Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a journalist . He was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At the material time the applicant was working for ORG , an NORP periodical dealing mostly with politics . For DATE , he investigated into and reported on the case of PERSON PERSON , a former Vice - Chancellor and Minister of Finance , who was involved in certain criminal proceedings .

NORP In DATE Mr PERSON had been convicted by ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) of having made false statements as a witness on CARDINAL occasions . The court found that he had , before a parliamentary investigating committee ( LOC ) , wrongly stated that certain amounts of money had been put at his disposal by a Mr S. , whereas in fact they had been transferred from anonymous bank accounts operated by his wife and himself . Furthermore , in the context of criminal proceedings against financial officers charged with abuse of authority , Mr PERSON had stated that several anonymous accounts were held by a Mr S. , whereas in fact they were operated by his wife , his mother and himself .

In DATE ORG ( PERSON für PERSON ) , sitting as a court of CARDINAL professional judges and CARDINAL lay judges ( ORG ) , conducted criminal proceedings against Mr Androsch concerning charges of tax evasion . It held hearings , inter alia , on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON was convicted of having evaded taxes between CARDINAL and CARDINAL . He was sentenced to a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG had published a CARDINAL - page article written by the applicant , relating to the above proceedings . It read as follows :

“ ADJOURNED FOR REFLECTION

A criminal court sitting with lay judges spent DATE considering PERSON PERSON 's tax evasion . The atmosphere during the trial was glacial .

‘ Above all , there were to be no mistakes during the proceedings . The case was to be handled with common prudence , properly and to the best of our knowledge and belief – but not with kid gloves!’ ( Mr ORG , tax investigator and witness , when asked what principles had governed the hearing of the PERSON case . )

On DATE before the trial [ the NORP newspaper ] ORG dropped the bombshell that was meant to shake all GPE . Lawyer PERSON was quoted as saying : ‘ I ’m sure that PERSON will present his case in an impressive manner.’

The horizon was darkened by this impressive presentation and the earth shook as the accused worsened his lousy position by taking refuge in lapses of memory ( ‘ I ca n't remember’ – ‘ I do n't have any detailed PERSON ) and by attempting to shift the blame onto others ( ‘ I was represented by tax advisers in all those years’ ) or by playing the animal that has been maltreated ( ‘ There is not a single large - scale business in the whole of GPE that has been subjected for DATE to as many inspections as I have been’ ) .

PERSON biggest problem is PERSON . His second biggest problem is his lawyer , PERSON . Together , defending counsel and client are invincible . If blatant scorn could change the temperature , the courtroom would be covered by a thick layer of ice .

The patient judge , PERSON , enquires , ‘ So , what exactly happened?’ The blasé defendant replies , ‘ I would ask you to infer exactly what happened from the file . You have the documents in front of you – I haven't.’

At another point PERSON said , with a disdainful gesture towards PERSON : ‘ You , my dear Public Prosecutor ... ’ in a tone as if to say ‘ You wretched worm!’

PERSON underestimates the judiciary . Once again . Judge PERSON knows the file inside out , as was clear from each of his questions . The public prosecutor , PERSON , is able to find his way around in the dark generated by the ‘ international legal adviser's’ murky financial deals , and , after all , the prosecuting authorities have been examining the flow of funds to and from PERSON for DATE .

The accused mistook the excessively polite and markedly accommodating manner of the presiding judge for weakness . He has also known the public prosecutor for DATE and yet still does n't know him properly . PERSON speaks quietly and slowly so that one can follow what he says , and acts in a spectacularly unspectacular manner . Only the arrogant interpret his lack of grand gestures as cluelessness .

Even the public prosecutor did make CARDINAL mistake , however , when he cited the judgment of ORG in the proceedings against PERSON for giving false evidence ( now concluded ) and referred to ‘ long - term , ingenious and sophisticated linking of GPE . The alleged tax evasion was perhaps ‘ long - term’ but by no means ‘ ingenious and sophisticated’ .

The opposite was true : anyone venturing into the maze of PERSON 's accounts containing undeclared money is amazed by the structure 's simplicity . It is not only wholly lacking in sophistication but is almost astoundingly crude . Crude not because PERSON lacked intelligence but rather because it was based on the cast - iron foundation of the misplaced loyalty of officials . While PERSON was Finance Minister , until DATE , he could rely on the zealous but unlawful obedience of a number of powerful officials . As soon as PERSON left , those officials had their hands full concealing their complicity in the cover - up . Admittedly , a whole string of other officials , by no means excessively brave but simply law - abiding , attempted again and again to ensure that the law prevailed . They foundered , however , on practicalities . The team led by the NORP tax investigator , PERSON ( DATE ) certainly gathered all the relevant details , but the head of CARDINAL of the GPE tax offices who had been in charge of the case for DATE issued a clean bill of health . And DATE , when they appeared as witnesses , the tax officials PERSON , ORG and PERSON , who reopened the file DATE , were treated by defending counsel PERSON as though they were the accused rather than PERSON .

It has been known since DATE that PERSON evaded taxes . The legal proceedings which were adjourned on DATE furnished further proof that for DATE the accused escaped prosecution thanks to the zealous obedience of officials . When this was no longer possible as an independent judge was in charge of the investigations , PERSON 's advisers took every opportunity to delay the proceedings . It is both symptomatic and revealing that PERSON told the trial court again and again that ‘ CARDINAL ORG had been carried out and on each occasion had found in his favour , and that it was very unfair that just the eighth inspection should shatter the ideal world of his illusory innocence . Everyone except him is to blame for this . PERSON has in the meantime become so completely immersed in the role of the innocent victim that he can not subjectively conceive of ever having been the guilty party .

From an objective point of view , it should be pointed out in PERSON 's favour that there may be several people in GPE who in DATE ( from DATE ) have evaded CARDINAL QUANTITY in tax without , however , being subjected to such intensive publicity . On the other hand , no NORP Finance Minister has simultaneously operated CARDINAL accounts containing undeclared funds . And , as the public prosecutor put it , although the origin of part of the money had been established , QUANTITY were left from unknown sources .

It was impious of PERSON to wheel out his ‘ adoptive ORG again at the trial . Admittedly , he argued eloquently that the ‘ adoptive ORG was actually an ‘ adoptive ORG , but nonetheless the name of a dead person had been taken in vain . PERSON alarmingly implicated not only his ‘ adoptive ORG Gustav PERSON but also his father - in - law PERSON in these financial proceedings . Both were induced to sacrifice themselves for PERSON and to assume a responsibility for undeclared funds and fiduciary relationships which they had never had . The investigating judge PERSON ORG and subsequently the tax authorities and other judges ( PERSON and later ORG ) proved long ago that PERSON was lying on this point . The flow of funds into and out of the CARDINAL accounts containing money not declared to the tax authorities allows of no other interpretation than that PERSON was evading taxes . His defence in court was disgraceful ; after so many years one would at least have expected properly constructed arguments . Each time Judge PERSON asked him a specific question he either took refuge in lapses of memory or blamed his ‘ adoptive ORG . He even trotted out the late Sir PERSON , the explorer of FAC , from whom he claims to have received a legacy .

No new submissions were made in court DATE either as regards the accounts containing undeclared money or as regards the funding for his villas . Anyone who had expected PERSON to tell all and , as announced in the newspapers , to reveal new facts and adduce convincing arguments in his defence was bitterly disappointed . Only in respect of the charges of ‘ covert distribution of ORG was there any legal skirmishing .

Mr ORG told the court that PERSON was a ‘ victim of PERSON . ‘ ORG had been ORG against PERSON and his client had always had ‘ opponents who had gone as far as attempting to destroy PERSON psychologically and physically’ .

PERSON and others were to blame for this .

The court kept trying very gently to bring the defendant back down to LOC from his long - winded waffling . And each time he replied ‘ I ca n't say . After all , I do have other things to do’ ( i.e. than grapple with such stupid questions ) .

If necessary , the authorities can always be blamed for everything . In the instant case this cliché clearly did not apply to Judge PERSON . For TIME he demonstrated drawing - room justice at its best . The judge forced himself to be polite even when he was clearly irritated by the defendant 's bored self - assurance . On DATE of the trial an area of psychological tension built up which the former Minister clearly misinterpreted . From time to time the DATE slipped into the role of a public speaker talking politics . He paid less and less attention to the judge 's questions and treated the public prosecutor with increasingly provocative contempt . He turned to look more and more often at the public in the gallery , seeking approval , and his gestures increasingly reminded one of the self - satisfied , powerful Vice - Chancellor and Finance Minister accustomed to victory .

In those circumstances serious tactical errors were made . Defence counsel interrupted the judge and PERSON succumbed to his own charm . He talked and talked , a volubility that the ORG mistook for ‘ brilliant rhetoric’ . In reality the defendant was distancing himself as much as possible from his own responsibility .

Others were to blame .

Judge PERSON did not lose control of the situation for a second , however . From time to time , as was apparent from his posture , he had a sharp word on the tip of his tongue , but he never actually uttered it .

The defendant sensed weakness and made full use of his own – supposed – strength ; he forged a link with the public while severing the one with the court .

Judge PERSON had prepared for this trial keenly and diligently . By citing facts he kept forcing PERSON into corners from which he could only escape by taking refuge in memory lapses .

In many major trials the sinner has been given a fair chance to DATE . PERSON too had a fair chance DATE ; of CARDINAL defence motions , CARDINAL were dismissed and CARDINAL allowed . The court admitted evidence as to whether in the tax proceedings against PERSON any unlawful influence had been exerted or instructions issued which adversely affected the taxpayer . In the next stage of trial , in DATE or DATE ( the court even took account of defence counsel 's DATE ! ) , officials from ORG and ORG will therefore be heard as witnesses .

There comes , however , a point in every trial after which the court expects some sign of understanding . It hopes for a trace of humility that may be appraised as a mitigating circumstance .

The defendant has shown no humility to date , not even for a second . But he now has DATE to consider whether it is consonant with the principles of a ORG based on the rule of law for a Finance Minister and his family to have at their disposal accounts containing CARDINAL in undeclared funds .

It is now for him to display greatness . The judicial system has uncovered serious matters . The court nevertheless was guided wholly by the principles of fairness up to the very last moment of the trial DATE , when it adjourned the proceedings .

For reflection . ”

Mr PERSON was charged under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Mediengesetz – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for having exercised prohibited influence on criminal proceedings ( verbotene PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG , sitting with CARDINAL judge ( Einzelrichter ) , acquitted the applicant . It found that the text in issue was not capable of influencing the outcome of the proceedings against Mr PERSON and that it was not established that the applicant had acted with such an intention .

The court recalled that in DATE Mr PERSON had been convicted of tax evasion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In establishing whether the impugned article was capable of influencing the result of these proceedings , the court noted that the wording and content of the article as a whole , as well as the development of the proceedings reported upon , the person of the accused , and the person of the applicant had to be taken into account . The article , unlike court reports of the scandal press , analysed the conduct of the presiding judge , the public prosecutor , defence counsel and in particular the accused , Mr PERSON , almost as a psychologist would have done .

Furthermore , the court found that it was clear for every reader , who was vaguely familiar with the issue , that the applicant , who had been working for ORG for DATE , had intensively dealt with the so - called “ Causa Androsch ” and had frequently reported on it . It appeared from the article that the applicant assumed that the investigations carried out by the tax authorities were correct . He subjected the statements made by the accused at the trial to a critical psychological analysis . However , his way of writing and the wording used were not capable of influencing these proceedings . Even to a lay judge , the applicant 's person and his activities as a journalist in the PERSON case were well known . Thus he would not expect the applicant to give a neutral account of the proceedings .

Moreover , it had not been established that the applicant had acted with the intention of influencing the outcome of the proceedings , in particular as it appeared that he was convinced that Mr Androsch would in any event be convicted .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a court of CARDINAL professional judges on an appeal by the public prosecutor , held a hearing in the presence of the applicant and his counsel . Mr PERSON was questioned and stated in particular that the first sentence of the incriminated passage , namely that “ the flow of funds into and out of the CARDINAL accounts containing money not declared to the tax authorities allows of no other interpretation than that PERSON was evading taxes ” , was a quotation from the public prosecutor 's statement during the trial . The latter had also frequently made reference to PERSON PERSON 's conviction for having made false statements as a witness ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the end of the hearing , the operative provisions of the judgment as well as the relevant reasons were read out . The court convicted the applicant of having exercised prohibited influence on criminal proceedings and imposed on him DATE - fines of ORG CARDINAL each , that is ORG CARDINAL , or DATE imprisonment in default of payment . The publishing firm was made jointly and severally liable for payment of the fine .

The full text of the judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

The court held , inter alia :

“ The prosecution appeal is therefore well - founded . It rightly takes as its starting - point that the offence defined in section CARDINAL of LAW must be classified as a potentially endangering offence [ abstraktes ORG ] …

In general , a potentially endangering offence is defined as conduct typically capable of bringing a dangerous situation into existence , even if in any given case no one is actually exposed to the danger concerned ...

The law regulates only the offender 's conduct – in this case comment on the value of evidence – and links to it the inference that such comment is also capable of influencing the outcome of criminal proceedings . A potentially endangering offence accordingly amounts to conduct which is criminal irrespective of any result it may have [ schlichtes ORG ] ...

The considerations set out in the judgment at first instance as to the extent to which the comment on Mr PERSON 's defence was capable of influencing the outcome of the criminal proceedings were therefore pointless ...

The defendant 's replies under examination in criminal proceedings constitute evidence ...

[ The passage in issue ] constitutes ( unfavourable ) comment on the value of the answers given by PERSON PERSON , not just – as the court below held – a critical psychological analysis ... ”

It observed that “ the objective element of the offence defined in section CARDINAL of LAW is constituted not only by unfavourable comment on evidence but also by favourable comment ” .

ORG also contested ORG assumption that everybody , including the lay judges , knew the applicant 's long - standing commitment in the PERSON case and would therefore not be influenced by his article . It was in no way certain that the lay judges regularly read ORG . On the contrary , in spectacular proceedings like the ones in issue , it happened frequently that lay judges would follow the reports in papers they did not usually read . There was no doubt that , at least with regard to the lay judges , the reading of the incriminated article was capable of influencing the outcome of the criminal proceedings .

The court added :

“ [ The above finding ] is all the more true in the present case because it can be inferred from the article that the accused wished to usurp the position of the judges dealing with the case .

The objective element of the offence defined in section CARDINAL of LAW is accordingly made out .

As regards the subjective element , it should be observed that it is hard to understand why the court below should have concluded that there was no intention to influence the outcome of the trial when that intention was , on the contrary , quite obvious . ”

NORP The court further found that the applicant 's expertise and involvement in the subject matter rather reinforced the impression that he had written the article with the intention of influencing the outcome of the proceedings . He had researched into the case DATE and had written CARDINAL articles about it . From the beginning he had been convinced that Mr PERSON had committed tax evasion . In the article in issue he had not only criticised Mr PERSON 's statement but had also anticipated the outcome of the proceedings , namely the conviction of the accused .

The judgment ended as follows :

“ Even the quotation of the answer given by Mr ORG placed at the top of the article – ‘ Above all , there were to be no mistakes during the proceedings . The case was to be handled with common prudence , properly and to the best of our knowledge and belief – but not with kid gloves!’ CARDINAL gives the average reader the impression that the court was being advised and urged to follow the same approach , in other words not to make any mistakes and not to handle Mr Androsch with kid gloves . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Mediengesetz ) is entitled “ Prohibited influence on criminal proceedings ” ( PERSON ) and reads as follows :

“ Anyone who discusses , subsequent to the indictment ... [ and ] before the judgment at first instance in criminal proceedings , the probable outcome of those proceedings or the value of evidence in a way capable [ geeignet ] of influencing the outcome of the proceedings shall be punished by the court with CARDINAL day - fines . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Judicial decisions are made public either by being read out in court or by service of the original or a certified copy thereof .

( CARDINAL ) When read out , judgments must be put on record . Upon request , anyone concerned may receive a copy of the judgment . ”

In practice , written copies of decisions such as the CARDINAL at issue in the present case are automatically served on the persons concerned .

NORP Under NORP criminal procedural law , the time allowed for appeals begins to run from the date when the written version of the decision appealed against has been served on the party concerned ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) .


Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, victim);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Just satisfaction reserved

Bertram Schmitt;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant has been practising as a lawyer since DATE . In DATE the applicant applied for CARDINAL of the CARDINAL posts of advocate notary ( Anwaltsnotar ) officially advertised by FAC ( hereafter : “ ORG ” ) enabling qualified lawyers to practise simultaneously as a solicitor and as a notary in the GPE court circuit .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it intended to appoint CARDINAL other lawyers as advocate notaries . The applicant 's subsequent request to compel ORG to review its decision was dismissed by ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he intended to lodge a constitutional complaint with and apply for interim legal protection to ORG . He requested ORG to await the outcome of the proceedings before ORG before appointing the advocate notaries .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant it would no longer wait to make the appointments .

NORP On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint and requested ORG to grant him interim legal protection , arguing that there was a danger that ORG would appoint the advocate notaries and thus create irreparable damage to him .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant interim legal protection and ordered ORG to keep CARDINAL post of advocate notary free until the statutory time - limit for the submission of the grounds for the applicant 's constitutional complaint had elapsed . On DATE ORG sent its decision by fax to ORG .

Nonetheless , on DATE ORG appointed CARDINAL notaries . On DATE it appointed the sixth notary .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that it had received the court 's interim injunction on ORG DATE , but that this had been submitted to the competent head of division in the ORG only on DATE . However , it also announced that it would advertise a further post as advocate notary as of DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted the reasons for his constitutional complaint to ORG , which extended its interim injunction on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL May CARDINAL , until such time as it had issued its final decision on the applicant 's constitutional complaint .

On DATE ORG found for the applicant . First , it held that the applicant 's constitutional complaint had not become inadmissible following the appointment of the CARDINAL notaries by ORG . In particular , the applicant had an interest in a declaration that the application procedure had been unconstitutional and in a fresh examination of his application or , if that was impossible , in being granted compensation . The right to an effective remedy under LAW of LAW Basic PERSON permitted the continuation of the proceedings before ORG , since ORG had failed to abide by its interim injunction .

On the merits , ORG found that the recruitment procedure as practised by ORG had violated the applicant 's freedom of profession as guaranteed by LAW and the principle of equal access to public office as provided for by LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) , mainly because it had not taken sufficient account of the relevant professional experience of the candidates . ORG remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration , as “ it was not excluded that [ the applicant ] , who had obtained better results in the second state exam and had more relevant professional experience than the candidate who , on account of his seniority , was appointed as sixth advocate notary in the recruitment procedure , could succeed in the initial proceedings if his application was reassessed . ”

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE and compelled it to reassess the application , taking into account the findings of ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision . It found that the applicant had lacked an interest in a decision compelling ORG to appoint him as an advocate notary or to reassess his application , as ORG had already allocated the CARDINAL notary posts to other applicants . Thus the principle of stability of office ( GPE der DATE see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) prohibited the annulment of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL appointments . Furthermore , it was impossible to allocate the applicant the next available notary post or to create a new post for him as this would infringe the rights of other potential candidates and be in violation of section CARDINAL of LAW ( Bundesnotarordnung - see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . The court held that its findings complied with ORG decision of DATE , which had not specified the manner in which the applicant should obtain redress . It was thus possible that the applicant could be granted redress in official liability proceedings rather than having his application re - examined .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant 's constitutional complaint . It found that the applicant could not attain more with the second constitutional complaint than he had already obtained in its decision of DATE . In that decision ORG had not specified the manner in which the lower courts were to grant the applicant legal protection . It had referred to CARDINAL options , namely the reassessment of the applicant 's application by ORG or compensation for damage . It was thus still open to the applicant to request damages in official liability proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request to annul the appointment of the sixth advocate notary . It found that even if this appointment had been unlawful , it could not be annulled . In particular , the applicant had not submitted any reason allowing for the revocation of an appointment of a notary under the relevant provisions of LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal as the principle of stability of office did not allow for revoking the appointment of notaries . Equally , it was not possible to create a special post as an advocate notary for the applicant .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant 's constitutional complaint inadmissible , as its decision of CARDINAL DATE had already given him the possibility to have the lawfulness of the recruitment procedure reviewed by the lower courts . He therefore lacked standing for this constitutional complaint .

In DATE the applicant instituted official liability proceedings against the Land Baden - PERSON before ORG , on the ground that ORG had appointed the sixth advocate notary in spite of ORG interim injunction in his favour .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's action . It found that , irrespective of the possibility that ORG could have breached its official duty when disregarding ORG interim injunction , there had been no causal connection between the applicant 's damage and the alleged breach of duty . Had ORG complied with the interim injunction , it would have halted the recruitment procedure , refrained from appointing the advocate notaries and started a fresh recruitment procedure for the CARDINAL posts . During such a procedure it would have assessed the new applications in accordance with ORG decision of ORG CARDINAL DATE . However , it remained totally unclear whether the applicant could have succeeded in such a fresh procedure with a new field of candidates .

On DATE the applicant appealed that decision before ORG .

On DATE ORG requested PERSON to submit a written statement on whether a fresh recruitment procedure would have led to the applicant being selected for CARDINAL of the CARDINAL notary posts . On DATE the Land submitted its written opinion , alleging that the applicant under no conceivable circumstances would have ranked among the CARDINAL top candidates . In DATE , the proceedings were still pending before ORG .

By e - mail dated DATE the presiding judge of ORG informed the applicant 's counsel that he was obliged to postpone the hearing originally scheduled for CARDINAL DATE to DATE . This was due to the fact that the senate had to hear other , more urgent cases , which had to be prepared by the same rapporteur judge . Even taking into account the length of the instant proceedings , the presiding judge considered the applicant 's case to be less urgent for the following reasons : If the applicant should obtain compensation , he would be awarded interests at a rate which exceeded the interest rates which could be obtained elsewhere . If he should lose his action , DATE would not matter .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that all NORP have the right to freely choose their profession , their place of work , and their place of training .

Under LAW of LAW every NORP is equally eligible for any public office according to his or her aptitude , qualifications and professional achievements .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that the law governing public service is to be regulated with due regard to the traditional principles of the professional civil service . CARDINAL of the latter is the principle of stability of office , according to which appointments to public office are not to be revoked or annulled following legal remedies instituted by unsuccessful candidates .

Some Länder , like GPE , provide for the possibility for qualified lawyers to be appointed as so - called “ advocate notaries ” ( PERSON ) enabling them to exercise the profession as notary alongside their activity as solicitors . Advocate notaries ( like single profession notaries ) are “ independent holders of a public office ” who are appointed by the competent judicial authority . Once officially appointed , notaries do not receive a salary from the state , but charge fees ( fixed by law ) to the parties . As a rule , notaries do not enjoy the status of civil servants .

LAW lays down the access requirements , the rights and obligations of notaries and their organisation and functions . It is complemented by respective orders of the Länder .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides that the number of appointments of notaries is to be restricted to what is necessary to ensure the sound administration of justice . In particular , the number of notaries must correspond to the need of individuals to be provided with notarial services , and a balanced age structure must be ensured in the profession of notary . In GPE the Ministry of Justice has responsibility for and discretion in deciding on this need ( PERSON ) and therefore in fixing the number of advocate notaries . In so doing it takes account of the average number of notarisations taking place within the areas of the various district courts . Once the Ministry of Justice has decided to create a new notary post , it publishes – in compliance with section CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW – a vacancy notice for ORG district ( PERSON ) in which such a need has been identified .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW , disputes surrounding the appointment and selection of notaries are adjudicated by ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) and in the second instance by ORG . Since DATE , the proceedings are governed by LAW ( Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung , see section CARDINALb of the Federal Notaries Act ) .

Pursuant to LAW , taken in conjunction with LAW , the ORG or a public body is liable to pay compensation to an individual for any damage arising from an intentional or negligent breach of official duties committed by its officials . No such obligation to afford redress arises where the injured party has wilfully or negligently omitted to avoid the damage by means of another legal remedy .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant proposed CARDINAL technological improvements to the company in which he worked . They were not accepted .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG . He claimed the protection of his intellectual property in that his above proposals were not accepted .

On DATE the applicant amended his action in that he claimed that CARDINAL of the technological improvements proposed by him was submitted prior to other proposals concerning the same issue submitted by other persons , and that he should be compensated for both improvements proposed by him .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action after having ordered CARDINAL expert opinions . On DATE the ORG quashed this decision on the ground that the first instance court had failed to establish the facts correctly and that it had proceeded erroneously .

On DATE and on DATE the appellate court dismissed the applicant ’s requests for the exclusion of the ORG judges .

On DATE ORG appointed an expert . On DATE the expert informed ORG that he had a heavy workload and that he would be able to submit the opinion only after CARDINAL DATE . Subsequently ORG repeatedly urged the expert to submit the opinion . The opinion was submitted on DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted his comments on the opinion . On DATE he challenged the ORG judge . The ORG branch office of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for exclusion of ORG judge on DATE .

On DATE the case was adjourned as the defendant and the expert did not appear . The expert subsequently died .

On DATE ORG appointed an expert . The latter submitted the opinion on DATE .

On DATE the ORG delivered an interim judgment in which it found , with reference to CARDINAL expert opinions , that the applicant ’s proposal concerning the circulation of air in the defendant company was to be given priority . ORG further dismissed the claim for compensation concerning the applicant ’s second proposal .

The defendant appealed on DATE , and on CARDINAL DATE the ORG branch office of ORG quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it had allowed the applicant ’s claim for his proposal to be given priority . The decision stated that the first instance court had failed to follow the instructions set out in ORG above decision of DATE .

On DATE the ORG heard the experts with a view to clarifying the differences in their conclusions . On DATE it obtained a third expert ’s opinion . Hearings were held on DATE and on DATE .

DATE and DATE the case file was examined by ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the remainder of the applicant ’s action .

On DATE the applicant appealed and claimed that the decision was arbitrary . He also challenged the ORG judge .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had violated the applicant ’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delay . In its finding ORG admitted that the case was complex from the legal point of view . It found no particular delays in the proceedings which should be imputed to the applicant and held that ORG had failed to proceed with the case in an effective manner as required by the relevant provisions of LAW . The decision stated , in particular , that there had been shortcomings in the judge ’s work which had caused excessive delays in the proceedings .

On DATE the appellate court adjourned the case as the applicant had challenged its judges dealing with the case . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for exclusion of the judges .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG finding that the applicant was not entitled to compensation for the proposal in question as it was neither genuine nor did it resolve the technical problem in question as required by the relevant law . ORG further discontinued the proceedings as regards the applicant ’s claim that his proposal should be given priority as it was outside the courts’ jurisdiction . Finally , ORG upheld ORG decision on the expert ’s fees and decided that ORG judge involved was not biased . ORG judgment was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .


CASE OF PARIZOV v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other persons instituted civil proceedings before the then ORG ( Општински Суд Штип ) for annulment of a care agreement ( “ the agreement ” ) ( договор за доживотна издршка ) concluded on DATE between the applicant ’s late father and his step - mother ( “ the defendant ” ) . They maintained that the applicant ’s late father had been in a fit condition and that he had sufficient financial means to take care of himself and that , accordingly , there had been no need for the agreement under which , the defendant had been granted MONEY , a priceless ancient icon and a land .

On DATE the ORG partially upheld the applicant ’s claim and annulled the agreement . It declared , inter alia , that the icon would be included in the applicant ’s late father ’s inheritance , but it dismissed the claim concerning DATE . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE both parties appealed .

On DATE the then ORG ( ORG суд ) dismissed the appeals and upheld the lower court ’s decision .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) submitted on DATE . It remitted the case for a renewed consideration since the first - instance court had not given sufficient reasons for its decision .

The proceedings resumed on DATE . Of CARDINAL hearings fixed before the first - instance court , none was postponed upon the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the ORG gave the same decision as on DATE in which it established that the applicant ’s father had been amongst the richest people in his village ; that he had been in a fit condition and that , by entering into the agreement , the defendant had acquired considerable interest ( значителна имотна корист ) which had not been in compliance with the then ORG order ( општествено уредување ) . It dismissed the applicant ’s claim concerning DATE since there had been no evidence that the applicant ’s father had been in possession of any .

On DATE the applicant appealed . On DATE he submitted observations in reply to the defendant ’s appeal , together with an addendum to his appeal .

On DATE the ORG set aside the first - instance court ’s decision since it had not complied with ORG instructions .

The proceedings resumed on DATE . CARDINAL hearings were held before the first - instance court , of which none was adjourned upon the applicant ’s request .

On DATE ORG partially upheld the applicant ’s claim . It declared that only the icon be included in his late father ’s inheritance and dismissed the claim for annulment of the agreement . It further reiterated its earlier findings as to the golden liras . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE the ORG overturned the decision and decided the case itself . It declared the agreement null and void , but considered it as having been concluded as a gift contract ( договор за подарок ) . It upheld the remainder of the first - instance court ’s decision .

On DATE the defendant filed an appeal on points of law before ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the defendant ’s appeal and quashed ORG decision . It further instructed that court to establish whether the agreement had been concluded in a statutory form .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for re - examination before the first - instance court . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

DATE and DATE the first - instance court scheduled CARDINAL hearings , of which CARDINAL was adjourned because of the applicant ’s fault . During that time , the applicant lodged CARDINAL submissions before the court .

On DATE ORG partially upheld the applicant ’s claim - it declared that the agreement be invalid and considered it as having been concluded as a gift contract .

On DATE ORG upheld the defendant ’s appeal of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for re - consideration .

On DATE ORG Instance declared the applicant ’s claim as withdrawn , as he had not appeared in court despite being duly summoned . It so ruled as the case concerned a dispute of minor value .

On DATE ORG set aside that decision arguing that the case could not be regarded as a dispute of minor value .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant ’s claim for annulment of the agreement finding that the latter had met the statutory requirements . That decision was given after a hearing fixed for DATE had been adjourned due to the applicant ’s absence .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and confirmed the first - instance court ’s decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . Proceedings before that court are still pending .

LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ORG за судовите ) of DATE ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) provides that “ ORG is competent to decide applications about a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time , in proceedings specified by law . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides that “ a party concerned can lodge with the immediate higher court ( непосредно повисокиот суд ) an application for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time if he or she considers that it has been violated by a court of competent jurisdiction . The immediate higher court considers the application ( постапува по барањето ) within DATE after it has been lodged and decides whether the court below violated the right to a hearing within a reasonable time . The higher court shall award just satisfaction to the claimant if it finds a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time . The just satisfaction shall be paid from the ORG ’s budget . ”

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act provides that it would become operational on DATE .


No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nina Vajic;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in the village of Serebryaniki in GPE .

On DATE the Vyshne - Volotsk Town Court of GPE found the applicant guilty of aggravated rape and sexual assault on a minor and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . He was released on CARDINAL DATE , having served the sentence .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated robbery .

On DATE the ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of having attempted to commit an aggravated robbery and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , which he was sent to serve in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in the town of GPE in LOC . In DATE he was transferred to special medical correctional facility no . CARDINAL ( “ the medical colony ” ) in the village of Polevoy in LOC .

Copies of medical records presented to the ORG indicate that in DATE the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis accompanied by bacterial excretion and tuberculous papillitis of the kidneys and right ureter . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent treatment in ORG .

Subsequently , the applicant was regularly monitored in LOC ( “ the GPE hospital ” ) . In particular , on DATE , following a complex examination in the TB hospital , the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis in the disintegration stage . The examining doctors concluded that the tuberculoma was growing and that the applicant should undergo surgery to remove it . The applicant refused surgery and was admitted to the TB hospital for treatment with antimicrobial medicines . He was discharged from the hospital on DATE following numerous unauthorised leaves and violations of hospital regulations . An extract of his medical record shows that by the date of his discharge the applicant ’s state of health had not improved .

On his admission to a temporary detention facility in Tver after his arrest in DATE , the applicant was diagnosed with “ focal pulmonary tuberculosis in the infiltration stage ” . On a number of occasions in DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant was admitted to prison hospital no . CARDINAL or the Tver Regional TB hospital for anti - tuberculosis treatment . On DATE a medical commission , comprising a number of specialists from prison hospital no . CARDINAL , examined the applicant and issued the final diagnosis : “ clinical recovery from the focal tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the left lung accompanied by small residual post - tuberculosis changes in the form of pulmonary fibrosis , and clinical recovery from renal tuberculosis ” .

NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE to serve the remaining part of his sentence . He was placed under regular supervision by a tuberculosis specialist , underwent complex in - patient medical examinations and received seasonal antibacterial prophylactic treatment twice a year .

On admission to the detention facility in GPE following his arrest on DATE , the applicant underwent a complex prophylactic examination , inter alia by a tuberculosis specialist . The following diagnosis was noted in the applicant ’s medical record : “ clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis , dense nidi , pulmonary fibrosis ” . He was placed on a special diet , received multivitamins and underwent a DATE course of anti - tuberculosis drug treatment in the tuberculosis department of the prison hospital .

When he arrived at correctional colony no . CARDINAL in the town of GPE in LOC on DATE , the applicant did not make any complaints concerning his health . A medical examination performed on his admission to the colony confirmed the previous diagnosis of clinically treated pulmonary tuberculosis with residual changes . The doctor ’s recommendation was that the applicant should be placed on an enriched diet , should undergo X - ray testing twice a year and should receive prophylactic treatment with CARDINAL anti - bacterial drugs DATE and DATE .

According to a letter sent by the head of ORG to the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE , the applicant applied for medical assistance once during the entire period of his detention in correctional colony no . CARDINAL . In particular , the applicant ’s medical history shows that on DATE he complained to a prison doctor about a phlegm cough . Following an examination , including a chest X - ray , he was diagnosed with “ clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis [ and ] bronchitis . ” After undergoing conservative treatment , the applicant was considered to have been cured of bronchitis .

The Government stressed that the recommendations given on the applicant ’s admission to correctional colony no . CARDINAL had been followed to the letter . The applicant disputed that assertion , arguing that he had not received the requisite medical attention . According to the applicant ’s medical history submitted to ORG in DATE , during DATE of his detention in colony no . CARDINAL the applicant was given a chest X - ray once and received a full course of anti - bacterial treatment in DATE . At the same time a prison medical assistant or a prison doctor attended the applicant once a month , took his blood pressure , measured his body temperature and recorded no health complaints on the applicant ’s part .

During a medical examination on admission to the medical colony in DATE , the applicant made no complaints about his health . His state of health was considered to be satisfactory . At the same time , he was registered for regular medical check - ups because of his medical history . The examining doctor confirmed the diagnosis of the applicant ’s clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis , but noted the unclear status of the applicant ’s renal illness and authorised blood and urine tests . As the tests could not be performed in the medical colony for lack of a laboratory technician , the applicant ’s transfer to ORG was authorised .

DATE the applicant underwent a complex medical examination , including blood and urine tests and X - ray exams of the urinary tract and chest , in the tuberculosis department of ORG . Tests for the presence of mycobacterium tuberculosis ( “ ORG ” ) in the urine were also performed , producing negative results . The applicant was treated for acute cystitis and also received prophylactic anti - tuberculosis treatment . His medical record drawn up in the hospital , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ Diagnosis : clinical recovery from focal tuberculosis of the upper lobes of both lungs resulting in circumscribed post - tuberculosis pneumosclerosis ... Acute cystitis . The diagnosis in respect of the tuberculosis was made on DATE by ORG of ORG .

Fitness for work : able to work , excluding types of work involving exposure to cold , dust and gas pollution .

[ The applicant ] is recommended treatment DATE ( spring and DATE ) for DATE with CARDINAL anti - tuberculosis drugs to prevent a relapse of tuberculosis and X - ray examinations twice a year in compliance with [ internal regulations ] .

[ The applicant ] should be detained in correctional facilities in general conditions . ”

The final diagnosis was made on DATE by ORG of the Tambov Regional Anti - Tuberculosis Clinic .

According to the applicant , the recommendations were never complied with . On a number of occasions he requested the facility administration to admit him for medical treatment , but to no avail .

The applicant ’s medical history , however , shows that following his transfer back to the medical colony he was regularly examined ( at least once DATE ) by the colony medical personnel or independent medical specialists , including a tuberculosis specialist from ORG . In particular , examinations by independent tuberculosis specialists were carried out on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Relying on the applicant ’s medical record , the ORG argued that the personnel of the medical colony had fully complied with the recommendations given by the independent tuberculosis specialists . At the same time , those recommendations had met with resistance from the applicant . For instance , following the examination on CARDINAL DATE the tuberculosis specialist noted the applicant ’s satisfactory state of health and recommended maintaining a DATE course of prophylactic antibacterial treatment . The applicant refused to take the anti - bacterial medicines , however , expressing a general disinclination to submit to medical procedures . A report recording the applicant ’s refusal to undergo treatment was drawn up and signed by CARDINAL colony staff members . It was also noted that the applicant would not confirm his refusal in writing .

NORP In response to the applicant ’s refusal to submit to the treatment , the colony administration intensified the frequency of his medical examinations by a prison doctor or medical assistant to a rate of at least once a fortnight . The applicant submitted that on DATE , when the colony administration had attempted to reason with him , he had gone on a hunger strike , being dissatisfied with the conditions of his detention and appalled by the fact that he had to use the same crockery as “ inmates of a lower social status ” . The attending prison doctor noted the applicant ’s complaint about dizziness , fatigue and stomach ache , recommended his transfer to the colony hospital and asked to be informed of the result of the applicant ’s urine test for the presence of the ORG in the urine . A chest X - ray performed DATE revealed no changes . An independent tuberculosis specialist who saw the applicant on CARDINAL DATE confirmed the need to perform additional testing in the tuberculosis hospital , suspecting reactivation of the tuberculosis process in the urinary tract .

The applicant was transferred to the therapeutic department of the prison hospital . While he started receiving prophylactic anti - bacterial treatment , the necessary tests and X - rays were carried out , revealing no presence of ORG in the applicant ’s urine and no reactivation of the tuberculosis process in his lungs . The report drawn up by the attending doctor read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ Taking into account the results of additional examinations ( microbiological and ORG [ testing ] ) there is no sufficient evidence of any reactivation of the tuberculosis process in the kidney and urinary tracts .

Recommended : dynamic supervision , chest X - ray testing once DATE , repeated urine testing for the presence of ORG after DATE ...

Diagnosis : clinical recovery from pulmonary tuberculosis resulting in fibrosis and firm nidi in the upper lobes of the lungs ... No evidence of recurrence of the illness ... ”

After the applicant ’s release from the hospital , the colony medical personnel examined him at least once DATE . The applicant ’s medical record shows that he had no health complaints apart from those raised on the following occasions . On DATE a doctor called to the applicant made the following CARDINAL entries in his medical record . The first entry read as follows :

“ DATE . A medical examination of [ the applicant ] was performed after special measures ( handcuffs ) and physical force were used [ against him ] .

No injuries were discovered during the medical examination ... ”

The second entry read as follows :

“ ... [ the applicant ] made CARDINAL slash wounds to his right and left forearms at TIME During the examination he did not make any complaints .

Objectively : his general condition is satisfactory , lungs and heart are without any peculiarities ; blood pressure is PERSON . [ There is ] a cut measuring CARDINAL cm in length and QUANTITY in width on his right forearm ; insignificant bleeding . [ There is ] a cut measuring QUANTITY in length and QUANTITY in width on his left forearm ; insignificant bleeding . [ The applicant ] refused to explain why he had cut himself .

Diagnosis : self - injuring . Slash wounds on both forearms .

[ Treatment provided ] ... ”

NORP In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the doctor on duty was called to the punishment unit , where the applicant was detained at the time . The doctor made the following entry in the applicant ’s medical record :

“ Complaints about headache , dizziness .

Special measures were applied to [ the applicant ] .

Objectively : temperature QUANTITY . [ The applicant ] exited [ the cell ] without assistance . [ He ] is threatening the colony administration with ‘ his relatives’ .

Oedematous face . A bruise measuring QUANTITY on the forehead .

There are no fresh injuries on the body ...

Diagnosis : ORG oedema ? Self - injury ? ... ”

The doctor treated the applicant ’s bruise and gave him an analgesic , an antiallergenic and a sedative . At each subsequent DATE examination the attending doctor recorded the applicant ’s facial oedema and the absence of any other health complaints . Suspecting that the applicant was suffering from an allergic reaction of some kind , the doctors continued treating him with antiallergenics .

On DATE a medical assistant reported to the head of the medical colony that a medical examination of the applicant performed that DATE had revealed that , in addition to the facial oedema , the applicant had an abrasion QUANTITY in length on his left shin . The necessary medical assistance was provided . On DATE the applicant complained to the doctor of severe back pain . After examining him , the doctor concluded that he was suffering from allergic oedema of the face and was feigning a kidney injury . DATE the applicant complained of severe headache and dizziness . The attending doctor found no signs of health problems apart from the facial oedema .

The acting deputy head of the medical colony drew up the final report , which read as follows :

“ On DATE [ the applicant ] was examined by the doctor on duty , who noted that the inmate had a facial oedema and a bruise QUANTITY in length on the left side of his forehead . [ He ] did not record any other objective pathological data , or any fresh injuries .

Over DATE of proactive supervision , as [ the applicant ] did not apply for medical assistance himself , the facial oedema ( of the paraorbital region ) , which revealed no changes symptomatic of a traumatic pathology was still recorded . No other objective pathological changes to the body or viscera were noted ( such as changes in the colour of the urine [ or ] phlegm , the stool , blood pressure , body temperature , heart beat , breathing , etc . ) .

[ After the applicant ] had taken special medicines , including antiallergenics , the dynamic of the oedema was arrested , which shows that the oedema was of the allergic aetiology typically associated with insect bites . ”

Following an examination by a number of prison medical specialists on DATE , the applicant ’s transfer to a hospital was recommended “ for subsequent supervision and examination to exclude his feigning illness ” . The applicant was immediately transferred to the therapeutic department of ORG .

On DATE the applicant underwent blood and urine testing and chest and skull X - rays , which revealed no signs of injuries . He was also examined by a surgeon , a neurologist , a tuberculosis specialist , a psychiatrist and a general practitioner . Having heard the applicant ’s complains of chest pain , headache , pain in the lumbar region and stomach , dizziness and nausea , which he alleged were caused by a beating in the medical colony on CARDINAL DATE , and having noted healing abrasions on the applicant ’s head , the medical specialists concluded that the applicant was simulating the kidney injury and the general deterioration of his health . The tuberculosis specialist also found that there were no signs of reactivation of the tuberculosis process and recommended keeping up the seasonal prophylactic treatment .

A course of prophylactic antibacterial treatment was initiated on DATE . On DATE a medical assistant made an entry in the applicant ’s medical record noting his refusal to continue treatment . The applicant submitted that he had been admitted to the therapeutic department of the hospital by mistake instead of to a specialised tuberculosis medical facility . He argued that any treatment he received there would accordingly be ineffective .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to temporary detention facility no . CARDINAL to take part in criminal proceedings instituted against him . A prison doctor examined him on admission to the facility , recorded his complaints of chest pain and his slurred speech , noted his generally satisfactory state of health , authorised continuation of his enriched food ration and re - initiated his seasonal prophylactic anti - tuberculosis treatment . Medical records submitted by the Government show that the applicant was placed on a DATE chemotherapy course , with each intake of antibacterial drug observed and noted in the applicant ’s medical record by the medical personnel .

Another medical examination , performed on DATE in response to the applicant ’s complaints of a constant ache in the lumbar region , chest pains and a burning sensation during urination , led to his being diagnosed with lower back pain . The applicant was prescribed treatment on the condition that it should not interfere with the prophylactic antituberculosis procedures .

On DATE the applicant , suffering from a slight fever , shortness of breath , a runny nose and fatigue , was diagnosed with acute respiratory disease , for which he started receiving treatment . Following subsequent medical examinations the chemotherapy was adjusted to respond to the changes in the state of the applicant ’s health , his health complaints and his refusals to take certain medicines . On DATE a schedule for the applicant ’s clinical examinations and X - ray testing was developed . However , it was not until his transfer to ORG on DATE , given no positive changes in his condition , that the applicant was subjected to an X - ray exam . The delay was due to the fact that temporary detention facility no . CARDINAL did not have the necessary equipment to perform the exam and had no means of transporting the applicant to the tuberculosis hospital for testing .

During the applicant ’s stay in the prison hospital , he underwent a full clinical examination , including blood and urine tests , chest , abdominal and kidney X - rays and ultrasound scans , sputum smear and urine culture testing , monitoring of renal functions , screening by a tuberculosis urologist , which revealed no new signs of tuberculosis . At the same time , as the medical records show , the applicant refused to submit to additional ORG tests . His attitude towards the examinations and treatment was recorded by the attending doctor in his medical record in the following manner :

“ During his in - patient treatment , [ the applicant ] failed to cooperate , occasionally refusing to take injections and submit to clinical testing . ”

The applicant was released from the hospital on DATE with a recommendation to admit him to the tuberculosis department of ORG for additional testing after the new round of criminal proceedings against him came to an end .

NORP In DATE and DATE and DATE the applicant received treatment for migraines , intercostal neuralgia , a slight cold and dental problems , as well as undergoing prophylactic treatment against acute respiratory illness . In DATE he started the spring course of his seasonal prophylactic anti - tuberculosis treatment . An examination of the applicant in DATE showed that his health was satisfactory and there were no signs of any deterioration of his health .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , arrived at the medical colony and , after producing identification papers and a writ issued by ORG to represent the applicant ’s interests , asked the colony administration to organise a meeting with her client . The request was refused because the lawyer had not submitted a copy of the power of attorney showing that the applicant had retained her as his counsel .

The lawyer lodged a complaint with ORG , describing the events of DATE and asking for permission to see the applicant .

On DATE the ORG supervising correctional institutions sent a letter to the applicant ’s lawyer , which , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ It was established that on DATE at TIME , having arrived at the checkpoint of [ the medical colony ] in LOC and disregarding the orders of an officer on duty ... to wait until the beginning of the working day , you entered the restricted area adjacent to the [ medical colony ] .

On arriving at the office building , you did not file a request for a meeting with [ the applicant ] with the colony administration .

The facility administration considered that your actions constituted an administrative offence proscribed by LAW ; you were accordingly asked to produce identification documents in order to draw up a report [ of an administrative offence ] , but you categorically refused [ to comply with the request ] and left the LOC .

However , the inquiry shows that [ the applicant ] , when asked why he needed to see a lawyer , refused to give any explanation ; a report on the incident was drawn up on DATE and it was signed by deputy directors of the colony Mr NORP and PERSON and by the head of the duty unit , PERSON

In these circumstances there is no ground for the prosecution authorities to apply supervisory measures . ”

The lawyer sent a letter to ORG complaining about the applicant ’s poor state of health , the lack of medical assistance in the colony and her inability to visit her client .

On DATE the lawyer received a letter from a deputy prosecutor of ORG . The relevant part of the letter read as follows :

“ The Regional prosecutor ’s office examined your complaint which was forwarded by the office of ORG [ and in which you complained ] about beatings and threats of violence against [ the applicant ] , about the refusal of the [ colony ] administration to provide him with medical assistance , about the refusal to organise meetings with the lawyer and so on .

In the course of the inquiry no acts of violence , threats of violence against [ the applicant ] either on the part of the administration or other convicts ... have been objectively proven . In fact , in his statement to a deputy head of the medical colony on DATE ... [ the applicant ] affirmed that he did not have any complaints against the administration .

[ The applicant ] unequivocally refused to give prosecution officials any explanation pertaining to the facts laid down in your complaint and a complaint lodged by [ the applicant ’s female partner ] .

During a medical examination of [ the applicant ] performed on DATE by officers of the medical department of the prison hospital in the presence of an officer from ORG office ... no injuries were discovered on [ the applicant ’s ] body .

During his detention in correctional facilities in LOC [ the applicant ] received and continues to receive appropriate medical treatment for his illnesses .

Following additional medical tests and an additional examination by a prison tuberculosis specialist on CARDINAL DATE , no convincing evidence showing any reactivation of the tuberculosis process in the applicant ’s lungs and urinary tract was discovered ; therefore , there is no medical data calling for [ the applicant ’s ] routine admission to the tuberculosis department of the hospital ...

[ The applicant ] is detained in a [ solitary ] cell in [ the medical colony ] ; his state is satisfactory . ”

The remaining part of the letter repeated the content of the letter sent to the lawyer on DATE .

On DATE the lawyer arrived at the medical colony . Once again , however , she was not allowed to see the applicant . She was given a note allegedly handwritten by the applicant to the head of the colony in which he stated that he did not need legal assistance . The applicant , relying on the handwritten power of attorney filled in and submitted by him to ORG in compliance with Rule CARDINAL of ORG , disputed the authenticity of that note .

DATE the applicant went on a hunger strike in response to the facility administration ’s alleged refusal to provide him with legal assistance .

According to the applicant , on DATE warders at the medical colony began beating an inmate , PERSON , who had recently been transferred there . In response to inmate PERSON ’s cries for help , the applicant and other inmates started banging on their cell doors demanding that the beating stop . The warders , a deputy director , Mr NORP , and a junior inspector , PERSON , forced the applicant out of his cell and beat him up . The applicant alleged that as a result of the beating his ribs had been broken and he had had severe chest and head pains and numerous injuries and bruises to the head and legs . The applicant further submitted that when he was put back in his cell following the beating , Mr NORP had thrown a razor blade at him , urging him to commit suicide . In response to this treatment the applicant had slashed his forearms with the razor blade .

The Government disputed the applicant ’s version of events . Relying on records of disciplinary offences drawn up in correctional colony no . CARDINAL , they noted that during his detention in the colony DATE the applicant had violated the regulations CARDINAL times and had been ranked a “ persistent offender ” . On CARDINAL occasions he had been placed in a punishment ward , where he had spent DATE in all . On DATE a decision was taken to place the applicant in a solitary confinement cell for DATE . When transferred to the medical colony , the applicant had continued his unruly behaviour , and was reprimanded almost on a DATE basis . The Government submitted that a conflict between the administration of the colony and the applicant had come to a head on DATE , when the applicant had attempted to cut junior inspector S. with a piece of glass , part of which was wrapped in a white cloth for use as a handle . The warder had grabbed the applicant by the hands and handcuffed him behind his back . The applicant had then been taken to a punishment ward , where he broke a glass in the window and cut his forearms with a piece of broken glass . The Government stressed that a prison doctor had examined the applicant twice on DATE : after the use of physical force and handcuffs on him and after the act of self - mutilation . No injuries , save for CARDINAL small cuts on the forearms , were reported on the applicant ’s body .

On DATE duty officer Mr F. reported to the head of the medical colony that physical force in the form of arm - twisting and handcuffing had been used against the applicant in response to his attack on junior inspector S. Similar reports were made by CARDINAL other warders who had witnessed the incident .

On DATE junior inspector S. addressed a complaint to ORG . The complaint read as follows :

“ On DATE , at TIME , when I was on duty , [ the applicant ] ... , who is serving a disciplinary penalty in the punishment ward of the [ medical colony ] , attacked me , PERSON , with a piece of glass in the corridor of the punishment ward near cell no . DATE when a partial search of his person was being performed ” .

The complaint was registered with ORG office on DATE . DATE an investigator from the prosecutor ’s office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for having attacked junior inspector S. and threatened him with violence on DATE .

In the meantime an investigator from the operations unit of the medical colony carried out an internal inquiry into the incident of DATE . The inquiry was closed following a decision of CARDINAL DATE that the use of force and handcuffs had been lawful , reasonable and proportionate to the applicant ’s violent behaviour . The investigator also addressed the applicant ’s self - inflicted injuries to the forearms , noting that the applicant had refused to explain his conduct . He concluded that the applicant had intended to “ blackmail ” the colony administration to avoid detention in a solitary punishment cell and to secure more comfortable conditions of detention . A similar conclusion was reached on DATE by ORG supervising detention facilities .

Without offering any description of the events of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant submitted that he had again been given a severe beating by the warders . He further stated that since the beating he had suffered from stammering and distorted facial expressions when speaking .

The Government submitted that in the morning of CARDINAL DATE the applicant had violently resisted the warders’ attempts to transfer him to a punishment cell , where he was to stay for DATE because of another disciplinary offence . The applicant had tried to punch the director of the punishment ward , Mr GPE , in the face . ORG had restrained the applicant by holding his hands behind his back and handcuffing him . Inside the punishment cell the applicant had immediately started hitting his head against the bars of a bed , causing abrasions . The Government stressed that , in an attempt to “ make matters worse ” , the applicant had placed a wasp on the bridge of his nose . The wasp had stung him , causing an allergic reaction in the form of facial swelling . The applicant had received treatment for both the abrasions and facial swelling . On DATE the applicant had cut his left shin with the sharpened handle of a tooth brush . The medical assistant who had treated his cut had not observed any other injuries on his body and had not reported any health complaints .

On DATE warder PERSON wrote an explanatory note to the head of the medical colony which , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ ... on DATE , at TIME , I went on duty supervising the inmates in [ the punishment ward ] . After the lights - out call at TIME , [ the applicant ] , who was detained in a solitary confinement cell , started talking to inmates in neighbouring cells ... He referred in particular to the fact that the warders had used physical force and handcuffs against him in TIME when taking him to the punishment cell . He had intentionally ‘ pulled a stunt’ [ “ mastyrka ” was the term he used in inmates’ slang ] and injured himself and [ he urged ] other inmates to certify that handcuffs had not been used and that [ the applicant ] had been beaten up instead . He said it was necessary for their ‘ common benefit’ and that he would file a complaint about the unlawful actions of the colony administration ...

Before the wake - up call , at CARDINAL or TIME during a scheduled round of the cells , I looked through a peephole in the door of cell no . DATE and saw [ the applicant ] sitting on the lower bunk with his back to the door and his legs tucked up beneath him , doing something . I called out , startling him . He turned and , after a while , replied that he was waiting for the wake - up call , ready to brush his teeth , and he showed me a tooth brush . I warned him that he was violating the regulations and he laughed at me . I thought no more of the incident ” .

An internal inquiry into the events of CARDINAL DATE resulted in the following decision :

“ On DATE , at TIME , by decision of the head [ of the medical colony ] , [ the applicant ] , who had breached prison regulations , was found guilty of a disciplinary offence and was to be placed in the punishment ward for DATE . While being escorted to the punishment cell , in a corridor near the entrance to cell no . CARDINAL [ the applicant ] started pushing away the warders ... [ and ] grabbing their uniforms . He was warned to stop misbehaving . [ The applicant ] disregarded the warning and continued pushing the warders . At the same time he proffered threats of violence against the officers and their families . Suddenly , he turned towards the head of the [ punishment ward ] , Mr GPE , and tried to punch him in the face . Given [ the applicant ’s ] unruly conduct , handcuffs were used to restrain him , but without harming him ....

After a medical examination [ the applicant ] was placed in a punishment cell as a disciplinary measure . [ He ] did not make any complaints or requests .

The inquiry did not reveal that any other physical force had been applied to [ the applicant ] . ”

Another inquiry looking into the applicant ’s self - mutilation ended with decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE which , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

Decision of DATE

“ On DATE ... [ the applicant ] applied for medical assistance , complaining of abrasions on the head and swelling round both eyes .

... After [ the applicant ] had been placed in [ the punishment cell ] , at TIME , while checking cells , the officer on duty heard a noise in the cell and , looking through a peephole , discovered that [ the applicant ] was attempting to injure himself , hitting his head against the bars of the bunk , and uttering obscenities against the administration of [ the facility ] . He ignored orders to calm down . ORG and a medical assistant , called to the scene , took [ the applicant ] from the cell . Once outside the cell , [ the applicant ] was calm . On examining him a prison doctor noted CARDINAL abrasions in the region of the forehead and swelling round both eyes . [ The applicant ] did not make any complaints or requests .

The inquiry established that [ in TIME ] of CARDINAL DATE , after the lights - out call , [ the applicant ] started talking to inmates in other cells , telling them that the warders had used physical force against him and that he had taken advantage of the opportunity and injured himself , banging his head and getting a wasp to sting him on the bridge of his nose for extra effect . He was intending to apply to human rights organisations and to lodge a frivolous complaint about the actions of the prison staff . To help him put his plan into action [ the applicant ] asked the other inmates to corroborate the reality of the beating when representatives of the human rights organisations arrived ... and to organise their visit by calling his wife on the phone and giving her the following message : ‘ Do the same as the last time’ . She would know what to do . He threatened anyone who refused to comply with his instructions with violence . [ The applicant ] wanted to discredit the administration ... and blackmail them into closing the criminal proceedings against him ... The facts were confirmed by witnesses ; [ the applicant ] angrily refused to give any explanation . ”

Decision of DATE

“ [ The head of the detention facility ] talked to [ the applicant to prevent further selfmutilation , but the applicant ] did not abandon his plan [ to discredit the administration ] and on DATE he again injured himself . In particular , he inflicted a small cut measuring QUANTITY in length on his left shin , using the rough end of his toothbrush , which he had heated on a fire before he was placed in the punishment cell ; [ the applicant ] constantly picked open his cut . That fact is confirmed by eyewitness statements and reports by medical staff .

The conclusions of the internal inquiry that the use of handcuffs had been lawful and well - founded and that the applicant ’s injuries were the result of his own actions were reproduced by ORG in a decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , found out that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant in DATE . On DATE she informed the investigator in charge of the applicant ’s case of her intention to represent the applicant and submitted a power of attorney . On DATE the investigator sent a letter to the head of the medical colony to notify him of the applicant ’s counsel ’s name . The investigator misspelt the lawyer ’s last name as Ms Shaysinova .

The lawyer arrived at the colony for the first consultation with the applicant , but was not allowed to see him on DATE . The same thing happened DATE . She immediately lodged a complaint with ORG office , asking to have her client medically examined . DATE a prosecution investigator dismissed the request , finding that it was groundless and unnecessary for the criminal investigation . The lawyer was notified of the investigator ’s decision on DATE .

On DATE the lawyer lodged a complaint with ORG and ORG , alleging numerous violations of the applicant ’s defence rights . She also complained about the investigating authorities’ refusals to interview the applicant and to medically examine him in response to his illtreatment complaints . On DATE the lawyer applied to various human rights organisations in LOC asking for their assistance .

On DATE the lawyer and representatives of CARDINAL regional human rights NGOs arrived at the colony and asked to see the applicant and a number of other inmates who had complained of numerous instances of ill - treatment in the facility . While the human rights activists were allowed to enter the LOC of the medical colony , the administration did not consent to the lawyer ’s visit . A handwritten note by the head of the medical colony in response to the lawyer ’s written request for a meeting with the applicant stated that the visit “ was not allowed on the investigator ’s orders because no investigative actions were being performed [ with the applicant ] in connection with the criminal proceedings ” at the time when the request for a meeting was lodged .

Following their visit to the prison hospital , the representatives of the human rights organisations issued the following joint statement :

“ The basis for the visit was complaints from the relatives of inmates detained in the punishment ward and a phone call from a staff member of ‘ ORG International’ .

On DATE , during a visit to [ the medical colony ] , following discussions with warders and inmates detained in [ the punishment ward ] , it was established :

According to the inmates detained in [ the punishment ward ] , they are subjected to severe beatings by the warders in that ward . The most recent beatings occurred when a group of newcomers was admitted to the punishment ward . Inmate PERSON was subjected to the cruellest beating . Unable to bear the cries and moans , detainees in the punishment ward responded by banging on their cell doors . Those responsible for the uproar were subjected to psychological pressure and threats and unjustified beatings . Several warders DATE CARDINAL officers from the punishment ward DATE entered the cells and beat up inmates , using rubber truncheons and punching and kicking them . During the visit on DATE , injuries could be observed on the inmates’ heads , faces , bodies and legs .

A doctor present during the beatings had insisted that it was necessary to provide medical assistance , apply bandages , stop the bleeding ; but the warders in the punishment ward had replied that the detainees did not need medical assistance and continued the beatings . The doctor ’s insistence was to no avail . The officers in the punishment ward ignored the persistent lawful requests of the detainees ; in order to break their will they seized the inmates’ tableware then returned it to them , telling them it had been ‘ ORG by ‘ ORG inmates . Having no other means to protect themselves , the detainees went on a hunger strike ; [ the facility administration ] kept the hunger strike a secret for DATE . Inmates are subjected to psychological pressure ; they are threatened with rape ; inmates who have been raped or who are likely to commit rape are placed in the cells to show that the threats are real . Inmates slash their veins ( [ the applicant ] , PERSON . ) and drive nails into their bodies ( Mr PERSON . ) to escape rape . All this is being concealed . Complaints of illtreatment are not being investigated ; detainees are given the run - around in response to their complaints to the prosecution authorities . Criminal proceedings were instituted against CARDINAL of them ( [ the applicant ] ) for allegedly attacking a warder in the punishment ward .

The lawyer , PERSON , who had power of attorney to represent [ the applicant ] , was not allowed to see her client . ”

The human rights activists called on the prosecution authorities to perform forensic medical examinations of a number of inmates , including the applicant , to provide the applicant with the necessary medical assistance and perform appropriate medical tests in connection with his ailments , and to open a criminal investigation into the actions of the colony officials .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer lodged complaints with various prosecution authorities and human rights organisations alleging numerous violations of her client ’s rights in the colony .

DATE the applicant was served with a bill of indictment . According to the prosecution , on DATE , during the morning search in the cells , the applicant refused to comply with the lawful orders of the officers on duty and started calling for collective disobedience . The applicant was taken out to the corridor , where he grabbed inspector S. ’s right hand and tore his uniform . He subsequently produced a piece of glass hidden in his sleeve and tried to hit inspector S. in the chest with it . Inspector PERSON knocked the piece of glass from the applicant ’s hand . CARDINAL other warders intervened , handcuffed the applicant and took him to a punishment cell .

On DATE the ORG supervising detention facilities set aside the decisions dismissing the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment . The prosecutor noted that the initial inquiry had failed to secure expert evidence which might have made it possible to determine whether the injuries on the applicant ’s head and his facial swelling had been caused by a beating .

On DATE an expert examined the applicant and found that the medical evidence , including X - ray results , indicated that the injury on the applicant ’s head could have been caused by self - mutilation on CARDINAL DATE . The expert discovered no other injuries on the applicant ’s body , save for pigment spots on his shin , which he interpreted as possible signs of a now cured skin disease .

On DATE a deputy ORG sent a letter to the head of a human rights group , a copy of which was delivered to the applicant ’s lawyer . The letter , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ During his detention and while serving his sentence in correctional institutions in LOC [ the applicant ] has been viewed negatively ; on a number of occasions [ he ] has violated the internal regulations of his detention facility ; for those [ violations ] he has received CARDINAL oral and written reprimands in the form of warnings , and been placed in a punishment cell and transferred to a punishment ward .

On DATE the head of the [ medical colony ] , PERSON , authorised the applicant ’s placement in the punishment ward for DATE .

[ The applicant ] continues to break the rules in the punishment ward ... , for which he is lawfully punished with disciplinary sanctions .

Furthermore , the inquiry showed that [ the applicant ] has committed unlawful attacks on the staff members of [ the colony ] . As a result , on DATE LOC [ Prosecutor ’s office ] opened criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW of LAW in connection with the [ applicant ’s ] unlawful attack on a junior inspector in the punishment ward , Mr S.

The investigation in that criminal case has not yet been completed .

At the same time the inquiry showed that the administration of [ the medical colony ] actually violated certain provisions of LAW ...

On DATE ORG office lodged an order with ORG of ORG in connection with a violation by the administration on DATE of [ the applicant ’s ] right [ under NORP law ] to receive legal assistance from his lawyer , PERSON ....

On DATE the prosecutor ’s order was examined at a meeting attended by the head of ORG of ORG for the Execution of Sentences and regional prosecution authorities , and [ the order ] was accepted .

On DATE the ORG ... sent an official warning to the head of [ the medical colony ] stating that such violations would not be tolerated in the future . ”

On DATE an investigator from ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the personnel of the colony , finding no evidence of ill - treatment on either occasion . The investigator ’s decision was based on statements by the applicant , the warders and a medical assistant who had examined the applicant after the alleged beating on DATE , medical reports from ORG following his examination on DATE and the expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE . The investigator also interviewed CARDINAL inmates , PERSON . and PERSON , who confirmed the applicant ’s version of the events of DATE , stating that they too had been beaten by the warders . However , their statements were not considered trustworthy as the inmates had refused to sign the interview report and certify their awareness of their criminal liability in the event of false testimony .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of PERSON . The applicant denied having attacked inspector S. and maintained his version of events , alleging that he had been severely beaten up by several warders , including inspector PERSON , and that his requests for medical examinations and assistance after the beating had been disregarded . He also complained that he had been beaten on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG of the Tambov Region authorised the applicant ’s detention on remand , finding that it was warranted by the applicant ’s numerous convictions , the gravity of the charges brought against him in respect of the events of DATE , the fact that he had no permanent place of residence , and information provided by a deputy head of the medical colony that the applicant intended to abscond to avoid investigation and trial and to pervert the course of justice if released . The applicant ’s lawyer appealed , arguing that the detention order was not based on any relevant facts . On DATE the ORG upheld the detention order of DATE , endorsing ORG reasoning .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer asked the prosecution authorities to perform another forensic medical examination of the applicant , to question inmates who had been detained together with the applicant in the punishment ward and to hold confrontation interviews between the applicant and CARDINAL detainees who had already been questioned by the investigating authorities in respect of the events of DATE . DATE the investigator partly accepted the request , authorising a forensic medical examination of the applicant .

DATE . A complex medical examination of the applicant performed DATE entirely confirmed the expert ’s findings of CARDINAL DATE .

Following the expert examination the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , asking for criminal proceedings to be instituted against the warders who had participated in the beating on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . He further complained about the absence of medical assistance and the refusal of the medical personnel to record his injuries after the beating .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was closed and the applicant was committed to stand trial before ORG .

In the course of the trial against the applicant ORG heard , among other witnesses , the representatives of the human rights NGOs who had visited the applicant after the alleged beatings in DATE . The representatives testified to having met the applicant and a number of other inmates , including PERSON . , and having heard their complaints of severe beatings in the colony . According to them , there had been no eye - witnesses to the applicant ’s beating among the inmates , but the detainees had provided a very coherent and similar version of the events of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant had told them that on DATE approximately CARDINAL warders had burst into his cell and beaten him with rubber truncheons and kicked him repeatedly in the head and other parts of his body . He had fallen to the floor covered in blood and had then been dragged to the punishment cell . There , he had tried to commit suicide by slashing his wrists with a piece of a tile he had taken from a wall . The human rights activists stressed that at their meeting on DATE the applicant ’s face had been swollen , he had twitched his head from time to time and he had had an old scratch on the face , an abrasion on his shin and some kind of bump on the chest which he said was a broken rib . The applicant had also stammered , complained of pain in the ribs and kidneys and had desperately pleaded for help . The representatives also noted , however , that the applicant had had no “ pronounced ” bruises on him . CARDINAL of the representatives testified to having seen photos of a wasp and a wasps’ nest on a cell window that were presented to him by the colony administration during the visit .

ORG also heard several inmates who had been detained with the applicant during DATE . CARDINAL inmate , PERSON . , testified to having witnessed the applicant ’s beating by the warders on DATE . He stated that CARDINAL warders had attacked the applicant for no apparent reason and had started beating him with rubber truncheons and kicking him repeatedly . PERSON . was unable to recall the exact course of events as he had been subjected to ill - treatment by the warders at the same time . PERSON . also stressed that he had refused to sign the record of his questioning by the investigator during the proceedings instituted in respect of the applicant ’s ill - treatment complaints and did not want to complain about the beatings himself as that was his usual behaviour vis - à - vis the authorities . Another inmate claimed that he had heard the applicant being beaten up in the corridor on DATE . That witness said he had heard the voices of CARDINAL warders , the sound of blows and the applicant screaming with pain .

On DATE ORG , relying heavily on the testimony of the staff members of the medical colony , found the applicant guilty of a violent attack on an officer on duty in a detention facility and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . The court dismissed the applicant ’s argument that he had been severely beaten by warders on DATE . It noted that the applicant ’s complaints had already been examined by the investigating authorities and there was no reason to doubt the results of their inquiry laid down , inter alia , in the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

NORP However , ORG found it necessary to issue a separate interim order , noting “ the poor standard of the pre - trial investigation into the events of DATE ” . Citing the investigator ’s inexperience with difficult criminal cases , the lack of supervision of the investigator despite his inexperience , the delays in the opening an inquiry into the events , the length of the investigation , the investigator ’s failure to examine the scene of the events , the improper filing of documents and evidence in the case file , the failure to interrogate certain witnesses and so on , ORG urged ORG to take the necessary steps to avoid the same defects in future investigations .

On DATE the ORG amended the judgment of DATE . Finding that the applicant ’s criminal conduct had not been characterised by serious violence or caused any physical pain to the warder , the court reduced the sentence to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

DATE . The relevant provisions of the domestic and international law on health care of detainees and authorities’ response to alleged instances of illtreatment in detention facilities are set out in the following judgments : PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and Yevgeniy Alekseyenko v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was engaged in emergency operations at the site of the GPE nuclear plant disaster . She was issued with a certificate confirming her participation in the emergency operations . As a holder of the certificate she was entitled to certain DATE payments .

NORP In DATE ORG of LOC of GPE ( ORG социальной защиты населения Октябрьского района г. PERSON , hereinafter “ the social security service ” ) paid to the applicant the arrears for the period from DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE held that the social security service had unlawfully defaulted on the DATE payments from DATE . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .

NORP In DATE the social security service discontinued the payments . The applicant sued the social security service .

On DATE ORG of GPE held that the social security service had unlawfully refused to pay . The applicant held a certificate confirming her participation in the emergency operations in GPE and was entitled to receive the payments . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal and it became enforceable .

On DATE the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs .

On DATE the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the applicant received MONEY ( RUB ) .

On DATE the bailiffs directed that the social security service pay the judgment debt by DATE . The social security service did not comply .

The judgment remains unenforced in part . According to the Government , the debt amounts to RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

On DATE Judge PERSON , the President of ORG , lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , as upheld on DATE .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG chaired by Judge PERSON quashed the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , as upheld on DATE , and remitted the cases for a fresh examination before ORG . It found that ORG had erred in the assessment of the facts and application of domestic law . In particular , it had not verified whether the certificate confirming the applicant 's participation in emergency operations at the site of the GPE nuclear plant disaster was valid .

On DATE ORG held that the discontinuation of the DATE payments had been lawful and dismissed the applicant 's claims . It found that the certificate confirming the applicant 's participation in the emergency operations at the site of the GPE nuclear plant disaster had been issued by an unauthorised person and was void . Consequently the applicant was not entitled to DATE payments .