Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 13 (procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

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

On DATE his brother , PERSON , aged DATE , died in police custody in GPE following his arrest on suspicion of robbery . The ensuing investigations conducted by the prosecution authorities ended with the conclusion that PERSON died of natural causes , against a background of pre - existing ailments .

The applicant contested that conclusion . In a written statement submitted to his lawyer on DATE he indicated that before his brother 's arrest , he had been living with him and his family – his brother 's wife PERSON and their baby daughter . His brother had been in good health . His wife PERSON was suffering from tuberculosis , which had prompted PERSON to have an X - ray , the results of which had confirmed his good health .

On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL circulated a notice to all police stations in GPE for the arrest of PERSON , who was known to the police , and described as “ author of several crimes of robbery ” . The notice contained PERSON nickname , his home address and his full identity , including his parents ' names . At the time , no formal charge existed against him .

On DATE PERSON was apprehended by CARDINAL police officers from FAC no . DATE . They alleged that while on patrol in a police car , they saw PERSON driving a car and they gave chase . TIME , allegedly , they witnessed a minor accident between his car and another car . They claim that PERSON jumped out of his car and ran towards some nearby apartment buildings and that they ran after him and effected an arrest . They then took him to Police Station no . DATE , where an investigation was started for the offence of driving a car without a valid licence plate . According to the police incident report and a witness statement given by the other driver , no physical injuries or damage to property were sustained as a result of the accident .

The applicant submits that on DATE , PERSON received a telephone call from Police Station no . DATE , informing her that her husband had been arrested and that she could bring him clothes and food . The applicant and PERSON went to see PERSON at around lunchtime . He was in good health , did not complain of any ill - treatment and his clothes were in good condition , being neither torn nor creased . PERSON told them that he was going to be transferred to Police Station no . CARDINAL and asked the applicant to take care of his wife and daughter . The applicant went home , while PERSON stayed with PERSON until TIME , when he was transferred to Police Station no . CARDINAL .

According to a police report dated DATE , PERSON was taken to Police Station no . CARDINAL for questioning in connection with an alleged robbery that had been committed on DATE . There , he was informed that he was “ guilty of aiding and abetting robbery and of the possession of counterfeit foreign currency ” and that he would be “ detained for TIME ” . The report was signed by a police officer and an officially appointed lawyer , TIME , but not by PERSON .

Still on DATE , DATE , PERSON was officially charged with the aforesaid robbery . In a written statement made before the prosecutor he allegedly admitted the offence when questioned about the charge . This statement was submitted by the Government .

An arrest warrant valid for a period of TIME was issued by GPE , the police officer in charge of the lock - up . The warrant did not specify the time at which the CARDINAL-hour period commenced , contrary to the legal requirements .

On entering the lock - up at Police Station no . CARDINAL , PERSON was subjected to a body search . He was not examined by a doctor . The ORG 's evidence is that PERSON was in good health on entering the police lock - up .

On DATE he was brought before the prosecutor PERSON , who issued a detention order valid for DATE .

According to the applicant , on DATE PERSON wife went to Police Station no . CARDINAL to take food to her husband . She allegedly bribed PERSON with some cigarettes in order to be allowed to give her husband the food and to talk to him for TIME in the presence of ORG noticed that PERSON was helped to PERSON office by CARDINAL policemen , as he had difficulty walking . After this short visit , PERSON told the applicant that PERSON “ was looking bad ” , but that she had not dared to ask her husband what had happened , owing to ORG presence .

The DATE 's account , based on CARDINAL statements , by CARDINAL of Mr PERSON 's fellow detainees and by police officer PERSON , is that on TIME of DATE , while taking his shower , PERSON felt sick . He was taken to the kitchen for fresh air and then he was given a massage . TIME , PERSON complained again that he was feeling unwell and was taken to the police dispensary , where a medical assistant observed “ an altered general health condition , pain when breathing and physical weakness ” .

At a time unknown , PERSON was taken to ORG , where a doctor found that his systolic blood pressure was CARDINAL PERSON and his pulse rate was CARDINAL bpm . A diagnosis of “ respiratory viral infection with altered general health condition ” and , allegedly , a “ normal thorax image ” was made . Admission to ORG was directed .

Mr Carabulea was taken back to the police lock - up , where he remained until TIME He was then brought before the public prosecutor and another warrant authorising his pre - trial detention for DATE was issued .

At TIME was admitted to ORG , where , according to the medical file , a diagnosis of “ deteriorated general state , with sharp pain in the thorax , epigastric pain , and dyspnoea on minimal effort ” was made . As he was also found to have paroxysmal tachycardia ( sudden increased heart rate ) , it was decided to transfer him to PERSON ORG .

At TIME he was transferred to PERSON ORG , where an initial diagnosis of a massive upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage was made . According to the medical records , PERSON was in a deep state of “ shock ” , his blood pressure was DATE and his pulse was CARDINAL . The applicant was admitted to LOC in a state of shock , with cyanotic and cold extremities , repeated vomiting with drops of blood ( “ coffee - ground ” type ) , and intense pains in the epigastric region . Surgical consultation was required . The doctors described the history of the disease as follows . “ After the patient 's anamnesis , it appears that the shock occurred in the morning , but no probable cause was indicated:- ingestion of toxic substances , drugs , foreign bodies or trauma ” . Further examination based on “ clinical and paraclinical information supported by cardiological examination ” ruled out the initial diagnosis of massive upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage , and the patient was found to have suffered a pulmonary thromboembolism . He was , therefore , transferred to ORG , which specialised in cardiology , at an unspecified time during TIME DATE .

Early TIME ( DATE ) at ORG the initial diagnosis was “ syncope of undetermined cause , pulmonary thromboembolism , paroxysmal tachycardia ” ( right heart deficiency ) and “ a haematoma beneath the capsule of the liver ” . He was noted to be in a state of shock and , having regard to the seriousness of his condition , constant medical supervision was advised .

Mr Carabulea remained at that hospital , under constant police supervision , in a ward in which he was the only patient . All medical examinations took place in the presence of a police officer .

The applicant states that on DATE , at TIME , he and his cousin , PERSON , together with PERSON went to see PERSON at the police station , but were told that he was no longer there , as he had been taken to ORG . They went to the said hospital where they were told that PERSON was not there either . They then returned to Police Station no . CARDINAL but the police officer on duty did not give them any further information and so they went home . TIME , their neighbours PERSON and PERSON told them a cousin of theirs , PERSON , who was a cleaning lady at ORG , had telephoned them because she had seen PERSON , who had been taken to that GPE and placed in ORG . The applicant , PERSON and PERSON went to PERSON . At the hospital reception they were told that PERSON was there but that it was not possible to see him as he was under police supervision .

In an unsigned examination note in the medical file , allegedly drawn up on CARDINAL or DATE , it is recorded that PERSON “ explained in a moment of lucidity ” that on DATE he had been involved in a car accident . The note further records “ cranial , thoracic and abdominal trauma which he [ had ] neglected ” , and that “ since DATE he [ had ] had slight pains in the upper area of the abdomen , a dry cough and dyspnoea ” .

A computerised tomography performed DATE disclosed a haemorrhage beneath the capsule of the liver .

On DATE , whilst in ORG of the hospital , PERSON was interrogated by the prosecutor PERSON According to the documents submitted by the Government , PERSON withdrew his previous statement made on DATE in which , allegedly , he had admitted the offence .

Mr Carabulea remained in ORG .

The applicant alleges that after PERSON 's admission to ORG , his wife , the applicant himself , his cousin PERSON and his friend PERSON tried to visit him every day . On each occasion they were refused admission by the authorities on the ground that PERSON was under arrest . However , they did manage to see him , briefly , at times and were able to glean certain information from him .

For instance , on DATE , they made an attempt to see PERSON , but the policeman inside the ward did not let them enter as the patient was under arrest and warned them that , for his sake , they should not come any more . No doctor was available to advise them as to PERSON 's condition but some medical assistants told them that it was “ serious ” . It was not until DATE , after long negotiations with the police officer on guard , that PERSON was eventually allowed to see her husband for TIME . After the visit , PERSON came out of the ward crying and told the applicant , PERSON and PERSON that PERSON 's condition looked very bad but that she was unable to obtain any information from him because of the presence of the police officer . DATE , PERSON and PERSON succeeded in entering PERSON 's ward for TIME . When they came out , they told the applicant and PERSON that PERSON had told them that the police had suspended him from a cupboard , by using handcuffs , and had then congratulated him for having beaten the world record for hanging . He had also been rolled up in a wet carpet and beaten . On another occasion , PERSON managed to see PERSON through the door to the ward , which was slightly open . The applicant and PERSON , who were QUANTITY away , heard PERSON calling out to PERSON “ They 've killed me , I 'm a wreck ! ” ( M - au omorât , m - au nenorocit ) . The applicant , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON went to the hospital DATE to try to see PERSON . Throughout this period , the medical staff refused to talk to them . On CARDINAL occasion , when asked about the diagnosis , a doctor told them that the doctors did not know what the diagnosis was .

Mr Carabulea died in hospital on TIME CARDINAL DATE .

The hospital notified ORG of his death , reporting that the patient 's death was caused by “ recurrent pulmonary thromboembolism ( on DATE , DATE and DATE ) , severe pulmonary hypertension , thoracic and abdominal trauma as a result of a car accident of DATE , right heart insufficiency , thrombophlebitis in the left leg and irreversible cardio - respiratory block ” .

The applicant submits that PERSON family were not formally notified of his death but learned of it on CARDINAL DATE when they went to the hospital to visit him . They were told at reception that PERSON had died and they were sent to the hospital mortuary .

There , they saw PERSON 's body and noticed that he had bruising in a number of areas , including the ribs and stomach , CARDINAL thigh and also in the genital area . They wanted to take his body home but were told that it was not possible and they were directed to come back on DATE

According to an on - site report of ORG , and dated DATE , PERSON death was the result of a car accident which had taken place on DATE . The report stated that the corpse showed no external signs of injury and no symptoms of any internal lesions and that , whilst in the hospital , the patient had not referred to any alleged assault by the police officers at the place of detention . The report records that interviews were held with certain doctors , that no relatives of the victim were present at the time and that no other data was available . Despite the legal requirements , none of the doctors allegedly interviewed had countersigned the report .

A death certificate issued DATE records “ acute cardio - respiratory insufficiency ” as the immediate cause of death and “ bronchopneumonia ” as the proximate cause of death .

An autopsy ordered by the prosecutor on the date of death was carried out on CARDINAL DATE by PERSON of ORG in GPE . The victim 's family were not informed about the autopsy .

On DATE PERSON family returned to ORG but were told that the corpse had been transferred to the morgue at ORG , where an autopsy had already been performed . The family was allowed to take the body for burial . Before the burial , they took some pictures of the lower right side of the body .

CARDINAL copy pictures that were submitted to the ORG show bruises and haematoma on the victim 's right hand , upper right thigh , right iliac crest and on the right side of the genital area .

On DATE ORG issued a medical certificate stating that PERSON had been examined at its clinic DATE , in DATE , and that there was no indication of any pathology associated with his pulmonary condition .

A provisional autopsy report dated DATE and signed by Dr. PERSON stated that PERSON death had been “ non - violent and was the result of acute cardio - respiratory insufficiency following pulmonary thromboembolism , with widespread areas of pulmonary infarction against a background of pre - existing chronic diseases , myocardial sclerosis , and aggressive chronic hepatitis with progression towards cirrhosis . The violence bruise observed is CARDINAL CARDINAL - CARDINAL days old and could have been produced by the impact of a hard object , but did not cause death . ”

No X - ray of the thorax had been performed during the autopsy .

The final autopsy report was produced by PERSON on DATE .

Its findings based on a forensic examination of the corpse , noted an ecchymosis “ as a result of violence on the right iliac crest ” which had no causal link with the death , a fracture of CARDINAL ribs “ RCARDINAL-RCARDINAL along the mid - clavicular line , QUANTITY of serous - sanguineous fluid in the right pleural cavity ” , and “ black blood ” in the lungs . The report was silent as to the source of bleeding . Genitalia and veins were reported as being “ normal ” .

Its conclusion was drafted in identical terms to those used in the provisional report of DATE .

On DATE PERSON wife filed a complaint with ORG in GPE , claiming that her husband , who had been in sound physical condition when he had entered police custody , had died as a result of beatings by police officers NORP and PERSON ( Police Station no . CARDINAL ) . She requested a murder investigation to be opened and she attached to her complaint the medical certificate which had been issued DATE in DATE and which had certified that her husband 's pulmonary and pleural condition had been good .

DATE , Captain U. compiled CARDINAL separate reports on the circumstances of the arrest and detention of PERSON . He stated that when PERSON had undressed for the body search preceding entry to the lock - up , there had been no signs of injury on his body . He denied having used any physical pressure while interrogating PERSON . He also mentioned that on DATE PERSON had arrived at the police station with a package for her husband and requested to see him but had been refused .

Also DATE , police officer AM.M. from FAC no . CARDINAL filed a report indicating that he had been on duty on DATE PERSON had been brought to the station and that he had not heard any noises or screams coming from the cell in which PERSON had been detained .

On DATE the officer in charge of the lock - up , FAC , addressed a written report to his superiors , in which he indicated that on DATE PERSON had been brought to the lock - up at the police station and that when he had undressed for the body search preceding entry , there had been no signs of injury on his body . According to him , on DATE PERSON and CARDINAL other suspects had been examined by a medical assistant , who had recommended that an X - ray examination be carried out on PERSON . He stated that an X - ray had been taken at ORG and that the doctor there had ordered that PERSON be treated as an in - patient at ORG .

On DATE Mr FAC , a lawyer acting on behalf of Mr PERSON 's family , filed another complaint with ORG requesting the investigation of ORG for physical assault causing death . The complaint alleged that the inhuman treatment to which the victim had been subjected had been inflicted for the purpose of obtaining a confession to the offence with which he had been charged and that during the victim 's stay in hospital , both his family and the lawyer himself had been hindered in their efforts to contact him . The lawyer also complained that all medical documents concerning PERSON had been sealed and sent to ORG and that the family had not been given access to them .

The military prosecutor GPE was placed in charge of the investigation .

On DATE police officer PERSON , who served under the orders of PERSON , took statements from GPE and ORG , who had been placed in the same police lock - up as PERSON . They were in custody at the time their statements were taken . They declared in almost identical terms that they had never heard Mr Carabulea complain of ill - treatment by the police .

DATE . On DATE the military prosecutor took statements from ORG and GPE , CARDINAL police officers working at ORG who had guarded PERSON during his transfer to ORG and subsequently to ORG . They stated in identical terms that during the transfer , the victim , who had stomach aches , had been lying down , but had not spoken to them . They had been present during all the medical examinations of PERSON and had not heard him complain to the doctors about an assault while in police custody .

On DATE police officers GPE , GPE and PERSON made statements to the prosecutor regarding PERSON detention and death .

ORG statement largely corresponded to his reports of DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

GPE reported that he had taken part in the body search of PERSON and that he had not seen any signs of violence on PERSON body . He further explained that as PERSON had not felt well in the morning of DATE while in the shower room , he had taken him to the medical assistant at the police station and then to ORG , where he had been examined and sent to ORG . Before taking him to ORG , GPE had gone to the prosecutor 's office for the CARDINALnd district , where a DATE warrant had been issued .

PERSON stated that CARDINAL DATE he had been on leave .

On DATE the military prosecutor decided not to open a criminal investigation in respect of police officers GPE and PERSON He concluded that PERSON death had been non - violent and was due to organic diseases which had developed progressively and which led to a deterioration in his general state of health following a car accident on DATE , during which he had suffered thoracic , abdominal and cranial contusions .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG of the Procurator - ORG requesting a new investigation . It pointed out , in particular , that PERSON had never complained of any pain before being taken into police custody , that the bruising in the genital area could not have been caused by a car accident , and that PERSON , PERSON alleged co - accused on the robbery charge and the driver of the car which had allegedly been involved in a collision on DATE , had never been questioned .

On DATE the prosecutor - in - chief GPE , from ORG of ORG , quashed the decision of DATE on the basis of insufficient reasons . He sent the case file back to the prosecutor in charge for further preliminary inquiries in respect of the alleged assault by the police officers , with the following instructions : that a statement was to be taken from the victim 's wife ; that the report concerning the alleged car accident on DATE was to be examined ; that all the police officers who had taken part in the victim 's arrest on CARDINAL DATE and everyone present during his interrogation , including the prosecutor PERSON and the officially appointed lawyer , DATE , were to be questioned ; that the various pieces of information concerning the interrogation of both PERSON and his co - accused were to be examined and assessed ; that the prosecutor PERSON and the officially appointed lawyer P.P. were to be interrogated with a view to explaining why on DATE PERSON had withdrawn his earlier statements and whether any physical pressure had been exerted on him during the first interrogations . He further instructed that a supplementary forensic report be produced with a view to determining whether the fracture of the ribs and the bruising in the genital area were the result of any alleged assault .

On DATE the case was registered at the Military Section of the Procurator - General 's Office and a new prosecutor , I.I. , was assigned .

In a report dated DATE I.I. indicated that following an article published in the newspaper ORG on DATE , he had invited PERSON , the victim 's wife , to come to the prosecutor 's office . During this meeting it was agreed that she would return at DATE , with her lawyer , in order to consult the file relating to her husband 's death so as to enable her to submit any objections to the way in which the investigation had been carried out .

The Government claimed that after that meeting , PERSON had refused to go to see the prosecutor . They produced CARDINAL summonses dated DATE and DATE informing PERSON that her failure to appear before the prosecutor would lead to the discontinuance of the proceedings , and to which PERSON had allegedly failed to respond . They also submitted CARDINAL alleged acknowledgments of receipt of various summonses which had been addressed to PERSON , none of which containing her signature .

The applicant submitted in reply that PERSON had not received any of these summonses . He stated that the prosecutor had met PERSON on DATE but had not asked her any questions .

On DATE the prosecutor - in - chief , ORG , submitted a written request to ORG for a copy of the file concerning the alleged car accident of DATE and for information regarding the medical report prepared when PERSON had been taken into the police lock - up .

On DATE ORG responded that the file on the car accident was at the prosecutor 's office for the CARDINALth district . They further indicated that , according to Instruction no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL issued by ORG , any sign of physical violence noted during the body search had to be notified to the doctor in charge of the lock - up , who would advise whether the detainee should be admitted to the lock - up and would make preparations for a thorough medical examination , and that in any event , all detainees had to be medically examined within TIME of incarceration .

On DATE the military prosecutor again requested the medical report that had been drawn up when PERSON had been taken into police custody .

On DATE FAC no . CARDINAL indicated that PERSON medical file had been sent to ORG . It appears from this medical file that the first entries were made on DATE , shortly before PERSON transfer to ORG . The file did not contain any mention of an X - ray that had , allegedly , been performed .

NORP In DATE the military prosecutor received the investigation file concerning the alleged car incident on DATE . It appears from this file that on the said date PERSON had been charged only with the offence of driving a car without a valid licence plate . The file contains no mention of any collision with or of any damage to any other vehicle or of any injury to any person .

On DATE the military prosecutor PERSON ordered the preparation of a forensic medical report on the body of the deceased by experts from ORG . The experts were asked to express an opinion on the cause of death and to say whether , in their view , the measures taken by the medical staff who had treated PERSON had been correct and appropriate having regard to his condition . They were further asked to advise on whether any signs of injury were evident in the genital area of the deceased and , if so , on the nature of such injury and on the duration of time that would have been required for its healing . A colour photograph showing bruising in the area of the victim 's genitalia which had been submitted by the family was attached to the order .

On DATE , in response to the request of the public prosecutor , PERSON , who had performed the autopsy on DATE , ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) produced his second forensic report , in which he reiterated his previous findings . In addition , he stated that the broken ribs “ had no vital character ” and that the fracture of the mid - clavicular line “ could have been produced post mortem ” , during the cardiac resuscitation that was , apparently , carried out at ORG . Moreover , in his opinion , the bruising in the genital area as indicated on the photograph had also been produced post mortem , such bruising being a very common occurrence in his experience .

On DATE the military prosecutor decided , in the light of the additional forensic report , not to open criminal investigations into the allegations both of physical assault resulting in the death of the victim and of an inadequate investigation by ORG and PERSON His decision , which was far briefer in its rationale than the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , concluded that PERSON death was due to “ a cardiopathy of a person with pre - existent visceral pathology ” and had not constituted a criminal act .

The Government submitted CARDINAL expert opinions by forensic pathologists , the first by Professor Dr PERSON , from the “ PERSON ” ORG in GPE , dated DATE , and the second by Professor Dr PERSON , a NORP forensic expert , dated DATE .

In his report , Professor PERSON explained that a pulmonary thromboembolism was a sudden biological event which appeared without any symptoms . He noted that PERSON had had a child who had died at DATE and DATE because of a thrombosis of the inferior vena cava , owing to a congenital anomaly of the venous system , and he concluded that it was , therefore , reasonable to suppose that Mr Carabulea had presented similar anomalies of the venous system which had predisposed him to the development of a thrombosis . The report stressed that the alleged traffic accident had not caused any external or internal lesions and that there was no causal link whatsoever between the alleged traffic accident and the appearance of pulmonary thromboembolism and of the thrombophlebitis of the left limb , the first manifestation of which was evidenced on DATE .

Professor PERSON 's report described the history of PERSON treatment and subsequent death , as recorded in the medical records that had been presented to him , which he described as “ poorly kept ” . He noted that when PERSON had arrived at ORG , he was in serious ill - health and had been vomiting blood and that by the time he was transferred to ORG , at TIME , he was in a generalised life - threatening condition requiring admission to the intensive care unit with the intention of addressing , immediately , the problem of saving his life . Life - saving measures having been taken , PERSON was then transferred to ORG on DATE with a diagnosis of pulmonary thromboembolism . A computerised tomography performed there disclosed a lesion on the surface of the liver , while an ultrasound examination revealed some emboli in the small peripheral arteries of the lung . As a result of these findings , the doctors had been faced with the following dilemma : if the medical treatment required to limit the normal clotting mechanism of the blood ( the emboli ) was to be administered , then this ran the risk of exacerbating the liver haemorrhage which , as a consequence , might in itself have become life - threatening . Therefore , the doctors had administered the anti - coagulant with caution in order to prevent further haemorrhage around the liver . On DATE Mr Carabulea had developed a second severe episode of pulmonary thromboembolism for which he had received emergency treatment and had been successfully resuscitated . His recovery was slow and the physicians had planned a phlebography but before this investigation could be performed , PERSON suffered a third episode of pulmonary thromboembolism and died at TIME on DATE

Dr Pounder found that the unequivocal cause of death was pulmonary thromboembolism as a consequence of blunt - force trauma . Assuming that PERSON had been involved in an alleged road traffic collision on DATE , PERSON found that it was more likely than not that the liver injury sustained on that occasion had led to his death . PERSON also considered that PERSON had been at high risk of death from pulmonary thromboembolism , even with the best of medical treatment , “ given his initial presentation with shock and the subsequent recurrence of the pulmonary thromboembolism ” .

Dr PERSON stated that the yellow bruise at the front of the right hip mentioned in the autopsy report could have originated in a number of causes , including the wearing of a seatbelt during a car accident . Having regard to the medical records indicating that resuscitation had been attempted , PERSON considered that the CARDINAL fractured ribs identified at the autopsy had almost certainly been produced during attempts at resuscitation around the time of death .

Concerning the autopsy report in general , PERSON acknowledged that there were serious omissions and severe inadequacies in the post mortem autopsy as identified also by PERSON in his report ( see below paragraphs CARDINAL ) . PERSON found the autopsy report deficient in several aspects , both general and specific . It did not meet “ normally accepted standards within LOC ” ; it originated from an institute belonging to ORG ; it should have been produced expeditiously ; it lacked thoroughness and was too brief ; it contained a number of serious omissions , such as the failure to document the state of the veins in the legs , the presence or absence of thrombus within them and the failure to give an account of the weight of a number of organs . The autopsy report had declared the death to be due to natural causes despite the likelihood that the trauma on the surface of the liver was a precipitant of the pulmonary thromboembolism . PERSON also deplored the fact that the additional opinion obtained from ORG “ had not taken the opportunity to acknowledge and correct the errors ” contained in the earlier autopsy report .

The applicant submitted CARDINAL expert opinions , CARDINAL dated DATE by PERSON , a forensic pathologist practising at ORG at ORG in GPE ( GPE ) , and the other dated DATE by Professor PERSON , from ORG in GPE ( GPE ) . Their opinions were based on the NORP prosecuting authorities ' file on PERSON , including all the medical documents , the autopsy report and some of the prosecutors ' decisions .

According to PERSON , the medical file submitted lacked proper and adequate information , such as laboratory data , routine medical data , including the circumstances surrounding PERSON death , the drugs administered throughout his stay in hospital , their dosage and application . Having regard to the low probability ( CARDINAL in CARDINAL ) of a patient of PERSON age developing a fatal pulmonary thromboembolism , even after a minor uncomplicated surgery , the development of such an embolism required a very thorough clinical analysis of many laboratory tests and other data . However , crucial information was missing from the medical file which , thereby , prevented any genuine appraisal of the case .

PERSON also commented upon a number of inconsistencies in the medical documents on file . In the first place , he noted the change of diagnosis from respiratory ( pulmonary ) viral infection , made at ORG , to “ upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage ” , made at ORG , and later to pulmonary thromboembolism , although no explanation had been provided for such changes . Furthermore , the diagnosis of pulmonary thromboembolism which had been made at ORG , at ORG and later referred to in the autopsy report contained no explanation of how this diagnosis had been reached since no blood clot ( embolus ) was ever mentioned as having been found . He also noted that it was not until DATE that Heparin , “ the immediate cornerstone treatment for pulmonary thromboembolism ” , was administered , despite the fact that the diagnosis of pulmonary thromboembolism had been made DATE . As to the “ thrombophlebitis of the lower limbs ” mentioned as one of the causes of death in the Notice issued by ORG on DATE , PERSON stated that “ thrombophlebitis of the lower limbs ” was not a deadly disease and would not “ at all ” predispose a patient to thromboembolism . He found no numerical data available to quantify the severity of the pulmonary hypertension mentioned in the said Notice and he expressed the view that the “ thoracic and abdominal trauma caused by the car crash ” was an insufficient explanation of cause of death since no specific diagnosis had been made and there was no indication of any organs having been affected or of the kind of injuries that were allegedly sustained in the accident .

He further noted that in ORG a diagnosis of haemorrhage around the liver was made . Since such diagnosis “ always raises the strong possibility of blunt abdominal trauma in the near past ” PERSON was astonished that no other reference or observation was made in respect of this diagnosis . In his view , such a diagnosis would normally be followed very carefully “ because of the potential of sudden blood loss , hepatic rupture and many other potentially life - threatening complications ” . He pointed out that the scrotal lesion which could be seen on the pictures taken by the family was not described in the autopsy report although this should have formed part of the external body description . He further found the description in the autopsy report of the fracture of the ribs to be deficient since it provided no information as to the age of the fracture or as to whether it was on the right or left side , both of these elements being important in determining the causal mechanism of the rib fracture ( resuscitation procedures or otherwise ) .

With reference to the statement made by PERSON that PERSON might have had anomalies of the venous system , PERSON pointed out that the autopsy indicated that the venous system of the victim was normal . He further stressed that the isolated vena cava developmental anomaly which had caused the death of PERSON child was a very rare condition and that the heredity rate of such a disease was in the region of PERCENT ; moreover , none of the medical records , including the autopsy report , had ever indicated that the victim had thrombophlebitis .

PERSON also stated that it was “ professionally incomprehensible why it took DATE to complete the autopsy report ” since the generally accepted time was DATE .

In short , he described the forensic autopsy report as “ basically professionally useless , loaded with scant and incomplete descriptions and with medically erroneous conclusions ” . As a consequence , he declared himself “ unable to reasonably exclude the possibility of significant trauma contributing to the death ” .

Finally , he pointed out that in similar cases he would have suggested a reautopsy of the deceased , “ but in this case , it is highly unlikely that similar action will yield useful information , depending on the technique of conservation of the body ” .

The applicant 's second expert , Professor PERSON , noted at the outset that the re - examination of the corpse should not have been done by the same pathologist as the one who had given the primary opinion . He further found the descriptions in the autopsy reports to be sparse and lacking in many aspects . He deplored the fact that photographs had not been taken post mortem , which would have been very helpful in determining whether there were bruises on the corpse or simply post mortem lividity , and he expressed the opinion that the pre - existing diseases of the victim described in the autopsy reports had probably not been of any importance concerning the death . He also confirmed that the cause of death was most probably pulmonary thromboembolism whose precipitating event could have been serious trauma . However , noting that the source of the embolism had not been found “ and [ was ] probably not searched for ” , he concluded that , having regard to the poor quality and brevity of the autopsy reports , it was not possible to determine the reason for the thrombosis .

DATE . On DATE Dumitru Dinu , a friend of the victim , and PERSON , the victim 's cousin , submitted written statements to the applicant 's lawyer concerning the circumstances surrounding Mr PERSON 's death .

Dumitru PERSON stated that he had managed on one occasion to persuade the police officer to allow him to enter the ward with the victim 's wife in order to help PERSON to change his clothes . Whispering , PERSON had complained that he had been brutally assaulted by the police who had suspended him from a locker with his hands tied behind his back and had beaten him while he was so hanging . When he refused to admit to the charge of robbery , he had been rolled in a carpet , jumped upon , and beaten with sticks . PERSON had identified PERSON as the chief of the police officers who had ill - treated him . The supervising police officer had terminated the meeting when he realised that they were talking about PERSON 's detention . As PERSON and PERSON 's wife were leaving the ward , a medical assistant told them that a doctor wanted to talk to them . They went to see the doctor who informed them that PERSON had very little chance of survival and that he was living on a drip . She told them that PERSON had blood in his lungs and liver and a swollen heart and that his kidneys were blocked . PERSON stated that he had returned to the hospital to see PERSON for a second time . As the police officer had not allowed him to enter the room , he had forced the door open and asked PERSON whether he was all right . He heard him shout back “ They killed me ! Do n't leave me here , take me out of here otherwise I 'll die ! ” The applicant , PERSON and PERSON were also present and heard these cries . Before the burial , PERSON , who had brought along the photographer who took the only pictures of PERSON 's body , saw various injuries on the body , including , bruising around the stomach area and on the deceased 's face , legs and genitals .

In his statement , PERSON confirmed that PERSON had been kept in a ward under constant police surveillance . Although he did not see PERSON during his stay in the hospital , he accompanied PERSON and PERSON and he heard PERSON call out “ They killed me ! ” He witnessed PERSON and PERSON come out of PERSON 's ward and tell him how PERSON had complained that he had been tortured by the police under PERSON command . He saw PERSON 's body after he had died . There were bruises on the legs and face , under the chin and on the genitals .

“ CARDINAL . The ORG considers it a necessary practice for autopsies to be carried out in all ORG member states to establish the cause of death for medico - legal or other reasons or to establish the identity of the deceased .

As the mobility of the population increases throughout LOC and throughout the world , the adoption of uniform guidelines on the way autopsies are to be carried out and on the way autopsy reports are to be established becomes imperative .

This is especially so in the case of mass disasters , whether natural or not , where there may be CARDINAL of victims of numerous nationalities .

NORP Moreover , it is believed that autopsies should be carried out in all cases of suspicious death or where there are doubts as to the cause and that , if done systematically , they may more easily bring to light illegal executions and murders perpetrated by authoritarian regimes .

Internationally recognised and applied autopsy rules would therefore contribute to the fight to protect human rights , especially such human rights as the prohibition of torture and of ill - treatment , and the right to life . Here , the ORG welcomes the fact that LAW has been ratified by CARDINAL out of ORG member states .

The ORG therefore recommends that ORG :

i. promote the adoption of harmonised and internationally recognised rules on the way autopsies are to be carried out and the adoption of a standardised model protocol for autopsies ;

ii . support the proposal that states world - wide formally accept and implement the obligation to carry out autopsies in all cases of suspicious death ;

iii . invite the member states to apply the ORG guidelines on disaster victim identification ;

iv . invite those ORG member states which have not yet done so to ratify ORG on the Transfer of Corpses ;

v. invite ORG member states which have not yet done so to ratify LAW or Punishment ;

vi . draw up international rules to facilitate the formalities proposed in sub - paragraphs CARDINAL.i , ii , iii , iv and v from the administrative ( transport , crossing of borders , police , etc . ) or legal points of view . ”

The “ Manual on ORG - legal , Arbitrary and LAW ” adopted by ORG in DATE includes a Model Autopsy Protocol aimed at providing authoritative guidelines for the conduct of autopsies by public prosecutors and medical personnel . In the introduction , it notes that an abridged examination or report is never appropriate in potentially controversial cases and that both a systematic and comprehensive examination and report are required to prevent the omission or loss of important details : “ It is of the utmost importance that an autopsy performed following a controversial death be thorough in scope . The documentation and recording of those findings should be equally thorough so as to permit meaningful use of the autopsy results . ”

NORP In part CARDINAL(c ) , it states that adequate photographs are crucial for thorough documentation of autopsy findings . Photographs should be comprehensive in scope and must confirm the presence of all demonstrable signs of injury or disease commented upon in the autopsy report .

Following a visit to GPE , the Special Rapporteur in his report of DATE , found that there were persistent cases of police abuse aimed at extracting confessions from a suspect and that there was evidence to support the allegations that the GPE were more likely to be victims of police abuse than others . He further criticised as ineffective the system of investigation in which the military prosecutors had the exclusive authority to investigate , thus leading to the perception that the military prosecutors lacked independence and impartiality . He also noted that he had received numerous reports alleging that medical certificates were frequently falsified to cover - up ill - treatment by police and stressed that in most cases the investigations resulted in decisions not to prosecute .

In spite of a request to the NORP authorities , the Special Rapporteur did not receive any statistics on the number of complaints filed and prosecutions brought under LAW ( Abusive behaviour ) , CARDINAL ( Abusive investigation ) and CARDINAL ) ( Torture ) of LAW .

Referring to the case of PERSON , the Special Rapporteur indicated that he had been informed by the military prosecutor that there was no reason to reopen the case but that the military prosecutor was prepared to review the facts once again . Noting that the lawyers for the victim had filed a complaint before the Court , the Special Rapporteur determined that he was not in a position to reach a conclusion on the merits of the case . However , he considered that the case raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of the investigation of torture on the part of police officials and was consistent with other reports that he had received .

In its report , the ORG indicated that a considerable number of detainees interviewed at the police lock - up cells and prisons visited by its delegation alleged that they had been physically ill - treated by the police . The following types of ill - treatment were constantly alleged : slaps , punches , kicks , blows with a truncheon ( the victim sometimes being rolled up in a carpet or some similar covering ) . Some of the persons interviewed complained of beatings of the soles of the feet , which were apparently inflicted while the victim was on his knees on a chair or suspended from a solid bar in a position known as “ spit - roaster ” . These allegations related to the moment when the suspects were apprehended and to later stages of the interrogation by the police . The ORG delegation noted that when a prosecutor was asked how he would act in the presence of a suspect alleging ill - treatment by the police , he answered : “ The police are my colleagues . I would regard this allegation as a lie coming from a recidivist ... ”


Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicants , daughter and mother , are NORP nationals and live in PERSON They are represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the first applicant was placed in pre - trial detention in PERSON , charged with the murder of her husband , who had been killed on DATE . In a judgment of ORG ( PERSON u ORG DATE the first applicant was convicted of murdering her husband in imperfect self - defence and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The sentence was reduced to DATE imprisonment by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . After her conviction the first applicant had , in DATE , been sent to serve the remainder of her sentence in ORG ( GPE u GPE ) .

Meanwhile , on DATE , following the first applicant 's arrest , her son , E , born in DATE , was placed in the care of his paternal grandmother by a decision of ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb PERSON ) . This decision was upheld by the same FAC on DATE .

In DATE the President of GPE reduced the first applicant 's sentence to DATE imprisonment . The applicant was released on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant asked ORG to allow her access rights in respect of PERSON By a decision of DATE PERSON granted the first applicant visiting rights in respect of E every DATE from TIME at ORG , if necessary in the presence of a psychologist . E 's guardian was instructed to bring him to these LOC . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :

“ The report drawn up by the psychologist ... on DATE recommended that it was in the best interests of the child to continue contact with his mother in order both to treat his trauma and to establish a natural relationship between the mother and the child , which was seen as a precondition for the latter 's further proper mental and physical development .

In adopting the above decision the ORG 's expert team has been guided primarily by the best interests of the child and the [ need for the ] protection of his rights since he has recently been left without the direct parental care of both of his parents . He has been receiving psychotherapy owing to the consequences he is suffering . He has shown a wish and readiness for contact with his mother and the psychologist considers this [ contact ] necessary for his treatment in order to avoid ... permanent [ negative ] consequences for his mental and physical development . ”

It appears that the visits took place and that the last one was in DATE . The child 's paternal grandmother , as his guardian , lodged an appeal against the above decision and on DATE ORG ( ORG zdravstva i socijalne skrbi ) quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .

On an unspecified date the case was transferred to ORG ( PERSON ) . The hearings were held on DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG granted the first applicant visiting rights DATE from TIME at FAC . She was also granted the right to telephone E DATE TIME and TIME This decision was quashed by ORG on DATE on appeals lodged by the first applicant and on behalf of E ; it remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh consideration . The hearings before the latter court were held on DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE .

On DATE the court ordered psychological and psychiatric reports on the first applicant and PERSON The expert concluded that contact between the first applicant and E would not be possible because the child had categorically refused to see the first applicant . In order to overcome that difficulty , it was recommended that E undergo psychotherapy once DATE for DATE , after which it would have to be established whether his psychological condition allowed for contact with the first applicant . It was stressed that the therapy was needed to come to terms with the tragic event and prepare E for contact with his mother .

As to the first applicant , the expert opinion recommended psychotherapy in order to come to terms with the tragic event and create conditions in which that issue could be discussed by the first applicant and PERSON

Further hearings before ORG were held on DATE and DATE . On CARDINAL DATE a decision was adopted refusing the first applicant 's request for access rights in respect of PERSON

Meanwhile , on DATE , the first applicant complained to ORG about the length of the proceedings . The complaint was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

The first - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE was upheld by ORG on DATE .

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint arguing that her rights under LAW and LAW had been violated .

On DATE the ORG accepted the complaint , quashed the decisions of ORG and ORG and ordered ORG to take all necessary steps to ensure effective meetings and contact between the first applicant and PERSON The relevant part of ORG decision reads :

“ CARDINAL . ...

As regards the present case , ORG endorses the principle that the incarceration of a parent does not break the tie of family life between that parent and a child . Moreover , in such circumstances the ORG has a special obligation to encourage the preservation of family ties between the prisoner and his or her family members .

NORP ...

Positive obligations include a duty on the part of the ORG to be proactive in order to ensure that its citizens ' family life is respected and efficiently protected , even when that requires regulation of their private relations . These obligations are expressed in the following ORG of the LAW which refer to social rights :

Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL )

The family is under special State protection .

Article CARDINAL

The ORG protects maternity , children and young persons and creates social , cultural , educational , economic and other conditions in order to promote the right to dignified life .

In the case at issue , the competent administrative and judicial bodies determined the access rights of the mother ( the applicant ) in respect of her son , a minor , during her incarceration in Požega Penitentiary .

In the opinion of ORG the proceedings concerning the appointment of a legal guardian to the child as well as proceedings concerning the access rights of parents ... are both relevant ... These proceedings are both judicial and administrative ...

Therefore , the Constitutional Court finds that possible infringements of the right to respect for one 's family life under LAW and ... under LAW require that all proceedings prior to a decision of ORG be viewed as a whole , irrespective of the nature of these proceedings ( administrative , judicial ) or the bodies which conducted them ...

The applicant 's detention made contact between the mother and her child impossible and it therefore amounts to an interference of the ORG with the applicant 's right to respect for her family life within the meaning of LAW and LAW . ...

The Constitutional Court finds that the delays in the proceedings concerning the protection of the child 's well - being , such as proceedings on appointing his legal guardian , access and visiting rights of parents ... might run contrary to the procedural requirements of LAW . ...

In the case at issue the length of the administrative and judicial proceedings concerning the applicant 's visiting and access rights in respect of her child exceeded DATE and ended with a judicial decision denying such rights so that the last time the applicant saw her child was on DATE .

's father ( DATE ) ; the failure of the judicial authorities to commission the necessary expert report in time ; the failure to consider the possibility of appointing a special guardian for the child during his psychotherapy , irrespective of the fact that his paternal grandmother had been appointed his legal guardian , in order to ' work out ' the event , which had tragic consequences both for the child and his paternal grandmother ; the fact that the additional expert report recommended by court experts was not compiled ; and the delays in the proceedings concerning the visiting and access rights , which opened the possibility of influencing and changing the child 's attitude towards his mother , resulting in his categorical refusal to see her – indicate that ORG can not but find that the conduct of the competent authorities amounted to a violation of the applicant 's right to respect for her family life guaranteed under LAW and LAW ... ”

In a letter of DATE the Z. Welfare Centre invited the first applicant to attend a meeting scheduled for DATE at TIME in order to “ participate in the proceedings on consultation and assistance in overcoming special difficulties ” , all according to the above decision of ORG . In the case the first applicant was prevented to attend , the ORG invited her to inform it within TIME following the receipt of the letter .

The letter was served on the first applicant on DATE . On DATE the first applicant wrote a letter to the ORG informing it that she would not attend the meeting scheduled for DATE and invited the ORG to inform her of any steps envisaged by the FAC in order to ensure her contact with her child . However , she did attend the meeting and insisted that the FAC organise a meeting between her and the child . She also said that she would not attend any further meetings unless her child was present .

In DATE the ORG also devised an action plan in order to comply with ORG decision . The action plan was to be implemented by a team of experts , composed of a social worker , CARDINAL psychologists and CARDINAL lawyers , established for that purpose . The action plan was concentrated on CARDINAL main purposes : establishing contacts with the first applicant and her son ; work with the family members ; and mediation between the CARDINAL families .

In DATE the first applicant accepted employment on a cruise ship .

In a telephone conversation on DATE PERSON told a psychologist of ORG that he did not wish to see the first applicant .

On DATE the second applicant informed the FAC that the first applicant was expected to come back to GPE in DATE .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a request for compensation with the competent ORG Attorney 's ORG . This request was denied on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant informed the FAC that she had come back to ORG and would stay there until DATE .

In a telephone conversation on DATE PERSON again told a psychologist of ORG that he did not wish to see the first applicant . The psychologist informed the first applicant about it on DATE and advised her to send PERSON a DATE card and a present .

On DATE the Centre invited the applicants to a hearing on DATE at TIME , PERSON 's paternal grandparents at TIME and PERSON for consultations with a psychologist on DATE at TIME .

On DATE the second applicant informed the FAC that the first applicant could not attend because she was still working on a cruise ship .

The second applicant attended and informed the ORG 's psychologist that she had been seeing a counsellor . She also said that the first applicant had sent several text messages to PERSON and that he had sent short replies , not wishing to establish contact with the first applicant .

PERSON 's paternal grandmother also attended .

PERSON came to ORG and told the psychologist that he did not wish to see the first applicant .

On DATE separate consultations between the ORG 's psychologist and the second applicant , PERSON 's paternal grandmother and PERSON were held at FAC . The second applicant said that the first applicant was still abroad . PERSON told the psychologist that he had been seeing a counsellor once a month . He repeated that he did not wish to see the first applicant .

Consultations scheduled for DATE were attended by the second applicant only . She informed the FAC that the first applicant would probably come to ORG in DATE or DATE . The ORG 's psychologist suggested that she call PERSON by telephone and send him letters .

On DATE the second applicant , E 's maternal grandmother , requested ORG to grant her visiting rights in respect of PERSON On DATE the ORG heard evidence from E 's paternal grandmother and legal guardian , and on DATE from the second applicant . On DATE both grandmothers met at the ORG 's LOC and agreed that the second applicant and E should meet on DATE at the FAC , in the presence of the ORG 's psychologist .

On DATE the grandmothers met again at the ORG and agreed that the second applicant would meet PERSON on her own each DATE for TIME . However , CARDINAL such meeting took place , allegedly because E refused to continue with these meetings .

On DATE jurisdiction in matters concerning child custody was transferred to the municipal courts . Hearings before ORG were held on DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL and DATE May and CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE a decision was adopted ordering bi - DATE meetings between the second applicant and E at the FAC 's LOC .

On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG that the length of the proceedings was excessive . The complaint was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision of DATE .

LAW ) reads :

“ Respect for and legal protection of everyone 's private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour is guaranteed . ”

The relevant part of section CARDINAL of LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON o PERSON ) reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that the individual act of a state body , a body of local and regional self - government , or a legal person with public authority , which has determined his or her rights and obligations , or a suspicion or accusation of a criminal act , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms or his or her right to local and regional self - government guaranteed by LAW ( hereinafter : constitutional right ) ...

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Every legal entity and every natural person has the right to respect for their personal integrity under the conditions prescribed by LAW .

( CARDINAL ) The right to respect for one 's personal integrity within the meaning of this LAW includes the right to life , physical and mental health , good reputation and honour , the right to be respected , the right to respect for one 's name and privacy of personal and family life , freedom et alia .

“ Damage is ... infringement of the right to respect for one 's personal integrity ( non - pecuniary damage ) . ”

The relevant part of section ORG ) of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ A person intending to bring a civil suit against GPE shall first submit a request for a settlement to the competent ORG Attorney 's ORG .

Where the request has been refused or no decision has been taken within DATE of its submission , the person concerned may file an action with the competent court .

In decision no . U - III-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG found that the conditions of detention of a prisoner , TIME , in FAC amounted to inhuman treatment . It also addressed the question of TIME 's claim for just satisfaction . The relevant parts of the decision read :

“ In particular , ORG finds the [ lower ] courts ' opinion that in this case an award for non - pecuniary damage can not be made under LAW on the ground that such compensation claim is unfounded in law , unacceptable .

Section CARDINAL of LAW defines non - pecuniary damage as infringement of the right to respect for one 's personal integrity . In other words , every infringement of the right to personal integrity amounts to non - pecuniary damage .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW defines the right to personal integrity for the purposes of that LAW as : right to life , physical and moral health , reputation , honour , dignity , and name , privacy of personal and family life , freedom and other rights .

... it must be concluded that in this case there has been a violation of human , constitutional and personal rights because the applicant was placed in prison in conditions incompatible with the standards prescribed by the Enforcement of the Prison Sentences Act the conditions of which are also incompatible with the legal standards under LAW . For that reason the courts are obliged to award compensation for the infringement of the applicant 's dignity .


George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the ORG Director ( ORG ; hereafter : “ the ORG Director ” ) awarded a certain GPE damages for the inconvenience and damage resulting from the temporary use of her property by the public energy provider company based in PERSON .

On DATE the Rzeszów Governor ( wojewoda ) quashed the ORG Director ’s decision and remitted the case .

On DATE the ORG Director again confirmed the award of damages to GPE His decision was upheld by the NORP Governor on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the Governor ’s decision .

On DATE the Rzeszów Governor quashed the ORG Director ’s DATE decision and remitted the case .

On DATE GPE died .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) declared that GPE ’s estate had been inherited by the applicant .

On DATE the ORG Director stayed the proceedings due to GPE ’s death . The proceedings were resumed on the applicant ’s request on DATE .

On DATE the ORG Director again confirmed the award of damages to the applicant . The applicant appealed against this decision , alleging certain shortcomings in the procedure and complaining that the amount of the award had been insufficient .

On DATE the Rzeszów Governor referred the case to the President of ORG ( Prezes PERSON i PERSON ; hereinafter : “ the President of the GPE ” ) as the competent authority . On DATE the President of the PERSON referred the case back to the NORP Governor .

On DATE the Rzeszów Governor quashed the ORG Director ’s DATE decision . As a result of a change to the rules on competence , on DATE the Rzeszów Governor awarded the applicant damages , acting as the organ of first - instance .

On DATE the President of the PERSON quashed the NORP Governor ’s decision and remitted the case to the Mayor of PERSON ( Prezydent Miasta Rzeszowa ) as the competent authority . The applicant appealed .

From DATE to DATE the proceedings were stayed pending the examination of the applicant ’s appeal by ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE the Mayor of Rzeszów awarded damages to the applicant . This decision was upheld by the ORG Governor on DATE . The applicant appealed , arguing that the awarded amount had been too low and that the Mayor had failed to give a sufficient justification for his decision . Pending the examination of the appeal by ORG , the proceedings were stayed .

On DATE ORG quashed the ORG Governor ’s decision .

On DATE , the ORG Governor quashed the decision given by the Mayor of Rzeszów .

On DATE the Mayor of Rzeszów once again awarded damages to the applicant but the ORG Governor quashed this decision on DATE .

On DATE the Mayor of PERSON once more awarded damages to the applicant . This decision was quashed by the ORG Governor on DATE . The enforcement of the Governor ’s decision was stayed pending the examination of the applicant ’s appeal filed with the ORG ( ORG PERSON ) .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of the ORG Governor .

On DATE the Mayor of PERSON once again awarded damages to the applicant . On DATE the Mayor ’s decision was upheld by the ORG Governor . The enforcement of the Governor ’s decision was stayed pending the examination of the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal as having been lodged out of time .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to grant him leave to appeal out of time . On DATE the court dismissed his request . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of administrative proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW and DATE CARDINAL Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts , are described in the cases of PERSON v. GPE no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § § CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are set out in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ORG DATE and NORP v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVIII , and its judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V.

The Government provided the ORG with a copy of a judgment handed down on DATE by ORG , which had awarded just satisfaction in respect of the excessive length of civil proceedings to the plaintiff , a certain PERSON , on the basis of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Polish Civil Code , concerning the protection of personal rights . In its judgment , ORG considered that the excessive length of the civil proceedings for the distribution of inheritance , which had been pending for DATE , had caused the applicant , an elderly person , considerable stress resulting in moral suffering and entitling her to non - pecuniary damages . Consequently , it modified the lower court ’s judgment and awarded PERSON the sum of ORG CARDINAL .


The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are married and live in GPE , GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

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

On DATE the applicants applied to ORG ) for an allocation of a flat in which they had been living since DATE .

On DATE the Head of FAC ( PERSON Lokalowych Urzędu PERSON ) dismissed the application . The applicant appealed against this decision .

In the meantime , the applicants lodged complaints about the inactivity of the administrative authorities .

On DATE the Head of ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) refused to allocate the flat to the first applicant . The applicants appealed .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case for reexamination .

On DATE the Mayor of ORG ) stayed the proceedings . The applicants appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings .

On DATE the Head of ORG of ORG refused to allocate the flat to the first applicant . The applicants appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and discontinued the proceedings . The applicants lodged a complaint with ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG quashed the both impugned decisions of DATE and of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Head of ORG of ORG discontinued the proceedings concerning the allocation of the flat to the applicants . The applicants appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal .

LAW lays down timelimits ranging DATE for dealing with a case pending before an administrative authority . If those time - limits have not been complied with , the authority must , under LAW , inform the parties of that fact , explain the reasons for the delay and fix a new time - limit . Pursuant to LAW , if the case has not been handled within the time - limits referred to in ORG and DATE , a party to administrative proceedings can lodge an appeal to the higher authority , alleging inactivity . In cases where the allegations of inactivity are well - founded , the higher authority fixes a new term for handling the case and orders an inquiry in order to determine the reasons for the inactivity and to identify the persons responsible for the delay . If need be , the authority may order that measures preventing future such delays be applied .

Until DATE , under LAW , a party to administrative proceedings could , at any time , lodge with ORG a complaint about the fact that an administrative authority had failed to issue a decision .

On DATE , when a new LAW DATE on ORG ( “ the DATE LAW ) took effect , LAW was repealed .

Under LAW , a party to administrative proceedings may , at any time , lodge with ORG a complaint against inactivity on the part of an authority obliged to issue an administrative decision .

Section CARDINAL of the PERSON provides :

“ When a complaint alleging inactivity on the part of an administrative authority is well - founded , ORG shall oblige that authority to issue a decision , or to perform a specific act , or to confirm , declare , or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law . ”

Pursuant to LAW , the decision of ORG ordering an authority to put an end to its inactivity is legally binding on the authority concerned . If the authority has not complied with the decision , the court may , under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act , impose a fine on it and may itself give a ruling on the right or obligation in question .


Lack of jurisdiction (new complaint);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-b;Violation of Art. 6-3-c;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON , a NORP national , is a company director and lives at FAC .

ORG On DATE ORG of the département of ORG lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant alleging offences under LAW and , more particularly , that he had built a wall without first obtaining planning permission .

ORG On DATE the ORG sentenced the applicant to a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) , payment of which was suspended , and ordered him to alter the wall so that it complied with regulations .

ORG On DATE , following an appeal brought by Mr Vacher on DATE and a subsequent cross - appeal by the prosecution , ORG upheld the judgment of the court below in its entirety and further ordered that the wall should be altered to comply with regulations within DATE from the date of its judgment , on penalty of ORG CARDINAL per day ’s delay starting at DATE . It also ordered the applicant to pay the civil party claiming damages FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of the costs incurred by that party .

ORG On DATE Mr Vacher lodged a notice of appeal on points of law against the judgment of ORG with that court ’s registry ( LAW paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the case file for the appeal was registered by ORG registry . On DATE the applicant filed a pleading in support of his appeal .

ORG On DATE the chief registrar of ORG sent Mr PERSON the following letter :

" Further to your letter , I have to inform you that ORG delivered a judgment on DATE dismissing your appeal .

Consequently , the pleading received from you at the criminal registry on DATE will be disregarded as being out of time . "

The judgment in question , which was served on the applicant on DATE , was based on the following ground :

" No ground of appeal has been filed in support of the appeal ; the judgment appealed against is in the proper form and the findings of fact , which can not be appealed against , justify both the classification of the offence and the sentence . "

ORG The main provisions of LAW referred to in the present case are the following :

" The prosecuting authority and all the parties shall have DATE in which to appeal to ORG after delivery of the judgment appealed against .

" Notice of appeal shall be given to the registrar of the court which delivered the judgment appealed against .

It must be signed by the registrar and by the appellant himself or by a lawyer [ avoué ] at the court which gave judgment , or by a specially authorised person ...

The appeal shall be recorded in a special public register and any person shall be entitled to obtain a copy of it . "

" An appellant on points of law may lodge a pleading bearing his signature and containing the grounds of his appeal with the registry of the court against whose judgment he is appealing either when he gives notice of appeal or within DATE . The registrar shall issue him with a receipt . "

" After expiry of that time - limit , a convicted appellant may send his pleading directly to ORG ; the other parties may not avail themselves of this provision without retaining a member of ORG .

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , which came into force on DATE , inserted LAW , which provides :

" Save where the President of ORG decides otherwise , a convicted appellant shall lodge his pleading with the registry of ORG DATE from the date of the notice of appeal . "

In his report of DATE presented to ORG on behalf of ORG and ORG , Mr PERSON justified the insertion of the new LAW as follows :

" The new LAW is intended to resolve a difficulty which has appeared in DATE . ORG frequently dismisses appeals on points of law because no pleadings have been filed in support of them . As the PERSON does not lay down a time - limit for filing a pleading , a convicted appellant ’s pleading may reach the court DATE after his appeal has been dismissed . Indeed , applications are pending before ORG on this question . So as to avoid such situations recurring , the new LAW provides that convicted appellants shall have a period of DATE , which may be extended by the President of ORG , in which to file their pleadings . "

" On pain of a CARDINAL-franc civil fine imposed by ORG , the registrar shall , within a maximum period of DATE from the date of the notice of appeal , number and initial the documents in the case file and place in the case file an office copy of the judgment appealed against , an office copy of the notice of appeal and , where relevant , the appellant ’s pleading . He shall draw up a schedule of the whole case file . "

" When the case file has been made ready in the manner described above , the registrar shall deliver it to the representative of the public prosecutor ’s office , who shall immediately send it to the procureur général at ORG , who shall , turn , forward it to the registry of ORG .

The President of that ORG shall designate a judge to report on the case . "

" Where CARDINAL or more counsel have been instructed , the reporting judge shall set a time - limit for pleadings to be filed with the registrar of ORG . "

" The pleadings shall contain the grounds of appeal and cite the legal provisions alleged to have been infringed .

They must be lodged within the prescribed time - limit . No further pleadings may be added to them once the reporting judge has filed his report . Any pleading setting out additional grounds that is lodged out of time may be declared inadmissible . "

" In cases concerning any category of criminal offence , ORG may give judgment on the appeal on points of law as soon as DATE have elapsed after receipt of the case file by ORG .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Elisabeth Steiner;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant bought a building at auction .

On DATE the former owner of the building , a private company ORG , lodged an action against the applicant and a private company PERSON , seeking annulment of the results of the auction .

On DATE and DATE ORG ( trial court , ORG ) upon the motions of the company ORG and the applicant issued injunctions prohibiting use and disposal of the building .

On DATE the trial court ordered the state property management and tax authorities to join the proceedings as third parties .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL scheduled hearings were adjourned at the requests of the parties and subsequently the proceedings were suspended for DATE to resolve the issue whether the acting president of the company PERSON lawfully acquired his status .

On DATE ORG dismissed the lawsuit of the company T. and lifted the injunctions . The plaintiff missed the time - limit for lodging an appeal and further attempts to restore it were unsuccessful .

On DATE ORG of the Russian Federation upon the request of the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE annulled the judgment of DATE and ordered reconsideration of the case .

ORG received the case file and fixed a preliminary hearing for DATE . At the following hearing on DATE the trial court upon the motion of the company ORG issued an injunction prohibiting use and disposal of the building . It was challenged by the applicant without success .

On DATE ORG held a conference with the parties and fixed another preliminary hearing .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings were adjourned for various reasons including CARDINAL times because of the applicant travel abroad , failure to appear for the hearing , order for the applicant to produce documentary evidence . The other reasons included illness of a judge , orders to produce evidence , failure to notify certain parties of the hearing or their failure to appear .

On DATE ORG dismissed the case as falling out of jurisdiction ; however this decision was annulled by ORG on DATE .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings were adjourned for various reasons including twice for the failure of the parties to appear and once at the request of the applicant .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings were adjourned for various reasons including once for the failure of the defendants to appear , twice for the applicant ’s travel and medical treatment abroad , and once because the applicant had to produce documentary evidence .

On DATE ORG denied the applicant ’s motion to lift the injunction prohibiting use and disposal of the building . On DATE his appeal against the decision was dismissed by ORG .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned due to the applicant ’s vacation abroad ; and on DATE due to failure of the plaintiff and the defendants ( except for the applicant ) to appear .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings were adjourned for various reasons , including twice due to the applicant ’s travel abroad , once due to his illness , and once due to his request to obtain documentary evidence from the commercial courts . Other hearings were adjourned due to failure of the parties to appear , requests to adjourn the proceedings , change of certain defendants , and amendments to the lawsuit .

On DATE ORG discontinued consideration of the lawsuit due to repeated failure of the plaintiff to appear without a valid reason . The plaintiff requested ORG to resume the proceedings , but the request was denied on DATE . On DATE the plaintiff ’s appeal was dismissed by ORG .

On DATE ORG lifted the injunction prohibiting the use and disposal of the building .