George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE as an asylum seeker from PERSON . Although her asylum claim was refused , she was granted exceptional leave to remain and then , in DATE , indefinite leave to remain . After she obtained indefinite leave to remain , she applied to have her son PERSON , a ORG national born in DATE , join her in GPE . Her son arrived in DATE , with conditional leave to remain in GPE , the condition being that he must not have recourse to public funds . He is considered as being “ subject to immigration control ” within the meaning of ORG , as is the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At the time of her son ’s arrival in GPE , the applicant was renting a room in a private home . However , her landlord was unwilling to accommodate her son as well , and informed the applicant shortly after her son ’s arrival that they would have to move out by DATE . The applicant applied to ORG for assistance on DATE , on the basis that she had become unintentionally homeless . An unintentionally homeless person with a minor child would ordinarily qualify as being in priority need pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and would thus be provided with suitable housing , usually within the locality . Those in priority need are considered to be a class of persons to whom reasonable preference must be given in the allocation of social housing . As there is a significant shortage of social housing in GPE , those in priority need would generally be placed in temporary accommodation until appropriate social housing became available . In the case of the applicant , however , as her son was subject to immigration control , he was disregarded by the ORG in the determination of whether the applicant was in priority need , in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of LAW . On DATE the ORG decided that the applicant was not therefore in priority need and not entitled to social housing .

The applicant requested a review of this decision , which was carried out by a senior officer , who reiterated that persons subject to immigration control are not eligible for housing assistance and that persons who are not eligible for housing assistance shall be disregarded when determining whether another person has a priority need for accommodation . As the applicant ’s son was not eligible , the applicant did not have a priority need . Consideration was also given to the question of whether the applicant was vulnerable for any other reason ; however , it was found that the applicant was not hindered in the performance of everyday tasks by any medical problems and that she was no less able to fend for herself than the average person . There was therefore no special reason to find that she was entitled to homelessness assistance due to vulnerability . On CARDINAL DATE the original decision was upheld .

The ORG assisted the applicant to find a private - sector tenancy in DATE , which she accepted . The applicant and her son were not therefore at any point actually homeless . However , the private tenancy was more expensive than a social tenancy would have been , and was outside GPE and therefore far from the applicant ’s previous employment and her son ’s school . The applicant claimed that she had to give up her job after DATE of commuting as she was unable to cope with the travel required , and that her son spent TIME per day travelling to and from school .

The applicant , who had remained on the waiting list for social housing in GPE , obtained an offer of a social tenancy of a CARDINAL - bedroom flat in DATE . She and her son therefore moved back to GPE .

Section CARDINAL , subsections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of ORG provide :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Each housing authority shall secure that , so far as practicable , no tenancy of , or licence to occupy , housing accommodation provided under the accommodation Part is granted to a person subject to immigration control unless he is of a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of ORG .

( CARDINAL ) A person subject to immigration control—

( a ) shall not be eligible for accommodation or assistance under the homelessness Part ; and

( b ) shall be disregarded in determining , for the purposes of that Part , whether another person—

( i ) is homeless or is threatened with homelessness ; or

( ii ) has a priority need for accommodation ,

unless he is of a class specified in an order made by the Secretary of ORG ... ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the same Act defines “ a person subject to immigration control ” as being a person who under LAW DATE requires leave to enter or remain in GPE ( whether or not such permission has been given ) .

The Housing Act DATE , as amended by Schedule CARDINAL to ORG DATE , provides , in its relevant parts , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness , they shall make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves—

( a ) whether he is eligible for assistance ; and

( b ) if so , whether any duty , and if so what duty , is owed to him under the following provisions of this Part .

( CARDINALA ) If the authority decide that a duty is owed to the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) but would not have done so without having had regard to a restricted person , the notice under subsection ( CARDINAL ) must also—

inform the applicant that their decision was reached on that basis ,

include the name of the restricted person ,

explain why the person is a restricted person , and

explain the effect of section CARDINAL(CARDINALAD ) or ( as the case may be ) section CARDINAL(CARDINALA )

( CARDINAL ) In this Part ‘ a restricted person’ means a person—

( a ) who is not eligible for assistance under this Part ;

( b ) who is subject to immigration control within the meaning of ORG ; and

( c ) NORP either—

( i ) who does not have leave to enter or remain in GPE ; or

( ii ) whose leave to enter or remain in GPE is subject to a condition to maintain and accommodate himself , and any dependents , without recourse to public funds .

( CARDINAL ) A person is not eligible for assistance under this Part if he is a person from abroad who is ineligible for housing assistance .

( CARDINAL ) A person who is subject to immigration control within the meaning of ORG is not eligible for housing assistance unless he is of a class prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of ORG .

( CARDINAL ) A person from abroad who is not eligible for housing assistance shall be disregarded in determining for the purposes of this Part whether a person falling within subsection ( CARDINAL ) —

( a ) is homeless or threatened with homelessness ; or

( b ) has a priority need for accommodation .

( CARDINAL ) A person falls within this subsection if the person –

( a ) NORP falls within a class prescribed by regulations made under subsection ( CARDINAL ) ; but

( b ) is not a national of an ORG or GPE .

( CARDINAL ) The following have priority need for accommodation –

( a ) a pregnant woman or a person with whom she resides or might reasonably be expected to reside ;

( b ) a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside ;

( c ) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age , mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason , or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside ;

( d ) a person who is homeless or threatened with homelessness as a result of an emergency such as flood , fire or other disaster .

( CARDINAL ) This section applies where the local housing authority are satisfied that an applicant is homeless , eligible for assistance and has a priority need , and are not satisfied that he became homeless intentionally .

( CARDINAL ) Unless the authority refer the application to another local housing authority ( see section CARDINAL ) , they shall secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant .

( CARDINAL ) The authority are subject to the duty under this section until it ceases by virtue of any of the following provisions of this section .

( CARDINALB ) In this case ‘ a restricted ORG means a case where the local housing authority would not be satisfied as mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) without having had regard to a restricted person .

( CARDINALAA ) In a restricted case the authority shall also cease to be subject to the duty under this section if the applicant , having been informed of the matters mentioned in subsection ( CARDINALAB)—

( a ) accepts a private accommodation offer ; or

( b ) refuses such an offer .

( CARDINALAB ) The matters are—

( a ) the possible consequence of refusal of the offer ; and

( b ) that the applicant has the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation . ”

The Regulations , made by the Secretary of ORG in the exercise of powers conveyed by certain sections of LAW , referred to above , provide in their relevant parts as follows :

“ The following classes of persons subject to immigration control are persons who are eligible for an allocation of housing accommodation under Part CARDINAL of the DATE Act—

( a ) Class A – a person who is recorded by the Secretary of ORG as a refugee within the definition in LAW and who has leave to enter or remain in GPE ;

( b ) Class B – a person—

( i ) who has exceptional leave to enter or remain in GPE granted outside the provision of ORG ; and

( ii ) who is not subject to a condition requiring him to maintain and accommodate himself , and any person who is dependent on him , without recourse to public funds ;

( c ) Class C – a person who is habitually resident in GPE , GPE , GPE and whose leave to enter or remain in GPE is not subject to any limitation or condition , other than a person—

( i ) who has been given leave to enter or remain in GPE upon an undertaking given by his sponsor ;

( ii ) who has been resident in GPE , GPE , GPE for DATE beginning on the date of entry or the date on which his sponsor gave the undertaking in respect of him , whichever date is the later ; and

( iii ) whose sponsor or , where there is CARDINAL sponsor , CARDINAL of whose sponsors , is still alive ;

( CARDINAL ) The following classes of persons subject to immigration control are persons who are eligible for housing assistance under LAW Act—

( b ) Class B – a person—

( iii ) whose sponsor or , where there is CARDINAL sponsor , CARDINAL of whose sponsors , is still alive . ”

On DATE ORG handed down its judgment in this case , which involved a woman who was a NORP citizen and her daughter who was subject to immigration control . The local authority had refused to treat mother and daughter as being in priority need of homelessness assistance when they became unintentionally homeless , due to the daughter ’s immigration status . ORG held that Part VII of LAW and specifically sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL were designed to protect the family lives of the homeless by ensuring that families who became unintentionally homeless were accommodated together . It therefore fell within the ambit of LAW . A majority of ORG found that the basis of distinction between PERSON , on the one hand , and the parent of a child who was not subject to immigration control , on the other , was either the national origin of the child , or a combination of statuses including nationality , immigration status , settled residence and social welfare . It was not considered necessary to decide finally whether there was CARDINAL sole factor on which the distinction was based ; the important point was that nationality was among the factors . As such , very weighty or solid justification was required if the distinction was to be found to be compatible with the Convention . ORG found that , regardless of the precise basis of the differential treatment , the justification offered by the Government – the need to preserve immigration control and to prevent “ benefits tourism ” – was not sufficiently weighty , nor was it a proportionate and reasonable response to the perceived problem . The discouraging of “ benefits tourism ” or the “ over - staying ” of dependent relatives was an intelligible policy goal , but was not served by legislative measures which discouraged NORP citizens or those with a right of abode from coming to or remaining in GPE , because they could not accommodate their dependent relatives who were also lawfully permitted to be in GPE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was found not to be a proportionate or even logical response to the perceived problem . ORG observed that it was not apparent that the ORG or ORG had considered the potentially discriminatory impact of the legislation ; however , even if such impact had been considered , it could not be considered to fall within even the very wide margin of appreciation that the ORG enjoyed with regard to such matters .

The Court of Appeal therefore made a declaration of incompatibility in the following terms :

“ That [ section ] CARDINAL ) of LAW is incompatible with [ LAW to the extent that it requires a dependent child of a NORP citizen , if both are habitually resident in GPE , to be disregarded when determining when a NORP citizen has a priority need for accommodation when that child is subject to immigration control . ”

The case of PERSON was considered by ORG alongside that of PERSON , who had indefinite leave to remain in GPE but was considered by the court to have “ equivalent status ” to NORP citizenship ( see paragraph CARDINAL of ORG judgment ) . He too was excluded by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) from establishing a priority need for housing assistance because his child was subject to immigration control . Unlike PERSON , however , at the time of ORG judgment , he had an ongoing need for assistance , being still prospectively homeless . This situation would not be alleviated by the declaration of incompatibility , since the impugned provision would remain in force until changed by ORG . PERSON case was therefore remitted by ORG to the relevant local authority for reconsideration , with specific regard to whether he could be provided with accommodation under powers conferred upon the authority by other legislation .

As a result of the declaration of incompatibility in ORG v. PERSON , the ORG amended LAW by means of Schedule DATE , as noted above . The changes addressed the incompatibility in so far as NORP citizens are concerned but meant that a person such as Mr PERSON or indeed the applicant in this case , with indefinite leave to remain , would still not be considered to be in priority need of housing assistance if his or her eligibility was dependent on another person who was from abroad and subject to immigration control , such as the applicant ’s son . Moreover , in the case of a NORP citizen like PERSON or ORG ( ORG ) or NORP national , where the priority need resulted from a dependent child who was subject to immigration control , the local authority ’s duty to provide accommodation would be satisfied by the local authority procuring an offer of a tenancy from a private landlord , whether or not the applicant chose to accept such an offer . In cases where there was a dependent child who was not subject to immigration control , by contrast , the local authority ’s duty would not be discharged by procuring such an offer if the applicant chose not to accept it .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants , who are brothers , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and at present reside in the town of PERSON in GPE .

In DATE the bodies of CARDINAL persons were found in a street in GPE .

On DATE the second applicant was charged with CARDINAL counts of manslaughter and unlawful possession of weapons . DATE , a deputy prosecutor of LOC of PERSON discontinued the criminal proceedings against the second applicant because he was found to have acted in self - defence and the use of force had been justified .

On DATE the second applicant was charged with having severely injured a Mr M.

In DATE ORG reopened the criminal proceedings against the second applicant on the charges of manslaughter and arms possession and remitted the case for further investigation . On CARDINAL DATE the investigator at the LOC prosecutor ’s office dropped the armspossession charge .

NORP In DATE the CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings were joined and the second applicant was issued with the bill of indictment . He was charged with CARDINAL count of manslaughter , causing severe bodily injuries , and unlawful restriction of liberty .

On DATE the first applicant was also charged with unlawful restriction of liberty .

On DATE the prosecution concluded the investigation and transmitted the case for an examination on the merits to the ORG of PERSON . On DATE the case was assigned to a judge of that court . The applicants were committed for trial and on DATE the court listed the first hearing for DATE .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicants were initially represented by lawyer NORP The chamber consisted of CARDINAL lay assessors and presiding judge PERSON The applicants challenged the presiding judge , alleging bias . The lay assessors examined and rejected the challenge as unfounded .

Thereafter the applicants informed the court that they had dismissed lawyer NORP and appointed lawyer PERSON . as a replacement . Lawyer PERSON . was not present at the hearing .

After lawyer NORP had been dismissed , the prosecutor made a request for the applicants to be detained pending trial , which ORG examined and accepted with the following reasoning :

“ [ the applicants are ] charged with murder , the intentional infliction of severe injuries ... and unlawful confinement ...

Before the hearing they unsuccessfully sought the removal of the presiding judge and influenced participants in the proceedings , including the victim , PERSON , who asked the court not to examine the case because the defendants had not committed any criminal offence against him . They also appealed against the decision by which the court hearing had been fixed .

[ The applicants are ] charged with serious and especially serious criminal offences ... When they were under a written undertaking not to leave the town , they attempted to obstruct the thorough and full examination of the case . The prosecutor has lodged a request in that connection ; having regard to the above - mentioned considerations , the court finds it to be substantiated and authorises ... [ the applicants’ ] placement in custody . ”

The applicants were taken into custody on DATE . They appealed against the decision ordering their detention , arguing that their procedural rights had been breached as a result of the absence of their lawyer at the hearing . Among other things , they requested the court to secure their attendance during the appeal hearing .

ORG listed the next hearing for DATE .

The decision of DATE was upheld on appeal on CARDINAL November CARDINAL by ORG . The hearing took place with the participation of the prosecutor , the alleged victim and the applicant ’s lawyer PERSON . The applicants were detained in the remand prison and were not taken to the hearing . Their request for personal attendance remained unanswered .

At the hearing of DATE the applicants and their lawyer requested the removal of the entire bench including the presiding judge . ORG dismissed their requests and adjourned the proceedings until DATE because the victim had arrived at the hearing in an inebriated state .

On DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicants’ lawyer , upheld that decision . The applicants were neither invited , nor present at the hearing .

On DATE the presiding judge , in an interlocutory decision , extended the applicants’ detention and withdrew from the proceedings because he felt offended by the conduct of the applicant ’s lawyer . No reasons or time - limit for the extension were given . The judge noted that the decision was not amenable to appeal .

According to the ORG , the second applicant brought an appeal against that decision . Since it had been lodged too late and the applicant never asked for restoration of the time - limit , the appeal court never examined it .

The second applicant disagreed with the Government on that point . He submitted a copy of a letter from the Deputy President of ORG dated DATE informing the President of ORG that the second applicant had requested a copy of the decision of DATE and the restoration of the time - limit for appeal .

According to the second applicant , he had appealed against the decision of DATE once in receipt of a copy of it , and had complied with the time - limit for appeal .

On DATE a new presiding judge listed a hearing for DATE and extended the applicants’ detention , without citing any grounds or setting a time - limit .

The applicants alleged that they had not received that decision . Nonetheless , they appealed against it on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . In their appeals they disagreed with the decision to list a hearing for DATE and argued that the case ought to be sent for an additional investigation to the prosecutor . The appeals did not contain any complaints concerning the ORG continued detention .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision , rejecting the applicants’ arguments concerning the decision to list a hearing for DATE . By this time the first applicant had already been released ( see paragraph CARDINAL below )

The Government submitted that the second applicant and his lawyer had not taken part in the hearing .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicants’ request for an additional investigation . The applicants’ appeal against that decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant was released on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence .

On DATE the applicants asked ORG to adjourn the proceedings because their lawyer was on holiday . The court acceded to the request , adjourned the proceedings and extended the second applicant ’s detention on remand ; no reasons or time - limit for the extension were given .

The second applicant appealed against the decision , claiming that it had not been given by a lawful tribunal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The second applicant was not present at the appeal hearing .

On DATE PERSON was appointed to act as the applicants’ counsel .

At the hearing held on DATE the second applicant , assisted by PERSON , asked ORG to release him against a written undertaking not to leave the town and to replace PERSON with Mr NORP and PERSON , representatives of a certain NGO . ORG dismissed his application for release on the grounds that he was charged with serious criminal offences and was pleading not guilty . ORG held that “ there were no grounds to change the preventive measure ” . It refused to accept the appointment of Mr NORP and PERSON because they had not produced any written authority to act .

On DATE the applicants again asked the court to appoint PERSON and PERSON The hearing was postponed to allow the applicants to find new lawyers .

According to the second applicant , on DATE he submitted a statement of appeal against the decision of DATE to the administration of the remand facility where he was being held . On DATE he sent a letter by registered mail to ORG .

In support of his allegations , the second applicant submitted a note ( no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) issued by the prison administration of ORG dated DATE which confirmed that in DATE the second applicant had dispatched a complaint dated DATE to ORG . According to the second applicant , his appeal was left unexamined .

The Government submitted that the second applicant had never properly filed an appeal against the decision of DATE and that the statement of appeal had only been received by the court after DATE as an annex to another document . They conceded that the appeal had been left unexamined .

According to the ORG , DATE and DATE there were repeated delays in the criminal proceedings due to changes of lawyers , their failure to appear and sickness on the part of the parties .

At the hearing of DATE the second applicant successfully requested an adjournment because his lawyer had failed to appear . The hearing was postponed until DATE .

On DATE ORG , at the second applicant ’s request , adjourned the proceedings until DATE to enable the applicant and his new lawyer to study the case file together .

The subsequent hearings scheduled for CARDINAL and DATE were postponed because the lawyer for the first applicant had failed to appear . The proceedings were stayed until DATE . The applicants claimed that on DATE they had appealed against the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE , but that their appeals had not been examined .

At the hearing of DATE the second applicant ’s lawyer asked ORG to remit the case for further investigation and release the applicant on bail or on a written undertaking not to leave the town . ORG refused the requests , on the ground that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and was pleading not guilty .

On DATE the second applicant appealed against the decision of DATE , but the appeal was never examined .

The Government submitted that on DATE the ORG had extended the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of DATE . According to them , there was no evidence in the case file that such an appeal was subsequently lodged .

On DATE the ORG gave interlocutory decisions whereby it dismissed the applicants’ request for the bench to stand down , remitted the case for further investigation and extended the second applicant ’s detention on remand . As regards the grounds for the extension , ORG noted that the second applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and that he was pleading not guilty and had threatened the victim .

By the same decision the court also charged the first applicant for the services of a legal - aid lawyer whom he had allegedly never accepted as his counsel .

On DATE ORG returned the case file to ORG for the correction of certain procedural defects . ORG also noted that in the course of the appeal hearing the applicants’ lawyer had complained that on DATE he had lodged an appeal against the decision of ORG of DATE . The lawyer had provided ORG with a copy of his statement of appeal bearing the stamp of ORG and showing that it had received the statement on DATE . ORG instructed ORG to investigate whether that statement had been lodged in accordance with the requirements established by law .

On DATE ORG upheld the decisions of CARDINAL DATE concerning the request for the bench to stand down and the extension of the applicant ’s detention . However , it did not accept ORG view that the case should be returned for further investigation , but instructed it to examine the merits of the charges . The applicants’ lawyer was not summoned to the hearing .

On DATE a new Code of Criminal Procedure became effective .

On DATE the Ordzhonikidzevskiy ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , holding that the second applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence and that he was pleading not guilty and had threatened the victim . The second applicant and his lawyer had not been summoned to the hearing . The representative of the prosecution authorities did not attend .

The second applicant appealed against the decision of DATE , also alleging that he had only received a copy of that decision on DATE . The applicant provided the ORG with a copy of his statement of appeal . The document bore the stamp of ORG indicating that the appeal had been lodged on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the second applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE and remitted the matter to ORG . ORG held as follows :

“ In a decision [ of DATE ] [ the second applicant ’s ] detention on remand was extended until DATE .

[ T]he second applicant ] lodged several appeals against that decision ; [ these ] were lodged outside the time - limit established by the law . From the case file it can not be established when [ the second applicant ] learned about the decision . Moreover , his lawyer , Mr Kh . , ... learned about that decision only while taking part in the hearing and has expressed his wish to appeal against it ...

In view of the foregoing , [ the court ] decides to stay the appeal proceedings , establish the date when [ the second applicant ] was issued with the decision [ of DATE ] , include that notification in the case file , invite him to apply for extension of the time - limit for lodging an appeal against that decision ... , accept an appeal from Mr Kh . , and subsequently fix an appeal hearing . ”

DATE ORG received an application from the second applicant ’s lawyer seeking an extension of the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of DATE . According to the Government , there was no indication in the case file that the request was examined .

On DATE ORG extended the second applicant ’s detention for DATE , that is , until DATE . The court cited the same grounds for the extension as those in the detention orders of CARDINAL May and DATE . Neither the second applicant nor his lawyer was present at the hearing .

On DATE the GPE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the matter for fresh examination to ORG . ORG reasoned that , in breach of the rules of criminal procedure , ORG had not ensured the presence of the second applicant and his lawyer at the hearing of DATE . It held that the second applicant ’s detention “ should remain unchanged ” in the meantime , because it had not established any ground to release him . The second applicant was not taken to the appeal hearing , even though he had sought leave to appear . His lawyer attended that hearing .

On DATE the ORG listed a hearing for DATE and extended the second applicant ’s detention , without citing any grounds or setting a time - limit . The second applicant and his lawyer were not summoned to the hearing .

On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE because no procedural or substantive violations had been established .

On DATE ORG re - examined the question of the second applicant ’s detention ( which it had previously examined on DATE ) and retrospectively extended his detention for DATE , until DATE . It held that the second applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and that , if released , he could pervert the course of justice . A new lawyer , PERSON . , and the second applicant attended the hearing .

The second applicant and PERSON . , his other lawyer , appealed against that decision . The second applicant also sought leave to appear before the appeal court .

According to the Government , ORG fixed CARDINAL trial hearings DATE . They were adjourned because the second applicant ’s lawyer failed to appear .

On DATE ORG examined the grounds of the second applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE and upheld the decision . According to the second applicant , neither he nor his lawyer was summoned to the appeal hearing . According to the Government , the second applicant ’s lawyer was given notice of the appeal hearing but failed to appear or to notify ORG of the reasons for his absence . The Government provided the ORG with a copy of the notice addressed to the prosecutor and to the second applicant ’s lawyer . The notice did not bear the signature of any court official .

On DATE the ORG ordered that the second applicant should pay MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in legal fees . It appears that the second applicant did not appeal against that order .

On DATE ORG dismissed requests by the applicants and their co - defendants for the removal of the prosecutor , the presiding judge and CARDINAL of the applicants’ lawyers , PERSON The applicants alleged that they had not received that decision and , therefore , could not appeal against it .

On DATE the ORG extended the second applicant ’s detention to DATE . It held that the second applicant was charged with serious criminal offences , the victims and witnesses had not yet been questioned , and that , therefore , the detention should be extended . The second applicant and his lawyer Mr Kh . attended the hearing .

DATE . From DATE ORG fixed CARDINAL hearings which were adjourned owing to the absence of the second applicant ’s lawyer . On DATE , at the second applicant ’s request , he was assigned new counsel . The proceedings were stayed until DATE to allow the new lawyer time to study the case file .

The hearings of CARDINAL and DATE never took place because the second applicant was ill .

On DATE ORG rejected appeals by the second applicant and his lawyer against the extension order of DATE because they had been lodged outside the time - limit . It asked ORG to determine whether the time - limit could be extended . According to the second applicant , ORG did not take any action on the matter . The Government did not comment on this .

On DATE the ORG extended the second applicant ’s detention to DATE . The court noted that he had no criminal record , that he had a permanent place of residence and work , that he was the breadwinner of a family with CARDINAL minor children and that he suffered from several illnesses . On the other hand , he was charged with serious criminal offences , victims and witnesses had not yet been heard , and the case had been pending for a long time , owing mostly to the second applicant ’s conduct . The second applicant , if released , might therefore obstruct the proceedings .

According to the second applicant , on DATE he and his lawyer lodged an appeal against that decision . The appeal was never examined .

According to the ORG , no appeal was ever lodged .

The hearing on the merits was postponed again until DATE , and then on CARDINAL further occasions until CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicants sought the removal of the entire bench and the prosecutor . The court dismissed these requests .

DATE . On DATE the ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings against the first applicant in full as time - barred , and ruled out certain evidence as inadmissible . In the same decision the trial court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the second applicant in respect of the manslaughter charges because the statutory limitation period had expired , and extended his detention to CARDINAL October CARDINAL . The court noted that the second applicant was charged with serious criminal offences and that the trial was pending .

The applicants and their lawyer appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE but subsequently withdrew their appeals .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings against the second applicant in respect of the charges of unlawful confinement because the conduct in question could not be classed as a criminal offence .

On DATE ORG found the second applicant guilty of causing bodily injuries and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . He was released on a written undertaking not to leave the town pending the appeal proceedings .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the second applicant lodged appeals against the conviction . On an unspecified date his lawyer appealed against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the second applicant and his lawyer withdrew their appeals .

On DATE the GPE ORG accepted the withdrawal and discontinued the appeal proceedings . On DATE the applicant ’s written undertaking not to leave the town was cancelled .

The second applicant submitted that DATE and DATE he had been kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY . The number of inmates at times reached CARDINAL and since the number of beds was insufficient the inmates had to take turns to sleep . The cell also had no proper ventilation .

The Government responded by producing a certificate ( no . CARDINAL/ICARDINAL - CARDINAL ) issued by the head of prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in PERSON dated DATE . The certificate confirmed that the second applicant had been detained in that prison on CARDINAL occasions : DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE . During the period from DATE the applicant had been held in correctional facility FGU IK-CARDINAL of GPE .

The certificate stated that the second applicant had been detained in the following cells : no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY and containing PERCENT ) , no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY and containing QUANTITY beds ) , no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY and containing CARDINAL beds ) , no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY and containing seven beds ) , and no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY and having QUANTITY beds ) .

According to the certificate , all the cells had glazed windows , adequate sleeping arrangements , ventilation and were regularly disinfected . The inmates , including the second applicant , never made any complaints about the conditions of their detention .

The Government were unable to provide specific figures concerning the number of inmates in that prison for DATE because the relevant logs had been destroyed after expiry of the time - limit for storage . As to DATE , they provided the following data concerning the number of inmates in the cells in question :

According to the ORG , the second applicant had a shower on a DATE basis for TIME . The temperature in the cells was no more that QUANTITY in DATE and CARDINAL QUANTITY in DATE . All cells had a toilet , separated from the rest of the cell by a partition , and a sink .

The second applicant submitted that all the cells in which he was detained had been heavily overcrowded and that the Government ’s description of the sleeping arrangements and partitioned toilets was false .

He submitted a witness statement dated DATE by PERSON , an inmate in cell no . CARDINAL , which confirmed that DATE and DATE the cell had contained CARDINAL inmates .

The second applicant alleged that on DATE the prison authorities had refused to certify the authority forms for his lawyer to represent him before the ORG , citing its incompetence to perform the requested actions . The case file contains an authority form dated DATE signed by the second applicant and an authority form dated DATE signed by the first applicant .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the second applicant was conveyed to the court room and back to the remand centre . According to him , the prison vehicle had no heating and he was not provided with any warm clothing . In addition , he had no opportunity to use toilet facilities for TIME while in transit and was given no meals during DATE at the court .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW of DATE , “ the old CCrP ” ) . On DATE the old ORG was replaced by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , “ the new CCrP ” ) .

Upon receipt of the case file , the judge must determine , in particular , whether the defendant should be held in custody or released pending the trial hearings ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the old ORG , ORG ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the new ORG ) , and rule on any application by the defendant for release ( LAW CCrP ) .

At any time during the court proceedings the court may order , vary or revoke any preventive measure , including detention on remand ( Article CARDINAL of the old CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) . Any such decision must be given in the deliberations room and signed by all the judges on the bench ( LAW ORG , LAW ) .

An appeal against such a decision lies to the higher court . It must be lodged within DATE and examined within the same time - limit as an appeal against a judgment on the merits ( Article CARDINAL of the old CCrP , LAW of the new CCrP ) .

Under the old ORG , within DATE of receipt of the case file ( if the defendant was in custody ) , the judge was required either : ( CARDINAL ) to fix the trial date ; ( CARDINAL ) to return the case for further investigation ; ( CARDINAL ) to stay or discontinue the proceedings ; or ( CARDINAL ) to refer the case to a court having jurisdiction to hear it ( Article CARDINAL ) . The new ORG empowers the judge , within the same time - limit , ( CARDINAL ) to refer the case to a competent court ; ( CARDINAL ) to fix a date for a preliminary hearing ; or ( CARDINAL ) to fix a trial date ( Article CARDINAL ) . In the latter case , the trial proceedings must begin no later than DATE after the judge has fixed the trial date ( LAW CCrP , LAW ) . There are no restrictions on fixing the date of a preliminary hearing .

There is no time - limit for the duration of the proceedings as a whole .

Under the old ORG , the appeal court was required to examine an appeal against the first - instance judgment within DATE after it was lodged . In exceptional circumstances or complex cases , or in proceedings before ORG this time - limit could be extended by DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) . No further extensions were possible .

The new ORG establishes that the appeal court must start the examination of the appeal DATE after it is lodged ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Rule CARDINAL provided that all inmates , whether suspects or defendants , had to be given , among other things : a sleeping place ; bedding consisting of CARDINAL mattress , CARDINAL pillow and one blanket ; bed linen consisting of CARDINAL sheets and a pillowcase ; a towel ; crockery and cutlery , including a bowl , a mug and a spoon ; and seasonal clothes ( if the inmate had no clothes of his own ) .

Rule CARDINAL stated that cells in pre - trial detention centres must be equipped with , among other things , a table and benches with enough seating space for the number of inmates , sanitation facilities , tap water , day lamps and nighttime lighting .

Rule CARDINAL provided that prisoners were to receive food CARDINAL times a day , with warm meals provided in accordance with the norms laid down by the Government of GPE .

Under Rule CARDINAL , inmates had the right to have a shower at least once DATE for TIME . They were to receive fresh bed linen after they had taken a shower .

Rule CARDINAL provided that an inmate could receive visits from his lawyer , family members or other persons , subject to written permission from an investigator or an investigative body , the number of visits being limited to CARDINAL per month .

Order no . CARDINAL of ORG for the Execution of Sentences of DATE deals with the implementation of the “ ORG - trial detention centres DATE ” programme .

NORP The programme is aimed at improving the functioning of pre - trial detention centres so as to ensure their compliance with the requirements of NORP legislation . It expressly acknowledges the issue of overcrowding in pre - trial detention centres and seeks to reduce and stabilise the number of detainees in order to resolve the problem .

NORP The programme mentions pre - trial detention centre IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in the town of PERSON as being amongst the ones affected . In particular , the programme states that on DATE the detention centre had a capacity of CARDINAL inmates but in fact accommodated CARDINAL detainees , in other words , PERCENT more than the permitted number .

The relevant extracts from ORG of ORG for the prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the CPT ” ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG ’s mandate . All the services and activities within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate ; the overall quality of life in the establishment will be lowered , perhaps signiﬁcantly . Moreover , the level of overcrowding in a prison , or in a particular part of it , might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint .

A satisfactory programme of activities ( work , education , sport , etc . ) is of crucial importance for the well - being of prisoners ... [ P]risoners can not simply be left to languish for DATE , possibly DATE , locked up in their cells , and this regardless of how good material conditions might be within the cells . The ORG considers that one should aim at ensuring that prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable part of DATE ( TIME or more ) outside their cells , engaged in purposeful activity of a varied nature ...

Speciﬁc mention should be made of outdoor exercise . The requirement that prisoners be allowed TIME of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard ... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities should be reasonably spacious ...

Ready access to proper toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane environment ...

The ORG would add that it is particularly concerned when it ﬁnds a combination of overcrowding , poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet / washing facilities in the same establishment . The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners .

It is also very important for prisoners to maintain reasonably good contact with the outside world . Above all , a prisoner must be given the means of safeguarding his relationships with his family and close friends . The guiding principle should be the promotion of contact with the outside world ; any limitations upon such contact should be based exclusively on security concerns of an appreciable nature or resource considerations ... ”

“ CARDINAL . As the ORG pointed out in DATE ORG , prison overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG ’s mandate ( cf . ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) . An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation ; a constant lack of privacy ( even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility ) ; reduced out - of - cell activities , due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available ; overburdened health - care services ; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff . This list is far from exhaustive .

The ORG has been led to conclude on CARDINAL occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across LOC and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention . The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous ORG ...

In a number of countries visited by the ORG , particularly in central and eastern LOC , inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a DATE basis , such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities . The ORG has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when , as is frequently the case , the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions ... Large - capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives ... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level ; further , in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions .

The ORG frequently encounters devices , such as metal shutters , slats , or plates ﬁtted to cell windows , which deprive prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from entering the accommodation . They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre - trial prisoners . The ORG fully accepts that speciﬁc security measures designed to prevent the risk of collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required in respect of certain prisoners ... [ E]ven when such measures are required , they should never involve depriving the prisoners concerned of natural light and fresh air . The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy ... ”


The applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national of NORP origin , who was born in DATE .

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

The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE but continued immediately to GPE where he was stopped at the border . He applied for asylum but was sent back to GPE in accordance with ORG . He then applied for asylum in GPE .

The applicant claimed that he is an intelligence officer at ORG of GPE and that he has taken part in the hostilities between NORP and NORP forces , including the NORP defence of the city of PERSON . He stated that he had sent several letters to President PERSON and other NORP politicians , protesting against the war and calling the President , inter alia , a bandit and a criminal . He left GPE to escape from the NORP security police which , allegedly , had threatened his life and was searching for him . During DATE , he had been arrested by the NORP police and detained in a psychiatric clinic for DATE . Also , on CARDINAL occasion , the flat where he lived had been under fire . He continued to send letters to President PERSON while waiting for his asylum application to be determined . He maintained that he would be arrested and executed upon his return to GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Migrationsverket ) rejected the asylum application and ordered the applicant ’s expulsion to GPE . ORG considered that the applicant ’s fears were exaggerated and that his political activities were not such as to constitute a ground for asylum or otherwise demonstrate that he was in need of protection in GPE .

The applicant appealed , adding to what he had previously stated that he would risk imprisonment for DATE due to the contents of the letters he had sent .

On DATE ORG ( Utlänningsnämnden ) rejected the appeal . ORG considered that the letters in question could have given the NORP security police occasion to check the applicant , maybe even to keep him under surveillance . However , no further interest from the security police could be expected . ORG concluded that neither the nature of the applicant ’s activities , his possible encounters with the security police nor the possible future trial and sentence under ordinary NORP law for statements made in the letters could be considered as grounds for asylum .

On DATE the ORG indicated to the respondent Government , under LAW , that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to expel the applicant to GPE pending clarification of the facts submitted by the applicant .

DATE the ORG was informed by ORG that the applicant , on DATE , had returned to GPE voluntarily .

Following the ORG ’s request for certain factual information , under Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG , the respondent Government submitted that the applicant had voluntarily attended a meeting with ORG on DATE to discuss his return to GPE . As the applicant expressed hesitation about the return , it was decided that he was to be accompanied to the airport on DATE of departure by CARDINAL officials from ORG . These officials were not authorised to compulsorily enforce the deportation , however . The applicant was at the time staying at one of ORG reception centres but was not detained or subjected to other restrictions . On DATE , at TIME , the applicant , who had a valid NORP passport , travelled by plane to GPE . He was supposed to continue the journey to his home town NORP DATE by plane and bus .

In reply , the applicant claimed that he was deported to GPE by force . Upon arrival in GPE he was arrested but he was released after he bribed the border guards . He then returned to ORG . By a letter of CARDINAL December CARDINAL he informed the ORG that he had travelled without a visa to GPE , where he was detained with a view to his deportation back to GPE . On DATE ORG ( Amtsgericht ) of Güstrow prolonged his detention until DATE .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was employed by a construction co - operative ; his duty was to disinfect pieces of wood with chemicals . On account of various illnesses which the applicant alleged were caused by this activity , he suffered a PERCENT disability . In DATE he instituted proceedings in ORG . He claimed that his diseases had been caused by the chemicals and that his former employer should pay him compensation . On DATE ORG dismissed the action . This judgment was quashed by ORG on DATE . The case was remitted to the first instance court .

In the resumed proceedings , the respondent employer was replaced by its successor . DATE and DATE , ORG held CARDINAL hearings and obtained an opinion from ORG . On that date it delivered a judgment and dismissed the applicant ’s action . On DATE the applicant appealed .

After a hearing on DATE , on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

Following the applicant ’s successful request of CARDINAL DATE to have his case re - opened , ORG held hearings on DATE , and DATE and DATE . By CARDINAL DATE the opinions of further CARDINAL experts were obtained . Another hearing was held on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action , holding that the respondent was not liable for the applicant ’s sickness .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . On DATE the applicant filed a petition for review . On DATE ORG appointed a legal - aid lawyer for him . On DATE it scheduled a hearing for DATE .

On DATE the liquidator of the successor to the applicant ’s former employer informed ORG that the respondent had been liquidated on DATE and deleted from the company register on DATE . On DATE ORG interrupted the proceedings until the respondent ’s successor joined the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant requested that the liquidator be allowed to join the proceedings as the defendant ’s successor .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request , observing that the liquidator was not the successor .

In separate proceedings , on DATE the applicant requested that the proceedings resulting in the defendant ’s liquidation be re - opened , since he had never been informed of them . On DATE ORG Economic Collegium dismissed this request . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal since the request was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of LAW no . PERSON of DATE ( “ LAW ” ) . In its reasoning , ORG made reference to the fact that , under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL(g ) of Act no . ORG of DATE on ORG - operatives , the respondent had ceased to exist ipso iure without a successor ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE ORG ( Yüksek Askeri Şura ) decided to discharge the applicant from the army on grounds of acts of “ insubordination and immoral conduct ” pursuant to LAW .

The Government submit the following in the light of the intelligence reports concerning the applicant :

The applicant , a non - commissioned officer , was a member of ORG ( Devrim Yanlısı PERSON ) . He was involved in disseminating the extreme religious ideology together with his wife . He established contacts with persons who adopted this ideology . He had an antisocial character and his wife carried an NORP scarf .

The applicant was considered as an undisciplined and insubordinate soldier . He received a written warning for being undisciplined and was sentenced to CARDINAL days’ confinement for disobedience .

A committee of CARDINAL members of the armed forces concluded , in the light of the findings of the above intelligence reports , that the applicant had breached military discipline and that he should be discharged from the army . Subsequently , ORG based its decision on that opinion .

The relevant provisions of the LAW are as follows :

“ None of the rights and freedoms set forth in the LAW may be exercised with the aim of undermining the territorial integrity of the ORG or the indivisible unity of its people , imperilling the existence of ORG and the Republic , abolishing fundamental rights and freedoms , handing over control of the ORG to a single individual or group or bringing about the dominance of CARDINAL social class over the others , establishing discrimination on the grounds of language , race , religion or adherence to a religious sect or setting up by any other means a ORG order based on such beliefs and opinions . ”

“ Everyone shall have the right to freedom of conscience , faith and religious belief . Prayers , worship and religious services shall be conducted freely , provided that they do not violate the provisions of LAW . No one shall be compelled to participate in prayers , worship or religious services or to reveal his religious beliefs and convictions ; nor shall he be censured or prosecuted because of his religious beliefs or convictions . ...

No one may exploit or abuse religion , religious feelings or things held sacred by religion in any manner whatsoever with a view to causing the social , economic , political or legal order of the ORG to be based on religious precepts , even if only in part , or for the purpose of securing political or personal influence thereby . ”

“ All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review ...

Decisions of the President of the Republic concerning matters within his sole jurisdiction and decisions of ORG shall not be subject to judicial review .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW provides that a disciplinary action can not be imposed to the civil servants provided that that the right to defence is respected . Moreover , it lays out that the disciplinary actions , other that the warnings and the reprimands are subject to legal control . The provisions concerning the soldiers are reserved . LAW on ORG stipulates that the disciplinary actions imposed to the soldiers are not subject to legal control .

Section CARDINAL ( c ) of ORG provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged to be inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline or immoral behaviour on CARDINAL of the grounds set out below , as established in CARDINAL or more documents drawn up during their service in the last military rank they held , shall be subject to the provisions of LAW .

Where their conduct and attitude reveal that they have adopted unlawful opinions . ”

Section CARDINAL ( c ) of LAW provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline and immoral behaviour shall be subject to the provisions of LAW . LAW shall lay down which authorities have jurisdiction to commence proceedings , to examine , monitor and draw conclusions from personnel assessment files and to carry out any other act or formality in such proceedings . A decision of ORG is required to discharge an officer whose case has been submitted by ORG to ORG . ”

Section CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW provides :

“ ( b ) Discharge from the army for the acts of insubordination and immoral conduct :

Notwithstanding the seniority in the service , the non - commissioned officers whose maintenance is considered to be inappropriate for the acts of insubordination and immoral conduct are subject to PERSON on ORG . The investigation , examination and follow - up of the notation reports and the formalities and the competent authorities fulfilling these duties are subject to the provisions of The Regulations on assessment of officers and non - commissioned officers . The General Staff determines which non - commissioned ORG cases concerning their discharge from the army should be examined by ORG . ”

LAW on assessment of officers and non - commissioned officers provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , the compulsory retirement procedure shall be applied to all servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged to be inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline or immoral behaviour on CARDINAL of the grounds set out below , as established in CARDINAL or more documents drawn up during their service in the last military rank they held :

( e ) where by his conduct and attitude the serviceman concerned has provided evidence that he holds unlawful , subversive , separatist , fundamentalist and ideological political opinions or takes an active part in the propagation of such opinions . ”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture)

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . On DATE he was charged with unlawful fishing and misappropriation of QUANTITY of fish .

On DATE ORG , in a closed sitting , heard an application to remand the applicant in custody , which it granted . The reasons for remanding him in custody relied upon by the court were that he had changed his address and that he might re - offend . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present at the hearing and they found out about the detention order DATE , when the applicant was arrested .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was arrested at his home in PERSON and taken to ORG where an investigating judge saw him and confirmed the detention warrant of DATE . He was then taken to the ORG detention centre .

According to the applicant , he was kept in a small cell called the “ aquarium ” until TIME DATE , when he was moved to cell no . CARDINAL . The “ aquarium ” was QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide and did not have a bed , chair , toilet or sink . It was intended for periods of detention not longer than TIME . Cell no . CARDINAL was located below floor level and did not have windows . There was no ventilation . The electric light was always on , although it was so weak that it was difficult to distinguish the faces of the co - detainees . The cell was QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide and there were QUANTITY detainees in it . The cell was not equipped with a toilet but instead had a big bucket in a corner which was not separated from the rest of the cell . There was no sink and the detainees had to keep water in plastic bottles which they were allowed to refill once in a while outside the cell . There were no beds , but only a brick shelf a little higher than the floor on which CARDINAL people could sleep . The cell was not provided with any bedding and the applicant alleged that he was only able to sleep for TIME per day . The cell was infested with insects , with the result that the applicant was covered with painful bites , some of which later became wounds . The applicant sent the ORG photographs showing the bites on his body . The food was insufficient and of very poor quality . The detainees were fed only once a day from dirty plates and the applicant was permanently hungry . His relatives were not allowed to bring him food because he would not confess to the charges against him . The applicant was unable to have any contact with his relatives and the outside world . He did not have any paper , pen or envelopes . The room was not provided with a radio or television and due to the lack of natural light the applicant never knew what time of day it was .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife hired a lawyer and learned about the detention warrant of DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer challenged the detention order before ORG . He complained , inter alia , LAW , of the inhuman and degrading conditions of the applicant ’s detention . After giving a detailed description of the conditions in which the applicant was being detained , he asked the court to find that the applicant ’s rights guaranteed by LAW had been breached and to award him compensation .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer repeated the habeas corpus request and the complaint under LAW before the Chişinău Court of Appeal . The above complaints have never been examined by ORG .

In the meantime the applicant complained on several occasions to the prison authorities and to the sanitation department about the poor conditions of detention . However , his complaints were unsuccessful .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer complained to the ORG district prosecutor about the applicant ’s poor conditions of detention . As a result of that complaint the prison authorities moved the applicant to another cell without disinfecting it and reported to the prosecutor that the problem had been remedied . According to the applicant , the only shower in the prison was fixed then .

On DATE the detention warrant expired and the applicant was released .

The criminal proceedings against the applicant ended with the judgment of ORG of DATE , by which the applicant was ordered to pay a fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

The relevant findings of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG , unofficial translation ) read as follows :

“ B. Establishments visited

... - EDP of ORG ( Follow - up visit )

... b. remand centres ( EDPs )

In its report on the DATE visit ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , the ORG was forced to conclude that material conditions of detention in the remand centres ( EDPs ) visited amounted in many respects to inhuman and degrading treatment and , in addition , constituted a significant risk to the health of persons detained . While recognising that it was not possible to transform the current situation in these establishments TIME , the ORG recommended a certain number of immediate palliative measures to guarantee basic conditions of detention that respect the fundamental requirements of life and human dignity .

NORP Unfortunately , during the DATE visit , the delegation found barely any traces of such palliative measures , in fact quite the opposite . ...

One can only regret that in their efforts to renovate these premises - which under the current economic circumstances deserve praise - the NORP authorities have paid no attention to the ORG recommendations . In fact , this state of affairs strongly suggests that , setting aside economic considerations , the issue of material conditions of detention in police establishments remains influenced by an outdated concept of deprivation of liberty .

Turning to the other EDPs visited across GPE , with very few exceptions the delegation observed the same types of disastrous and insalubrious material conditions . A detailed description is superfluous , since it has all been highlighted already in DATE of the report on the DATE visit .

In PERSON , these conditions were exacerbated by serious overcrowding . At the time of the visit , there were CARDINAL prisoners for CARDINAL places , requiring QUANTITY persons to cram into a cell measuring QUANTITY into cells of CARDINAL m² .

The delegation also received numerous complaints about the quantity of food in the EDPs visited . This normally comprised tea without sugar and a slice of bread in the morning , cereal porridge at lunch time and hot water in TIME . In some establishments , food was served just once a day and was confined to a piece of bread and soup . ...

... Concerning the issue of access to toilets in due time , the ORG wishes to stress that it considers that the practice according to which detainees comply with the needs of nature by using receptacles in the presence of CARDINAL or several other persons , in a confined space such as the ORG cells which also serve as their living space , is in itself degrading , not only for the individual concerned but also for those forced to witness what is happening . Consequently , the ORG recommends that clear instructions be given to surveillance staff that detainees placed in cells without toilets should DATE if they so request – be taken out of their cell without delay during DATE in order to go to the toilet .

The ORG also recommends that steps be taken to :

- reduce the overcrowding in PERSON as rapidly as possible and to comply with the official occupancy level ;

- supply persons in custody with clean mattresses and clean blankets ;

- authorise persons detained in all EDPs to receive packages from the outset of their custody and to have access to reading matter .

In the light of certain observations made , particularly in the ORG of ORG , the ORG also reiterates its recommendation concerning strict compliance , in all circumstances , with the rules governing separation of adults and minors . ”

“ CARDINAL . Conditions of detention .

a. Institutions of ORG

Since DATE , when it first visited GPE , the ORG has serious concern for the conditions of detention in the institutions of ORG .

The ORG notes that CARDINAL out of CARDINAL EDPs have been subjected to “ cosmetic ” repair and that CARDINAL have been equipped with places for DATE walks . Nevertheless , the DATE visit did not allow lifting the concern of ORG . In fact , most recommendations made have not been implemented .

Whether CARDINAL refers to the police stations or EDPs visited , the material conditions are invariably subject to the same criticism as in the past . Detention cells had no access to daylight or a very limited such access ; artificial light – with rare exceptions – was mediocre . Nowhere did the persons obliged to pass TIME in detention receive mattresses and blankets , even those detained for prolonged periods . Those who had such items could only have obtained them from their relatives ...

As for food ... in the EDPs the arrangements made were the same as those criticised in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report on that visit ) : generally CARDINAL modest distributions of food per day including tea and a slice of bread in the morning , a bowl of cereals at TIME and tea or warm water in TIME . Sometimes there was CARDINAL distribution of food per day . Fortunately , the rules for receiving parcels have been relaxed , which allowed detainees with relatives outside to slightly improve these meagre DATE portions .

In sum , the material conditions remain problematic in the police stations ; they remain disastrous in EDPs , continuing in many aspects to amount , for the detainees , to inhuman and degrading treatment . ”

“ II . Institutions of ORG

In so far as the conditions of detention in the police establishments are concerned , it appears that this is the field in which the least progress has been achieved . It is not necessary to enumerate here in detail all the shortcomings observed by the delegation , which are more or less the same as those observed during past visits ( and of which ORG is perfectly aware ) . ... Numerous persons are still detained overnight in police establishments , in cells which should not be used to detain persons for TIME . It is high time to remedy these problems , in particular by placing accused persons under the supervision of institutions of ORG and building new prisons corresponding to ORG standards and to the norms laid down by the NORP legislation . ”

According to LAW , a party to criminal proceedings can contest the actions or inactions of the criminal investigator before the investigating judge .


PERSON was born in DATE . He has been a GPE national since CARDINAL DATE although he has retained his original NORP nationality . PERSON currently resides in GPE . He is a trader .

Souffiane ( or PERSON ) PERSON is PERSON son . PERSON was born on DATE in GPE . He is a NORP national . He currently resides in GPE .

PERSON married PERSON DATE . CARDINAL children were born to them , namely PERSON ( on DATE ) , PERSON ( on DATE ) , ORG ( on DATE ) , PERSON ( on DATE ) and ORG . The applicants have stated that the marriage was dissolved in DATE . However , this statement is not corroborated by documentary evidence . In any event , the children remained with their mother after PERSON moved to the GPE .

Salah Ahmut migrated to the GPE in DATE . In DATE he married a GPE national , PERSON , who already had QUANTITY children from a previous marriage . Her marriage with PERSON remained childless .

The DATE ’s file contains a sworn translation into LANGUAGE of Ms F.A. ’s death certificate , from which it would appear that PERSON died as a result of a traffic accident on DATE . The ORG ’s file also contains a sworn translation into NORP of a notarial statement which was dated DATE and countersigned by a judge , from which it appears that ORG , PERSON and ORG are indeed the issue of the marriage of PERSON and PERSON and that PERSON is their legal guardian under NORP and NORP law .

ORG After their mother ’s death the children were cared for by PERSON mother , PERSON

Salah PERSON ’s eldest son , PERSON , entered the GPE without a provisional residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in DATE . He was expelled in DATE after a residence permit ( vergunning tot verblijf - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was refused him . He has since resided in GPE where he is a trader .

The DATE ’s file contains a document in NORP from a bank in GPE from which it appears that from DATE until DATE PERSON received financial support in the amount of CARDINAL NORP dirhams per year . Although these sums were paid to her through an account with a bank in GPE in the name of a person with the same family name as PERSON second wife , it is not contested that the money was supplied by PERSON . However , PERSON never applied to ORG for child benefits ( kinderbijslag ) for ORG .

PERSON and his second wife , PERSON , separated in DATE . Following divorce proceedings , their marriage was dissolved on DATE . On DATE PERSON married PERSON , a NORP national , in the GPE . PERSON had been living in the GPE since DATE . She was granted a residence permit for the purpose of living with her husband on CARDINAL DATE .

Salah PERSON ’s second and third sons , PERSON and Chaouki Dayaf , entered the GPE in DATE and DATE respectively . In DATE they were granted residence permits to enable them to prepare for entrance examinations at ORG .

The DATE ’s file contains a document in NORP claimed to be a sworn translation of a statement by a ORG physician dated DATE to the effect that on that date PERSON , who was then DATE , was suffering from respiratory problems and kidney failure and was receiving treatment as an out - patient .

ORG The applicants state that DATE ( when PERSON migrated to the GPE - see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and DATE ( the date of ORG ’s arrival in the GPE - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) NORP visited the GPE CARDINAL times , each time for a period of DATE .

Souffiane arrived in the GPE on DATE , in the company of his sister ORG . Neither held a provisional residence visa .

Souffiane was enrolled at a primary school in GPE , which he attended until his eventual return to GPE in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE , PERSON , PERSON and ORG appeared before the officer of the GPE police in charge of matters concerning aliens . As PERSON ’s legal representative , PERSON applied to the GPE police for a residence permit for NORP . ORG filed a similar application for herself . The stated purpose of both applications was to enable ORG and PERSON to reside with their father , who had by then become a GPE national ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG The same day the GPE police forwarded the applications to the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) with an accompanying note . According to the police , neither the death of PERSON nor the fact of her divorce from PERSON had been proved by means of documentary evidence . Nor could PERSON show that he was the children ’s legal guardian . For these reasons it was recommended that the Deputy Minister reject the application in respect of NORP as inadmissible . It was also recommended to reject ORG ’s application on substantive grounds , namely that she had not been part of PERSON family since DATE nor had she apparently received financial support from him and that there were other relatives who could take care of her in GPE .

ORG On DATE the Deputy Minister gave reasoned decisions rejecting the applications on substantive grounds . The Deputy Minister found that actual family ties between PERSON on the one hand and PERSON and PERSON on the other had been broken DATE , that PERSON moral or financial responsibility for ORG had not been established and that it had not been shown that their grandmother or other relatives could not care for them . He noted in addition that this decision did not constitute a violation of the PERSON family life , protected by LAW ( article CARDINAL) : to the extent that such family life existed , adherence to a policy restricting immigration was necessary in a NORP society in the interests of the economic wellbeing of the country . In the same decision he ordered the expulsion of ORG from the GPE .

ORG On DATE PERSON , PERSON and ORG lodged requests with the Deputy Minister for revision ( herziening ) of his decision , reserving the right to state their grounds for so doing at a later stage . On DATE the Deputy Minister acknowledged the receipt of these requests and decided that they should have suspensive effect with regard to ORG ’s and ORG ’s expulsion ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE PERSON , PERSON and ORG filed statements of their grounds for requesting revision . They stated that the Deputy Minister ’s establishment of the facts had been incorrect ; in support of their position they submitted copies of the documents mentioned in DATE above . They also observed that CARDINAL of ORG ’s and ORG ’s brothers , PERSON and Chaouki Dayaf , were in the GPE for study purposes and submitted statements from ORG to the effect that they had applied for admission .

ORG The Deputy Minister referred the matter to ORG ( PERSON vreemdelingenzaken - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for advice on DATE .

ORG As the Deputy Minister did not decide within DATE , PERSON PERSON , PERSON and ORG , acting on the legal assumption that their requests had been refused , lodged an appeal with the PERSON on DATE . They based their appeal on the grounds put forward in support of their request for revision , to which the Deputy Minister had not responded .

In view of this appeal , the Deputy Minister took no further action with regard to the request for revision of his original decision although he did not withdraw his request to ORG for advice .

ORG held a hearing on DATE , during which both PERSON ORG ’s legal representative - and PERSON were heard . During this hearing it emerged , inter alia , that PERSON PERSON had CARDINAL brothers living in GPE and that ORG had become pregnant in the GPE by a trader who , although he lived in GPE , made frequent visits to the country .

ORG submitted its advice to the Deputy Minister in a document dated DATE . Not finding it established that PERSON PERSON had been divorced from Ms F.A. , it concluded that PERSON and ORG had never belonged to the family which PERSON had established in the GPE with ORG had reached an age at which she no longer needed to be cared for and she could , if necessary , take care of NORP . To the extent that ORG and ORG needed additional care , this could be supplied , if not by PERSON mother , then at least by PERSON or by their CARDINAL uncles . PERSON could continue to provide financial support from the GPE if necessary .

A decision rejecting the applications for a residence permit would not , in the ORG ’s view , violate LAW ( article CARDINAL) . Although the bond between PERSON on the one hand and PERSON and PERSON on the other amounted to " family life " , there would be no " interference " with it since it could be continued as before . Moreover , any " interference " could be considered " necessary in a NORP society " in the interests of the economic well - being of the country .

ORG On DATE the Deputy Minister notified the GPE police that PERSON , PERSON and ORG had filed an appeal to the PERSON and that they would be allowed to await the outcome in the GPE .

ORG The Deputy Minister filed statements of defence to the single - judge Chamber of the PERSON on DATE . His arguments corresponded to the grounds on which ORG had based its advice ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG Following a hearing on DATE , the single - judge Chamber of the PERSON dismissed the appeals by an oral judgment on DATE . Its grounds for so doing were essentially those suggested by the Deputy Minister . It noted in addition that in its view the GPE were not under a positive obligation to grant ORG or PERSON a residence permit , since the latter ’s interests had to be balanced against the general interest served by the implementation of a restrictive immigration policy .

Its reasoning included the following :

" [ The decision not to admit NORP ] does not violate LAW article CARDINAL) of ORG . It can not be said that there is an interference with family life [ familie- of gezinsleven ] as NORP is not being deprived of residence rights [ verblijfstitel ] which formerly enabled him to carry on his family life with the appellant , his father . Nor can any positive obligation incumbent on the respondent to grant him residence rights be derived from LAW , since ORG ’s above - described circumstances must be balanced against the general interest , which the respondent must uphold , which requires the maintenance of a restrictive immigration policy . "

Souffiane left the GPE on DATE . As from the same date his name was removed from the municipal population register ( bevolkingsregister ) of the municipality of GPE .

He has been at a boarding - school in GPE ever since . The applicants state that he has made frequent visits to his father in the GPE , and that the latter has visited him in GPE .

ORG The introductory application to the Commission , which was lodged on DATE , gives ORG ’s and ORG ’s place of residence on that date as ORG . Other members of the PERSON family at present living in GPE are PERSON eldest son PERSON and CARDINAL of PERSON brothers . It is not known whether PERSON mother is still alive .

ORG The following is a description of the regime governing the admission of aliens to GPE territory which applied , at the time of the events complained of , to aliens in general . Binding rules were , and are , laid down in LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet ) , LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit ) and PERSON ( Voorschrift Vreemdelingen ) .

ORG Until DATE , the ORG ’s policy was defined in the CARDINAL Aliens Circular ( Vreemdelingencirculaire DATE ) and the DATE Border Guarding Circular ( Grensbewakingscirculaire ) . The competent tribunals have consistently held that it was incompatible with general principles of good governance ( algemene beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur ) to deviate from the policy rules set out in these documents to the detriment of an alien .

ORG Special regimes , not relevant to the present case , applied to nationals of ORG or GPE member GPE , to nationals of certain other GPE ( not including GPE ) under bilateral treaties and to refugees as defined in LAW A of LAW of DATE relating to ORG - no . CARDINAL , vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) and LAW relating to LAW DATE ( ORG no . DATE . ORG , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) .

ORG Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , to be allowed access to the GPE an alien had to qualify for admission - that is , either fulfil the requirements of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , or possess a residence or settlement permit ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) - and hold a valid passport or equivalent identity document containing a visa if a visa requirement applied ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .

ORG An alien who was refused access to GPE territory had to leave the country as soon as possible and could , if necessary , be forcibly removed ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

ORG An alien who had been granted access but did not , or no longer , qualify for admission could be expelled ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

ORG Under LAW taken together with section CARDINAL of LAW , aliens who , upon entering the country , had complied with the required formalities at the border were admitted if and for so long as they conformed with LAW and delegated legislation , had sufficient means to cover the cost of living in the GPE and of the return journey , and did not threaten public peace , public order or national security . The right to admission based on section CARDINAL was a temporary right based directly on the law and therefore not conditional on the grant of any permit . However , in principle , a visa was required ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the duration of the right was limited : to the period of validity of the visa , or to DATE in the case of those aliens not subject to visa requirements .

Subject to certain exceptions not relevant to the present case , to be granted access to the GPE aliens had to hold a valid passport containing a transit visa ( transitvisum ) , valid for DATE , or a travel visa ( reisvisum ) , valid for DATE ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .

ORG To obtain access to the GPE with a view to remaining for DATE , aliens who had not already been granted a residence permit had to hold a valid passport containing a provisional residence visa ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . A provisional residence visa was valid for a period of DATE ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

ORG A provisional residence visa could be applied for abroad , through a consular or diplomatic representative , or in the GPE , via the head of the local police . Applications were decided on by the Minister for ORG ( section CARDINAL of the Aliens Ordinance and section CARDINAL of the Sovereign Ordinance ( PERSON ) of CARDINAL DATE ) after consultation with the Minister of Justice ( Minister PERSON ) . Applications for such a visa were considered according to the same criteria as those applying to applications for a residence permit , since such a visa would only be issued if the alien concerned was expected to be granted such a permit .

ORG Aliens wishing to reside in the GPE for DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had to hold a residence permit ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . Such a permit was applied for to , and granted by , the Minister of Justice ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . It was valid for DATE and renewable ( section CARDINAL of the Aliens Schedule ) .

ORG A residence permit could be applied for either in the GPE ( through the head of the local police - section CARDINAL of LAW ) or abroad ( through a diplomatic or consular representative ) . The application had to be submitted by the alien him or herself or , if he or she was a minor , by his or her legal representative ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON ) .

ORG The granting of a residence permit was delegated by the Minister of Justice to the head of the local police in certain cases , including cases where the alien applying for such a permit already held a provisional residence visa . In principle , a residence permit was refused an alien who did not already hold a provisional residence visa ( DATE Aliens Circular , LAW , para . CARDINAL ) .

ORG A residence permit could be made subject to restrictions ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .

ORG An alien holding a valid residence permit was allowed to re - enter GPE territory after having left it .

ORG The Minister of ORG could grant a settlement permit ( vergunning tot vestiging - section CARDINAL of LAW ) ; such a permit was normally granted only after the alien had been legally resident in the GPE for DATE . After such an initial period , a settlement permit would be granted unless there was no reasonable certainty that the alien would be able to meet the costs of living , or if he or she had committed serious breaches of public peace or public order or constituted a serious threat to national security .

ORG Given the situation obtaining in the GPE with regard to population size and employment , government policy was , and remains , aimed at restricting the number of aliens admitted to the GPE . In general , aliens were only granted admission for residence purposes if :

a ) the GPE were obliged under international law to do so , as in the case of citizens of ORG or GPE member GPE and refugees covered by LAW relating to LAW ;

b ) this served " essential interests of the GPE " ( wezenlijk Nederlands belang ) , e.g. economic or cultural interests ;

c ) there were " cogent reasons of a humanitarian nature " .

In addition , aliens who , under this policy , were eligible for admission were in principle expected to have sufficient means at their disposal to cover the costs of living and not to threaten public peace or public order or national security . These were general rules which did not apply in the same way to all categories of aliens , specific criteria having been developed applicable to certain categories ( DATE Aliens Circular , LAW , para . CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

Specific criteria applied to the admission of aliens in connection with the reunification or establishment of families involving spouses , partners or close relatives of GPE nationals or aliens holding residence or settlement permits . Under these criteria , it was possible that admission could be granted for the purpose of reuniting or establishing a family even if the applicable conditions had not all been met , if there were " cogent reasons of a humanitarian nature " ( DATE Aliens Circular , LAW , para . CARDINAL ) .

ORG Government policy with regard to the admission of aliens with a view to continuing or establishing family life in the GPE ( gezinshereniging ) was defined in LAW of FAC .

This chapter contained an express reference to LAW ( article CARDINAL) . It was stated in paragraph QUANTITY that the refusal of a residence permit did not constitute an " interference " with the right to family life if the relative with whom the alien wished to continue or establish family life could reasonably be expected to follow the alien to a place outside the GPE . There might , however , be a positive obligation incumbent on the GPE authorities to grant a residence permit . To determine whether this was the case , the interests of the ORG in denying such a permit should be weighed against the individual ’s interests , taking into account the age of the persons involved , their situation in their country of origin , their degree of dependence on relatives in the GPE and , if applicable , the GPE nationality of any persons involved . If a residence permit was refused after an examination for compliance with the requirements of DATE ( article CARDINAL) , this fact was to be mentioned in the decision .

Minor children - minority being determined according to GPE law ( LAW PERSON , para . CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) - who " actually belonged to the family " ( feitelijk behoren QUANTITY ) , for instance children from a previous marriage of a person lawfully resident in the GPE , were granted a residence permit ( LAW , para . CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

ORG Until LAW entered into force on DATE , an alien could , in the event of a refusal to grant a residence permit , apply in writing to the Minister of ORG for administrative revision of his decision ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . If such an application was not decided on DATE , it was deemed to have been refused ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . Such a request for revision did not suspend the alien ’s expulsion unless it was made DATE before the expiry of the period during which the alien was allowed to remain in the GPE ( section DATE ( CARDINAL ) ) . It was , however , open to the Minister to decide that the request would have " suspensive effect " .

ORG The advice of ORG had to be obtained if a request was made for revision of a decision to expel an alien whose main place of residence for DATE or more had been in the GPE and who had complied with the formalities required by LAW ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( c ) taken together with LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( g ) of LAW ) .

ORG In the event of a negative decision , or of failure to decide within due time , an appeal lay to ORG of the Raad van State ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . However , no application could be made to the President of ORG for a provisional measure or for acceleration of the proceedings ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .