The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON RăzvanHoraţiu PERSON , of ORG .

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

NORP In an action before ORG , the applicant claimed CARDINAL ( ORG ) in damages from an international road transport company ( “ the company ” ) , alleging that it had failed to perform its contractual obligations .

He claimed that in respect of a return journey between GPE and GPE , which had cost him ORG CARDINAL , the company had failed to observe the safety and comfort requirements set out in its advertising material , namely the provision of fully reclining seats , a change of coach in GPE and the availability of CARDINAL drivers .

On DATE he requested the production of the relevant transport documents held by the defendant company .

In a judgment of DATE the court dismissed his action . After examining the clauses of the contract of carriage , it found that none of the conditions referred to by the applicant were mentioned . The court did not rule on the request for the production of certain items of evidence .

NORP In an appeal on points of law received in the court 's registry on DATE , the applicant challenged that judgment . In his grounds of appeal , filed in the registry on DATE , he alleged that the impugned judgment was based on contradictory grounds , that it was the result of an erroneous application of the law and that it infringed the law . The applicant added that the court had failed to rule on certain defences that were crucial for the outcome of the dispute and that it had misinterpreted the subject - matter of the proceedings .

He developed his arguments relying on provisions of LAW and on the interpretation of the contractual clauses .

The case was referred to ORG and Justice ( “ the High Court ” ) . Under LAW as then in force , the appeal was subject to a CARDINAL - stage examination : first , ORG would adjudicate in private on its admissibility and , if it was declared admissible , the merits of the impugned judgment would then be examined in a public hearing .

On DATE the applicant submitted “ pleadings concerning the admissibility of the appeal ” in which he argued that it should be declared admissible because the substantive and procedural conditions were satisfied .

In a final judgment delivered in private on DATE in the absence of the parties , who had not been summoned to appear , ORG declared the appeal null and void , under Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure as then in force , on the ground that it had not stated the reasons why ORG decision was alleged to be unlawful .

On DATE the applicant applied to have that judgment set aside , alleging that it was the result of a manifest error on the part of ORG , because he had set out his grounds of appeal in the document filed on DATE . In addition , he complained about the lack of publicity of the proceedings before ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected his application on the ground that no appeal lay against the judgment of DATE .

The Code of Civil Procedure ( as amended by ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , as worded at the material time , contained the following provisions :

“ Appeals on points of law shall be heard by ORG and ORG , unless otherwise provided by law . ”

“ Statements of appeal on points of law shall , if they are not to be declared null and void , ... indicate the grounds of illegality raised and contain the corresponding reasoning ... ”

“ The setting - aside or quashing of a judgment may be sought only in the following cases and for the following reasons :

NORP if the bench was composed in breach of the statutory provisions ;

NORP if the judgment was delivered by judges other than those who heard the case on the merits ;

NORP if the judgment was rendered in disregard of the jurisdiction of another court ;

NORP if the court exceeded its jurisdiction ;

NORP if the judgment was rendered contrary to rules of procedure of which a breach carries the sanction of nullity ... ;

NORP if the judgment was rendered ultra petita ;

NORP if the judgment did not give reasons or if it was based on reasoning that was contradictory or unrelated to the subject - matter of the proceedings ;

NORP if , on account of misinterpretation , the court modified the subject - matter of the proceedings whereas that subject - matter had been clear and undisputed ;

NORP if the judgment was not based on the law , if it infringed the law , or if it was the result of an erroneous application of the law ;

if the court failed to rule on certain defences or certain documents in the file that were crucial for the outcome of the dispute . ”

“ An appeal on points of law against a judgment which is not subject to an ordinary appeal shall not be limited to the situations provided for in LAW , as the appellate court shall be entitled to examine all the aspects of the case . ”

“ The president of the court which receives the appeal on points of law shall appoint a bench of CARDINAL judges to rule on its admissibility ...

If the judges are unanimous in finding that the admissibility conditions are not satisfied , or if they find that the grounds of appeal and the accompanying arguments do not correspond to those set out in LAW , they shall declare the appeal null and void or , if appropriate , reject it in a reasoned decision without summoning the parties , that decision not being subject to appeal . ”

Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , further amending LAW , repealed the provisions of Emergency Order no . CARDINAL concerning the exclusive jurisdiction of ORG and ORG to hear appeals on points of law , together with the provisions concerning the preliminary examination of their admissibility . Appeals on points of law are now examined by the courts that are immediately above those that gave the judgments at first instance or on appeal , without any preliminary examination of admissibility , and in accordance with the ordinary procedure provided for by LAW .


FEJZULLA AND MAZREKU v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Anatoly Kovler;George Nicolaou;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants , Mr PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) and Mr Jonuz Mazreku ( “ the second applicant ” ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE , respectively and they live in GPE , GPE . The first applicant , who is the second applicant ’s nephew , also has NORP citizenship . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) charging the applicants and PERSON , PERSON and Mr ORG with drug trafficking . According to the indictment , on DATE the first applicant and PERSON had bought QUANTITY of heroin from a certain Mr Dz . N. in GPE , GPE . After the drugs had entered the respondent ORG , they had been handed over to Mr R.A. so that he could take them to GPE . On DATE the applicants , together with PERSON , had arrived at a car park near FAC . Mr GPE and Mr ORG had also arrived and had loaded the drugs into Mr ORG ’s truck . CARDINAL cakes of heroin had been stored in the spare tyre and CARDINAL cakes had been put in a special compartment in the front of the truck . The charges were based , inter alia , on an expert opinion of DATE , CARDINAL search reports , CARDINAL certificates for temporarily seized objects , and a list of passengers ( “ the list ” ) indicating the names of the first applicant and Mr PERSON as having travelled in a bus from GPE to GPE on CARDINAL and DATE . The list had been sent by border police on DATE to ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) , as was the case with a special report , no.CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , produced by ORG . According to the latter , on DATE ORG had requested ( request no.CARDINAL.CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , and the public prosecutor had ordered , an audio - visual recording of the car park . The recording had been made on that date between TIME and TIME CARDINAL digital video cameras and CARDINAL digital photo camera had been used .

In the proceedings before ORG , the Government submitted a copy of the ORG ’s request ORG - CARDINAL of DATE , according to which ORG had requested that the public prosecutor authorise the audio - visual surveillance because it believed that a significant quantity of heroin was to be trafficked and prepared for transportation outside the respondent ORG . For that purpose , unidentified persons had been expected to arrive at the car park in a vehicle with NORP car plates and meet with other unidentified persons . They also submitted another report by ORG dated DATE ( report no.CARDINAL.CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , according to which the total duration of the video of the car park recorded with both cameras was TIME and TIME . This report was admitted in evidence in the domestic proceedings . They also submitted a copy of the search report of the truck dated DATE . That search had been ordered by an investigating judge and had been attended by PERSON ORG and CARDINAL witnesses .

At a hearing on DATE , the first applicant stated that he had not met PERSON in GPE , as alleged by the prosecution , but rather on the bus while travelling to the respondent State . He had never met him before then . On that occasion , they had discussed the possibility of trading coffee machines . For that reason , he had gone to GPE with the second applicant , who was a taxi driver . He had not told the second applicant the reason for , or the duration , of his stay in GPE .

The second applicant stated that he had gone to GPE at the request of the first applicant so that the first applicant could discuss business matters with a third person . The first applicant had told him that their stay would be short , a DATE or CARDINAL . He denied that he had known Mr GPE and Mr P.G.

Mr ORG stated that he had not known , and had never seen , the applicants before .

On DATE the trial court found the defendants guilty and sentenced them to a prison term . The second applicant received the shortest sentence ( DATE imprisonment ) . All the other defendants , including the first applicant , were sentenced to DATE imprisonment . An expulsion order of indefinite duration ( казна протерување засекогаш ) was also issued against the applicants . PERSON and PERSON were convicted in absentia because they had escaped from the car park and had not been found since . The applicants had had no prior criminal records in the respondent ORG .

The trial court found that the defendants had acted in concert , as described in the indictment . It established that on DATE the first applicant and PERSON , having bought the heroin from Dz . ORG , had arrived in the respondent ORG on a bus from GPE . The list supported that finding . The first applicant had continued on to GPE . On DATE the applicants had arrived in GPE . During their stay , they had met up with PERSON and Mr I.N. several times . Mr ORG had arrived in GPE with his truck . On DATE he had met up with Mr ORG at a previously determined place . As already agreed upon , all the defendants met at the car park near FAC , where Mr GPE and Mr ORG had loaded the drugs into the latter ’s truck , as described above . After Mr PERSON had left the scene , the remaining defendants had embraced each other and had left , satisfied with the job done . The applicants’ car had been stopped by police upon leaving the city . These facts were established , inter alia , on the basis of a VHS tape of the video recording of the car park on DATE . In the proceedings before the ORG , the applicants submitted a copy of the ORG tape used in court . The total length of the video material recorded on the car park was TIME and TIME .

The trial court rejected the applicants’ denial that they had been involved in the crime . It further rejected their arguments that a purely visual recording without sound could not be relied upon to establish the facts : the court explained that it had been impracticable to obtain an audio recording .

The applicants appealed against this decision , arguing that , inter alia , there had been no evidence supporting the trial court ’s opinion that the first applicant had bought the heroin in GPE and that the defendants had acted in concert . They stated that the visual recording , as the only evidence on which their conviction rested , had been incomplete and inaccurate . They further reiterated that there had been no audio recording , as required under section CARDINAL-b § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , which consequently made the recording inadmissible .

At a public session held on DATE , ORG allowed the ORG appeal and quashed the trial court ’s decision , which it found to have been inconsistent and unreasoned . It also held that the video material had not been properly admitted in evidence .

At the new trial , the applicants reiterated their objections concerning the credibility and probative value of the video material recorded on the ORG tape . In this connection , they argued that there had been time gaps and interruptions in the video and requested that the trial court admits the original video material in evidence . The court refused this request and said that there was no doubt that the video material recorded on the ORG tape was identical to the original video material recorded by the digital cameras . The applicants further argued that the recording had been unlawful because it had been authorised by the public prosecutor , instead of by an investigating judge , on the basis that the ORG had known the identity of the possible perpetrators ( see section LAW of LAW ) . In this connection the court allowed the GPE request and admitted the public prosecutor ’s order for the audio - visual recording of the car park ( order PERSON ) . According to the order , the recording would DATE and be stopped should the identities of the suspects be discovered . The court , however , refused to admit the ORG ’s request ORG - CARDINAL of DATE and said that it was irrelevant to the validity of the order .

On DATE the trial court convicted the applicants of the same offence and imposed the same sentences and expulsion orders as before . Relying on the public prosecutor ’s order , the court rejected the applicants’ arguments that the video material had been unlawfully obtained . Noting the lack of synchronisation between the video cameras used for the recording , the court stated that the time gaps and interruptions in the video material had not affected the credibility of the video evidence . It further referred to a discrepancy in the ORG statements given during the trial . It rejected their arguments that they had been in a restaurant with Mr PERSON at the time when the drugs had been loaded into the truck , as there had been no such place in the vicinity of the car park . Even if they had been in a restaurant , the nearest CARDINAL was located far away from the car park and would have required the applicants to walk for a considerable period of time , which the court found unreasonable given the weather conditions at the relevant time . Lastly , and for the reasons provided in its first decision , the court rejected the applicants’ complaints regarding the absence of audio recording .

The applicants appealed arguing that , inter alia , the trial court had refused to admit in evidence the original video material , which the applicants had sought to have admitted so that light could be shed on the doubts concerning its credibility . They also complained about the refusal to admit the ORG ’s request of DATE that prompted the public prosecutor ’s order , arguing that this was crucial for establishing the lawfulness of that evidence . The public prosecutor also appealed against the decision .

At a public session on DATE , ORG allowed the public prosecutor ’s appeal and increased the applicants’ sentence : the first applicant ’s sentence was increased to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and the second applicant ’s sentence was increased to DATE imprisonment . It dismissed the applicants’ appeal , finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasoning given by the trial court . It stated that the trial court had examined the ORG tape and had confirmed its credibility by watching it and by describing the events as filmed .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG on points of law ( барање за вонредно преиспитување на правосилна пресуда ) , in which they reiterated their complaints that their conviction was based on inadmissible evidence namely , the ORG tape , whose credibility and lawfulness they challenged . They further complained that court transcripts in the case file had been modified after the trial and did not correspond to the copies in their possession .

In a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the ORG appeal and upheld the lower courts’ decisions . It did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints about the court transcripts and , otherwise it adhered to the reasons given in the lower courts’ decisions of DATE and DATE respectively . The decision was served on the applicants on DATE .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG ( PERSON ) that modifications had been made to the transcripts . Having examined the case file and interviewed the trial judge , ORG , in a letter of DATE , informed the applicants that there had indeed been certain modifications , which had concerned only structure and not content . In the absence of any evidence , no responsibility for the amendments could be attached to the trial judge .

As regards the modification of the transcripts , ORG of ORG , acting upon the ORG request , opened a file . No decision as to any prosecution has yet been taken .

Under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , in respect of criminal offences subject to automatic prosecution by the ORG , the public prosecutor can order the use of a special investigative technique in pre - trial proceedings under the conditions and in the way specified by law .

Section CARDINAL-b of the LAW provides that special investigative techniques may be ordered where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that certain criminal offences have been committed by , inter alia , an organised group . Secret surveillance and audio - visual recordings are among the permitted special investigative techniques ( section CARDINAL-b § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that information , documents and objects obtained by means of a special investigative measure may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings .

Under section CARDINAL-d § CARDINAL , at the pre - trial stage , the use of special investigative techniques may be ordered by an investigating judge in a reasoned written decision following a reasoned written request by the public prosecutor , or by the public prosecutor in a reasoned written decision following a reasoned written request by ORG , but only in respect of a person whose identity is unknown .

Under section CARDINAL-e § CARDINAL of the LAW , evidence obtained through special investigative techniques can not be used at trial if the techniques were applied without an order by an investigating judge or the public prosecutor or contrary to the LAW .

Section CARDINAL-f § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW provide that , inter alia , the Ministry shall prepare , after the expiration of the period within which a special investigative technique was used , a report and shall submit it to the public prosecutor if the order for the technique used was issued by the latter .


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

C. Russo;J.A. Carrillo Salcedo;N. Valticos

ORG The applicant , who is a NORP citizen born in DATE , has a doctorate in law and lives in GPE . He was struck off the Bar roll of that city and has twice applied unsuccessfully to be reinstated .

ORG In DATE , after completing the prescribed period as a pupil avocat in GPE , H was entered on the roll and took chambers .

ORG In DATE , ORG of GPE commenced disciplinary action against him for having deliberately given false information to clients .

On DATE , it struck him off the roll , having satisfied itself that he had wrongly persuaded a client that he ( the client ) risked arrest if he did not immediately pay a sum of CARDINAL BF . The ORG had previously dismissed the other charges against H.

On appeal by H , ORG , in a judgment on DATE , affirmed the decision to strike him off ; and on DATE , ORG dismissed H ’s appeal on points of law .

H was subsequently prosecuted for fraud and unlawfully holding himself out as an avocat ; he was in custody pending trial from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and many of his files were seized . He was acquitted by ORG on DATE and made an unsuccessful claim for compensation .

ORG In DATE , the applicant set up as a legal and tax adviser , after having worked for some time as a commercial traveller .

On DATE , when he was about to apply to have his name restored to the roll , the police again seized documents at his office . On DATE , the chambre du conseil of ORG committed him for trial in ORG for forgery and fraudulent conversion , but the prosecution ended in an acquittal on DATE .

H has no criminal convictions .

ORG By a letter of DATE , the applicant requested ORG of GPE to restore his name to the roll . This application was based on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE , at a sitting of the ORG , the bâtonnier ( leader ) of the Antwerp Bar appointed a rapporteur .

After deliberating on CARDINAL and DATE , the ORG decided to hear the applicant and his counsel .

ORG The hearing was held on DATE . According to H ’s counsel , the " exceptional circumstances " justifying his restoration to the roll consisted essentially in the great professional and family difficulties his client had experienced over DATE , particularly as he had to confine himself to his occupation as a legal and tax adviser ; furthermore his disbarment had not been followed up with any criminal proceedings and the later prosecutions had ended in acquittals .

The Council of the ORG dismissed the application on DATE ; although DATE had elapsed since H had been struck off , the explanations offered orally by H ’s counsel did not disclose any exceptional circumstances such as would justify restoring his name to the roll .

ORG On DATE , the applicant renewed his application . He appended a memorandum criticising the DATE decision and to which was attached an opinion by a retired procureur général ( Principal Crown Prosecutor ) , B. According to B , ORG should , under LAW , have reported to the GPE procureur du PERSON ( ORG ) the matters of which the applicant stood accused ; that would have entailed suspending the disciplinary proceedings until the final decision in the criminal trial was known .

The Council of the Ordre heard H and his counsel on DATE . Counsel submitted that the decision to disbar H had been based on the uncorroborated evidence of CARDINAL of H ’s clients , and that from DATE to DATE H had run his legal and tax consultancy very satisfactorily . He added that in DATE ORG had not reported the facts to the procureur du Roi , with the result that no prosecution had been brought and H had not had a chance of securing an acquittal . He also emphasised H ’s family difficulties . In addition , he filed a memorandum in which the applicant explained why the retired procureur général B was entitled to give an opinion .

The Council of the ORG dismissed the application at the end of its sitting on DATE , holding that H had not established that there were exceptional circumstances ; in particular , the consequences of disbarment did not constitute such circumstances . In response to the memorandum of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it stated that the relevant procureur général was aware of the facts before the decision was given and had ordered a judicial investigation .

The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

ORG In GPE the councils of the ORG have exclusive jurisdiction to decide on applications for restoration to the roll .

ORG For each of ORG , together with the bâtonnier and the general assembly , is an administrative organ of the profession of avocat .

ORG It consists of the bâtonnier and from CARDINAL other members , according to the number of avocats on the Bar roll and the list of pupil avocats ; ORG has CARDINAL members in addition to the bâtonnier .

The members are directly elected by the general assembly of the ORG , to which all avocats on the roll are convened ( LAW ) ; the election is held before the end of each judicial year .

ORG The ORG exercises numerous functions of an administrative , regulatory , adjudicative , advisory and disciplinary nature . In the instant case it is sufficient to mention the following .

ORG Under LAW , which enshrines the case - law of ORG on the subject ( judgment of DATE , PERSON , I , p. CARDINAL ) , the ORG draws up the roll of avocats and the list of pupil avocats , and no appeal lies from its decisions in this matter . The principle of the ORG ’s having responsibility for its roll is justified by the need to restrict access to the profession to persons of unimpeachable integrity .

It is also the ORG ’s duty to " protect the honour of the Ordre " and to " maintain the principles of dignity , probity and scrupulousness on which the profession is founded " ( Article CARDINAL ) .

ORG As a disciplinary body , it punishes " offences and misconduct " ( ibid . ) . It will hear such cases " on an application by the bâtonnier , either of his own motion or following a complaint or after receipt of a written accusation from the procureur général " ( LAW .

The avocat concerned is summoned within DATE by registered letter and , if he so requests , is granted time to prepare his defence ( LAW ) . Within DATE of the decision ’s being given , it is notified by registered post to the procureur général and the avocat concerned ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The main penalties which the ORG may impose are warning , censure , reprimand , suspension for not DATE and striking off the roll or the list of pupil avocats ( FAC ) . The avocat concerned has a right both of objection ( opposition ) ( Article CARDINAL ) and , like the procureur général , of appeal ( appel ) ( Article CARDINAL ) . At the time the events in this case occurred ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , appeal lay to ORG ( LAW of DATE regulating the practice of the profession of avocat and the discipline of the Bar ) . DATE , this jurisdiction is exercised by disciplinary appeals boards , consisting of the President of ORG , who presides , and CARDINAL avocats sitting as assessors ( LAW ) .

Decisions of the courts of appeal in such matters could be appealed against on points of law ( section CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ) . The same now applies to decisions of the disciplinary appeals boards ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Judicial Code ) .

ORG Restoration to the roll of an avocat who has been struck off it is governed by LAW :

" No avocat who has been disbarred may be entered on a roll of the ORG or on a list of pupil avocats until DATE have elapsed from the date on which the decision to strike off became final and unless exceptional circumstances warrant it .

No such entry shall be permitted without the reasoned consent of ORG to which the avocat belonged or , as the case may be , the leave of the relevant disciplinary appeal authority if the disbarment was ordered by it .

No appeal shall lie against a refusal to restore to the roll . "

This text reproduces with minor variations LAW adopted on CARDINAL DATE by ORG . That resolution went some way towards removing the finality of disbarment and read as follows :

" ORG may ... , on his application , restore to the roll an avocat who has been struck off .

This measure , which is of an exceptional nature and lies wholly within the discretion of ORG , regard being had to the higher interests of the Bar and to whether reformation of the person concerned is clearly established , shall be permissible only after DATE have elapsed from the time when the disbarment penalty became final .

The ORG shall take its decision in accordance with the procedure provided for in Rule CARDINAL of LAW , as in the case of the admission of a pupil avocat . ... "

ORG Although LAW is the last provision in Book III ( " The Bar " ) , Section I ( " General provisions " ) , LAW ( " Disciplinary matters " ) , the ORG does not use the disciplinary procedure ( LAW ) when dealing with an application for restoration to the roll ; nor is its decision a disciplinary one ( PERSON . DATE , Pasicrisie DATE , I , p. CARDINAL ) . The general law does not make any specific provisions ; and ORG did not have any internal rules of procedure at the relevant time . The ORG normally takes its decision in the same way and following the same procedure as on an application for admission .

ORG According to figures provided by the Government ( and which were not disputed ) , CARDINAL avocats have been struck off in GPE since the Judicial Code came into force on DATE . Of the CARDINAL applications for restoration to the roll made by avocats who have been struck off , CARDINAL have been successful ( NORP , PERSON and ORG ) . ORG has had to deal only with H ’s applications , which were unsuccessful . None of the decisions in question is available to the public .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Dr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

In DATE the applicant was sued for an amount of money which he allegedly owed the plaintiffs in respect of a purchase he made from them . He thus became a party to civil proceedings before ORG ( “ SCT ” ) .

On DATE the ORG found against the applicant . It noted that the contractual agreements undertaken were not ideal . However , it was not competent to decide whether such agreements could have been made or not . It was solely competent to decide whether the applicant owed the sum of CARDINAL NORP Liras ( ORG ) to the plaintiffs . Finding that the versions of the parties were diametrically opposed the court considered that it had to base itself on the credibility of their testimonies . It found that , on the one hand , the plaintiffs had been coherent in their submissions throughout the CARDINAL separate hearings . On the other hand , the applicant ’s testimony had been contradictory and in its view false . It noted , inter alia , that the applicant claimed that on signing the initial agreements he had not understood what he was signing and that he would consequently have to make payment . This notwithstanding , he had started making regular payments by means of a standing order . When asked about the latter he had replied that he did not know what such a thing was , notwithstanding that it was general knowledge that such an order could only be made at the request of the account holder . The court was of the view that his claim that he was illiterate and that he did not understand what had been going on was only an excuse to avoid the obvious .

On DATE , the applicant instituted constitutional proceedings claiming a violation of LAW . He complained that the ORG was not an impartial tribunal in view of its composition , namely an adjudicator , who was a lawyer appointed on a part - time basis for a term of office of DATE , and who could in the meantime continue to practise as a lawyer before the ordinary courts . This system left room for prejudice against lawyers who might have been the adjudicator ’s opponents in previous or future litigation , or advantages for clients represented by the same firm as that of the adjudicator , together with any other likes and dislikes among colleagues of the same profession acting in the same courts of law , as was the case in GPE . The fact that the adjudicators were not obliged to take the oath administered to judges and magistrates sitting in the ordinary courts was a matter of further concern .

On DATE ORG ( FAC ) rejected the applicant ’s claim as the system was safeguarded by the possibility of challenging adjudicators or of their withdrawing ex officio .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . Noting that the guarantees of impartiality were best respected by the ordinary courts having full - time judges , it considered that although it would have been preferable that such adjudicators did not continue to practise their profession , the fact that they did so did not mean that the ORG lacked objective impartiality . Although it could be envisaged that in certain circumstances , as mentioned by the applicant , an issue could arise , the applicant ’s complaint in the present case was in the abstract .

Section CARDINAL of the Small Claims Tribunal Act , LAW of LAW , reads as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The ORG shall be presided over by an adjudicator sitting alone :

Provided that CARDINAL adjudicator may be appointed to sit in any of the said Tribunals , but CARDINAL adjudicator shall sit in any CARDINAL case .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall be appointed by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister . A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as Adjudicator unless he has practised as an advocate in GPE for a period or periods amounting in the aggregate to not DATE .

( CARDINAL ) A person shall be disqualified from being appointed an adjudicator if such person -

( a ) is a member of ORG ; or

( b ) is a member of ORG ; or

( c ) is an undischarged bankrupt ; or

( d ) has been sentenced by any court to imprisonment for any term or has been found guilty by any court of any of the crimes in LAW , V or ORG of Book First of the Criminal Code .

( CARDINAL ) ( a ) Adjudicators shall receive such remuneration as the Prime Minister may by notice in the ORG determine and such remuneration shall be a charge on ORG ; such remuneration shall not during the tenure of office of an Adjudicator be altered to his disadvantage .

( b ) During the term of their appointment , ORG shall be precluded from the exercise of their profession in cases before the ORG .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall be appointed for a term of DATE and , on the lapse of their term , they shall not be eligible for reappointment :

Provided that if the office of Adjudicator is vacant or if the Adjudicator is unable to perform the functions of his office , then , until a person has been appointed and has assumed the functions of that office , those functions shall be performed by any other Adjudicator in office or by such other person qualified for appointment as Adjudicator as may be appointed to act as Adjudicator by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister . Such person shall continue to act for the period of his appointment or , if no such period is specified , until his appointment is revoked by the President acting in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister .

( CARDINAL ) In the exercise of his functions under LAW , an Adjudicator shall not be subject to the control or direction of any other person or authority . An Adjudicator may not be removed from office except in the manner and for the reasons provided for in article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , and any law or regulation made pursuant to article ORG ) of the LAW for the purposes of article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) thereof shall apply mutatis mutandis to the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the inability or misbehaviour of an Adjudicator under the provisions of this article .

In so far as relevant , section CARDINAL of the LAW reads as follows :

“ The ORG shall determine any claim or counterclaim before it principally in accordance with equity ” .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the city of GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and PERSON . PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE ORG and the former GPE concluded an agreement about the mutual evacuation of NORP population from GPE and NORP population from GPE .

In DATE the applicant ’s family was moved from the ORG region in GPE to the NORP region in GPE .

On DATE , the PERSON of GPE introduced amendments to the LAW “ on the Status of War Veterans and their ORG Guaranties ” of DATE , granting the war participant status to some categories of persons , including those , who were moved to the territory of GPE after DATE from the territories of other states .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG against the local social welfare department , challenging the refusal of the latter to grant her the status of war participant in accordance with LAW on the Status of War Veterans and their ORG Guaranties ” .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s claim . The court found that she met CARDINAL of the conditions under the said PERSON , namely that she had been moved to the territory of GPE after DATE . However , being born in DATE , she did not fulfil the further requirement that persons , who were born after DATE , had to prove the fact of their work during the war .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court , having established that the first - instance court applied the relevant law correctly . On DATE the applicant posted her cassation appeal , which was received by the court on DATE .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for a cassation appeal as having been submitted too late . The court stated that , under the new wording of LAW ( hereinafter - “ the ORG ” ) , which had entered into force on DATE , the time - limit for lodging an appeal in cassation was DATE , and that the applicant had exceeded that time - limit by only submitting her appeal on DATE .

The applicant appealed against this decision , stating that she posted her cassation appeal on DATE and this date should be considered as date of lodging of her appeal .

On DATE ORG upheld the ruling of CARDINAL DATE , stating that the applicant had lodged her appeal on DATE , which had been outside the new DATE time - limit established by law .

On DATE the panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation against the rulings of DATE and DATE .

At the time of the second instance appellate decision , the first paragraph of LAW ORG provided that a cassation appeal should be lodged within DATE of the appellate decision or within DATE of the decision of the first instance court , if the latter decision was not appealed under the normal appellate procedure .

On DATE ORG passed a law amending the ORG ( hereinafter DATE “ LAW ) , including the LAW in question . It came into force on DATE . The new wording of Article CARDINAL created a DATE time - limit for lodging a cassation application against the decision of an appellate court .

The PERSON provides for different social benefits to the war veterans , war participants , and other categories of persons touched by the Second World War .

LAW , in its wording of DATE , provided a wide range of social benefits for the war participants , including free medical services and free use of public transport , reduction of fees , priority in obtaining some other social benefits , etc . The persons entitled to the war participant status were listed in LAW , which read in so far as relevant :

“ The following persons shall be considered the war participants :

... CARDINAL ) persons , who worked ... during the Great Patriotic War ...

... persons who were resettled after DATE to the territory of GPE from the territory of other states ... shall also be considered as war participants ...

... For persons , who were born after DATE , the status of war participant can be established only in presence of documents and other evidence that unequivocally prove the fact of their work during the war ... ”

Both parties submitted a number of decisions of the first - instance and regional courts in cases similar to CARDINAL of the applicant . These decisions demonstrate discrepancy in the application of the above quoted paragraph CARDINAL of LAW . Some of the courts considered that the fact of resettlement is an autonomous requirement to obtain the war participant status , some others read it , like in the applicant ’s case , in conjunction with the requirement of proving the fact of work , if the person concerned was born after DATE .

Such ambiguity was eliminated by LAW DATE , when the repatriates were listed separately in a new paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , which read as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL ) persons who were resettled after DATE to the territory of GPE from the territory of other states . ”


The applicant [ Mr PERSON ] is a NORP national who lives in GPE .

He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE and DATE the GPE region was hit by torrential rains which produced a sudden rise in LOC and caused the PERSON dam to burst and then collapse .

Land was flooded in CARDINAL municipalities as a result of the dam collapsing and the water from it pouring into the PERSON . CARDINAL people died , many properties and much farmland were damaged and CARDINAL people were affected by the disaster . The scale of it gave rise to very strong public feeling and wide reporting in the media .

At the time of the disaster the applicant was an engineer at the dam .

On DATE PERSON ( GPE ) investigating judge no . CARDINAL started a criminal investigation .

In an order of DATE he charged the applicant and GPE , another engineer who worked at the dam , with serious negligence .

On DATE those victims of the disaster who had together joined the proceedings as a single civil party applied for CARDINAL other engineers at the dam , ORG and PERSON , to be charged with the same offence . In an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG charged ORG and PERSON with serious negligence . The CARDINAL engineers and counsel representing the government lodged an appeal ( recurso de súplica ) against that decision . Their appeal was dismissed on DATE .

The trial began on CARDINAL DATE . The civil party sought to have a further engineer at the dam , PERSON , likewise charged with the same offence . In an order of DATE the FAC charged LOC .- T.M. with very serious negligence . J.S .- T.M. lodged a súplica appeal against that decision . His appeal was dismissed on DATE . The trial was then adjourned to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE J.S .- T.M. lodged a criminal complaint against CARDINAL of the ORG judges for abuse of office . On DATE the ORG ruled that there were no grounds for that complaint . J.S .- T.M. lodged a súplica appeal against that ruling . His appeal was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE . On a further appeal , ORG upheld the original ruling .

Subsequently , on DATE and DATE , DATE .- T.M. challenged the same CARDINAL judges in LOC , but was unsuccessful . He lodged an appeal ( recurso de amparo ) with ORG , which dismissed it on DATE .

The trial was held at FAC between DATE and DATE . On DATE the court acquitted the applicant , GPE and ORG , but sentenced PERSON and PERSON to DATE imprisonment and to fines for serious negligence .

PERSON and DATE appealed on points of law to ORG , arguing that the trial court ’s judgment should be declared a nullity on the ground that the proceedings had been flawed . In a judgment of DATE ORG declared that the order in respect of ORG and PERSON was void and that the trial was a nullity on the ground that one of the Valencia ORG judges had been biased . It ordered the proceedings to be resumed expeditiously .

In a decision ( auto ) of DATE ORG ordered the trial to begin . Hearings were held in open court DATE and DATE .

Subsequently , in a decision of DATE , ORG adjourned the date for lodging final written submissions in order to allow other victims of the disaster to bring proceedings . The defendants and the victims lodged súplica appeals ( CARDINAL in all ) against that decision . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE counsel representing the government lodged an amparo appeal against those CARDINAL decisions . Subsequently the applicant himself joined that appeal . ORG , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE , reversed the decisions , found that the proceedings had been lengthy and ordered the trial to begin .

Hearings were held from DATE to DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG acquitted all the defendants .

The public prosecutor ’s office and the civil party appealed on points of law to ORG , which , in a judgment of DATE , served on DATE , set aside the ORG judgment and sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment and to fines for negligence under LAW . It also ordered the ORG to pay the damages if the applicant was insolvent .

The applicant then lodged an amparo appeal with ORG in which he complained , inter alia , of the length of the proceedings . His appeal was dismissed in a decision of DATE , which was served on DATE , on the grounds that the fundamental right on which he relied had not been raised earlier and that the appeal did not raise a constitutional issue . ORG stated that the applicant had failed to comply with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) of LAW in that he had not submitted his complaint to ORG when it had heard the appeal on points of law ; he should in any event have raised it at an earlier stage of the proceedings when formal note could have been taken of the excessive length of the proceedings , and not DATE after the violation had occurred and after the authority responsible for the lengthy proceedings had taken steps to expedite them . ORG also pointed out that it had already addressed that ground of appeal and granted relief on an earlier amparo appeal .

“ Everyone is entitled … to a public trial without undue delays … ”

“ Losses incurred as a result of judicial errors or a malfunctioning of the administration of justice shall be compensated by the ORG , in accordance with the law . ”

“ CARDINAL . Anyone who incurs a loss as a result of a judicial error or a malfunctioning of the judicial system shall be compensated by the ORG , other than in cases of force majeure , in accordance with the provisions of this Part .

NORP The alleged loss must in any event actually have occurred and be quantifiable in monetary terms and must directly affect either an individual or a group of individuals . ”

“ In the event of a judicial error or a malfunctioning of the judicial system , the complainant shall submit his claim for compensation to ORG .

The claim shall be examined in accordance with the provisions governing the ORG ’s financial liability . An appeal shall lie to the administrative courts against the decision of ORG . The right to compensation shall lapse DATE after it could first have been exercised . ”

“ CARDINAL . An amparo appeal in respect of a violation of rights and guarantees capable of constitutional protection … does not lie unless … the violation in question has been formally alleged in the proceedings in question as soon as possible after it has occurred .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant consulted a doctor to whom he complained of health problems due to the fact that his neighbour had tried to poison him . The doctor sent the applicant to the hospital in NORP in an ambulance . The accompanying document established by the doctor indicated that the applicant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia . In it the doctor requested that the applicant be treated as an in - patient . According to the applicant , he stayed in the central reception unit of the hospital in PERSON for TIME and during this time CARDINAL injections were administered to him . Subsequently the applicant was brought against his will to the mental hospital in GPE . The chief physician of that hospital ordered that the applicant be released on DATE .

On DATE the Bratislava - vidiek ORG gave a decision in which it found that the applicant was held in a mental hospital lawfully . The reasons for this decision read as follows :

“ The psychiatric hospital in GPE admitted PERSON , as an ill person , without his consent . The court took evidence with a view to assessing whether the grounds for his admission were lawful and concluded that the person concerned has suffered from a mental illness requiring treatment in a mental hospital . ”

ORG decision of DATE was served on the applicant on DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed and claimed that he had been taken to the mental hospital unlawfully .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE . ORG found that the first instance court had failed to establish the relevant facts and had committed errors of both a legal and procedural nature . In particular , ORG had not taken formal decisions to bring proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant ’s examination in a mental hospital and to appoint a guardian for the applicant as required by Article CARDINALb § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure . Furthermore , ORG had not heard the applicant and the doctor treating him with a view to establishing whether the applicant ’s deprivation of liberty had been justified . The case was sent back to ORG for a new adjudication .

In a letter dated DATE a judge of GPE ORG ( which had taken over the cases pending before the former ORG ) informed the applicant that the case would not be proceeded with as proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his placement in a mental hospital had never been formally brought .

On DATE ORG instructed ORG to deliver a decision on the case .

On DATE the Bratislava III ORG discontinued the proceedings . The decision stated that the applicant had been released on CARDINAL DATE and , therefore , the reasons for proceeding further with the case had fallen away . The applicant appealed on CARDINAL DATE . He claimed that his deprivation of liberty had been unlawful and that he had not been informed that a guardian had been appointed to represent him .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE .

At the relevant time the following constitutional provisions were in force .

Pursuant to LAW , international instruments on human rights and fundamental freedoms ratified by GPE and promulgated in accordance with the statutory requirements take precedence over national laws where such international instruments guarantee a broader scope of fundamental rights and freedoms .

Article CARDINAL ) provides that judges are independent and bound only by law .

NORP Under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , judges are bound also by international instruments where the LAW or law so provide .

The following relevant provisions of LAW were in force at the time when the applicant was deprived of liberty .

Article CARDINALa ( CARDINAL ) provided that medical institutions should inform a court , within TIME , that a person had been placed in their LOC against his or her will .

Pursuant to Article PERSON ( CARDINAL ) , the court in the district of which the medical institution was located should start proceedings , of its own initiative , with a view to establishing whether such a person ’s deprivation of liberty was justified .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Article PERSON provided that the court should appoint a guardian for the person concerned unless he or she had a representative .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of Article PERSON , the court should hear the person concerned as well as the doctor treating him or her with a view to establishing whether the placement in the medical institution was lawful .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Article PERSON required that the court decide , within DATE after a person was brought to a medical institution against his or her will , whether such a measure was lawful .

Pursuant to Article CARDINALc ( CARDINAL ) , such a decision was to be served , inter alia , on the person concerned unless the doctor indicated that that person was not able to understand its contents .

According to LAW , any natural person has the right to protection of his or her personality , in particular of his or her life and health , civil and human dignity , privacy , name and personal characteristics .

Pursuant to LAW , any natural person has the right to request that an unjustified infringement of his or her personal rights should be stopped and the consequences of such infringement eliminated , and to obtain appropriate satisfaction .

DATE ( CARDINAL ) provides that in cases when the satisfaction obtained under LAW ) is insufficient , in particular because a person ’s dignity and position in society has been considerably diminished , the injured person is entitled to compensation for non - pecuniary damage . According to paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , when determining the amount of such compensation the courts should take into account the seriousness of the prejudice suffered by the person concerned and also the circumstances under which the violation of that person ’s rights occurred .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act No . TIME on the liability of the ORG for damage caused by a ORG organ ’s decision or by its erroneous official action ( ORG o zodpovednosti za škodu spôsobenú rozhodnutím orgánu štátu alebo jeho nesprávnym úradným postupom – “ LAW ” ) provides that the ORG is liable for damage caused by unlawful decisions delivered by a public authority in the context of , inter alia , civil proceedings .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) renders the ORG liable for damage caused in the context of carrying out functions vested in public authorities which results from erroneous official actions of persons entrusted with the exercise of these functions . A claim for compensation can be granted when the plaintiff shows that he or she suffered damage as a result of an erroneous action of a public authority , quantifies its amount , and shows that there is a causal link between the damage and the erroneous action in question .

Regulation No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL governs compensation for damage caused to a person ’s health . Section CARDINAL provides for compensation for pain resulting from damage to a person ’s health , subsequent medical treatment and the elimination of the effects of damage to health . The amount of the compensation is to be determined in accordance with the principles and rates attached to the regulation .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , compensation for pain is not payable in cases of simple psychic reactions affecting a person ’s health which are of a passing character or for short - term changes in a person ’s health which do not require medical treatment or which can not be established in an objective manner .

Act no . DATE on ORG in the Context of Exercise of Public Authority ( PERSON o zodpovednosti za škodu spôsobenú pri výkone verejnej moci a zmene niektorých zákonov ) was adopted on DATE . It will become operative on DATE and will replace , as from that date , LAW of DATE .

The explanatory report to Act No . DATE provides that the purpose of the LAW is to render the mechanism of compensation for damage caused by public authorities more effective and thus to reduce the number of cases in which persons are obliged to seek redress before ORG .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for compensation for pecuniary damage including lost profit and , where appropriate , also for compensation for damage of a non - pecuniary nature .

Under the domestic courts’ practice , LAW of DATE does not allow for compensation for non - pecuniary damage unless it is related to deterioration in a person ’s health ( for further details see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

In proceedings no . CARDINAL CARDINAL/CARDINAL before ORG the plaintiff claimed , from ORG , compensation for nonpecuniary damage on the ground that he had been acquitted following the re - opening of proceedings leading to his conviction of an offence . In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG established , on the basis of the plaintiff ’s submissions , that his claim was based on LAW seq . of LAW which provides for protection of a person ’s good name and reputation as well as of other personal rights . ORG dismissed the action on the ground that the plaintiff should have claimed compensation under LAW of DATE .

NORP In decision no . CARDINAL Co CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE the ORG quashed the above ORG judgment . The appellate court found that the subject - matter of the proceedings and the legal basis for the plaintiff ’s claim remained unclear . The decision stated , inter alia , that the first instance court had not explained why the plaintiff should have first sought redress under LAW . The first instance court was instructed to have the action completed by the plaintiff , to take any evidence which may be necessary and to deliver a new decision with reasons on the case . Reference was made also to LAW and to LAW .

In decision no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL - DATE the Bratislava III ORG partially granted an action where a judge claimed protection of his personal rights . The plaintiff argued , inter alia , that the Minister of ORG had obliged him to submit a declaration concerning his property without any justification and that he had been revoked from the post of President of a district court for his failure to submit such declaration . On DATE the appellate court confirmed the conclusion that the plaintiff ’s right to protection of his personal rights had been violated .

In judgment no . CARDINAL CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON Hronom District Court granted compensation of CARDINAL NORP korunas to a person whose son had been killed . The court noted that the defendant had been convicted of a murder by a criminal court and that his action grossly interfered with the personal rights of the plaintiff .

On DATE the Banská Bystrica District Court delivered judgment no . CARDINALC CARDINAL - CARDINAL . The plaintiffs , a married couple , alleged to have suffered damage of both pecuniary and non - pecuniary nature in the context of criminal proceedings against them in which they had been discharged . CARDINAL of the plaintiffs , who had been dismissed from the police and detained on remand in the context of the criminal proceedings , also claimed compensation for lost income .

In the above judgment ORG ordered ORG to compensate for the lost income of the plaintiff concerned and also to compensate for the expenses which the plaintiffs had incurred in the context of the criminal proceedings . The decision to grant compensation for pecuniary damage was based on the relevant provisions of LAW of DATE .

ORG further granted the plaintiffs , with reference to LAW . of LAW , DATE and CARDINAL NORP korunas respectively in compensation for damage of non - pecuniary nature . The relevant part of its judgment reads as follows :

“ The right to protection of one ’s personal rights is an individual right of any natural person . When granting protection to that right it is irrelevant whether an unjustified interference was the result of a fault and whether or not it was caused deliberately . It is not even required that an unjustified interference should produce any particular consequences . It suffices that an unjustified interference was capable of affecting or violating one ’s personal rights . The fact that plaintiff A can not exercise the profession and hold the job which he held prior to his accusation and that the clientele of plaintiff B [ who is an advocate ] shrank considerably during the criminal proceedings as well as the fact that the plaintiffs were forced to move to another apartment because of deteriorated relations with their neighbours clearly show that there has been such an interference [ with their personal rights ] . That interference is causally linked to prosecution of the plaintiffs and to the criminal proceedings held against them . There is no doubt that such interference is objectively capable of causing damage . As regards both plaintiffs , it affected their professional life , their position in the society , family life and their relations with neighbours ... The interference with the plaintiffs’ [ personal rights ] is directly linked to the criminal proceedings [ against them ] ...

It follows from the above that there has been an interference with the plaintiffs’ personal rights which , in substance , still persists and that it is related to the criminal proceedings against the plaintiffs . The criminal proceedings were carried out by GPE through its competent authorities . The defendant is therefore obliged to compensate for damage of a non - pecuniary nature .

... compensation for damage of a non - pecuniary nature has the character of a satisfaction . The purpose of compensation granted in the form of a sum of money is to “ purify ” the affected person in the eyes of other persons in all spheres of life where harm was caused ... The amount of compensation granted should therefore be adequate to the interference and its circumstances ... It is beyond any doubt that the plaintiffs were publicly known in the district of PERSON ( in view of their professional positions ) and that their reputation was affected in all spheres of life . The case was taken up by the media whereby their esteem in professional life was diminished over the whole country . The amount of compensation must therefore not only be adequate to provide satisfaction to the plaintiffs , but its amount should also ensure that the plaintiffs regain their esteem and dignity in the eyes of the public . ”


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in Geguti no . CARDINAL Prison .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in connection with a robbery .

On DATE the ORG convicted him and CARDINAL others of conspiracy to commit robbery . The conviction was based on various evidence , including the statements of the victim , who had identified the applicant and the other accused as the perpetrators during the trial . The applicant was sentenced to DATE in prison .

As disclosed by the transcript of the trial , the victim , a person of NORP origin who had difficulty in speaking NORP , was assisted by an interpreter . The lawyers of the accused , including that of the applicant , extensively examined the victim and other witnesses for the prosecution .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the conviction of DATE , calling into question the lower court ’s assessment of the evidence and accusing the investigating authority of procedural omissions . He stated , in particular , that the victim ’s incriminating statements lacked credibility , in so far as the victim had been examined at the investigation stage without the assistance of an interpreter .

On DATE ORG , replying to all his major arguments , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal of DATE . As regards the complaint concerning the victim ’s statements , the court noted that the conviction had been based on the statements given during the trial , rather than on those obtained at the investigation stage . Having reviewed those statements , the appellate court confirmed their credibility .

NORP The decision of CARDINAL DATE dismissing the applicant ’s appeal was finally upheld by ORG of GPE on DATE .

According to the case file , prior to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his consequent detention , he had had no major medical problems and was in good health . Notably , he had been a member of a wrestling club in GPE and , as his coach confirmed , had been in excellent physical condition and been considered a promising sportsman at that time .

The case file also contains a document dated DATE from the ORG tuberculosis hospital , stating that the applicant had never been registered as a patient there .

Subsequent to his arrest on DATE , the applicant was placed in GPE no . FAC , where he allegedly shared a cell with prisoners infected with pulmonary tuberculosis ( “ GPE ” ) .

On DATE , the applicant was transferred to Geguti no . CARDINAL Prison , where his state of health began to deteriorate from DATE . His symptoms were fever and a cough .

On DATE , pursuant to a complaint of CARDINAL DATE from the applicant ’s mother , a medical expert examined the applicant , diagnosing him with GPE . On DATE he was transferred to FAC , where prisoners with GPE were housed .

CARDINAL ORG issued an opinion which confirmed that the applicant ’s right lung had been affected by GPE , with a positive sputum culture , and that the disease was at the stage of disaggregation ; the applicant was occasionally coughing up blood . The opinion further disclosed that the applicant had started receiving anti - TB medication under the ORG programme ( Directly Observed Treatment , Short - course – the treatment strategy for detection and cure of ORG recommended by ORG ) on DATE . Notably , he had been prescribed with DATE dosages of such conventional antibiotics as isoniazid ( QUANTITY ) , ethambutol ( QUANTITY mg ) , rifampicin , pyrazinamide ( QUANTITY mg ) and streptomycin ( CARDINAL gr ) .

On DATE the prison authorities arranged for the applicant ’s sputum culture and sensibility to be tested by ORG . The results of those tests , issued on DATE , showed that the sputum culture was already negative . It was also established that the applicant ’s GPE bacterium maintained sensitivity with respect to the administered antibiotic drugs , which confirmed the suitability of the ongoing treatment .

On DATE the prison authority arranged for another round of specific bacteriological tests ( smear , culture and susceptibility ) , the results of which , issued on DATE , disclosed that the applicant ’s treatment was continuing to show promising results .

On DATE the applicant ’s treatment was completed , and on the following day he was transferred from ORG to Geguti no . CARDINAL Prison . The termination of the treatment was based on the opinion of the doctor who had been monitoring the applicant since DATE , as well as on the results of laboratory tests of the applicant ’s sputum , dated DATE , which confirmed that GPE bacilli were no longer present in the applicant ’s lungs .

The applicant ’s medical file further discloses that during the whole period of his treatment , from DATE until DATE , his intake of antibiotics had been closely monitored by medical personnel with the appropriate training .

On DATE the prison authorities arranged for an X - ray examination of the applicant ’s thorax , the results of which confirmed that there were no new tubercular signs in the applicant ’s lungs , thus excluding the risk of relapse .

Article CARDINAL of the General Administrative Code stated that an individual could sue a ORG agency for damage under the rules on liability for civil wrongs contained in LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code entitled an individual to request compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused in respect of damage to his or her health .