No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged ill-treatment;Violation of Art. 3 with regard to lack of effective investigation;No violation of Art. 3 with regard to conditions of transfer;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3;Violation of P4-2;Violation of P1-3;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was arrested on DATE in connection with an investigation involving CARDINAL people under a warrant issued by ORG on DATE . He was suspected of being a member of a mafia - type organisation in ORG and of running a financial company on behalf of his brother - in - law , who was believed to be the leader of the main mafia gang in the area ( Article CARDINAL bis of LAW makes it an offence to be a member of a mafia - type organisation ) .

The accusations against the applicant were based in particular on statements made by CARDINAL PERSON , who also stood accused of being a member of a mafia - type organisation but had become a pentito ( a former mafioso who has decided to cooperate with the authorities ) . PERSON 's information about the applicant had been obtained from CARDINAL G.D. , who had been killed by the ORG on DATE , and had , in turn , received the information from another deceased victim of the ORG , GPE

The applicant was initially detained at FAC , where he spent DATE in isolation .

His first application for bail was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

ORG found in particular that although the statements made by PERSON regarding the applicant 's involvement in the ORG had provided no information or objective evidence about the applicant 's actual role and activity , they could nonetheless constitute sufficient grounds to justify his detention , having regard to the credibility and reliability of the various statements PERSON had made concerning other people or events connected with the ORG ( it applied the “ global credibility ” criterion – attendibilità complessiva ) .

It added that ORG had identified the applicant from a photograph and provided information concerning his exact role in the mafia - type organisation . He had indicated that the applicant , who was the brotherinlaw of the head of CARDINAL of the ORG mafia clans , ran a financial company and , along with another person whom PERSON had previously identified as being a member of the ORG , was a co - owner of a management company that ran a discotheque .

ORG also found that the applicant 's detention was warranted by the need to protect witnesses , since most of the evidence took the form of oral testimony and there was therefore a risk of its being lost through pressure being brought to bear on the witnesses .

On DATE the applicant was transferred with CARDINAL other alleged mafiosi to the prison on the island of GPE .

On an unspecified date , he appealed to ORG against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He argued in particular that he had been detained solely on the basis of ORG 's statements , which were unsupported by any factual evidence . In addition , he said that ORG had refused to accept that he was not the manager of a financial company and had taken that allegation as evidence that he was an executive in local finance and as supporting the accusation that he was a branch treasurer for the ORG . In fact , he was merely an employee of the company and had even been the subject of disciplinary proceedings . However , ORG dismissed his appeal on DATE .

The applicant made a further application for bail to the investigating judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari ) , contending that there were not sufficient grounds for keeping him in detention , but it was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant 's appeal to ORG was dismissed on DATE on the ground that LAW of LAW created a presumption that the continued detention of suspects charged with belonging to a mafia - type organisation was necessary and that it was therefore for the person seeking bail to produce specific , concrete evidence to rebut that presumption . ORG considered that the applicant 's arguments – such as that related to the length of his detention – were of a general nature and had been rejected in earlier cases .

On application by the prosecution , the investigating judge at ORG made an order on DATE pursuant to LAW extending the maximum permitted period of detention pending trial .

Meanwhile , other pentiti had stated during the course of the investigation that they did not know the applicant .

The applicant appealed to ORG against the order of CARDINAL DATE , contending that the impugned order was null and void as the application for an extension had not been served beforehand on his lawyer and the court had given only general , not specific , reasons .

ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on DATE . It held that all the law required was that the parties should be heard at an adversarial hearing and that had been done in the instant case . There was no requirement that the application should be formally served beforehand .

As to whether the impugned measure was necessary , ORG found that although the reasoning in the order was somewhat succinct , it had pointed to the risk of evidence being tampered with , particularly in view of the special nature of the offence ( membership of a mafia - type organisation ) , and the danger presented by all the accused , who were suspected of belonging to a criminal organisation that engaged in serious crime such as homicide . Furthermore , the prosecution had given a full explanation as to why it had been necessary for the purposes of the investigation to make the application : namely because of the need to carry out complex banking and fiscal inquiries to clarify the extent to which the accused controlled the area . ORG also noted that the nature of the crime concerned meant that the investigation had to cover the mafiatype organisation as a whole , and , therefore , necessarily , all of the accused .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG contending that the rights of the defence had been infringed . However , his appeal was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was committed for trial on a charge of being a member of a mafia - type organisation . The public prosecutor 's office sought a DATE prison sentence .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which was lodged with the registry on DATE , ORG acquitted the applicant and ordered his release unless there were other reasons why he should remain in custody .

It observed that the case against the applicant had been founded solely on statements made by ORG on the basis of information PERSON had learnt from G.D. , who had in turn obtained that information from PERSON Both sources were now dead , thus rendering any independent corroboration of ORG 's statements impossible . The only affirmation that had been proved was that the applicant had worked at the finance company concerned , but there was no evidence that he had acted as its manager or treasurer . Indeed , that allegation had been contradicted by other witnesses and factual evidence . ORG concluded that the applicant 's guilt had not been established .

The judgment was delivered towards TIME The applicant , who had been in LOC for the verdict , was brought back to FAC , still in handcuffs , at TIME

He was not released until TIME because the registration officer , whose presence was necessary on the release of prisoners subject to a special prison regime , was unavailable .

NORP The public prosecutor 's office appealed against his acquittal .

In a judgment of DATE , which became final as regards the applicant on DATE , ORG upheld his acquittal on the ground that PERSON 's statements were unsupported by other concrete evidence and had been refuted by evidence obtained during the investigation .

The applicant was held at FAC until DATE , when he was transferred to PERSON under urgent measures taken by ORG against the ORG following the killing by that organisation of CARDINAL senior judges . PERSON had previously held CARDINAL prisoners who enjoyed a less strict regime , which included the right to work on the island outside the prison . The highsecurity prisoners were held together in the “ PERSON ” wing . A large number of prison warders from other penal institutions were also transferred to FAC .

The applicant was held at GPE without interruption until DATE . Subsequently , he was regularly transferred for short periods to enable him to be present at the various stages of the proceedings against him .

The medical register kept by PERSON shows that the applicant was in good health on arrival .

He alleged that he was ill - treated in a number of ways , detailed below , mainly DATE ( the situation subsequently improved ) .

( i ) He was regularly slapped and had sustained an injury to his right thumb . His testicles had been squeezed , a practice which the applicant said was systematically inflicted on all prisoners .

( ii ) On CARDINAL occasion the applicant was beaten and his jumper was torn . He protested . TIME a warder ordered him to shut up , insulted and then struck him , damaging the applicant 's glasses and a false tooth .

( iii ) He was manhandled on other occasions . Prisoners were allowed to put cleaning products in the corridors . Sometimes the prison warders caused the products to spill on the floor and mixed them with water , thus making the floor slippery . Prisoners were then forced to run along the corridors CARDINAL rows of warders . Those who fell were hit by warders and beaten with batons .

( iv ) He was often subjected to body searches when showering .

( v ) He had to wait very lengthy periods to see a doctor and remained handcuffed during medical examinations .

( vi ) The warders warned prisoners that they would be subjected to reprisals if they told their lawyers or other prisoners about the treatment they were receiving .

( vii ) In the presence of warders prisoners were required to bow their heads , keep their eyes to the ground , show respect , remain silent and stand to attention .

Lastly , the applicant said that transfers of prisoners from the prison to the courts for hearings took place in inhuman conditions : in the hold of the vessel , without air , light or food and with very poor hygiene .

The Pianosa Prison medical register shows that on DATE the applicant complained of a problem with a false tooth and the prison doctor therefore referred him for examination by a dentist . In DATE a further request was made for an appointment with a dentist to have a loose false tooth cemented .

On DATE the Pianosa Prison medical service requested xrays and an appointment with an orthopaedist following a complaint by the applicant of pain in his knees . On DATE , following tests , an orthopaedist noted problems – the medical record does not reveal their exact nature – in the applicant 's knees .

On DATE the dentist noted that the false tooth had completely broken and needed repair .

A medical report of CARDINAL DATE notes calcification in the knee joint . The applicant had a scan on DATE that revealed CARDINAL small wounds resulting from traumatic injury in the upper , outer part of the knee .

A medical certificate dated DATE refers to psychological disorders ( asthenia , state of confusion , depression ) that had started DATE .

On DATE , at a preliminary hearing before the PERSON investigating judge , the applicant and another prisoner alleged that they had suffered forms of ill - treatment such as “ torture , humiliation and cruelty ” in FAC until DATE . The applicant said in particular that he had suffered a broken finger and broken teeth . Even though the position had improved after DATE , he complained that the overall treatment to which he had been subjected and which had been imposed on the basis of , inter alia , section CARDINAL bis of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , was inhuman and emotionally draining .

The investigating judge informed the GPE public prosecutor 's office of the above ; the public prosecutor 's office opened an official inquiry ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and on DATE instructed the ORG carabinieri to question the applicant about the nature and duration of the illtreatment he had allegedly suffered and to obtain from him any information he had that would help to identify those responsible . It also requested the applicant 's medical records .

The applicant was interviewed on DATE by the ORG carabinieri . He said that from the moment he arrived at GPE he had been subjected to “ hidings , torture , acts of cruelty and psychological torture ” by the warders . In particular , they would hit him in the back with their hands . When he left his cell for the exercise yard he was made to run along a corridor that had been made slippery . The warders formed a line the length of the corridor and delivered kicks , punches and baton blows . On CARDINAL occasion he had protested that the warders had torn his jumper as they struck him . CARDINAL of them had told him to shut up , insulted him and then hit him , damaging his glasses and a false tooth . Prisoners were violently beaten every time they left their cells . He added , however , that he was unable to recognise the warders responsible because the prisoners were obliged to keep their heads bowed in their presence . He stated lastly that the beatings had ceased in DATE .

On DATE the carabinieri sent the interview record and the applicant 's medical file to the GPE public prosecutor 's office . They said that they would forward a list of the warders who had worked at FAC at the material time later .

NORP On DATE the applicant was interviewed by the ORG carabinieri on the instructions of the LOC public prosecutor 's office . He was shown photocopies of photographs of CARDINAL prison warders who had worked at FAC . The applicant said that he was unable to identify the person who had ill - treated him , but commented that the photographs had been taken before the relevant period and were only photocopies . He added that he would have had no difficulty in identifying the warder concerned had he been able to see him in person .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor 's office applied to have the complaint filed away without further action on the ground that the offenders could not be identified ( perché ignoti gli autori del reato ) . The LOC investigating judge made an order to that effect on DATE .

On DATE the GPE judge responsible for the execution of sentences had sent a report to the Minister of ORG and other relevant prison and administrative authorities on prison conditions in GPE .

The report followed an initial inspection of the prison in DATE in which it was noted in particular that there had been repeated violations of prisoners ' rights and a number of incidents of ill - treatment , both in the special “ PERSON ” wing and in the ordinary wings . By way of example , it was noted in the report that :

( i ) hygiene was appalling ;

( ii ) prisoners ' correspondence , though permitted subject to censorship , was totally blocked and telegrams were delivered to prisoners only after substantial delays ;

( iii ) prisoners were forced to run to the exercise yard , and probably beaten with batons on the legs ;

( iv ) prisoners were sometimes beaten with batons and subjected to other forms of ill - treatment ( for example , CARDINAL prisoner was allegedly forced to undress completely and to do floor exercises ( flessioni ) before being subjected to a rectal search , which , according to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences , had been wholly unnecessary as the prisoner had just finished doing work in the presence of other warders ; the prisoner concerned , who was slapped while getting dressed , had then consulted the prison doctor ; TIME , CARDINAL warders had subjected him to a beating in his cell ) ;

( v ) apparently , other similar incidents had taken place subsequently , although the situation appeared to have improved more recently , probably as a result of action taken against prison warders .

After information and press reports began to circulate that prisoners in PERSON were being subjected to violence , the GPE public prosecutor spent DATE on the island and informed the press that he had found nothing to support the allegations .

Further , on DATE inspectors for the ORG prison services had informed ORG at ORG that , according to information from reliable sources , there had been serious incidents of ill - treatment of prisoners at FAC . In particular , the report referred to CARDINAL incident in which a handicapped prisoner had been brought into the prison in a wheelbarrow to the jeers of the warders and another in which a prisoner had been forced to kneel before a candle .

In a note to the Minister 's principal private secretary dated CARDINAL DATE , ORG at ORG explained that the conditions referred to by the GPE judge responsible for the execution of sentences were due essentially to the fact that CARDINAL prisoners had been transferred to GPE as a matter of urgency in TIME CARDINAL DATE . That had caused practical problems which could to a large extent explain the inconvenience that had been noted . In addition , additional problems had been caused by building works in the prison .

On DATE the Director - General forwarded the conclusions of a group of experts appointed by the department to the principal private secretary to the Minister and to the public prosecutor 's office . On the basis of the information supplied by prisoners questioned in the prison , the experts had found that the allegations of ill - treatment were wholly unfounded apart from the incident concerning the moving of a handicapped prisoner in a wheelbarrow , which , however , had resulted from a lack of wheelchairs in the prison .

Following the report by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences , an inquiry was nonetheless started and the information obtained was sent to the GPE public prosecutor 's office . CARDINAL warders had been identified ; they were suspected of offences of causing bodily harm ( LAW ) and of abuse of authority over persons who had been arrested or detained ( LAW of LAW ) .

The public prosecutor 's office sought an order for both charges to be dropped , the former because no complaint had been lodged and the latter because it was time - barred . The application was allowed with regard to the offence of causing bodily harm , but dismissed with regard to the other charge and on DATE the investigating judge sought additional information . That inquiry is believed still to be under way .

In a note of CARDINAL DATE which was appended to the ORG 's observations in the proceedings before the Commission – the President of the court responsible for the execution of sentences in PERSON said that the incidents that had taken place in FAC had been ordered or tolerated by the government of DATE . He also considered that the applicant 's allegations concerning the conditions during transfers were entirely credible and that transfers of prisoners to PERSON were carried out using questionable and unjustified methods , the real purpose of which was to intimidate prisoners . He further noted that the high - security wing of FAC had been staffed by warders from other prisons who had not been subjected to any selection process and had been given “ carte blanche ” . The result , according to the President of the court , was that management of that wing of the prison had initially been characterised by abuse and irregularities .

On DATE the Minister of ORG issued an order subjecting the applicant to the special prison regime laid down in section CARDINAL bis of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE until DATE . The Minister considered that the measure was necessary in particular because of serious public - order and safety considerations following an escalation of an aggressive and ruthless campaign by the ORG , which had been responsible for the recent assassinations of CARDINAL judges and QUANTITY policemen and for car - bomb attacks in large NORP cities . That situation made it necessary to sever connections between certain prisoners and their milieu . The applicant was subject to the measure concerned because he was of bad character and dangerous ; those factors suggested that he had maintained contact with the criminal milieu which he would be able to use to issue instructions or establish links with the outside world that could in turn lead to a breakdown of public order or jeopardise security in prison institutions . In addition , it was a reasonable assumption that prisoners such as the applicant would recruit other prisoners or dominate and humiliate them in prison , just as they did in criminal organisations .

The order represented a derogation from LAW and imposed the following restrictions :

( i ) a ban on the use of the telephone ;

( ii ) a ban on all association or correspondence with other prisoners ;

( iii ) censorship of all inward and outward correspondence ;

( iv ) a ban on meetings with third parties ;

( v ) restrictions on visits from members of the family ( to TIME DATE ) ;

( vi ) a ban on receiving or sending sums of money over a set amount ;

( vii ) a ban on receiving parcels ( other than those containing linen ) from the outside ;

( viii ) a ban on organising cultural , recreational or sporting activities ;

( ix ) a ban on voting or standing in elections for prisoner representatives ;

( x ) a ban on taking part in arts - and - crafts activities ;

( xi ) a ban on buying food that needed cooking ;

( xii ) a ban on spending TIME outdoors .

These measures were subsequently extended for successive sixmonthly periods until DATE .

On DATE the ORG decided , without giving specific reasons , to subject the applicant 's correspondence to censorship . However , his correspondence was not monitored while he was in LOC .

An order was also made for censorship of the applicant 's correspondence by the Minister of ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The following letters were censored :

( i ) the applicant 's letter of DATE to his wife ( delivery of this letter was delayed by FAC as the prison authorities , considering the content to be suspect , first sent it to the judicial authorities ) ;

( ii ) a letter of DATE sent to the applicant by his first lawyer ( stamped by FAC censors ) ;

( iii ) a letter of DATE sent by the applicant to his family ( stamped by ORG censors ) ;

( iv ) a letter sent by the applicant to his wife on DATE enclosing a certificate ( the Termini Imerese Prison authorities had intercepted the letter and sent it to ORG at ORG with a request for permission to remit the letter to the applicant ; as no reply was received , the letter was never remitted to him ) ;

( v ) a letter from the applicant to his family posted on DATE ( stamped by ORG censors ) .

On DATE , as a result of a ORG decision ( no . CARDINAL of DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the Minister of ORG rescinded the measure regarding censorship of correspondence that had been issued in orders made under LAW bis .

The applicant 's correspondence nonetheless continued to be subject to censorship as a result of ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE the ORG ordered rescission of that order , but the applicant 's correspondence continued to be censored notwithstanding .

On DATE the applicant reverted to the ordinary prison regime ; the change entailed among other things an end to censorship . However , CARDINAL letter ( sent to the applicant by his wife on DATE ) was nonetheless censored by FAC authorities .

On DATE , at the request of ORG authorities , an order was made by the President of ORG of ORG , renewing censorship of the applicant 's correspondence . The following letters were censored :

( i ) a letter of DATE sent to the applicant by his second lawyer ( stamped by PERSON ) ;

( ii ) NORP letters sent to the applicant by his wife on DATE , DATE and DATE containing CARDINAL photographs of the applicant 's children ( and each bearing FAC censors ' stamp ) ;

( iii ) a letter of DATE from the applicant to his family ( stamped by PERSON ) ;

( iv ) a letter of DATE sent to the applicant by his children ( stamped by PERSON ) ;

( v ) a letter of DATE sent to the applicant by his granddaughter ( stamp illegible ) ;

( vi ) letters of DATE and DATE sent to the applicant by his wife ( stamped by PERSON ) ;

( vii ) a letter of DATE apparently sent to the applicant by members of his family ( stamped by PERSON ) ;

( viii ) an undated letter sent to the applicant by his granddaughter ( stamped by PERSON ) .

As to the CARDINAL letters sent to the applicant by his lawyers on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , ORG authorities said that they could not be regarded as being correspondence with defence counsel for the purposes of LAW transitional provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On an application dated DATE by the PERSON public prosecutor 's office ORG made an order on DATE imposing preventive measures on the applicant , who was put under special police supervision and required to live at FAC for DATE . ORG found in particular that the applicant had been shown to be dangerous by concrete evidence : he was being investigated in connection with a very serious offence , was in detention pending trial and , along with other suspected mafiosi , held shares in a company that ran a discotheque where members of the ORG met .

The applicant was required , inter alia :

( i ) not to leave his home without informing the authorities responsible for supervising him ;

( ii ) to live an honest life and not to arouse suspicion ;

( iii ) not to associate with persons who had a criminal record or who were subject to preventive or security measures ;

( iv ) not to return home TIME or to leave home before TIME , unless due cause could be shown and in all cases only after informing the authority responsible for supervising him ;

( v ) not to keep or carry weapons ;

( vi ) not to go to bars or attend public meetings ;

( vii ) to have on him at all times the card setting out his precise obligations under the preventive measures and a copy of the court order ;

( viii ) to report to the relevant police station on DATE TIME .

NORP However , ORG found that it was not possible to conclude from the evidence on the file that the company referred to had been used to launder money coming from illegal ORG activities . It consequently made an order for severance of the proceedings relating to the attachment both of the applicant 's holding in the company concerned and some of his immovable property .

The applicant appealed , but his appeal was dismissed on DATE .

The court of appeal noted , firstly , that a presumption arose under PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE that a member of the ORG was dangerous and that for the purposes of the imposition of preventive measures , such membership could be established on the basis of inferences , full proof being required only to secure a conviction . In the case before it , there was circumstantial evidence against the applicant , such as the decisions to detain him pending trial and to commit him for trial . Furthermore , ORG had clearly stated that the applicant was both a member and the treasurer of a mafiatype organisation . There were other factors , too , such as the applicant 's business relations with other mafiosi . The applicant 's contact with the ORG was also confirmed by the fact that he had seen fit to marry the sister of a mafia boss and thus to become a member of a mafia clan , which undoubtedly made it likely that he would receive requests for assistance from that criminal organisation .

The applicant appealed to ORG , but that appeal was also dismissed in a judgment of DATE on the ground that the assessment whether a person was dangerous was based on any factor which the court found to be cogent . ORG and ORG had established that it was likely that the applicant belonged to the FAC mafia clan on the basis of the evidence that had led to the applicant being kept in pre - trial detention . No appeal lay to ORG against the verdict of the trial and appellate courts on the facts .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE the PERSON ordered the applicant to surrender his passport . That order could not be executed as the applicant said that it had been lost . The prefect also ordered the applicant to produce his national identity card so that the words “ not valid for foreign travel ” could be stamped on it .

DATE . On DATE the Trapani Prefect ordered the confiscation of the applicant 's driving licence .

The preventive measures were suspended until the end of the trial and applied with effect from DATE following the applicant 's acquittal by ORG .

On DATE the applicant was refused permission to leave ORG to accompany his wife and CARDINAL of their sons to ORG – where they were due to undergo medical tests – on the ground that the tests did not relate to a serious illness .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant had applied to ORG for an order lifting the preventive measures on the ground that he had now been finally acquitted ( by a judgment of DATE ) and that it was impossible for him to find employment .

On DATE ORG dismissed that application . In doing so , it firstly reiterated the settled case - law of ORG whereby matters established at trial , though insufficient to support a conviction , could , if appropriate when coupled with other evidence , nonetheless amount to serious evidence capable of proving that a person who has been acquitted might be dangerous . That , said ORG , was the position in the case before it . It considered that the statements made by PERSON showed that the applicant had associated with the FAC mafia clan , as proved by the fact that his late brother - in - law had been the head of the main clan . As to his inability to find work , the court considered that it was unrelated to the preventive measures since the applicant could at any stage have sought permission to work and would have been authorised to do so , provided , of course , that the work was compatible with his obligations under the preventive measures .

On DATE the applicant 's identity card was returned marked “ not valid for foreign travel ” .

On an unspecified date the applicant made a further request to ORG to rescind the preventive measures against him repeating that he had now been finally acquitted and stressing that he had always complied with the preventive measures .

On DATE ORG dismissed that application stating , firstly , that the proceedings concerning the preventive measures were quite separate from the criminal proceedings so that the acquittal had no automatic effect on the preventive measures that had already been ordered . In any event , the applicant had not shown any real change in his life - style or that he was genuinely repentant .

DATE . The preventive measures against the applicant ceased to apply on DATE .

As a result of the imposition of the special supervision measure on the applicant , ORG decided on DATE to strike the applicant off the electoral register on the ground that his civil rights had lapsed pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG in which he contended that no reasons had been stated in the decision of DATE and that the decision to impose preventive measures had been taken before his acquittal .

In a decision of DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , the board dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applicant had been disenfranchised by operation of law ( as his civil rights had lapsed following imposition of the special supervision measure ) , not by a decision of the electoral committee . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .

On DATE , following the expiration of the preventive measures , the applicant applied to be reinstated on the electoral registers .

On DATE ORG informed the mayor of ORG that it had authorised the applicant to take part in the imminent administrative elections scheduled to be held on DATE .

On DATE the mayor notified the applicant of the electoral committee 's decision .

On DATE ORG reinstated the applicant on the ORG electoral register .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for an award of compensation under ORG and CARDINAL of LAW for his detention from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , which the applicant 's acquittal on DATE showed to have been “ unjust ” .

ORG acceded to his claim in a decision of DATE , which was lodged with the registry on DATE . Having regard to the length and particularly harsh conditions of his detention , and to the damage sustained by the applicant ( to his reputation ) and by his family ( who had had to make long journeys for visits ) , it awarded him MONEY .

The first paragraph of LAW ( “ ORG ” ) provides that “ no one shall be detained pending trial unless there is serious evidence of his guilt ” .

Article CARDINAL ORG goes on to provide that detention pending trial may be ordered : “ ( a ) if detention is demanded by special and unavoidable requirements of the inquiry into the facts under investigation concerning a genuine and present danger for the production or authenticity of evidence ... ; ( b ) if the accused has absconded or there is a real danger of his absconding , provided that the court considers that , if convicted , he will be liable to a prison sentence of DATE ; and ( c ) where , given the specific nature and circumstances of the offence and having regard to the character of the suspect or the accused as shown by his conduct , acts or criminal record , there is a genuine risk that he will commit a serious offence involving the use of weapons or other violent means against the person or an offence against the constitutional order or an offence relating to organised crime or a further offence of the same kind as that of which he is suspected or accused ... ”

Under LAW ORG , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL ( which became Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) and Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ( which became Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) there is a rebuttable presumption that such a necessity exists where certain offences , such as being a member of a mafia - type organisation , are concerned .

Article CARDINAL CCP lays down the maximum permitted periods of detention pending trial which vary according to the stage reached in the proceedings . For the offence laid down in Article CARDINAL bis of LAW , the periods applicable during the proceedings at first instance are DATE from the beginning of the defendant 's detention until the order committing him for trial and DATE from the beginning of the trial until his conviction at first instance . If no committal order is made or , as the case may be , the defendant is not convicted at first instance within the relevant period , the detention pending trial ceases to be lawful and the defendant must be released .

NORP However , paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ORG provides that for certain offences , including the one provided for in Article CARDINAL bis of LAW , the periods laid down in LAW may be extended during the hearings , the deliberations at first instance or the appeal , if the proceedings prove to be particularly complex . Article CARDINAL provides that the length of detention pending trial must not , under any circumstances , exceed twothirds of the maximum sentence for the offence with which the defendant is charged or the sentence imposed by the first - instance court .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ORG provides : “ During the preliminary investigation , the public prosecutor may request an extension of a period of detention pending trial that is about to expire where there is a serious need for precautionary measures which , in particularly complex investigations , make it absolutely necessary to extend the period of detention pending trial ... ” That provision goes on to provide that such an extension may be renewed only once and that , in any event , the periods provided for in LAW ORG can not be exceeded by CARDINAL .

With regard to the procedures on release , on DATE ORG informed all penal institutions of the need for administrative services to be provided at TIME time , too , to ensure not only the release of prisoners but also , among other things , the admission of suspects who had been arrested or had voluntarily surrendered to custody and the availability of emergency hospital treatment for prisoners .

Article CARDINAL ORG provides that anyone who has been acquitted in a judgment that has become final DATE on the grounds that the case against him has not been proved , he has not committed the offence , no criminal offence has been committed or the facts alleged do not amount to an offence at law – is entitled to equitable reparation for any period he has spent in detention pending trial , provided that misrepresentations or fault on his part were not contributory factors in his being detained .

An application for reparation must be made within DATE after the judgment becomes final . The maximum award is MONEY .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , provides that power to order censorship of prisoners ' correspondence vests in the judge dealing with the case DATE whether the investigating judge or the trial judge DATE until the decision at first instance and thereafter in the judge responsible for the execution of sentences . The judge may order censorship of a prisoner 's correspondence in a reasoned decision ; this provision does not , however , specify the circumstances in which such orders may be made .

In practice , censorship entails all the prisoner 's mail being intercepted and read by either the judge that made the order or the prison governor or prison staff designated by him ; censored mail is stamped to show that it has been inspected ( see also LAW implementing LAW no . CARDINAL referred to above – Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . Censorship can not extend to deleting words or sentences , but the judge may order that CARDINAL or more letters shall not be delivered ; in such cases , the prisoner must be informed immediately . This latter measure can also be ordered temporarily by the prison governor , who must , however , notify the judge .

Article CARDINAL ORG forbids the seizure or any form of censorship of correspondence between a prisoner and his lawyer , provided that the correspondence is identifiable as such and unless the judge has wellfounded reasons to believe that the correspondence constitutes the substance of the offence .

Similarly , by LAW transitional provisions of LAW the rules on the censorship of a prisoner 's correspondence laid down in PERSON no . CARDINAL and Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL do not apply to correspondence between a prisoner and his lawyer . However , for such correspondence to escape censorship , the envelope must be marked with the identity of both the accused and his lawyer , the fact that the lawyer is acting in that capacity and the words “ correspondence for the purposes of court proceedings ” ( “ corrispondenza par ragioni di giustizia ” ) signed by the sender , who must also specify the proceedings to which the letter relates . If the sender is the lawyer , his signature must be certified by the head of ORG or the latter 's delegate .

As the censorship of correspondence is an administrative act and does not affect the prisoner 's personal liberty , no appeal lies to ORG in respect of it ( Court of Cassation , judgments nos . CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) provides that prisoners may send requests or complaints in a sealed envelope to the following authorities :

( i ) the prison governor , prison inspectors , the director - general of penal institutions and the Minister of ORG ;

( ii ) the judge responsible for the execution of sentences ;

( iii ) the judicial and health - care authorities who inspect the prison ;

( iv ) the president of the regional council ;

( v ) the President of the Republic .

By CARDINAL bis of FAC , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , the Minister of ORG is empowered to suspend application of the ordinary prison regime DATE as laid down by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE in whole or in part if it fails to meet the standards required to preserve public order and security . He must give reasons for so doing and judicial review will lie . The provision may be applied only where the prisoner has been prosecuted for or convicted of CARDINAL of the offences set out in section CARDINAL bis of the statute . The offences concerned include those linked to mafia activities . By PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE that provision is to remain in force until DATE .

Section CARDINAL bis contains no list of the restrictions that may be imposed . They must be determined by the Minister of ORG . When first implemented , section CARDINAL bis was construed as also empowering the Minister of ORG to censor prisoners ' correspondence .

In its judgments ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL delivered in DATE , ORG , which was examining whether that system was consistent with the principle that the legislator 's powers should not be encroached upon , held that section CARDINAL bis was compatible with the LAW . However , it stated that by virtue of LAW a reasoned decision of the courts was required for any restriction on correspondence to be imposed . The Minister of ORG was accordingly not empowered to impose measures regarding prisoners ' correspondence .

The power to impose preventive measures was introduced by ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE . Such measures are intended to prevent individuals regarded as a “ danger to society ” from committing offences . The statute currently classifies CARDINAL groups of people as a danger to society : ( a ) anyone who on the basis of factual evidence must be regarded as being an habitual offender ; ( b ) anyone who on account of his conduct or life - style must be regarded , on the basis of factual evidence , as habitually deriving his income from the proceeds of crime ; and ( c ) anyone who on account of his conduct must be regarded on the basis of factual evidence as having committed offences endangering the mental or physical integrity of minors or posing a threat to society , security or public order .

ORG . Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL provides that persons who are a danger to society may be placed under special police supervision . That measure may be accompanied , if need be , by a requirement not to stay in CARDINAL or more named towns or provinces or , if the person concerned is considered to be particularly dangerous , by a compulsory residence order requiring him to live in a named municipality ( obbligo di soggiorno ) .

Jurisdiction to make such orders is vested exclusively in the court sitting in the provincial capital . The court sits in camera and must give a reasoned decision after hearing the representative of the public prosecutor 's office and the person on whom it is proposed to impose the measure , who has the right to lodge memorials and to be represented by a lawyer . Both parties may appeal within DATE . Lodging an appeal has no suspensive effect . A further appeal lies from the court of appeal to ORG .

When imposing a preventive measure , the court must fix its duration – CARDINAL maximum DATE and specify the conditions with which the person concerned must comply .

Under PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , which was amended in DATE , preventive measures in the form of an order for special supervision , compulsory residence or exclusion may be imposed on persons against whom there is evidence ( indiziati ) that they belong to a mafia - type organisation .

Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE provides that a person can only be ordered to reside in the town where he has his domicile or residence .

Lastly , in cases where the trial has started , PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE empowers the courts to suspend proceedings relating to the application of preventive measures until the conclusion of the trial .

Article CARDINAL of Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE provides that , inter alia , persons on whom preventive measures have been imposed by a court order or an administrative decision shall be disenfranchised .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of that decree provides that in such cases the prefect ( questore ) empowered to enforce such measures shall notify the municipality where the person concerned resides of any decision entailing the loss of civil rights . The municipal electoral committee shall then remove the name of the person concerned from the electoral register , even outside one of the usual periods for updating the lists .


No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Possessions)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Anatoly Kovler;Ann Power-Forde;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Guido Raimondi;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Karel Jungwiert;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Nicolas Bratza;Peer Lorenzen;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

On DATE the applicant made a deposit in a savings account with the commercial bank PERSON ( “ the bank ” ) . After the bank announced that it was changing the interest rate , the applicant requested the closure of his account in DATE , but the bank informed him that it was unable to repay his capital plus interest as its funds were insufficient . The applicant sued the bank , seeking repayment of the capital he had deposited , together with interest , a penalty payment and compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG of the town of GPE partly upheld the applicant ’s claims and ordered the bank to pay him a total of MONEY ( RUB ) ( which included the capital of the deposit , interest accrued , compensation for non - pecuniary damage and penalties ) . That decision was upheld and became final on DATE . In a judgment of ORG of DATE the above - mentioned award was recalculated in line with the inflation rate . The award was thus raised to RUB CARDINAL .

In the meantime , on DATE , at the request of ORG and ORG , ORG of GPE declared the bank insolvent . On DATE the insolvency procedure was opened by that court and a liquidator was appointed by the court to oversee the bank ’s administration in that connection .

On DATE ORG approved the provisional statement of affairs based on the bank ’s financial situation at DATE . As a result of the sale of the bank ’s assets , RUB CARDINAL had been accumulated on the bank ’s account . According to the Government , the bank had incurred debts against CARDINAL first - class creditors , whose claims amounted to RUB CARDINAL .

Under the law which defined the order of distribution of assets of insolvent entities , the applicant belonged to the first class of creditors , whose claims were to be satisfied before others . However , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE the LOC body of the bank created a special group of “ privileged ” creditors within the first class . That privileged group included disabled persons , war veterans , persons in need and persons who had actively assisted the liquidator within the insolvency proceedings . Those categories of creditors were to receive full satisfaction of their claims before other creditors belonging to the same class ( the first ) . As a result , almost all of the funds collected during the liquidation process were used for repayment to those “ privileged ” creditors : they were reimbursed by the liquidator at PERCENT of the amounts due to them . On DATE the applicant received the sum of RUB CARDINAL ( i.e. PERCENT of the amount of RUB CARDINAL owed to him by the bank under the DATE judgment ) .

On DATE the applicant challenged , before ORG , the fact that other creditors had received repayment at PERCENT , whereas he had received PERCENT of the amount due to him . Relying on sections DATE of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , he claimed that he belonged to the same class as the “ privileged ” creditors , and that the bank ’s assets should have been distributed evenly . He sought repayment of the remainder of the sum owed to him , in accordance with the principle of proportional distribution of the assets of the bank amongst creditors of the same class .

On DATE the applicant ’s action was dismissed at first instance . On DATE ORG of GPE reversed the judgment of the first - instance court and held that , in deciding to repay certain categories of creditors at PERCENT , the creditors’ body had overstepped the limits of its powers under LAW . By enforcing that decision and distributing the assets at PERCENT to the “ privileged ” creditors , the liquidator had , in turn , disregarded the requirements of sections CARDINAL QUANTITY . Pointing out that section CARDINAL of the Act was not open to broad interpretation , ORG of GPE ordered the liquidator to redress the violations thus observed within DATE and to inform it of the measures taken in that connection .

NORP The liquidator appealed on points of law to ORG for the LOC , arguing that he had distributed the assets pursuant to a decision of the LOC body , that the distribution had complied with LAW and that it had not therefore been in breach of the requirements of LAW . On CARDINAL DATE his appeal on points of law was dismissed . Upholding the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the court stated that the liquidator should not have enforced a decision by the LOC body that was in breach of the law .

It appears that the enforcement of the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( upheld at last instance on DATE ) and , in particular , the redressing of the applicant ’s financial situation , were not possible on account of the bank ’s lack of assets .

In view of the failure to enforce the decision of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG ( supplemented by him on DATE ) . He requested that the liquidator in person repay him the remainder of his DATE award of RUB CARDINAL , with interest , plus compensation for non - pecuniary damage and loss of time , representing a total of RUB CARDINAL .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request . The complaints in question were examined in the context of the insolvency procedure opened against the bank ; within the same procedure the court examined the bank ’s balance sheet , as submitted by the liquidator . A representative of ORG was present at the hearing . ORG found that on DATE and DATE ORG had already awarded the applicant the sum of RUB CARDINAL to cover his deposit , plus penalties and damages , and that it was not possible to rule on the same request for a second time . ORG further established that the applicant appeared in the list of creditors as number CARDINAL and that , in respect of the actual capital originally deposited , the bank owed him a residual amount of RUB CARDINAL . The court pointed out that this sum could be paid to him under the conditions laid down in LAW . The court also rejected the claims for loss of time , as the relevant legislation did not provide for such compensation . Furthermore , the applicant [ had ] “ failed to prove that the losses were caused by the liquidator ’s actions ” .

On DATE ORG of GPE , hearing the case on appeal , upheld the decision of DATE . The court of appeal held , firstly , that the applicant ’s claims against the liquidator were “ stand - alone claims , examined by the court of first instance and ... rightly rejected ” . The court of appeal ’s reasoning read as follows :

“ The law in force does not envisage satisfaction of claims which did not arise during the period of the bank ’s operations but only during the period of the insolvency procedure ... On a bank ’s insolvency , its debt obligations are declared due , but the insolvency procedure is initiated with a view to amassing liquidation assets which must be allocated among the debts owed to creditors and arising prior to the insolvency .

Furthermore , [ the applicant ’s ] right to recover [ the original court award ] from the bank already exists ; therefore , satisfaction of his claims [ against the liquidator ] would lead to repeated recovery of the same amount , but this time in the form of damages , which is unfounded .

[ In the original court award the applicant ] was also awarded a sum for non - pecuniary damage , and in light of the above such damages can not be awarded for a further period .

The existing provisions of civil legislation make no provision for compensation for loss of time .

The court of appeal also takes into account the fact that the failure to pay the amounts [ due to the applicant ] is a result of the absence [ of funds ] , since , following the court of appeal ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE ... the assets of the bank in liquidation did not increase ... , as is evident from the report provided by the liquidator on the work of the liquidation committee and the documents appended to the report ” .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against that judgment . On DATE ORG for the LOC dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law on the following grounds :

“ The decision of the PERSON body and the liquidator ’s action ... admittedly breached the principle of proportional payment to creditors at the same level of priority , but did not cause [ the applicant ] the damage he alleged , because the PERCENT satisfaction of all first - level creditors was not possible on account of the lack of assets available for distribution . The sum repaid to [ the applicant ] was thus calculated in proportion to the amount of his claim and to the assets realised in the course of the liquidation . Taking into account the fact that the insolvency procedure was ongoing when the dispute was examined , the courts of first and appellate instance rightly referred to the possibility of [ the applicant ’s ] receiving the outstanding debt owed to him under LAW of GPE .

The claims for non - pecuniary damage and compensation for loss of time were rightly refused by the court as unjustified on the grounds set out in the earlier judicial decisions .

In view of the above [ the court of cassation ] finds that the refusals by the courts of first and appellate instance to grant [ the applicant ’s ] claims were justified . There are no grounds for overruling or modifying the judicial decisions taken . ”

On DATE ORG confirmed the statement of affairs as presented by the liquidator and approved by the creditors’ body , and closed the insolvency procedure on grounds of insufficient assets . The applicant did not attempt to bring any new claims against the liquidator .

After the Government had been given notice of the application , the President of ORG of GPE lodged , on DATE , an application for supervisory review ( protest ) against the judgments of CARDINAL February , DATE and DATE , on the ground that they had been given in breach of LAW , which determined the jurisdiction of the commercial courts . Among other things , he stated that examination of the applicant ’s complaints against the liquidator within the context of the insolvency procedure opened against the bank had been contrary to the DATE LAW such procedures . Since those complaints had concerned a dispute between the applicant and the liquidator , they were not related to the insolvency procedure as such and the applicant should have submitted them to the courts of general jurisdiction . On those grounds the President sought the annulment of the decisions at issue and discontinuance of the proceedings concerning the above - mentioned complaints .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE granted those requests in full , endorsing the arguments raised in the application for supervisory review . The ORG concluded that the commercial courts had not had jurisdiction to hear the case against the liquidator in person , annulled the decision rendered in DATE and closed the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request for supervisory review of the DATE decision to the same ORG . On DATE his request was dismissed as ill - founded by the Vice - President of ORG .

The Draft Articles on ORG adopted by ORG ( ILC ) in DATE ( ORG of ORG , DATE , vol . NORP , Part CARDINAL ) , and their commentary , codified principles developed in modern international law in respect of the ORG ’s responsibility for internationally wrongful acts . In that commentary the ORG stated , inter alia , as follows ( see paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of the commentary to LAW ) :

“ In determining what constitutes an organ of a ORG for the purposes of responsibility , the internal law and practice of each ORG are of prime importance . The structure of the ORG and the functions of its organs are not , in general , governed by international law . It is a matter for each ORG to decide how its administration is to be structured and which functions are to be assumed by government . But while the ORG remains free to determine its internal structure and functions through its own law and practice , international law has a distinct role . For example , the conduct of certain institutions performing public functions and exercising public powers ( e.g. the police ) is attributed to the ORG even if those institutions are regarded in internal law as autonomous and independent of the executive government . ”

The ILC , in its commentary , described the phenomenon of “ parastatal entities ” . It noted as follows ( see paragraph ( CARDINAL ) to the commentary to LAW

“ The fact that an entity can be classified as public or private according to the criteria of a given legal system , the existence of a greater or lesser State participation in its capital , or , more generally , in the ownership of its assets , the fact that it is not subject to executive control – these are not decisive criteria for the purpose of attribution of the entity ’s conduct to the ORG . Instead , article CARDINAL [ of the ORG ] refers to the true common feature , namely that these entities are empowered , if only to a limited extent or in a specific context , to exercise specified elements of governmental authority . ”

As the ORG also recognised :

“ Beyond a certain limit , what is regarded as ‘ governmental’ depends on the particular society , its history and traditions . Of particular importance will be not just the content of the powers , but the way they are conferred on an entity , the purposes for which they are to be exercised and the extent to which the entity is accountable to government for their exercise ” ( see paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of the commentary to LAW ) .

Under LAW , after expiry of the period within which creditors must file their claims , the liquidation committee draws up a provisional statement of affairs containing information on the bankrupt company ’s estate , the claims filed by the creditors and the results of the examination of those claims . The statement must be approved by the body that has taken the decision to wind up the company . If the company ’s monetary assets are insufficient to satisfy the LOC claims , the liquidation committee will sell off the estate by auction . The distribution of assets to the creditors may begin in accordance with the interim statement once it has been approved , except in respect of fifth - level creditors who will be unable to receive any money owed to them for DATE following that approval . Once all the payments have been made , the final statement of affairs is drawn up and approved in the same manner . Should the assets prove insufficient , unsatisfied creditors may request the courts to order the owner of the company to honour their claims out of his own personal funds .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , as in force prior to DATE , made a distinction CARDINAL categories of creditors , providing that payment could be made to a given class only when the creditors at the previous level had been satisfied . According to this classification the applicant belonged to the fifth class of “ other creditors ” . Article CARDINAL made no mention of a category of creditors who were pensioners , war veterans , persons in need or persons assisting the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings .

Under a new provision , inserted into this Article on DATE , when a bank or other lending institution is wound up , private persons having made deposits with it are to be repaid as a first priority .

Article CARDINAL further provides that where a company in liquidation has insufficient assets , they must be distributed among creditors at the same level in proportion to their respective claims .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , insolvency cases fall within the jurisdiction of the commercial courts , which examine them in accordance with the rules laid down in the LAW or , where no such rule exists , in accordance with LAW of GPE .

Under LAW of the LAW , insolvency procedures are opened in order to satisfy the LOC claims on a pari passu basis , to declare the bankrupt company released from his obligations and to protect the parties from unlawful actions against each other .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that , after a company has been declared insolvent and an insolvency procedure has been opened against it , any claims against the company ’s assets may be submitted only in the context of such procedure .

Section CARDINAL lists the various participants in insolvency proceedings as the liquidator , the general meeting of creditors , the PERSON committee , the creditors , etc . The general meeting of creditors may form a creditor ’s committee and define its functions ( Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . The ORG will use the term “ the LOC body ” as referring to either of these bodies , as the case may be .

The LOC body nominates a candidate to act as the liquidator before the commercial court for approval ( Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ) which then appoints the liquidator ( LAW ) . Under section ORG ) the liquidator takes over the administration of the insolvent company , convenes a general meeting of creditors , takes control of the insolvent company ’s property , analyses the financial situation , examines the merits of the LOC claims , accepts or rejects them , oversees the liquidation process to realise the assets , sets up and heads the liquidation committee .

In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , taken together with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , candidates for the office of liquidator must be economists or lawyers , or have experience of company management . They must not have a criminal record . No one holding a position of responsibility in a company that is a debtor or creditor may be appointed . Candidates for the office of liquidator must declare their income and assets .

In the situations referred to under the LAW , the commercial court examines the lawfulness of all actions by the participants involved in the insolvency procedure ( LAW ) . Under section ORG ) the liquidator may challenge before the court any decisions of the creditor ’s body when those decisions fall outside its remit .

Under section ORG ) , after the expiry of a DATE period within which the creditors must submit their claims against the insolvent company , the liquidator will draw up a list of the claims that have been accepted and rejected , indicating the amounts for those that have been accepted and the level of priority for each . The list must be sent to the creditors within DATE .

Section CARDINAL establishes the various levels of priority for the distribution of the proceeds of the liquidation . Payment of the sums due to creditors at a given level is made once those at the previous level have been satisfied ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . If insufficient assets are realised to pay in full the creditors at a given level , the money that is available will be paid to them pari passu in proportion to the amounts of their respective claims ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . LAW makes no mention of a category of creditors who are disabled , war veterans , persons in need , or persons assisting the liquidator . LAW provides that any expenses arising from the liquidation , the liquidator ’s fees and the expenses of the debtor company ’s ongoing operations must take priority over the claims of first - level creditors .

Section CARDINAL provides that a creditor may challenge before the commercial courts any decision of the liquidator which , in his view , breaches his rights and legitimate interests .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , any claims that can not be satisfied because the proceeds of the liquidation are insufficient will be regarded as extinguished .

Section CARDINAL provides that the bankrupt company will be regarded as wound up from the time of its exclusion from the corresponding national register , pursuant to the decision of the commercial court closing the insolvency procedure .

DATE . On DATE a new LAW was adopted ( “ the DATE LAW ) . It replaced LAW and was applicable to insolvency procedures opened after DATE . ORG ) of the DATE Act provided that creditors were entitled to seek compensation from the liquidator in respect of any damage that the latter might have caused to them by an action or omission in breach of the law . LAW provided for the same principles of distribution and pari passu repayment CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act .

In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , sub - paragraph CARDINAL , of this Act , claims against the bankrupt company may be submitted only in the context of the insolvency procedure ( see also section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act ) .

On DATE the new Insolvency Act was adopted . It replaced LAW , and , in DATE , LAW underwent a number of changes . LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW establishes liability of the liquidator for damage caused to the creditors by his failure to comply with his duties , if that failure was established by a final court decision . LAW provides that a liquidator should be covered by a professional liability insurance to cover his liability to the creditors ( LAW ) . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL stipulate that bankruptcy cases are within the jurisdiction of the commercial court , irrespectively of the status of the creditors . LAW ) stipulates that “ disputes related to the professional activities of the [ liquidators ] ... are within the competence of commercial courts ” . Pursuant to LAW creditors of a bankrupt company are entitled to complain to a commercial court about the liquidator ’s acts or omissions within the bankruptcy proceedings .

Since DATE the NORP judicial system has been comprised of CARDINAL elements – courts of general jurisdiction , commercial courts and constitutional courts . Under LAW of LAW of DATE ( in force at the material time ) , courts of general jurisdiction were competent to hear civil cases in which CARDINAL party was a natural person ( as distinct from a legal person , such as a company ) .

The Code of Commercial Procedure of DATE ( No . CARDINAL-FZ of CARDINAL DATE , in force at the material time ) stated that the commercial courts could determine “ economic disputes arising from civil , administrative and other legal relationships ... between legal persons ... and individual entrepreneurs ... ” ( LAW ) . LAW stipulated that commercial courts were competent to hear other cases , namely “ insolvency ( bankruptcy ) cases concerning legal entities and natural persons ” . LAW stipulated that commercial courts were competent to hear cases involving natural persons ( not having individual entrepreneur status ) where this was provided for by LAW itself or by another federal law .

DATE of LAW stipulated :

“ ... A creditor who considers that his rights and legitimate interests are breached by a decision of the liquidator can bring an application ( zayavlenie ) before the commercial court . Following the examination of such an application the commercial court should take an appropriate decision . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code provided that insolvency cases were to be examined by commercial courts in accordance with the Code and with the specific provisions of the insolvency legislation .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW stipulated that commercial courts had jurisdiction to hear insolvency cases .

The DATE LAW contained similar provisions . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of that Act provided that insolvency cases where the debtor was a company ( as opposed to a natural person ) fell under the jurisdiction of the commercial courts . LAW provided that the commercial courts were competent to hear LOC applications concerning a breach of their rights or legitimate interests by the liquidator .

Sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the DATE LAW provided for the jurisdiction of commercial courts in the insolvency procedures concerning banks and also contained references to LAW .

A judgment of DATE by ORG concerned , inter alia , questions of access to a court in insolvency procedures . Paragraph CARDINAL , concerning the constitutionality of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ) in conjunction with sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ) , reads :

“ ... when examining the claims of creditors who are natural persons ... , the commercial courts do not have jurisdiction to issue binding directions of a pecuniary nature to the liquidator , acknowledging the existence of a claim or right in favour of creditors ... This limitation ... must not be interpreted as preventing the courts of general jurisdiction from examining on the merits the pecuniary claims ... of those creditors ... , in accordance with the legislation on insolvency .

Nor do the provisions at issue contain any clause that would prevent commercial courts from giving decisions that enable the persons concerned to secure in full their right to judicial protection in the context of insolvency procedures , especially as other provisions of LAW on insolvency ( bankruptcy ) precisely provide for the settlement of disputes through the courts ( sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL et seq . ) .

The refusal by a commercial court to examine a complaint on the grounds that it does not have jurisdiction ... does not prevent the creditor from applying to the courts of general jurisdiction in order to secure protection of his rights ... The right to judicial protection , as enshrined in the LAW , must be upheld even in the absence of legislative norms establishing a division of jurisdiction between the commercial courts and the courts of general jurisdiction .

It follows from this interpretation that [ the provisions at issue ] do not prevent the courts of general jurisdiction from examining claims filed by non - corporate creditors against the liquidator and seeking ... compensation for damage , nor do they prevent the commercial courts from securing the enforcement , in accordance with the above - mentioned LAW , of the decisions taken by the courts of general jurisdiction ... ”


Violation of Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG The applicant is a NORP national , resident in GPE , and was at the time of the events which gave rise to her complaints under the Convention married to X , who was not NORP . They divorced on DATE . They are both infected with the human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) .

ORG On DATE ORG ( raastuvanoikeus , rådstuvurätten ) convicted PERSON and sentenced him to a suspended term of imprisonment for rape on NORP on DATE . ORG held the trial in camera and ordered that the documents submitted in the case remain confidential for a certain period .

ORG On DATE X was informed of the results of a blood test performed on DATE , indicating that he was HIV - positive .

ORG In DATE , following a complaint of a sexual offence lodged by PERSON , the police opened an investigation into attempted manslaughter , suspecting X of having deliberately subjected PERSON to a risk of infection with HIV on DATE .

According to the facts as established by the ORG , during a police interview on DATE CARDINAL M. identified X as the perpetrator and the police informed her that X ’s spouse , the applicant , was HIV - positive . On DATE , the police advised PERSON that X was also infected .

At the hearing before ORG disputed the Commission ’s finding that the police had informed PERSON that the applicant was an HIV carrier . The ORG replied that the finding had been based on corroborative evidence in the police investigation record and the minutes of the ensuing proceedings before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

M. ’s boyfriend PERSON met the applicant in DATE and asked her whether her husband was an HIV carrier . On DATE PERSON telephoned her and cited passages from confidential court documents relating to the trial mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above .

On DATE T. was interviewed by the police as to the content of this conversation .

ORG On DATE the police attempted to interview the applicant but , as she was married to X , she relied on her right under NORP law not to give evidence against her spouse ( chapter DATE , Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL , of the Code of Judicial Procedure ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalk ) ) .

ORG On DATE the public prosecutor charged X with sexual assault on M. On DATE PERSON brought a charge against X of attempted manslaughter .

ORG On DATE , following complaints of rape lodged by P .- L. and P. , X was arrested and detained on remand , on suspicion of attempted manslaughter by having raped the complainants DATE and thereby deliberately subjected them to a risk of HIV infection .

ORG On DATE the police interviewed the applicant but she again refused to give evidence against her spouse . She feared that the documents in the case , including any statement she made , would not remain confidential .

ORG On DATE NORP lodged a complaint with the police against X for rape committed on DATE . The police officer who recorded the complaint added to the record a statement that the applicant had already been found to be HIV - positive in DATE .

The Government submitted at the ORG ’s hearing that it was NORP who had told this to the police .

The police opened an investigation into attempted manslaughter in this case also .

On DATE and DATE and DATE , the public prosecutor read out in court charges against X of attempted manslaughter in respect of offences committed against M. on DATE , against P. on DATE and against P .- L. on DATE and DATE . Such charges were also brought by P .- L. on DATE and by NORP on DATE in relation to offences committed respectively on DATE and DATE .

ORG On DATE , at ORG first hearing , held in public , X refused to reply to a question put by PERSON ’s counsel as to whether the applicant was also an HIV carrier .

At a further hearing on DATE , ORG decided at the GPE request that the case should be heard in camera . PERSON confirmed that she had been informed by the police that the applicant was HIV - positive and T. gave evidence on the content of his telephone conversation with the applicant on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG On DATE and with X ’s consent , PERSON , senior doctor at the hospital where PERSON and the applicant had been treated , transmitted copies of X ’s medical records to the public prosecutor . These had been edited so as to omit all references to the applicant .

ORG summoned the applicant to appear before it as a witness on DATE , but she again relied on her right not to give evidence in a case concerning her husband .

ORG On DATE CARDINAL PERSON ’s counsel informed the public prosecutor that the copies of ORG medical records appeared to be incomplete . That same day the public prosecutor asked the police to obtain statements from senior doctor PERSON and any other doctors who had been treating GPE , whether as experts or ordinary witnesses , in order to obtain information from them on when X had become aware of his HIV infection .

ORG On DATE , despite his objections , ORG ordered senior doctor PERSON to give evidence . He disclosed to the court medical data concerning the applicant which had been omitted from the copies of X ’s medical records referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above .

ORG , by way of an interim measure , ordered that the court file , including the transcripts of senior doctor PERSON ’s evidence , be kept confidential .

ORG At the hearings of ORG on DATE and DATE , PERSON refused to answer a question put by counsel for the complainants ( PERSON , P .- L. , PERSON and NORP ) as to whether the applicant was HIV - positive . On DATE , counsel asked him when he had become aware that she was infected . However , X again refused to answer .

ORG On DATE senior doctor PERSON complained to the parliamentary ombudsman ( eduskunnan oikeusasiamies , riksdagens justitieombudsman ) about the court decision ordering him to give evidence . In an opinion of CARDINAL DATE the parliamentary ombudsman expressed the view that the domestic law had not been violated and that ORG had properly balanced the public interest in investigating crime against the applicant ’s interests in protecting the confidentiality of the information in question .

ORG At a court hearing on DATE , PERSON , who had also treated the applicant , was , despite his objections , required to give evidence as a witness for the prosecution and to disclose information about the applicant . He did so .

ORG On DATE the police interviewed PERSON as an expert . He provided them with general information on HIV infection and contamination .

ORG On DATE the public prosecutor requested the police to interview the applicant ’s doctors as witnesses in the investigation into the charges against X of attempted manslaughter ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , since all the doctors concerned refused , the matter had to be referred to ORG .

ORG Despite his renewed objections , senior doctor PERSON was again heard as a prosecution witness at ORG hearing of DATE . He once again disclosed information about the applicant . Before giving evidence he read out a letter dated DATE which the applicant had sent him . It stated :

" ... The case concerns criminal charges against my husband which are considered to outweigh a doctor ’s obligation and right to respect secrecy . It seems to me that you have been called to appear as a witness because I myself have invoked my right ... to refuse to give evidence . In your capacity as a doctor you are therefore likely to be asked questions which I , as X ’s spouse , have the right to refuse to reveal . The information which you have emanates from me and has been obtained by you because it has been my understanding that it would remain confidential ... [ N]or could I have imagined that [ such ] information could be used for the purpose of criminal proceedings in which my husband is facing charges .

As I see it , the hearing of you as a witness is merely aimed at circumventing my lawful right to refuse to give evidence against my husband ...

... I therefore request you to refer to these points , when you are being asked to give evidence in matters which concern only me . It is my opinion that you should not be obliged to give evidence in those matters and that the charges should be dealt with in such a way that I am not in any way forced to take part in the establishment of the [ facts ] . [ I ] am under no obligation to do so ... "

ORG In the course of CARDINAL hearings on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , ORG heard evidence from the applicant ’s psychiatrist , PERSON , and a number of medical doctors who had treated her , namely Drs V. , S .- H. , PERSON , T. , NORP and apparently also Dr PERSON It also heard PERSON , who had interviewed Z for research purposes . The prosecution had called them as witnesses and the court had ordered them to give evidence , although they had objected to doing so .

At the hearing on DATE , Dr NORP confirmed that a blood test performed in DATE had shown that the applicant was HIV - positive .

At the hearing on DATE the applicant agreed to give evidence since the matters which related to her had already been dealt with by ORG in other ways . In her evidence she stated amongst other things that she had not been infected with HIV by X.

ORG On DATE the police carried out a search at the hospital where the applicant and X had occasionally been treated . The police seized all the records concerning the applicant and appended copies of these to the record of the investigation concerning the charges against X of attempted manslaughter . These measures had been ordered by the prosecution . After photocopying the records the police returned them to the hospital .

The seized records comprised CARDINAL documents including the following statements :

DATE : [ The applicant was ] found to be HIV - positive at the beginning of the autumn of DATE . [ She ] guesses that she was contaminated at DATE ...

[ She ] is married to a [ foreign ] citizen , whom she thinks is [ HIV]-negative .

DATE : ... [ The applicant ’s husband ] completely denies that he might have an HIV infection ...

DATE : ... According to [ the applicant ] , [ her ] husband probably has an HIV infection too but [ he ] has not gone to be tested ...

DATE : ... [ The applicant ’s husband ] has not gone for HIV tests and is of the opinion that he is not a carrier of the virus ... "

ORG The police also seized results from a large number of laboratory tests and examinations concerning matters other than the existence of HIV in the applicant ’s blood , including information about her previous illnesses , her mental state and a survey into her quality of life based on a self - assessment .

On DATE ORG decided to include the copies of the seized records in its case file . On DATE it heard Dr S.V. as an expert called by the prosecution .

ORG On DATE ORG , amongst other things , convicted X on CARDINAL counts of attempted manslaughter committed on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE but dismissed the charge of attempted manslaughter for the offence committed on DATE and , as regards the latter , convicted him of rape instead . ORG sentenced him to terms of imprisonment totalling DATE .

ORG published the operative part of the judgment , an abridged version of its reasoning and an indication of the law which it had applied in the case . ORG ordered that the full reasoning and the documents in the case be kept confidential for DATE . Both the complainants as well as X had requested a longer period of confidentiality .

ORG The complainants , X and the prosecution all appealed against ORG judgment to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) .

ORG At a hearing in camera before ORG on DATE , all the appellants requested that the duration of the confidentiality order be extended ; an extension to DATE was discussed . X ’s lawyer also informed the court about the applicant ’s wish that the order be extended .

ORG In a judgment of DATE , a copy of which was made available to the press ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG , inter alia , upheld the conviction of X on CARDINAL counts of attempted manslaughter and , in addition , convicted him on CARDINAL further such counts related to offences committed on DATE and DATE . It increased his total sentence to DATE , DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment .

As regards the CARDINAL additional counts of attempted manslaughter , the judgment stated :

" ... According to [ X - mentioned by his first names and family name ] he found out that he was suffering from an HIV infection on DATE ... He denied having undergone any HIV examination since being tested in GPE in DATE .

According to [ X ] , the result of the HIV test was negative ...

[ He ] can not therefore be considered to have known with certainty that he was infected with HIV prior to receiving the results of the test on DATE .

[ X ] and [ the applicant - mentioned by her first names and family name ] got married on DATE . On DATE [ the applicant ] was found to be an HIV carrier . When she gave evidence before ORG , [ she ] said that she had informed X of this finding at DATE . In ORG , X said that the applicant had already informed him about her disease before he came to GPE in DATE . [ He ] also said that while they were both living in LOC [ the applicant ] had been suffering from some undefined disease . [ She ] had then also suspected that she might have become contaminated with HIV but her infection had only been discovered after [ she ] had returned to GPE .

On the basis of the above statements by the spouses ... it must be considered established that , given the status of [ X ’s ] wife as an HIV carrier , [ X ] had particular reason to suspect that the infection had been transmitted through their sexual intercourse .

According to [ Dr J.S. ] , a witness before ORG , [ X ] must , on the basis of the symptoms of his disease , be considered to have been infected with HIV DATE before the blood test performed in DATE ... According to [ Dr GPE ] , the disease with symptoms of fever which , according to [ the applicant ’s ] medical records , she is reported to have suffered from in DATE and which was treated as malaria is quite likely to have been a primary HIV infection . Regard being had to the fact that , when she contracted [ her ] disease with symptoms of fever at DATE or DATE , [ the applicant ] was staying in GPE , where she had also met [ X ] , ORG finds PERSON opinion concerning the primary HIV infection credible . Taking into account the moment when [ the applicant ] was found to be an HIV carrier , ORG finds it likely that she contracted the [ disease ] from [ X ] .

On these grounds ORG considers that [ X ] must have been aware of his HIV infection at the latest by DATE . The fact that [ he ] nevertheless chose not to undergo any HIV examinations other than those referred to above shows that his attitude towards the possibility that others might be contaminated [ with HIV ] was at best indifferent . Such an attitude must , as regards the question of intent , be considered in the same way as if the perpetrator had known with certainty that he had the disease . When assessing [ X ’s ] intent , his conduct must therefore be viewed in the same way on all the counts of attempted manslaughter with which he has been charged .

It has been shown in this case that , on the basis of current knowledge , an HIV infection is lethal . [ X ] has admitted that , before arriving in GPE , he had already become familiar with the nature of [ this ] disease and the ways in which it could spread . Having regard also to [ his ] statement that he had [ previously ] stayed in GPE , GPE and GPE , GPE being a country where the disease is particularly widespread , and the general knowledge that [ the disease ] is lethal , and [ noting ] that [ X ’s ] wife has also fallen ill [ with this disease ] , [ ORG ] finds it likely that [ X ] was familiar with the significant risk of contamination and the lethal effects of [ the disease ] .

According to [ senior doctor PERSON ] and [ Dr GPE ] , who were called as witnesses , the disease may spread through a single act of sexual intercourse ... X must thus have realised that his acts entailed , as a probable consequence , subjecting [ the complainants ] to a risk that they would be contaminated with HIV . Given that he has nevertheless acted in the manner established , his acts must be considered intentional . In this respect ORG has also taken into account that [ X ] did not inform the complainants of the possible risk of contamination .

... [ X ] must therefore be considered to have committed attempted manslaughter ... on DATE and DATE also ... "

ORG in addition upheld ORG decision that the case documents should remain confidential for DATE .

ORG On DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) refused to grant X leave to appeal .

ORG On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for an order quashing ( poistaa , undanröja ) ORG judgment in so far as it permitted the information and material about her to become available to the public as from DATE . In her view , ORG failure to hear her submissions before deciding whether and for how long the relevant medical records should be kept confidential amounted to a procedural error . That part of its judgment had been prejudicial to her .

In the alternative , she applied for an order reversing ( purkaa , återbryta ) ORG judgment , on the grounds that it had manifestly been based on an incorrect application of the law and was incompatible with LAW ( article CARDINAL) in that it was neither " in accordance with the law " nor " necessary in a NORP society " .

In the event that ORG judgment be quashed or reversed , the applicant requested that the matter be referred back to ORG , so that she could make submissions .

ORG On CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested ORG to make enquiries as to who had informed the police that she was HIV - positive ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She withdrew her request DATE .

ORG On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application for an order quashing or reversing ORG judgment . The first application had been lodged out of time and she did not have locus standi to make the second .

ORG On DATE the large - circulation evening newspaper GPE reported GPE ’s trial , stating that he was infected with HIV and that it was not yet certain whether the applicant was also infected , as she had refused to give evidence .

ORG On DATE the leading daily PERSON reported the seizure of the applicant ’s medical records under the headline " Prosecutor obtains medical records of wife of man accused of HIV rapes " . The article stated that the wife of X , whose first name and family name were mentioned in full , was a patient in a hospital unit treating patients suffering from HIV infection .

ORG judgment of DATE was reported by various newspapers , including PERSON which , after receiving it by fax from ORG , published an article on DATE . The article stated that the conviction had been based on the statement of " [ X ] ’s NORP wife " , while mentioning his name in full ; in addition , it referred to ORG finding that the applicant was HIV - positive .

ORG Under LAW DATE and implementing decree ( tartuntatautilaki CARDINAL/CARDINAL ja -asetus CARDINAL/CARDINAL , lag CARDINAL/CARDINAL och förordning CARDINAL om smittsamma sjukdomar ) , a person who is suffering from a disease such as infection with HIV or who it is found might have contracted such a disease must , on request , inform his or her doctor of the likely source of contamination ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW and section CARDINAL of the decree ) .

ORG Under the Patients’ LAW DATE ( laki potilaan asemasta ja oikeuksista , lag om patientens ställning och rättigheter DATE ) which entered into force on DATE , medical records must be kept confidential . Information may only be disclosed to a third party with the patient ’s written consent . It may nevertheless be disclosed to , among others , a court of law , another authority or an association which has been granted access thereto by law ( section CARDINAL ) .

ORG Under chapter DATE , Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , of LAW , a doctor of medicine may not , without his or her patient ’s consent , give information as a witness which he or she has obtained in his or her professional capacity and which , because of its nature , should be kept confidential .

However , paragraph CARDINAL provides that a doctor may be ordered to give evidence as a witness in connection with a charge relating to an offence for which a sentence of DATE imprisonment is prescribed ( as is the case with regard to manslaughter and attempted manslaughter ) .

In such cases , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Pre - trial LAW DATE ( esitutkintalaki , förundersökningslag CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) entitles doctors to give evidence even during the pre - trial investigation .

ORG LAW ( CARDINAL ) of that LAW provides :

" If a witness manifestly has knowledge about a matter of importance to the clarification of [ a suspect ’s ] guilt and if he [ or she ] refuses to reveal this even though obliged to do so or , under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , entitled to do so , the court may , at the request of the chief investigating officer , require [ the witness ] to disclose his knowledge about the matter . In such cases all or part of the questioning of the witness may take place in court . "

A party to the pre - trial investigation and his counsel may attend the proceedings in which such a request by the chief investigating officer is considered and the actual hearing where the witness gives evidence ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

ORG LAW , LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , of ORG DATE ( pakkokinolaki , tvångsmedelslagen CARDINAL ) provides :

" A document shall not be seized for evidential purposes if it may be presumed to contain information in regard to which a person referred to in DATE , Article CARDINAL , of the Code of Judicial Procedure is not allowed to give evidence at a trial ... , and [ provided that ] the document is in the possession of that person or the person for whose benefit the secrecy obligation has been prescribed . A document may nevertheless be seized if , under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Pre - trial LAW , a person [ referred to in DATE , Article CARDINAL , of the Code of Judicial Procedure ] would have been entitled or obliged to give evidence in the pre - trial investigation about the matter contained in the document . "

ORG LAW , LAW CARDINAL , of the LAW reads :

" At the request of a person whom the case concerned , the court shall decide whether the seizure shall remain in force . A request which has been submitted to the court before its examination of the charges shall be considered within DATE from its reception by the court . The examination of such a request is , in as far as appropriate , governed by the provisions in chapter CARDINAL , sections DATE , on the examination of requests for detention on remand . The court shall reserve those with an interest in the matter an opportunity to be heard , but the absence of anyone shall not preclude a decision on the issue . "

ORG Under ORG DATE ( laki yleisten asiakirjain julkisuudesta , lag om allmänna handlingars offentlighet CARDINAL ) , official documents are in principle public ( section CARDINAL ) . They include not only documents drawn up and issued by an authority but also documents submitted to an authority and which are in its possession ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . A pre - trial investigation record , however , shall not be public until the matter has been brought before a court or the police investigation has been closed without charges being brought ( section CARDINAL ) .

Everyone has access to official public documents ( section CARDINAL , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . However , medical reports are accessible to the public only with the consent of the person to whom they relate ( section CARDINAL ) . In the absence of such consent , a party to criminal proceedings shall nevertheless have access to such documents if they are capable of affecting the outcome of the case ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL ) .

GPE evidence obtained during a pre - trial investigation shall be kept in a record of investigation , if this is considered necessary for the further consideration of the case . The record shall include all documents assumed to be of importance and indicate , inter alia , whether other documentary evidence has been obtained but omitted from the record ( section CARDINAL of the Pre - trial LAW ) .

ORG If all or part of an oral hearing has been held in camera or if , during such a hearing , any confidential document or information has been submitted , the court may decide that all or part of the case material be kept confidential for DATE . The operative part of the judgment and the legal provisions relied on shall always be made public ( section CARDINAL of ORG laki oikeudenkäynnin julkisuudesta , lag om offentlighet vid rättegång CARDINAL ) ) .

No separate appeal against a decision concerning the publicity of proceedings is allowed ( LAW ) . The decision must thus be challenged in an ordinary appeal lodged by a party to the proceedings .

ORG Under the DATE LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflag CARDINAL ) , the disclosure of confidential information by a civil servant or a public employee is a criminal offence ( chapter DATE , which has been amended subsequently ) .

ORG Under LAW ( Suomen hallitusmuoto , NORP för GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , anyone whose rights have been infringed and who has suffered damage as a result of an illegal act , or by the negligence , of a civil servant , is entitled to prosecute the civil servant , or to demand that he or she be prosecuted , and to claim damages ( Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) . Under LAW DATE ( vahingonkorvauslaki , skadeståndslag CARDINAL ) proceedings may also be brought against the ORG for actions taken by civil servants ( chapters CARDINAL and DATE ) .

ORG A person involved in a pre - trial investigation may be prohibited , on pain of a fine or a maximum of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , from revealing information concerning third parties which was not previously known to him or her and which relates to the investigation . Such a prohibition may be imposed if the disclosure of such information in the course of the investigation is liable to jeopardise the investigation or to cause harm or be prejudicial to a party to the investigation or to any third party . Heavier sentences may be imposed if the disclosure constitutes a separate offence ( section CARDINAL of the Pre - trial LAW ) .

ORG Under ORG DATE , neither parties nor their representatives are allowed to disclose confidential material which has been made available to them in their capacity as parties to persons not involved in the proceedings ( section CARDINALa ) . Disclosure in breach of this rule is punishable by a fine ( section CARDINAL ) .