiction ) .

In his grounds of appeal , the applicant challenged the interpretation of the term “ life imprisonment ” made by ORG when sentencing him in DATE in view of the prison regulations applicable at the time and the notice given to the applicant by the prison authorities upon his admission to prison . He argued that the fact that he had not challenged his sentence following conviction could not be interpreted as an acceptance of ORG interpretation of the term “ life imprisonment . ” He relied upon , inter alia , LAW and DATE of the LAW in relation to the lawfulness of his continuing detention .

As regards LAW , the applicant claimed that the conduct of the authorities had been contrary to this provision . In particular , ground CARDINAL of his appeal read as follows :

“ The existence on the date on which the sentence was imposed on the convicted person of the ORG that defined a sentence of life imprisonment as being DATE , the issuing of the FCARDINAL notice , the admission that the applicant would have been released on DATE if the aforementioned ORG had been applicable and the sudden annulment of all the above constituted inhuman and degrading treatment .

The Republic can not behave in this way towards the applicant ’s life without any consequences for anyone apart from the applicant , who had to live with this uncertainty .

The aforementioned change of DATE imprisonment to imprisonment for life following an error by ORG and/or the Attorney - General of the Republic and/or the President of the Republic constitutes , without any fault on the applicant ’s part , inhuman and degrading treatment which , on account of its uncertainty , violates LAW .

The aforementioned change from the imposed DATE imprisonment to a death sentence , which will take effect on an unknown date given the fact that there is no possibility of re - examining the matter , constitutes inhuman treatment contrary to LAW . Indeed , this becomes even more obvious , when one considers that the death penalty has already been abolished in GPE . ”

Concerning LAW , the applicant in ground CARDINAL of his appeal noted that he was not requesting judicial review of his sentence on account of a change in policy concerning DATE of his release but the examination of the lawfulness of his detention , given that even the prison authorities had admitted that he should have been released on DATE . In this connection , he complained of the lack of a mechanism to examine the lawfulness of his detention .

When challenging ORG ( first instance ) interpretation of LAW , the applicant distinguished his case from that of NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Commission decision of DATE , ORG and Reports CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , in that GPE related to the manner of application of the sentence in view of the change in the policy of the parole board whereas in his case the issue raised was that of a retrospective change of the law due to unconstitutionality and the increase of his sentence from DATE to life . In this connection , he emphasised that in GPE there was no parole board unlike in GPE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It stated , inter alia :

“ The appellant is essentially raising CARDINAL issue . And his learned counsel has acknowledged that judgment as to this [ issue ] will determine the conclusion ... We summarise the appellant ’s positions as set out in the grounds of appeal as explained .

He does not invoke the ORG as an autonomous ground for his release , especially since ... they are not applicable any more . Furthermore , he does not suggest or attempt a review of ORG judgment , as was wrongly perceived at first instance . We are not going against , as he explained , ORG judgment but the ORG as a whole . The ORG were then applicable at that time and since ORG had not annulled them for being unconstitutional , we must conclude that it considered them valid . And since the law does not provide a definition of the term ‘ life imprisonment’ , it was an element of the regulation of the sentence provided . As Mr PERSON put it , the overall legal situation at the time of the imposition of the sentence , indicated that life imprisonment meant in essence DATE imprisonment . In addition , even if there was doubt , this had to be taken to the applicant ’s benefit . Hence , in view of this fact , there was no reason to lodge an appeal against ORG judgment especially since the applicant had been served with the FCARDINAL notice .

The suggestion of the appellant presumes that a judicial assessment of unconstitutionality , or , more precisely , that the ORG are ultra vires in relation to the law on the basis of which they were issued , brings about legislative change of whatever form . However , as has been decided ( see PERSON v. ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL A.A.D. CARDINAL , at CARDINAL and PERSON v. GPE , DATE ) , judicial assessment necessarily adjudicates retrospectively on the law or regulation and , as the principle of separation of powers dictates , it does not entail a legislative development . It is a fact , however , that this question , both at first instance and before us , has not been touched upon from this point of view so as to raise the issue of PERSON no . CARDINAL(CARDINAL)/CARDINAL .

In any event ORG imposed a sentence of life imprisonment on the appellant , expressly specifying that this meant imprisonment for the remainder of his life . This was the reason for which it did not examine the question of possible consecutiveness and the appellant ’s perception that it is inferred that ORG recognised the Regulations as valid is wrong . ORG essentially considered that the Regulations were not connected with the issue of the sentence envisaged for it did not consider that the then existent Regulations changed the fact that in accordance with the law , imprisonment for the remainder of the appellant ’s life was imposed .

Was this approach wrong ? Did in reality the law , viewed as a whole , even in the light of the interpretation suggested by the appellant comparing LAW , envisage imprisonment for DATE ? We would say that the first - instance judgment was not wrong in finding that this situation corresponded to the one in the case of GPE . The principle applied , namely that LAW does not concern the enforcement of the sentence , which remains CARDINAL of life imprisonment , is not in question . The ORG were made on the basis of and for the purposes of ORG , whereas it is LAW that determines the sentence , in this case mandatory life imprisonment and no other .

Nevertheless , and as Mr PERSON also agreed , we are not reviewing the correctness of the judgment of ORG . Such review does not fall within the [ court ’s ] jurisdiction in the context of a habeas corpus application .

The appellant is being detained on the basis of an ORG judgment after being sentenced to life imprisonment , determined as imprisonment for the remainder of his life . Thus , he is being detained on a lawful basis and his application for release was correctly rejected with the final observation that ‘ the granting of a habeas corpus order in the present case would have been tantamount to reviewing the sentence that had been imposed by ORG , whereas this could have been done in the context of an NORP . ”

Under NORP law , the offence of premeditated murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) ( as amended in DATE by Law no . CARDINAL ) provides as follows :

“ Any person who causes the premeditated death of another person by an unlawful act or omission is guilty of the crime of premeditated murder . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) ( as amended in DATE by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides as follows :

“ Any person who shall be convicted of premeditated murder shall be liable to imprisonment for life . ”

Before its amendment by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the above section provided the mandatory sentence of the death penalty for the offence of premeditated murder .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( as amended by LAW . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provides that , with the exception of premeditated murder and the offence of treason ( sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ) , in cases where a person has been convicted of other serious offences that are punishable by a sentence of imprisonment for life , such as manslaughter ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) , or of any other period , the court trying the case has the discretion to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a shorter period or one of a pecuniary form instead which does not exceed the amount that court is empowered to impose .

In the case of PERSON v. GPE ( ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL ) , ORG examined the constitutionality of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( at the time the death penalty was still in force ) , and held as follows :

“ The first objective of LAW [ of LAW ] is to sanction the death penalty for the limited class of grave crimes specified therein . The second , to vest competence in the legislature to fix such measure of punishment as mandatory in the exercise of its legislative power ... The expression ‘ a law may PERSON in the second part of LAW imports discretion leaving it to the legislature to ordain the death penalty for premeditated murder as a matter of legislative policy . They are not bound but may do so if they deem it appropriate . By necessary implication they may ordain any other fixed measure of punishment including , no doubt , a sentence of life imprisonment . ... Obviously the constitutional legislation singled out the crimes listed in LAW for exceptional treatment in view of their gravity and their repercussions on the well - being of society . In the case of premeditated murder what marks the gravity of the offence is the element of premeditation that necessarily renders the crime particularly heinous . In agreement with ORG , we rule that sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW are not unconstitutional and as such make a sentence of life imprisonment obligatory upon conviction for premeditated murder . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The President or the Vice - President of the Republic shall have the right to exercise the prerogative of mercy with regard to persons belonging to their respective Community who are condemned to death .

Where the person injured and the offender are members of different Communities such prerogative of mercy shall be exercised by agreement between the President and the Vice - President of the LOC ; in the event of disagreement between the CARDINAL the vote for clemency shall prevail .

NORP In case the prerogative of mercy is exercised under paragraph CARDINAL or CARDINAL of this Article the death sentence shall be commuted to life imprisonment .

NORP The President and the Vice - President of the Republic shall , on the unanimous recommendation of the Attorney - General and the Deputy Attorney - General of the Republic , remit , suspend , or commute any sentence passed by a court in GPE in all other cases . ”

Following the events of DATE , in particular the withdrawal of NORP from the government and the consequent occupation of northern GPE by NORP troops , the decision to remit , suspend , or commute any sentence under LAW has to be taken by the President of the Republic with the concurrence of the Attorney - General of the Republic .

The Attorney - General may make recommendations or give advice to the President of the Republic concerning the early release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment . The President , however , is not bound by such advice or recommendations .

The relevant provisions of ORG , as applicable at the time FAC of DATE came into force ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , read as follows .

“ ORG may make regulations for the proper custody and support of prisoners , for the nature and amount of labour to be performed by them , for the classification of prisoners according to their different sentences , for the punishment of offences committed by prisoners , and for the maintenance of good order and discipline in prisons . All such regulations , before coming into force , shall be published in the GPE . ”

“ Regulations made under LAW may make provision whereby , in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations , a person serving a sentence of imprisonment may be granted remission of such part of that sentence as may be so prescribed on the ground of his industry and good conduct ; and on the discharge of a person from a prison in pursuance of any such remission as aforesaid his sentence shall expire . ”

“ The Governor may at any time if he thinks fit release on licence a person serving a term of imprisonment for life subject to compliance with such conditions , if any , as the Governor may from time to time determine . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of FAC of DATE , made on the basis of section CARDINAL of the Prison Discipline Law ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) , read as follows .

“ No convicted person shall be discharged from the Prison before the expiration of his sentence except as provided by LAW . ”

“ Every prisoner serving a sentence of DATE or more may be granted remission of CARDINAL of the sentence , on the ground of good conduct and industry . ”

“ Where the imprisonment is for life or where a sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment for life , remission of the sentence shall be calculated as if the imprisonment is for DATE . ”

“ The date of the expiration of the sentence and the earliest possible date of discharge shall be entered in the personal record of each prisoner and in the discharge book to be kept at the prison , and the Director shall inspect such records and discharge book at frequent intervals so as to ensure that the provisions of this Regulation are strictly complied with . ”

“ The Director shall submit to the minister for transmission to the Attorney - General of the Republic the name of every prisoner serving a life sentence who has served DATE of such sentence , or of every prisoner serving a sentence exceeding QUANTITY years who has served DATE of his sentence , who has attained , or is believed in the absence of positive evidence to have attained , DATE , for consideration of his case . The Director shall communicate this rule to every such prisoner . Prisoners must be made distinctly to understand that the submission of their name to the minister in no way implies that any remission of sentence will be necessarily granted . ”

The Prison ( General ) ( Amending ) Regulations of DATE came into force on CARDINAL DATE and amended ORG of DATE .

The following definition of “ imprisonment for life ” was introduced in LAW :

“ In the present Regulations :

‘ imprisonment for life’ means imprisonment for DATE .

Regulation CARDINAL , governing the remission of the sentence of prisoners serving a sentence of life imprisonment , provided as follows :

“ ( i ) Every prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment for life may be granted remission of his sentence on the ground of good conduct and industry , not exceeding in total CARDINAL of such sentence .

( ii ) The decision on the reduction of the sentence , as well as the extent of such remission for each aforesaid prisoner , shall not be taken unless the said prisoner has served DATE of his sentence . ”

Regulation CARDINAL(c ) was repealed .

In the case of GPE v. the Attorney - General of GPE ( ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL ) , ORG stated , inter alia , the following concerning subsidiary legislation :

“ ... the power for the enactment of subsidiary legislation must , in the nature of things , emanate strictly from the provisions of the enabling law . Any other approach would constitute an encroachment on the legislative powers of ORG , the body exclusively entrusted with legislative powers , under our LAW . Subsidiary legislation enacted without just cause will be declared ultra vires ... A body to which power is delegated to legislate must derive authority from the provisions of the enabling enactment ; any attempt to bypass or transgress the limits set thereto will be struck down as ultra vires . They can not infer the existence of any authority to legislate , other than that expressly conferred by law , and must , therefore , confine themselves to the CARDINAL corners of the enabling enactment . Any relaxation of this approach would certainly undermine the system of separation of powers that pervades our system of law and finds expression in the LAW . ”

In the case of PERSON v. GPE ( ( DATE ) , judgment of DATE ) , ORG , when examining the manner of the remission of sentence by the President under LAW with regard to a prisoner serving a DATE sentence , stated the following :

“ ... Under LAW the President of the Republic remitted the sentence passed by the ORG and not the sentence that would have been served in the light of LAW . This is clear from the wording of LAW which in so far as material on this point says that ‘ The President ... remits ... any sentence passed by a court in the Republic ... ’ . ”

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of GPE v. PERSON , alias Yiouroukkis ( case no . CARDINAL ) ORG , when sentencing the accused for premeditated murder under LAW , stated , among other things , the following :

“ The accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment after being found guilty of premeditated murder . This sentence is imposed by the ORG mandatorily ; since it is the only one provided by LAW , PERSON . CARDINAL , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which also amends section CARDINAL of LAW , the ORG can not impose another sentence for the crime of premeditated murder . After the abolition by this PERSON of the death penalty , the legislature provided for the above sentence so it would be in agreement with LAW . LAW provides for the commutation of a death sentence to a sentence of life imprisonment , in the event that the President of GPE his right of pardon on the basis of LAW .

Counsel for the accused suggested that the ORG should order that the sentence of life imprisonment that was imposed on the accused should run concurrently with the one he is already serving .

... [ i]n support of his suggestion he referred to the case of NORP v. PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL All E.R. CARDINAL .

... In contrast , PERSON argued that the ORG must order that the sentence imposed should be served after the one already being served by the accused because , on the basis of the Regulations of CARDINAL ( ORG , Part CARDINAL of CARDINAL ) , which were made by ORG and published in ORG after being put before ORG , the interpretation of the term ‘ life imprisonment’ is given as meaning ‘ imprisonment for DATE . Regulation CARDINAL of these ORG provides that a person sentenced to life imprisonment may be granted remission of his sentence on the ground of good conduct and industry , not exceeding in total CARDINAL of this sentence . Therefore , Mr GPE continued , the sentence of life imprisonment has been determined at a period of DATE , or DATE if the convicted person demonstrates good conduct . Consequently , what Lord PERSON said in the case of R v. PERSON , on which counsel for the accused relied , does not apply . Mr PERSON also showed his concern , as Senior Counsel of the Republic , about the possible cases , such as the present one , where CARDINAL person commits many murders but is only given CARDINAL sentence of imprisonment for DATE or DATE .

Our opinion is that neither Mr GPE nor PERSON is treating the legal issue correctly .

On the basis of everything said by Lord PERSON [ in the case of NORP v. PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL All E.R. CARDINAL ] , life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the time for which the applicant is alive . Accordingly , and since a sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed on the accused , no other such sentence can follow . PERSON suggests , however , that the court must issue this order , for he is also basing himself on the Regulations of DATE and is concerned that , since these Regulations are in force , the accused may possibly be released in DATE and thus is not facing the danger of serving another prison sentence of QUANTITY or DATE , if the second sentence follows the first one .

LAW CARDINAL of the LAW provides that a court may not impose a longer sentence than that provided for by the law at the time of the commission of the offence . LAW indeed provides that the sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory and the only sentence following conviction for premeditated murder . In our judgment , the sentence ‘ imprisonment for life’ means exactly what is stated by the simple NORP words , that is , imprisonment for the remainder of the biological existence of the convicted person . This interpretation was also given by ORG in the case of NORP v. PERSON ... As we have already stated , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW is the only provision prescribing the sentence of life imprisonment as mandatory , and this in the light of the provisions of LAW . LAW were drawn up on the basis of ORG PERSON . CARDINAL ) , which still applies on the basis of the provisions of the LAW even though it was enacted just when GPE became an NORP colony . The provisions of this law , however , have to be applied in such a way that they comply with the express provisions of LAW . We wonder whether these Regulations are not unconstitutional and whether the interpretation of the term ‘ imprisonment for life’ , which is encountered in the LAW and LAW , so as to mean ‘ DATE , is arbitrary . We say ‘ we wonder’ since such an issue has not been raised before us and thus we have no right in this procedure to convey an opinion on this . Another observation that can be made , however , is the following : it appears that the drafters of the Regulations , even if they are valid , did not notice the special provision of LAW of the above PERSON ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) which concerns life prisoners and provides that they may be released on licence by a decision of the ‘ PERSON , which may be revoked . The life sentence is specifically provided for in the above PERSON to last for life , along the lines of the LANGUAGE legal system . This is why Lord PERSON stated what we quoted above . Another issue that is raised , even for the purposes of academic debate , is to what extent a law or regulation can provide for the remission , suspension or commutation of a convicted person ’s sentence in view of the express provision of LAW which bestows this privilege on the President of the Republic with the concurrence of the Attorney - General .

It has been established by judicial precedent that when the court imposes a sentence , it does not take into account regulations , even if they are applicable , that allow for the remission of the sentence when a convicted person displays good conduct . The Regulations of DATE were made in order to serve the purposes to which the court does not refer when passing the sentence , which is determined on the basis of the applicable legislation and LAW . It is therefore up to the competent authorities , when and if the matter is raised at the appropriate time , to take into account what we have mentioned above in the form of legal observations . We have already imposed on the accused the sentence that the law envisages , that is , life imprisonment , and we have nothing else to add . ”

On DATE , in a letter to ORG , through ORG , the Attorney - General at the time stated the following concerning the prisoner PERSON :

“ In reply to your letter dated DATE and file no . GPE , I would inform you that the convicted person PERSON , to whom your letter refers , was sentenced to life imprisonment by ORG on DATE in criminal case no . ORG and this was interpreted in ORG judgment to mean imprisonment for the rest of his biological existence .

This legal approach concerning the nature of life imprisonment was also adopted in a subsequent case , no . CARDINAL , by ORG on DATE .

In view of the above , the duration of the sentence in the case of a sentence of life imprisonment is not determined and is not reduced in accordance with LAW ) of ORG DATE respectively , but the sentence in question is subject to remission or suspension by the President of the Republic , in accordance with LAW , who in exercising his powers , may take into account , among other things , the spirit of the above - mentioned LAW and PERSON ) . ”

DATE . On DATE , in a letter to the Director General of ORG , the Attorney - General at the time stated the following concerning the prisoner PERSON :

“ In reply to your letter dated DATE and file no . GPE CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , concerning the duration of the life imprisonment of the convicted person , PERSON , I observe the following :

In the present case ORG , when it imposed the sentence of life imprisonment on the above - mentioned convicted person , interpreted section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , PERSON . CARDINAL ( as amended , for this purpose , by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and judged that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the convicted person ’s biological existence . Consequently , there is a court judgment for the duration of the sentence of the specific convicted person which has not been overruled on appeal and is binding and mandatory for all the authorities of the Republic .

The interpretation of the relevant provision of LAW given by ORG was followed ... , in a subsequent case , by ORG and since this interpretation has not been questioned by ORG or overruled by ORG , it must be regarded as the correct judicial interpretation of LAW provision in question and must be applied in the future to all situations where an accused is sentenced to life imprisonment , even if reference is not made in the judgment to the fact that such imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of his biological existence .

No issue of unequal treatment of prisoners who are serving a sentence of life imprisonment in comparison with prisoners who are serving sentences of a shorter term can be raised , because the sentence of life imprisonment , owing to its nature , differs radically from any other sentence of imprisonment and issues of unequal treatment can arise only when comparing similar , and not dissimilar , things .

Furthermore , there is no possibility of applying secondary legislation , such as the Prison ( General ) Regulations of DATE and DATE , when this conflicts with primary legislation such as the relevant provision of LAW . This is why , to the extent that the LAW in question conflict with the relevant provision of LAW as it has been interpreted judicially , they can not be applied .

... when the President of the Republic , in cooperation with the Attorney - General , examines the possibility of remission of the sentence in accordance with LAW , in the case in which the convicted person is serving a sentence of life imprisonment , he will have in mind that the sentence , unless there is a remission , means imprisonment for the remainder of the biological existence of the convicted person . ”

On DATE ORG ( first instance ) in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ruled that the Regulations were unconstitutional and ultra vires . The prisoner in that case had also been convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment . He had submitted a habeas corpus application to ORG when he was not released on the date that had been given to him as a release date by the prison authorities . ORG dismissed his application and affirmed that the term “ life imprisonment ” under LAW meant imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the convicted person . In particular , the court stated as follows :

“ LAW provides a mandatory sentence for the crime of premeditated murder : ‘ ... a sentence of imprisonment for life’ ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The constitutionality of this provision of the law was examined in the case of GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL and was held to be correct in the light of the provisions of Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . The sentence of life imprisonment is not equated by the legislature with a prison sentence for any period of time , neither where it is imposed as a mandatory punitive measure on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) nor as a discretionary measure under LAW of LAW , PERSON . CARDINAL . This would anyhow be contrary to the provisions of these CARDINAL sections of LAW since life imprisonment is mandatory for the crime of premeditated murder whereas for the purposes of section CARDINAL , where life imprisonment is a discretionary measure , the courts have the discretion to impose a sentence of a shorter period . A prison sentence for a period shorter than life imprisonment may comprise a sentence longer than imprisonment for DATE with which life imprisonment is equated on the basis of LAW of FAC . In the case of PERSON ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL ORG imposed a sentence of imprisonment of DATE following the commutation of the appellant ’s conviction for premeditated murder to manslaughter .

Mr PERSON [ the applicant ’s advocate ] suggested that the enactment of ORG of DATE ( LAW CARDINAL ) by ORG with the approval of the ORG , as provided by the enabling PERSON for the Submission to ORG issued under LAW of DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and ORG of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) resulted in the amendment of the relevant provisions of LAW so that a sentence of life imprisonment entailed only imprisonment for DATE . In support of his position he referred to ORG , CARDINALnd edition , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , where it is stated that in GPE the amendment of secondary legislation by ORG entails its transformation into primary legislation .

This suggestion ignores :

( a ) the fact that FAC were made within the scope of the authority granted by ORG and not on the basis of LAW ;

( b ) the direct connection between the Regulations of DATE with the authority granted by section CARDINAL of PERSON . CARDINAL and the fact that authority for their issue is drawn exclusively from the provisions of that law ;

( c ) the strict separation of powers which applies in GPE and the restriction of the executive to the enactment of secondary legislation on the basis of express authority which is granted by primary legislation ( see Police v. ORG , CARDINAL GPE CARDINAL ; GPE v. Attorney - General ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL , and GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL ) .

Acceptance of Mr PERSON ’s position would have , inter alia , as a consequence the involvement of the executive in the enactment of primary legislation in violation of LAW and the principle of separation of powers . In President of ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL and President of ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL , it is noted that the participation of ORG in the creation of secondary legislation does not transform its nature into primary legislation .

In Republic v. Sampson ( Civil Appeal DATE , decided on CARDINAL DATE ) the full bench of ORG had the opportunity to examine the legal status of ORG in relation to the enabling law , ORG PERSON . CARDINAL . At the outset we noted that this law was enacted in DATE and , as with any other colonial law which was in force at the time of the proclamation of the Republic , the provisions of PERSON . CARDINAL are applied while being adjusted ‘ to the necessary extent to the Constitution’ ( LAW ) . This adjustment , as we have pointed out , is within the competence of the judiciary ( see , inter alia , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL , and ORG ) v. ORG DATE , decided on CARDINAL DATE ) .

The adjustment of the provisions of PERSON . CARDINAL ensures that its provisions are compatible with the principle of the separation of powers , which constitutes the judiciary as the sole judge of the punishment of offenders ( see , inter alia , PERSON ( cited above ) and ORG of GPE v. PERSON , GPE CARDINAL ; GPE of GPE v. PERSON , CARDINAL R.S.C.C. DATE ; ORG of Lefka v. PERSON , CARDINAL R.S.C.C. DATE ; PERSON v. PERSON , CARDINAL R.S.C.C. DATE ; GPE of GPE v. PERSON , CARDINAL R.S.C.C. DATE ; GPE of GPE v. PERSON and Another , CARDINAL GPE DATE ; GPE Police v. PERSON , CARDINAL R.S.C.C. DATE ; GPE of PERSON v. PERSON , CARDINAL R.S.C.C. DATE ; PERSON v. The Police ( DATE ) CARDINAL J.S.C. CARDINAL ) .

Consequently , to the degree and extent that section CARDINAL , in conjunction with section CARDINAL , of PERSON . CARDINAL confers power for the determination of the duration of a sentence of imprisonment on an authority other than a judicial one , it is contrary to the LAW and has ceased to be in force following the proclamation of the Republic . Besides , the granting of power to ORG to remit the sentence because of good conduct and industry , under the provisions of LAW , is contrary to the principle of the separation of powers , which precludes the involvement of an executive or administrative organ in the determination of the punishment of an offender . The only authority on whom power is conferred by LAW to remit , suspend or commute a prison sentence is the President of the Republic , acting with the concurrence of the Attorney General . The examination of the power to make secondary legislation conferred by sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of PERSON . CARDINAL is not directly required in this case , since neither of the CARDINAL provisions concerns the serving of a sentence of life imprisonment . The serving of life imprisonment is regulated specifically by the provisions of LAW of PERSON . CARDINAL , from which it emerges that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the remainder of the life of the convicted person , subject to the right granted to the President of the Republic to suspend the sentence for such period of time as may be fixed on the release of the convicted person on licence . LAW . CARDINAL is in harmony with the LAW and has maintained its force after the proclamation of the Republic inasmuch as it is consistent with the powers conferred on the President of the Republic by LAW . ”

ORG thus concluded that it had not been shown that Mr PERSON should have been released on the date given or any subsequent date and , consequently , the habeas corpus application was rejected .

In DATE CARDINAL life prisoners ( CARDINAL serving a mandatory life sentence and CARDINAL a discretionary life sentence ) were released on the basis of LAW . Their sentences were commuted to twenty years’ imprisonment and then remitted so as to allow their immediate release . The procedure followed for the release of these prisoners was the same . The following example concerns the case of CARDINAL such prisoner :

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to the President of the Republic , the Attorney - General of the Republic stated the following in relation to a life prisoner :

“ Dear Mr President ,

PERSON ( convict no . DATE in FAC ) was sentenced by ORG to life imprisonment for premeditated murder .

On the basis of the applicable Prison ( General ) Regulations DATE and DATE , it was considered that life imprisonment was equal to imprisonment for DATE and it was announced to him , DATE after he was sentenced , that his sentence would be DATE imprisonment from DATE .

In the meantime his sentence was reduced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment on account of a presidential pardon in respect of CARDINAL of the sentence ( DATE ) , on the occasion of the election of the new President of the Republic in DATE , and on account of the remission of DATE for good conduct and industry , in accordance with ORG , and the date of his release was determined as DATE .

On DATE ORG , in another case , judged that life imprisonment was for the remainder of the biological existence of the convicted person and , hence , on DATE , I gave the opinion that in such a case the relevant Regulations can not be applied in a way that would automatically reduce life imprisonment to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

In the light of all the above , I suggest that this convicted person ’s sentence should be commuted to DATE imprisonment and reduced by DATE on the basis of the presidential pardon of DATE and by such an additional period that he may be immediately released .

The life prisoners PERSON , and PERSON and PERSON were afforded the same treatment , the first CARDINAL in DATE and the last - mentioned recently .

I take this opportunity to suggest , on humanitarian grounds , that the sentences of all life prisoners whose date of release was determined , on the basis of the Prison ( General ) Regulations DATE and DATE , as falling within DATE and DATE should be commuted to DATE imprisonment and reduced so they may be released immediately and not kept in a state of agony as to whether they will eventually receive the same treatment .

The next date determined , on the basis of the above Regulations , for release of a life prisoner is DATE .

The relevant order is enclosed for your signature in the event that you agree with my above suggestion . ”

On DATE the President of the Republic announced the following in relation to the same life prisoner :

“ Because the convicted person PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) was sentenced , on DATE , in criminal case no . CARDINAL , by ORG , to life imprisonment for premeditated murder , and

§ CARDINAL of the LAW , commutation of the sentence to imprisonment of DATE and its remission so that he may be released immediately ;

For this reason , on the recommendation of the Attorney - General of the Republic , by this Order , on the basis of LAW , the convicted person ’s sentence is commuted to DATE imprisonment and is remitted so that he is released immediately . ”

On DATE an announcement was made concerning the release of CARDINAL life prisoners , the relevant part of which stated :

“ The President of the Republic , on the basis of recommendations to this end by the Attorney - General of the Republic , and with the opportunity of the first anniversary of ORG during his presidential term , has decided to remit the sentences , so that they are released immediately , of the following life prisoners , who , if their sentences had been assessed on the basis of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , would have been released in DATE or DATE : PERSON PERSON Saado El Khalifa Khalet Abdel Kader El Khatib Saadeldin Mohammad Idress Achilleas Georgiou Avraam Anastasis PERSON . ”

On DATE , the Prison Law of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) was enacted , repealing and replacing LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) .

The relevant part of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , governing the release of prisoners , provides as follows :

“ No prisoner who is serving a sentence of imprisonment may be discharged from prison until he has served his sentence in accordance with the provisions of this law except in the case provided for by LAW or any other law in force . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prison Law of DATE provides that , with the exception of prisoners serving a life sentence , a sentence can be remitted if the prisoner demonstrates good conduct and industry . The relevant part reads as follows :

“ In accordance with the provisions of this PERSON , a person who is serving a prison sentence shall obtain remission of his sentence if he displays good conduct and industry , unless a sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed on him . ”

Section CARDINAL of the PERSON ( as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL(I)/CARDINAL ) , governing the release of prisoners under conditions , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Subject to the provisions of the LAW , the President of the Republic , with the agreement of the Attorney - General of the Republic , may order by decree the conditional release of a prisoner at any time .

A prisoner who is conditionally released by virtue of this section , may , until the expiry of his sentence , be under the supervision and inspection of a person specified in LAW and shall conform to whatever other conditions and restrictions are set out in the said Decree .

NORP The President of the Republic , with the agreement of the Attorney - General of the Republic , may at any time by a new decree amend or nullify the conditions and restrictions contained in the decree issued by virtue of subsection CARDINAL above .

NORP If before the expiry of the sentence of the prisoner who is released , as referred to above , the President of the Republic , with the agreement of the Attorney - General of the Republic , is satisfied that the said person has failed to comply with any valid condition or restriction set out in the decree , he may by a new decree revoke the convicted person ’s conditional release and order his return to prison to serve the rest of his sentence .

After the convicted person ’s return to prison he shall be entitled to the benefits provided in CARDINAL of this PERSON only after DATE has elapsed from the date of his return to prison and provided that during DATE he has displayed industry and good conduct .

The period of time from the date of the decree for the release of the prisoner on the basis of this section until the date of its revocation shall be included in the period of the sentence served by the prisoner .

A prisoner who does not comply with the decree revoking his release shall be deemed to be a fugitive from lawful detention . ”

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows .

“ No person shall be deprived of his life except in the execution of a sentence of a competent court following his conviction of an offence for which this penalty is provided by law . A law may provide for such penalty only in cases of premeditated murder , high treason , piracy jure gentium and capital offences under military law . ”

“ No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment . ”

“ No person shall be held guilty of any offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute an offence under the law at the time when it was committed ; and no person shall have a heavier punishment imposed on him for an offence other than that expressly provided for it by law at the time when it was committed . ”

“ No law shall provide for a punishment which is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence . ”

“ CARDINAL . A party to any judicial proceedings , including proceedings on appeal , may , at any stage thereof , raise the question of the unconstitutionality of any law or decision or any provision thereof material for the determination of any matter at issue in such proceedings and thereupon the ORG before which such question is raised shall reserve the question for the decision of ORG and stay further proceedings until such question is determined by ORG .

ORG , on a question so reserved , shall , after hearing the parties , consider and determine the question so reserved and transmit its decision to the ORG by which such question has been reserved .

Any decision of ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of this Article shall be binding on the court by which the question has been reserved and on the parties to the proceedings and shall , in case such decision is to the effect that the law or decision or any provision thereof is unconstitutional , operate as to make such law or decision inapplicable to such proceedings only . ”

Under the LAW the Attorney - General is an independent officer of the Republic . The relevant parts of LAW provide as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The President and the Vice - President of the Republic shall appoint jointly CARDINAL persons who are qualified for appointment as a judge of ORG one to be the Attorney - General of GPE and the other to be the Deputy Attorney - General of the Republic .

The Attorney - General of the Republic shall be the Head and the Deputy AttorneyGeneral of the Republic shall be the Deputy Head of ORG which shall be an independent office and shall not be under any Ministry .

The Attorney - General and the Deputy Attorney - General of the Republic shall be members of the permanent legal service of the LOC and shall hold office under the same terms and conditions as a judge of ORG other than its President and shall not be removed from office except on the like grounds and in the like manner as such judge of ORG .

Under LAW , the Attorney - General is the legal adviser of the Republic and the President :

“ CARDINAL . The Attorney - General of the Republic , assisted by the Deputy Attorney - General of the Republic , shall be the legal adviser of the Republic and of the President and of the Vice - President of the Republic and of ORG and of the Ministers and shall exercise all such other powers and shall perform all such other functions and duties as are conferred or imposed on him by this LAW or by law .

The Attorney - General of the Republic shall have power , exercisable at his discretion in the public interest , to institute , conduct , take over and continue or discontinue any proceedings for an offence against any person in the LOC . Such power may be exercised by him in person or by officers subordinate to him acting under and in accordance with his instructions . ”

In her report the Commissioner for Administration examined , inter alia , issues concerning life imprisonment . In this context she examined the situation in other member ORG , principally GPE , GPE and GPE , vis - à - vis GPE . She stated , amongst other things , the following :

Life imprisonment

In LOC there are currently CARDINAL prisoners who have been sentenced to life imprisonment . The matter of the sentence of life imprisonment , in the light of the regime in force , is being discussed both by ORG and by the competent committee under the aegis of ORG , which also had the initiative in promoting the subject . The central component of this process now in progress is the regulating by law of life imprisonment in a way which will give the possibility to those serving life sentences of being released once they have served a significant part of their sentence and previously received the appropriate treatment and preparation . Reservations are expressed about whether such regulating is constitutional .

I am of the opinion that the regulating by law of the matter is permitted by LAW . It is not a procedure for granting a pardon but the regulating of the serving of a sentence which in no way conflicts with the prerogative of the President of the Republic to remit , commute or suspend a sentence by virtue of LAW . In accordance with the separation of powers , the regulating by law of the matter could include , in the case of the imposition by the courts of the sentence of life imprisonment , empowering the same court to fix a minimum term for the sentence which would be served obligatorily before examination of the possibility of the conditional release of the prisoner . I am of the opinion that this minimum term of the sentence should not exceed CARDINAL - five years . Within the framework of the proposed regulation a committee may be set up with an advisory role which , on the basis of enacted criteria and in accordance with the rehabilitation progress of each prisoner serving a life sentence and the particular circumstances of each case , could recommend conditional release .

Conclusions – Recommendations – Suggestions

– In relation to the matter of prisoners serving life sentences , I consider essential the acceleration of the process of the regulating by law of the matter in a way which will fix a minimum time - limit for serving the sentence , which will not exceed CARDINAL - five years , after the expiration of which and according to the circumstances of each case the possibility of the conditional release of a prisoner serving a life sentence can be examined .

The following paragraphs contain a summary of the information provided by the Government in the context of the present proceedings as to the position under their domestic law concerning the operation and validity of the DATE and CARDINAL Regulations .

Prior to ORG judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) , the Regulations – in particular LAW and DATE – were understood by the executive and administrative authorities of the Republic , including ORG , as imposing a maximum period of DATE to be served by any person who had been sentenced to life imprisonment . Any prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment after the above Regulations came into force would , in practice , have had a period of DATE automatically deducted from the time to be served in prison by way of remission pursuant to LAW . DATE of remission could be deducted from this DATE period as a consequence of misconduct by the prisoner . It was understood by the LOC ’s executive and administrative authorities , including ORG , that a life prisoner ’s misconduct could not result in him being detained beyond the DATE point . In fact , because of the very limited number of life prisoners in GPE and the dates of their respective convictions , no life prisoner had ever reached the point in his sentence when these provisions were applied directly so as to lead to his release . The release of the CARDINAL life prisoners in DATE had been pursuant to LAW in the light of how the Regulations would have operated in their cases .

In its judgment in the case of PERSON , ORG declared Regulation CARDINAL to be unconstitutional and ultra vires in relation to the enabling primary legislation , namely FAC . Under NORP domestic law , the position was that in proceedings where the constitutionality of subsidiary legislation was raised by a party by way of collateral challenge , the court ’s judgment only took effect in relation to the particular subject matter of the proceedings . Thus , ORG judgment in the case of LAW , in which the constitutionality of LAW had been raised as a collateral issue to PERSON habeas corpus application , was only operative so as to determine the ongoing legality of his detention . It also followed from LAW that the above judgment did not operate so as to render LAW unconstitutional and invalid as against persons other than the parties to that case . In other words , it did not result in LAW being rendered invalid vis - à - vis other individuals .

Because ORG judgment in PERSON had been binding on the parties to the case , including the executive and administrative authorities of GPE could not thereafter lawfully be applied by the above authorities . Nonetheless , the judgment could not be understood as having retrospective effect such as to impugn the validity of Regulation CARDINAL as it had been applied to other individuals affected by that Regulation . Therefore , the fact that Regulation CARDINAL was declared unconstitutional and ultra vires by ORG in DATE did not have retrospective effect such as to render the Regulation void ab initio for all purposes . It did not , for example , render unlawful any action taken pursuant to LAW between the date of its enactment and the judgment in Hadjisavvas . Accordingly , at the time of the applicant ’s offence in DATE or at the time he was sentenced in DATE , LAW could not have been void or without legal effect in respect of the applicant . After the Hadjisavvas judgment , however , the administrative and executive authorities of the Republic could not lawfully take action , in reliance on LAW , treating it as reducing a life sentence imposed by a court to a maximum of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment since this would have been inconsistent with the LAW as authoritatively interpreted by ORG in that judgment .

DATE . DATE of ORG on the Prevention of Terrorism provides as follows :

Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted either as imposing an obligation to extradite if the person who is the subject of the extradition request risks being exposed to the death penalty or , where the law of the requested party does not allow for life imprisonment , to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole , unless under applicable extradition treaties the requested party is under the obligation to extradite if the requesting party gives such assurance as the requested party considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be imposed or , where imposed , will not be carried out , or that the person concerned will not be subject to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole . ”

Matters relating to long - term imprisonment and conditional release were addressed by ORG as DATE as DATE , when it adopted ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL on the treatment of long - term prisoners on CARDINAL DATE ( at the FAC meeting of ORG ) :

“ ORG ,

I. Recommends that the governments of the member States :

NORP ensure that the cases of all prisoners will be examined as early as possible to determine whether or not a conditional release can be granted ;

grant the prisoner conditional release , subject to the statutory requirements relating to the time served , as soon as favourable prognosis can be formulated ; considerations of general prevention alone should not justify refusal of conditional release ;

adapt to life sentences the same principles as apply to long - term sentences ;

NORP ensure that a review , as referred to in CARDINAL , of the life sentence should take place , if not done before , after DATE of detention and be repeated at regular intervals ;

In its general report the sub - committee responsible for drafting the resolution stated :

“ ... it is inhuman to imprison a person for life without any hope of release . A crime - prevention policy which accepts keeping a prisoner for life even if he is no longer a danger to society would be compatible neither with modern principles on the treatment of prisoners during the execution of their sentence nor with the idea of the reintegration of offenders into society . Nobody should be deprived of the chance of possible release . Just how far this chance can be realised must depend on the individual prognosis . ”

On DATE ORG R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL concerning prison overcrowding and prison population inflation ( adopted at the ORG meeting of ORG ) , the relevant part of which provides as follows .

The development of measures should be promoted which reduce the actual length of the sentence served , by giving preference to individualised measures , such as early conditional release ( parole ) , over collective measures for the management of prison overcrowding ( amnesties , collective pardons ) .

Parole should be regarded as CARDINAL of the most effective and constructive measures , which not only reduces the length of imprisonment but also contributes substantially to a planned return of the offender to the community .

NORP In order to promote and expand the use of parole , best conditions for offender support , assistance and supervision in the community have to be created , not least with a view to prompting the competent judicial or administrative authorities to consider this measure as a valuable and responsible option .

Effective programmes for treatment during detention and for supervision and treatment after release should be devised and implemented so as to facilitate the resettlement of offenders , to reduce recidivism , to provide public safety and protection and to give judges and prosecutors the confidence that measures aimed at reducing the actual length of the sentence to be served and the community sanctions and measures are constructive and responsible options .

On DATE ORG adopted Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL on conditional release ( at the NORP meeting of ORG ) , the relevant parts of which provide as follows .

“ ORG , under the terms of Article CARDINAL.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe ,

Considering that it is in ORG member States’ interest to establish common principles regarding the enforcement of custodial sentences in order to strengthen international cooperation in this field ;

Recognising that conditional release is one of the most effective and constructive means of preventing reoffending and promoting resettlement , providing the prisoner with planned , assisted and supervised reintegration into the community ;

Considering that it should be used in ways that are adapted to individual circumstances and consistent with the principles of justice and fairness ;

Considering , therefore , that it is desirable to reduce the length of prison sentences as much as possible and that conditional release before the full sentence has been served is an important means to that end ;

Recognising that conditional release measures require the support of political leaders , administrative officials , judges , public prosecutors , advocates and the public , who therefore need a detailed explanation as to the reasons for adapting prison sentences ;

Considering that legislation and the practice of conditional release should comply with the fundamental principles of democratic GPE governed by the rule of law , whose primary objective is to guarantee human rights in accordance with ORG and the case - law of the organs entrusted with its application ;

Recommends that governments of member PERSON :

ORG introduce conditional release in their legislation if it does not already provide for this measure ;

be guided in their legislation , policies and practice on conditional release by the principles contained in the appendix to this recommendation ;

NORP ensure that this recommendation on conditional release and its explanatory memorandum are disseminated as widely as possible .

Appendix to Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL

II . General principles

NORP Conditional release should aim at assisting prisoners to make a transition from life in prison to a law - abiding life in the community through post - release conditions and supervision that promote this end and contribute to public safety and the reduction of crime in the community .

CARDINAL(a ) In order to reduce the harmful effects of imprisonment and to promote the resettlement of prisoners under conditions that seek to guarantee safety of the outside community , the law should make conditional release available to all sentenced prisoners , including life - sentence prisoners .

CARDINAL ) If prison sentences are so short that conditional release is not possible , other ways of achieving these aims should be looked for .

When starting to serve their sentence , prisoners should know either when they become eligible for release by virtue of having served a minimum period ( defined in absolute terms and/or by reference to a proportion of the sentence ) and the criteria that will be applied to determine whether they will be granted release ( ‘ discretionary release system’ ) or when they become entitled to release as of right by virtue of having served a fixed period defined in absolute terms and/or by reference to a proportion of the sentence ( ‘ mandatory release system’ ) .

The minimum or fixed period should not be so long that the purpose of conditional release can not be achieved .

IV . Granting of conditional release

Discretionary release system

The minimum period that prisoners have to serve to become eligible for conditional release should be fixed in accordance with the law .

The relevant authorities should initiate the necessary procedure to enable a decision on conditional release to be taken as soon as the prisoner has served the minimum period .

The criteria that prisoners have to fulfil in order to be conditionally released should be clear and explicit . They should also be realistic in the sense that they should take into account the ORG personalities and social and economic circumstances as well as the availability of resettlement programmes .

The lack of possibilities for work on release should not constitute a ground for refusing or postponing conditional release . Efforts should be made to find other forms of occupation . The absence of regular accommodation should not constitute a ground for refusing or postponing conditional release and in such cases temporary accommodation should be arranged .

The criteria for granting conditional release should be applied so as to grant conditional release to all prisoners who are considered as meeting the minimum level of safeguards for becoming law - abiding citizens . It should be incumbent on the authorities to show that a prisoner has not fulfilled the criteria .

If the decision - making authority decides not to grant conditional release it should set a date for reconsidering the question . In any case , prisoners should be able to reapply to the decision - making authority as soon as their situation has changed to their advantage in a substantial manner .

Mandatory release system

The period that prisoners must serve in order to become entitled to release should be fixed by law .

ORG . Procedural safeguards

Decisions on granting , postponing or revoking conditional release , as well as on imposing or modifying conditions and measures attached to it , should be taken by authorities established by law in accordance with procedures covered by the following safeguards :

( a ) NORP convicted persons should have the right to be heard in person and to be assisted according to the law ;

( b ) the decision - making authority should give careful consideration to any elements , including statements , presented by convicted persons in support of their case ;

( c ) NORP convicted persons should have adequate access to their file ;

( d ) decisions should state the underlying reasons and be notified in writing .

Convicted persons should be able to make a complaint to a higher independent and impartial decision - making authority established by law against the substance of the decision as well as against non - respect of the procedural guarantees .

Complaints procedures should also be available concerning the implementation of conditional release .

All complaints procedures should comply with the guarantees set out in Rules CARDINAL of the NORP rules on community sanctions and measures .

Nothing in DATE should be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the rights that may be guaranteed in this connection by LAW .

On DATE ORG adopted Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL on ORG ( at the PERSON meeting of ORG ) , the relevant part of which provides as follows .

“ Part VIII

Sentenced prisoners

Objective of the regime for sentenced prisoners

CARDINAL NORP In addition to the rules that apply to all prisoners , the regime for sentenced prisoners shall be designed to enable them to lead a responsible and crime - free life .

CARDINAL Imprisonment is by the deprivation of liberty a punishment in itself and therefore the regime for sentenced prisoners shall not aggravate the suffering inherent in imprisonment . ”

“ CARDINAL . Meanwhile , the ORG has passed amendments to the LAW allowing prison sentences to be replaced by community service . The Minister of ORG also disclosed current discussions in the government on the penalty of life imprisonment , with a view to making termination of imprisonment possible subject to certain conditions . ”

“ CARDINAL . In her report concerning the detention conditions at FAC in DATE , the ORG criticised the Cypriot authorities’ interpretation of life sentence as imprisonment for the rest of the convicted person ’s life . In most other ORG member GPE life imprisonment does not entail imprisonment for the rest of the natural life of the convicted person . At the time of the Commissioner ’s first visit there were discussions in the government about the possibility of terminating life imprisonment subject to certain conditions . A solution to this question has yet to be found , though . The Deputy Director of FAC spoke of the difficulties in dealing with those currently serving life sentence , CARDINAL men at the time of the ORG ’s visit , both in terms of the ORG morale , and security issues . The usual incentives for encouraging good behaviour in prisoners were inevitably of no use in relation to those serving life sentences , and this posed security problems both for the warders and for the other prisoners . ”

The Council Framework Decision CARDINAL/CARDINAL/JHA of DATE on the NORP arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member GPE ( ORG CARDINAL of DATE , p. CARDINAL ) provides for the execution in any member ORG of a judicial decision made in another member ORG for the arrest and surrender of a person for the purpose of criminal proceedings or the execution of a custodial sentence . The relevant parts of LAW provide as follows :

“ The execution of the NORP arrest warrant by the executing judicial authority may , by the law of the executing member ORG , be subject to the following conditions :

NORP if the offence on the basis of which the NORP arrest warrant has been issued is punishable by custodial life sentence or life - time detention order , the execution of the said arrest warrant may be subject to the condition that the issuing member ORG has provisions in its legal system for a review of the penalty or measure imposed , on request or at DATE , or for the application of measures of clemency to which the person is entitled to apply for under the law or practice of the issuing member ORG , aiming at a non - execution of such penalty or measure ; ... ”

The relevant part of LAW , pertaining to applicable penalties , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Subject to Article CARDINAL , the ORG may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a crime referred to in LAW :

( a ) Imprisonment for a specified number of DATE , which may not exceed a maximum of DATE ; or

( b ) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person .

DATE . Article CARDINAL , concerning the ORG by ORG on the reduction of sentences , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG of enforcement shall not release the person before expiry of the sentence pronounced by the ORG .

The ORG alone shall have the right to decide any reduction of sentence , and shall rule on the matter after having heard the person .

When the person has served CARDINAL of the sentence , or DATE in the case of life imprisonment , the ORG shall review the sentence to determine whether it should be reduced . Such a review shall not be conducted before that time .

NORP In its review under § CARDINAL , the ORG may reduce the sentence if it finds that CARDINAL or more of the following factors are present :

( a ) The early and continuing willingness of the person to cooperate with the ORG in its investigations and prosecutions ;

( b ) The voluntary assistance of the person in enabling the enforcement of the judgements and orders of the ORG in other cases , and in particular providing assistance in locating assets subject to orders of fine , forfeiture or reparation which may be used for the benefit of victims ; or

( c ) Other factors establishing a clear and significant change of circumstances sufficient to justify the reduction of sentence , as provided in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence .

ORG If the Court determines in its initial review under LAW that it is not appropriate to reduce the sentence , it shall thereafter review the question of reduction of sentence at such intervals and applying such criteria as provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence . ”


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

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

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ms PERSON .

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

NORP The applicant was charged , indicted and tried for ill - treatment and rape ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . The case was remitted to ORG súd ) , as the court of first instance , after its judgment ( rozsudok ) convicting the applicant had been quashed by ORG ( Krajský súd ) following an appeal by the applicant ( odvolanie ) .

The current state and outcome ( if any ) of the proceedings is unknown .

NORP In the course of his trial the applicant was remanded in custody and the term of his detention was repeatedly extended . The relevant part of the requests , appeals and decisions is described below .

The requests for release of DATE and DATE were dismissed by ORG on DATE and , following an interlocutory appeal ( sťažnosť ) by the applicant , by ORG on DATE , the final decision being served on the applicant on DATE . The proceedings leading up to the latter decision were found by ORG ( Ústavný súd ) on DATE to have been short of the “ speediness ” requirement under LAW . Accordingly , ORG found a violation of that provision and awarded the applicant the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in just satisfaction .

In the same judgment ( nález ) ORG found that the procedure leading up to a decision of ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) of DATE to extend the applicant ’s detention until DATE had equally been incompatible with the applicant ’s rights under LAW . A separate violation of that provision was found and , in that respect , the applicant was awarded the equivalent of some LAW by way of just satisfaction .

The request for release of DATE was dismissed on DATE and , following an interlocutory appeal by the applicant , also on DATE .

On DATE the applicant again requested release . He relied on different grounds from those submitted in his previous request , which at that time had not yet been determined . In particular , the applicant argued that in the proceedings leading up to the ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the last extension of his detention , he had been deprived of access to the case file and his observations had not been taken into account . This request has never been determined , which was found by ORG to be in breach of the applicant ’s rights under LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .

A further request for extension of the applicant ’s detention was dismissed on DATE , which is why the applicant was released , on DATE . In that decision , ORG observed , inter alia , that repeated requests for release and challenges for bias were the lawful right of the applicant and that , although they had undoubtedly had an impact on the length of the proceedings , they were no excuse in themselves for unjustified delays in the proceedings .

In the course of the proceedings , the applicant sought the withdrawal of individual judges as well as the entire bench of ORG and ORG , on the grounds of bias . These challenges had the following outcomes :

- A challenge concerning an assessor in the ORG chamber dealing with the applicant ’s case was dismissed as unfounded on DATE and , upon an interlocutory appeal by the applicant , also on DATE .

- Further challenges were lodged on DATE , against all the judges of ORG and the presiding judge of ORG chamber dealing with the applicant ’s case . Their outcomes are unknown .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant introduced and amended respectively a complaint under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG , contending that the procedure in respect of his request for release of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been contrary to his rights under LAW .

NORP On DATE and DATE , respectively , the complaint was declared admissible and ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s rights under the provision invoked .

ORG acknowledged that the applicant ’s request for release of DATE was based on grounds other than those in his request of DATE . The applicant was thus not precluded by law from making the second request before the final determination of the first one . Nevertheless , it had to be taken into account that the grounds underlying the second request must have already been known to the applicant at the time of the first request .

The Constitutional Court further observed that , at the relevant time , ORG had to deal with a number of matters concerning the applicant ’s detention , including a request for its extension . However , in view of ORG , it had been for ORG to deal first with the applicant ’s request for release and only then with the other matters , and not , as ORG had done , the other way round .

ORG considered that the applicant ’s procedural actions , and especially their accumulation at the relevant time , had been obstructionist in nature and that , with the term of the applicant ’s detention nearing its end , as authorised at that time in the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant ’s intention in taking those actions had been to create a time constraint for the courts . However , this had had no impact on the substantive conclusion , but was to be taken into account in connection with the applicant ’s compensation claim . It was precisely for this reason that ORG concluded that the finding of a violation of the applicant ’s right was sufficient satisfaction for him . In addition , the applicant was awarded legal costs .

The relevant part of Article CARDINAL reads as follows :

Everyone shall have the right to compensation for damage caused by an unlawful decision of a court , other ORG body or a body of public administration , or by wrongful official action .

Conditions and details ... shall be provided for by an Act of ORG . ”

Article CARDINAL :

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall decide on complaints by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .

If ORG finds a complaint justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that a person ’s rights or freedoms as set out in paragraph CARDINAL have been violated by a final decision , specific measure or other act and shall quash that decision , measure or act . If the violation that has been found is the result of a failure to act , ORG may order [ the authority ] which has violated the rights or freedoms to take the necessary action . At the same time it may remit the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order that authority to refrain from violating the fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order those who have violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL to restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation .

In its decision on a complaint ORG may award appropriate financial compensation to a person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL have been violated .

Liability for damage or other loss in respect of a person who has violated rights or freedoms as referred to in paragraph CARDINAL shall not be affected by a ORG decision . ”

LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) governs the organisation of ORG , the procedure before it and the status of its judges .

An individual complaint under LAW is made subject to the rule of exhaustion of ordinary remedies , which is formulated in the relevant part of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG ] [ individual ] complaint is not admissible if the complainant has not exhausted legal remedies or other legal means , which a statute effectively provides to [ the complainant ] with a view to protecting [ the complainant ’s ] fundamental rights or freedoms , and which the complainant is entitled to use under special statute .

The Constitutional Court shall not declare ORG ] [ individual ] complaint inadmissible even if the condition under paragraph CARDINAL has not been fulfilled , if the complainant establishes that [ the complainant ] has not fulfilled this condition for reasons worthy of particular consideration . ”

Under its section CARDINAL ) , when dealing with individual complaints , in the event of a finding of a violation of a fundamental rights or freedoms :

“ ORG may also grant appropriate financial compensation to a person whose fundamental right or freedom has been violated . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that :

“ If ORG quashes a final and binding ( právoplatné ) decision , measure or act and remits the matter for further proceedings , the person who issued the decision , decided on the measure or carried out the act is liable to examine and determine the matter anew . In such proceedings or a procedure [ he ] is bound by the legal view of ORG . ”

In connection with the present application , as well as CARDINAL other individual applications under the Convention of a similar kind , ORG produced a report .

The report is dated DATE and concerns specifically the existence of an enforceable right to compensation , as required by LAW , in respect of detention in contravention of LAW and the Constitutional Court ’s practice in awarding appropriate financial compensation .

The report and case - law references contained therein can be summarised as follows .

Awarding appropriate financial compensation under LAW is an optional remedy in respect of a violation by a public authority of fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and legal entities which has been found by ORG . The purpose of appropriate financial compensation is to complete the protection of the fundamental right violated in instances where it has been established that the violation occurred in such a way as to call for a level of protection higher than the mere finding of a violation or , as the case may be , an order by ORG that a case be dealt with without a violation of the fundamental right in question ( cases nos . PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL and PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The question of an award of appropriate financial compensation arises in particular where it is not possible to remedy the violation of the right or freedom by quashing the impugned decision or measure or by restoring the status quo ante ( case no . I ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The purpose of appropriate financial compensation is to reduce the loss felt as a result of the violation of the fundamental right ; the Constitutional Court determining the award of compensation on an equitable basis and taking into account the circumstances of the individual cases concerned ( mutatis mutandis , case no . III ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

As regards the system of remedies in respect of detention in violation of LAW , by virtue of LAW , the liability of a person who has violated rights or freedoms as referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of that Article for damage or other loss is not to be affected by ORG decision , including on appropriate financial compensation . This provision is of particular relevance in correlation with the right to compensation for damage ( including nonpecuniary damage ) caused by a public authority under LAW .

The provision of LAW , which allows for an award of appropriate financial compensation , is a special and autonomous remedy , which is independent of LAW . It does not constitute a lex specialis and , therefore , an award or non - award of appropriate financial compensation under LAW does not preclude a claim for compensation for pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage under sections CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW .

LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) was enacted on DATE and became operative on DATE . It provides for the liability of the ORG for damage which has been caused by , inter alia , unlawful arrest , detention ( zadržanie ) or other deprivation of liberty ( section ORG ) ) ; decisions concerning remand in custody ( väzba ) ( section CARDINAL ) ) ; and wrongful official action ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL , where a decision on arrest , detention or any other deprivation of liberty has been quashed as being unlawful or where there has been wrongful official action in that context , a person affected by it is entitled to compensation for damage .

The right to compensation for damage caused by a decision concerning detention on remand is vested in the person who has been detained , provided that any criminal proceedings against him or her have been dropped ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) ) , or he or she has been acquitted ( section CARDINAL ) ) , or the matter has been referred to another authority ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

NORP However , no such right arises when the person concerned himself or herself has given cause to be remanded in custody ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) ) .

Section CARDINAL , which deals with compensation for damage caused by wrongful official action , provides :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG is liable for damage caused by wrongful official action . Wrongful official action includes a public authority ’s failure to take action or issue a decision within the statutory time - limit , general inactivity in the exercise of public authority , unjustified delays in proceedings or other unlawful interference with rights and legally recognised interests of individuals and legal entities .

The right to compensation for damage caused by wrongful official conduct is vested in the person who sustained the damage . ”

Section CARDINAL defines the manner and extent of compensation for damage . Its relevant part provides :

“ CARDINAL . Damage and lost profit shall be compensated for , unless special legislation provides otherwise .

In the event that the finding of a violation of a right alone is not adequate compensation in view of the loss caused by the unlawful official action or wrongful official conduct , monetary compensation shall also be awarded for non - pecuniary damage , if it is not possible to compensate for it otherwise . ”

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , unless provided for otherwise by special legislation , disputes concerning matters regulated by LAW are to be decided upon by the courts .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( in case no . CARDINAL CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG granted an action for damages by CARDINAL individuals against the ORG under LAW and ordered the defendant to pay the costs of their defence in a criminal trial that had ended with their acquittal .

On DATE the Banská Bystrica Regional Court upheld the judgment following the defendant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG allowed an appeal ( case no . MONEY ) in an action by an individual against the ORG under LAW for damages and awarded him a sum of money in compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by his remand in custody in the context of a criminal trial that had ended with his acquittal .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) the GPE I ORG allowed an action for damages by an individual against the ORG under LAW and awarded the claimant a sum of money in compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by wrongful official action in connection with his detention pending a criminal trial .

The impugned wrongful official action concerned extension of the claimant ’s detention pending trial .

The action was preceded by a constitutional judgment of DATE ( case no . I. ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which ORG found a violation of the claimant ’s rights under LAW and CARDINAL in connection with the same facts .

However , ORG did not award the claimant damages , as he had made no claim for damages .