Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a DATE prison sentence for armed robbery of PERSON , murder of PERSON and for attempted murder of a policeman during his arrest . He was convicted in DATE ( the conviction was amended in DATE ) and began serving his sentence in penal colony ORG IK-CARDINAL , and then in GPE FBU IK-CARDINAL and FBU IK-CARDINAL , all situated in the NORP LOC .

In the LOC colonies the applicant was diagnosed with several chronic diseases . However , there is no evidence that his finger or toenails were affected by a fungal infection at that time . It appears that in DATE he was also seen by colony doctors in connection with dermatitis and eczema . Otherwise , the materials of the case file indicate that the applicant ’s state of health was satisfactory , he exercised regularly – mostly doing weightlifting DATE and , as can be seen from the applicant ’s photos taken in DATE , he was very muscular and must have been a physically strong man ( he weighed QUANTITY and was QUANTITY tall ) .

The administration of the colonies where the applicant was detained during that period characterised the applicant rather positively as belonging to a group of convicts loyal to the administration . Some time after his transfer to colony ORG IK-CARDINAL he informed the administration of a conflict between him and several other convicts , who allegedly belonged to a gang . An internal inquiry carried out in DATE concluded that the applicant was simulating conflicts with his co - detainees in order to get a transfer to another colony , closer to GPE . However , the administration later changed its opinion and recommended that the applicant be transferred for security reasons . As a result , in DATE the applicant was transferred to FBU IK-CARDINAL , a penal colony situated in the town of GPE .

As can be seen from the applicant ’s disciplinary file , during DATE of his detention in FBU IK-CARDINAL his behaviour and attitude were considered by the administration of the colony as “ positive ” . He was attributed to the category of “ loyal ” convicts and obtained various disciplinary bonuses ( such as additional family visits ) . He was on good terms with most of his co - detainees . At the same time , he had a conflict with some of the hardened criminals . In DATE he was temporarily placed , for his own safety and based on a reasoned decision of the colony administration , in the PERSON ( the punishment and isolation unit ) , which was also occasionally used as a “ safe place ” in such situations .

The applicant alleged that soon after his transfer to the Plavsk colony he had learnt of the existence of an informal group of loyal convicts which helped the colony administration . That group ( which the applicant called “ the death squad ” ) was composed solely of ethnic NORP . Their role was to threaten , beat or kill those convicts who opposed the colony administration , or those who had influential enemies outside the colony or refused to pay money to the administration . CARDINAL of the cells in the colony ( no . CARDINAL ) was turned into a torture room and was used by the members of the group to “ break down ” those convicts who resisted the administration .

According to the applicant , the group was responsible for CARDINAL deaths which had occurred in the colony DATE the death of PERSON . in DATE , and that of Mr Kl . in DATE . Both convicts were found asphyxiated on the premises of the PERSON ; officially both deaths were characterised as suicides , although in respect of Mr Kl . an investigation into an alleged “ forced suicide ” was opened and then suspended for want of a suspect . In DATE the case of Mr Kl . was reopened because of the failure of the investigator to establish the origin of the injuries found on the body of the deceased that did not fit with the scenario of suicide .

According to the applicant , some time after his transfer to the Plavsk colony CARDINAL of the officers of the colony proposed that he join the “ death squad ” . Out of fear of reprisals , the applicant had agreed . He started his “ apprenticeship ” under the guidance of several colony officials and other convicts . However , DATE after joining the “ death squad ” he understood that he might be required to do terrible things . In addition , the colony administration realised that he was of NORP origin . His relations with the supervising officers and other loyal convicts deteriorated . The applicant decided to quit and try to obtain a transfer to another colony . Having learnt of his intention to quit , the colony administration decided to punish him for refusing to cooperate .

On DATE , upon his arrival at the Plavsk colony ( hereinafter “ the colony ” ) , the applicant underwent a medical check - up which revealed several chronic diseases , in particular , kidney diseases ( such as nephrolithiasis , urolithiasis , and nephroptosis ) .

It is unclear whether the applicant was suffering from a fungal infection ( mycosis ) at that time . According to the transcript of the applicant ’s medical record made on DATE by ORG of ORG , before DATE the applicant did not suffer from mycosis . It can be seen from an extract from the applicant ’s medical file ( to the extent that it is legible ) that the applicant underwent a check - up on DATE . His overall state of health was recorded in the report as “ satisfactory ” . The record did not contain any mention of an injury or abnormality on his hands or feet .

At the same time , a certificate issued by the chief doctor of the colony , Dr Pr . , indicated that the applicant had a fungal infection on his feet . That certificate had no date on it ; an authentic copy was dated “ CARDINAL DATE ” . Another certificate issued by PERSON . and dated CARDINAL DATE specified that on DATE of his arrival to the colony the applicant had been offered hospitalisation , but he had refused . The applicant ’s medical notes apparently also contained the following handwritten entry dated DATE : “ foot mycosis ” . The applicant asserted that those entries had been added to his medical file much later , in DATE , and that the certificates issued by PERSON . had been backdated and did not reflect his real condition at that time .

From the documents submitted by the Government it appears that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent another medical check - up . The extract of the record of DATE , to the extent that it is legible , does not mention any injury or abnormality on the applicant ’s hands or feet .

On DATE the applicant was placed in the PERSON . According to the Government , it was done at the applicant ’s own oral request , because of a conflict with other convicts .

On DATE the applicant was subjected to a body search , during which Mr Sch . and Mr Dm . ( warders ) , Mr GPE . , Mr Vr . ( convicts ) , and several other convicts , whose names the applicant did not know , insulted him . In the applicant ’s words , they were trying to provoke a fight . Colony officers hit him several times with a rubber truncheon .

After that he was taken to cell no . CARDINAL in the GPE . Several colony officials gathered in that cell : the acting head of the colony , PERSON . , and CARDINAL colony officials , Mr Kzh . , and PERSON . , an officer from the prison security department . They handcuffed the applicant to a bench and started to beat him severely with a wooden stick wrapped in cloth . They also used a gas mask to induce suffocation . He lost consciousness several times . Other colony officials were also present during the beatings , including PERSON . and PERSON . Some time later other people arrived : the deputy head of the colony , Mr PERSON . , another officer from the prison security department , Mr. PERSON . , the personnel officer , Mr Vl . , the chief doctor , PERSON . , and PERSON Yud . The chief doctor checked his pulse and eyes several times to see whether the applicant was conscious . PERSON . and Mr PERSON . personally took part in the beatings . The applicant presented a very detailed account of what they were doing and saying . After a heavy blow to the head the applicant passed out .

On TIME the applicant found himself in cell no . CARDINAL . Mr PERSON . and PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . ( convicts ) and some other convicts arrived bringing with them a wooden tool resembling a clamp and some other tools . The applicant ’s hands were fixed in the clamp and his feet were tied to the legs of the stool . They put a gas mask on him and started to insert needles under his nails and then began tearing his nails away with the pincers : first his toenails , then his fingernails . The applicant described in detail where he had been sitting , and how he had been tied up . At a certain point the applicant started to vomit and passed out . Mr Vb . and Mr GPE . then gave him an injection and ordered him to wipe his blood off the floor with a rug . While doing that he managed to collect and hide some of his finger and toenails .

On DATE the applicant was beaten again . He gave the names of people who had beaten him ( Mr Sh . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , and PERSON PERSON . ) . He spent TIME naked and handcuffed in a seated position by an open window .

On DATE the applicant saw PERSON . and PERSON . They returned his clothes to him and gave him an injection . As the applicant understood from their dialogue , the injection was supposed to make the bruises disappear . In the evening he was allowed to call his wife , but was ordered not to tell her anything about what had happened to him .

The applicant alleged that for DATE after that episode he did not take any outdoor exercise , since he had been afraid of being attacked by other convicts loyal to the administration of the colony in the areas of the exercise yard not covered by the video surveillance cameras .

On DATE , during a family visit , the applicant managed to pass CARDINAL of his nails to his mother . According to the applicant , he concealed the nails by sticking them to his body with tape . The applicant ’s mother saw numerous bruises on his body .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife formally complained to ORG that her husband had been tortured . She sought to initiate criminal proceedings against the colony officials involved in the alleged torture . To her request she attached a hand - written statement by the applicant dated CARDINAL DATE in which he had described the ill - treatment and had identified colony officers and convicts involved in it . On DATE her complaint was forwarded to ORG , with a cover letter .

On DATE the complaint was allocated to investigator PERSON . of ORG . At TIME he decided to open a preliminary inquiry into those events .

Having arrived to the colony the investigator questioned the applicant , who confirmed his earlier account , and CARDINAL colony officials , who unanimously denied the applicant ’s allegations . Later on DATE the applicant underwent a medical check - up by a doctor , a trauma surgeon . Having visually examined the applicant ’s hands and feet the doctor concluded that the applicant “ did not have any traumatic injuries or post - traumatic changes to his finger or toenails ” , but that his finger and toenails had been “ deformed ” by fungal infection ( “ onychomycosis ” , or “ ringworm of the nail ” ) .

On DATE the colony was visited by a delegation of the Commission on ORG . The head of the delegation had a private conversation with the applicant himself and the colony administration officials and concluded that the applicant ’s allegations were lies .

On DATE the investigator visually examined cell no . CARDINAL . The investigator did not find any traces of blood or other evidence to confirm the applicant ’s account . The examination took place in the presence of several colony officials , namely PERSON . , Mr DATE . , PERSON . , and PERSON . In the record of the examination the applicant made a handwritten remark to the effect that he had felt intimidated by the presence of the colony officials during the examination . After the examination the applicant gave the investigator one of the nails which he had kept .

On DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL other colony officers and convicts and recorded their written explanations . The witnesses had been informed of their right not to testify against themselves or against their close relatives . However , they had not been warned about criminal liability for perjury . They all denied any ill - treatment of the applicant ; they also denied having heard of it , or having seen any traces of ill - treatment on the applicant . Written statements obtained from many of those witnesses were similar in their language , structure and content . It appears that none of them was questioned in detail about their contact with the applicant DATE , or about their whereabouts .

Among other witnesses , the investigator obtained explanations from PERSON . While describing the applicant ’s health condition at the time of his arrival at the colony in DATE PERSON . mentioned eczema and dermatitis on the hands and feet , but no fungal infection . He also testified that the applicant had not complained of any health problems before DATE . None of the convicts questioned by the investigator mentioned any abnormalities on the applicant ’s hands or toes before the events complained of .

On DATE the investigator commissioned CARDINAL examinations of the applicant , a medical CARDINAL and a psychological CARDINAL , and formulated a number of questions for the experts to answer .

On DATE the acting head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences decided not to proceed with the internal disciplinary inquiry for want of evidence of any abuse of power on the part of the colony officials . It was established , inter alia , that on DATE the applicant had been placed in the PERSON “ at his own oral request ” , because of a conflict with other convicts . The decision to close the inquiry did not contain any reference to the injuries found on his body .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL in the PERSON . According to him , it was freshly painted , not ventilated and very cold DATE the applicant had to put all of his clothes on . In the cell the applicant was constantly under videosurveillance , even when using the toilet , which had no partition . In that cell the applicant met with a journalist , in the presence of several colony officials ( including those allegedly involved in the beatings ) . He confirmed to the journalist his account of the events and demonstrated his hands without nails . He also tried to give the journalist a sample of his saliva , asking him to give it to an expert for examination , but the colony officials present at the meeting opposed to it , so the journalist did not take the sample . The journalist later testified that he had smelt the odour of fresh paint in the cell .

On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant again . The applicant confirmed his account . In addition , in his written comments added to the record of his questioning he complained that the investigator in charge of the case had refused to investigate the case thoroughly , that he had discouraged the applicant from pursuing the case , and warned that it would not bring the applicant anything but trouble , that he might be killed , that the colony officials had friends everywhere , in particular in the prosecutor ’s office , and so on . The applicant indicated that on DATE he had met with CARDINAL of the colony officials involved in the torture and had seen in their hands copies of the official materials of the inquiry . They had allegedly told him that the investigator , PERSON . , had been helping them to conceal the evidence of the crime , and that he had been well paid by them to do so .

On an unspecified date the investigator obtained a copy of the video footage from the surveillance cameras on the LOC of the PERSON . Copies of the video surveillance recordings were submitted to him by Mr Kzh . Having watched the recordings , the investigator drew up a report stating that no beatings could be seen on them . It was not specified what time period and what area of the LOC premises those recordings covered , or what they showed exactly .

On DATE the investigator commissioned an expert examination from ORG . The investigator sought to establish whether the applicant suffered from any skin condition affecting the nails .

On DATE the applicant ’s relatives hired a lawyer , Mr St. , to represent the applicant ’s interests in that case .

On DATE and DATE CARDINAL doctors from ORG examined the applicant . After a visual examination of his hands and feet they concluded that the applicant suffered from “ onychomycosis of the finger and toenails ” . The report had a postscript indicating that the applicant had been diagnosed with mycosis in DATE , when he had arrived at the colony .

On DATE a visual examination by PERSON from ORG confirmed that the applicant did not have any fingernails , but that this was related to a fungal infection . The examination also revealed traces of beatings ( caused by CARDINAL blows to different parts of his body , including the shoulders , chest , belly and hips ) , received CARDINAL prior to the examination . The expert considered that all those blows had been to parts of the body “ accessible to the applicant ’s own hand ” .

On DATE the colony administration organised a press conference on the premises of the colony . The applicant was afforded an opportunity to answer the journalists’ questions .

On DATE the applicant wrote to his lawyer expressing his wish to provide a sample of his saliva on a cotton ball in the event that the nails he had given to his mother were examined .

On DATE a psychological expert examination of the applicant was carried out on the premises of the colony . It did not reveal any significant details . The doctors were unable to conclude whether or not the applicant was prone to self - harm or to fantasising . The doctors recommended conducting an additional psychological examination of the applicant in a hospital .

Several “ psychological profiles ” of the applicant were obtained from the administration of the GPE and prisons where he had been detained before . They described the applicant as mentally stable , self - confident , a religious person , obedient to the prison rules , and not belonging to any criminal gang within the colony . A psychological profile drawn up by the staff of the NORP colony was quite different ; the applicant was described as a skilful , ambitious , arrogant and egotistical person , who liked to dominate others and to “ show off ” . The investigator also obtained personal characteristics and a disciplinary record of the applicant .

On DATE the investigator questioned the relatives of the applicant , who had seen him shortly after the described events . The investigator also obtained one of the applicant ’s nails from his relatives . The applicant ’s relatives described the state in which they had found the applicant on DATE and the circumstances in which they had received the nails from him . In particular , PERSON . , the applicant ’s sister , testified that she had visited him in the colony together with their mother . According to her , when the applicant had entered the meeting room , he had been fully dressed and was wearing outdoor clothes . He had explained to her that it had been very cold in the cell . Then he had described to her and their mother what had happened to him over DATE and had given them the nails . She had seen shreds of skin on the nails and traces of needles on them . According to her , at that moment the applicant ’s hands had been so damaged that he had been unable to wash himself and had had to ask his mother to help him with that . It had taken him DATE to write his first description of the events . When he had taken off his shoes his socks had been stained with blood and traces of injections had been visible on his arms and legs . She had also seen yellowish bruises on his body ; the applicant had been very pale and weak . The applicant ’s mother gave evidence in similar terms .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer wrote to the investigator , asking him to organise for an expert in mycology to examine the applicant , to take samples of his blood , skin and scrapes from the nail beds to examine whether they contained traces of a fungal infection , to establish whether the nails in the possession of the applicant ’s relatives did indeed belong to the applicant , and to examine whether or not the applicant had had a brain concussion . The investigator replied to the applicant ’s lawyer that since no criminal investigation had been opened , the alleged “ victim ” had no right to request such investigative actions .

On DATE the investigator decided not to open an investigation on the ground that there was no indication that a crime had been committed . The testimony of the applicant and his relatives was not , in the investigator ’s opinion , credible . The investigator held that the applicant ’s allegations were not confirmed by other evidence collected during the inquiry , namely the answers of the colony officers and convicts , the video recordings , and the results of the forensic examinations which had concluded that his fingernails had been affected by a fungal infection and that all the bruises on his body had been located in places accessible to the applicant ’s own hand .

On an unspecified date the applicant ’s lawyer , Mr GPE , commissioned an expert examination of the fingernails he had received from the applicant ’s relatives .

On DATE ORG in GPE concluded that the fingernails they had been given had not been affected by a fungal infection . On DATE the applicant sent his lawyer samples of his saliva on a cotton ball for genetic examination . The lawyer sent that sample together with CARDINAL fingernail to an expert .

DATE . On DATE an expert from ORG “ ORG ” concluded , on the basis of the DNA analysis of the samples of saliva provided by the applicant and the nails submitted by the applicant ’s mother , that the fingernail had belonged to the applicant .

On DATE experts from a private forensic laboratory “ Granat ” answered the questions put by the applicant ’s representative . They concluded that the fingernails had been extracted with the help of a blunt and hard tool , from a living person with blood type A II .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the colony governor asking him to allow the expert to visit the colony and examine him .

On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , concluded an agreement with ORG .

On DATE a medical expert from that ORG , PERSON , visited the applicant in the colony . She examined the applicant and discovered several long scars , mostly on the right side of his body . His fingernails were CARDINAL of the normal size ; his toenails were CARDINAL of the normal size , and very thin . The expert did not detect any visual signs of a fungal infection , but established that the applicant ’s fingertips and toes had been injured and then infected . She concluded that the applicant had lost finger and toenails by “ traumatic extraction ” , which had happened within a short period of time . She took samples of his blood , urine , and subungual matter . A visual inspection showed the presence of blood in the urine ; the expert concluded that it was the result of kidney damage . She also concluded that the applicant had had a traumatic head injury , high blood pressure and high blood sugar levels . The colony officials took part in the taking of samples and signed , inter alia , the blood collection record .

When PERSON was about to leave , the colony administration stopped her , referring to the absence of authorisation from the investigator , and ordered her to destroy the samples . According to her , the colony officers offered her money if she agreed to sign a statement that she had never examined the applicant and had never been in the colony . When she refused , the colony officers threatened to plant prohibited goods in her bag if she insisted on taking the samples back . She was held on the colony administration premises until she agreed to give or destroy the samples she had collected . Thus , she had to tear up the written record of the sample collection which contained the applicant ’s blood samples , but she kept the shreds of it with the signatures of the colony officials , so she managed to examine them later in the ORG ’s laboratory .

On DATE Mr Kzh . , who had seized the samples from Ms M. , wrote a report explaining the circumstances of PERSON visit . He explained that the samples had been seized from her because her participation in the expert examination had not been approved by investigator PERSON .

On DATE ORG in GPE sent the applicant a written reply to his questions . The letter indicated that a diagnosis of mycosis could be confirmed only following a microscopic examination for the presence of fungi . A fungal infection may affect all nails on the hands and feet , and is very often provoked by a trauma , and not by the fungi . Long - term mycosis may result in the infection spreading to other parts of the body , especially to the soles of the feet and the groin , but can also remain located in the nail area . The letter excluded that nail mycosis could disappear by itself .

On DATE PERSON wrote a report to her superior , describing the events of DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a report in which it concluded that the blood on the fingernails and the blood on the “ shreds ” of the record belonged to the same person .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) sent a letter to ORG concerning a criminal investigation in an unrelated case . That case involved several lawyers who worked together with Mr St. , the applicant ’s lawyer . It appears from that letter that the ORG obtained information from the telephone operating company about the telephone calls of Mr St. , their time and duration .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG to conduct an additional inquiry . It ordered it , in particular , to question the warders in detail , to establish the identity of some other persons involved in the alleged torture and question them , to search cell no . CARDINAL ( the “ torture room ” ) , to assess the applicant ’s psychiatric condition , to examine other allegations of ill - treatment in the colony in respect of other convicts referred to by the applicant , to establish the cause of the injuries found on the applicant ’s body , and to question him again . ORG indicated , in particular , that the list of investigative actions to be taken was not exhaustive and that

The case was again entrusted to investigator PERSON . of ORG . Investigator PERSON . added information concerning the death of the convict PERSON . to the case - file materials . He also added materials in respect of Mr DATE . – the investigation in that case was pending and the main suspicion at that time was that Mr Kl . had died as a result of a “ forced suicide ” . It can be seen from the decision of DATE concerning the investigation in the case of Mr Kl . that he had been beaten before his death , whereas the death itself had been caused by asphyxiation .

On DATE investigator PERSON . questioned CARDINAL people – colony officials and convicts . The investigator concluded from the written explanations obtained from them that the applicant had not been ill - treated . The wording of their testimony was identical in some places .

On DATE the investigator visited the colony and examined cell no . CARDINAL . He did not find any visible traces of blood on the floor . He also continued to question the colony officials and convicts .

On DATE the investigator questioned the doctors of ORG who had examined the applicant earlier . The doctors confirmed that the applicant ’s finger and toenails had been deformed by a fungal infection . The wording of their testimony was identical in some places .

On DATE the investigator commissioned an expert examination of the CARDINAL fingernails he had earlier received from the applicant and his wife .

On DATE the medical examination was completed . Although some of the pages from the examination report in the ORG ’s possession are missing , it appears that the experts concluded that the blood on the fingernails was of the same group as the applicant ’s blood . Furthermore , they did not find any traces of “ mechanical extraction ” on the “ outer edges ” of the fingernails , but did not exclude the “ traumatic ” origin of their removal due to the shape of the “ inner edges ” of the nails .

On DATE the Deputy Chief Investigator of the LOC gave formal instructions to the investigator in charge of the inquiry about further investigative actions to be taken . In particular , the investigator was ordered to carry out an additional expert examination of cell no . CARDINAL with the use of special techniques , to carry out a medical examination of the applicant in order to establish whether he was indeed suffering from a fungal infection , and to clarify contradictions in the statements of some witnesses .

DATE . On DATE the investigator examined cells nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL in the colony with the use of an ultraviolet lamp . No traces of blood were found there .

On DATE the investigator commissioned ORG to carry out a second medical examination of the applicant . On DATE the ORG refused to conduct the examination requested with reference to its earlier findings to which they had nothing to add in the absence of any new facts or materials .

On DATE the investigator ordered an examination of the fingernails received from the applicant and his relatives . The expert from ORG concluded that CARDINAL of the nails ( received by the investigator from the applicant himself ) did have traces of fungal infection , whereas the other ( received from the applicant ’s wife ) did not .

On DATE the investigator tried to question the applicant , but the applicant refused . The applicant told the investigator that he would give evidence only if a criminal case was opened , and only in the capacity of the injured party and in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant also refused to be questioned with a polygraph .

On DATE the investigator requested an additional expert examination of the applicant ’s case by ORG . However , on DATE the head of ORG refused to conduct the examination since the questions put by the investigator were the same as those addressed in the report of DATE .

On DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL colony officials , allegedly involved in the torture . They denied any ill - treatment ; their testimony was identical in some places .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to another colony in GPE , FBU IK-CARDINAL .

On DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL convicts , Mr Abr . and PERSON . Those convicts had been detained in the PERSON at the time of the events at issue , next to the cell where the applicant had allegedly been ill - treated . According to the written text of their testimony , both convicts had not heard any screams or other sounds and had not seen the applicant . The type - written text of their testimony contained a handwritten note by the investigator stating that both witnesses had refused to sign it .

DATE . On DATE the investigator decided to test the credibility of the witnesses with a polygraph . The applicant refused to undergo the test without having obtained the opinion of his lawyer . CARDINAL of the officers of the colony underwent the test . They denied any involvement in the applicant ’s ill - treatment .

On DATE the investigator decided not to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s allegations . In support of his decision the investigator referred mainly to the testimony of the colony officials , who had denied any ill - treatment . Their major argument was that if the applicant had been beaten or ill - treated , other convicts would have learnt of it , and that would represent a serious security issue , maybe even cause a riot . They all claimed that nobody had heard the noise of beatings or screams . The convicts questioned by the investigator testified that they had not heard the screams , neither had they seen traces of torture or beatings on the applicant . The investigator also referred to the testimony of the doctors who had examined the applicant as part of the official inquiry and who had confirmed their findings that the applicant had suffered from a fungal infection which could lead to the “ deformation of , or damage to the nails ” . They had also not detected any signs of the forceful extraction of the nails . The investigator considered that the expert examinations carried out by PERSON and by PERSON , hired by the applicant ’s lawyer , were unreliable , since they had been conducted “ by inappropriate persons using extra - procedural methods ” . The investigator also summarised the applicant ’s medical history . That summary states that the fungal infection was not detected before the examination of the applicant on DATE . The investigator concluded that the applicant ’s allegations were untrue and refuted by other evidence obtained in the course of the previous inquiries .

On DATE the Donskoy Town Prosecutor quashed the decision of the investigator and ordered him to continue the inquiry . On DATE the Deputy Chief Investigator of ORG also ordered the investigator to continue the inquiry . In particular , he ordered him to question the applicant in the presence of his lawyer , to carry out investigative actions specified in the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and to assess the conclusions of expert PERSON

On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer . He testified that he would give evidence only as part of a formal criminal investigation in respect of the colony officials who had tortured him .

On DATE the investigator again examined cell no . CARDINAL and established that loud screams in that cell were perfectly audible in the adjacent cell and in the corridors .

On DATE investigator PERSON . decided not to open a criminal investigation into the applicant ’s allegations . In his decision the investigator summarised the statements made by the applicant and his relatives , and compared them with the statements of the colony officials and convicts questioned in the course of the previous inquiries . The text of the decision of investigator PERSON . was very close to the text of his earlier decision of CARDINAL DATE . Thus , he referred to the testimony of the colony officials , all of whom denied ill - treatment and characterised the applicant ’s allegations as “ lies ” , “ fairy - tales ” , “ delirium ” , and so on . The colony officials excluded any possibility of the unlawful use of force by a colony official and or by a “ loyal ” convict in respect of another convict , since this would not have passed unnoticed by other detainees , and would have provoked a riot . This phrase , with minor variations , was repeated in the statements of CARDINAL colony officials and CARDINAL convicts . They denied having seen the applicant being ill - treated or having heard of anything of that kind . The investigator also referred to the expert reports which attributed the absence of the applicant ’s finger and toenails to mycosis ( reports of CARDINAL and DATE ) and described the bruises on his body as not having been received before DATE . The investigator summarised the testimony of PERSON . and PERSON . , CARDINAL other convicts detained in the PERSON at the time of the events at issue . He also mentioned the testimony of prison warder PERSON . , who had been on duty on an unspecified date after DATE . PERSON . , in particular , testified as follows :

“ ... During my round [ I ] noticed [ the applicant ] sitting by the table and beating himself with both hands in the chest , belly and legs . [ I ] did not attach any importance to it , since [ I ] believed that [ the applicant ] was trying either to flex his muscles or to warm himself up , although it was quite warm in the cell , and [ the applicant ] had his outdoor clothes on . [ The applicant ] hit himself on the hips , belly , chest , arms , and shoulders . Later [ I ] learned that [ the applicant ] had complained of beatings ... and then ... [ I ] reported [ that incident ] to my superiors . ”

The applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed his complaint . The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of ORG . The court of appeal , having examined the decision , quashed it and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh examination .

According to the Government , the court proceedings are still pending . According to the information and copies of court documents produced by the applicant , on DATE the ORG decided to quash the decision of DATE and remit the case for further inquiry to the investigator . In the operative part of the judgment , ORG held , with reference to the provisions of LAW , that the applicant ’s arguments about the ineffectiveness of the inquiry were convincing , that the investigator had failed to establish with certainty the existence of grounds precluding further criminal investigation , and that the expert opinions should have been obtained by the investigator in full compliance with the law , in particular , by complying with the obligation to inform the experts about criminal liability for perjury . ORG added that the information thus obtained ( that is , not in accordance with proper procedure ) was unfit for confirming or rebutting the applicant ’s allegations . ORG also noted that it was incapable of addressing the applicant ’s allegations concerning the reliability of the information collected during the inquiry , since it was not the court ’s role to predetermine the possible conclusions of a future criminal case . The case was thus referred back to the investigator . That decision was confirmed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE investigator PERSON . decided not to open a criminal investigation into the case . The conclusions of investigator PERSON . repeated his earlier decisions not to open a case . Investigator PERSON . compared the applicant ’s submissions and the testimony of the applicant ’s relatives with other evidence , and concluded that the applicant had lied . The investigator concluded that the bruises found on the applicant ’s body had been self - inflicted . He also concluded that the applicant had lost his fingernails as a result of a fungal infection . The investigator ’s decision referred to the conclusions of the experts hired by the applicant ’s lawyer . The investigator concluded that their reports were unreliable since those examinations had not been made as part of the official inquiry .

On DATE the Head of ORG , PERSON , wrote to ORG about the incident of DATE when CARDINAL of the experts of the Centre , PERSON , was detained and threatened by colony officials . He asked ORG to conduct an inquiry into that episode . In the opinion of PERSON such actions of the colony officials could amount to an abuse of power , a criminal offence under LAW .

That request was forwarded from ORG to ORG and was received there on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the investigator decided to open an inquiry into the actions of PERSON The decision to open an inquiry pointed to various procedural irregularities in the expert report and its overall unreliability . The investigator also considered that the conclusions of PERSON were outside of the field of her professional competence . He characterised the actions of the expert as having been in “ excess of power ” . There is no information about any development in those proceedings .

On DATE investigator B. of the ORG refused to open an investigation into the episode of DATE . Based on the testimony of colony officials who had accompanied PERSON during her visit , the investigator concluded that she had lied about the circumstances of her visit to the colony .

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to a court about the incident of DATE . The applicant sought to have the actions of the colony officials declared unlawful .

On DATE the Donskoy Town Court of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The judge found that the colony administration had granted PERSON leave to visit and examine the applicant , but that the permission had not included taking samples . When she had tried to obtain samples of the applicant ’s blood and urine , the colony officials had contacted investigator PERSON . , who had informed them that PERSON was not an officially appointed expert in the case . The colony officials had then examined her documents again , and decided that she was not entitled to provide medical assistance to the applicant . They had seized the samples and some medical instruments she had had with her . All those objects were “ prohibited items ” within the meaning of the prison rules , so their seizure had been lawful .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , having confirmed the conclusions of ORG .

On DATE the applicant complained to the court that several entries in the medical file allegedly related to DATE , had in fact been added much later by PERSON . , or on his orders . Those entries indicated that the applicant had been diagnosed with “ foot mycosis ” , that he had twice refused hospitalisation without giving reasons , and that he had received some “ ointment ” from the colony pharmacy . The applicant claimed that those entries had been falsified and asked the court to commission an expert examination of his medical file .

On DATE the ORG dismissed his complaint as unfounded . ORG refused to commission an examination of the medical file or of the specific entries made by the medical personnel of the colony by a graphologist . ORG indicated that the applicant had sought to have the lawfulness of the colony officials’ actions verified . The court concluded that when making the entries at issue the colony officials had acted within their competence and thus lawfully , and that the applicant ’s right to receive adequate and accessible information about his health condition and about the treatment he had received had not been breached . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE by ORG .

On DATE , upon a complaint by a number of colony officials accused by the applicant of torture , the police of the Donskoy Town charged the applicant with criminal libel . He was prosecuted for having falsely accused those colony officials . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( confirmed on appeal on DATE ) the ORG confirmed the lawfulness of the prosecutor ’s decision to open a criminal case . There is no information about any further development in those proceedings .

On DATE , in the evening , the applicant felt sick after having eaten : he suspected that he had been poisoned deliberately by the colony officials . He asked the warder on duty , Mr PERSON . , to call a doctor . He then purged himself in his cell , using tap water . According to the applicant , Dr Pr . came to examine him and gave him some pills . After taking CARDINAL pill , the applicant felt acute pain in his stomach and started vomiting blood . Dr Pr . came again , but did not do anything to help . From his words the applicant understood that PERSON . expected him to die . At TIME . ordered the applicant ’s transfer to the colony medical unit . The applicant refused to take any medicine from the colony doctors since he did not trust them , so an ambulance was called from a nearby town . The ambulance team arrived at TIME ; the doctors gave him injections and fitted a drip . The applicant felt better . After that incident the applicant remained in the colony medical unit . He refused to eat the food prepared in the colony and ate only tinned food , out of fear of poisoning .

According to the documents produced by the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant started to vomit blood . He was examined by a colony doctor and by an external ambulance team ; however , he refused hospitalisation since he did not trust the doctors . According to the testimony of the doctors , he refused to show his mouth for examination .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to another colony , FBU IK-CARDINAL , in LOC . In his words , during the transfer he was insulted – the warders dragged him across the floor despite his weakness and the high fever he had DATE .

On DATE the applicant had a meeting with his lawyer , Mr GPE He gave Mr St. his T - shirt tainted with blood , which he had been wearing DATE of the alleged poisoning .

On DATE the investigator questioned the colony doctor who testified that he had not detected any signs of the applicant having been poisoned . On DATE the applicant was taken from FBU IK-CARDINAL to FBU IK-CARDINAL for questioning . According to the applicant , the temperature in the prison van which transported him there and back was very high . In FBU IK-CARDINAL he was questioned by an investigator who threatened him and his wife , distorted his words , and refused to record his exact testimony .

On DATE the applicant was taken to FBU IK-CARDINAL for questioning again . He spent TIME in an overheated compartment of a metal prison van , in which he could not even stand upright ( the dimensions of that compartment were QUANTITY ) . The applicant stated that this had been on purpose , to cause a heart attack or other medical incident that would kill him .

Abuse of office associated with the use of violence or entailing serious consequences carries a punishment of up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ( Article QUANTITY of LAW ) . LAW establishes liability for intentionally causing bodily harm of medium gravity with particular cruelty ( up to MONEY imprisonment ) . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL establishes liability for torture ( up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ) .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , the ORG ) , establishes that a criminal investigation may be initiated by an investigator upon the complaint of an individual ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Within DATE , upon receipt of such complaint , the investigator must carry out a preliminary inquiry and make one of the following decisions : ( CARDINAL ) to open criminal proceedings if there are reasons to believe that a crime has been committed ; ( CARDINAL ) to refuse to open criminal proceedings if the inquiry reveals that there are no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation ; or ( CARDINAL ) to refer the complaint to the competent investigative authority . The complainant must be notified of any decision taken . The refusal to open criminal proceedings is amenable to an appeal to a supervising prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

The victim shall have the right to take part in criminal proceedings ( Article CARDINAL ) . The decision to recognise the procedural status of a victim may be taken by an investigator , within a criminal investigation , or by a judge ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) , where the case is before a court .

The victim has , in particular , the following rights : to submit statements and evidence , to take part in the investigative steps which are carried out at his request , to read the findings of forensic studies , to obtain copies of the decisions concerning the institution of criminal proceedings and their discontinuation or adjournment , and to participate in the trial and appeal proceedings ( LAW ( DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) ) .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Kowary .

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

On DATE the applicant 's former wife lodged a motion with ORG ( PERSON w GPE ) claiming that the joint property of the spouses be divided .

The proceedings were terminated on DATE . On DATE the date on which the application was lodged with the ORG , they were pending before ORG .

On DATE the Law of CARDINAL 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 ” ) entered into force . It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . NORP Parties

Section CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . A complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings shall be lodged while the proceedings are pending . ... ”

Section CARDINAL provides for measures that may be applied by the court dealing with the complaint . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall dismiss a complaint which is unjustified .

NORP If the court considers that the complaint is justified , it shall find that there was an unreasonable delay in the impugned proceedings .

At the request of the complainant , the court may instruct the court examining the merits of the case to take certain measures within a fixed time - limit . Such instructions shall not concern the factual and legal assessment of the case .

NORP If the complaint is justified the court may , at the request of the complainant , grant ... just satisfaction in an amount not exceeding PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid by ORG . If such just satisfaction is granted it shall be paid out of the budget of the court which conducted the delayed proceedings . ”

Section CARDINAL lays down transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the ORG . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE after the date of entry into force of this law persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by LAW ... , may lodge a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings on the basis of the provisions of this law if their complaint to ORG had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) adopted a resolution ( no . III SPP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it ruled that while LAW produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force ( DATE ) , its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Public hearing);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Karel Jungwiert

The applicants , who are a couple , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The second applicant died in DATE . The first applicant lives in GPE , LOC .

The applicants , both wheelchair - bound and having firstdegree disability status , repeatedly requested social - security services to provide them with a car adapted to their disability . Their numerous complaints in this respect to ORG , Members of ORG , and Administration of the President of GPE proved unsuccessful . As it was mentioned in the authorities’ letters to the applicants , according to the medical expert report ordered by the social - security services , the first applicant was not entitled to a free car and driving was contra - indicated in respect of the second applicant .

On DATE the applicants , apparently assisted by counsel , lodged a claim against ORG challenging the refusal to provide them with a car and claiming compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ( “ the district court ” ) fixed the hearing for DATE and at some point , apparently on the same date , summoned the applicants to appear at the hearing .

According to the ORG , on DATE one of the applicants received the respective notification . They submitted a copy of an acknowledgment - of - receipt card containing information on the date and time of the hearing , the name of the court , the date of notification , and signatures of a recipient and a postman .

According to the applicants , they did not receive the summons .

On DATE the district court , having heard the defendant ’s representatives , rejected their claim because the applicants had lodged it against a wrong defendant . The court established that the social welfare services did not belong to ORG and that the latter did not have power to review their decisions . The applicants were absent from the hearing . The court found , with reference to the acknowledgment - of - receipt card , that they had been duly summoned and examined the case in their absence . The representative of the respondent authority was present .

On DATE the ORG representative received a copy of the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicants appealed against the judgment . They complained , inter alia , that their right to a fair trial had been violated as neither they nor their lawyer had had a chance to attend the hearing due to their having been summoned belatedly .

On DATE the district court on the ORG request extended the time - limit for lodging the grounds of appeal .

On DATE ORG adjourned the examination of the applicants’ appeal until DATE , having found that the parties had not been notified of the date of the hearing in a timely manner .

According to the Government , at some point the district court dispatched summonses to the parties , including the applicants , informing them of the date and time of the appeal hearing . According to the applicants , neither they nor their representative received the summons .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . The court examined the case in the applicants’ absence , having mentioned that they had been notified of the appeal hearing . As regards the ORG complaint about their absence from the hearing at the first instance court , the appeal court found that they had been properly summoned . The court further upheld the lower court ’s finding that the civil action was lodged against the wrong defendant .

On DATE the application was communicated to the Government .

On DATE the ORG requested the case file from the district court in order to prepare ’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application .

On DATE ORG received the case file .

On DATE Ms Stakhiyeva , the first applicant ’s representative before the ORG , requested the district court to grant her access to the case file concerning the applicants’ civil proceedings .

On DATE the registry of the district court rejected her request having advised her that she could be granted access to the file not DATE following the request .

On DATE the President of the district court refused to examine the representative ’s oral complaint in this respect , apparently having provided no reasons for the decision . It appears that on the same date the lawyer lodged a written complaint about the refusal to allow her to study the file , but the petition remained unanswered .

On DATE the registry of the district court again rejected the applicant ’s new request for access to the file , and on the same date the President of the district court disallowed her complaint in this respect .

On DATE the registry of ORG returned the case file to the district court .

On DATE the ORG advised the ORG that the file had been transferred to the district court and was available for study . On DATE this letter was forwarded by the ORG to the applicant ’s representatives .

On DATE the ORG received the ORG ’s observations and on DATE forwarded them to the applicant ’s representatives with a request to provide observations in reply .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested to grant her access to the case file . She submits that on DATE the registry disallowed her request , and the President of the court refused to discuss the matter with her .

On DATE she was advised by the registry of the district court that the file was available at the registry .

On CARDINAL DATE the lawyer studied the case file .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers submitted the observations in reply to the ORG ’s observations on the applicants’ case .

For a summary of relevant domestic law provisions see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE at the material time .

On DATE he was taken into police custody by police officers from the Anti - Terrorist Branch of ORG on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation . On DATE a judge at ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention pending trial .

On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant and CARDINAL others with membership of an illegal organisation , under LAW and LAW .

The first hearing was held on DATE .

On DATE the ORG representatives informed the court that criminal proceedings had been instituted in ORG against police officers who had allegedly ill - treated the defendants while they were in detention . ORG requested ORG to send it the relevant case file for examination .

At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE , ORG asked ORG of ORG and ORG to produce documents and reports relating to certain incidents involving the accused . It also requested documents from CARDINAL other courts before which separate proceedings against CARDINAL of the accused were pending . At the next QUANTITY hearings ORG reiterated these requests , as it had received no response from the courts concerned .

At a hearing on DATE , since it had still not received from ORG the case file concerning those police officers accused of ill - treating certain defendants , ORG revised its request and asked simply to be informed about progress in the case . It also requested a copy of the final decision once the case had been concluded . It reiterated this request at the next QUANTITY hearings .

On DATE ORG decided to sever the case of CARDINAL of the defendants and to join it to another case which was pending before a different chamber .

On DATE ORG submitted its opinion on the merits of the case .

At the next CARDINAL hearings before ORG , the applicant ’s lawyer made applications for his client ’s release pending trial , which the court dismissed in view of the nature of the offence , the state of the evidence and the material in the case file . At hearings on DATE and DATE , the court again remanded the applicant in custody , noting that his release would entail a risk of his absconding .

On DATE , having still not received any information concerning the case against the police officers pending before ORG , ORG requested a copy of either the final decision or the indictment .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that the case was still pending and produced the indictment .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a petition with ORG requesting the applicant ’s release pending trial . He relied on LAW . He contended that the court ’s continued refusal to grant bail was groundless . On DATE , noting the arguments put forward by the applicant ’s lawyer in his written petition and the opinion of the public prosecutor , a different chamber of ORG dismissed the application for release pending trial .

At a hearing of DATE , taking into account the length of the applicant ’s detention , the nature of the offence and the material in the case file , ORG decided to order the applicant ’s release on bail .

On DATE , after some CARDINAL hearings , ORG acquitted CARDINAL of the accused , convicted the applicant and CARDINAL others and suspended the proceedings for the remainder , in accordance with PERSON no . DATE on conditional release , the suspension of proceedings or the execution of sentences in respect of crimes committed before DATE . It convicted the applicant under LAW of LAW and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision as regards the applicant and CARDINAL others .

By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , state security courts were abolished . The case against CARDINAL of the accused , including the applicant , was remitted to ORG .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG summoned all the accused to the next hearing , so that they could submit their views on ORG decision . It also requested ORG to send it documents concerning an illegal demonstration in Kadıköy in DATE which the accused were alleged to have organised and in which they had allegedly taken part .

At the hearing of DATE , ORG ordered the arrest of CARDINAL of the accused , including the applicant , as they had not responded to the summonses sent to their addresses listed in the case file . It repeated its request to ORG .

Neither the applicant nor his representative was present at hearings held on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . ORG reissued warrants for the arrest of the applicant and CARDINAL other absconders for the purpose of obtaining their submissions .

The case is still pending before ORG . The last hearing was held on DATE . The court has issued a fresh warrant for the applicant ’s arrest .


CASE OF McGINLEY AND EGAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 13

DATE the GPE carried out a number of atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons in LOC and at GPE , GPE , involving over CARDINAL servicemen . Among these tests were the “ LOC ” and “ Grapple Z ” series of CARDINAL detonations at LOC in LOC ( DATE ) , of weapons many times more powerful than those discharged at GPE and GPE .

During the DATE Island tests , service personnel were ordered to line up in the open and to face away from the explosions with their eyes closed and covered until TIME after the blast .

The applicants alleged that the purpose of this procedure was deliberately to expose servicemen to radiation for experimental purposes . The Government denied this and stated that it was believed at the time of the tests , and was the case , that personnel were sufficiently far from the centre of the detonations to avoid being exposed to radiation at any harmful level and that the purpose of the line - up procedure was to ensure that they avoided eye damage and other physical injury caused by material blown about by the blast .

No record exists of the degree of exposure to radiation , if any , of servicemen such as the applicants , since film badges ( which turn black if exposed to radiation ) were issued only to the CARDINAL predominantly non - service personnel on DATE Island who were working in identified , controlled and active areas . According to the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , this decision was taken to avoid future liability for radiation - caused harm . According to the Government , however , experience of earlier nuclear test explosions in GPE , GPE , where film badges had been issued to all personnel , had shown that personnel with duties such as the applicants’ were not exposed to measurable levels of radiation .

Documents containing the original contemporaneous recordings of environmental radiation levels in the vicinity of DATE Island following the tests were stored at ORG ( “ AWRE ” ) at GPE , GPE . Although these documents were not available for inspection by members of the public , the Government claimed that since the information contained in them would not have given rise to security concerns , they could have been produced if required for the purposes of proceedings before ORG ( “ PAT ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE a summary of “ all the surviving data ” gathered by the environmental monitoring programme was published as Technical Note no . CARDINAL , “ ORG at DATE Island DATE ” . This , inter alia , described the environmental monitoring programme set up for the tests and included sample measurements of radiation in the air , sea water and deposited on the ground . The sources of the information upon which the technical note was based were also listed .

The Government annexed to their memorial to the ORG in the present case a number of documents , not hitherto in the public domain , including a report by the AWRE of the measurements made of radioactive fall - out on various LOC , including DATE Island , during ORG DATE ( Grapple Y ) and of the concurrent programme of fish sampling ; a report by Major PERSON describing measurements of fallout on various LOC DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( ORG ) ; a report of residual radiation measurements following the Grapple Y explosion on LOC ; a summary statement of environment radiation measurements following the Grapple Y explosion , by AWRE , dated DATE ; and interim reports on radiological measurements following the Grapple Y and ORG detonations .

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

In DATE , following a medical examination which found him fit for full combat service in any part of the world , he was enlisted into the army as a sapper with ORG . In DATE he was posted to DATE Island where he worked as a plant operator at FAC and in the quarries at the northern end of the island . According to information supplied by ORG ( “ MOD ” ) for the purposes of his pension application ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he was present at a distance of QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) from the following test detonations : Grapple Y on DATE , ORG on DATE , Grapple ZCARDINAL on DATE , Grapple ZCARDINAL on DATE and Grapple ZCARDINAL on DATE , in which CARDINAL nuclear explosive devices in the megaton range were detonated as high air bursts over the sea to the south of DATE Island and CARDINAL balloon - borne nuclear explosive devices in the kiloton range were detonated over the south - east corner of the island .

Mr PERSON stated in his pension application ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that DATE after the test explosion on DATE he attended his medical officer on DATE Island because he had developed nausea , diarrhoea and itchy blisters on the backs of his hands , neck and cheeks . He stated that he was treated for the blisters with a plastic spray twice a day for DATE . No contemporaneous record of this treatment has been produced .

The transcripts of his medical records set out in his Statement of Case to the PAT ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) contained the following entries .

He was treated on DATE Island DATE for a throat infection and in ORG and on DATE Island for tonsillitis in DATE and DATE . In DATE he was admitted to ORG , GPE , suffering from influenza . In DATE he was admitted to ORG in GPE suffering from a duodenal ulcer , which led to a recommendation that he be discharged from the army as unfit for further military service . This was effected on DATE and he was awarded a PERCENT pension in relation to the ulcer since it was considered to be attributable to military service .

In his statement on discharge , in response to the question “ If you are suffering from any diseases , wound , or injuries , state what they are , and also when and where they first started … ” , he referred to out - patient treatment which he had received in GPE in DATE for a torn cartilage and on DATE Island in DATE for a broken ankle ; this latter treatment had not been recorded elsewhere in the service medical records contained in the Statement of Case .

In response to the question “ Give details … of any incidents during your service which you think caused or made worse your disability ” , he referred to his service in DATE as a plant operator in GPE , GPE , and the fact that “ the food consisted of compound rations CARDINAL meals per day ” . He made no mention of the conditions he allegedly developed following the test explosion on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Subsequent to his discharge , the medical records show that Mr PERSON continued to suffer stomach pain and in DATE he underwent an operation to remove the duodenal ulcer . In DATE he was admitted to hospital for DATE suffering from renal colic . In DATE he had a sebaceous cyst removed from his right cheek . In DATE he was diagnosed as infertile .

NORP In DATE he applied for his pension to be reviewed on the ground that the condition of his ulcer had deteriorated . The pension was increased to PERCENT , reduced again to PERCENT in DATE and restored to PERCENT on CARDINAL DATE following an appeal to the ORG .

Following a series of articles in the press in DATE about the potential effects of the LOC explosions on those exposed to them , Mr PERSON came to attribute his health problems to his service on the island and became chairman of ORG ( “ GPE ) , an organisation which campaigned for compensation for the servicemen present during the tests .

On DATE he made a claim for an increase in his pension , complaining of depression , sterility and severe arthritis . In his application he described the line - up procedure followed during the tests and the rash he had allegedly developed subsequently ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , and continued :

“ I consider that my problems are directly linked with radiation exposure . Since leaving the service I have experienced bouts of moodiness and at time [ sic ] unexplained attacks of very quick tempered actions . Then later regret them . I have been examined at ORG in DATE and diagnosed as sub - sterile . My own doctor … believes there is a direct link . I have also suffered from mysterious paralysis of legs and arms and have been for DATE been [ sic ] in extreme pain sometimes TIME per day . ”

NORP In response to this application , ORG ( “ DSS ” ) made enquiries of Mr PERSON ’s general practitioner ( “ GP ” ) and the ORG .

His ORG reported that the applicant ’s records showed treatment for a duodenal ulcer in DATE and a stomach ulcer in DATE , and an investigation of fertility in DATE . In DATE the applicant had complained of arthritis , but the specialist who had given him a full medical examination could find no evidence of any organic disease . The ORG also stated that PERSON suffered from an acneiform skin condition and also reported “ one positive finding DATE of which he is unaware DATE is a polycythaemia ( haemoglobin level PERCENT ) [ a disorder whereby an abnormally high number of red blood cells are produced ] ” .

The ORG responded to the ORG ’s enquiries by stating that the areas on DATE Island in which the applicant had served were not subject to fall - out , and therefore :

“ His radiation exposure from the GPE nuclear tests was PERSON and the radiation effective dose equivalent which it represents was PERSON . His overall radiation dose from the ever present background radiations was no more and probably less than he would have received had he remained in GPE instead of seeing service in the LOC area in DATE .

As his radiation effective dose was ZERO , ex - Spr [ sapper ] PERSON ’s medical condition would not have been caused by ionising radiations from the GPE nuclear test programmes . ”

On DATE Mr PERSON ’s claim was refused , on the grounds that there was no evidence that the condition of his ulcer had deteriorated or that his reduced fertility , facial acne , right renal colic or arthritis had been either attributable to or aggravated by his service in the armed forces .

On DATE the applicant appealed to the PAT , stating :

“ I was deliberately exposed to unknown hazards i.e. THREE HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS in DATE for ORG … My own Military ORG have been ‘ doctored’ along with many other members of the BNTVA . I have been victimised by ORG in that they have admitted that they advise the ORG on Medical matters of Nuclear Tests Participants … ”

On receipt of the notice of appeal , the ORG prepared a Statement of Case for the PAT ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Thus , on DATE , an enquiry was sent to ORG , asking for all the available medical records relating to the applicant DATE and DATE and/or confirmation that he had been treated for a rash on his body and face on DATE Island at some time during this period .

On DATE , the ORG replied :

“ No A & D [ admission and discharge ] books held under particulars quoted . N / T [ no trace ] medical records . “

The ORG also sought further medical evidence , including hospital case notes and the following reports from the applicant ’s ORG and a number of specialists who examined him for the purposes of his appeal .

Mr PERSON ’s ORG stated that he considered him to be “ fit within limits ” , although he had some reservations , namely the polycythaemia and sterility . The psychiatrist who saw PERSON did not consider that he was suffering from any psychiatric condition . The consultant rheumatologist concluded that the pain and stiffness in his hands , arms , shoulders and neck of which the applicant complained related to normal wear and tear and could “ find nothing to connect it with radiation exposure ” . The dermatologist reported that the appearance of the applicant ’s skin was consistent with the long - term effects of untreated constitutional acne vulgaris , concluding however that since he had no competence to give an opinion as to whether this condition might have been linked to exposure to radiation , the opinion of an expert familiar with the effects of ionising radiation should be sought . The ORG declined to follow this advice since they were satisfied by the ORG ’s statement that PERSON had not been exposed to radiation . The consultant urologist found that PERSON was not suffering from any kidney disease . In relation to his infertility he stated :

“ … it is impossible to be certain of its cause as there is no indication of the patient having had a normal seminal analysis prior to his alleged exposure to ionising radiation in DATE . His seminal analysis was performed in DATE at which time he was DATE and to which age many men are beginning to show a reduction in sperm count . The incidence of oligospermia in the normal male population at this age is probably not PERCENT .

In all , it is impossible to incriminate exposure to ionising radiation as a primary cause of the patient ’s subfertility problem … ”

Also included in the Statement of Case to the ORG was the opinion of a ORG medical officer , who explained that , in the light of the medical evidence and the ORG ’s statement that PERSON had not been exposed to ionising radiation , it was not considered that the disablement from acne vulgaris , generalised osteoarthritis or reduced fertility with associated nervous symptoms were attributable to or had been aggravated by service in the armed forces . In view of the consultant urologist ’s report , the applicant was found not to be suffering from right renal colic .

An edited version of the Statement of Case , omitting information that it was “ undesirable in the interests of the applicant to disclose to him ” , was sent to PERSON ( in accordance with Rule CARDINAL of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals ( GPE ) Rules DATE ) . His representatives , ORG , received an unedited version .

The applicant then had the opportunity to make written submissions to the ORG , adduce additional evidence or request the production of documents in accordance with the procedure under Rule CARDINAL of the Tribunal Rules ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , none of which he did . Together with his representative , he attended the hearing before the PAT where he made oral submissions .

On DATE , the ORG dismissed the appeal .

On DATE the applicant submitted another claim based on alleged radiation - linked acne vulgaris , sterility and arthritis , but he did not pursue it after the ORG reminded him of his previous claim ’s rejection in DATE .

In DATE he applied for and received an added assessment to his pension of PERCENT for hearing loss .

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

NORP In DATE , following a medical examination , he was enlisted into ORG , fit for full combat duty in any part of the world . On DATE he was serving as a stoker on board Her Majesty ’s Ship Ulysses which , according to information provided by the ORG , was positioned off DATE Island at a distance of QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) from the detonation of the Grapple Y test ( QUANTITY according to the applicant : see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Mr PERSON ’s medical records , as set out in his Statement of Case to the PAT , show , inter alia , that on DATE he had an X - ray at a naval hospital in GPE , GPE . From DATE he was admitted to FAC , GPE . Subsequent to the test explosion on DATE , he was treated ( in DATE and DATE ) for a common cold and influenza respectively and

he was given another X - ray on DATE . In DATE he fractured his right clavicle , in connection with which he was X - rayed on DATE .

In DATE he applied to be discharged from the navy . In his statement on discharge , in response to the question “ If you are suffering from any diseases , wound , or injuries , state what they are , and also when and where they first started … ” , he referred only to the fractured clavicle , and he made no response to the question “ Have you suffered from any diseases or injuries other than those mentioned above ? ” His medical report on discharge stated that his clavicle was badly deformed , but apart from this noted no problems . With regard to his respiratory system , it stated that he had had a full plate X - ray on DATE which had detected nothing abnormal .

On DATE , Mr PERSON was discharged from the navy on compassionate grounds .

In DATE , following a chest X - ray , he was diagnosed as suffering from sarcoidosis , a chronic disease CARDINAL of the symptoms of which is the formation of small nodules , or granulomas , in the lungs and/or other organs and tissues . His medical records show that in DATE he told the consultant chest physician to whom he had been referred that he had “ had a normal X - ray in DATE when in the navy , but was in hospital for DATE in DATE for investigation following a routine X - ray in GPE ” .

On DATE the applicant applied for a pension in respect of his sarcoidosis , alleging that he had suffered from the disease since the date of his discharge from the navy and that it was attributable to the fact that “ while serving at DATE Island I was exposed to the blast from atomic bomb resulting in the burning of skin tissues ” .

On DATE the ORG requested from the ORG all the available medical records relating to Mr PERSON . The reply , which was received on DATE , read “ No trace medical records ” . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s X - ray of DATE was requested . The response , dated DATE , noted that a thorough search of the large film records for DATE had been made and that no trace of a large film for the applicant could be found .

On DATE the ORG made another enquiry of the ORG , asking whether any type of atomic device had been detonated whilst the applicant ’s ship was stationed off DATE Island and , if so , the distance of the ship from the epicentre of the blast ; whether the ship was stationed sufficiently close for any crew members to have sustained radiation burns ; whether the applicant was likely to have had cause to be in the open and thereby subjected to blast and , if so , what protective clothing had been issued . Finally , the ORG noted that there was reference in Mr PERSON ’s medical records to a DATE stay in hospital following a routine chest ORG in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and asked the ORG whether there was any trace of his medical records for DATE or of any X - rays taken for him during his service .

The reply , dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE , stated that all available medical documents had already been sent to the ORG , and that an examination of the records of the detonation on DATE ( held by the War Historical Branch ) and of the ship ’s log - book showed that ORG PERSON was QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) from the epicentre . ORG had required “ Precautions to be taken by ships in target area – all exposed personnel are to be completely covered , anti - flash hats , gloves and goggles are to be worn , and long trousers tucked into socks ” .

On DATE the ORG medical board found against the applicant .

On DATE , following further representations by the applicant , the ORG again requested the ORG to trace his service medical records . The ORG replied that : “ This case has been thoroughly dealt with and to date we can not provide any further service documents . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with the PAT .

For the purposes of the appeal the ORG obtained a medical report from a senior chest physician , who stated :

“ It is my opinion , that , from the initial radiographic appearances , the investigations carried out and the course of the disease , the diagnosis of the condition was correctly assessed as sarcoidosis . I think that the respiratory symptoms of cough and occasionally blood - stained sputum were associated with intercurrent respiratory infection . CARDINAL possible alternative diagnosis is considered below …

I think it is true to say that there is no reference in the international literature to any case of sarcoidosis specifically related to the effects of atomic explosion .

The only possible aetiological factor which could be incriminated is exposure to beryllium copper alloy . I do not know whether this alloy was in use in DATE . The features of chronic berylliosis … are very similar to those which occur in chronic sarcoidosis …

In summary , it is , in my opinion , virtually certain that the correct diagnosis in this case is sarcoidosis and that the disease had no relationship to proximity to an atomic explosion in DATE . ”

The Government subsequently confirmed , in response to a parliamentary question , that beryllium is commonly used in nuclear test devices , although for security reasons it was not possible to disclose the materials used in specific devices .

In response to an enquiry , the ORG informed the ORG that :

“ It is most unlikely that this man was ever exposed to beryllium copper alloy or other beryllium compounds in his work as a stoker .

The log of ORG PERSON has been carefully scrutinised especially with relation to the periods at LOC in DATE and there is no record to substantiate the story of atomic bomb blast . Certainly had he been ashore there would have been no significant exposure . ”

Also included in Mr PERSON ’s Statement of Case was the opinion of ORG , which stated , inter alia :

“ … In the first place we would explain that in the absence of evidence in favour of a diagnosis of chronic berylliosis and in the absence of any evidence that Mr PERSON was ever exposed to beryllium copper alloy during service , we are satisfied that his lung condition has been correctly diagnosed as sarcoidosis …

PERSON has based his claim on the ground that he was exposed to atomic radiation , which he says burned his skin tissues , while in the vicinity of DATE Island in DATE and instancing that he was in hospital for DATE in DATE following a routine X - ray taken in GPE .

Dealing with the question of radiation , we would stress that … there is no evidence to suggest that exposure to atomic radiation DATE even a heavy dosage – can be a cause of sarcoidosis … There is no evidence that PERSON sustained burns of his skin as a result of atomic blast . Had such an event occurred , he would have required medical attention and we consider it to be inconceivable that such a sequence of events could have happened without some mention in his service documentation . In view of this and having regard to the recorded history , we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evidence at all to relate his sarcoidosis to the incident in question or to any other factor of his service .

As regards Mr PERSON ’s contention that following a routine mass MONEY - ray taken in GPE in DATE , he was admitted to hospital for investigation , it is pointed out that the routine X - ray in question was taken on DATE , DATE before the atomic explosion . We do not consider it in any event likely that a further routine X - ray would have been taken during DATE and there is no evidence of an admission to hospital after the X - ray mentioned although we note he had treatment for a common cold in DATE … Also , … on clinical examination prior to discharge , apart from the after - effects of the fractured clavicle sustained off - duty , no disabilities were found … ”

On DATE an edited Statement of Case was sent to the applicant and an unedited version was sent to his representatives , ORG . Mr PERSON then had the opportunity to make written submissions , adduce additional evidence or request the production of documents in accordance with the procedure under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

He chose to make a supplementary statement in response , in which he disputed the fact that there was no medical record concerning the treatment he received in the hospital in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , where he alleged to have been given a number of X - rays . He also disputed that there was no evidence in the log of ORG PERSON that the crew was exposed to the atomic blast , contending that he was QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) , rather than QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) , from the explosion , that during it he had been made to stand on the upper deck wearing protective clothing and dark glasses and that he had felt ill with a cold and “ dampness through my body ” after it .

The ORG then contacted ORG and the ORG ’s ORG in Bath , requesting special searches for any medical records or X - rays relating to Mr PERSON ’s hospitalisation in GPE DATE and confirmation of the distance of ORG PERSON from the blast . No further medical records could be traced , but the ORG recalculated the ship ’s position as QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) from the blast .

DATE . On DATE the ORG dismissed PERSON appeal .

On DATE the applicant submitted another claim for a war pension based on allegedly radiation - related sarcoidosis of the lung . The ORG responded to the applicant by reminding him of the decision of the ORG taken in DATE and informing him that it was legally binding unless set aside by ORG in GPE on a point of law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the ORG received another , similar , war pension claim , lodged by the BNTVA on Mr PERSON ’s behalf . He was again reminded of the ORG ’s decision of DATE and he replied , by letter dated DATE , that he was not happy with that decision . The ORG replied by referring the applicant to the fact that the ORG had looked at his service documents while considering his case .

On DATE the applicant made a further claim for a war pension based on deafness . The claim was rejected by the Secretary of ORG and PERSON did not appeal the decision .

The scheme for the payment of war pensions in GPE is currently contained in the Naval , Military and ORG . ( Disablement and ORG DATE ( “ the Pensions Order ” ) , the terms of which are in all material respects identical to the legislation in force at the time of Mr PERSON ’s application .

The basic condition for the award of a pension is where “ the disablement or death of a member of the armed forces is due to service ” . “ Disablement ” is defined as “ physical or mental injury or damage , or loss of physical or mental capacity ” . For claims made DATE after the termination of service , the disablement or death is to be treated as “ due to service ” if it is due to an injury which is either attributable to service after DATE or existed before or arose during such service and was and remains aggravated by it .

The Pensions Order provides that where , upon reliable evidence , a reasonable doubt exists whether the above conditions are fulfilled , the benefit of that doubt must be given to the claimant ( Pensions Order , Articles CARDINAL–CARDINAL ) .

According to the ORG , pensions have been awarded in respect of radiation - linked claims to CARDINAL servicemen , or widows of servicemen , stationed on or in the vicinity of Christmas Island or other nuclear test sites in CARDINAL .

NORP The scheme for the payment of pensions is administered in the first instance by the ORG . On receipt of an application , the ORG , inter alia , obtains the claimant ’s service records ( including service medical records ) from the ORG and , with the assistance of additional medical evidence if required , assesses whether the claimant is suffering from a disability attributable to service . The Secretary of ORG gives the final decision , based on this assessment .

A claimant who is refused a war pension by the Secretary of ORG may appeal to the PAT ( see ORG and ORG ( GPE ) Rules DATE : “ the Tribunal Rules ” ) . This body is composed of a lawyer , a doctor and a serviceman or ex - serviceman of the same sex and rank as the claimant . The ORG provides the ORG with a “ Statement of Case ” , which includes , inter alia , a transcript of the claimant ’s service records including service medical records , subsequent medical records and reports including those prepared at the request of the ORG doctor and a statement outlining the Secretary of ORG ’s reasons for refusing the application . The claimant may submit an answer to the statement and/or adduce further evidence . There is then a hearing , which may not take place in the absence of the claimant without his consent , and at which the claimant may be legally or otherwise represented .

A further appeal from the ORG lies on a point of law to ORG in GPE , with the leave of either the ORG or the court .

Rule CARDINAL of the Tribunal Rules provides as follows :

“ Disclosure of official documents and information

CARDINAL ) Where for the purposes of his appeal an appellant desires to have disclosed any document , or part of any document , which he has reason to believe is in the possession of a government department , he may , at any time not DATE after the Statement of Case was sent to him , apply to the President for the disclosure of the document or part and , if the President considers that the document or part is likely to be relevant to any issue to be determined on the appeal , he may give a direction to the department concerned requiring its disclosure ( if in the possession of the department ) in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as the President thinks fit …

( CARDINAL ) On receipt of a direction given by the President under this rule , the Secretary of ORG or Minister in charge of the government department concerned , or any person authorised by him in that behalf , may certify to the President –

( a ) that it would be contrary to the public interest for the whole or part of the document to which the direction relates to be disclosed publicly ; or

( b ) that the whole or part of the document ought not , for reasons of security , to be disclosed in any manner whatsoever ;

and where a certificate is given under sub - paragraph ( a ) , the President shall give such directions to the tribunal as may be requisite for prohibiting or restricting the disclosure in public of the document , or part thereof , as the case may be , and where a certificate is given under sub - paragraph ( b ) the President shall direct the tribunal to consider whether the appellant ’s case will be prejudiced if the appeal proceeds without such disclosure , and , where the tribunal are of the opinion that the appellant would be prejudiced if the appeal were to proceed without such disclosure , they shall adjourn the hearing of the appeal until such time as the necessity for non - disclosure on the ground of security no longer exists . ”

“ Public records ” are defined by LAW “ the DATE LAW ) as administrative and departmental records belonging to the ORG , including records of , or held by , any government department . The administration of the public records system is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor . Public records which have been selected for permanent preservation are not usually transferred to ORG or other approved location in the public domain until DATE after their creation , although a longer or shorter period may be fixed by the Lord Chancellor with the approval or at the request of the Minister or other person primarily concerned .

The right to compensation under common law is enforceable through the civil courts if the plaintiff is able to prove on the balance of probability that , given the state of knowledge at the relevant time , the injury complained of was reasonably foreseeable and caused by the action or inaction of the defendant .

NORP However , armed forces personnel whose cause of action arose on duty before DATE are barred from taking civil proceedings for compensation against the Crown by LAW of LAW . It is disputed between the parties as to whether this immunity of the ORG survived judgment in the case of ORG v. The Secretary of ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL , but it is agreed that to date no one ( including Mr PERSON ) has been able successfully to demonstrate in a civil action that an illness was , on the balance of probability , caused by radiation from the DATE Island nuclear test programme .

On DATE GPE lodged with the Secretary General of ORG the following declaration :

“ … in accordance with the provisions of LAW , signed at GPE on the CARDINALth of DATE , … the Government of GPE and GPE recognise , in respect of GPE and GPE only … , for the period beginning on DATE , and ending on DATE , the competence of ORG to receive petitions submitted to the Secretary General of ORG , subsequently to DATE , by any person , non - governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming , in relation to any act or decision occurring or any facts or events arising subsequently to DATE , to be the victim of a violation of the rights set forth in that Convention and in the LAW thereto … ”

A declaration under LAW , recognising the ORG ’s jurisdiction subject to similar conditions , was filed on DATE . Both declarations have been renewed on several occasions subsequently .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Braslovče .

On DATE the applicant was bitten by a dog owned by ORG ..

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ORG in ORG ( ORG sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL NORP tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

On DATE the applicant lodged a preliminary written submission .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE , none was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

At the last hearing , the court decided to deliver a written interim judgment . It appears that the judgment , rejecting the applicant ’s claim , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) . NORP cross - appealed .

On DATE the court allowed both appeals and remitted the case to the first - instance court for re - examination .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence with ORG .

At the last hearing , the court decided to deliver a written interim judgment . The judgment , rejecting the applicant ’s claim , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) . On DATE he also appealed against the first - instance decision of DATE concerning costs of proceedings .

On DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s appeals and remitted the case to the first - instance court for re - examination by a new judge .

The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

The applicant in the re - examination proceedings lodged CARDINAL written submissions and/or adduced evidence DATE and DATE .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

On DATE the court appointed a medical expert PERSON Since the applicant objected to this appointment , the court , on DATE , appointed another medical expert .

At the last hearing ORG decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the court dismissed both appeals , but changed the part of the first –instance judgment concerning legal costs .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .