The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

NORP In DATE the applicant was taken to a police station in LOC of PERSON on suspicion of the murder of a man who had been beaten to death .

The applicant submitted that he was arrested on DATE and interrogated in the absence of a lawyer . According to the applicant , on the same date he was ill - treated by policemen and wrote a confession under pressure from them . He further submitted that a medical examination was conducted DATE , when bruises could no longer be seen .

The Government submitted that the applicant was arrested and first interrogated on DATE . In the report on his arrest the applicant stated that he “ agreed to be detained ” . In the course of the interrogation between TIME and TIME he waived his right to legal assistance , as was noted in the record of the interrogation .

On DATE detention as a measure of restraint was applied to the applicant .

During interrogation on DATE the applicant confirmed the waiver of his right to legal assistance , which was also noted in TIME of the interrogation .

On DATE he was charged with murder . During the interrogation on the same date the applicant refused to make any statements and denied his guilt .

In the course of the investigation a witness , PERSON , stated to the investigative authorities that she had seen the applicant beating the man . On an unspecified date the applicant was confronted with PERSON , where it was open to him to put questions and comment on her statements . PERSON confirmed her earlier statement .

On an unspecified date the public prosecutor 's office instituted criminal proceedings against the policemen who had allegedly ill - treated the applicant . As a result of the investigation conducted , the proceedings were discontinued on account of lack of indication of a crime .

On DATE the applicant sent a request for legal assistance to the prosecutor . He indicated that he wanted to be represented by CARDINAL of the following counsel : PERSON , a lawyer from the GPE law firm ORG ; PERSON , a lawyer of ORG ; or an unspecified lawyer from ORG of GPE of PERSON . According to the Government , the request was received by the public prosecutor 's office on DATE . The prosecutor then transferred the request to the investigator .

On DATE the investigator sent CARDINAL letters to the counsel chosen by the applicant , asking them to inform him whether they could participate in the investigative measures – the serving of the bill of indictment and studying of the case file – scheduled for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the letter was received by ORG of GPE of PERSON and on DATE by the law firm ORG . It is not clear whether it was received by PERSON

The Government submitted that no investigative measures were undertaken on either CARDINAL or DATE .

The applicant submitted that the investigative measures were not postponed , and that he was not provided with the opportunity to study the case file .

On DATE advocate PERSON , a member of ORG , was assigned to assist the applicant . According to the Government , advocate PERSON worked for ORG of GPE of PERSON .

On DATE , when the bill of indictment was served on the applicant , advocate PERSON assisted him in studying the case file . The applicant refused to sign a statement to the effect that he had studied the case file . However , the statement was signed by advocate PERSON

On DATE the law firm ORG sent CARDINAL replies , to the investigator and the applicant . The reply to the investigator read :

“ We have received your letter , in which you inform us that the following investigative measures ... are scheduled for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ... however , according to the postmark , the letter was sent on DATE and it was received by us on DATE .

By using such a method of notification you deliberately excluded the possibility of our lawyer 's participation in the investigative measures indicated . By your action you have grossly violated the defence rights of the accused [ Mr ] PERSON , who expressed his wish to be assisted by a lawyer from our law firm .

You must set a new date for [ the investigative measures ] and notify us about it in due time in order to provide a real opportunity for our lawyer to participate in the defence of [ Mr ] PERSON . ”

On DATE the ORG of PERSON ordered a number of witnesses , including PERSON , who appeared to be the only eyewitness , to be brought before the court . The hearing was fixed for DATE . On that date the bailiff went to PERSON residence . However , he did not find her at home as , according to her mother , since DATE she had been living in GPE . The hearing was then postponed twice , until DATE and DATE . Both times the court ordered to have PERSON brought to the hearing . According to the bailiff 's report of DATE PERSON had ceased to reside at the address indicated to the court and her new place of residence was not known .

On DATE the court requested the prosecutor at ORG of PERSON to establish PERSON whereabouts . In the reply of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor informed the court that PERSON was not registered as resident either in GPE or in LOC . The court issued another order to have PERSON brought to the hearing of DATE . The ORG submitted that by the aforementioned date it appeared impossible to establish her whereabouts since she did not live at the address provided to the court and her relative did not have any information as to where she was .

At the hearing of DATE ORG of PERSON decided to examine PERSON statements made during the preliminary investigation . The court asked both parties whether they had any objections . Neither party objected . The court based its judgment on the statements of PERSON , the applicant 's confession made at the beginning of the investigation – although he later changed his statements and pleaded not guilty before the court DATE and on a certain amount of indirect evidence , such as statements by indirect witnesses and expert reports . At the hearing the court also examined the applicant 's doctor , PERSON , who had monitored the applicant since DATE in connection with a hip fracture he had sustained in DATE , with a view to determining whether the applicant would have been able to commit the offence , taking into account his injury . Mr NORP stated that because of the improvement of his state of health the applicant had not been operated on but had been recommended not to lift weights of QUANTITY . The court also found the applicant 's allegations of ill - treatment unsubstantiated . The court reached that conclusion relying on oral evidence given at the hearing by another policeman , a medical certificate according to which the applicant had no injuries that could have been caused on the date of the alleged ill - treatment , and the results of the investigation conducted by the public prosecutor 's office . Advocate PERSON assisted the applicant in the proceedings before the trial court . The court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of PERSON to examine the record of the hearing . On DATE the applicant stated in writing that he had studied the record .

The applicant appealed against the conviction on the grounds , inter alia , that during the preliminary investigation he had been unduly refused legal assistance and that the authorities had deliberately precluded him from being assisted by the lawyer of his choosing . He also claimed that his confession had been made under pressure from the police officials and stated that the key witness , PERSON , had not been examined at the hearing .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction . The court held that the trial court had been correct to rely on PERSON statements made during the preliminary investigation because it had been impossible for her to appear at the hearing . The court also held that there had been no substantial breaches of procedural requirements , including any alleged breach of the applicant 's right to defence , such as to render the conviction unlawful .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW guarantees everyone the right to qualified legal assistance . Under LAW § CARDINAL an arrested person has the right to the assistance of a lawyer from the moment of the arrest .

Pursuant to ORG DATE of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , a suspect , from the moment of his arrest , has the right to be represented by defence counsel , if necessary to be paid for by the authorities .

Pursuant to LAW , the preliminary investigation ends by the drawing up of a bill of indictment . LAW further provides that an investigator has to notify the accused of the termination of the preliminary investigation and explain to him his right to examine the case file either in person or with the assistance of a lawyer . When the accused asks for the assistance of a lawyer the investigator has to provide the accused and his lawyer with the file on the case , which facility has to be deferred until the actual appearance of a lawyer , but not for DATE . After the accused and his lawyer have finished studying the case file , the investigator has to ask them whether they wish to make any applications to amend the investigation .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mr GPE , a NORP citizen born in DATE , is retired and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( tapaturmavirasto , olycksfallsverket - " ORG " ) gave its decision on a request by the applicant for compensation under the DATE Military Injuries Act ( sotilasvammalaki , lag om skada , ådragen i militärtjänst , PERSON LAW " ) from ORG in respect of certain conditions which he claimed resulted from his service in the wars DATE between GPE and GPE . ORG accepted that a shrapnel wound to the applicant ’s back was a military injury but rejected his claims in respect of inguinal hernia , chronic prostatitis , acute tonsillitis and a number of other conditions . Considering that the degree of his disability was CARDINAL per cent , the minimum required to qualify for a life annuity ( elinkorko , livränta ) under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG refused to grant him such a benefit .

On appeal , ORG ( vakuutusoikeus , försäkringsdomstolen ) recognised that the applicant in addition suffered from tonsillitis entitling him in principle to compensation but found that the degree of his disability nevertheless remained CARDINAL per cent . On DATE it therefore dismissed the applicant ’s request for compensation . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

In DATE the applicant asked ORG to adjust the degree of his disability . He cited a medical report of DATE to establish that he suffered from the above - mentioned conditions . In DATE he submitted a further report .

ORG rejected the request on DATE on the ground that the applicant had failed to show a fundamental change in the circumstances on the basis of which his disability had initially been assessed .

The applicant appealed from that decision to ORG . He adduced additional evidence , including the results of an X - ray examination and laboratory tests of CARDINAL DATE , and renewed his previous request for compensation in so far as it had been refused in the proceedings referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above .

In the course of the proceedings ORG obtained an opinion from ORG , dated DATE , which , without giving reasons , recommended the rejection of the appeal . It also received copies of a master file concerning the applicant , and a medical file containing a record of his war - time medical examinations , from the ORG of the Military District of Western Uusimaa ( PERSON sotilaspiirin esikunta , staben för LOC militärdistrikt ) . These documents showed , inter alia , that in DATE the applicant had been treated in a military hospital for inguinal hernia and that in DATE he had undergone an operation for this condition .

ORG did not communicate copies of the opinion or files to the applicant . They were , however , included in ORG case file , which was available to the applicant throughout the proceedings in that court ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act on ORG - laki yleisten asiakirjain julkisuudesta , lagen om allmänna handlingars offentlighet , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on the assessment of the degree of his disability , finding that his shrapnel injuries and acute tonsillitis still represented a disability of CARDINAL per cent . It also rejected his claim for compensation on the ground that it had been decided with legal force ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) by ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The decision stated that ORG had obtained the above - mentioned opinion from ORG and files from the ORG of the Military District . It further indicated that ORG would return the master file and the file pertaining to the applicant ’s war - time medical examinations to the ORG and that an appeal could be lodged with ORG " if the matter [ concerned ] entitlement to compensation " .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , challenging ORG ruling that a final decision on his compensation claim had been given by ORG on DATE . He requested rehabilitation treatment on an DATE basis and the reimbursement of certain subsistence expenses . He claimed that his war injuries were permanent . His appeal did not mention that the documents obtained by ORG had not been communicated to him .

ORG transmitted the case file to ORG ; it included ORG opinion but not the master and medical files , which had been returned to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the Government , copies of the master file had been included in the case file relating to the first set of proceedings in ORG . The Government further stated that , in the second set of proceedings , ORG and ORG had based their decisions at least in part on the master and medical files .

The Agent of the Government stated at the public hearing on DATE that at the material time it was consistent practice of ORG and ORG not to communicate documents of the kind in question even if they had been obtained at the court ’s own request and irrespective of whether the issue at stake was one of admissibility or merits .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE . ORG decision stated :

" The appeal to ORG has requested compensation for [ certain alleged illnesses ] . The finding of ORG The decision of ORG is not varied .

The applicant was not legally represented either in ORG or in ORG . At no stage of the proceedings did he consult the case file .

A compensation scheme , entirely funded by ORG , for injury and illness suffered as a result of military service was set up under LAW . Pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( laki sotilasvammalain soveltamisalan laajentamisesta , lag angående utvidgad tillämpning av lagen om skada , ådragen i militärtjänst , DATE ) the DATE Act applies to , among others , NORP soldiers wounded in the wars between GPE and GPE DATE .

The general rule in CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW provides that compensation under LAW " shall be granted " to persons for injury or illness suffered by them as a result of service , inter alia , as conscripts . Detailed rules on the kind of injury and illness which may be regarded as caused by military service for the purpose of compensation under LAW are contained in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) in " LAW . On Compensation " ( ORG ) reads :

" A wounded or ill person whose degree of disability is CARDINAL per cent shall be entitled to a life annuity . The figure representing the degree of disability corresponds to the extent to which the injury or illness suffered reduces the ability of the person concerned to support himself or herself . "

LAW ( CARDINAL ) , as applicable at the material time , provided that an appeal against a decision by ORG on entitlement to compensation under LAW lay to ORG . A decision by ORG was however to be final in certain matters .

ORG has interpreted the above provision to mean that the person concerned can appeal on entitlement to compensation but not on the degree of disability , so that an appeal on the latter is inadmissible .

According to a general principle of law in GPE , a decision by ORG rejecting , in full or in part , a claim by an individual to be granted a benefit from a public authority has legal force ( lainvoima , laga kraft ) , in the sense that it may not be the subject of a further appeal . However , it is not res judicata ( oikeusvoima , rättskraft ) . The claimant may at any time , by means of a fresh application , request the competent authority to reconsider the claim ( see , inter alia , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , pp . CARDINAL in GPE - oikeus pääpiirteittäin , GPE DATE ) . This principle also applies to a request for compensation under LAW .

Pursuant to the new version of LAW ( CARDINAL ) , as amended with effect from DATE ( by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , decisions taken by ORG under the LAW are final . However , subject to certain strict conditions , section CARDINAL ( also amended ) provides for reopening of proceedings in ORG or in ORG .

Where appropriate , the provisions governing the proceedings in the ordinary courts may be applied to those in ORG ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW - laki vakuutusoikeudesta , lag om försäkringsdomstolen , CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) , if ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) has obtained of its own motion an opinion or other written statement which may have an impact on its determination of the case , ORG must , unless it is clearly unnecessary , request the parties concerned to comment thereon in writing .


The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE . He resides at GPE , GPE . Before the ORG he is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in ORG and charged with smuggling a large quantity of drugs , including QUANTITY of cocaine and QUANTITY of hashish , which was found in the car used for the purpose when he was arrested by the police .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other presumed accomplices were heard by ORG ( PERSON ) . The applicant admitted having participated in CARDINAL incidents of smuggling hashish and was detained pursuant to LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of ORG ( retsplejeloven ) on the basis of a fear that he would otherwise impede the investigation or evade prosecution .

On DATE during a remand hearing the applicant confessed to having participated in the smuggling of hashish into GPE on CARDINAL occasions . He denied all knowledge of the cocaine found in the car on DATE .

On DATE yet another accomplice to the applicant was heard by a court in GPE in order to obtain evidence to be used in the case before the NORP courts involving the applicant .

Despite the applicant ’s protests on DATE and CARDINAL DATE before ORG and on DATE and DATE and DATE before ORG of Eastern GPE ( PERSON ) the courts decided to prolong his detention on remand . Whereas the first CARDINAL of these decisions were based on the fear that the applicant would impede the investigation as well as on the fear that he would evade prosecution , the CARDINAL last decisions were based solely on the latter . The applicant appealed against the High Court decisions of CARDINAL and DATE to ORG ( Højesteret ) , invoking inter alia Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . On DATE , however , ORG upheld the High ORG ’s decisions .

In the meantime , on DATE , an indictment was served on the applicant . Following an amendment on CARDINAL DATE he was charged with drug trafficking , having participated on CARDINAL occasions from DATE until DATE in the smuggling of a total of QUANTITY of hashish into GPE , and having participated , on DATE , in the smuggling of QUANTITY of cocaine into GPE .

From DATE the applicant and CARDINAL accomplices were heard by ORG , sitting with a jury . The applicant pleaded guilty as regards the smuggling of what he had believed amounted to a total of QUANTITY of hashish . He denied , however , all knowledge of the cocaine found in the car . On DATE the jury found the applicant guilty only to the extent to which he had pleaded guilty . He was convicted in accordance with the jury ’s verdict and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The following day , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was expelled to GPE as he was considered as having served his sentence in detention on remand .

The applicant did not appeal against the High Court judgment but subsequently , he brought a claim for compensation before ORG against the prosecution authorities , pursuant to LAW of ORG , for the time spent in detention on remand in excess of the sentence ultimately imposed on him . He claimed primarily CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PERSON ( ORG ) based on an assumption that he would have been released on parole after a certain period in accordance with usual practice . Alternatively , he claimed CARDINAL DKK for the time spent in detention on remand in excess of his CARDINAL year prison sentence without deduction . He invoked inter alia Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE ORG , sitting with a professional judge and CARDINAL lay judges , decided as follows :

( Translation )

“ The ORG finds , as argued by the prosecution , that the plaintiff has shown a considerable degree of contributory negligence by having smuggled several times without assuring himself of which drugs and quantities [ of drugs ] he smuggled . The plaintiff ought to have assured himself thereof in the light of his kingpin ’s remark that he risked being charged for more than [ the smuggling of ] hashish and in the light of the fact that the car used the last time could contain more drugs than the car used the first times ...

The ORG finds , furthermore , that in calculating a possible amount of compensation a fictitious date for release on parole can not be taken into consideration .

CARDINAL judges find that the proceedings before the prosecution authorities and the courts have been of such length that it would be unreasonable to refuse totally the plaintiff ’s claim for compensation by reason of the contributory negligence which he has shown . These judges vote in favour of awarding [ the applicant ] CARDINAL DKK in compensation plus interest , which is equivalent to CARDINAL of his alternative claim .

CARDINAL judge finds that [ the applicant ’s ] claim for compensation be refused by reason of his contributory negligence .

Judgment will be pronounced in accordance with the opinion of the majority .

It is held :

Within DATE the ORG must pay CARDINAL ORG to [ the applicant ] .

The applicant did not appeal against this judgment .


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

The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a law graduate and is employed by ORG ( ORG ) .

By a decision of DATE , the rector of ORG ordered that the applicant be dismissed as director of administrative and service personnel ( gerente ) of the university campus at GPE , a post to which he had been appointed by the rector himself in DATE . On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG for special judicial review of that decision , relying on the right to judicial protection of his fundamental rights in accordance with ORG Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) . By a decision of DATE , the court dismissed the application as unfounded .

In parallel , on DATE , the applicant had lodged an ordinary application for judicial review of the DATE decision with ORG of ORG . The case was referred to LAW , whose President was ORG During the hearing of the application , the Section , presided over by ORG , issued several orders .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG . Explaining that he had discovered that Judge PERSON was associate professor of law at ORG and was receiving emoluments in that capacity , he applied for his removal in accordance with sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON del Poder Judicial – “ the LOPJ ” ) and requested the court to take evidence on the point in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LOPJ . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the application for the judge ’s removal for the following reasons :

“ Section CARDINAL ) of the LOPJ lays down the condition that the removal must be applied for as soon as the grounds for removal are known . If the grounds are known prior to the dispute , the application for removal must be lodged at the start of the proceedings , failing which the application will be inadmissible .

It is this last legal effect which applies in the present case , namely the inadmissibility of the application for removal of the judge of this ORG , Mr ORG , since he has been for DATE , and in any event had been long before the disputed decisions were taken , associate professor at ORG ( which is essentially the ground for his removal ) . This fact can not have escaped the attention of someone who was , until DATE , the manager of the university campus at GPE .

Moreover , given that the application was drafted , in [ the applicant ’s ] own words , ‘ as soon as he became aware of the ground [ for removal ] ” , he should have adduced evidence to that effect , namely that he had become aware only very recently and not prior to the dispute that ORG was associate professor at ORG . However he provided no such evidence .

Accordingly , an application for removal should have been lodged as soon as the applicant had been advised of the composition of the ORG whose President was the person being challenged . As that was not done , the application is inadmissible . ”

By a judgment on the merits of CARDINAL DATE , the First Section of the Administrative Division of the Higher Court of Justice , composed of CARDINAL judges and presided over by Judge PERSON , dismissed his application for judicial review and ruled that the decision of ORG of DATE to dismiss the applicant as manager of the university campus was lawful .

Relying in particular on LAW ( right to a fair trial ) , the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . The applicant pleaded the right to have his case heard by an independent and impartial tribunal and complained of the rejection of his application for the removal of Judge PERSON , which he had sought as soon as he had become aware of the professional relations between that judge and ORG . He submitted that he had not known the judge in his capacity as professor , and that he had had no reason to come across him in the course of his administrative duties at the university . In that connection , he observed that questions concerning the university teaching staff were the responsibility of the rector and were dealt with centrally at FAC , whereas he worked in GPE . As manager of the PERSON campus , his duties were limited to the university ’s administrative and service personnel . He concluded that to require him to prove a negative , namely that he had not previously known ORG , was to ask him to “ prove the impossible ” . Accordingly , the applicant considered that ORG had not given him a fair hearing .

By a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the amparo appeal as ill - founded for the following reasons :

“ ... LAW is infringed only if the court concerned reaches an unreasonable , manifestly wrong or arbitrary conclusion concerning a legal ground of inadmissibility ... In the present case , such defects can not be inferred from the fact that [ the applicant ] was presumed to have known that one of the judges was an associate professor .

Ordinary procedural defects do not in themselves infringe LAW . That Article is breached only when the procedural irregularity is decisive for the rights of the defence ... It is then for the applicant to prove the significance of the alleged irregularity for the final decision ... In this case , the alleged irregularities concerning the taking of evidence can not serve as a basis for challenging the reasons adopted by the ORG [ of ORG ] in arriving at its judgment . ”

The LAW

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to effective protection by the judges and courts in the exercise of his rights and his legitimate interests and in no circumstances may he be denied the possibility of defending himself .

Likewise , everyone has the right to be heard by a court established by law , the right to a defence and to the assistance of a lawyer , the right to be informed of any charges against him , the right to a public trial without undue delay and attended by all safeguards , the right to make use of evidence relevant to his defence , the right not to incriminate himself and not to confess his guilt , and the right to be presumed innocent .

The Judicature Act

Section CARDINAL

“ Judges and magistrates must withdraw and may , where appropriate , be challenged on the grounds prescribed by law . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ Grounds for withdrawal or , where appropriate , a challenge include :

The fact of having a direct or indirect interest in the dispute . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ A judge or magistrate who believes that he falls within the scope of CARDINAL of the grounds set out in the preceding sections shall withdraw from the case without waiting to be challenged .

Section CARDINAL

“ A party wishing to challenge a judge must do so as soon as he becomes aware that a ground for challenge exists . If that party was aware of the ground for challenge prior to the dispute , he shall lodge his application at the start of the proceedings , failing which it shall be inadmissible .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was unrepresented before the ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE , the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits . On DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


CASE OF KRYVITSKA AND KRYVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

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

Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants , mother and son , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE PERSON , born in DATE , officially registered the first applicant as a permanent tenant in her flat and in DATE signed it off to her in a will , purportedly in exchange for the first applicant being her live - in aide . On DATE the second applicant , then a minor , was also officially registered as a permanent resident in PERSON flat as his mother 's family member . The applicants moved into the flat , took care of the charges and maintenance fees and did some renovation work .

On DATE ORG promised to provide the applicants with a new flat in view of the fact that a decision had been taken to demolish the building of which PERSON was co - owner . That decision , however , was never complied with .

NORP In DATE and DATE the second applicant 's wife and CARDINAL children from her previous relationship , born in DATE and DATE , were also registered as permanent tenants in the same flat . Subsequently the second applicant adopted the children ( in DATE ) and divorced their mother ( in DATE ) .

On DATE PERSON died .

After her death , the first applicant learned that in DATE and DATE PERSON had drafted CARDINAL more wills , signing the same flat off to other individuals , and on DATE instituted judicial proceedings seeking to have those CARDINAL wills annulled . The first applicant claimed that since DATE PERSON had been under severe stress resulting from her participation in an ongoing court dispute with PERSON , a co - owner of the building , and , consequently , her mental health and judgment had deteriorated .

On DATE a panel of experts conducted an assessment of ORG mental health and found that in DATE , DATE and DATE ORG had suffered from organic psychiatric disorders giving rise to moderate intellectual and memory impairment and paranoia . Consequently , during these periods she had been unable “ to understand the meaning of her actions or control them ” .

As a result of those conclusions , on DATE ORG joined the first applicant 's proceedings on behalf of the ORG , seeking annulment of all PERSON wills , including the one drafted in DATE in the first applicant 's favour .

On DATE ORG of GPE allowed the prosecutor 's claim . The parties ' appeals against this judgment were eventually dismissed as inadmissible on procedural grounds and it became final .

On DATE the ORG registered the ORG 's ( the municipality 's ) title to the late PERSON flat as intestate estate .

On DATE ORG instituted court proceedings against the applicants , seeking to annul their tenancy registration as lacking any legal basis on account of the impaired judgment of the former flat owner when authorising it . The ORG further sought to evict the applicants , claiming that their occupancy impeded the authorities ' ability to sell the flat at the highest possible price .

The second applicant lodged a counterclaim , seeking to be acknowledged as a lawful tenant of the flat . He maintained , in particular , that he and his mother had occupied it for a considerable period of time in good faith and on lawful grounds and took care of maintenance fees and renovations . In addition , the family had no alternative housing and their eviction would compromise the interests of raising CARDINAL minor children , who remained in his custody after their mother had left the family .

Subsequently the Svyatoshynsky ORG intervened in the proceedings , requesting the court to consider the interests of the CARDINAL minor children in retaining the tenancy .

During the hearing of DATE the FAC of GPE requested PERSON . , one of the experts who had conducted the post - mortem assessment of PERSON mental state in DATE , to assess whether she had been legally competent to authorise the first applicant 's tenancy on DATE . On DATE Mr Ts . delivered a statement that , based on the results of the post - mortem psychiatric assessment of ORG condition in DATE , it was certain that on the date at issue she could not understand the meaning of her actions or control them .

On DATE the court issued a judgment allowing the claim by ORG . The relevant part of the judgment read as follows :

“ The court , having heard the explanations of the parties , having examined case - file materials , considers it necessary to allow the initial claim ... and to reject the counterclaim , regard being had to the following :

On DATE and DATE respectively , PERSON , who could not understand the meaning of her actions or control them , authorised the registration of Kryvitska G.S. and PERSON as tenants of the part of the building belonging to her ... , having thus concluded a tenancy agreement .

On DATE she died , and CARDINAL of the building , which had belonged to her ... , became property of the ORG represented by ORG of Kyiv ... , which on DATE sought protection of the owner 's rights , which should not be infringed by PERSON and PERSON , who have occupied the premises , regard being had to the above , arbitrarily , and should be evicted without provision of other housing .

In light of the above PERSON claim of right to use the premises can not be allowed ...

Regard being had to the above and referring to ORG and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Law of GPE “ On Property ” , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure of GPE , the court

HAS DECIDED :

To allow the initial claim ... ”

The applicants appealed . They alleged , in particular , that the expert assessment of PERSON mental health was flawed and superficial , that at the moment of concluding their tenancy agreement they had acted in accordance with the law and in good faith and , under the circumstances of their case , could not have foreseen that the law concerning arbitrary occupation of the premises would be retrospectively applied to them . They further alleged that their eviction would render them homeless and infringe their Constitutional right to respect for their home and , moreover , the second applicant 's eviction would jeopardize the rights of the CARDINAL minor children , who remained in his sole custody .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that the children actually lived in the flat and were in the second applicant 's custody , since their mother had left to work in GPE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' appeal , endorsing the first - instance court 's reasoning . It also noted that according to an address bureau certificate , the children and their mother were not registered as tenants in the flat at issue . The judgment became binding for enforcement .

The applicants appealed in cassation , maintaining , in addition to their previous arguments , that the courts had wrongly refused to admit their evidence that the children had remained resident in the flat . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' request for leave to appeal in cassation , having found that the lower courts had properly assessed the evidence before them and interpreted the applicable law .

On DATE Mr Zh . , the bailiff assigned to the case , requested the Svyatoshynsky ORG to clarify its judgment of DATE in view of the fact that the children were found to be actually living in the flat .

On DATE the President of ORG wrote a letter to the Chiefs of the Kyiv City Department of Justice and the Svyatoshynsky ORG , stating that , having requested clarification of an already clear judgment , PERSON . had intentionally protracted its enforcement , thus grossly interfering with ORG interests . He further requested the addressees to prevent such applications in future .

On an unspecified date the applicants requested that their eviction be replaced by monetary compensation .

On DATE the court dismissed the Bailiffs ' and the applicants ' requests .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicants were evicted . According to the applicants , they had to request housing of various relatives and friends and had no stable place of residence following their eviction . In DATE the second applicant bought a house .

On several occasions the applicants requested ORG to inform them when the flat would be put on sale , as they were interested in trying to purchase it and received responses that they could be eligible for a purchase only if all co - owners of the building waived their statutory privilege . Subsequently they were informed that in DATE the flat had been sold to PERSON , a co - owner of the building .

Relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ An agreement concluded by a citizen who , although legally capable , at the moment of its conclusion was unable to understand the meaning of his actions or control them , can be annulled by the court ... ”

“ Inheritable property shall be transferred to the ORG as a successor :

CARDINAL ) NORP in the event that a predecessor has no heirs either by virtue of the law or of a testament ;

“ ... Persons who arbitrarily occupy residential premises shall be evicted without provision of other housing . ”

“ Housing disputes shall be decided in accordance with the legislation ... by a court , arbitration court , mediation or comrades ' court , as well as other competent bodies . ”

Relevant provisions of the PERSON “ On Property ” read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The owner of a property shall possess , use and dispose of that property at his discretion .

NORP The owner of a property shall be entitled to carry out any actions with respect to that property , which are not in conflict with the law ...

“ CARDINAL . GPE shall legislatively ensure equal conditions for the protection of property rights for individuals , organisations and other owners .

NORP The owner of a property may demand that any infringements of his rights are ceased , even where those infringements are not connected with the deprivation of the possession , and compensation for resulting damage .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG against his former employer seeking recovery of salary arrears for additional work allegedly performed by him in DATE and DATE , recovery of salary arrears for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , compensation for the delays in payment of salary and compensation for non - pecuniary damage resulting from such delays .

On DATE ORG returned the applicant ’s claim without consideration on the ground that by the decision of DATE ORG had already ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the salary arrears sought .

On DATE the ORG of ORG , following the protest introduced by its President upon the applicant ’s request , quashed the ruling of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the first instance court .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim in part .

On DATE ORG quashed that decision upon the applicant’

On DATE ORG again allowed the applicant ’s claim in part .

On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation . On DATE he modified his appeal .

On DATE ORG held that the applicant ’s appeal in cassation had been lodged out of time and transferred it to the first instance court for a decision as to its admissibility . The court also found that the text of the judgment did not contain a description of all the applicant ’s claims .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant leave to appeal in cassation finding that the appeal had been lodged out of time due to the applicant ’s illness and rectified the shortcomings in the text of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed that judgment finding that the court of first instance had misapplied law and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to the same court .

On DATE the applicant amended his claims .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) in salary arrears for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and rejected the remainder of his claims as not being based on law .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal and upheld that judgment . On DATE the applicant was informed about the ruling of the court of appeal .

Following the applicant ’s request , on DATE ORG renewed the time - limit for lodging his appeal in cassation .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated . On DATE the applicant received a copy of that decision .

Out of CARDINAL hearings held by the courts , CARDINAL were adjourned either at the request of the applicant or due to his failure to appear , CARDINAL were adjourned due to both parties’ failure to appear , CARDINAL were adjourned due to the respondent ’s failure to appear and CARDINAL were adjourned due to absence of the judge .


Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant was detained in connection with criminal proceedings instituted against him and placed in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in LOC .

On DATE ORG found the applicant , who had previous convictions , guilty of a number of criminal offences , including banditry , kidnapping and unlawful use of weapons . He was sentenced to the death penalty and to confiscation of property .

DATE and DATE the applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE pending the examination of his appeal .

On DATE ORG of GPE altered the sentence , commuting the death penalty to DATE imprisonment , DATE of which to be served in a prison and DATE in a correctional facility .

From CARDINAL DATE until an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was held in prison DATE , GPE ( учреждение ЯВ-CARDINAL/Т-CARDINAL по Челябинской области ) .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was transferred to prison no . T-CARDINAL in LOC .

On DATE ORG of GPE reviewed the sentence . Under the revised sentence , the applicant was to serve the entire term of his imprisonment in a correctional facility .

Since DATE the applicant has suffered from a cavernous haemangioma of the right parietotemporal area .

NORP In DATE the applicant underwent examination and carotid ligation in LOC at FAC no . CARDINAL .

Following the applicant 's placement in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in DATE , he was examined by the prison doctors in connection with his complaints concerning the growth of the tumour and occasional haemorrhages of the tumour and the right auricle . The doctors subsequently applied antiseptic dressings and haemostatic medicines .

During the applicant 's detention in remand prison GPE , GPE , from DATE to DATE he was regularly examined by the prison doctors .

On DATE , following the applicant 's transfer to prison DATE , he was examined by the deputy head of the prison medical unit . He was diagnosed with cavernous haemangioma of the head and right auricle and aseptic dressings were applied regularly .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was placed in the surgical department of penitentiary hospital IK-CARDINAL . There he was examined by a neurosurgeon and oncologist and diagnosed with a cavernous haemangioma of the right temporal and parotid area involving the right auricle .

On DATE the applicant was placed in penitentiary hospital IK-CARDINAL for surgery . On DATE he underwent ligation of the occipital artery and of branches of the carotid artery with a view to reducing the blood supply to the tumour . A short - term improvement was observed after the surgery : the tumour decreased in size and the sores epithelised . The applicant was discharged from hospital on DATE in a satisfactory state .

On DATE the applicant was against placed in the surgical department of penitentiary hospital IK-CARDINAL on account of a growth in the tumour . There he was examined by PERSON , microsurgeon of ORG at FAC no . CARDINAL , who had operated on the applicant in DATE and DATE , with a view to determining the prospects for radical surgery . PERSON stated that , taking into account the previous surgeries , excision of the haemangioma , ligation of the nutrient stem and subsequent plastic surgery for the injury to the skull was recommended . Angiography and magnetic resonance tomography were also recommended .

On DATE the applicant underwent tomography in ORG no . CARDINAL , since it was not possible to carry this out in penitentiary hospital IK-CARDINAL . According to the angiosurgeon , the results of the tomography were not conclusive and angiography with intracranial vascular opacification was required .

On DATE prison ORG requested ORG to grant permission for the applicant 's transfer with a view to providing him with the medical aid required .

On DATE ORG granted permission to transfer the applicant to detention facility US-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE . On DATE the relevant instruction was sent to prison DATE .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was placed in facility US-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE , where he was examined by PERSON , an otolaryngologist - oncologist . The applicant was diagnosed with haemangioma of the right temporal and parietal areas and recurrent arrosive haemorrhages from the right auricle , which were life - threatening . It was recommended that he undergo radical removal of the tumour , with simultaneous plastic surgery of the injury and embolization of the vessels , in an oncological centre specialising in head and neck tumours .

According to the doctors of facility US-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , such treatment was not possible within the penitentiary system . They stated that an examination should be carried out by ORG ( ORG ) with a view to deciding on the applicant 's possible release in connection with his state of health .

DATE and DATE the applicant was placed in the surgical department of penitentiary hospital IK-CARDINAL in GPE , where he underwent medical examinations prior to the meeting of the ORG . The relevant medical record , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , stated as follows :

“ Diagnosis established by the referring medical institution : cirsoid haemangioma of the right parietotemporal area ... DATE ...

Diagnosis upon discharge [ from the hospital ] : cavernous haemangioma affecting the right parietotemporal area and the right auricle . DATE ... ”

On DATE the applicant was examined by surgeon PERSON , Doctor of ORG , Head of ORG . After examining the applicant , she stated as follows :

“ Complaints concerning a tumour in the right parietotemporal area and the right auricle . According to the patient , the tumour appeared in DATE and has been growing slowly . In DATE he underwent surgery in the microsurgery department of ORG no . CARDINAL ( ORG № CARDINAL ) ; the external carotid artery was ligated on the right side . In DATE , after trauma to the soft tissues of the head , he noted continued growth of the tumour . [ The patient ] was examined in DATE . He underwent computer tomography of the brain ...

Conclusion : the patient has vascular malformation of the soft tissue of the right parietotemporal and parotid areas involving the right auricle ( cavernous haemangioma ) . The illness does not fall within the category of cancerous tumours and is not of immediate danger to the patient 's life . The non - abundant haemorrhages stop without assistance . [ Surgery ] is not possible in the surgery department of ORG [ hospital ] . Radical ablation of the growth , with simultaneous plastic surgery to the soft tissues injury using an advanced flap , is possible only in specialised departments . ”

On DATE the applicant was examined by the ORG , which concluded that , having regard to the list of illnesses that could serve as a basis for early release from serving one 's sentence , the applicant was not entitled to such release . The report of the examination stated :

“ Complaints : a tumour in the right temporal and parietal areas spreading to the right auricle .

Anamnesis : ... The patient notes ... that the haemangioma on the right side appeared in DATE . In DATE [ he ] underwent surgery in OKB no . CARDINAL [ hospital ] [ ORG № CARDINAL ] , and the external carotid artery was ligated on the right side . After surgery the tumour diminished somewhat . Rapid growth of the tumour , ulceration of the upper segment of the auricle and frequent haemorrhages from that area in DATE . On DATE [ he was ] placed in the surgery department of the YaV-CARDINAL/CARDINAL hospital . Ligation of the cervical branch of the temporal artery on DATE insignificant effect ... In agreement with the medical unit of [ the penitentiary service ] he was placed in institution US-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( Ус CARDINAL ) DATE and DATE with the diagnosis : cavernous haemangioma of the right parietotemporal area , recurrent arrosive haemorrhages from the right auricle affected by the tumour , threatening the patient 's life . Recommended : ablation of the tumour with simultaneous plastic surgery in an oncocentre by oncologist [ E. ] . Such treatment is not feasible in the penitentiary system 's facilities .. ...

Examination by PERSON , the senior external surgeon of the medical unit [ of LOC penitentiary service ] : taking into account the anamnesis , the tumour has been growing slowly over DATE . No changes in bone tissue , no possibility of taking material for histological study on account of the risk of haemorrhage and impossibility of stopping it in the given circumstances , no changes in lungs , brain ; the tumour is benign . Diagnosis : vascular malformation of soft tissues of the right parietotemporal and parotid areas involving the right auricle . No threat to life ...

Final diagnosis : vascular malformation of soft tissue of the right parietotemporal and parotid areas involving the right auricle . ”

On DATE , after the applicant 's return to prison DATE , he was examined by a regional medical - social commission . The commission decided not to grant him the status of a disabled person .

It appears that CARDINAL the applicant was again placed in a penitentiary hospital . Medical record no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL stated :

“ ... DATE . Diagnosis upon discharge [ from the hospital ] : ... vascular malformation of the parietal and temporal areas , of the right auricle . ”

On DATE the applicant was examined by K , Head of ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL . The report of the examination stated :

“ Complaints about a tumour in the right temporal , parotid and cervical [ areas ] and the auricle . There is progressive tumour growth : the tumour currently measures QUANTITY , protrudes from the surface of the skin and pierces it with a vascular figure . Auscultation creates noise in the parotid and temporal [ areas ] ... In the auricle area there are zones of necrosis ...

Diagnosis : vast haemangioma ... of the right temporal , parotid and parietal areas and the auricle .

Surgery is not recommended because of the high risk to life . GPE ( ORG , X - ray therapy ) is recommended ... ”

On DATE the administration of prison ORG requested ORG to assist with the applicant 's treatment , since there were no facilities for X - ray therapy in the prison .

On DATE ORG replied that the administration of prison ORG should apply with a request for the applicant 's transfer to penitentiary hospital GPE in GPE . The prison authorities applied for such a transfer .

On DATE hospital OZh-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE refused the request on the ground that it had no specialists qualified for the treatment of the applicant 's condition . On the same date the prison authorities again requested ORG to assist with the applicant 's treatment by ORG and X - ray therapy .

On DATE the administration of prison ORG received an order on the applicant 's transfer to facility US-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE . On DATE the applicant left for the facility .

The applicant was placed in inter - regional penitentiary hospital IK-CARDINAL ( MOB ) from DATE to DATE . He underwent a biopsy and was examined by a panel consisting of the head of the hospital , the deputy head of the medical department , the deputy head of the surgical department and the head of the otolaryngological department . The applicant was also examined by PERSON . , the head of the neurological department of ORG no . CARDINAL , and E , an oncologist . According to the panel 's report , treatment of the applicant 's condition was not possible in hospital IK-CARDINAL ( MOB ) . The applicant was discharged in a satisfactory state and supervision by a maxillofacial surgeon was recommended .

Following the applicant 's return to prison DATE on CARDINAL DATE he complained about occasional haemorrhages and pains . He received treatment consisting of dressings with haemostatic sponges and analgesics .

On DATE the applicant was examined by plastic surgeon PERSON and stomatologist PERSON They reached the following conclusions :

“ The patient has vascular malformation of the soft tissue of the right temporal and parietal areas and the ear with ulceration . There is a risk of profuse bleeding . Angiography is necessary . It will be possible to decide whether surgical treatment is possible only after the angiography . ”

From DATE to DATE the applicant was placed for examination in penitentiary hospital ORG . He was discharged in a satisfactory state .

After the applicant 's return to prison DATE on DATE he was examined by the prison doctor DATE .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant , who was trying to avoid placement in a disciplinary cell , caused himself injuries in the area of the tumour ; this resulted in profuse bleeding . He was urgently placed in a surgical department of ORG . There he underwent haemostatic therapy and on DATE he was discharged in a satisfactory condition . During the subsequent period of his detention in prison ORG minor haemorrhages occurred ; these were stopped by dressings .

On DATE the applicant was again placed in the surgical department of penitentiary hospital IK-CARDINAL for examination with a view to determining subsequent treatment .

On DATE the applicant underwent angioarteriography of the vessels of the head .

On DATE the applicant was examined by PERSON , a plastic surgeon , and ORG , the head of the vessel surgery department of ORG no . CARDINAL . They stated , in particular :

“ The patient has evident pathology of intracranial sections of the right and left vertebral arteries feeding the pathological centre ( malformation ) . Ligation of the vertebral arteries is impossible because of the high risk of truncal stroke . Excision of the vascular tumour and plastic surgery is impossible because of its very big size and feeding by intracranial sections . Palliative therapy is recommended . ”

On DATE the applicant was examined by radiologist PERSON , who stated :

“ The patient has vast cavernous haemangioma of the right parietotemporal area spreading to the auricle and neck . There is vast ulceration with decomposition . Branches of the external carotid artery were previously ligated . Taking into account the amplitude of the lesion and decomposition effects , radiotherapy for sclerosing is not recommended . ”

On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory state . Palliative treatment was recommended ( antiseptic dressings , haemostimulating therapy and , in the event of haemorrhages , haemostatic therapy ) . He was also referred for examination by the medical - social commission . The medical unit of prison ORG complied with the recommendations . The applicant was regularly examined by the unit doctors and received dressings .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was placed in ORG no . IK-CARDINAL for haemostatic therapy and examination by the medical - social commission . He was granted GPE disability status .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory state . In prison DATE he continued to receive symptomatic therapy and antiseptic dressings .

On DATE professor NORP , ORG , issued a medical opinion on the basis of the results of the angiography :

“ From the results of the angiography it follows that the main source of blood supply for the [ affected ] zone is the basin of the vertebral artery through intracranial vessels . Therefore , any interference ... is connected with an extremely high risk of neurological complications ( haemorrhagic or ischemic stroke ) and can be performed only in highly specialised neurosurgical institutions . Radical surgical treatment with ablation of all the affected areas is impossible because of the amplitude of the lesion . It is recommended that the patient be supervised by a surgeon and , in case of haemorrhage , stitching of angiomatous tissues . ”

On DATE , upon studying the applicant 's medical file , ORG refused to accept him for treatment .

On DATE ORG informed the administration of prison ORG that the applicant could be placed for treatment in ORG . The prison administration requested an order for his transfer .

On DATE ORG replied that the order could be granted only upon confirmation from ORG that it would accept the applicant for treatment .

On DATE ORG replied that it could not accept the applicant since it did not have the technical facilities for the treatment required .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent treatment for tuberculosis in penitentiary hospital IK-CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG informed the penitentiary authorities , in reply to their request , that it could not provide treatment to the applicant given the absence of the necessary technical facilities .

Following the applicant 's transfer to prison no . T-CARDINAL in LOC , he was placed in the surgical department of the penitentiary hospital . On DATE he was examined by an oncologist , who diagnosed him with a giant cavernous haemangioma of the head and stated that surgical treatment was not recommended because of the extent of the propagation of the tumour . He recommended symptomatic treatment only .

On DATE the applicant was again examined by the medical - social commission , which granted him category-CARDINAL disability status .

NORP In DATE the applicant applied to a court seeking to have the failure to provide him with adequate medical aid in prison declared unlawful . He also asked the court to order his placement in GPE for treatment .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the claim . The court found that the following medical aid was provided to the applicant during his imprisonment : DATE and DATE – examination by doctors and conservative treatment ; between CARDINAL May and DATE – placement in the surgery department of ORG ( ЯВ CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) hospital for convicts , GPE , consultations with a neurosurgeon and oncologist ; DATE – placement in the LOC hospital for another elective operation conducted on DATE ; DATE and DATE – placement in ORG hospital , computer tomography conducted on DATE ; DATE and DATE - treatment and consultations by doctors in institution US-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , GPE ( учреждение УС-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG по Ст.-Петербургу и PERSON области ) ; DATE and DATE – placement in the surgery department of ORG hospital ; CARDINAL DATE – consultation by ORG of the Plastes ( Пластэс ) centre ; DATE an examination by a special medical commission ( СМК ) ; DATE a medico - social examination ( МСЭ ) in GPE ; DATE placement in the ORG hospital ; CARDINAL DATE consultation by the head of GPE hospital no . CARDINAL ( ORG МУ QUANTITY « ORG № CARDINAL г. PERSON ) . The court held that the medical aid provided had been sufficient . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE the Deputy Head of ORG IK-CARDINAL ( ИК-CARDINAL ) of ORG for the Execution of Sentences replied to a query by the applicant 's wife :

“ In reply to your request ... I inform you that [ the applicant ] was placed in [ IK-CARDINAL hospital ] DATE and DATE with the diagnosis : racemose haemangioma of the right parietal area , the right auricle and the right CARDINAL of the neck . Recurrent arrosive haemorrhages threaten the patient 's life .

Surgical treatment is not feasible in [ the penitentiary system 's ] facilities . Progressive growth of the tumour is possible in the absence of treatment . Out - patient supervision has been recommended ... The possibility of a fatal outcome in the event of trauma to [ the area of the haemangioma ] is very high . It is possible to stop haemorrhage only in specialised surgical in - patient facilities . Branches of the external carotid artery are involved in the tumour . ”

On DATE the Deputy Head of ORG replied to the applicant 's wife :

“ ... Surgical treatment of [ the applicant ] in GPE institutions is not possible . The decision with regard to surgical treatment of [ the applicant ] can be taken after he has been examined in the place where he is serving his sentence . ”

On DATE the First Deputy Head of ORG replied to the applicant 's wife :

“ ORG for the Execution of Sentences examined your request concerning the transfer of your husband ... who is serving his sentence in ... LOC to GPE for specialised medical treatment .

[ Your husband 's ] illness is subject to elective operative treatment and requires high - technology ( expensive ) medical aid . The procedure for providing such aid to patients held in institutions of ORG is not established by the federal executive authority responsible for the legal regulation of health protection and social development .

Since the legislation requires [ the patient 's ] voluntary informed consent to medical interference , it follows that only your husband ... may apply for such treatment . If he gives his written consent for the transfer and medical intervention , he can be transferred to the regional hospital for convicts ... of LOC , where there are technical facilities for the provision of the required additional medical aid ( endovascular surgical intervention and plastic surgery , provided participation of external specialists from other medical institutions ) . The procedure for providing additional medical aid to convicts is governed by the internal regulations of correctional facilities .

The possibility of such treatment in ORG or in ORG and LOC ... is not provided by [ relevant regulations ] . ”

On DATE the Chief Medical Officer of ORG pertaining to ORG ( ORG КТБ-CARDINAL PERSON по ORG краю ) replied to the request of the applicant 's wife : :

“ In reply to your request concerning hospitalisation of [ the applicant ] for in - patient treatment in [ ORG for convicts ] and after having studied the medical documents provided , we have to inform you that the treatment , including surgical intervention , is not feasible in the facilities of [ ORG for convicts ] even with the assistance of external specialists from other medical institutions , because of an absence of technical facilities for the operation , diagnostics , control and treatment ... [ and ] of possible post - operative complications which would be life - threatening for the patient . ”

On DATE the head of prison no . T-CARDINAL of the Vladimir Region informed the applicant 's wife of the applicant 's placement in the penitentiary hospital and the examination by an oncologist on DATE . The letter also stated that the haemangioma only posed a threat to the applicant 's life in the event of haemorrhages from its vessels . However , during the period under supervision there had been no such haemorrhages . At the same time the haemangioma increased by QUANTITY .

DATE . The relevant extracts from ORG by ORG for ORG Treatment or Punishment ( “ the CPT ” ) read as follows :

“ a. Access to a doctor

... CARDINAL . A prison 's health care service should at least be able to provide regular out - patient consultations and emergency treatment ( of course , in addition there may often be a hospital - type unit with beds ) . ... Further , prison doctors should be able to call upon the services of specialists . ...

Out - patient treatment should be supervised , as appropriate , by health care staff ; in many cases it is not sufficient for the provision of follow - up care to depend upon the initiative being taken by the prisoner .

The direct support of a fully - equipped hospital service should be available , in either a civil or prison hospital . ... ”


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

On DATE the applicant sued his employer for salary before ORG . On DATE the applicant filed another claim for compensation for unpaid salary relating to a different period of time .

The above claims were dealt with in CARDINAL separate sets of proceedings until DATE when ORG decided to examine them in a single set of proceedings .

Before the actions were joined on DATE , ORG had held QUANTITY hearings in the case concerning the applicant 's action of DATE .

As regards the action filed in DATE , ORG delivered a judgment on DATE . ORG quashed that judgment on DATE . Subsequently ORG ordered CARDINAL expert opinions and took further evidence . On DATE ORG delivered an interim judgment acknowledging that the applicant 's claim for compensation for salary was justified as regards the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

The defendant appealed and the file was submitted to ORG on DATE . At DATE ORG returned the file to ORG , at the latter 's request , for a decision on the applicant 's request for an interim measure .

On DATE ORG issued an interim measure ordering the employer to pay a part of the salary to the applicant .

The file was sent to ORG on DATE . DATE and DATE the file was again with ORG for a decision on expert 's fees . On DATE the ORG quashed the interim judgment of DATE . The file was returned to ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed a part of the action and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claim for compensation relating to CARDINAL periods in DATE .

The applicant appealed and the file was submitted to ORG on DATE . On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG judges . The objection was submitted to ORG on DATE and , after the objection had been dismissed , the file was returned to ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first instance decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the claim relating to a specific period in DATE and the relevant compensation . It further upheld the first instance finding that the applicant had no right to compensation for the period subsequent to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on points of law relating to the lower courts ' refusal to dismiss a part of his claims . ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE , after it had joined both sets of proceedings brought by the applicant , ORG dismissed the outstanding claims . The applicant appealed . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE . The proceedings are pending .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint to ORG . He complained , inter alia , that his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time as well as his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been violated in the above proceedings before ORG and ORG .

On DATE ORG declared admissible the complaint concerning the alleged violation , by ORG , of the applicant 's right to a hearing within a reasonable time . It rejected the remainder of the applicant 's constitutional complaint .

As regards the complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL relating to the fact that the employer had not paid the salary due to the applicant , ORG noted that the issue fell within the jurisdiction of the general courts . It further noted that the proceedings complained of were still pending before ordinary courts and held that it could not prejudge the outcome of those proceedings . In this respect ORG also pointed out that it could not take the role of ordinary courts and that its task exclusively consisted of supervising whether the results of interpretation and implementation of law by ordinary courts were compatible with the LAW or the relevant international treaty .

ORG further found that the applicant 's complaint about alleged arbitrariness of ORG decision of DATE had been filed after expiry of the statutory DATE time - limit .

Finally , in its admissibility decision ORG held that , despite certain delays , the period during which ORG had dealt with the case was not excessively long .

In a finding delivered on CARDINAL DATE ORG concluded that in the above proceedings ORG had violated the applicant 's right to a hearing within a reasonable time .

As regards the applicant 's action of DATE , ORG held that the proceedings were not complex and that the applicant by his conduct had caused no particular delays . It found that ORG had failed to effectively proceed with the case for DATE .

As to the proceedings concerning the claim of DATE , ORG held that the case was not complex and that the applicant , despite the fact that he had availed himself of his procedural rights , was not responsible for their overall length . It found several periods of inactivity imputable to ORG and held that the overall length of the proceedings was excessive given the nature of the case .

ORG ordered ORG to proceed with the case without further delay . It also granted the applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) as just satisfaction .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE demarcation proceedings involving the applicant ’s land were instituted by the Head of ORG ( ORG ) .

On DATE an administrative reform was introduced in GPE and the Mayor of LOC ( wójt gminy GPE ) became the competent body for examination of the demarcation proceedings . However , ORG of the town of Dębica neither informed the Mayor about the proceedings nor transferred the case file to the Mayor .

On DATE ORG received another motion for instituting demarcation proceedings involving the applicant ’s land . The motion was transferred to the Mayor of LOC .

On DATE a second set of demarcation proceedings concerning the same piece of land was instituted by the Mayor of LOC . Acting under LAW DATE LAW ( ustawa z DATE r. Prawo geodezyjne i kartograficzne ) the Mayor appointed a geodesist , PERSON , to conduct the demarcation proceedings . None of the parties to the proceedings informed the Mayor that the same proceedings had already been instituted in DATE .

On DATE ORG received the applicant ’s request for the adjournment of the demarcation proceedings because of his state of health . The appointed geodesist agreed to adjourn the proceedings and fixed the new date for DATE .

By letter of DATE the Mayor of LOC informed the applicant that due to the necessity of obtaining some additional information , the proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s motion for a stay of the demarcation proceedings and the exclusion of the geodesist PERSON had been adjourned until DATE .

On DATE ORG received the applicant ’s request for the adjournment of the demarcation proceedings fixed for DATE because of the applicant ’s medical appointment at a hospital in GPE . The applicant also requested that the conduct of the demarcation proceedings be adjourned until DATE time . He submitted that , given his health problems , he could not take part in any demarcation proceedings conducted in DATE .

Further , by letter of CARDINAL DATE the Mayor of LOC informed the applicant that due to the necessity of obtaining some additional information , the proceedings in the applicant ’s case had been adjourned once again until DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG to have the decision of DATE declared null and void . The applicant submitted that the institution of the demarcation proceedings in DATE was illegal as the same proceedings had already been instituted in DATE and had not yet been terminated .

On DATE ORG of Appeal refused to examine the applicant ’s request of DATE as it found that such a request was not available to the applicant .

On DATE , the applicant applied to ORG of Appeal asking for a re - examination of his request of DATE .

On DATE the demarcation proceedings that had been instituted on DATE were discontinued at the request of another party . The applicant appealed to ORG of Appeal against this decision .

On DATE ORG of Appeal re - examined the applicant ’s request of DATE and dismissed it . The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case for reconsideration .

On DATE ORG ( which had assumed the jurisdiction of ORG in the matter ) dismissed the applicant ’s complaint against the decision of DATE . The applicant requested to have this judgment together with its written grounds served on him . He was requested by ORG to pay court fees for receiving the written grounds of the judgment .

Subsequently , the applicant lodged several requests for exemption from court fees .

On DATE ORG refused to exempt the applicant from court fees . The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal ( sprzeciw ) with ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s interlocutory appeal . The applicant appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE the Mayor ’s Office discontinued the proceedings instituted on DATE . In its reasoned grounds it justified its decision with reference to ORG refusal to “ lend ” the case file with the result that it could not be examined by ORG . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE .

On DATE the Mayor discontinued the demarcation proceedings instituted on DATE .

On DATE the Mayor approved the demarcation border established by the geodesist PERSON in the course of the demarcation proceedings that has been instituted in DATE . The latter decision was not subject to appeal ; however the party challenging the established border was entitled to request ORG to examine the case . It results from the parties’ submissions that the applicant availed himself of this possibility . The proceedings before ORG are still pending .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about the inactivity of ORG with ORG of Appeal .

On DATE ORG of Appeal discontinued the proceedings initiated by the applicant ’s complaint in view of the fact that the proceedings on the merits had been discontinued . The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint against the decision of DATE as it found that such complaint was not available in the applicant ’s case .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged another complaint about the inactivity of ORG with ORG of Appeal .

On DATE ORG of Appeal found the applicant ’s complaint well - founded and fixed a DATE time limit for the administrative authorities to deal with the case .

For a presentation of domestic law , see : PERSON v. GPE , no CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of the PERSON of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) , are stated in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE no CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V and NORP v. GPE no CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII and the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V.


The applicant , [ Mr PERSON ] , was born in DATE and is a NORP national with NORP nationality . When the application was lodged , he was being held in a prison at PERSON in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr NORP PERSON , of ORG .

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

The applicant was arrested by the NORP police on DATE under an international arrest warrant issued by the GPE ( GPE ) ORG on suspicion of fraud , within the meaning of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the NORP ORG lodged a formal request with ORG in GPE for the applicant ’s extradition . The request was forwarded to the Governor of GPE , who , on DATE and in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation , gave leave for the extradition proceedings to continue . The case file was therefore lodged for consideration by ORG ( Tribunal Superior de Justiça ) .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG authorised the applicant ’s extradition . It relied essentially on the fact that the offence of which the applicant was accused was punishable not by death , but at most by life imprisonment . ORG Ministry of Foreign Affairs had given an assurance that that penalty would not be imposed on the applicant .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to the full court of ORG relying in particular on the fact that LAW also contained a cross - reference to LAW , which provided that the death penalty could be imposed for the offences concerned . He also maintained that the assurances given by ORG could not be regarded as credible as they were not binding on the NORP courts .

In a decision of DATE , ORG , sitting as a full court , dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned judgment .

By virtue of LAW and the joint declaration made by GPE and GPE on DATE , GPE is considered a NORP territory under NORP administration until the date appointed for the transfer of sovereignty to GPE ( DATE ) .

Under the terms of LAW ( which was adopted by ORG , on the proposal of the NORP legislative assembly , on DATE , and amended on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) , GPE is deemed to be a “ juristic person of domestic public law ” . For the time being and until DATE , LAW is applicable to GPE by virtue of LAW . However , laws of GPE are applicable in GPE only if they have been published in the territory ’s official gazette .

The Governor has primary responsibility for the administration of GPE . He is accountable to the President of GPE .

The territory has its own judicial organisation . An appeal used to lie against decisions of ORG , either to ORG or , in constitutional cases , to ORG . However , by Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , the President of the Republic decided , in accordance with LAW , that the NORP courts would have exclusive jurisdiction for the entire territory from DATE .

The extradition rules applicable in GPE are to be found in LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , which provides for an initial administrative phase after which the ORG may give leave for the extradition proceedings to continue . Thereafter it is for the courts to determine whether the request for extradition is lawful .

The applicant alleges that his extradition to GPE would entail a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL and of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .