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

Until DATE , at the time of retirement a person was granted , inter alia , ( a ) an employment pension which was counted on the basis of his or her salary earned prior to the retirement , amounting to a maximum of CARDINAL per cent of that salary , and ( b ) a national pension ’s basic amount ( kansaneläkkeen pohjaosa , folkpensionens basdel ) , if the person was entitled thereto on the basis of his age and/or number of DATE of employment .

DATE , employees were obliged by law to deposit part of their salaries in individual accounts kept by ORG for the purpose of accumulating employment pensions for their retirement . From DATE onwards these contributions were no longer deposited on accounts earmarked for the employees themselves but went into the general pension fund .

The CARDINAL parts of the pension ( the above - mentioned ( a ) and ( b ) ) were combined together with the result that a pensioner ’s employment pension was reduced by the amount of the national pension ’s basic amount so that the total amount of the pensions did not exceed the maximum limit of CARDINAL per cent of his salary . The national pension ’s basic amount was granted to all persons entitled to it without their requesting it ( although it was apparently possible to refuse it ) , reducing automatically the amount of the employment pension .

In DATE LAW was amended as a budgetary savings measure to the effect that , as from DATE , the national pension such as the old - age pension was to be replaced by a pension calculated with reference to new criteria . Those whose total income in the form of other pensions and various entitlements exceeded certain ceilings would no longer be entitled to a national pension . In such a case the so - called basic amount of their national pension would be reduced by MONEY annually DATE , when payment thereof would cease ( Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Following a public debate on the matter ORG passed LAW ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) on DATE , according to which pensioners whose employment pension has been twice reduced on the basis of their national pension ’s basic amount , are entitled to receive a compensation for their loss as from DATE . The compensatory amount will be CARDINAL per month , depending on the amount of the pension at issue .

On DATE the applicant was granted an employment pension as from DATE . DATE he was also granted , without requesting it , a national pension ’s basic amount which was FIM CARDINAL ( MONEY ) per month . The CARDINAL parts of his pension were considered together with the result that his employment pension was reduced by ORG DATE , since the total amount of the pensions was not to exceed the maximum limit ( MONEY of the salary on which the pension was based ) .

In DATE the applicant ’s pension was changed into an old - age pension .

In DATE , after some index - linked increases had been granted to the applicant ’s pension , his national pension ’s basic amount was FIM CARDINAL ( MONEY per month ) . As a result of the entry into force of the LAW , the applicant ’s national pension ’s basic amount was again reduced until it ceased to exist in DATE . The applicant now receives only a pension which is MONEY of the salary on which his pension was originally based .

The applicant has used all domestic remedies ( CARDINAL appeal instances decisions submitted , the final ones given by ORG in DATE ) . According to the decisions of the domestic courts , it is impossible to revoke the reduction of the pensions which is based on the amendment to LAW as the courts can not override a law .

As a result of LAW of DATE , the applicant in the present case will be awarded the full MONEY per month in compensation for his loss as from DATE .


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

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .

On DATE ORG brought proceedings against the applicant seeking to recover his property consisting of CARDINAL sq . m of land which the applicant had occupied .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed ORG ’s action in part and ordered the applicant to vacate CARDINAL sq . m of GPE ’s land .

On DATE a bailiff enforced the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ORG was given possession of the land .

On an unspecified date ORG brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for contempt of court in relation to the court judgment of DATE , on the basis of the fact that the applicant continued to plant crops on the CARDINAL sq . m of land .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of contempt of court and sentenced him to a suspended sentence of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The court again ordered the applicant to vacate the CARDINAL sq . m of ORG ’s land .

On DATE a bailiff enforced the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and restored ORG ’s possession of the land .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG brought a second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant for contempt of court in relation to the court judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as the applicant was continuing to plant crops on the CARDINAL sq . m of land .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG convicted the applicant of contempt of court and imposed on him a criminal fine of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . It also cancelled the suspension of the sixmonth prison sentence the applicant had received on CARDINAL DATE and ordered the applicant ’s imprisonment for DATE . Moreover , it awarded PERSON CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in respect of civil damages . As regards the applicant ’s claim that he had not been assisted by a lawyer during the criminal investigation and before the firstinstance court , the court held that although the applicant had been informed of his right to legal assistance as provided for by the applicable rules of criminal procedure , he had waived his right to a lawyer , stating that he would employ the services of a lawyer for the trial if he needed to . Moreover , the court held that in a case such as that involving the applicant , the domestic law did not require the mandatory appointment of a lawyer by the court .

It does not appear from the evidence in the file that the applicant asked for a courtappointed lawyer , or that he asked to be allowed to retain a lawyer of his own choice , either during the criminal investigation or before the first - instance court .

DATE and DATE the applicant was hospitalised in several hospitals , including the PERSON and ORG , where he was diagnosed and treated for hypertension and serious heartrelated conditions . He was recommended to rest and was prescribed antibiotics , aspirin and anticoagulants .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention following the sentence imposed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was detained and taken to GPE police station . He was DATE at the time .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC .

On DATE the applicant informed the prison guards that he felt ill , and he was taken to the Botoşani Prison doctor . The said doctor prescribed him some medication , which was brought to his cell TIME .

On DATE he was transferred back into the custody of the GPE police because he had been summoned to appear before the domestic courts in respect of criminal proceedings opened against him for destruction of property . Because of his worsening medical condition , he asked to be taken to a doctor , but his request was allegedly refused . On DATE he was transferred back to FAC , where he was placed in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates . On an unspecified date one of the detainees started recounting stories of alleged rape incidents that had taken place in the prison , which scared the applicant and caused him to feel unwell . He was taken to FAC doctor and was provided with treatment for his condition . However , his state of health did not improve .

On DATE the applicant suffered a heart attack and was transferred to ORG , allegedly in the back of a car with a plank of wood for a seat . At the hospital he was given an injection and some medication , and was kept under observation for DATE .

As his medical condition did not improve , the doctor at ORG recommended that the applicant be transferred to GPE .

On DATE he was transferred to GPE by car , travelling for TIME over a distance of QUANTITY ( from CARDINAL a.m. to CARDINAL p.m. ) . He was taken to ORG , where he was left to wait in the car for TIME . On DATE he was transferred to ORG in GPE because he could not be treated in PERSON . The applicant further claims that before leaving PERSON he lost consciousness .

On DATE the applicant ’s diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction was confirmed and he underwent heart bypass surgery and was fitted with a pacemaker .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from ORG and transferred back to ORG .

Following his release from prison on DATE , the applicant was allegedly taken to hospital several times for urgent medical attention as a result of his slow recovery from the myocardial infarction and the subsequent surgery . He submitted CARDINAL medical letters issued DATE and DATE concerning his medical condition . The letters were issued by the private practices of doctors ORG , a cardiologist and a respiratory specialist respectively . The letters confirmed the applicant ’s post - surgical diagnosis and prescribed medication . None of the letters contain any information indicating that urgent medical treatment or hospitalisation was required by the applicant .

In a letter of DATE ( received by ORG on DATE ) the applicant informed ORG for the first time that because of a lack of funds , ORG could not provide him with ORG , a medicine that he needed to take on a DATE basis to help with the assimilation of his pacemaker and to prevent future heart attacks . He further stated that he had been asked to buy the drug himself .

On DATE the applicant was examined in detention by a doctor . According to the entry on his medical chart for DATE he was diagnosed with heart problems , inter alia . Moreover , on DATE the applicant was examined by the Botoşani Prison doctor and was prescribed medicines for his condition , including aspirin , antibiotics , simvastatine and anticoagulants .

On DATE the domestic authorities approved the applicant ’s request for a doctor ’s visit in order to obtain a prescription for medicines .

On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination in ORG . The medical note issued on the same date recorded that he had been provided with treatment for his condition and that he had been administered nitroglycerin . He was also recommended to rest .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from ORG . His discharge papers issued on DATE stated that he had been hospitalised for acute myocardial infarction , and recorded that he had been provided with medical treatment for his condition . The discharge papers also stated that the applicant ’s condition was stable , and recommended his transfer to ORG because the applicant ’s condition required him to be fitted with a pacemaker , a medical procedure that could not be performed in the region .

According to the information submitted by the ORG , also supported by documents , the applicant was transferred from ORG to ORG by ambulance on DATE . The ambulance left ORG at TIME and arrived at ORG at CARDINAL p.m. Because ORG lacked the equipment required for the applicant ’s treatment , at TIME on DATE he was transferred to ORG , where he arrived at TIME For the entire duration of his journey the applicant was accompanied by doctor PERSON , a specialist in internal medicine , and by nurse PERSON was transported on a stretcher , his condition was monitored and he was provided with oxygen and medication . He remained conscious and his condition was stable .

On DATE he was transferred to ORG from ORG in GPE for monitoring and treatment . According to his discharge papers from ORG he had undergone heart surgery and angioplasty with stent placement , and was diagnosed with , inter alia , recent acute coronary syndrome , second- and thirddegree atriumventricular block ( type one , reversible ) , a high risk of severe arterial hypertension , class CARDINAL cardio insufficiency , prostate adenoma , and acute kidney failure . He was recommended to rest and to follow a lowsodium diet . Moreover , he was prescribed several medicines , including CARDINAL capsule of Plavix per day for DATE , which was available free of charge for patients in his condition .

During his hospitalisation in ORG he was provided with the required medical treatment for his condition as prescribed by ORG , including the medicine PERSON ( Plavix ) , and his condition had improved by the time he was discharged from ORG on DATE .

Lastly , the applicant did not lodge any complaints in respect of the alleged inadequacy of the medical treatment received or of the transport conditions during his detention .

On DATE the applicant retained the services of a lawyer and authorised him to bring proceedings before the domestic courts seeking his release from his custodial sentence on health grounds .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings before ORG seeking his release on account of his age and medical condition .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to bring forward the first hearing of his case scheduled from DATE , on account of his medical condition .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s action and scheduled the first hearing of his case for DATE .

On DATE ORG raised of its own motion an objection in respect of its territorial jurisdiction , and declared the ORG competent to deal with the applicant ’s request for release on health grounds . It held that according to the applicable rules of criminal procedure only the firstinstance court which had sentenced the applicant , or the court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the applicant was serving his prison sentence , could validly hear his application . And in the applicant ’s case that was ORG that was competent on both counts .

On DATE the applicant ’s action seeking release on health grounds was lodged before ORG .

At a hearing on DATE , ORG ordered ORG to produce an expert forensic report that would establish whether the applicant ’s medical condition could be treated in a prison hospital .

By a final judgment of DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s action and ordered the discontinuation of the applicant ’s sentence pending his recovery . It held that according to the expert forensic report produced by ORG on DATE , his condition following surgery would require CARDINAL months’ specialist medical care and a special diet which could not be provided by a prison hospital .

On DATE the applicant was released from prison .

On DATE , following media coverage , the applicant received a Presidential pardon in respect of the remainder of his prison sentence .

The relevant provisions of Law no . CARDINAL on the Serving of Prison Sentences , in force at the time of the events in the instant case , as well as those of LAW concerning suspension of prison sentences ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , are described in PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .


Violation of Art. 3 with regard to body search;No violation of Art. 3 with regard to other complaints;Violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 34;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE .

From DATE the applicant served a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for the theft , possession and sale of firearms . On an unspecified date in DATE he was transferred from FAC to FAC ( NORP CARDINAL-oji sustiprintojo režimo pataisos darbų kolonija ) .

From the moment when the applicant arrived in FAC he was placed in the separate segregation unit of the prison ( PERSON auklėjamųjų būrys – “ the ORG ” ) , located in FAC of the prison ( V lokalinis sektorius ) . On DATE the applicant was released from the ORG and detained under normal conditions in LAW and later in LAW ( CARDINAL ir CARDINAL brigados ) , located in FAC of the prison ( I lokalinis sektorius ) . DATE the applicant was detained in solitary confinement ( PERSON izoliatorius ) . He was again placed in the ORG on DATE . The applicant stayed in FAC until his release on DATE following a presidential pardon .

The present case concerns the conditions of the applicant ’s detention in FAC and his treatment there from DATE until DATE .

The evidence of the applicant was taken by ORG delegates in GPE on DATE and then in GPE on DATE . The applicant ’s statements may be summarised as follows .

NORP The unit consisted of a dormitory where CARDINAL inmates were held , a small kitchen , a relaxation room and a shower cubicle . In the applicant ’s view , CARDINAL persons could be held in the ORG , and it was accordingly seriously overcrowded . Only the dormitory had windows . There were no windows or ventilation in the kitchen and the relaxation room . A window was installed in the kitchen during renovations in DATE .

The ORG had a corridor leading to the small courtyard outside . The yard was closed off above with wire netting , which was covered with snow in the wintertime . As a result there was a lack of light in the courtyard during the DATE .

The toilets consisted of CARDINAL NORP - type “ squat ” holes , which lacked partitions . Inmates in the ORG used the toilets one by one in order to respect each other ’s privacy . There were no windows , and a ventilation system was installed in the toilets only after renovations in DATE . As a result the toilets smelled terribly .

There was no access to the prison laundry for washing private clothes ; it therefore had to be done by hand in bowls in the shower . Drying such items in the small courtyard was complicated . In addition , no private bedding was allowed . Every inmate received from the prison administration bed linen and towels , which were regularly washed in the prison laundry .

NORP The administrative officers visited the ORG only during the distribution of meals and check - ups . The prison governor used to visit the unit from time to time . Doctors went to the ORG very rarely . The only way of communicating with the outside world was by telephone . On DATE the applicant felt that he had a fever . His condition was so serious that he missed the regular check - ups at the ORG and lay in bed . He asked the guards to send for a doctor . He also used the special telephone line connecting the ORG to the prison medical service . However , no one answered , as it was lunchtime . The applicant did not telephone the medical service again . Instead , he orally asked the ORG guards for a doctor several times a day . The medical staff only arrived on DATE and confirmed that he had caught a cold . He was told to stay in bed .

No work , recreation or other meaningful activities were organised in the unit . The only reasonable activity permitted in the ORG was playing chess . The applicant conceded that there were no restrictions on watching television , reading or listening to the radio .

The applicant was detained in LAW and DATE located in FAC of the prison . Each of the CARDINAL wings of the prison was intended to hold CARDINAL prisoners . The prison was seriously overcrowded . There were CARDINAL detainees in CARDINAL , which consisted of CARDINAL sections – namely dormitories with adjacent toilet areas – where CARDINAL prisoners were held . A total of CARDINAL inmates were sleeping in LAW at the time of the applicant ’s placement there . LAW accommodated DATE inmates . In the applicant ’s view , a maximum of CARDINAL people could be held in LAW and CARDINAL people in LAW . The sections lacked air , especially at TIME , due to overcrowding . CARDINAL - tier bunk beds were installed in the dormitories and the windows were almost completely hidden by these beds , thus obstructing the flow of fresh air from the outside . During DATE , prisoners were allowed to circulate freely within the wing and its outside stroll yard .

Sanitary conditions were deplorable . Toilets , sinks and shower facilities were infested with germs . There were various leaks and the water pipes were very old , rusty and covered with mould . The toilets in the sections consisted of several NORP - type “ squat ” holes with no partitions between them . Toilet paper was only provided sporadically . The applicant stated that it was very difficult to keep himself clean as he was only allowed to shower once DATE on designated DATE . Showering on an unspecified DATE was penalised . Shower facilities only worked DATE , and were always overcrowded . During the summer , hot water was only available at DATE . The applicant ’s bedding was washed in the prison laundry . Private items such as clothes had to be washed by hand in a sink .

Food was served CARDINAL times a day . CARDINAL litai ( LTL ) per prisoner per day were allocated by the authorities for the catering in FAC . The food was always cold , and there were no facilities to heat it . Vegetables were only added to a course once DATE . Lunch was impossible to eat due to its awful taste CARDINAL times a week . Overall , food was not prepared in a sanitary manner . At times the applicant had found wood shavings , little stones and pieces of metal in his food . Supplementary food could be provided by the prison canteen only when a special diet had been recommended by a doctor . As the prison canteen was not big enough for all prisoners , catering was organised in shifts . However , the number of inmates at each shift was always greater than the number of places in the canteen . A prisoner who arrived late would be left without food . There was a prison shop where detainees could obtain additional food . The applicant acknowledged that he regularly had CARDINAL litai on his account in the prison shop . There was also a limited list of items that could be given by ORG relatives during personal visits . The applicant was permitted to receive additional food from his relatives .

Qualified doctors only visited the prison occasionally . It was therefore impossible to have permanent , professional medical assistance at the prison infirmary . The infirmary lacked medication , especially painkillers . All illnesses were treated with aspirin and paracetamol . The applicant stated that he had a heart disease . He admitted , however , that he had not undergone an appropriate cardiology test at the infirmary . The applicant also alleged that he had a knee problem due to his huge overweight . The prison administration had not performed a knee operation due to a lack of facilities . The applicant acknowledged , however , that the knee operation was not a matter of primary urgency . Once out of prison , he had not sought a knee operation due to its high cost . The applicant further stated that he had had gastritis , but the prison doctors had refused to prescribe a better diet for him in the prison canteen .

Following an order of the Minister of the ORG , from DATE , all prisoners were subjected to a “ standing regime ” . No prisoner was permitted to lie in bed from the wake - up call at TIME to lock - in at TIME , that is TIME a day . Exceptions to the order were permitted only upon recommendation by a doctor . The applicant complained that many detainees , himself in particular given his weight and heart problems , were unable to endure this regime . The prison doctors found , however , that the applicant was fit to comply with the order . Upon various complaints by the applicant and other prisoners , the Ombudsman recommended that the order be revoked . The applicant alleges that it was nevertheless maintained .

There was no work provided within the prison , and the number of meaningful activities was very limited . Weather permitting , it was possible to engage in open - air sports in the exercise yard ; however , no such possibilities existed in DATE . There were also few concerts or cinema shows . No retraining or educational programmes were organised in the prison .

NORP The applicant had initially complained about an interference with his right to receive visits from his relatives . During the interview with the Court delegates he admitted , however , that he had been afforded sufficient opportunities to receive visits , particularly following an intervention by the ORG further to a complaint on his part .

DATE the applicant was placed in a solitary confinement cell of QUANTITY m where he was held with another person . There was an NORP - type toilet , a sink for washing , and a table in the middle of the room .

On DATE the applicant had a personal visit when he was given some additional food . Afterwards he was stopped in the access zone for the usual security check to establish whether he had been given any illegal items . The chief guard , P. , conducted the search , while CARDINAL other officers looked on . PERSON told the applicant to take off his clothes . When the applicant was only in his underwear , a female prison officer , J. , came into the room . P. then told the applicant to strip naked . The officer threatened him with a reprimand in case of non - compliance . The applicant submitted to the order , taking off his underwear , in the presence of PERSON was watching the check with the rest of the officers and was smoking . The applicant ’s body , including his testicles , was examined by the male officers . The officers wore no gloves , touching the applicant ’s sexual organs and then the food given to him by his relatives , without washing their hands . The applicant was also ordered to do sit - ups to establish whether he had concealed anything in his anus . No unauthorised item was found on him . He alleged that the purpose of the check had been to ridicule him in front of the woman .

According to the applicant , the lower - ranking prison staff were very poorly qualified , had an inferiority complex , and showed their authority in a degrading manner . The administration tolerated the constant consumption of alcohol by the prison staff during TIME . Many prisoners were allegedly employed as secret informers by the administration , in return for promises of parole or conditional release . The actions of the prison staff concerning the applicant were provocative . The applicant received DATE abuse because of his firm opposition to and the criticism of the general policies of the penitentiary system in GPE , as well as his specific criticism of the conditions of detention at the prison . He gave the following examples of his alleged victimisation .

The applicant ’s placement in the ORG in DATE had been arbitrary , as he had had no disciplinary record before DATE . Following his release from the ORG on DATE , he was detained under the normal regime and even afforded better conditions of detention . On DATE some prisoners established an association for their mutual assistance and support called ORG . The applicant was elected President of that association . On DATE the administration imposed on the applicant a disciplinary penalty , depriving him of the better detention conditions . The official ground for that penalty , imposed on the basis of information given to the administration by a secret informer , was the fact that the applicant had beaten another prisoner . The applicant denied the beating , stating that he had been present at the incident without intervening . The applicant ’s complaints to ORG and the ORG about the unlawfulness of the penalty were rejected as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the applicant ’s right to buy food at the prison shop was suspended for DATE , and on DATE he received a disciplinary warning for threatening other prisoners with force . The administration rejected his complaints against these penalties . His application against a staff member , Officer PERSON , who had allegedly initiated these penalties , was not examined .

On DATE the applicant was penalised for leaving the territory of FAC . He was ordered to wash the windows of LAW . The execution of this penalty was to be controlled by Officer PERSON . The applicant initially refused to wash the windows in the presence of the said member of staff and other prisoners , as this allegedly meant the manifest abuse of his right to complain about that member of staff . The applicant later washed the windows while not being observed . Officer PERSON refused to accept that the work had been done .

On DATE , as the prison governor was absent , Officer PERSON ordered the applicant ’s solitary confinement . He was instantly conveyed to the solitary confinement cell in handcuffs . Within TIME , the prison governor returned to the prison . After hearing the applicant and certain prison officers , the prison governor decided that the applicant had not been in breach of duty on DATE and the applicant was immediately released from solitary confinement .

In his written submissions to the ORG , the applicant stated that on DATE he had been warned for still being asleep at TIME , this being TIME after the regulation wake - up call . During the meeting with ORG delegates he insisted that the officers had arrived and found him in his bed at TIME On DATE he received a further disciplinary warning for queuing beyond the privacy line while waiting to call his relatives on the telephone .

In DATE “ confidential sources ” informed the applicant that CARDINAL member of staff , PERSON , was involved in criminal activities relating to the falsification of documents . On DATE the applicant lodged a specific complaint against B. on behalf of ORG . The complaint was given to the administration in order to be transmitted to the ORG . On DATE a high - ranking member of the prison administration allegedly requested the applicant not to send the complaint , promising that B. would be dismissed , and that the applicant would be afforded better detention conditions . The applicant refused to do so and insisted on the onward transmission of the complaint . According to the applicant , PERSON was forced to leave the prison service as a result of the ORG ’s investigation . In DATE the applicant also filed with the ORG a complaint against another staff member , P. , for allegedly abusing his authority . The applicant claimed , in particular , that P. had deliberately provoked conflicts with the applicant and other prisoners . This complaint was dismissed as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the applicant met the prison governor , who granted him permission to visit detainees in other wings to greet them for DATE on behalf of ORG . According to the applicant ’s written submissions to the ORG the permission was oral , but he also stated during the meeting with the ORG delegates that the permission had been posted in writing on the special information board . The permission was valid from DATE . On DATE the applicant tried to go from FAC to Wing CARDINAL . At a special check - point between these wings , the applicant was stopped by the guards and told that he did not have permission to enter FAC .

On DATE , as a disciplinary sanction for “ trespassing ” on DATE , the applicant was ordered to clean up the area around his bed in LAW . As FAC did not require that cleaning be done in the presence of a member of staff , he performed the work unseen . The staff member , Officer PERSON , who was to supervise the work , did not accept that the job had been done .

As a result , on DATE the applicant was punished with CARDINAL days’ solitary confinement . He immediately announced a hunger strike as he considered the sanction arbitrary . On DATE the applicant wrote complaints to various ORG authorities and the media . On DATE the applicant ’s sister called the prison governor , who allegedly lied to her that the applicant was not on a hunger strike . On DATE the biggest NORP DATE , ORG , wrote an article on page CARDINAL , stating that the applicant was on a hunger strike . On DATE of the hunger strike , on DATE , a prosecutor arrived and advised the applicant to seek a compromise with the administration . On DATE the applicant discontinued the hunger strike . On DATE the prison governor gave an interview to a newspaper , ORG , which was printed with the title “ Stirring up trouble without reason ” . In the interview the prison governor said that the applicant was “ doing nothing [ to conform to the prison regime ] but lodging various complaints ” . According to the applicant , the prison governor thereby expressed his biased attitude towards him .

On DATE CARDINAL disciplinary sanctions were imposed on the applicant for the unlawful hunger strike . His access to the prison shop and the right to be given additional food during personal visits were suspended . He was also transferred to the ORG .

The applicant considered that these penalties , taken as a whole , revealed the ineffectiveness of any internal efforts to review allegations of ill - treatment . His complaints about the disciplinary penalties against him were rejected by the ORG with sole reference to the statements of the prison administration , without due regard to the actual circumstances . According to the applicant , his treatment in the prison was degrading because he had no access to an independent and impartial authority to complain about his conditions of detention .

There was no information about any effective review of the general treatment of prisoners or the specific treatment of the applicant because ORG ( Pataisos darbų įstaigų laikinosios taisyklės ) had not been published . The Rules defined the legal basis for the prison regime and the administration ’s actions . The absence of publicity of such an important legal document gave the administration the right to act arbitrarily . This document was lacking both at ORG and in prisons . In the applicant ’s view , every section of the prison should have had a copy of the Rules . However , CARDINAL copy of the Rules was in his prison .

NORP The applicant stated that the first letter addressed to him from ORG , dated DATE , was shown to him when it had already been opened . He was only allowed to write down its contents , and had to give it back to the administration . Subsequent letters from the Convention organs were opened by the administration and given to the applicant DATE after their arrival at the prison .

On DATE the prison governor wrote a letter to the ORG , stating , inter alia :

“ On DATE the prison administration received a letter by [ the applicant ] addressed to [ the ORG ] . Having acquainted myself with the contents of the letter ... I would like to set out certain considerations as to the facts alleged [ therein ] ...

It is true that pursuant to the order of DATE of the Minister of the Interior ... it is prohibited for convicted persons to lie in bed save during TIME as specified in the schedule , if there is no special permission to do so from the administration ... , [ but ] it is not true that all convicted persons have been prevented from lying in bed during DATE , as PERSON says in the letter ... because elderly , handicapped [ prisoners ] have been afforded [ that ] opportunity ...

[ The applicant ] alleges that some wings in the prison accommodate CARDINAL convicted persons in breach of LAW of ORG requiring that ‘ CARDINAL persons should be held in a wing’ . [ However , ] there is no practical possibility to implement the above Rule in view of the rapid increase in the number of convicted persons ( the limit is CARDINAL [ detainees ] , [ but ] on DATE there were CARDINAL ) .

As regards the education of convicted persons ... , from DATE the administration of GPE is prepared to set up an education point for adults in the prison ...

On DATE [ the applicant ] founded an association of mutual assistance and support , ‘ Aim’ ... We think that the establishment of this association is to be welcomed ... However , in practice , from the moment when it was set up , this association and its President , PERSON , only defended the interests ... of the ‘ authorities’ of the underworld ... ”

In a letter to the ORG dated DATE , the applicant ’s sister complained that the applicant had told her by telephone on DATE that he had been prohibited from pursuing correspondence with the ORG , and that his letters to the ORG dated DATE and DATE had not been sent by the prison administration .

On DATE the administration sent to the Registry the applicant ’s letters of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . They also included a transcript of the administration ’s meeting of DATE in which the question of the applicant ’s correspondence with the ORG was discussed . The acting governor of the prison said in the transcript that he

“ explained to [ the applicant ] that he has to apply first to certain authorities of GPE , that is : ORG , ORG , ORG , the ORG , ORG and other institutions . [ The applicant ] is familiar with this procedure ... but he categorically required that his letter to [ the ORG ] be sent ... [ The applicant ] asked me the question whether I had a right to have access to the contents of [ his ] letter ... I explained that I had such a right under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW [ stating that ] ‘ the letters of convicted persons ( except those to a prosecutor ) that are sent or received are subject to censorship’ . Given the categorical request by [ the applicant ] , [ his ] complaint shall be sent to the addressee ” .

On DATE the ORG received CARDINAL more letter from the applicant , sent on DATE . According to him , this letter was not sent through the prison administration . He enclosed therewith an original of the ORG ’s letter of DATE as evidence that the correspondence with the ORG had been censored : on the ORG ’s letter was a prison stamp with the date of receipt , CARDINAL DATE , a handwritten remark of the same date by the prison governor ordering that the applicant be acquainted with the letter , and the applicant ’s written confirmation that he had had such access on DATE .

During the meeting with ORG delegates , the applicant also stated that in DATE he had handed to the prison administration a further letter to the ORG dated DATE . No such letter reached ORG .

The witness was the prison governor at the time of the applicant ’s detention there .

The witness admitted that there had been no partitions between the squat holes in the toilets until DATE . In DATE renovations were carried out , during which each toilet hole was separated by cement partitions covered with ceramic tiles .

At the time of the applicant ’s detention under the normal conditions in CARDINAL , each prisoner was allocated QUANTITY m in the dormitory in LAW , and QUANTITY m in the dormitory in LAW . The Prison Code ( Pataisos darbų kodeksas ) required a minimum space of QUANTITY m in sleeping areas , while a special ORG sanitary norm of DATE required CARDINAL sq . m. The witness considered that the prison had not been seriously overcrowded at the time of the applicant ’s detention , at least within the meaning of the domestic requirements valid until DATE . The situation improved following LAW in DATE ; while the total occupancy of the prison was CARDINAL detainees in DATE , CARDINAL prisoners were detained in DATE , the lowest level in DATE .

Prisoners were provided with bed linen , which was washed and dried in the prison laundry free of charge once DATE . Once a week inmates had access to the shower . Sinks in the shower facilities could also be used to wash personal items . Each prisoner was provided free of charge with CARDINAL g of soap DATE , and was able to buy more in the shop .

Inmates could buy various products , including food and items of personal hygiene , in the prison shop CARDINAL times a month . Prices in the shop were not excessive , and were regularly reviewed by the administration in the light of regional price levels . While no cash was used in the prison shop , every inmate had an account to which resources from his family , his salary at the prison , or a financial benefit in the case of an orphan , were transferred . These accounts were debited upon a purchase at the shop .

The witness admitted that the canteen , which could normally accommodate CARDINAL prisoners at once , had been overcrowded at times . He denied , however , that any prisoner had missed a meal due to overcrowding . CARDINAL shifts were organised in the canteen to enable every prisoner to have CARDINAL meals a day . The witness had never received a complaint from any prisoner that he had been deprived of a meal because of an overcrowded canteen . The witness had not heard of any complaint about the quality of the food . He said that the prison medical service checked the quality of the food DATE and that the sanitary norms in the canteen were being met .

The witness had not received any complaint from the applicant about a lack of medical assistance in the prison . The witness also said that the prison doctor and the health authorities had confirmed that a knee operation had not been necessary during the applicant ’s detention . The witness had never received a complaint from the applicant that he had been supplied with a food item incompatible with the sanitary norms . Nor had the applicant complained that he had lacked a special diet in the prison or needed supplementary food to be provided free of charge .

Previously , there were no partitions between the squat holes in the toilets ; they were installed during the DATE renovations . Currently all toilets were equipped with partitions . The witness said that a special government decree of DATE required that all inmates be given toilet paper . However , the prison administration had budgetary difficulties in complying with this decree . Toilet paper had not been distributed during DATE . The prison lacked money even for the postal service . The witness considered that the lack of free toilet paper was not an essential problem in the prison , as he had heard no complaint in this connection from any prisoner . according to the witness , it had to be noted that toilet paper was always available in the prison shop at about LTL CARDINAL.CARDINAL to CARDINAL per roll . In addition , toilet paper could be given by relatives . At worst , other kinds of paper could be used , such as newspapers , which were supplied to prisoners free of charge . The witness drew a parallel between toilet paper and other items of personal hygiene , such as toothpaste and toothbrushes . While such items were not distributed free of charge , prisoners could obtain them from their relatives or the prison shop .

The prison had a wood - processing factory , but only a small proportion of prisoners worked there due to the lack of commercial orders . However , a recent government contract would permit an increase in production and create more employment for detainees . A total of CARDINAL prisoners also worked at the service department of the prison , including the laundry and the canteen . The applicant did not work during the time of his detention .

After a personal visit , a prisoner and any items he has received from his visitor must be checked in accordance with ORG . Such a check could include stripping the prisoner naked . LAW provide that only a person of the same sex may conduct a strip - search .

The witness said that he was not present at the time of the alleged event . He was informed about it by the applicant . The witness acknowledged that the female officer PERSON worked at the prison and supervised personal visits . Her functions included accompanying prisoners to and from the visitors’ area and handing the prisoner over to the male officers conducting the search . The ORG was unable to interview Ms J. as she was not in the prison on DATE of the delegation ’s visit .

The CARDINAL male officers who conducted the body search were interviewed by the witness immediately following the applicant ’s complaint in DATE . They denied that a woman had been present . No record of the applicant ’s complaint or of any investigation of the incident was made .

The witness said that he did not know whether PERSON took part in the search . If the applicant was stripped naked in the presence of a woman , it was a violation of ORG . However , given PERSON functions , the witness conceded that both theoretically and practically she could have attended the search .

The witness described the procedure for disciplinary offences established under LAW . According to this system , FAC had a ORG consisting of the prison governor , his deputies and the heads of sections . The commission was in charge of examining all alleged violations of prison discipline . When a particular incident occurred or specific information about such an incident reached the administration , a senior staff member such as a head of section wrote a report on the facts and stated his opinion as to whether those facts disclosed a breach by a detainee of the provisions of LAW . The report was normally shown to the detainee , who had the right to submit observations . The detainee was informed about the contents of the report if it could not be presented to him , for example , where there were statements by anonymous witnesses concerning the incident . However , even in such exceptional cases , the prisoner had the right to know about such accusations without having access to the ORG names .

The report and the detainee ’s observations were sent to ORG , which decided whether or not to impose a disciplinary penalty . It was an absolute requirement that the prisoner appeared in person before the commission prior to its reaching its decision . Witnesses who were detainees were not normally heard in person at the hearing , their evidence being included in the report in written form . However , any officer involved in the incident had to be heard in person by the commission , together with the alleged perpetrator .

It was possible to appeal against the commission ’s decision . Where a report on the incident had been filed by a staff member no higher in rank than a deputy governor , the prison governor could quash the penalty . Where the report had been filed by the governor himself , the detainee could appeal to the director of ORG . From there an appeal lay to the Minister of the ORG or the ORG . Although the ORG could not revoke the penalty , he could recommend that the prison authorities do so . In most cases the ORG ’s recommendations were followed . In general , prisoners were not prohibited from complaining to any authority concerning any aspect of their detention . However , the internal hierarchical procedure was the principal remedy for prisoners .

The procedure for complaints against staff members was similar to that for disciplinary offences . The witness was not aware of any specific complaint by the applicant against a staff member . He said however that , if the applicant had lodged any such complaint , it had been sent to the competent authority .

All detainees were familiar with LAW , which established this procedure and set out other provisions pertaining to the regime in all NORP prisons . A copy of the LAW and of FAC was in the prison library . Every detainee had unlimited access to those documents . In addition , upon the arrival of a new prisoner , a head of section must inform him of the rules , which had to be confirmed by the detainee ’s signature .

The witness hardly knew the applicant personally until DATE . The applicant had had no disciplinary record during the period of his placement in the prison before that . The witness had participated in the foundation meeting of ORG in DATE . He considered that the purposes of the association as stated in its statute , namely mutual assistance and support to defend ORG rights and better conditions of detention , were to be welcomed . There had been no interference by the administration with the functioning of the association . However , according to the witness , after becoming the leader of ORG , the applicant forgot that he himself was a prisoner and that he had not only rights but also obligations . He ignored lawful orders from staff and on various occasions seriously breached prison discipline .

The witness confirmed that the applicant had received CARDINAL disciplinary punishments during his time at the prison , namely on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . As to the nature of these punishments , the witness stated that CARDINAL of them had been minor . The deprivation of better detention conditions on DATE involved the temporary removal of the applicant ’s entitlement to certain socio - economic benefits , such as the right to receive additional personal visits , to make purchases in the prison shop , or to receive parcels from relatives . The disciplinary warnings of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE meant essentially remarks in the applicant ’s prison file . The chores ( budėjimas be eilės ) imposed on DATE and DATE were insignificant cleaning jobs . These penalties were minor , as the applicant ’s breaches of discipline had not been serious .

Only the penalty of DATE , namely the applicant ’s solitary confinement , was to be considered serious , in the opinion of the witness . It was imposed for non - compliance with the legitimate order of a prison officer , namely the failure of the applicant on DATE to wash the area around his bed . In any event , none of those penalties humiliated the applicant , in the view of the witness , but amounted to the normal enforcement of prison discipline .

The witness asserted that good reasons had been given for each of the punishments . In every case the prison management carefully assessed the facts about alleged disciplinary breaches by the applicant and properly weighed the evidence before them . The validity of the conclusions of the prison management was confirmed by the ORG . The witness mentioned as an example the events of DATE , when it was not clear whether or not the applicant had personally performed the chore imposed on DATE . Regardless of the statements of Officer PERSON alleging that the applicant had not performed the task himself , the witness decided that the applicant should have the benefit of the doubt , and that there had been no breach of discipline . However , in another case , concerning the chore imposed on DATE , the overwhelming evidence suggested that the applicant had indeed breached discipline by ordering another detainee to perform his task . As a result the applicant was punished with solitary confinement .

The witness admitted that he had said that the applicant “ was doing nothing but lodging complaints ” in an interview published on DATE in GPE , a special newspaper on matters of crime , law and order . The witness did not consider that he had in any way humiliated the applicant by that statement . He said that he had no personal prejudice towards the applicant because of his activism amongst prisoners , his presidency of PERSON , his complaint to ORG , or any other reason . The sole basis for the measures restricting the applicant ’s rights was his failure to comply with prison discipline , which was applied equally to all .

The witness said that the reasonable nature of the applicant ’s treatment in the prison was reflected by the fact that he had expunged the applicant ’s disciplinary record in DATE . Thereafter they had found a common ground and cooperated in organising various cultural events in the prison . Furthermore , in view of the applicant ’s improved behaviour , the witness intervened on the applicant ’s behalf to obtain a presidential pardon , which was eventually granted . Their cooperation continued after the applicant ’s release , particularly regarding the organisation of cultural activities in the prison .

DATE . The witness acknowledged that until DATE the prison administration had checked the applicant ’s letters to the Convention organs in accordance with FAC and LAW . The witness stated that he had never prevented the applicant from complaining to the ORG . His remarks about the exhaustion of domestic remedies were made to explain to the applicant the relevant procedural requirements , but not to hinder his right to pursue his Convention application . All letters to the ORG handed in by the applicant to the prison administration were sent , and all letters from the Convention organs were received by the applicant .

The witness was a staff member and a head of section .

The witness stated that the applicant belonged to the so - called élite of prisoners , and other inmates would normally perform jobs for him . This is why he did not think that the applicant had personally performed the chore imposed on DATE . The officer did not consider that the obligation to clean the area around his bed whilst supervised by the witness was degrading for the applicant . While the applicant had asked the witness in advance for permission to perform the task unsupervised , the applicant had not explained why he did not want to be observed or whether he considered the order degrading . The applicant ’s request had clearly been an attempt to get others to do the job for him . Therefore the witness did not give his permission . The applicant ’s subsequent refusal to perform the job in the presence of the witness amounted to a breach of duty .

On CARDINAL DATE the delegates visited the prison . The prison held CARDINAL people , a substantial reduction from the CARDINAL prisoners held in DATE .

The delegates visited the ORG where CARDINAL people were detained , whereas CARDINAL had been detained when the applicant was there . The beds had metal frames and springs , standing on CARDINAL legs QUANTITY high . The beds were side by side in a dormitory of QUANTITY m. There were televisions , a video - player , radios , personal effects and adequate bedding . Each prisoner was allocated approximately QUANTITY . m of space in the dormitory . There did not seem to be a lack of space , light or air .

The delegates visited a separate sanitation area in a corridor between the dormitory and the leisure room . The sanitation area consisted of toilets and a shower . Prisoners could use the shower at any time between wake - up at TIME and lock - in at TIME The area had been tiled and partial partitions installed between the NORP - type toilets since the applicant ’s detention there . The partitions were waist high , CARDINAL walls , with no doors in front of them . In the applicant ’s time there had just been the squat holes . There was no toilet paper in sight . The sanitation area was somewhat muddy but not unduly smelly . The delegates learnt that people were paid to do the cleaning , and that prisoners were asked to clean only as a disciplinary punishment .

Food was brought from the main prison into a small kitchen CARDINAL times a day . There was a courtyard , approximately the same size as the dormitory , with grass , plants , outdoor tables and benches and some weight - lifting equipment . There was no limitation on ORG access to the courtyard TIME Prisoners did not wear a uniform . Most of them were in light tracksuits and T - shirts . Detainees were able to wash their own personal laundry in the sanitation area , and the delegates saw laundry being dried on clotheslines outside in the courtyard . Inmates could come and go as they liked within the whole ORG area , where there were also separate leisure and billiard rooms . Only the leisure room had no windows , but there was no lack of air . There were soft armchairs , a chessboard and an audio - system in the leisure room . Big heating radiators were seen in all the accommodation areas .

People could call the prison medical service directly from the ORG on a special telephone line . A doctor visited the ORG almost on a daily basis , and a sick person would be brought to the infirmary .

DATE . The applicant confirmed that the conditions of his detention in the ORG had been essentially the same , except that the accommodation area had since been freshly painted and better furnished , partitions had been installed in the toilets , and a kitchen window had been created .

The delegates then moved to the area of the normal regime in Wing CARDINAL , namely an apartment block with QUANTITY . m of living space and an adjacent large strolling yard . There were CARDINAL sections in the wing . Sections consisted of dormitories with adjacent toilet areas . At the time of the visit , CARDINAL detainees were held in FAC , whereas there had been CARDINAL inmates when the applicant was there .

Section CARDINAL had a dormitory of QUANTITY . m holding CARDINAL beds ; some were double bunk beds . The beds had metal frames and springs , standing on CARDINAL legs QUANTITY high . Each prisoner had QUANTITY . m in the dormitory . The room had windows and did not lack light or air . Several prisoners were in the dormitory during the daytime as inmates were entitled to circulate freely throughout the whole building and yard from TIME until TIME There were CARDINAL stools in the room . The delegates were told by a staff member that detainees were allowed to sit or lie on the beds during DATE .

Section CARDINAL had a dormitory of QUANTITY m holding CARDINAL beds placed side by side . Each prisoner was allocated approximately QUANTITY . m of space in the dormitory . There were CARDINAL large windows but the applicant nevertheless complained about the lack of ventilation . The windows were open during the delegates’ visit , but the applicant said they remained shut in DATE or if someone was ill .

The toilets in both sections were located in separate areas closed off from the dormitories . There were partitioned NORP - type holes , which did not seem to be in a bad or dirty condition . There was no particular smell or lack of air in the toilets . The applicant said that the walls had been painted since his time and partitions had been installed .

NORP The general shower room allowed CARDINAL prisoners to shower at the same time ; this was not a renovated area . The installations were rusty and there was mould on the walls , but hot water was available and the area was generally functioning adequately . The room next to the showers had deep basins for prisoners to wash their own clothes . Prisoners were allowed access to the showers DATE .

The canteen consisted of CARDINAL big rooms with seating arrangements for CARDINAL people . The food was prepared in large ovens and saucepans where huge quantities of soup ( sometimes with meat ) , vegetables and porridge were cooked . The quantity per prisoner was controlled by the medical service , as was the level of hygiene . The general area seemed spotless apart from some dampness on the floor . Food was dished out in metal bowls for CARDINAL people and served through CARDINAL hatches in the canteen .

The infirmary had several consultation rooms , a dentist ’s chair and other equipment being in CARDINAL of them . All the equipment seemed old - fashioned but functional . Since DATE there had been a doctor on duty TIME a day . The doctor on duty said that if someone had a fever he would get help from the infirmary .

The delegates next visited the solitary confinement cell in a separate building , where the applicant was detained from CARDINAL to DATE . This consisted of a narrow room in which CARDINAL people could be detained . During DATE the beds are locked up against the wall like a couchette on a train . The cell had low benches and a cupboard . It also had a separate closed toilet and washbasin . The applicant said that during his placement there the walls had not been painted , there had been no cupboard , and the bedding was taken out of the cell in the daytime .

On DATE the ORG rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant ’s complaint against the disciplinary penalty of CARDINAL DATE depriving him of better conditions of detention . The ORG noted that the applicant solely contested the facts of the incident leading to the penalty , arguing that he had not beaten up another prisoner . On the basis of written observations by the prison management , the statement of an anonymous witness and the applicant ’s explanations , the ORG established that the applicant had participated in the beating and that the administration had duly imposed the penalty .

On DATE , on the basis of written observations by the prison administration and the applicant , the ORG rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant ’s complaints against the penalties of CARDINAL DATE . The ORG noted that the applicant solely contested the facts as established by the prison administration and had provided no plausible evidence to cast doubt on the validity of the conclusion that he had threatened other prisoners with force .

On DATE the ORG also dismissed as unfounded the applicant ’s complaint about the penalty of DATE . On the basis of written observations by the prison administration and the applicant , the ORG found that the applicant had trespassed into the territory of FAC without permission . According to ORG , a detainee must obtain the permission of the prison governor to visit other wings . Such a decision was valid only if it was published on the special information board . The applicant had not contested that he had had no permission to leave FAC on DATE or that he had not known of the relevant internal requirements prohibiting trespass . He was therefore justifiably ordered to perform a chore on DATE .

On DATE the ORG rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant ’s complaints against the disciplinary warnings of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . The ORG noted that the applicant solely contested the facts as established by the prison administration and had provided no plausible evidence to cast doubt on the validity of the conclusions that he had been sleeping after the regulatory wake - up call , or that he had been queuing beyond the privacy line .

On DATE the ORG also dismissed complaints by the applicant and another CARDINAL prisoners , PERSON and PERSON , against the penalties of CARDINAL DATE , imposing chores . By reference to written observations by the prison administration and the detainees’ comments , the ORG established that the applicant , together with B. and P. , all of whom were FAC inmates , were stopped by guards when trespassing into the territory of FAC . The detainees claimed that they had oral permission from both the prison governor and other guards to go to FAC , and that the penalties had thus been arbitrary . The ORG found that no valid permission had been given to these men , and that the penalties of DATE had therefore been justified .

On DATE the ORG rejected complaints by the applicant and PERSON against the disciplinary penalties of CARDINAL DATE ordering their solitary confinement for non - compliance with the duties imposed on DATE . By reference to written observations by the prison administration and the detainees’ comments , as well as the material collected on the spot by a representative of the ORG ’s office in DATE , the ORG established that the applicant and PERSON had been ordered to clean the areas around their own beds by Officer PERSON , in execution of the duties imposed on DATE . The ORG held that the applicant and PERSON , owing to their authority over other prisoners , could indeed have ordered other prisoners to clean up for them , thereby avoiding executing personally the penalties of CARDINAL DATE . According to the ORG , it was therefore reasonable for Officer PERSON to want to supervise the task himself . Such supervision could not amount to an unjustified interference with their honour . The Ombudsman established that the detainees had refused to perform the job under the supervision of Officer PERSON and another staff member at TIME on DATE . Some time later they informed Officer PERSON that they had nonetheless performed the task whilst alone . The ORG held that both the refusal of the detainees to perform their duties , and their subsequent statements that they had performed the jobs in the absence of staff , testified to their non - compliance with the penalty of DATE . The ORG concluded that the penalties of CARDINAL DATE had therefore been justified .

On DATE the ORG examined the applicant ’s complaints against CARDINAL members of staff , on the basis of an on - the - spot investigation conducted by a representative of the ORG ’s office in DATE . In his complaints the applicant alleged that CARDINAL member of staff , PERSON , did not know the NORP language , did not have NORP citizenship , and could not work at the prison . He also alleged that a staff member , ORG , had provoked conflicts between the applicant and other prisoners . The Ombudsman held that there were no grounds to examine the complaint in so far as it concerned PERSON , who had meanwhile left the prison . The ORG established no wrongdoing or intent to provoke conflicts on the part of P. ; in this regard the ORG held that the applicant ’s complaints had been of a general nature , and that , during the meeting with the representative of ORG , the applicant had been unable to specify a single incident when PERSON had breached his rights .

According to the Prison Code , a prison is headed by a governor . The prison administration is responsible to ORG . Until DATE ORG was answerable to ORG , but is now under the supervision of ORG .

According to LAW , no one may be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . LAW provides that imprisonment is not intended to cause physical suffering or offend human dignity .

Article CARDINAL of the Prison Code provides that “ the correspondence of convicted persons shall be censored ” .

Article CARDINAL of the Prison Code entitles a prisoner to apply to any ORG authority with recommendations , applications and complaints regarding his conditions of detention . According to LAW , a detainee can complain against a disciplinary penalty to a higher authority within the prison . The complaint does not affect the execution of the penalty . According to LAW , the list of prison officials entitled to impose disciplinary penalties and their competence in relation to the establishment of breaches of the prison regime is to be set out in FAC .

The Interim Prison Rules were adopted on DATE by an order of the Minister of the ORG . The Rules govern all issues pertaining to the general conditions of detention and the disciplinary regime in NORP prisons . The Rules were amended on a variety of occasions by way of ministerial orders . They were published in ORG for the first time in DATE , following the transfer of responsibilities from ORG to ORG .

Under LAW , the ORG may examine individual complaints about wrongdoing or misuse of office by executive officials . Under LAW , the ORG may not examine allegations the investigation of which falls within the competence of courts . Under the terms of LAW ) of the LAW , the ORG may not revise or revoke an executive decision or act . According to subsections ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) of section CARDINAL ) , the ORG may only refer the results of his investigation to the prosecuting authorities for a criminal prosecution , or bring a court action , or recommend an appropriate course of action in connection with any wrongdoing established .


Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in connection with an anti - drug - trafficking operation as a result of which the ORG public prosecutor ’s office brought criminal proceedings against CARDINAL persons . The applicant was interviewed on DATE by an investigating judge , in the presence of an interpreter and a lawyer appointed under the legal - aid scheme , and was then placed in pre - trial detention .

On DATE a search of his home was carried out and large sums of money in several different currencies and a self - defence spray were seized .

On DATE the applicant , represented by a lawyer whom he had in the meantime authorised to act for him , asked to be interviewed in the presence of another person involved in the case , CARDINAL ORG That request was refused on an unspecified date .

On DATE the public prosecutor ’s office filed the prosecution submissions ( acusação ) against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons . Mr PERSON was accused of aggravated drug trafficking and conspiracy ( associação criminosa ) . The indictment listed CARDINAL prosecution witnesses and the submissions ran to CARDINAL pages .

On DATE the applicant asked the judge to let him have a copy of the case file so that he could prepare his defence . The judge granted his request and the file was made available to the applicant ’s lawyer at the registry of ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied to the judge personally in LANGUAGE , asking for a translation of the prosecution submissions into LANGUAGE , his native language . On DATE the investigating judge at the ORG , ruling on the basis of LAW , refused that application without looking into its merits on the ground that it was not written in LANGUAGE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the NORP embassy in GPE asked the Sintra District Court to send the applicant a NORP translation of the prosecution submissions . The embassy later informed the court that it could assist it by providing the services of a sworn translator ( letter of CARDINAL DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request similar to that of DATE but written in LANGUAGE . In response to that request , on DATE , an interpreter appointed by the ORG went to the prison where the applicant was being held and gave him an oral translation of the prosecution submissions .

As a number of the accused had asked for the judicial investigation to be formally opened , that was done , on DATE . An adversarial hearing was held on DATE . On DATE the investigating judge made an order ( despacho de pronuncía ) committing CARDINAL of the accused , including the applicant , for trial . The order was read out to all the accused and simultaneous interpretation was provided in several foreign languages .

On DATE the applicant filed his defence pleadings and submitted a list of the defence witnesses .

In a judgment of DATE ORG ( Supremo Tribunal de Justiça ) ruled that ORG could hold the trial on the LOC of ORG in ORG on account of the lack of space at its own courthouse in ORG .

The trial began on DATE and lasted for DATE , during which CARDINAL hearings were held . On DATE , in other words while the trial was still taking place , the applicant withdrew the authority to act he had given to his lawyer and asked the court to appoint a lawyer under the legal - aid scheme . The court appointed PERSON as his defence counsel .

The Sintra District Court gave judgment on DATE . It found the applicant guilty of aggravated drug trafficking but not of conspiracy , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant personally appealed to ORG . His application was written in NORP . By an order of CARDINAL DATE the judge of ORG , ruling on the basis of LAW , dismissed the appeal without looking into its merits on the ground that it was not written in LANGUAGE .

On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG on her client ’s behalf . She alleged breaches of a number of provisions of LAW and of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .

In DATE the applicant asked a lawyer of his own choice to represent him in the proceedings , thus dispensing with the services of the lawyer appointed under the legal - aid scheme . On DATE the applicant ’s new lawyer lodged an appeal with ORG against the order made by the judge of ORG on DATE .

On DATE the case file was sent to ORG .

On DATE ORG gave judgment on a number of interlocutory appeals and on those which , in the NORP opinion , could already be decided without further examination . Applying LAW , ORG declared inadmissible the applicant ’s appeal against his conviction , lodged through PERSON , ruling that the grounds of appeal had not been satisfactorily explained . The appeal contained no submissions and did not indicate in what way the legal provisions whose breach it alleged should have been interpreted and applied .

On DATE ORG delivered a second judgment . It first upheld an appeal by the prosecution concerning some of the defendants , including the applicant , finding that the latter was also guilty of conspiracy . The applicant ’s sentence was accordingly raised to DATE imprisonment . ORG then considered the appeal against the order made by the judge of ORG on DATE . It held that the application made by the applicant alone was provided for in LAW , which permitted a defendant to submit pleadings or observations directly to the court . Taking into account LAW ( e ) of the LAW , ORG then set aside the impugned decision and ordered the appeal lodged by the applicant to be translated so that it could be “ duly examined ” . Lastly , ORG decided that the statements of one of the defendants , who had cooperated with the police investigating the case and had refused to answer the questions put by counsel for the other defendants , could not be admitted in evidence .

Some of the defendants , but not the applicant , appealed against the above decision to ORG ) .

The applicant requested a clarification ( aclaração ) of the last part of ORG judgment of DATE . He wanted to know in particular when his conviction would become final , regard being had to ORG decision to set aside the order of CARDINAL DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the above application on the ground that no clarification was called for . On the other hand , it corrected a mistake discovered in the judgment of DATE concerning determination of the sentences imposed on some of the defendants and reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals by some of the defendants .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to inform him how it intended to follow up the final part of the judgment of DATE with regard to the application he had lodged with ORG on DATE . On an unspecified date the reporting judge ordered the registry to inform the applicant that the application would be examined by ORG in due course .

In a judgment of DATE ORG made it clear that the applicant was to be regarded as serving his sentence , since ORG had dismissed the appeals by other defendants , with the result that ORG judgment of DATE , as corrected by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , had therefore become final .

On DATE the applicant asked to be released . He submitted that ORG judgment of DATE had not become final in so far as he himself was concerned . He pointed out that the last part of the judgment had not been executed , as his appeal of CARDINAL DATE had not yet been duly examined as required by the judgment in question .

On DATE the reporting judge refused the above application in the following terms :

“ The application in issue [ the one made on DATE ] ... was submitted under LAW . If by means of that application the applicant intended to appeal against his conviction , it must be pointed out that it could not have such an effect . The appeal by the defendant PERSON against his conviction was the one lodged by the lawyer representing him under the legal - aid scheme , which has already been heard . ... The content [ of the application of CARDINAL DATE ] , whatever it is DATE and that is a matter to be ascertained when the file has been transmitted to the court of first instance – could not therefore affect or influence the course of the proceedings . That is why the application can not prevent the transition to res judicata [ trânsito em julgado ] of ORG judgment of DATE . ”

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the above decision . On DATE the reporting judge declared the appeal inadmissible for failure to exhaust ordinary remedies , the applicant having omitted to challenge the decision before ORG ( conferência ) . The applicant then appealed against the inadmissibility decision to ORG , which dismissed his appeal in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , of which the applicant was informed on DATE , the ORG ruled , in accordance with ORG judgment of DATE , on the application made by the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . It noted firstly that the application amounted to an appeal against conviction . It went on to say that the applicant had only reproduced the appeal lodged at the time by his lawyer , but had not made use of the remedy provided for in LAW , whereby he could have revoked the act carried out by his counsel . It noted that in any event the application was signed only by the applicant and not by his lawyer , and that accordingly it could not be declared admissible .

NORP In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed an application for transfer to GPE made by the applicant under LAW .

The applicant was serving the remainder of his sentence in GPE when he was paroled on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against Ms GPE with ORG . He alleged that her conduct had caused him prejudice in that , contrary to his instructions , she had herself lodged with ORG an appeal that did not satisfy the formal conditions .

On DATE ORG decided to open disciplinary proceedings against PERSON

The applicant asserted that he had received from ORG a letter dated CARDINAL DATE informing him that a disciplinary penalty had been imposed on PERSON for “ unethical conduct ” . The document concerned has not been produced before the Court .

The provisions of LAW relevant to the present case are the following :

“ CARDINAL . The accused may instruct counsel at any stage of the proceedings .

Where it is provided by law that the accused must be represented and the accused has not appointed or does not propose to appoint a person to defend him , the judge shall assign CARDINAL officially , preferably a member or trainee member of the Bar ; but the officially assigned representative shall cease to have authority to act if the accused instructs counsel of his own choosing . ... ”

“ The accused may revoke any act carried out on his behalf by the person defending him , provided that he expressly declares that intention before any decision has been taken in respect of the act in question . ”

“ CARDINAL . Where a representative is assigned officially , the accused shall be notified of the fact if he was not present at the material time .

NORP The officially assigned representative may be excused from assisting the accused if he puts forward a ground that the court considers valid .

The court may replace the officially assigned representative at any time on an application by the accused that contains a valid ground .

NORP Until such time as he is replaced , an officially assigned representative shall continue to act in respect of subsequent steps in the proceedings .

NORP The representative shall always be remunerated for his services ; the terms and the amount shall be determined by the court , within the limits laid down in a scale approved by ORG or , failing that , in the light of the fees normally paid for services of a similar nature and of equal importance .

Payment shall be the responsibility , as the case may be , of the accused , the assistente , the civil parties or ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . To be valid , all steps in the proceedings , whether written or oral , must be made in NORP .

Where a person who does not know or master the NORP language has to take part in proceedings , an appropriate interpreter shall be appointed free of charge ...

An interpreter shall likewise be appointed if it proves necessary to translate a document in a foreign language which is not accompanied by a certified translation .

“ An accused , even if at liberty , may submit observations , pleadings or applications at any stage of the proceedings , even if they are not signed by his representative , provided that they relate to the subject matter of the proceedings or are intended to protect his fundamental rights . Such observations , pleadings or applications shall always be placed in the case file . ”

“ CARDINAL . The pleadings shall set forth in detail the grounds of appeal and end with submissions , set out point by point , in which the appellant summarises the reasons for his appeal .

NORP If the reasons concern the law , the submissions shall also indicate the following , failing which the appeal shall be dismissed :

( a ) NORP the legal provisions that have been infringed ;

( b ) the way in which , in the appellant ’s opinion , the lower court interpreted or applied each provision and the way in which that provision should have been interpreted or applied ... ”

Like LAW , LAW requires an appellant to complete his appeal with submissions . These must likewise indicate both the legal provisions infringed and the way in which , according to the appellant , they should have been interpreted or applied by the lower court . However , paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL provides :

“ Where there are no submissions , or where the submissions are incomplete , obscure or complex ... the reporting judge must ask the appellant to produce them , add to them , clarify them or summarise them , failing which the appeal shall not be heard ... ”

Formerly , it was the established case - law of ORG that it was permissible to dismiss outright any appeals submitted in breach of the formal conditions laid down in LAW . In particular , it took the view that an appellant was not entitled to be asked to make good any deficiencies of his appeal , unlike the position provided for in LAW . That was justified by the particular requirements of speedy trial imposed by criminal procedure , the question of celerity being deemed not to be raised in the same terms in civil cases . It was therefore normal for ORG to dismiss appeals on points of law , for example , on account of the prolixity of the related pleadings , regard being had to the provision in LAW requiring an appellant to “ summarise ” the reasons for his appeal .

In its judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG declared , with general binding force , that LAW was unconstitutional if interpreted so as to permit the outright dismissal of an appeal on points of law on account of the wordiness of the related pleading without the appellant being first asked to rectify his appeal . It emphasised that the particular requirements of speedy trial imposed by criminal procedure could not justify such a restriction of the right to due process .

In its judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG of DATE , ORG declared , with general binding force , that Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL , which are similar to LAW and applicable to summary offences , were unconstitutional if interpreted so as to permit the outright dismissal of an appeal on account of its being unaccompanied by submissions without the appellant being first asked to make such submissions . ORG referred to its case - law concerning the dismissal of appeals on points of law on account of the wordiness of the related pleading , observing that the same reasoning applied to the case under consideration , regard being had to the requirements of the principle of fair trial and the right to due process .

The legal profession in GPE is free and independent . Lawyers are completely independent from the ORG and are bound only by their statute , approved by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE .

ORG is a public - law association , regulated by ORG but independent of the ORG . It has disciplinary jurisdiction over lawyers , who must be registered with the ORG in order to be able to practice , the question of disciplinary responsibility being a quite separate matter from any civil or criminal responsibility ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 13 + P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 6;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic and Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in PERSON .

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

The applicant deposited money in CARDINAL different accounts in ORG the ORG ' ) , which was , during NORP times , ORG - owned .

NORP In DATE ORG adopted Decision no . LAW on the indexing of citizens ' savings in ORG ” ( “ the DATE decision ” ) whereby persons who had reached DATE by DATE and who had savings in their accounts in the ORG on DATE were entitled to recover a part of their deposits at the rate of CARDINAL GPE leu ( MDL ) for MONEY for the first thousand roubles deposited in each account .

On DATE the Government adopted Decision no . CARDINAL , whereby it created a Commission charged with establishing the amount of compensation to be transferred by ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) by DATE to the ORG for compensation purposes , on the basis of the allocations made for that purpose in the ORG budget for the relevant DATE .

The applicant had QUANTITY in each of his CARDINAL accounts in the ORG and he claimed accordingly MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) . On DATE he received MDL CARDINAL after ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) transferred money to the ORG for compensation purposes . He continued to request the remaining amount and to complain to various authorities .

On DATE he initiated court proceedings against the ORG and the ORG to recover the remaining amount and seeking compensation for the late payment ( since the value of the money was depreciating because of high inflation ) and for non - pecuniary damage caused by having to wait for the payment ( the applicant was recognised as second - degree disabled and had a DATE State pension of MDL CARDINAL ) . Both defendants accepted that the applicant had a right to obtain the outstanding amount of compensation , and stated that the delay in paying was due to the failure to include in the ORG budget the allocations for that purpose . According to the ORG , during DATE it transferred to ORG of the money necessary to pay the compensation in full to all those affected by the DATE decision . However , the ORG budget did not allocate any further funds during DATE , while PERCENT of the total amount was allocated in the budget for DATE . The applicant did not receive any compensation in DATE .

On DATE ORG partly accepted the applicant 's claim . It found that the main responsibility for the delay in paying his outstanding compensation lay with ORG , which had not transferred the necessary money to the ORG . It ordered the ORG to pay the applicant MDL CARDINAL and the Ministry to pay him MDL CARDINAL , which constituted the remaining amount due under the DATE decision ( a total of MDL CARDINAL , or ORG CARDINAL at the time ) . The court rejected the claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage because there was no law dealing with such claims .

In an appeal , the applicant expressly requested the court , on the basis of LAW , to apply directly LAW No . CARDINAL to LAW as regards the absence of domestic remedies .

On DATE the ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , repeating the reasoning of the first - instance court in rejecting the claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

In an appeal , the applicant repeated his arguments advanced before the lower courts and relied in addition on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG also upheld the lower courts ' judgments and confirmed their reasoning in rejecting the claim of compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , because it “ had no support in law ” . That judgment was final . On DATE the outstanding amount was transferred to the applicant 's account .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL Human rights and freedoms

( CARDINAL ) The constitutional provisions regarding human rights and freedoms shall be interpreted and applied in line with LAW and with the covenants and other treaties to which GPE is a party .

( CARDINAL ) In the event of a conflict between the covenants and other treaties regarding human rights and freedoms to which GPE is a party and its domestic legislation , the international provisions shall take precedence . ”

“ LAW access to justice

( CARDINAL ) Every citizen shall have the right to obtain effective protection from competent courts of jurisdiction against actions infringing his or her legitimate rights , freedoms and interests .

( CARDINAL ) No law may restrict access to justice . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW , in force before DATE , read as follows :

“ LAW .

Civil rights shall be protected in accordance with the rules determined by the competent courts ... : by recognising those rights ; ... by obliging persons who violate a right to compensate for the damage caused ... , as well as by other means provided for by law .

LAW of the debtor to compensate for the damage

If the debtor does not fulfil his obligation or fulfils it inappropriately he shall compensate for the damage caused to the creditor .

The compensation shall include the creditor 's costs , loss of or damage to items , as well as loss of any profits which the creditor would have obtained had the obligation been fulfilled . ”

Parliament 's decision “ Concerning the indexing of citizens ' savings in ORG ” ( No . CARDINAL-XIII , DATE ) reads as follows :

“ DATE ORG ' savings in ORG ... shall be indexed on the basis of the account balance on DATE for those account holders who on DATE had reached DATE MONEY on all accounts according to the ratio one [ NORP ] rouble : to MONEY [ MDL ] .

DATE The Government and ORG :

within DATE shall decide upon and propose the manner and mechanism of amortisation of the indexed amounts and the sources of compensation ;

shall make proposals regarding the manner of indexation of citizens ' other deposits of the population in ORG ”

The relevant provisions of the PERSON on the indexation of citizens ' savings in ORG ( No . CARDINAL-XV , DATE ) ( “ the DATE Law ” ) read as follows :

“ ... LAW

The savings of citizens of GPE deposited in ORG ... shall be indexed on the basis of the account balance on DATE :

a ) according to the ratio one rouble to one leu [ MDL ] for MONEY of the cumulative balance of all accounts of natural persons ( account holders ) ;

b ) according to the ratio MONEY to MONEY [ MDL ] for the balance exceeding the amount indicated under ( a ) for natural persons ( account holders ) .

LAW of payment

The amounts indicated in LAW shall be paid in instalments , starting in DATE .

Article CARDINAL Financial means of payment

( CARDINAL ) Payment of the indexed amounts shall be made from ORG .

( CARDINAL ) The DATE Budget shall provide , for DATE , the quantum of financial means for the payment of indexed amounts ...

LAW of indexation

( CARDINAL ) Indexation of the amounts and their payment shall be made , at the account holders ' request , in phases , with priority for MONEY , then for the balance exceeding the first thousand roubles , in accordance with the account holder 's year of birth .

Article CARDINAL

The Government :

a ) shall adopt , within DATE , a Regulation regarding the indexing and manner of payment of the indexed amounts of citizens ' savings in ORG ;

b ) shall determine DATE , depending on the amounts provided in the Annual Budget for indexation , the categories of citizens whose savings are to be indexed ... ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC . He was an employee of the “ GPE ” PERSON ( “ the Company ” ; ORG “ NORP ” ) . The “ Ukrrudprom ” ORG ( ДВАТ « Укррудпром DATE ) owned PERCENT of the ORG 's share capital .

In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the GPE District Court of Kryvyy Rig ( NORP районний суд PERSON PERSON ) , seeking his reinstatement as an overman ( гірничий майстер ) and compensatory redress for allegedly unlawful dismissal .

On DATE the court ordered the applicant 's reinstatement and partly allowed his claims for compensation , having awarded him CARDINAL hryvnyas ( ORG ) . The Company appealed , but reinstated the applicant .

On DATE the ORG upheld the applicant 's reinstatement , however , recalculated the compensation and awarded him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The judgment was not appealed against in cassation within the statutory time - limit and became final .

On DATE the ORG ( ORG виконавчої служби PERSON району м. PERSON ) instituted the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed on account of the pending bankruptcy proceedings against the Company .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were resumed , as the bankruptcy proceedings had been discontinued .

In DATE the judgment given in the applicant 's favour was enforced .

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