Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 34;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody on a charge of robbery . On DATE he was convicted as charged and sentenced to a prison term .

The applicant appealed against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal .

The first page of the applicant ’s first letter to ORG , which was delivered to ORG on DATE , bears a stamp : “ Censored on DATE [ a handwritten date ] : CARDINAL , judge : [ an illegible signature ] ” ( ORG dnia DATE , sędzia [ podpis nieczytelny ] ) . The same stamp and signature are marked on the third page of the letter . Moreover , CARDINAL words have been obscured with a felt - tip pen on the last page of the letter . The left side of the envelope in which the letter was delivered was opened and subsequently sealed with Sellotape .

Rules relating to means of controlling correspondence of persons involved in criminal proceedings are set out in LAW ( NORP karny wykonawczy ) ( “ the DATE Code ” ) which entered into force on DATE .

The relevant part of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

“ Convicts ( ... ) have a right to lodge complaints with institutions established by international treaties ratified by GPE concerning the protection of human rights . Correspondence in those cases ( ... ) shall be sent to the addressee without delay and shall not be censored . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ Unless exceptions are provided for in the present LAW , a detainee shall enjoy at least the same rights as are secured to a convicted person serving a sentence of imprisonment under the ordinary regime in a closed prison . No restrictions shall be applied to him except such as are necessary to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings , to maintain order and security in a remand centre and to prevent demoralisation of detainees . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ( ... ) detainee ’s correspondence shall be censored by [ the authority at whose disposal he remains ] , unless the authority decides otherwise . ”

“ The prohibition of censorship shall also mean the prohibition of acquainting oneself with the content of the letter . ”

On DATE the Rules of Detention on Remand ( ORG w sprawie regulaminu wykonywania tymczasowego aresztowania ) entered into force .

§ CARDINAL of the ORG provides :

“ A detainee ’s correspondence , including correspondence with the international institutions for the protection of human rights , which act on the basis of international agreements ratified by GPE , with the ORG and public and local government institutions , is mailed through the intermediary of the authority at whose disposal he remains . ”

§ ORG provides :

“ CARDINAL . If the authority at whose disposal [ a detainee ] remains ceases to censor correspondence , it shall be subject to the supervision or censorship by the prison administration , except for cases referred to in LAW and Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the Code [ of ORG Sentences ] .

NORP The correspondence of a detainee shall be supervised by the administration of the detention centre when necessary in the interest of protecting social interest , the security of a detention centre or requirements of personal re - education .

NORP The supervision referred to in paragraph CARDINAL shall be executed by controlling the content of the correspondence and acquainting oneself with its wording .

The correspondence referred to in ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code [ of ORG Sentences ] may be only subjected to the control of its content [ kontrola zawartości ] , which shall take place in the presence of a detainee . ”

NORP § CARDINAL provides :

“ CARDINAL . Censorship shall mean deleting a part of text or making it illegible , whereas seizing correspondence shall mean not transmitting it to a detainee and placing it in his file . ”


SUMILA AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

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

The applicants are all NORP nationals . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

All the applicants were employees of ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) . DATE the applicants initiated proceedings against ORG for miscalculating their pensions ( applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and PERSON ) and failing to pay compensation for dangerous working conditions ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

They all obtained final judgments in their favour and enforcement warrants were issued .

On DATE Mr PERSON died .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , the final judgments in favour of PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON NORP were fully enforced .


The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and currently lives in the GPE . He is represented before ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. Böcker , of ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE . He claimed that , in DATE and in DATE , he had been arrested during a demonstration . On both occasions he had been ill - treated during his detention and released after DATE . He further claimed that in DATE he had been caught by a policeman when he was kissing a male friend in an alley . He was arrested and taken to the vice squad police office where his particulars were recorded and his fingerprints taken . He was forced to write and sign a statement in which he declared that he was a homosexual and that he had been caught in flagrante delicto . After having been raped by this policeman , he was released DATE . He was told by the policeman that he should report DATE to him at the vice squad police station . The applicant further stated that this policeman had raped him on CARDINAL further occasions when he had reported to him at the police station . The applicant also claimed that , on DATE , he had attended a protest meeting in the course of which films had been shot and photographs taken , including photographs of the applicant in the company of a good friend . This friend was arrested at the meeting and released on DATE . On DATE , the friend 's body was found in a ditch . The words “ freedom of expression has this as a consequence ” had been written on the body . Fearing the same fate , the applicant decided to flee GPE . He had travelled by car to GPE and from there by airplane to the GPE . He arrived in the GPE on DATE .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) rejected the applicant 's asylum request , holding that the applicant 's account lacked credibility .

The applicant 's appeal against this decision was rejected on CARDINAL DATE by ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE sitting in PERSON . ORG held :

“ ORG notes that the defendant has rejected the request under LAW ( f ) of the LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet ) . Pursuant to this provision , in the determination of an [ asylum ] application , account must also be taken of the fact that the alien has not been able to submit any supporting travel or identity documents or other documents necessary for the determination of the application , unless the alien can demonstrate that he can not be held responsible for the non - production of such documents .

The defendant has observed in this context that it can not be considered credible that the [ applicant ] would not have been in possession of personal documents during his journey though GPE and was unaware of the NORP legal rules on this point since there is an identification obligation in that country for all persons from DATE . In addition , and contrary to his stated intentions , the [ applicant ] has not had sent to the GPE documents from which his identity could be confirmed . The defendant furthermore does not consider it plausible that the [ applicant ] was unable to submit a single indicative element of proof of his journey to the GPE . The [ applicant ] has also been unable to submit newspaper reports about the events of DATE or to indicate in which newspapers information about these events was published . However , according to the [ applicant ] , such information had been published .

In addition to the above , the defendant has found that the [ applicant ] , who indicated that he had been politically active , was unable to state clearly the activities in which he had been engaged . In the opinion of the defendant , the [ applicant ] has also given vague and incredulous statements about the events of DATE , the audiovisual recordings of these events , the death of his friend in relation to these events and the manner in which he was informed of his death . The defendant further considers it doubtful that the [ applicant ] participated in the meeting of DATE as he would have attracted the negative attention of the authorities and would have been subject to an obligation to report DATE . The [ applicant ] also remained DATE in his home but failed to comply with his obligation to report DATE . Also , the arrests and detentions alleged by the [ applicant ] in DATE and DATE can not be considered credible as in that period the [ applicant ] was still doing his military service . Being a conscript , it can not be considered credible that he would have been unconditionally released on each occasion after DATE without encountering any negative consequences , whereas an intelligence file on him would have existed .

The defendant also considers it not credible that the [ applicant ] would have been caught performing homosexual acts . Moreover , given what is known about that , it is not plausible that the [ applicant ] would be punished solely on account of homosexual conduct .

ORG is of the opinion that the defendant 's decision can pass the judicial test . ... In the court 's opinion , the defendant could , having regard to the extensive reasoning in his decision as set out above , which has remained unchallenged in both the written and oral appeal submissions , in all reasonableness find the applicant 's account not credible . The defendant has justifiably and on good grounds decided that the [ applicant ] can not be regarded as a refugee .

As regards the report of the ORG ( ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ) GPE submitted by the applicant , ORG considers that this can not be given the significance sought by the [ applicant ] . According to the constant case - law , an official report ( ambtsbericht ) of the Minister of ORG must be regarded as an expert report , and the contents of the report cited by the [ applicant ] do not contain a definite rebuttal of the information on the punishment of homosexuals set out in the official report of DATE . Therefore , it is not necessarily contradictory .

The [ applicant ] can not , therefore , derive entitlement to a residence permit from LAW ( a ) of the LAW .

Noting the above considerations , it has also not been established that the [ applicant ] has well - founded reasons for assuming that he , when expelled , runs a real risk of being subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ... ORG further finds no appearance of such compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature linked to the reasons for leaving the country of origin that the defendant could not , in all reasonableness , have adopted the position that the [ applicant ] can be asked to return to his country of origin ... ”

The applicant 's subsequent appeal was rejected on DATE by ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG , which upheld ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

The general official report ( algemeen ambtsbericht ) on GPE of ORG , dated DATE and in so far as relevant , states :

“ Homosexuality is a big taboo subject in NORP society . There are however meeting places . It is known that there are some parks in GPE where many homosexuals meet up in the evening . Generally speaking , it can be said that people seeking homosexual relations in GPE are known to find their way . It must however be noted that openness about that is avoided . A person does not openly display his or her sexual orientation . In GPE , in general , sexuality in public is surrounded by a certain degree of circumspection .

Homosexual contacts are not actively prosecuted . No cases of conviction solely for homosexual acts are known , although according to the ORG such acts attract the death penalty . If a conviction of a person also entails a charge of homosexuality , this is taken into account cumulatively in combination with other criminal offences related to alcohol , drugs and prostitution . A certain degree of openness is displayed in respect of these last matters .

These cases can be brought before both an ordinary ( public ) court and a Revolutionary Tribunal . If such matters are presented as “ earthly corruption ” ( PERSON fil Arz ) ORG has competence .

Sex change operations are permitted in GPE and are in practice performed . ”

The most recent general official report on GPE of ORG , dated DATE and in so far as relevant , states :

“ Homosexual acts do not form in practice a reason for persecution by the authorities . Homosexuality is a taboo subject in public life . It is known that there are parks in GPE that serve as meeting places for homosexuals . There are no known cases in DATE of convictions based solely on the provisions of LAW set out DATE concerning homosexual acts . In DATE the media reported in CARDINAL case about a conviction of homosexual acts in conjunction with other offences such as rape and violence . According to some foreign observers there are indications that [ accusations of sexual offences ] are sometimes abused for political purposes , or as a means of pressure in conflicts between private individuals .

Legal framework

In LAW , homosexual conduct is defined as intercourse and related acts CARDINAL men . The hadd - punishment for homosexual intercourse is the death penalty ; the manner of its execution is determined by the judge . This punishment applies to both “ active ” and “ passive ” participants in the intercourse , but only if they are adult and of sound mind , and have acted of their own free will . If CARDINAL of them is a minor , he will – provided he has acted of his own free will – be given a NORP punishment . The punishment of the adult will remain the haddpunishment . If both partners are minors , they will be judged according to NORP . The NORP punishment may run to CARDINAL whiplashes ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) .

According to hudud [ plural of “ hadd ” ] , the punishment for homosexual acts not involving intercourse is CARDINAL whiplashes . ... If these acts have been repeated CARDINAL times , and each time a hadd - punishment has been imposed , the death penalty is imposed the fourth time . ... Kissing another man out of lust attracts a NORP punishment of CARDINAL whiplashes ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of GPE ) .

In order to be punished according to hudud , the person concerned must confess CARDINAL times before a religious judge , otherwise he will be judged under ta'zirat . This confession is only legally valid if the person concerned is an adult , of sound mind and has made the confession of his own free will . Homosexual acts can only be proven by CARDINAL male witnesses who have seen the deed with their own eyes . Testimony given by a woman is not valid . If testimonies turn out to be false , the witnesses will be prosecuted for this ( ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The hadd - punishment shall be spared if the accused shows remorse before the witnesses give their statements . If he shows remorse after the witnesses have given evidence , the punishment will not be spared ( LAW ) . ”

In the ORG ( ORG High Commissioner on Refugees ) Background Paper on Refugees and Asylum Seekers from GPE , dated DATE , the following is stated in respect of homosexuals :

“ LAW deals extensively with sodomy , lesbianism and pimping . Homosexuality is forbidden by NORP law , and will be punished . Sodomy , defined as “ sexual intercourse with a male ” , is punishable by death if both parties “ are mature , of sound mind and have free will”.CARDINAL It must be proven by either CARDINAL confessions from the accused , the testimony of CARDINAL “ righteous men ” who witnessed the act , or through the knowledge of a Shari'a judge “ derived through customary methods ” . If the accused repents before the witnesses testify , the penalty “ will be quashed ” .

According to the NORP of DATE ( valid to DATE ) sentences of imprisonment for DATE and CARDINAL lashes are possible . The death penalty may also be incurred if the act is deemed “ Act against God and corruption on earth ” . Since DATE , the revised PERSON omits direct threat of lashes or the death penalty , but may impose closure of LOC where the act took place . ...

The most recent report of execution is of the death by stoning of a man in DATE , on charges of repeated acts of “ adultery and sodomy ” . ”

A position paper on persecution of homosexuals in GPE , issued by ORG in GPE in DATE states inter alia :

“ Although , in so far as known to the ORG , the most recent reported execution by stoning for repeated homosexual acts and adultery took place in DATE , local newspapers continue to report about executions of homosexuals . In the absence of a systematic observation of the human rights situation in GPE , it can not be confirmed whether the persons concerned have been convicted and executed solely for homosexual acts or also for additional charges . It does occur that homosexuality is one of several charges . In view of the multiplicity of executions and lashings , it can not be excluded the victims thereof include persons being punished – on grounds of homosexuality – by death or lashing as provided for on LAW . Against this background it can not be asserted with certainty that the criminal law provisions on homosexuality only have a theoretical significance . ”

A NORP fact - finding mission ( ORG ) to GPE in DATE issued a Special Report dated DATE which , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ CARDINAL Homosexuals

During their visit to GPE , the delegation had an opportunity to discuss the situation for homosexuals in GPE with several of their contacts .

According to CARDINAL source with a good knowledge of the NORP judicial system , the penalty for homosexuality is death by hanging . There is no minimum punishment . However , the source stressed that the burden of proof is heavy . In order for sentencing to take place , the homosexual act must be testified to in court by QUANTITY persons who witnessed the act , or else both of the persons involved must confess to the relationship . A government source added that cases relating to homosexuality are extremely difficult to prove . A NORP embassy confirmed that the burden of proof is heavy . Another NORP embassy said that the authorities in the source 's home country attach great importance to the burden of proof when processing asylum applications from NORP citizens whose claims are based on homosexuality .

A NORP embassy said that it had never heard of cases relating solely to homosexuality . According to the same source , however , a man who had been charged with CARDINAL counts of indecent behaviour had been executed DATE ... He had also been found guilty of raping a DATE boy in his shop .

According to a NORP source familiar with the homosexual scene in GPE , it had never heard of cases being brought against homosexuals . The source thought that the homosexual community would be aware of any cases being brought against persons solely on the grounds of their homosexuality .

A source connected with a NORP news agency thought that any cases brought against homosexuals would not be brought to public attention . In view of that fact , the source could not rule out the possibility that there might be cases where the charge relates to homosexuality . In that connection the source referred to a case in a military prison where a prisoner let slip to a warder about a homosexual relationship he had had . The prisoner was subsequently sentenced to CARDINAL lashes .

According to a government source , homosexuals do not experience any problems in NORP society ; in other words , few cases relating to homosexuality have been brought before the NORP courts .

However , according to a source with good knowledge of the NORP judicial system , many cases concerning homosexuality have been brought before the NORP courts . The source was unable to provide further details of the cases in question . With regard to sentences passed in such cases , the source could say only that the death penalty had been pronounced in several . The source added that if a case was not fully substantiated , it was for the judge to decide on the punishment .

When the delegation asked why such cases were brought , the source replied that this was because CARDINAL of the parties involved in the homosexual relationship had contacted the courts .

According to a government source , a person can not accuse himself . With regard to homosexuality , this means that DATE in his opinion – if an NORP citizen reveals himself as a homosexual in a NORP newspaper , nothing will happen to that person when he returns to GPE .

Several Western sources , including CARDINAL embassy , said independently that homosexuals do not face problems in GPE DATE . There are places where homosexuals meet . In that connection , CARDINAL of the Western sources mentioned that there are parks in GPE which are meeting places for homosexuals . ”

ORG report on the treatment of homosexuals in GPE dated DATE and updated on DATE states inter alia :

“ Theoretically , homosexual behaviour is sharply condemned by ORG , but in practice it is present , and has been in the past , for the most part tolerantly treated and frequently occurring in countries where NORP predominates ... In practice it is only public transgression of NORP morals that is condemned , and therefore NORP law stresses the role of eye - witnesses to an offense . The police are not allowed to go in search of possible sinners , who can only be caught red - handed , and not behind the “ veil of decency ” of their closed doors ... The generally tolerant attitude toward homosexual practice can partly be explained by the fact that it will usually take place discreetly . Moreover it does not have serious personal consequences such as for example , heterosexual adultery would have . ...

According to the representative of ORG for NORP and NORP Concerns ... who is also an activist working with ORG ... none of the few known executions of homosexuals and lesbians in GPE were carried out on the sole basis of homosexuality . ...

In its DATE report ORG states that :

The strict regulations for submission of evidence , CARDINAL male witnesses to the homosexual penetration , alternatively CARDINAL confessions from each of the active partners , renders a sentence for homosexuality almost impossible in practice . The police and justice administration do not take active measures to investigate the existence of homosexuality , nor do they actively hunt homosexuals . All in all , the situation in practice in GPE is drastically different from the impression conveyed by the Shari'a inspired penal code . According to the information from usually very reliable sources , no homosexuals have been executed in GPE for DATE . In order to risk policiary sanctions – maltreatment or a short time in custody / jail , regardless of the fact that the penalty according to the law is death or whipping - a homosexual couple must behave with great indiscretion , almost provocatively , in a public place .

According to a sociologist specializing on GPE and chargée de conferences at FAC ( GPE ) , the law stipulates that people engaging in sexual relations with a person of the same sex ... would only be put on trial if the prosecution can produce CARDINAL righteous men who witnessed the sexual act , or CARDINAL of the partners admits to having sexual relations with another man ... If there are CARDINAL men to testify to the homosexuality of a person , the accusation of homosexual activities can not be proven . The sociologist stated that it would be suicidal to ' admit one 's homosexuality ' and added that such an admission is implausible . In practice , the burden of proof lies so heavily on the prosecution that ... a homosexual will very rarely be tried or sentenced . The sociologist has never come across any case that went to trial and stated there are many more stonings for heterosexual relations prior to marriage and for adultery than for homosexuality .

Another sociologist ... at ORG stated ... that legislative repression is not directed against ' homosexuals ' but against heterosexual relations outside marriage . Repressing ' homosexual activities ' is rare for the security forces because of the difficulty of identifying who is ' homosexual ' and who is not since NORP men have very close physical contact ( holding hands and kissing ) which is socially acceptable behaviour in GPE . It is very rare that a person would be arrested for ' homosexuality ' but if a person were arrested and convicted as a homosexual the punishment would be harsh .

According to another sociologist and a researcher on GPE with the ORG , although NORP and NORP laws punish ' homosexuality ' by death , in practice , it rarely happens , except in the cases of pedophilia ... ' Homosexuality ' is a common phenomenon and is tolerated as long as it does not disturb public order and remains a private activity . It would be repressed only when made public and asserted , an implausible occurrence in GPE .

A DATE letter from the Director of ORG at ORG in GPE states that :

Furthermore it is not known that NORP authorities are actively taking legal actions against homosexuals . It is most unlikely that the authorities would take proceedings against a homosexual as long as he does not manifest his disposition in an open and public manner . As far as ORG knows not anyone has been prosecuted on homosexuality charges alone in GPE for DATE .

There are many indications that there is a significant difference between the legal texts and the practice of the security forces .

As far as the behaviour of homosexual persons can be taken as a relevant indication about the degree of oppression of homosexuals , the impression is rather that the situation in GPE is relatively tolerant , since homosexuality is by no means unusual in GPE . Certain ' health clubs ' in GPE are for example known to be frequented by homosexuals . Furthermore , it is by no means unusual to meet openly homosexual persons –under otherwise heterosexual private circumstances like social events .

... There is a park in central GPE called GPE ( student ) that is famous and well - known as a place where men who are looking for sexual relationships with other men meet . The sociologist added that the public and the security forces are aware of the park 's reputation ... ”

In a decision taken on CARDINAL DATE in the case of ORG v. the GPE ( Communication No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , ORG rejected the complaints of a citizen of GPE who complained that the GPE were proposing to expel him to GPE where he claimed that he had previously been detained and tortured for his homosexuality and would face further risk of torture . It noted the contradictions and inconsistencies in his account and also “ from different and reliable sources that there is currently no active policy of prosecution of charges of homosexuality in GPE ” . It accordingly found that it had not been given enough evidence to conclude that the complainant would run a personal , present and foreseeable risk of being tortured if returned to his country of origin .

ORG ) on GPE , dated DATE , states in its relevant part :

“ CARDINAL . Although homosexuality is never spoken about and thus a hidden issue , in practice it is not difficult to encounter homosexuals in GPE . There are special parks in GPE , known as homosexual meeting places . There are also a large number of transvestites walking around in LOC . Furthermore , sex changes are permitted in GPE and operations are frequently and openly carried out . A different sexual orientation may , however , create problems . Still , homosexuality is practised every day , and as long as this happens behind closed doors within your own CARDINAL walls , and as long as people do not intend to proselytise “ transvestitism ” or homosexuality , they will most likely remain unharmed .

Technically , homosexual behaviour is sharply condemned by ORG , and the NORP code of law ( LAW law ) adopted by GPE . Sodomy is punishable by death if both parties are considered to be adults of sound mind and free will . It must be proven by either CARDINAL confessions from the accused , the testimony of CARDINAL righteous men who witnessed the act or through the knowledge of a Sharia judge “ derived through customary methods ” . If the accused repents before the witnesses testify , the penalty “ will be quashed ” .

From a legal point of view it is important to take a look at NORP law LAW , which carries the following provisions for homosexual acts :

Art . CARDINAL : The prescribed punishment for homosexual relations in case of intercourse is execution and the mode of the execution is at the discretion of the religious judge .

Art . CARDINAL : Homosexual intercourse leads to execution provided that both the active and the passive party are of age , sane and consenting .

Art . CARDINAL : Where a person of age commits homosexual intercourse with an adolescent , the active party shall be executed and the passive party , if he has not been reluctant , shall receive a flogging of CARDINAL lashes .

Art . CARDINAL : Where an adolescent commits homosexual intercourse with another adolescent , they shall receive a flogging of CARDINAL strokes of the whip unless CARDINAL of them has been reluctant .

Art . CARDINAL to CARDINAL establish how to prove homosexual intercourse .

Art . CARDINAL to CARDINAL relate to lesbian sexual relations . Punishment for sexual intercourse among lesbians is CARDINAL lashes and in case of recidivity CARDINAL times execution .

So far , no cases of execution only on the grounds of homosexual relations have been identified . In fact , the burden of proof is quite high and it would be difficult to prove homosexual liaisons or intercourse . According to some reports in local papers there have been instances of execution of homosexuals . It is not confirmed whether the homosexual act alone led to execution or whether the person was accused on other charges too .

DATE there were reports that a man accused of sodomising and then murdering his nephew was to be thrown over a cliff in a sack . This was given widespread publicity by the NORP opposition in the GPE and was taken up by other wires , but we have heard no reports that the sentence was ever carried out .

However , jurisprudence , burden of proof notwithstanding , certainly has used accusations of homosexuality . Furthermore , it does happen that homosexuality is mentioned as one of the accusations amongst other offences held against the defendant . For instance , accusations of homosexuality have been used in unfair trials , such as the case of a NORP leader in PERSON in DATE , who was clearly prosecuted for political reasons . There have also been other political cases , although not in the recent past .

According to the NORP of DATE , valid to DATE , sentences of imprisonment DATE and up to CARDINAL lashes are possible . The death penalty may also be incurred if the act is deemed “ Act against God and corruption on earth ” . Since DATE the revised PERSON omits direct threat of lashes or the death penalty . The penalties of lashing and of death are , however , still judicial options , even though they are not mentioned within the revised PERSON . Reports suggest that since DATE they have rarely been used . The most recent report of execution is of the death by stoning of a man dates from DATE , on charges of repeated acts of “ adultery and sodomy ” . Reports of use of the death penalty in cases where the only offence is sodomy / execution are extremely difficult to substantiate , and are held to be an unlikely sentence . More usually lashing is the punishment .

However , strict though the legal position is , expert opinion consulted by the NORP IRB [ ORG ] states “ ... in practice homosexuality is present , and has been in the past , for the most part tolerantly treated and frequently occurring in countries where ORG predominates ... In practice it is only public transgression of NORP morals that is condemned and therefore NORP law stresses the role of eye - witnesses to an offence . ”

The same source stated that the police are not empowered nor do they actively pursue homosexual activity of any kind that is performed behind the “ veil of decency ” of closed doors .

Sources indicate that there are held to be many differing levels of homosexual activity within NORP society . In rural areas , even " lavat " - sexual activity can be considered socially to be compensatory sexual behaviour for heterosexual sexual intercourse , and the practitioners held not to be homosexuals . The key offensive practice is sodomy , or more particularly to be sodomised , as an unnatural inversion of God 's creation , and some experts hold that “ homosexuals ” are understood in GPE to be willing passive partners . ”


The applicant , Mr Rastislav Machunka , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG of GPE ( “ 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 applicant filed an action for protection of his personal rights with ORG . He sued the editor of a DATE newspaper which had allegedly made defamatory statements about him .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant to pay the court fee . On DATE the applicant informed ORG in writing that he had transferred the sum due on DATE . As ORG did not receive the sum , the applicant was heard on DATE . It was established that the sum had been returned to the applicant ’s account . On DATE ORG received the fee .

On DATE ORG asked the defendant to submit comments on the action within DATE .

According to a note in the case file , the judge dealing with the case had been attached temporarily to a different court starting on DATE .

On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment against which both parties appealed on DATE and on DATE respectively .

After having taken several procedural steps ORG submitted the case file to ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG returned the file to ORG as there had been shortcomings in serving the first - instance judgment . On DATE ORG sent the judgment to the party concerned . That party filed an appeal on DATE . On DATE the file was re - submitted to the appellate court .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE . The appellate court found that ORG had committed a serious procedural mistake in that its decision exceeded the scope of the case . The question whether the defendant had standing in the case was also to be clarified and further evidence was to be taken . The file was returned to ORG on DATE . ORG decision was served on the parties on DATE and on DATE respectively .

On DATE the applicant withdrew a part of his claim which concerned an apology for the statements in question . He explained that DATE had lapsed since their publication . The applicant maintained his claim for compensation amounting to the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG admitted another person as a defendant in the proceedings .

ORG made several inquiries , in accordance with ORG instructions , DATE .

On DATE the case was assigned to a different judge as the judge dealing with it had been transferred to a different court .

On DATE ORG made further written inquiries to which it received replies on CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . It also made inquiries with a view to obtaining further evidence .

On DATE the applicant asked for the hearing scheduled for DATE to be adjourned due to the absence of his lawyer .

A hearing was scheduled for DATE . The defendant asked for its adjournment as his lawyer could not attend . He further requested that no hearing be scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG asked the police for assistance in serving a summons on a witness . On DATE the police replied that they had been unable to serve the summons .

At the hearing held on DATE the applicant withdrew his claim against the second defendant . After the decision to discontinue the relevant part of the proceedings had become final on DATE , the court scheduled a hearing for DATE . On the last mentioned date the case was adjourned as a witness failed to appear .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned as the judge was ill .

On DATE both the defendant and a witness failed to appear . The court imposed a procedural fine of CARDINAL NORP korunas on the witness . It asked the Bratislava I ORG to hear the witness . On DATE the Bratislava I ORG informed ORG that the witness had not appeared before it and that neither the post office nor the police had been able to serve the summons on her .

Subsequently the case was assigned to a different judge as the judge originally appointed to deal with it was on maternity leave .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE at the request of the applicant ’s lawyer .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment in which it granted the applicant ’s claim in part . The judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained about the length of the proceedings before ORG to ORG . He claimed , inter alia , the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as financial compensation . On DATE ORG declared the complaint admissible .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had violated the applicant ’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay . It instructed ORG to proceed with the case without any further delay and awarded the equivalent of LAW by way of just satisfaction to the applicant , payable within DATE . It also ordered ORG to reimburse the costs of the applicant ’s legal representation within DATE .

The decision stated that the case was of a certain procedural complexity and that what was at stake for the applicant called for the particular attention of the court dealing with it . In ORG view , the applicant was responsible for the delayed payment of the court fee , as a result of which DATE had lapsed before ORG could start proceeding with the case . On the other hand , several delays occurred subsequently for which ORG was responsible . In particular , DATE had lapsed DATE ( when the court fee was paid ) and DATE ( when ORG effectively started dealing with the case ) . Undue delay occurred DATE and DATE because of the erroneous service of the first - instance judgment . ORG found further delays in the proceedings after DATE when ORG had returned the case file to ORG .


Violation of P1-2;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

András Baka;Jean-Paul Costa;Karel Jungwiert;Mindia Ugrekhelidze

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He graduated from secondary school ( lycée ) in DATE and started sitting his university entrance examinations in DATE .

At the relevant time , in order to attend a university degree course in GPE , would - be students were required to pass a CARDINAL - tier , multiple - choice examination organised by ORG Centre for ORG ( GPE PERSON ve PERSON – “ the FAC ” ) , which was held only once a year . Students who were unsuccessful in the first stage of the examination had the right to re - sit it in subsequent DATE .

The applicant failed to pass the first stage of the university entrance examination in his first CARDINAL attempts DATE . He was not therefore allowed to proceed to the second and final examination during that time .

The applicant attended a private course in GPE in order to prepare for the DATE examinations . He submitted that during this course he studied very hard and , on occasion , obtained the highest marks in his class in mock examinations .

NORP In the first stage of the examinations in DATE , the applicant obtained CARDINAL points which enabled him to proceed to the second stage , the required minimum being CARDINAL points . After the second examination the applicant believed that he had been successful and that he would obtain sufficient points to qualify for access to CARDINAL of the university programmes he had selected in his application form . When the exam results were announced , the applicant found that his name was not on the list of successful students who were allowed to enrol at a university . When he contacted the FAC he was informed that he had obtained CARDINAL points in his second examination .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant asked the LAW why he had not been selected for a university place of his choice , given his good results .

The LAW , in its reply of DATE , informed the applicant that he had obtained CARDINAL of the highest results among the students who had sat the second examination , but that his exam results had been annulled on the advice of an academic council , consisting of CARDINAL professors , which had found that , given his poor results in DATE , his excellent achievement could not be explained . The letter of the LAW contained no indication that it suspected the applicant of any impropriety .

On DATE the applicant , through the assistance of a lawyer , applied to ORG ( NORP ) and requested that “ the decision of the ÖSYM , which had no precedent ” , be suspended and annulled , otherwise “ his right to university education would be breached ” . He argued that the fact that his previous exam results were not good did not mean that he would never succeed in passing subsequent examinations .

According to the judge rapporteur of ORG appointed in the case , the decision of the ÖSYM was based on pure supposition and should be annulled as it was devoid of any legal basis . However , on DATE , ORG , by a majority of CARDINAL , rejected the application to annul the decision of the ÖSYM , finding that it was inexplicable for a student who had obtained very poor results in his previous exams to be so successful in subsequent examinations . The minority argued in their dissenting opinion that the authorities had a duty to organise the examinations properly and that it was their responsibility to prove , with adequate evidence , any impropriety such as cheating .

The applicant 's appeal , lodged on DATE , was dismissed by a majority of CARDINAL on DATE by ORG ( NORP PERSON ) .

On an unspecified date the applicant asked , in a further application submitted to ORG , for the decision of the ÖSYM to be annulled . On DATE the request was rejected by the same court after it had examined the case on its merits , by a majority of CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant appealed and sought an injunction suspending the decision of the ORG while the appeal was being examined .

On DATE ORG began examining the applicant 's request for an injunction but decided to postpone the matter until after the conclusion of the appeal .

NORP The appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE was dismissed on DATE by ORG , by a majority of CARDINAL to CARDINAL . The majority concluded that the applicant had not achieved the result through his own knowledge and ability . The minority argued in their dissenting opinion that the FAC had a duty to take measures in order to ensure that university entrance examinations and the subsequent steps leading to selection for a university place were conducted properly . The FAC had the obligation and power to punish candidates who breached the laws and regulations , if so established on the basis of adequate evidence . According to the minority , the FAC could not hold the applicant responsible for the consequences of its own failures . It could only review its procedures and take measures to prevent the repetition of such situations .

On DATE the applicant asked for a rectification of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , which is the final remedy in NORP law in administrative matters .

On DATE the application for the rectification of the decision was rejected by ORG . This decision was taken by a majority of CARDINAL to CARDINAL and was served on the applicant on DATE .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides that no one shall be denied the right to education or to instruction .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , the ÖSYM – the Higher Education Council 's Centre for ORG is an organisation which , in the context of principles established by ORG , and in order to select students for admission to institutions of higher education , prepares tests , administers them , evaluates the results and , having regard to the preferences expressed by the successful candidate , effects their placement at universities and other higher educational institutions .

The relevant part of LAW no . CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ Students are placed at higher education institutions by passing an examination , the principles of which are determined by ORG . The evaluation of the exam results takes into account the student 's secondary school grade average ... ”


CASE OF OLEKSIY MYKHAYLOVYCH ZAKHARKIN v. UKRAINE

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3 (substantial aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1-c;Violation of Art. 5-3;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE . At the material time he lived in the town of GPE , GPE - GPE .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE , when the applicant was driving from GPE - GPE to GPE , he was stopped by police because they had received information that the applicant , who had previously been convicted of theft , might have been involved in recent burglaries committed in the neighbourhood .

When searching the applicant 's car , the police officers seized an adjustable wrench , gloves , CARDINAL pocket torches and some other things . They further allegedly found in the car and the applicant 's pocket small amounts of cannabis . According to the applicant , he had no cannabis on him and there was none in his car .

Following the search , the police officers decided to formalise the applicant 's arrest under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW for possession of illegal drugs in small amounts ( administrative offence ) . In the meantime they sent the seized adjustable wrench to an expert for an opinion as to whether it might have been used to break down the doors of the recently burgled apartments .

During the questioning , the applicant informed the police officers that the cannabis did not belong to him and stated that it had been planted on him and his car by the police officers . In response the applicant was allegedly beaten up .

According to the applicant , he was hung over a horizontal crowbar when handcuffed and with his head pointing downwards ; when held in this position , he was threatened with being killed .

On DATE , after the expert confirmed that the adjustable wrench had been used for a number of burglaries , the police officers took the applicant to the investigator , who at TIME on CARDINAL DATE formalised the applicant 's further detention in the status of criminal suspect in respect of the burglaries .

When questioned , the applicant rejected the accusations of burglary . In response , he was allegedly beaten up by police officers . According to the applicant , he was hung over a horizontal crowbar when handcuffed and with his head pointing downwards ; when he was in that position his head was beaten with a plastic bottle filled with water and his feet with a wooden bat ; a gas mask filled with liquid was placed over his head , which made it impossible to breathe . During this treatment the applicant lost consciousness several times and when he came round he was told he had to confess to the crimes . Finally , he signed a confession to CARDINAL burglary . Subsequently , he signed a number of other documents given to him by police officers .

During TIME the applicant , still being detained at the police station , asked to use the toilet . When allowed to use it , he cut his left - hand arterial vein . When the resultant bleeding was seen he was delivered to a local public hospital . DATE , having been provided with the requisite medical assistance , the applicant was released . The medical examinations and treatment provided to the applicant in connection with that injury were documented by medical officers .

On DATE medical officers examined the applicant and issued a medical report . According to the letter of the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Prosecutor 's Office ( “ ORG Office ” ) of DATE , the report attested that the applicant had suffered ( in addition to the cut on the left arm ) CARDINAL abrasions to his right shoulder and arm , CARDINAL bruises to his left shoulder , CARDINAL abrasions and CARDINAL scratches to his left arm , and CARDINAL abrasions to his right leg . According to the bill of indictment of DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the report , after describing the above injuries , ended with the conclusion that they had to be qualified as minor bodily injuries , which could have been inflicted by blunt objects ( except for the cut on the left arm ) , DATE before the examination .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a severe and suicidal depressive disorder .

Following his release the applicant and his mother lodged numerous complaints with law enforcement authorities requesting that the police officers involved be held criminally responsible .

On DATE the GPE - ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant 's allegations , stating that there was no evidence of crime . The fact that the applicant sustained numerous injuries was noted but disregarded without explanation .

The applicant challenged that refusal before ORG which , in the course of reviewing the impugned decision , also requested the GPE - Frankivsk ORG , supervising the relevant local police offices , to carry out an additional internal inquiry concerning the facts complained of .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE on the basis that the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained the injuries had not been examined .

On DATE ORG instituted an investigation of the allegedly unlawful detention and ill - treatment of the applicant .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG asserting that ORG could not carry out an impartial investigation in respect of police officers working in the same region . He requested therefore that the case be referred to a prosecutor 's office of another region .

On DATE the applicant repeated that request as there had been no reply to the first one . He stated that he could still remember the events in detail and identify the policemen involved but the relevant investigatory steps had not been taken .

On DATE the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON . and PERSON , CARDINAL of the police officers who , it was alleged by the applicant , had been involved in the crimes .

On DATE ORG itself considered the applicant 's requests for referral of the investigation to another prosecutor 's office and rejected them as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers Zh . , PERSON , and PERSON for lack of evidence of their involvement in the alleged crimes . On several occasions the applicant requested a copy of that decision in order to challenge it before a court , but to no avail .

ORG then charged CARDINAL police officers , PERSON ( who was the operative officer of the local police office ) and PERSON ( who was the head of the division of the local police office dealing with crimes against individuals and crimes committed by group of persons ) , with abuse and exceeding their powers , forgery of documents , and unlawful arrest in respect of the applicant .

On DATE , having completed its investigation , ORG referred the case file to the GPE - ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for trial .

DATE and DATE the hearings in the case were adjourned by ORG CARDINAL times because of the prosecutor 's failure to appear , CARDINAL times at the request of the prosecutor , and once because the prosecutor was on holiday .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the case , in the course of which it established that the investigation had been carried out superficially and inadequately . ORG noted that the decisions to refuse to institute criminal proceedings against the other police officers had not been substantiated . It therefore remitted the case for further investigation and ordered that the other police officers be brought before the applicant for identification ; that they be questioned ; that a confrontation be held between them and the applicant ; that the alibi of the accused PERSON be verified ; that the staff of the hospital where the applicant was provided with medical assistance be questioned ; and that a detailed reconstruction of the events be held with the participation of the applicant , given that the latter had made contradictory statements about how he had allegedly been hung over the crowbar .

On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk Court of Appeal upheld the decision of DATE noting , inter alia , that the applicant 's inconsistent statements should have been properly verified .

On DATE ORG commenced additional investigations ordering that they should be terminated within DATE .

On DATE ORG , having completed the additional investigation , referred the case file to ORG . It charged PERSON with abuse of powers , excess of powers , forgery of documents , deliberately unlawful arrest . It further charged PERSON with excess of powers and deliberately unlawful arrest . All of the charges referred to the qualified corpi delicti of the relevant crimes . The bill of indictment stated , among other things , that PERSON requested the other police officers to handcuff the applicant and to hang him over the crowbar which was placed between CARDINAL chairs ; to place a gas mask over the applicant 's head and block the air flow . It was specified that “ the torture lasted from TIME on DATE to CARDINAL TIME on CARDINAL DATE ” .

According to the bill of indictment , the other police officers were not prosecuted as the applicant 's mother submitted that , given the lapse of time , the applicant would not be in position to identify any other police officer except for NORP and PERSON ; moreover , all the other police officers denied their involvement in the crimes .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had failed to comply with the investigatory instructions contained in the decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG further decided to disjoin from the case the charges against PERSON and remitted this part of the case for additional investigation . As to the charges against GPE , ORG proceeded with their consideration .

On DATE ORG found that in the course of the applicant 's arrest A. planted drugs on the applicant , ill - treated him by punching and kicking him , falsified the administrative case in his respect , and illegally detained him . ORG found A. guilty of exceeding his powers , forgery of documents and unlawful arrest , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment with a prohibition on occupying posts in law enforcement bodies for the same period . It also allowed the applicant 's civil claim for damages in part .

On DATE the ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It further quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as unsubstantiated and remitted the whole case for additional investigation . It noted that ORG 's guilt had not been properly established either , because of the serious shortcomings of the investigation . It also held ORG had been wrong in its decision to examine the charges against A. separately from the charges against M.

The investigation against GPE and PERSON is pending .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ Everyone has the right to respect for his or her dignity .

No one shall be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that violates his or her dignity . ... ”

“ ... In the event of an urgent necessity to prevent or stop a crime , bodies authorised by law may hold a person in custody as a temporary preventive measure , the reasonable grounds for which shall be verified by a court within TIME . The detained person shall be released immediately if he or she has not been provided , within TIME of the moment of detention , with a reasoned court decision in respect of the holding in custody . ... ”

Chapter II of the Code deals with crimes against the life and health of an individual . LAW which is included in that chapter provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Torture , that is intentional causing of strong physical pain or physical or moral suffering by way of beating , tormenting or committing other violent acts with the purpose of compelling the victim or any other person to commit an act against his or her will

The same acts , if committed repeatedly or premeditatedly by a group of persons

shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of from DATE . ”

Chapter ORG of the Code deals with crimes committed by public servants and other persons performing official functions . These offences include abuse of powers ( LAW ) ; excess of powers ( LAW ) ; forgery of documents ( LAW ) . The qualified corpi delicti are envisaged in the event of grave consequences and other circumstances . In particular , if the abuse of powers is committed by a law - enforcement officer , punishment for such a crime shall be imprisonment for a period of from DATE with the prohibition to occupy certain posts ( or to carry out certain activities ) for a period of DATE and with the confiscation of property ( LAW ) . LAW of the Code deals with the crimes against the justice and provides , inter alia , the crime of deliberately unlawful arrest ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that the court , the prosecutor or the investigator must , to the extent that it is within their power to do so , institute criminal proceedings in every case where signs of a crime have been discovered , take all necessary measures provided by law to establish whether a crime has been committed and the identity of the perpetrators and punish them .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provides that if there are no grounds to institute criminal proceedings , the prosecutor , the investigator , the body of inquiry , or the court shall take a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings and give relevant notices to the interested persons , companies , institutions and organisations .

The relevant parts of LAW read as follows :

“ The body of inquiry shall be entitled to arrest a person suspected of a criminal offence for which a penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty may be imposed only on one of the following grounds :

if the person is discovered whilst or immediately after committing an offence ;

if eyewitnesses , including victims , directly identify this person as the one who committed the offence ;

if clear traces of the offence are found either on the body of the suspect , or on his clothing , or with him , or in his home .

If there is other information giving grounds to suspect a person of a criminal offence , a body of inquiry may arrest such a person if the latter attempts to flee , or does not have a permanent place of residence , or the identity of that person has not been established .

For each case of detention of a criminal suspect , the body of inquiry shall be required to draw up a TIME outlining the grounds , the motives , the day , time , year and month , the place of detention , the explanations of the person detained and the time when it was recorded that the suspect had been informed of his right to have a meeting with defence counsel as from the moment of his arrest , in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the present Code . The TIME of detention shall be signed by the person who drew it up and by the detainee .

A copy of TIME with a list of his rights and obligations shall immediately be handed to the detainee and sent to the prosecutor . At the request of the prosecutor , the material which served as a ground for detention shall be sent to him as well . ...

Within TIME of the arrest the body of inquiry shall :

( CARDINAL ) NORP release the detainee if the suspicion that he committed the crime has not been confirmed , if the term of detention established by law has expired or if the arrest has been effected in violation of the requirements of paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the present Article ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP release the detainee and select a non - custodial preventive measure ;

( CARDINAL ) bring the detainee before a judge with a request to impose a custodial preventive measure on him or her . ...

Detention of a criminal suspect shall not last for CARDINAL .

If , within the terms established by law , the ruling of the judge on the application of a custodial preventive measure or on the release of the detainee has not arrived at the pre - trial detention facility , the head of the pre - trial detention facility shall release the person concerned , drawing up TIME to that effect , and shall inform the official or body that carried out the arrest accordingly . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides , inter alia , that after the completion of the investigation in the case , which has to be referred to the court for trial , the investigator gives relevant notices to the victim and his representative , civil plaintiff , civil defendant , or their representatives , and explains to them their right to familiarise themselves with the materials of the case file .

DATE of the Code prohibits the fabrication , purchase , storage , transport , or dispatch of drugs or psychotropic substances in small quantities without the purpose of their trafficking .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides , inter alia , that anyone who violates the rules on circulation of drugs may be arrested and detained for TIME in order for a report on the administrative offence to be drawn up . However , in order to identify the perpetrator of the offence , subject him to a medical examination , clarify the circumstances of purchase of the drugs or psychotropic substances and examine them , the detention may be extended by DATE . In such cases the prosecutor shall be informed of the extension in writing within TIME . If the arrested person does not have identity documents the detention may be extended by DATE subject to the prosecutor 's approval .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (one set of proceedings);No violation of Art. 6-1 (other sets of proceedings);Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was injured in an accident at work . PUV , the applicant ’s employer , had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against PUV in ORG ( PERSON združenega dela v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

On DATE the court upheld , in part , the applicant ’s claim .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Sodišče združenega dela PERSON ) .

The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s appeal and remitting the case to the first - instance court for re - examination , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged with ORG ( ORG sodišče v PERSON ) , the renamed first - instance court , preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

Neither of the CARDINAL hearings held on DATE and DATE was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

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

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( GPE delovno in socialno sodišče ) .

On DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG sodišče ) . PUV cross - appealed .

On DATE the applicant also sought exemption from paying the court fees .

On DATE the first - instance court rejected the applicant ’s request for exemption .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and requested that he paid the court fees .

On DATE the case was transferred to ORG to decide on the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and allowed ORG ’s appeal in part .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT and PUV in ORG , ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON , PERSON v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

On DATE ORG ( NORP sodišče v PERSON ) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the NORP judicial system .

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

DATE and DATE he lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

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

On DATE the judge presiding the case was appointed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) and the case was transferred to a new judge .

During the proceedings the court appointed CARDINAL medical experts .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . ZT and PUV cross - appealed .

On DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part and dismissed ORG ’s and ORG ’s appeals .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG sodišče ) and requested the second - instance court to correct its judgment . ZT and PUV cross - appealed .

On DATE the second - instance court corrected its judgment .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , upheld ORG ’s and PUV ’s appeals in part and amended the first - instance court judgment .

On DATE ZT instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) seeking reimbursement of overpaid damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) . ORG paid the damages to the applicant following the judgment ORG judgment of DATE rendered in the first set of proceedings . The damages were lowered by ORG judgment of DATE .

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

Neither of the CARDINAL hearings held on QUANTITY and DATE was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

The judgment , upholding the ORG ’s claim , was served on the applicant on DATE .

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

On DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s appeal and remitted the case to the first - instance court for re - examination .

On DATE the applicant submitted written submissions .

The proceedings are still pending .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr H. Yılmaz , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

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

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant 's husband , PERSON and his friend , PERSON , were shot by unknown perpetrator(s ) in the centre of PERSON , a district attached to ORG . The security forces , arriving shortly after the incident , transferred the applicant 's husband and PERSON to a state hospital , where they died .

On DATE the security forces drafted an incident report and drew up a sketch map . CARDINAL spent CARDINAL-mm cartridges were found at the scene and sent for ballistics examination . According to the incident report , when the police officers arrived at the scene of the incident , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON were lying on their backs in a pool of blood , surrounded by a crowd of QUANTITY people . They were immediately transferred to the hospital . Afterwards the police officers collected evidence and tried to collect eyewitness statements . However , no one was able to testify as to what had happened , since they all claimed only to have heard gunshots . The report also mentions that Mr PERSON and PERSON were known to be ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan ) sympathisers .

On DATE , a post - mortem examination of PERSON body was carried out by CARDINAL pathologists in the presence of the PERSON public prosecutor and Mr PERSON , the deceased 's brother . According to the verbatim record , the deceased was DATE , QUANTITY tall and weighed QUANTITY . He had black hair , brown eyes and a brown moustache . The record further described the deceased 's clothing and personal items found on his person . Rigor mortis and post - mortem hypostasis had not yet set in . An external examination revealed the following injuries : a bullet entry wound QUANTITY in front of the right ear lobe and a bullet exit wound on the left side of the head which had destroyed the left ear lobe . A bullet entry wound QUANTITY below the right ear lobe and a bullet exit wound on the left occipital bone , which had broken the bone . CARDINAL further bullet entry wounds on the right side of the head were identified together with a single bullet exit wound from the left side of the head . A bullet entry wound on the right elbow and a bullet entry wound on the right arm were observed . The experts also noted a bullet entry wound on the front of the left shoulder , an exit wound on the left front shoulder QUANTITY from the previous entry wound , and another bullet entry wound on the chest , on the left next to the sternum .

The doctors concluded that the cause of death was haemorrhage and damage to the cerebral tissue as a result of wounds caused by firearms . They considered that there was no need to carry out a classical autopsy as the cause of death was clear from the findings of the external examination . The prosecutor agreed . Afterwards the body of the deceased was given to the family for burial and a bullet extracted from the body of the deceased retained as evidence .

On DATE , the preliminary investigation into the killings was instigated by the PERSON public prosecutor . He requested ORG to secure the presence of family members of the deceased in order to take statements from them .

On an unspecified date the applicant moved to GPE with her children because other family members had received death threats . Fearing for her safety the applicant neither pursued the investigation into the death of her husband nor lodged a civil or administrative action with the authorities , as she did not want her address to be known .

On DATE the ORG submitted an additional incident report to the PERSON prosecutor 's office , which contained the same information as that of the first incident report . This report stated that it had been established that the deceased were active ORG sympathisers .

On DATE , the police took witness statements from CARDINAL people who either lived or worked in the street where the killing took place . PERSON claimed that she was not at home at the time of the incident . Mr GPE submitted that his shop was closed on DATE of the incident . PERSON ORG and PERSON claimed to have heard gunshots but that they were not witnesses to the incident .

In the meantime ORG conducted a ballistics examination of the CARDINAL spent cartridges found at the scene . The report issued on DATE stated that the cartridges examined were CARDINAL PERSON cartridges of CARDINAL different groups of foreign origin and that they were fired from CARDINAL different guns .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor heard the applicant 's brother - in - law and PERSON father . They both submitted that they did not know who could have committed the killing and requested that those responsible be brought to justice .

On DATE the ORG informed the PERSON public prosecutor that the investigation into the killings was ongoing and that the perpetrators had not yet been identified . The Government submitted numerous items of similar correspondence of various dates between the prosecutor and ORG .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor relinquished jurisdiction over the case since he considered that the killing of the deceased , who were known to be active ORG sympathisers , by unknown perpetrators , fell within the jurisdiction of the public prosecutor at ORG .

On DATE the ORG informed the PERSON public prosecutor that CARDINAL suspects arrested following an operation conducted against ORG had claimed that Mr K.A. was responsible for the killing of the applicant 's husband and PERSON and that the security forces were working to capture the suspect .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG ordered the PERSON and ORG and ORG to coordinate their efforts in the search for the perpetrators . The prosecutor instructed that he be informed of any tipoffs , confessions or any other evidence regarding the incident as well as briefed on developments in the case DATE . The prosecutor also requested the collaboration of the PERSON public prosecutor in this respect .

On DATE the ORG informed the prosecutor that they were still searching for Mr K.A.

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant requested the public prosecutor 's office at ORG to provide her with a copy of her husband 's death certificate to be submitted to ORG authorities for the establishment of a pension . She personally received the relevant document on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the PERSON public prosecutor 's office and requested information as regards the developments in the investigation into the death of her husband . In this petition , the applicant also stated that in her view her husband had been killed either by the security forces or by militia acting in collusion with them

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor informed the applicant that the case regarding the death of her husband had been transferred to the public prosecutor 's office at ORG on DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request with the PERSON public prosecutor 's office for information as regards the developments in the investigation into the death of her husband . The applicant noted that the documents sent to her by the prosecutor 's office concerned only the investigation conducted immediately after the death of her husband . She requested to know what additional steps had been undertaken by the prosecutor and whether any new evidence had been admitted to the case file . She repeated that in her view her husband had been killed either by the security forces or by militia acting in collusion with them .

On DATE Mr GPE , a public prosecutor at ORG , with reference to the applicant 's request dated DATE , informed the applicant that the investigation into the killing of her husband and PERSON was ongoing and that the perpetrator(s ) had not yet been found .

On DATE ORG informed the prosecutor that it had not been possible to identify the gun with which the CARDINAL PERSON cartridges of foreign origin had been fired , as no information had been found linking them to any gun stored in the database .

The Government submitted numerous items of correspondence of various dates in which various ORG regularly informed the prosecutor in charge of the case file about developments in the search for the alleged perpetrator of the killings .

On DATE public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against Mr GPE accusing him of membership of an illegal armed organisation , namely ORG , and of participating in armed activities on its behalf .

On DATE Mr K.A. , who was carrying a false identity card , was arrested . On DATE he was questioned by the police . On that date , Mr K.A. submitted that in the nineties PERSON was mixed ideologically , that he had joined a religious community in DATE and that until DATE there was no concept of ORG . PERSON maintained that until DATE when a fellow community member Mr PERSON was killed by the ORG their only activities were to gather and to discuss ORG . After this killing it became dangerous to move from one street to another and as a result street patrols were created . PERSON claimed that DATE after that incident he became part of the military wing of the community , since it had become clear to the community that if they did not fight back they would be killed by the ORG . He gave details about the subsequent structure of the organisation of the community and the killings perpetrated by him and other members on various dates . Mr PERSON was later asked to comment on a number of documents found following an operation conducted in the house of the leader of the organisation on DATE and police statements of fellow members . Mr K.A. , when asked about his involvement in the killing of the applicant 's husband , denied taking part in it . He further maintained that after DATE his ties with the organisation had lessened .

On the same date PERSON was heard by a public prosecutor and a judge at a ORG , where he denied being part of the armed wing of ORG and participating in any killings . PERSON was subsequently remanded in custody .

On DATE and DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed additional bills of indictment against PERSON and other suspects for , inter alia , participating in armed activities on behalf of ORG . In respect of Mr K.A. these were the killing of PERSON on DATE , PERSON on DATE , Mr GPE on DATE and PERSON on DATE . He was also accused of participating in the attempted killing of PERSON and PERSON on DATE . All these incidents took place in PERSON .

On DATE the ORG informed the PERSON public prosecutor that Mr PERSON had been arrested in DATE following an operation conducted against ORG and was currently in detention .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG filed an additional bill of indictment against Mr K.A. for inter alia , participating in armed activities on behalf of ORG . This time Mr K.A. was accused of killing the applicant 's husband and PERSON .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against Mr K.A. regarding the killing of the applicant 's husband and of PERSON commenced before ORG ( no . CARDINAL ) . The applicant and PERSON wife were written down as plaintiffs ( müşteki ) and the court ordered that their statements be heard .

In the next hearing held on DATE Mr K.A. was heard by ORG . He denied all the charges against him . In particular , he submitted that he did not kill the applicant 's husband and PERSON . He also stated that Mr PERSON and PERSON GPE had been tried and acquitted as regards the same incident . The court decided to join the case related to the applicant 's husband 's killing to another case pending before it ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Throughout the criminal proceedings a number of related cases pending before various courts and concerning PERSON and other suspects and their activities on behalf of ORG were joined to case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE PERSON , wife of Mr PERSON , was heard by the court , which was acting on rogatory letters , and she maintained that she had not witnessed the events and had no knowledge of the incident .

In the course of the trial , the first - instance court heard witnesses and the accused and collected documents from various authorities . It also appears that the court tried unsuccessfully several times to locate the applicant in order to obtain her testimony via rogatory letters . Throughout this time Mr K.A. denied all accusations , submitted that he had been ill - treated during police custody and claimed his innocence .

On DATE ORG , in a CARDINAL-page reasoned judgment , delivered its verdict in the trial in respect of CARDINAL of the accused . Having regard to the evidence in the case file , the court found it established that Mr K.A. was member of an illegal armed organisation , namely ORG , and that he had participated in a number of armed activities on its behalf , including the killing of the applicant 's husband on DATE , and sentenced him to life imprisonment . It transpires from the reasoned judgment of ORG that proceedings before its Sixth ORG concerning another suspect , who had originally been arrested in the operation conducted inCARDINAL and was currently being tried in absentia for taking part in the applicant 's husband 's killing , were pending .

The case against Mr K.A. is pending before ORG .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALII ( extracts ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Alvina Gyulumyan;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant has been a self - employed designer since DATE .

On DATE the applicant was injured in a car accident which happened on a business trip . It appears that the applicant has since then been on sick leave for most of the time . However , for certain periods ORG ( Zavod za zdravstveno zavarovanje – “ the HII ” ) recognised his full or partial working capability .

On DATE ORG Vrhovno sodišče ) , in a non - public session , rejected the applicant ’s claim concerning the ORG ’s decision granting the applicant a right to be absent from his work on a part - time basis until DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal . On DATE ORG ( PERSON sodišče ) dismissed the appeal as being out of time . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the ORG issued a decision finding that the applicant was fully capable of working .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG ( PERSON združenega dela v PERSON ) seeking annulment of the aforementioned decision , a recognition of his reduced working capability and entitlement to invalidity insurance benefit .

On DATE the applicant gave a statement to a judge on duty urging the court to proceed with his case swiftly .

The ( renamed ) ORG ( ORG in socialno sodišče v PERSON ) held a hearing on DATE .

On DATE the court received an expert ’s opinion .

On DATE the court held a hearing .

The court scheduled a new hearing for DATE in order to examine an orthopaedist . The hearing was eventually cancelled since the expert had been absent owing to some professional commitments .

After holding a hearing on DATE , the court decided to deliver a written judgment rejecting the applicant ’s claim . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON delovno in socialno sodišče v PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . The court tried several times to serve its decision on the applicant ( on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and on DATE ) at the same address in PERSON where it had served the decision of DATE . The decision was eventually served on DATE through a colleague of the applicant at work .

Subsequently , the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG but it was rejected on DATE . The court again tried several times to serve this decision ( on DATE , on DATE and on DATE ) . The decision was served at the applicant ’s CARDINAL different addresses , CARDINAL in PERSON and one in GPE . On DATE the court process server left a notice in the applicant ’s mailbox at his home in GPE . The decision was eventually served on the applicant on the first - instance court ’s premises on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal which also concerned the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal concerning the above proceedings as manifestly ill - founded . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant incapable of working in the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s claim against the HII finding that he had been incapable of working also between CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged an HII decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG .

On DATE the court held a hearing .

On DATE the court received the opinion of the expert appointed in the case .

On DATE the court held a hearing . The applicant , who received a notice inviting him to attend the hearing on DATE , did not appear at the hearing . The court nevertheless gave a ruling , quashed the disputed ORG decision and upheld the applicant ’s claim . It found that the applicant , who had been on sick leave with interruptions since DATE and after CARDINAL DATE , was temporarily incapable of working also in the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

The applicant appealed , claiming that the first - instance court should also have decided about his incapacity to work in the period after DATE .

On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG quashed the first - instance court ’s judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for re - examination .

On DATE the court held a hearing .

Subsequently , the court attempted on CARDINAL occasions to serve notice inviting the applicant to the hearing scheduled for DATE but was unsuccessful . The applicant , however , appeared at the hearing together with a substitute of his representative . After the hearing , the court gave a ruling and upheld the applicant ’s claim in part . This decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG partly upheld the applicant ’s appeal and remitted the respective part for re - examination .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was cancelled owing to the fact that the applicant ’s representative had rescinded his power of attorney . Consequently , the applicant had requested free legal aid , which had not been granted at the time the hearing was held .

On DATE the applicant was granted free legal aid and subsequently assigned a lawyer .

The next hearing was scheduled for DATE . The court again tried unsuccessfully to serve notice of the hearing on the applicant . The applicant ’s representative eventually received the notice on DATE .

Since none of the parties appeared at the hearing of DATE despite being invited , the court decided to stay the proceedings ( mirovanje postopka ) . This decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

On DATE , given that none of the parties requested the court to resume the proceedings within DATE from the date the proceedings were stayed , the court decided to terminate the proceedings on the basis of the assumption that the applicant had withdrawn his claim . This decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

The applicant appealed . On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . This decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a motion at the Higher Labour and ORG , claiming that he had learned that the proceedings had been terminated only at DATE . The court responded that the decision had been served on his representative in accordance with the civil procedure rules .

On DATE the applicant examined the file at ORG .

The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay ( Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja , ORG , No . DATE ) has been implemented since DATE . Under its sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the right to a trial within a reasonable time is guaranteed for a party to court proceedings , a participant under the LAW governing non - contentious proceedings and an injured party in criminal proceedings .

Section CARDINAL lays down the following transitional rules in relation to applications already pending before the ORG :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party had lodged a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the date of implementation of this LAW , the ORG Attorney ’s ORG shall offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction within DATE of the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure . The party shall submit a settlement proposal to the ORG Attorney ’s ORG within DATE of receipt of the proposal of that ORG . ORG Office shall decide on the proposal as soon as possible and within DATE at the latest .....

( CARDINAL ) If the proposal for settlement referred to in the first paragraph of this section is not acceded to or ORG and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within DATE of the date on which the party submitted its proposal , the party may bring an action before the competent court under this LAW . The party may bring an action within DATE of receiving the ORG Attorney ’s ORG reply that the party ’s proposal referred to in the previous paragraph was not acceded to , or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for ORG to decide to proceed with a settlement . Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim , the provisions of LAW concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court . ”

Further to section CARDINAL of ORG ( Zakon o delovnih in socialnih sodiščih , ORG no . CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time , the provisions governing civil procedure were to be applied to proceedings before ORG .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o pravdnem postopku , ORG no . CARDINAL ) , the court should stay the proceedings if , inter alia , none of the parties have appeared at a hearing . A party to proceedings can request the court to resume the proceedings after DATE have passed from the date the proceedings were stayed and DATE from DATE ( section CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL further provides that in the event that none of the parties requests the court to resume the proceedings , it will be assumed that the claimant has withdrawn his claim and the proceedings will be terminated .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking committed as part of an organised crime group .

On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody , relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question . It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony . The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence .

The applicant 's appeal against the detention order , likewise his further appeals against some of the decisions extending his detention and his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him , were unsuccessful . In his applications and appeals he relied , inter alia , on his personal circumstances , in particular a difficult family situation in that a family break - up was imminent . He also argued that his confessions to offences of which he was suspected had not been taken into consideration .

In the course of the investigation , the applicant 's detention was extended on several occasions , namely on an unknown date , on DATE ( to DATE ) , DATE ( to DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( to DATE ) , DATE ( to DATE ) , an unknown subsequent date , and DATE ( to DATE ) . In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion , supported by evidence from witnesses , that the applicant had committed the offences in question . They attached importance to the seriousness of those offences and to the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant . These facts gave rise to the courts ' assumption that the applicant , if released , might obstruct the proper course of the proceedings , especially given the fact that some of the suspects were still at large .

On DATE ORG lodged a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was charged with drug trafficking and membership of an organised crime group . There were CARDINAL defendants in the case , all charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking committed as an organised crime group .

On DATE the case was transferred to the ORG since all judges from ORG had been excluded from examination of the case .

On DATE the trial court held the first hearing . It subsequently held CARDINAL hearings in the case , at regular intervals .

During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant 's pre - trial detention , namely on DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) , CARDINAL unknown subsequent dates , DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) and DATE ( to DATE ) . The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant 's continued detention . They relied especially on the complexity of the case and the large number of coaccused .

DATE and DATE the applicant was serving a term of imprisonment imposed by ORG in a different criminal case .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment . The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to DATE imprisonment and to a fine .

The applicant appealed . He was kept in detention pending appeal for DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG heard the applicant 's appeal . It reduced the sentence passed by the first - instance court to DATE and left the remainder of the judgment unchanged . The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal . The judgment is final .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre - trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the ORG 's judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .