Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect)

Anatoly Kovler;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE - on - Don .

The parties disagreed as to the course of the events that occurred on DATE . Their versions may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant saw a road police inspector being bribed for permission to enter a restricted - access zone and informed a lawenforcement body about this incident . As no action followed on its part , the applicant decided to investigate independently the number of cars that were allowed to pass through the restricted - access zone . On TIME he was spotted by the guards of rifle division no . CARDINAL of the PERSON extra - departmental security service of ORG ( GPE команда ORG CARDINAL Ростовского отряда вневедомственной охраны Северо-Кавказской железной дороги ) . He was searched and taken to the guardroom , where he was brutally beaten . Guard S. fired several shots at the applicant ’s legs with a PERSON rifle , severely wounding him .

At TIME on DATE the applicant entered the restrictedaccess zone guarded by rifle division no . CARDINAL of the PERSON extradepartmental security service , which was responsible for the security of the railway bridge of the ORG sector of LOC .

The applicant set fire to a car owned by guard LOC and was apprehended by the latter .

Guards L. and PERSON escorted the applicant to the guard LOC . Upon entering the LOC they proceeded in the direction of the guard commander ’s room , and guard ORG stepped back into the kitchen to allow them to pass . PERSON was bringing up the rear .

Suddenly the applicant turned around and tried to stab PERSON with a knife . As the latter did not have enough time to take his handgun out of its holster he commanded PERSON to give him a rifle and warned the applicant . After repeating the warning and in view of the advancing applicant , PERSON fired away from the applicant , hitting a fire extinguisher which began discharging foam . The guards had difficulty seeing and breathing and left the building . After the foam began to settle down , PERSON entered the LOC again and saw the applicant hiding behind the door frame . The applicant hopped into the corridor and again tried to stab PERSON leapt back but could not retreat further as his way was blocked by PERSON , who was still holding the rifle , warned the applicant and fired at the floor below him . The applicant leapt aside but was still threatening them . Fearing for his life PERSON fired CARDINAL single shots , aiming at the applicant ’s legs . The applicant retreated to the room of the guard commander screaming that he was going to blow the place up . S. followed him and saw the applicant , who was wearing a jacket and hat belonging to the guards , sitting on a sofa with blood streaming down his legs . S. noticed that the phone cords had been cut . He ordered ORG to summon the police and ambulance and , together with PERSON , began to administer first aid . They then discovered the knife on the back of the sofa .

NORP The applicant , who was suffering from a manic mental disorder , had a suspicion that the guards of rifle division no . CARDINAL were aiding terrorists . On DATE , during DATE , he arrived at the guarded zone on his bicycle and demanded that the guards stop letting the cars through . Having failed to achieve the desired result , at TIME on DATE the applicant entered the restricted - access territory , where he might have tried to set fire to the car of guard S. , who apprehended him while in a state of inebriation .

After unsuccessfully searching the applicant for weapons , S. escorted him to the guard LOC where , together with PERSON and PERSON , he started beating him by way of a reprisal for the damaged car . Most of the blows were delivered by kicks to the groin area . Having realised that the applicant had mental - health problems , PERSON fired at the applicant but missed and hit the fire extinguisher . In a state of rage PERSON returned to the building after the foam had settled down and fired CARDINAL shots at the applicant , QUANTITY of which hit his legs and one the floor . Subsequently S. planted a knife in the area to support his argument that the applicant had attacked him .

NORP Immediately after the incident the applicant was taken to hospital , where he was diagnosed as having gunshot wounds to the upper thigh areas of both legs and to the left popliteal artery , gangrene of the lower left leg , and urethritis . His left leg was amputated on DATE and he subsequently received second - category disabled status . The amputated extremity was disposed of , and the medical records did not contain any information about the location of the bullet entry and exit holes on it .

The applicant submitted statements by several friends and family members testifying that before the incident they had known him as a very healthy person in good physical condition and that he had only started complaining of pain in the groin area after the incident when they had visited him in hospital . In particular , CARDINAL individuals stated that on DATE , while removing the bedpan used by the applicant , they had noticed blood in his urine .

On DATE the applicant consulted an urologist from the municipal hospital who diagnosed him with post - catheter urethritis . On DATE he was diagnosed with chronic cystitis and pyelonephritis . Bladder and urethra perforation and bladder injury were not ruled out .

On DATE the applicant complained to the office of the transport prosecutor of the LOC that his urogenital apparatus had been damaged as a result of the beatings by the guards on DATE of the incident .

On various dates the medical personnel questioned during the investigation into the shooting incident stated that they had not seen any bodily injuries other than the gunshot wounds . The trousers worn by the applicant during the incident and removed later for surgery had been lost or disposed of at the hospital .

DATE the applicant underwent in - patient treatment on several occasions , including several operations to his urogenital apparatus . At present he has to use a nephrostome ( a catheter removing urine directly from the kidneys ) .

On DATE an investigator from the office of the transport prosecutor of PERSON examined the site of the incident . On DATE the guards present during the incident were tested for the presence of alcohol in their bodies using a breath alcohol testing device . S. ’s data were recorded as CARDINAL .

On DATE the deputy transport prosecutor of PERSON opened a criminal investigation on account of the serious bodily harm suffered by the applicant . The latter was granted the procedural status of witness .

The investigation was conducted by ORG , GPE ( ЛОВД на станции GPE PERSON области ) .

On DATE the applicant was summoned to be questioned but refused to make any statements referring to poor health .

NORP In DATE and DATE the investigation procured the results of the expert medical and ballistic forensic examinations that had been carried out and questioned the witnesses .

On DATE an expert psychiatric forensic examination found that the applicant had a type of chronic paranoid schizophrenia .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator of ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against S. for lack of corpus delicti . The decision was based on statements by the applicant ’s father and the guards present during the incident , plus the results of several expert examinations . However , on DATE the deputy transport prosecutor of PERSON quashed that decision on account of the erroneous legal qualification of the applicant ’s and PERSON ’s actions , as well as the failure to question the applicant and to collect detailed data about his personality and capabilities , and the case was returned for further investigation .

On DATE the applicant filed a request to be granted victim status in the proceedings . This request was refused by the investigator on the following day on the ground that the applicant had a mental disorder . On DATE the investigator allowed the applicant ’s wife to act as his lawful representative and obtained statements from the applicant .

On an unspecified date the applicant retained legal counsel .

NORP In reply to the complaints of the applicant ’s counsel , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE the deputy transport prosecutor of PERSON and the deputy prosecutor of the Rostov Region respectively refused to grant the applicant victim status , arguing that the infliction of bodily harm had not been unlawful .

By decisions of CARDINAL DATE the investigator again terminated the criminal proceedings against NORP for lack of corpus delicti and refused to open a criminal case against the applicant , referring to his mental disorder . In particular , the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings against PERSON was additionally based on the statements of the applicant , the head of rifle division no . CARDINAL , the experts , the medical personnel and the police , as well as the results of re - enactments of the crime . A copy of the latter decision was sent to the applicant .

NORP However , on DATE these decisions were quashed by the supervising prosecutor , who remitted the case for further investigation . The prosecutor pointed out that there had been no adequate legal qualification of the deliberate damage to property and the murder threats in respect of the guard of the extra - departmental security service by the applicant , and that there was a need for an additional expert psychiatric examination to determine whether the applicant needed compulsory medical treatment .

On DATE the investigator rejected requests by the applicant ’s lawyer for a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE terminating the criminal proceedings against NORP and the results of the medical and psychiatric forensic examinations . He also dismissed the lawyer ’s request for an expert examination of the lawfulness of the use of firearms by PERSON , but granted his request to study the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE .

On DATE the investigator apprised the applicant ’s lawyer and wife of the results of CARDINAL expert psychiatric and medical forensic examinations .

By decisions of DATE the investigator again terminated the criminal proceedings against PERSON and refused to open a criminal case against the applicant for the same reasons as before . A copy of the latter decision was sent to the applicant .

Following a complaint by the applicant ’s wife , on DATE the deputy prosecutor of the Rostov Region quashed the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and returned the case for further investigation . The deputy prosecutor averred that the investigator had not given a legal qualification to the damage to property perpetrated by the applicant , or established the exact whereabouts of the entry and exit holes of the applicant ’s wounds and whether such wounds could have been caused by a single shot . According to the deputy prosecutor , the investigation had also not reconciled the contradictions between the CARDINAL expert psychiatric examinations concerning the need for compulsory medical treatment of the applicant .

On DATE the investigator again refused to grant the applicant victim status in the proceedings . That decision was confirmed on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the investigator apprised the applicant ’s wife and lawyer of the results of the latest forensic medical examination . On DATE he again took decisions to terminate the criminal proceedings against S. for lack of corpus delicti and not to open a criminal case against the applicant on account of his mental - health status . The description of the events by the authorities remained identical throughout the investigation .

Article CARDINAL of the Code defines a victim as a person who has sustained physical , psychological or proprietary damage as the result of a criminal act . The provision further details that a victim has the right , among other things , to know about any charge brought against the accused , to participate in the investigative actions conducted at his or his representative ’s request , to study the criminal case materials upon completion of the investigation and copy them , to receive copies of any decisions concerning the opening , stay or termination of criminal proceedings , as well as decisions granting the status of victim or refusing to do so .

Article CARDINAL of the Code lays down the definition , rights and obligations of a witness in criminal proceedings . In particular , LAW CARDINAL ) provides that a witness is entitled to lodge requests and complaints in respect of the acts or omissions of an investigator , a prosecutor , or a court .

LAW lays down the procedure by which acts or decisions of a court or public official involved in criminal proceedings may be challenged . The acts or omissions of a police officer in charge of an inquiry , an investigator , a prosecutor or a court may be challenged by “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or by “ other persons in so far as the acts and decisions [ in question ] concern those ORG interests ” ( Article CARDINAL ) . Such acts or omissions may be challenged before a prosecutor ( Article CARDINAL ) . Decisions taken by police , investigators or prosecutors not to initiate criminal proceedings , or to terminate them , or any other decision or inaction capable of infringing upon the rights of “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or of “ hindering an individual ’s access to court ” may be subject to judicial review ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Ruling of the Constitutional Court no . CARDINAL-P of DATE specifically invalidated the provision of LAW RSFSR ( in force until DATE ) limiting access to judicial review of a refusal to open a criminal investigation , and conferred access to court in such matters on all persons affected .

Referring to its previous rulings , no . CARDINAL of DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE , as well as to LAW , which guarantees professional legal assistance , in its decision no . PERSON of CARDINAL DATE ORG stated that “ the rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW pertaining to criminal proceedings are conferred not by the formal status of a person in criminal proceedings but by the existence of certain material factors qualifying the de facto situation of this person as needing protection of the pertinent right ” .

The extra - departmental security service of ORG was created by Government decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ the Decree ” ) .

DATE Decree stipulates that the extra - departmental security service was founded for the protection of private property and is guided in its actions by LAW , LAW and other federal laws , the decrees and orders of the President and ORG of GPE , the decisions of the governments of the entities of GPE , the present Decree , and the regulations of ORG of GPE . LAW provides that the extradepartmental security service is managed by ORG , ORG and the specialised police departments at the local level and the level of the federal entities . LAW enables the officers of the extradepartmental security service , among other things , to take individuals suspected of offences against protected property to guardrooms or to police stations in order to conduct personal searches in exceptional circumstances and to use firearms in the situations and in the manner prescribed by law .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Stanislav Shevchuk;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the city of GPE , GPE .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnyas ( ORG ) against the ORG - owned ORG mine in compensation for her husband ’s death as a result of a work - related accident . Subsequently , the mine was reorganised into ORG .

The judgment was not appealed against , became final , and enforcement proceedings were instituted to collect the debt .

DATE and DATE the applicant was paid ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant received the rest of the judgment debt .

The applicant attempted to collect compensation from the debtor company for the delay in enforcement , by way of judicial proceedings ; however her efforts were to no avail .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


CASE OF GRANDE ORIENTE D'ITALIA DI PALAZZO GIUSTINIANI v. ITALY

Preliminary objection rejected (victim);Violation of Art. 11;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+11;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

NORP The applicant association is an NORP masonic association which groups together several lodges . It has been in existence since DATE and is affiliated to ORG .

In NORP law the applicant association has the status of an unrecognised private - law association under LAW . It therefore does not have legal personality . It has filed its ORG with a notary ( notaio ) and anyone can have access to them .

By Regional Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , published in ORG of DATE of DATE , GPE ( “ the Region ” ) laid down the rules to be followed for nominations and appointments to public office for which the Region was the appointing authority ( ORG le nomine e designazioni di spettanza della PERSON ) .

Before the ORG the applicant association complained of the damage allegedly sustained by it as a result of the content of LAW .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE PERSON provides that the rules shall apply to all nominations and appointments by the bodies constituted according to the LAW pursuant to laws , rules , statutes and agreements to posts in “ departments of public - law and private - law authorities and bodies other than LOC . It also provides that the rules shall likewise apply to nominations to CARDINAL regional bodies ( listed in Schedule A to the DATE Law ) and , in some cases , to other regional bodies for which ORG is the appointing authority ( Schedule B to the DATE Law ) .

Section CARDINAL of the PERSON sets out the terms and conditions for submitting applications for nominations and appointments . It provides , inter alia , that candidates must not be LANGUAGE . It is worded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Applications may be submitted by regional councillors and council groups and by professional bodies , organisations and associations active in the fields concerned to the President of ORG and the President of ORG respectively until DATE before the period allowed for a nomination or appointment expires .

Applications must be accompanied by a statement of supporting reasons and a report containing the following particulars :

( a ) NORP municipality of residence , date and place of birth ;

( b ) NORP qualifications ;

( c ) career to date , usual occupation , list of currently and previously held public offices or positions in majority ORG - owned companies and publicly registered private companies ;

( d ) lack of conflict of interest with the office proposed ;

( e ) declaration of non - membership of a masonic lodge ;

( f ) declaration , signed by the candidate , accepting the public office and stating that there is nothing to debar him from office on criminal , civil or administrative grounds .

The declaration of acceptance signed by the candidate must be certified authentic and contain a statement by him of any grounds of incompatibility and of the absence of any grounds debarring him from applying or making it impossible for him to do so , regard being had also to section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE as subsequently amended . ”

NORP In DATE the first committee of ORG rejected a regional bill ( no . CARDINAL ) proposing amendments and additions to LAW no . DATE . The bill was intended , among other things , to abolish the declaration provided for in LAW .

DATE LAW provides :

“ ORG may form associations freely , without authorisation , for purposes not prohibited for individuals by the criminal law .

Secret associations and associations pursuing , even indirectly , a political aim through organisations of a military nature shall be prohibited . ”

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE contains the implementing provisions for LAW with regard to secret associations and provided for the dissolution of the association called “ PCARDINAL Lodge ” . LAW lays down the criteria for regarding an association as being a secret one .

Section CARDINAL sets out the measures to be taken in respect of persons employed in the civil service or appointed to a public office who are suspected of belonging to a secret association .

That section also provides that the regions shall enact regional laws for their officials and persons nominated or appointed by a region to a public office . These regional laws must respect principles laid down in the same provision .

According to the information supplied to the ORG by the applicant association , such laws have been enacted by the regions of GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , PERSON ( PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) and PERSON ( PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) .

CARDINAL of these regional laws provide that persons nominated or appointed to public office must name the associations to which they belong ( section CARDINAL of the GPE law and section CARDINAL of the PERSON law ) . The other laws lay down the penalties to be imposed on persons so nominated or appointed if it transpires that they are members of a secret association ( section CARDINAL of the Emilia - Romagna law , LAW . The Emilia - Romagna law also contains a prohibition on nominating or appointing persons affiliated to secret associations ( section CARDINAL of the Emilia - Romagna law ) .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC .

On DATE police searched the applicant 's house .

On DATE the ORG found , upon the applicant 's complaint , that the search had been unlawful . The judgment was not appealed against and acquired legal force DATE . On DATE the Presidium of ORG rejected the ORG 's application for supervisory review and upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant 's action against ORG of GPE for compensation of non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the unlawful search and awarded the applicant MONEY . By a decision of DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .

On DATE the applicant forwarded the writ of execution to ORG , but on DATE ORG returned it to the applicant on the ground that he had failed to submit a duly certified copy of the judgment of DATE and a payment request with indication of his bank account .

On DATE the applicant re - submitted the enforcement materials to ORG . However , on DATE ORG returned them to the applicant for the reason that the date of delivery of the judgment had been indicated incorrectly .

On DATE the enforcement documents were once again forwarded to ORG .

The date on which the judgment was enforced is disputed by the parties . According to the Government , the judgment was fully enforced on DATE . From the applicant 's submissions it follows that he had received the amount awarded by the judgment of DATE on DATE .


CASE OF NEBUSOVA v. HUNGARY AND SLOVAKIA

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She has a son whose father , a NORP national , lives in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the Bratislava CARDINALth ORG ( GPE ) ordered the father to pay child maintenance .

On DATE the applicant , on behalf of her son , filed a petition with ORG for the judicial enforcement of the maintenance payments . She claimed that , since DATE , the father had not been paying the maintenance regularly or in full .

On DATE the ORG increased the amount of child maintenance payable by the father retroactively , as from DATE . The judgment became final and binding on DATE .

On DATE ORG forwarded the applicant ’s petition for enforcement to ORG ( GPE ) under a DATE treaty between former GPE and GPE . On DATE enforcement proceedings were instituted before ORG .

On DATE ORG , having heard the debtor and obtained documents from his employer and the bank handling the transfer of child maintenance payments in foreign currency , informed GPE directly of its finding that the debtor had been making regular payments . Since no reply or acknowledgement was received from the NORP authorities , ORG attempted service through ORG Service was finally acknowledged on DATE .

On DATE the applicant had answered the debtor ’s objection lodged in the meantime . She requested ORG to re - examine the amount and regularity of the payments . On DATE the court received information from the bank that some payments had been withheld on account of the applicant ’s failure to submit a certificate of school attendance , which was required once her son had reached the age of DATE .

In DATE or DATE ORG observed that the applicant ’s petition for enforcement concerned amounts due for DATE . It informed her that a claim for maintenance concerning any periods preceding the claim by DATE could only be enforced if she proved that the father had acted in bad faith or that she had had serious and justified reasons for not having petitioned for enforcement earlier . The court invited the applicant to substantiate within DATE of service of the decision whether either of these conditions was met . The decision was served on the applicant through ORG on DATE . On DATE she replied via ORG ( GPE ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s petition for enforcement finding that , despite its above instruction , the applicant had failed to provide the relevant information . The decision was served through ORG . On the applicant ’s appeal in DATE , the GPE - Abaúj - Zemplén County Regional Court ( GPE ) quashed the first - instance order and remitted the case to ORG .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG declared the decisions of GPE executable . This decision became final on DATE .

On DATE execution proceedings were instituted against the father . It appears that on CARDINAL DATE and DATE , respectively , the judicial executor attempted to attach the father ’s salary and tangible assets .

On DATE the father filed with ORG an objection to the execution . After the applicant ’s claims had been recalculated ( given that the debt was determined in NORP currency , whereas the applicant had claimed payments in NORP dollars , and the amounts were deducted from the debtor ’s salary in NORP currency ) , the execution order was supplemented on DATE and served on DATE .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

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

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE , leaving CARDINAL children born in DATE and DATE . DATE after the death of his wife the applicant made an oral inquiry and was told he was not entitled to widows’ benefits . His second claim for widows’ benefits was made in DATE and was rejected on DATE and again on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . The applicant appealed this decision . On DATE the applicant was informed that his appeal had been dismissed .

The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits or tax allowances were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV .


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

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

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

NORP In DATE the applicant was convicted of the murder of CARDINAL men and of the attempted murder of CARDINAL others . The bodies of the deceased had been variously dismembered , buried , burned , boiled and/or disposed of otherwise . He was arrested when a drain cleaning company , called to his building to investigate a blocked drain , found human flesh . The applicant had confessed to numerous additional killings , but identification of all of the victims was not possible at that point . The applicant is subject to a whole life tariff and has always been a Category A security prisoner . ORG ( see below ) later described his offences as “ as grave and depraved as it is possible to imagine ” .

NORP In DATE a journalist published a book about the murders entitled “ Killing for Company ” : it drew extensively on the applicant ’s notes written whilst on remand and it contained graphic descriptions of the applicant ’s crimes .

NORP In DATE the applicant began to write his autobiography . By DATE his work amounted to CARDINAL closely typed pages . He handed the manuscript to his then solicitor , with a view to publication , who took it with him when he left the prison . The prison authorities did not know about , or consent to , the manuscript leaving the prison . A number of copies were made and these are still , unpublished , outside the prison . ORG later described the manuscript as falling into CARDINAL parts . The first concerned aspects of the applicant ’s life before he committed the offences and contained explicit details of sexual encounters with various men . The second concerned the offences and included considerable detail of the killings and the ways in which the bodies of the victims were abused , dismembered and disposed of . The third – the longest part – was essentially a diary of prison experiences with reflections on the criminal justice system . On DATE the applicant ’s then solicitor wrote to the prison stating that the applicant intended to publish the manuscript “ at DATE ” and offering the Governor the opportunity to read it “ in case it should be thought that any abuse of the legal visit has occurred ” . However , in a subsequent letter that solicitor informed the Governor that he no longer had instructions to permit the prison authorities to read the manuscript .

On DATE a new solicitor sent a copy of the manuscript in a sealed package to the prison with a cover letter stating that it was legally privileged material to be handed to the applicant unopened but disclosing the nature of the material . The Governor returned it to the solicitor on the basis that it was not legal correspondence . On DATE the solicitor wrote to the prison claiming the right to send the manuscript to the applicant and on CARDINAL DATE the Governor replied noting that it was clear that manuscript was intended for publication , that correspondence in and out of the prison which contained material intended for publication was restricted under paragraph ORG ) of Standing Order No . CARDINAL ( “ SOCARDINALB ” ) and that it was necessary for the prison service to examine the material in order to determine if SOCARDINALB applied .

The applicant began judicial review proceedings . On DATE the High Court found that the prison authorities had the right to examine the manuscript to see whether it would be in accordance with the rules for it to be passed to the applicant and dismissed the application . The judgment noted that it was not in dispute that the applicant ’s objective was to rework the manuscript for publication .

NORP The prison authorities then read the manuscript . By letter dated DATE the applicant was informed by the Governor of the decision of the prison service that the manuscript would not be passed on to him :

“ ORG has now read the manuscript ... It has decided not to allow the manuscript to be passed to [ the applicant ] and because of this I am returning the manuscript to you .

ORG considers that the manuscript is material intended for publication , that it is about [ the applicant ’s ] offences and that it does not consist of serious representations about a conviction or sentence and does not form part of serious comment about crime , the processes of justice or the penal system . [ The applicant ] is not permitted to send such material out of prison : [ SOCARDINALB ] paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) ; Standing Order CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL . Because the manuscript has been out of prison for DATE , it is likely that copies have been made by third parties . However , to date [ the applicant ] has not caused the manuscript to be published and has indicated that he wishes to do further work on it . The Secretary of ORG has no reason to believe that any such further work would alter the character of the manuscript .

The only way in which the Secretary of ORG can in practice realistically seek to prevent [ the applicant ] from publishing such material is by withholding the manuscript from [ the applicant pursuant to rules CARDINAL and/or CARDINAL of FAC ... and/or paragraph CARDINAL of SOCARDINALB [ see relevant domestic law below ] .

The reasons why the Secretary of ORG has concluded that publication of the manuscript , or of a revised version of it , would be contrary to paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) ... are as follows .

The manuscript is about [ the applicant ] . But it is also about his offences : the offences themselves , how [ the applicant ] came to commit them , and how he is now being punished for them . The offences are an integral part of the manuscript .

The manuscript does not consist of serious representations about conviction or sentence or form part of serious comment about crime , the processes of justice or the penal system . Rather it is a platform for [ the applicant ] to seek to justify his conduct and denigrate people he dislikes . The Secretary of ORG believes that his decision is in accordance with LAW . He accepts that withholding the manuscript is an interference with [ the applicant ’s ] freedom of expression . But he considers that this is justified in the circumstances .

The withholding of the manuscript is prescribed by law , for the reasons set out above .

The withholding of the manuscript pursues a legitimate aim , namely the protection of morals , the protection of the reputation or the rights of others and the protection of information received in confidence . The manuscript contains several lurid and pornographic passages . It contains highly personal details of a number of [ the applicant ’s ] offences . It seeks to portray [ the applicant ] as a morally and intellectually superior being who justifiably holds others in contempt . Its publication would be likely to cause great distress to [ the applicant ’s ] surviving victims and to the families of all his victims , and would be likely to cause a justifiable sense of outrage among the general public .

The withholding of the manuscript is a proportionate response in the circumstances . There is a pressing social need to avoid the harm described above . No lesser measure will avoid that harm . [ the applicant ] is free to send out writings that comply with the terms of ORG and the Standing Orders .

In reaching his decision , the Secretary of ORG has borne in mind that [ the applicant ] is serving a whole life tariff . The Secretary of ORG ’s present view is that for as long as [ the applicant ] remains in prison , preventing the publication of the material in the manuscript is justified , no matter how long that may be . ”

The applicant sought leave to challenge by judicial review the decision of DATE and on DATE ORG refused his application . The applicant relied on CARDINAL grounds .

In the first place , the applicant submitted that paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) of SOCARDINALB was unlawful given Article CARDINAL of the Convention . He argued that ORG had neither expressly not impliedly conferred upon the prison Governor or service the power to regulate matters beyond the prison walls , any implied power was limited to matters concerning good order and discipline and prison security so that the prevention of harm to the families of victims and the prevention of public outrage were not matters for a prison Governor . ORG found it abundantly clear that section CARDINAL of LAW enabled the Secretary of ORG to promulgate LAW of the DATE Rules which conferred upon him a discretion to impose “ any restriction or condition , either generally or in a particular case , upon the communications to be permitted between a prisoner and other persons ” , provided that he considered that it was Convention compliant . Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) was the result of such an exercise of discretion . Once it was accepted that the paragraph allowed the Secretary of ORG to concern himself with consequential effects outside the prison , and not just matters such as internal prison security , it followed that he could restrict a prisoner ’s freedom of expression in pursuance of the legitimate aim of , inter alia , the prevention of disorder or crime , the protection of morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . This case was , in the High Court ’s view , “ an object lesson in why private feelings and public outrage may be matters of highly relevant concern ” . Paragraph CARDINAL struck a balance which , in principle , complied with LAW acknowledging as it did the prisoner ’s right to expression as regards serious representations but restricting it in relation to other matters .

Secondly , the applicant maintained that paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) could not apply to autobiographical writings . ORG found that LAW did not confer special status on autobiographical work , whatever its nature or content , and the solution was to be found in the general principles of LAW .

Thirdly , the applicant argued that the application of that paragraph was disproportionate or irrational : it was a futile exercise since copies of the manuscript existed already outside the prison and since the material was already in the public domain given the book “ Killing for Company ” ; the applicant wished to work on it to make it less offensive and its later dissemination could be controlled ; and what was at issue was the return of the manuscript which had been in the prison for DATE without objection . ORG found :

“ The decision letter ... unquestionably carried out a proportionality assessment . ... I am entirely satisfied that his decision satisfies the demands of proportionality and the test of rationality . ... The Secretary of ORG is entitled , and in my view right , to take the view that , notwithstanding the risk of publication of material which is already in hands outside his control , it is not futile to prevent [ the applicant ] from doing what he wishes to do – that is , publish his material in a revised form . The history of the original movement of the material out of prison , putting it at its lowest , justifies the Secretary of ORG ’s view that there is a significant risk that , if the material is entrusted to [ the applicant ] , it may later leave the prison in a revised form without the knowledge or consent of the prison authorities . I am wholly unpersuaded that what is already in the public domain , in particular in ORG , is such as to render any further restriction pointless . There is an appreciable difference between the publication of material which is all the prisoner ’s own work and the publication of his account by another person over whom the prisoner had no control . The difference is highlighted by the fact that [ the applicant ] intends to dispute significant parts of [ the previously published book ] .

I have already explained ... that ... the Secretary of ORG is entitled to have regard to the likely effect of publication on members of the public , including survivors and the families of victims of [ the applicant ’s ] serial offences . I am unimpressed by the suggestion that anyone can choose not to read whatever may be published .

... I have not read the entirety of [ the applicant ’s ] material . To do so would take DATE . However , from what I have seen of it and from what I have learned from the witness statements of PERSON ( filed on behalf of [ the applicant ] ) and Professor PERSON ( filed on behalf of the Secretary of ORG ) , I am satisfied that the Secretary of ORG reached unimpeachable conclusions about it – both as regards proportionality and as regards its falling outside the “ serious representations ” and “ serious comment ” exceptions in paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) .

... although the majority of [ the applicant ’s ] submissions on proportionality were made in the context of LAW , [ he ] also sought to rely on LAW ... The arguments on behalf of [ the applicant ] which failed to relation to LAW produce no more favourable an analysis in relation to LAW . ”

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . He again argued that paragraph CARDINAL of SOCARDINALB fell outside the powers conferred on the Secretary of ORG by LAW . Having reviewed relevant domestic law , ORG confirmed that paragraph CARDINAL did not exceed LAW in that section CARDINAL of the DATE Act spoke not only of the regulation and management of prisons but about control of prisoners . The applicant further argued that paragraph CARDINAL of SOCARDINALB itself conflicted with LAW . ORG , in the first place , found the limitation in paragraph CARDINAL of SOCARDINALB to be consistent with relevant domestic jurisprudence as regards LAW and prisoners :

“ Criminals who are deprived of their liberty by a sentence of imprisonment are deprived of enjoyment of their possessions and of communication with the outside world , save in so far as the prison authorities permit this . Prison rules must necessarily make provision for the use prisoners may make of their possessions and for what may be sent from the outside world in to prisoners and what prisoners may send out . [ The applicant ] does not challenge this . The issue is the matters to which the Secretary of ORG can properly have regard when making rules in relation to these matters .

... GPE legislation is not required to spell out those aspects of a prison regime that properly constitute an incident of the punishment of deprivation of liberty . The powers conferred on the Secretary of ORG under the [ CARDINAL Act ] include , at least , the power to have regard , when regulating what a prisoner can and can not do , to the natural incidents of penal imprisonment .

It is not so easy to define the test of what are the natural incidents of penal imprisonment , and these are certainly susceptible to change as a result of changes in attitude to punishment . In [ R(Mellor ) v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ) ] at paragraph CARDINAL the Master of the Rolls expressed the view that :

‘ GPE sanctions are imposed , in part , to exact retribution for wrongdoing . If there were no system of penal sanctions , members of the public would be likely to take the law into their own hands . In my judgment it is legitimate to have regard to public perception when considering the characteristic of a penal system.’

We endorse that statement . In considering what restrictions can properly be placed on prisoners as natural incidents of imprisonment regard can be had to the expectations of right thinking members of the democracy whose laws have deprived the prisoners of their liberty .

In his decision letter , the Governor made the point that publication of [ the applicant ’s ] typescript would be likely to cause great distress to families of his victims and a justifiable sense of outrage among the general public . There is ample authority that freedom of expression includes the freedom to publish outrageous matter . But the outrage referred to by the Governor was not outrage at the subject matter , but outrage that a prisoner should be permitted to publish such material from his prison cell . ...

[ In the present case , we ] are concerned with a tightly drawn restriction on a prisoner writing about his crimes , which is subject to an exception for ‘ serious representations about conviction or DATE or ‘ part of serious comment about crime , the processes of justice or the penal system’ .

We do not believe that any penal system could readily contemplate a regime in which a rapist or a murderer would be permitted to publish an article glorifying in the pleasure that his crime had caused him . NORP jurisprudence suggests that to restrict prisoners from publishing such matter is a legitimate exercise of the power conferred on the Secretary of ORG by FAC . We have concluded that , from the viewpoint of that [ domestic ] jurisprudence , the wording of LAW ( CARDINAL)(c ) draws the line appropriately between what is and what is not acceptable conduct on behalf of a prisoner and falls within the powers conferred on the Secretary of ORG by FAC . ”

ORG also found that this ORG ’s jurisprudence did not mean that paragraph CARDINAL of SOCARDINALB was in conflict with LAW . That court also rejected the proposition that the wording of paragraph CARDINAL was too vague to indicate to an inmate what would fall foul of the law , finding that the wording of the exception was “ clear and readily capable of application by a prison Governor ” .

ORG went on to review this ORG ’s case - law . While ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIX ) found that a blanket ban on voting was disproportionate , it accepted that it was open to the legislative to tailor disenfranchisement to particular offences . In PERSON v. the GPE ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) the ORG accepted that some measure of control over the content of ORG communications ( the scope of which was not in issue in that case ) was not in itself incompatible with the LAW . The significance of ORG ( Silver and Others v. GPE ( DATE ) , application nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL et seq . , ORG DATE ) was not so much that it was a decision endorsing a restriction that had much in common with that under consideration in the appeal ( Silver was decided DATE previously and standards could change ) . It was rather that it exemplified the approach of considering what restrictions on freedom of expression are normal incidents of imprisonment . That approach was more clearly demonstrated by the ORG ’s approval of the prohibition of letters in connection with business matters without the prior leave of the Secretary of ORG : in this respect , the Commission commented that it was , in principle , a normal consequence of imprisonment , necessary ‘ for the prevention of disorder’ that convicted prisoners cease their professional activities during their term of imprisonment . ORG noted that this ORG had not found it necessary to comment on this conclusion of the ORG and affirmed both decisions on narrower grounds than that adopted by the ORG .

ORG concluded that this ORG ’s jurisprudence did not support the applicant ’s arguments that it was disproportionate for imprisonment to carry with it some restrictions on freedom of expression or for those restrictions to have regard to the effect of the exercise of that freedom in the world outside the prison walls . Paragraph CARDINAL was not therefore in conflict with the requirements of LAW .

As to whether the restriction was disproportionate on the facts of his case , the applicant argued , in the first place , that it was futile . A book had been already published containing graphic descriptions of his crimes which he had provided to its author and there were copies of the manuscript outside the prison the publication of which the Secretary of ORG was powerless to prevent . ORG found these submissions paradoxical : the applicant ’s primary argument was that the Governor ’s conduct was illegal in preventing him from publishing his typescript and yet he was also submitting that the Governor ’s conduct could not pose any significant impediment to that . It continued :

“ We do not consider that there is any merit in this part of [ the applicant ’s ] case . The fact that , DATE , PERSON published an account of [ the applicant ’s ] crimes is not likely to do much to diminish the public outrage that will be felt if the prison service permits [ the applicant ] himself to publish his own account . [ The applicant ] has not caused or permitted the typescript to be published in its present form . He has made it plain that he wants to work on it before publication . We do not consider that the prison service can be expected to waive prison rules in order to assist him to achieve a goal which is contrary to the Secretary of ORG ’s policy . [ The applicant ] has argued that he should be given the opportunity to transform his typescript into a work which makes serious representations about his conviction or sentence or serious comment about crime , the processes of justice or the penal system . There is no evidence that [ the applicant ] has any such intention . ”

The applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG arguing that ORG erred in law and invoking LAW : the prison service did not have the power to regulate his LAW outside the prisons ; that refusing to return the manuscript was disproportionate since it was futile to prevent publication since the material was in the public domain ; that paragraph CARDINAL of SOCARDINALB was too vague ( he also invoked LAW in this respect ) ; that the application of paragraph CARDINAL was disproportionate in that it would never be possible for the applicant to publish his writing in his lifetime ( he was serving a life sentence ) ; and that ORG applied an insufficiently intrusive form of review by placing itself in the shoes of the decision maker , the latter of whom was not qualified to make the decision he did ( Article CARDINAL was also invoked in this context ) .

On DATE the applicant was refused , by summary decision , leave to appeal to ORG .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act vest in the Secretary of ORG for ORG all existing powers exercisable in relation to prisons whether under statute , common law or charter , and grant the Secretary of ORG power to do all acts necessary for the maintenance of prisons and prisoners . LAW reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG shall have the general superintendence of prisons and shall make the contracts and do the other acts necessary for the maintenance of prisons and the maintenance of prisoners .

( CARDINAL ) Officers of the Secretary of ORG duly authorised in that behalf shall visit all prisons and examine the state of buildings , the conduct of officers , the treatment and conduct of prisoners and all other matters concerning the management of prisons and shall ensure that the provisions of this LAW and of any rules made under LAW are duly complied with .

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG and his officers may exercise all powers and jurisdiction exercisable at common law , by ORG , or by charter by visiting justices of a prison . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provides :

“ Rules for the management of prisons , remand centres , detention centres and ORG institutions

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG may make rules for the regulation and management of prisons ... and for the classification , treatment , employment , discipline and control of persons required to be detained therein . ”

The DATE Rules ( as amended by FAC ) ( No . CARDINAL ) Rules DATE ) , in so far as relevant , provide as follows :

“ DATE . ( CARDINAL ) Without prejudice to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Prison Act DATE and except as provided by these Rules , a prisoner shall not be permitted to communicate with any person outside the prison , or such person with him , except with the leave of the Secretary of ORG or as a privilege under rule CARDINAL .

( CARDINAL ) Notwithstanding paragraph ( CARDINAL ) above , and except as otherwise provided in these Rules , the Secretary of ORG may impose any restriction or condition either generally or in a particular case , upon the communications to be permitted between a prisoner and other persons if he considers that the restriction or condition to be imposed-

( a ) does not interfere with the convention rights of any person ; or

( b)(i ) is necessary on grounds specified in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) below ;

( ii ) reliance on the grounds is compatible with the convention right to be interfered with ; and ;

( iii ) the restriction or condition is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved .

( CARDINAL ) The grounds referred to in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) above are-

( a ) the interests of national security ;

( b ) the prevention , detection , investigation or prosecution of crime ;

( c ) the interests of public safety ;

( d ) securing or maintaining prison security or good order and discipline in prison ;

( e ) the protection of health or morals ;

( f ) the protection of the reputation of others ;

( g ) maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary ; or

( h ) the protection of the rights and freedoms of any persons . ”

Rule DATE provides :

“ No person shall , without authority , convey into or throw into or deposit in a prison , or convey or throw out of a prison , or convey to a prisoner , or deposit in any place with intent that it shall come into the possession of a prisoner , any money , clothing , food , drink , tobacco , letter , paper , book , tool , controlled drug , firearm , explosive , weapon or other article whatever . Anything so conveyed , thrown or deposited may be confiscated by the governor . ”

NORP In order to ensure uniformity of practice throughout prisons , the Secretary of ORG also issues to prison governors , pursuant to his general powers and duties under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , management guidance or directives in the form of SOs . While previously these SOs were not made available to the public or prisoners , they were at the relevant time available , inter alia , in prison libraries and on ORG website . SOs have since been replaced by ORG .

SOCARDINALB dealt with communications between prisoners and other persons , is entitled “ restrictions on general correspondence ” and where relevant provides :

“ CARDINAL . The examination and reading of correspondence to and from inmates is undertaken to prevent its use to jeopardise the good order of establishments , to detect and prevent offences against prison discipline or the criminal law and to satisfy other ordinary and reasonable requirements of prison administration . Accordingly the extent to which correspondence needs to be read will vary according to the nature of the establishment , inmate and correspondence ....

For the purpose of restrictions on content , DATE correspondence , both incoming and outgoing , is divided into the following groups ( CARDINAL ) general correspondence , that is to say correspondence with ... individuals ... [ excluding , for example , correspondence between a prisoner and his legal adviser ] .

General correspondence ... may not contain the following :

( CARDINAL ) Material which is intended for publication or for use by radio or television ( or which , if sent , would be likely to be published or broadcast ) if it ...

( c ) is about the inmate ’s crime or past offences or those of others , except where it consists of serious representations about conviction or sentence or forms part of serious comment about crime , the processes of justice or the penal system ... ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant manoeuvred his car negligently in the street and crashed into another car which was being driven by PERSON . As a result of the incident , PERSON . sustained concussion and injuries of medium severity .

Following the incident , the applicant was charged with the crime , set out in LAW , of breaching traffic rules resulting in injuries of medium severity to the victim . As a preventive measure , the applicant signed a written undertaking not to abscond .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , taking note of the fact that the applicant had failed to appear at the hearing of his case , scheduled for DATE , replaced the written undertaking by the applicant for his detention in custody .

DATE , the applicant was undergoing medical treatment in GPE no . ORG . According to the applicant , he was visited there by police officers who handcuffed him and guarded him until DATE of the medical treatment . The officers allegedly did not allow him to use the toilet and prevented him from seeing his relatives and friends . The applicant did not complain to the investigating authorities on account of the conduct of the police officers .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in a cell at the Dnipropetrovsk ORG .

On DATE the ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) rejected the applicant 's appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG , stating that , under domestic law , the decision was not subject to appeal .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE no . CARDINAL ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of a crime under LAW and sentenced him to DATE “ restriction of liberty ” and a DATE driving ban . It further stated that the sentence should be calculated from DATE and maintained the preventive measure ( detention in custody ) in respect of the applicant .

On DATE and DATE the applicant complained to the President of ORG and the President of ORG , alleging that his detention in custody had been unlawful . The complaints were unsuccessful .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE , alleging specifically that his detention had been unlawful since , first , under the provisions of LAW the crime he was charged with did not entail the possibility of pre - trial detention , and , secondly , LAW provided that he should have been released immediately after the court hearing of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal as unfounded and upheld the judgment of DATE , which then came into effect . ORG ordered that the period of the applicant 's detention in custody should be reckoned as a part of the applicant 's sentence .

On DATE the applicant was released from the GPE SIZO , and moved to no . CARDINAL ORG to serve his sentence .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment of DATE , contending , in particular , that his detention in custody had been contrary to ORG and CARDINAL of LAW and LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's cassation appeal as unfounded . It noted , inter alia , that the period of the applicant 's detention in custody had been reckoned as a part of his sentence and therefore the procedural shortcomings complained of , namely , the application of the preventive measure of detention did not necessitate the quashing of the judgments of the lower courts .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ The following types of punishment may be imposed on persons who are found guilty of crimes :

CARDINAL) arrest ;

CARDINAL ) NORP restriction of liberty ; ...

CARDINAL ) NORP imprisonment for a defined term ;

CARDINAL ) NORP life imprisonment . ”

“ Restriction of liberty is a type of punishment which consists in holding a person under supervision in an open - prison - type establishment without isolating such a person from society and including an obligation on him or her to work . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Violation of traffic safety rules or misuse of a vehicle by a driver , if this results in injuries of medium severity to the victim , –

shall be punished either by a fine in an amount of CARDINAL times the tax -free DATE income , or by correctional work for DATE , or by arrest for DATE , or by restriction of liberty for DATE , combined , if required , with a driving ban for DATE . ... ”

LAW deals with preventive measures that can be applied in the course of criminal proceedings . The relevant provisions of that LAW read as follows :

“ The preventive measures are as follows :

( CARDINAL ) a written undertaking not to abscond ;

( CARDINAL ) a personal guarantee ;

( CARDINAL ) the guarantee of a public organisation or labour collective ;

( DATE ) NORP bail ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP detention in custody ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP supervision by the command of a military unit .

As a temporary preventive measure , a suspect may be detained on the grounds and pursuant to the procedure provided for by Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Code . ”

“ Detention in custody as a preventive measure shall be applied in cases concerning crimes for which the law envisages a punishment of DATE imprisonment . In exceptional circumstances this preventive measure can be applied in cases concerning crimes for which the law envisages a punishment of DATE imprisonment . ... ”

“ If a defendant fails to appear at a court hearing in a case in which his appearance is obligatory , without a valid reason , ... the court shall adjourn consideration of the case ...

In addition , the court ... may order the defendant 's compulsory appearance and apply a more severe preventive measure ... ”

“ Upon the acquittal of the defendant , or his release from sentence , or the imposition on him of a punishment other than imprisonment , the court shall immediately release the defendant from custody in the courtroom if he or she is in detention . ”

“ When adopting a judgment by which the defendant is sentenced to a certain type of punishment , the court should consider the question of applying the preventive measure for the period before the judgment comes into effect , and has the right to apply new preventive measures , or quash , change , or maintain the preventive measures that have been applied earlier .

Application of such a preventive measure as detention in custody shall be permissible only on the grounds set out in relevant Articles of LAW of this Code . ”

“ Persons sentenced to restriction of liberty shall undergo their punishment in open - prison - type establishments ( “ correctional centres ” ) ... ”

“ Persons sentenced to restriction of liberty shall personally relocate to the places in which they are to serve their sentences . ... If a person sentenced to restriction of liberty is detained , he or she shall be released from the detention centre when the sentence comes into effect . ...

the sentenced person , who is detained in custody until the judgment comes into effect , be moved to the place where they must serve their sentence in accordance with the procedure for persons sentenced to imprisonment . In the latter case the sentenced person shall be released from custody upon his or her arrival at the place of serving the sentence . ... ”

“ Persons sentenced to restriction of liberty shall be entitled :

... to have unlimited short - term visits and long - term visits ( of DATE ) once a month ;

to leave the correctional centre for short periods of time , with appropriate permission ...

Persons sentenced to restriction of liberty shall be obliged :

... to work diligently at the designated place ;

to remain under supervision in the correctional centre and to leave it only by special permission issued by the administration of the correctional centre ...

to live , as a rule , in special dormitories ...

After DATE of the sentence has been served , those persons who have not violated disciplinary rules may be allowed to live outside the dormitories with their families ...

Those persons shall appear at the correctional centre for registration not CARDINAL times a week . ... ”

Section CARDINAL of the LAW reads as follows :

“ ... The basic requirements of the pre - trial detention regime are the isolation of detainees , the full supervision of them and separation from each other , as provided by LAW ... ”

NORP The other relevant provisions of this Act describing the pre - trial detention regime can be found in the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . MONEY , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Just satisfaction partially reserved;Costs and expenses partial award

In DATE the applicant ’s father purchased from S. a property located in Łomża .

NORP In DATE ORG ( ORG ) asked ORG ( Sąd Grodzki ) to insert a notice in the register stating that an expropriation procedure had begun in respect of the property , the registered owner of which was Mr PERSON , the applicant ’s father . On DATE ORG decided to file the application with ORG and notify the interested parties .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) expropriated PERSON ORG property in the public interest in accordance with the decree of DATE . Compensation was awarded to the former owner by a decision of DATE , upheld on DATE . The payment in compensation was credited to the ORG deposit account but neither the former owner nor his heirs claimed it .

On DATE the Minister for Economic Affairs ( Minister PERSON ) dismissed an application by the applicant ’s father for the expropriation decision to be set aside .

On DATE , after PERSON death , the applicant ’s mother lodged an application to set aside the decision of DATE . On DATE the Minister for Economic Affairs declared the entirety of the proceedings since the DATE expropriation decision null and void on account of a manifest mistake in law . In DATE the owner had entered into a leasing contract with the ORG authorities and so it could not legitimately be stated that the land and the building had been occupied unilaterally by the administrative authorities . Consequently , the situation did not fall within the scope of the DATE expropriation decree .

The Łomża regional police authority ( PERSON ) , which currently occupies the LOC , appealed against the Minister ’s decision to ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE .

On DATE that court set aside the decision and remitted the case to the Minister for reconsideration .

In a decision of DATE , upheld by ORG on DATE , the Minister reiterated his finding that the proceedings since DATE were null and void .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant and his sister should each inherit CARDINAL of their deceased GPE estate .

The tax authorities asked the applicant to pay inheritance tax . The applicant asked for the deadline for payment to be extended because negotiations with a view to the sale or rent of the building were under way with the regional police authority , which was occupying the LOC . On DATE , having received confirmation from the regional police authority that negotiations were indeed taking place , the Chairman of ORG extended the deadline . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) extended the deadline to a date which has not been specified .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy Wydział Ksiąg Wieczystych ) entered the property in ORG , identifying the applicant and his sister as the owners . However , they have never obtained its return .

The negotiations on the sale of the property foundered and , moreover , the occupier never paid the rent fixed by the owners . Since DATE the applicant has been paying property tax .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) , assisted by ORG Director ( ORG ) , acting on behalf of the regional police authority ( the current occupier ) , brought an action before the civil courts asserting acquisition of title to the property through adverse possession ( stwierdzenie nabycia własności nieruchomosci przez zasiedzenie ) . On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings at the request of ORG Director , taking the view that the outcome of the administrative proceedings pending before ORG on the application to set aside the DATE expropriation decision would have a decisive impact on the action for acquisition of title to the property through adverse possession . On DATE it lifted the stay at the Director ’s request .

On DATE ORG granted the ORG ’s application , taking the view that the public authority had occupied the premises in good faith for DATE required under LAW of LAW . The decision was upheld on DATE by ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) .

On DATE the Minister of ORG lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) on the applicant ’s behalf . He submitted that in the light of ORG case - law , there could be no possession in good faith where an expropriation decision had been set aside . Consequently , in view of the decision of DATE setting aside the expropriation decision of DATE , the applicant had retrospectively recovered title to the property for the entire period during which the LOC had been occupied by the ORG .

On DATE ORG set aside the lower courts’ decisions and remitted the case to ORG for reconsideration . It pointed out that it had had to rule on the same question on a number of occasions . It had consistently held that if the ORG ’s right to dispose of a property “ like a property owner ” was based on an administrative decision which was subsequently set aside with retrospective effect on account of a manifest mistake of law , the period of occupation could not be taken into account when calculating the period of possession giving title to property through adverse possession for the purposes of LAW .

The case was remitted to ORG . On DATE the ORG Director , who is a representative of the ORG , applied for the proceedings to be stayed on the ground that ORG had asked the Minister of ORG to lodge an appeal on points of law against the decision of DATE in which ORG had ruled that the applicant and his sister should each inherit CARDINAL of their GPE estate .

On DATE ORG of ORG informed the applicant that the ORG had been listed in the register as the owner of the property . It specified , however , that it had added of its own motion a notice referring to the proceedings brought for the acquisition of title to the property through adverse possession in order to protect the applicant ’s and his sister ’s claims .

On DATE the Minister of ORG lodged the requested appeal with ORG and on DATE ORG stayed the proceedings .

On DATE ORG granted the appeal on points of law , set aside the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG . It pointed out that the first issue to be decided was whether the heirs’ parents were indeed the owners of the property in question . When the property had been purchased by the applicant ’s parents , the law had required that a notarial deed be drawn up for the purchase to be valid . In the absence of such a deed , and where no one had been in possession of the property long enough to acquire title to it by adverse possession , the assets of the estate were deemed to comprise only the possession ( posiadanie ) of the property , not the title to it .

ORG also noted that the appeal had been lodged after the expiry of the time - limit ( DATE after the disputed decision ) set by LAW , but considered that questions relating to property law required special protection and that it would have been detrimental to GPE interests to dismiss the application for being out of time because to do so would have infringed a right which was actually vested in another person .

On DATE ORG , to which the case had been remitted , ruled that the applicant ’s GPE estate should be shared equally between the applicant and his sister . The assets of the estate comprised the disputed property . The decision was identical in substance to the CARDINAL of DATE .

On DATE ORG lifted the stay ordered on DATE on the proceedings for acquisition of title to the property through adverse possession .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG of ORG to have the entry in the register rectified so that he was listed as the owner . The ground for his application was that on DATE ORG had named him and his sister as the inheritors of their GPE property . On DATE ORG asked the applicant to produce a decision proving that the entry in the register was not consistent with the legal status of the property , failing which his application would be dismissed . On DATE the applicant complained about that requirement to ORG , but without success . On DATE ORG of ORG rejected his application to have the entry in the register rectified .

In DATE the applicant was summoned to ORG , which had decided the matter of the division of the estate . He was told that the heirs of PERSON , who had sold the property in issue to the applicant ’s father in DATE , had brought an action to have the proceedings concerning the division of the estate reopened . They said that they had been informed of the outcome of the proceedings by the regional police authority ’s legal adviser and argued that they had rights over the property . On DATE ORG to which the ORG had applied for acquisition of title to the property through adverse possession suspended its consideration of that case pending the outcome of the action to reopen the proceedings concerning the division of the estate .

After hearings held on DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the application by PERSON ’s heirs . Its decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . On DATE S. ’s heirs lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and remitted the case to ORG for reconsideration . It observed that ORG should have satisfied itself not only that the appellant had locus standi , which it had done , but also that the decision taken by ORG on DATE at the end of the proceedings which S. had applied to have reopened had related to his rights .

The case is still pending before ORG .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides :

“ § CARDINAL . Everyone in possession of property although he is not the owner shall acquire title thereto if he has been in continuous and independent possession thereof for DATE , save where he came into such possession in bad faith .

§ CARDINAL . After DATE , persons in possession of property shall acquire title thereto even if they came into possession thereof in bad faith . ”

According to ORG established case - law , if the ORG ’s right to dispose of a property “ like a property owner ” is based on an administrative decision which is subsequently set aside with retrospective effect on account of a manifest mistake of law , the period of occupation may not be taken into account when calculating the period of possession giving title to property through adverse possession for the purposes of Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see , in particular , ORG - CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW Procedure vests ORG administrative bodies with authority to set aside administrative decisions under certain conditions . Article CARDINAL provides that anyone who suffers damage as a result of an administrative decision that may be set aside under Article CARDINAL may bring an action in damages for actual harm done , directed , in principle , against the administrative body which took the decision . The procedure for compensation claims is set out in LAW .


András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife filed for divorce .

After several hearings , on DATE the Pest Central District Court pronounced the parties’ divorce , placed the couple ’s daughter with the mother , ordered the applicant to pay maintenance and suspended his right of access to his child , as he suffered from paranoid psychosis and , in the court ’s view , his conduct was unpredictable .

On DATE ORG upheld part of this decision but remitted certain questions , in particular those concerning maintenance and the applicant ’s visiting rights , to ORG .

The first - instance proceedings were resumed on DATE . The applicant was subjected to an examination by an expert psychiatrist , in whose opinion his access to the child was feasible only under supervision , given his mental state .

On DATE the court held a hearing and issued an order concerning the applicant ’s access rights . This decision was quashed on appeal on DATE .

After several hearings , on DATE ORG issued an order allowing the applicant to meet his daughter once DATE for TIME on the premises of a specialised foundation . Relying on the opinion of the expert psychiatrist , it observed that the applicant ’s ailment prevented him from having greater access to his daughter , then DATE . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE the Pest Central District Court determined the remainder of the action concerning maintenance . In application of section CARDINAL ) of LAW , the court also recapitulated the applicant ’s access rights , in that he was entitled to meet his daughter every DATE , on the premises of the foundation , supervised by a professional .

During these proceedings , the applicant modified his claims on many occasions and filed numerous submissions .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .


Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine under Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants live in GPE .

On DATE ORG and Highways expropriated CARDINAL plots of land belonging to the applicants in GPE in order to build a motorway . A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the relevant amount was paid to the applicants when the expropriation took place .

Following the ORG request for increased compensation , on DATE ORG of First - instance awarded them additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) , plus interest at the statutory rate , applicable at the date of the court ’s decision , running from DATE , the date of the seizure of the plots by ORG and Highways .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG of First - instance .

On DATE ORG and Highways paid the applicants ORG ( MONEY ( ORG ) , interest included .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the ORG v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-IV ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . She is represented before the ORG by Mr Güzel , a lawyer practising in ORG .

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

The applicant married PERSON in DATE and the couple had CARDINAL children . In DATE the applicant ’s husband suffered psychological problems as a result of his financial problems and he left their matrimonial home in DATE . Since that date the applicant has never seen her husband .

On DATE the applicant applied to the PERSON public prosecutor with a petition and informed the prosecutor that her husband was missing . She also informed the prosecutor that her husband was suffering serious psychological problems and asked the prosecutor for assistance to find her husband .

On DATE , DATE after having been thus informed , the PERSON prosecutor took a decision to discontinue the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant ’s husband . As to his reasoning for this decision , the prosecutor stated that the applicant ’s husband had not disappeared in suspicious circumstances and that no evidence of a crime had been found in the investigation .

In DATE the uncle of the applicant ’s husband went to the registry office to obtain a copy of the family ’s registry records for an unconnected purpose . He discovered that there was an entry in the records stating that the applicant ’s husband had been killed in DATE .

On DATE the uncle went to the office of the ORG public prosecutor to ask for clarification as to how the applicant ’s husband had met his death and why the family had never been informed about the death despite the fact that the applicant had informed the prosecutor of her husband ’s disappearance . He also asked the prosecutor where the applicant ’s husband was buried . The prosecutor said that no one knew where the applicant ’s husband was buried and that the authorities had no obligation to hand the body over to the family . The prosecutor further stated that on DATE , following the applicant ’s husband ’s death , he had sent the file to ORG and asked them to make a decision as to whether they wanted to prosecute the applicant ’s deceased husband for membership of the ORG but on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor of ORG had taken a decision not to prosecute the applicant ’s husband as he was dead .

The applicant subsequently obtained a copy of the report of the autopsy which had been carried out on DATE . According to the statement of a village guard which was recorded in the autopsy report , the applicant ’s husband had been in a group of ORG terrorists which had been involved in an armed clash with a group of village guards on DATE . He had been shot and killed and the other members of the ORG team had managed to escape . No other persons had been injured or killed in the clash . According to the autopsy report the applicant ’s husband had been killed by CARDINAL bullets , possibly fired from different weapons .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG for a copy of the investigation file .

On DATE the applicant , with the assistance of her lawyer , applied to ORG and asked for the village guards named in the autopsy report to be prosecuted for her husband ’s murder . She also stated that her husband had never been a ORG member and that he had been suffering serious psychological problems . She further stated that it was cruel that the authorities had not informed her about the killing despite the fact that according to the autopsy report her husband had had his identity card on him .

On DATE ORG prosecutor decided not to prosecute the village guards . The prosecutor stated that although it was established that the applicant ’s husband was killed by the village guards , it was not possible to establish which CARDINAL of the CARDINAL village guards had shot him .

In NORP law – for the purposes of preliminary investigations by prosecutors – criminal acts are divided into CARDINAL categories ; firstly those in respect of which a victim must inform the prosecutor so that an investigation can be started by the latter , and secondly , those in respect of which the victim is not required to make a complaint in order for an investigation to be started by the prosecutor ( LAW , hereinafter the ORG ) . Murder is classified as CARDINAL of the crimes in the second category . However , this does not prevent relatives of victims from lodging criminal complaints with the authorities .

Pursuant to LAW ORG , if there is evidence to suggest that a deceased has not died of natural causes , the police officers or other public officials who have been informed of that fact are required to advise the public prosecutor or a criminal court judge .

A public prosecutor who is informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to the suspicion that an offence has been committed is obliged to investigate the facts by conducting the necessary inquiries to identify the perpetrators ( LAW ) . The public prosecutor may institute criminal proceedings if he or she decides that the evidence justifies the indictment of a suspect ( LAW ORG ) . If it appears that the evidence against a suspect is insufficient to justify the institution of criminal proceedings , the public prosecutor may close the investigation in respect of that person . However , the public prosecutor may decide not to prosecute if , and only if , the evidence is clearly insufficient .

Insofar as a criminal complaint has been lodged , a complainant may file an appeal against the decision of the public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings . This appeal must be lodged , within DATE after notification of this decision to the complainant , with the president of ORG in whose jurisdiction the public prosecutor who had taken the decision not to prosecute works ( LAW ORG ) . The president of ORG may request the public prosecutor to send him or her the investigation file . The president , in order to reach his decision , may also ask for the investigation to be expanded by the local ORG judge ( Article CARDINAL of the ORG ) . If the president concludes that there are insufficient grounds to initiate a prosecution , he or she may reject the appeal ( LAW . If the president agrees with the grounds invoked by the appellant , he or she may decide to order a prosecution . The public prosecutor is obliged to enforce the president ’s decision ( LAW .

According to article CARDINAL of LAW , if a person is killed by CARDINAL or more persons , and if it is not established at the trial which one of these persons caused the death , the prison sentence to be imposed on any of the perpetrators is not CARDINAL and not CARDINAL of the maximum prison sentence stipulated in LAW for the offence of murder .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

Following the applicant 's arrest in DATE and detention in DATE , there were CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings brought against him . By DATE the applicant was convicted for the crimes charged with .

On DATE , in view of all applicant 's convictions and sentences , the competent domestic court imposed a single sentence ( jedinstvena kazna zatvora ) against the applicant . The applicant did not appeal against this judgment .

It would appear that the applicant served incarceration alternating between ORG .

The applicant 's letters to ORG in GPE and GPE , ORG , ORG and ORG , of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , all bore prison stamps dated DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( DATE ) , DATE ( DATE ) , DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , respectively .

ORG letter of DATE , addressed to the applicant , bore the prison stamp of CARDINAL DATE and registration number CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Furthermore , the decisions of ORG in GPE of DATE , ORG of DATE , as well as ORG in GPE of DATE and DATE , also bore the prison stamps dated DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , respectively .

The applicant 's letter of DATE , sent to the ORG , bore the prison stamp dated DATE , as well as registration number CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

In its own letter of DATE , inter alia , ORG therefore informed the applicant in NORP of the said stamp , assuming that he may not have been aware of it .

NORP In his subsequent letter of DATE , the applicant acknowledged that his letter addressed to the ORG had born the prison stamp and stated that he would like to additionally complain about the ORG 's ongoing interference with his correspondence . This letter did not bear any prison stamp or registration number .

In his letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant informed the ORG that , as of DATE , prisoners were allegedly allowed to send their letters without leaving them opened to be stamped by the prison authorities .

The relevant domestic law is set out in the ORG 's judgment of PERSON ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


The applicant , born in DATE , is a citizen of GPE . Before the Court he is represented by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

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

The applicant arrived in GPE on CARDINAL or DATE , holding a tourist visa valid until DATE .

On DATE he applied for asylum with ORG ( ORG invandrarverk ) , claiming that he had left his country to escape slavery . ORG held a hearing with the applicant and his lawyer in DATE .

In written submissions and at the hearing , the applicant supplied the following information . His father , who is a slave belonging to a certain clan , and his mother , who is not a slave , are divorced . He grew up with his mother in the capital PERSON , went to school and later sold clothes in his own shop . His father has a privileged position with his master in the city of LOC and has achieved that his children , though being slaves , do not have to work as such . The applicant has to visit his father ’s master - who also owns the applicant - once a year . On these occasions , the applicant has to perform some minor tasks , inter alia serving tea and going to fetch people . He has never been personally threatened by the authorities , the clan or his owner and has not been politically active against the system of slavery , as there are too many Government spies and he would be at great risk if he engaged in such activities . He obtained his passport by bribing a police officer . After his arrival in GPE , he tore up the passport and other travel documents , as he was afraid of having to return to GPE . The visa to GPE was obtained through the assistance of his uncle who is the SecretaryGeneral for ORG . He did not apply for asylum immediately , believing that it did not matter when he applied .

The applicant further stated that , if expelled to GPE , he would be returned to his father ’s master who might be angry with him as he has run away and who may punish him according to the master ’s own laws . The NORP authorities would not be able to DATE or would not want to – afford him protection . He also fears reprisals from his clan and the ORG , which supports the system of slavery in the country . Thus , he would be exposed to the risk of being tortured or killed upon return .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request and ordered his deportation . ORG did not contest that slavery still existed in parts of GPE . However , it called into question the applicant ’s credibility , noting that he had disposed of his passport after his arrival in GPE and that he had waited a long time before applying for asylum . It also took into account that he had never before expressed his opinions on slavery and that he had never been threatened . Furthermore , the ORG found that it had not been shown that the applicant risked being punished for not visiting his father ’s master . Finally , ORG considered that the general conditions prevailing in GPE did not constitute a reason for granting the applicant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds .

The applicant ’s appeal was rejected by ORG ( Utlänningsnämnden ) on DATE . ORG shared the opinion of ORG and stated , in particular , that the applicant himself had not been held in slavery prior to his leaving PERSON but had been able to study for DATE and later had supported himself by selling clothes in his own shop .

After the Commission had indicated to the respondent Government that it was desirable that the applicant would not be deported to ORG had had an opportunity to examine the present application , ORG , by decision of DATE , stayed the execution of the deportation order against the applicant .


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 Velenje .

On DATE the applicant had a traffic accident . While he was driving a motorcycle , a dog jumped on the applicant and made him fall . The dog ’s owner had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

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

DATE and DATE the applicant made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

On DATE and DATE he lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

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 issue a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) against the decision on costs and expenses . ZT cross - appealed .

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

The decision judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged preliminary written observations with the first - instance court .

On DATE the court held a hearing and rejected the applicant ’s claim for costs and expenses .

The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG .

On DATE the court allowed the appeal and increased the amount of damages awarded .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .