The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a film director . He was born in DATE and resides in GPE .

PERSON wrote the shooting script for , and directed the making of , a video work entitled Visions of Ecstasy . Its running time is TIME , and it contains no dialogue , only music and moving images . According to the applicant , the idea for the film was derived from the life and writings of GPE of GPE , DATE ORG nun and founder of many convents , who experienced powerful ecstatic visions of PERSON .

The action of the film centres upon a youthful actress dressed as a nun and intended to represent GPE . It begins with the nun , dressed loosely in a black habit , stabbing her own hand with a large nail and spreading her blood over her naked breasts and clothing . In her writhing , she spills a chalice of communion wine and proceeds to lick it up from the ground . She loses consciousness . This sequence takes up CARDINAL of the running time of the video . The second part shows PERSON dressed in a white habit standing with her arms held above her head by a white cord which is suspended from above and tied around her wrists . The near - naked form of TIME , said to represent GPE psyche , slowly crawls her way along the ground towards her . Upon reaching GPE feet , the psyche begins to caress her feet and legs , then her midriff , then her breasts , and finally exchanges passionate kisses with her . Throughout this sequence , GPE appears to be writhing in exquisite erotic sensation . This sequence is intercut at frequent intervals with a second sequence in which one sees the body of GPE , fastened to the cross which is lying upon the ground . GPE first kisses the stigmata of his feet before moving up his body and kissing or licking the gaping wound in his right side . Then she sits astride him , seemingly naked under her habit , all the while moving in a motion reflecting intense erotic arousal , and kisses his lips . For TIME , it appears that he responds to her kisses . This action is intercut with the passionate kisses of the psyche already described . Finally , GPE runs her hand down to the fixed hand of GPE and entwines his fingers in hers . As she does so , the fingers of NORP seem to curl upwards to hold with hers , whereupon the video ends .

Apart from the cast list which appears on the screen for TIME , the viewer has no means of knowing from the film itself that the person dressed as a nun in the video is intended to be GPE or that the other woman who appears is intended to be her psyche . No attempt is made in the video to explain its historical background .

Visions of Ecstasy was submitted to ORG ( " the Board " ) , being the authority designated by the ORG Secretary under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( " LAW " - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as

" the authority responsible for making arrangements ( a ) for determining , for the purposes of [ the ] Act whether or not video works are suitable for classification certificates to be issued in respect of them , having special regard to the likelihood of video works in respect of which such certificates have been issued being viewed in the home , ( b ) in the case of works which are determined in accordance with the arrangements to be so suitable ( i ) for making such other determinations as are required for the issue of classification certificates , and ( ii ) for issuing such certificates ... ... "

The applicant submitted the video to ORG in order that it might lawfully be sold , hired out or otherwise supplied to the general public or a section thereof .

The ORG rejected the application for a classification certificate on DATE in the following terms :

" Further to your application for a classification certificate ... , you are already aware that under LAW DATE the ORG must determine first of all whether or not a video work is suitable for such a certificate to be issued to it , having special regard to the likelihood of video works being viewed in the home . In making this judgment , ORG must have regard to ORG in which we are enjoined to ` continue to seek to avoid classifying works which are obscene within the meaning of ORG and DATE or which infringe other provisions of the criminal law’ . Amongst these provisions is the criminal law of blasphemy , as tested recently in ORG in NORP v. Lemon ( DATE ) , commonly known as ORG case . The definition of blasphemy cited therein is ‘ any contemptuous , reviling , scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God , PERSON or the Bible ... It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the NORP religion’ if the publication is ‘ decent and temperate’ . The question is not CARDINAL of the matter expressed , but of its manner , i.e. ` the tone , style and spirit’ , in which it is presented . The video work submitted by you depicts the mingling of religious ecstasy and sexual passion , a matter which may be of legitimate concern to the artist . It becomes subject to the law of blasphemy , however , if the manner of its presentation is bound to give rise to outrage at the unacceptable treatment of a sacred subject . Because the wounded body of the crucified Christ is presented solely as the focus of , and at certain moments a participant in , the erotic desire of GPE , with no attempt to explore the meaning of the imagery beyond engaging the viewer in an erotic experience , it is the ORG ’s view , and that of its legal advisers , that a reasonable jury properly directed would find that the work infringes the criminal law of blasphemy . To summarise , it is not the case that the sexual imagery in Visions of Ecstasy lies beyond the parameters of the ` CARDINAL category ; it is simply that for a major proportion of the work ’s duration that sexual imagery is focused on the figure of the crucified Christ . If the male figure were not GPE , the problem would not arise . Cuts of a fairly radical nature in the overt expressions of sexuality between GPE and the NORP figure might be practicable , but I understand that you do not wish to attempt this course of action . In consequence , we have concluded that it would not be suitable for a classification certificate to be issued to this video work . "

The applicant appealed against the ORG ’s determination to ORG ( " the ORG " - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , established pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . His notice of appeal , prepared by his legal representatives at the time , contained the following grounds :

" ( i ) that the ORG was wrong to conclude that the video infringes the criminal law of blasphemy , and that a reasonable jury properly directed would so find ; ( ii ) in particular , the Appellant will contend that upon a proper understanding of the serious nature of the video as an artistic and imaginative interpretation of the ORG PERSON or ` rapture’ of the DATE NORP nun , GPE of PERSON , it would not be taken by a reasonable person as contemptuous , reviling , scurrilous or ludicrous or otherwise disparaging in relation to God , PERSON or the Bible . The appeal will raise the question of mixed fact and law , namely whether publication of the video , even to a restricted degree , would contravene the existing criminal law of blasphemy . "

The ORG submitted a formal reply to the ORG explaining its decision in relation to its functions under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act :

" The LAW does not expressly set out the principles to be applied by the authority in determining whether or not a video work is suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it . In these circumstances , the ORG has exercised its discretion to formulate principles for classifying video works in a manner which it believes to be both reasonable and suited to carrying out the broad objectives of the LAW . Amongst these principles , the ORG has concluded that an overriding test of suitability for classification is the determination that the video work in question does not infringe the criminal law . In formulating and applying this principle , the ORG has consistently had regard to ORG under LAW ... ORG has concluded on the advice of leading Counsel that the video work in question infringes the criminal law of blasphemy and that a reasonable jury properly directed on the law would convict accordingly . ORG submits and is advised that in GPE the offence of blasphemy is committed if a video work treats a religious subject ( in particular PERSON , PERSON or the Bible ) in such a manner as to be calculated ( that is , bound , not intended ) to outrage those who have an understanding of , sympathy towards and support for the NORP story and ethic , because of the contemptuous , reviling , insulting , scurrilous or ludicrous tone , style and spirit in which the subject is presented . The video work under appeal purports to depict the erotic fantasies of a character described in the credits as GPE of GPE . The CARDINAL-minute second section of the video work portrays ‘ PERSON Teresa’ having an erotic fantasy involving the crucified figure of GPE , and also a NORP erotic fantasy involving the ‘ Psyche of St Teresa’ . No attempt is made to place what is shown in any historical , religious or dramatic context : the figures of GPE and her psyche are both clearly modern in appearance and the erotic images are accompanied by a rock music backing . The work contains no dialogue or evidence of an interest in exploring the psychology or even the sexuality of the character purporting to be GPE of GPE . Instead , this character and her supposed fantasies about lesbianism and the body and blood of NORP are presented as the occasion for a series of erotic images of a kind familiar from ‘ soft - core’ pornography . In support of its contentions , the ORG refers to an interview given by the appellant and published in DATE magazine on DATE . In this interview , the appellant attempts to draw a distinction between pornography and ‘ ORG , denying that the video work in question is pornographic but stating that ` all my own work is actually ORG . Further on , the interviewer comments : ` In many ways , though , Visions calls upon the standard lexicon of lust found in down market porn : nuns , lesbianism , women tied up ( NORP Nuns in Bondage could have been an alternative title in fact ) . PERSON flashes a wicked grin . ` That ’s right , and I ’m not denying it . I do n’t know what it is about nuns , it ’s the same sort of thing as white stocking tops I suppose.’ So why does he not consider Visions to be pornography , or at least soft porn ? ` I hope it is gentler , subtler than that . I suppose most people think pornography shows the sex act , and this PERSON It is clear from the appellant ’s own admissions that , whether or not the video work can rightly be described as pornographic , it is solely erotic in content , and it focuses this erotic imagery for much of its duration on the body and blood of GPE , who is even shown to respond to the sexual attentions of the principal character . Moreover , the manner in which such imagery is treated places the focus of the work less on the erotic feelings of the character than on those of the audience , which is the primary function of pornography whether or not it shows the sex act explicitly . Because there is no attempt , in the ORG ’s view , to explore the meaning of the imagery beyond engaging the viewer in a voyeuristic erotic experience , ORG considers that the public distribution of such a video work would outrage and insult the feelings of believing NORP ... ... ORG ... submits that the appeal should be dismissed and its determination upheld . "

The applicant then made further representations to the ORG , stating , inter alia :

" The definition of the offence of blasphemy set out in ... the reply is too wide , being significantly wider than the test approved in the only modern authority - see ORG v. PERSON [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL , per Lord PERSON at CARDINAL . For example , there is no uniform law of blasphemy in GPE ; the last recorded prosecution for blasphemy under the law of GPE was in DATE PERSON [ DATE ] I Brown CARDINAL . Nor is any religious subject protected - the reviling matter must be in relation to God , PERSON or the Bible , or the formularies of ORG as by law established . In the Appellant ’s contention , these limitations are of the utmost significance in this case since the video is not concerned with anything which God or PERSON did , or thought or might have approved of . It is about the erotic visions and imaginings of a DATE NORP nun - namely GPE of GPE . It is quite plain that the NORP figure exists in her fantasy as the ORG expressly accepts ... The scurrilous and/or erotic treatment of religious subject matter has received the ORG ’s classification without attempted prosecution in DATE , e.g. PERSON Life of Brian and Mr PERSON ’s The Last Temptation of Christ . ... ORG argues that the video is purely erotic or ‘ soft - core’ pornographic , without historical , religious , dramatic or other artistic merit . The implication is that , had it possessed such merit the ORG ’s decision might very well have been otherwise . The Appellant will seek to argue and call evidence to the effect that the video work is a serious treatment of the subject of the ecstatic raptures of GPE ( well chronicled in her own works and those of commentators ) from a DATE point of view . The so - called ‘ rock music backing’ was in fact specially commissioned from the respected composer PERSON , after discussion of the Director ’s desired artistic and emotional impact . ORG has based its decision upon the narrowest , most disparaging , critical appreciation of the work . The Appellant will contend that a very much more favourable assessment of his aims and achievement in making PERSON is , at the very least , tenable and that the ORG ought not to refuse a certificate on a mere matter of interpretation . The Appellant takes objection to the ORG ’s quotation ... of comments attributed to him from an article by CARDINAL PERSON published in DATE magazine DATE . The remarks are pure hearsay so far as ORG is concerned . That aside , the piece quoted is in large part the comments of the author of the article . An entirely misleading impression of what the Appellant said to the author is conveyed by the interpolation of the words attributed to him , and by taking this passage out of context . Above all , the Appellant disputes the key assertion by ORG that the video work is solely erotic in content . "

The appeal was heard by a CARDINAL - member panel of the ORG ( " the Panel " ) on CARDINAL and DATE ; oral and affidavit evidence was submitted . By a majority of CARDINAL , a written decision rejecting the appeal was given on DATE . The ORG also considered itself bound by the criteria set out in the designation notice ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It had difficulty , however , in ascertaining and applying the present law of blasphemy . It commented as follows :

" The authorities on this Common Law offence were reviewed by ORG in the case of ORG v. PERSON which concerned a magazine called ORG , the readership of which consisted mainly of homosexuals although it was on sale to the general public at some bookstalls . CARDINAL edition contained a poem entitled The Love that Dares to Speak its Name accompanied by a drawing illustrating its subject matter . In his judgment Lord PERSON said that it was unnecessary to speculate whether an outraged NORP would feel provoked by the words and illustration to commit a breach of the peace , the true test being whether the words are calculated to outrage and insult the NORP ’s religious feelings , the material in question being contemptuous , reviling , scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God , PERSON or the Bible , or the formularies of ORG . It should perhaps be added that the word ` PERSON should be read in the dictionary sense of ` PERSON or ` likely’ as it was decided that intent ( other than an intent to publish ) is not an element in the offence . In the same case Lord PERSON said that the material must be ` likely to arouse a sense of outrage among those who believe in or respect ORG . In the present case the ORG ’s Director ... said in evidence that the ORG ’s view was that the video was ` contemptuous of the divinity of Christ’ . He added that although the ORG ’s decision was based upon its view that the video is blasphemous ( blasphemy being an offence which relates only to the NORP religion ) , it would take just the same stance if it were asked to grant a ORG to a video which , for instance , was contemptuous of PERSON . "

The Panel went on to review the content of the video and accepted that the applicant had in mind PERSON , a nun , " who is known to have had ecstatic visions of NORP although , incidentally , these did not start until she was DATE of age - in marked contrast to the obvious youthfulness of the actress who plays the part " .

The Panel reached the following conclusion :

" From the writings of GPE herself , and the subsequent writings of others , there seems no reason to doubt that some of her visions were of seeing the glorified body of GPE and being shown his wounds but , even so , it seems clear that PERSON has taken considerable artistic licence with his subject . Apart from the age discrepancy - a comparatively minor matter - we were made aware of nothing which would suggest that PERSON ever did anything to injure her hand or that any element of lesbianism ever entered into her visions . More importantly , there seems nothing to suggest that PERSON , in her visions , ever saw herself as being in any bodily contact with the glorified NORP . As CARDINAL author , Mr PERSON , puts it ` Teresa experienced ecstasy as a form of prayer in which she herself played almost no ORG . So , in view of the extent of the artistic licence , we think it would be reasonable to look upon the video as centring upon any nun of DATE who , like many others down the ages , had ecstatic visions . There is also another reason for taking this stance : unless the viewer happens to read the cast list which appears on the screen for TIME , he or she has no means of knowing that the nun is supposed to be GPE , nor that the figure of the second woman is supposed to be her psyche . And he or she in any event may well be unaware that PERSON was a real - life nun who had ecstatic visions . It is true that PERSON says that it is intended that the sleeve or jacket for the video will provide ‘ basic historical information to assist the ORG , but we feel bound to regard this as irrelevant . Firstly because it by no means follows that every viewer will read any such description ; and secondly because ORG and ORG decision must be based solely upon the video itself , quite apart from the fact that at the time of making a decision the sleeve or jacket is usually - as in the present instance - not even in existence . However , although we have thought it proper to dwell at some length with the ‘ LOC Teresa’ aspect , we are of the opinion that in practice , when considering whether or not the video is blasphemous , it makes little or no difference whether CARDINAL looks upon the central character as being GPE or any other nun . The appellant , in his written statement , lays stress upon the undoubted fact that the whole of the second CARDINAL consists of ORG ’s vision or dream . Hence he says the video says nothing about GPE , his figure being used only as a projection of GPE mind , nor was it his intention to make that figure an active participant in any overt sexual act . He goes on to say ` Rather the very mild responses are those of GPE conjecture : the kiss , hand clasp and ultimately the tears of GPE . To show no response to a creation of her own mind would be nonsense ; no woman ( nor man ) whose deep love could cause such visions / ecstasies would imagine the object of that love coldly to ignore their caresses’ . Although we quite appreciate the logic of this point of view , we have reservations about the extent to which a vision or dream sequence can affect the question of whether what is pictured or said is blasphemous . It would , for instance , be possible to produce a film or video which was most extremely contemptuous , reviling , scurrilous or ludicrous in relation to NORP , all dressed up in the context of someone ’s imaginings . In such circumstances we find it hard to envisage that , by such a simple device , it could reasonably be said that no offence had been committed . If in our opinion the viewer , after making proper allowance for the scene being in the form of a dream , nevertheless reasonably feels that it would cause a sense of outrage and insult to a NORP ’s feelings , the offence would be established . We should perhaps also deal , albeit briefly , with a further submission made on behalf of the appellant , namely that the crime of blasphemy may extend only to the written or spoken word and hence that a court might rule that no film or video , and perhaps nothing shown on television , could become the subject of such a charge . Suffice it to say that in our view this is too unlikely to cause it to be taken into account by ORG or a panel of ORG when reaching a decision . In the opinion of a majority of the ORG the video did not , as the appellant claims , explore GPE struggles against her visions but exploited a devotion to NORP in purely carnal terms . Furthermore they considered that it lacked the seriousness and depth of The Last Temptation of Christ with which Counsel for the appellant sought to compare it . Indeed the majority took the view that the video ’s message was that the nun was moved not by religious ecstasy but rather by sexual ecstasy , this ecstasy being of a perverse kind - full of images of blood , sado - masochism , lesbianism ( or perhaps auto - erotism ) and bondage . Although there was evidence of some element of repressed sexuality in GPE devotion to GPE , they did not consider that this gave any ground for portraying her as taking the initiative in indulged sexuality . They considered the over - all tone and spirit of the video to be indecent and had little doubt that all the above factors , coupled with the motions of the nun whilst astride the body of NORP and the response to her kisses and the intertwining of the fingers would outrage the feelings of NORP , who would reasonably look upon it as being contemptuous of the divinity of NORP . In these circumstances the majority were satisfied that the video is blasphemous , that a reasonable and properly directed jury would be likely to convict and therefore that the ORG was right to refuse to grant a ORG . Hence this appeal is accordingly dismissed . It should perhaps be added that the minority on the ORG , whilst being in no doubt that many people would find the video to be extremely distasteful , would have allowed the appeal because in their view it is unlikely that a reasonable and properly directed jury would convict . "

As a result of the ORG ’s determination , as upheld by the ORG , the applicant would commit an offence under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) if he were to supply the video in any manner , whether or not for reward .

The applicant received legal advice that his case was not suitable for judicial review ( see paragraphs DATE below ) on the grounds that the formulation of the law of blasphemy , as accepted by the Panel , was an " accurate statement of the present law " .

According to statistics submitted by the Government , in DATE there were CARDINAL video - recorders in GPE . Out of CARDINAL households in GPE , CARDINAL contained CARDINAL video - recorder . There were CARDINAL video outlets in GPE . Videos were available for hire in CARDINAL video rental shops . They were also available for sale in CARDINAL " high street " shops and in CARDINAL " secondary " outlets such as supermarkets , corner shops and petrol stations . In DATE there were CARDINAL video rentals and CARDINAL video purchases in GPE . It is estimated that a further CARDINAL illegal copies ( " pirate videos " ) were distributed during DATE .

LAW DATE ( " LAW " ) regulates the distribution of video works . Subject to certain exemptions , it is an offence under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of that LAW for a person to supply or offer to supply a video work in respect of which no classification certificate has been issued . Under section CARDINAL there are CARDINAL categories of classification : works deemed suitable for general viewing ( and to which a parental guidance reference may be added ) ; works for which the viewing is restricted to people who have attained a specified age ; and works which may only be supplied by licensed sex shops . The Secretary of ORG for ORG may require that the content of certain works be labelled ( section CARDINAL) . It is an offence to ignore such conditions , for example by supplying someone DATE with an " CARDINAL " classified work ( section CARDINAL ) .

Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act the Secretary of ORG may by notice designate any person or body as the authority for making arrangements for determining whether or not video works are suitable for classification certificates to be issued in respect of them ( having special regard to the likelihood of certified video works being viewed in the home ) . By a notice dated DATE ORG was so designated . In the case of works which are determined in accordance with the arrangements described above to be suitable for classification certificates , ORG is responsible under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) for making arrangements for the issue of certificates and making other determinations relating to their use . The Secretary of ORG ’s notice enjoined ORG " to continue to seek to avoid classifying works which are obscene within the meaning of ORG and DATE or which infringe other provisions of the criminal law " .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act arrangements were made for the establishment of ORG to determine appeals against decisions by ORG .

Blasphemy and blasphemous libel are common law offences triable on indictment and punishable by fine or imprisonment . Blasphemy consists in speaking and blasphemous libel in otherwise publishing blasphemous matter . Libel involves a publication in a permanent form , but that form may consist of moving pictures .

In the case of PERSON v. ORG and Lemon [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL at CARDINAL , which concerned the law of blasphemy in GPE , Lord PERSON held that the modern law of blasphemy was correctly formulated in Article CARDINAL of ORG of the Criminal Law , CARDINALth edition ( DATE ) . This states as follows :

" Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous , reviling , scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God , PERSON or the Bible , or the formularies of ORG as by law established . It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the NORP religion , or to deny the existence of God , if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language . The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not to the substance of the doctrines themselves . "

ORG in that case also decided that the mental element in the offence ( mens rea ) did not depend upon the accused having an intent to blaspheme . It was sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the publication had been intentional and that the matter published was blasphemous . The Gay News case , which had been brought by a private prosecutor , had been the first prosecution for blasphemy since DATE .

As stated above , the law of blasphemy only protects the NORP religion and , more specifically , the established ORG . This was confirmed by ORG in DATE . Ruling on an application for judicial review of a magistrate ’s refusal to issue a summons for blasphemy against PERSON and the publishers of The Satanic Verses , PERSON stated :

" We have no doubt that as the law now stands it does not extend to religions other than NORP ... ... We think it right to say that , were it open to us to extend the law to cover religions other than NORP , we should refrain from doing so . Considerations of public policy are extremely difficult and complex . It would be virtually impossible by judicial decision to set sufficiently clear limits to the offence , and other problems involved are formidable . " ( NORP v. Chief PERSON , ex parte PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL at CARDINAL )

On DATE the then Minister of ORG at ORG , Mr PERSON , had sent a letter to a number of influential NORP , in which he stated inter alia that :

" Many NORP have argued that the law of blasphemy should be amended to take books such as [ The Satanic Verses ] outside the boundary of what is legally acceptable . We have considered their arguments carefully and reached the conclusion that it would be unwise for a variety of reasons to amend the law of blasphemy , not the least the clear lack of agreement over whether the law should be reformed or repealed . ... ... an alteration in the law could lead to a rush of litigation which would damage relations between faiths . I hope you can appreciate how divisive and how damaging such litigation might be , and how inappropriate our legal mechanisms are for dealing with matters of faith and individual belief . Indeed , the NORP faith no longer relies on it , preferring to recognise that the strength of their own belief is the best armour against mockers and blasphemers . "

Decisions by public bodies which have consequences which affect some person or body of persons are susceptible to challenge in ORG on an application for judicial review . Amongst the grounds on which such a challenge may be brought is that the body in question misdirected itself on a point of law . ORG is such a public body because it is established pursuant to an ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , its decisions affect the rights of persons who make video works because confirmation of a decision that a video work can not receive a classification certificate would mean that copies of that work could not be lawfully supplied to members of the public .

On an application for judicial review a court would not normally look at the merits of any decision made by such a body , except where the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable body , properly instructed , could have reached it . However , where the decision is based on a point of law and it is alleged that the body has misdirected itself on that point , the decision could be challenged by an application for judicial review . In the case of PERSON v. Minister for ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports at CARDINAL , Lord PERSON , in ORG , classified under CARDINAL heads the grounds on which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review . He called the first ground " illegality " and described it as follows :

" By ‘ ORG as a ground for judicial review I mean that the decision - maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision - making power and must give effect to it . Whether he has or not is par excellence a justiciable question to be decided , in the event of a dispute , by those persons , the judges , by whom the judicial power of the ORG is exercisable . "


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 PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was injured in a car accident . The perpetrator of the accident 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 CARDINAL DATE the applicant made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

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

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

On DATE the judge presiding the case was appointed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) and the case was transferred to a new judge .

During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert .

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

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG .

The proceedings are still pending .


Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Stanislav Shevchuk

The applicant , Mr Sergiy Volodymyrovych Masyuchenko , is a NORP national who was born in DATE in LOC and currently resides in GPE , GPE .

The applicant is a retired military officer . In DATE he instituted proceedings in ORG against the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Military Commissariat seeking to have his pension recalculated in accordance with the changes allegedly introduced by the relevant legal acts .

On DATE ORG allowed his claims and ordered ORG to recalculate his pension .

On DATE ORG reversed this resolution and rejected the applicant ’s claims in full . The court informed the applicant , in the operative part of its resolution , that it became enforceable immediately , but could be appealed to ORG within DATE .

The applicant did not appeal in cassation . The applicant allegedly unsuccessfully requested ORG to rule in his case , but provided no answer from it .

LAW of GPE , DATE

Article CARDINAL

“ ( ... ) ORG of GPE is the highest judicial body in the system of courts of general jurisdiction .

The respective high courts are the highest judicial bodies of specialised courts . ( ... ) ”

Judicial System Act , DATE

“ ... CARDINAL . Plenary Supreme Court ... shall be composed of all the judges of ORG , Presidents of the higher specialised courts , their first deputies , presidents of ORG and ORG .

NORP ORG :

... CARDINAL ) provides the courts of general jurisdiction with recommendations on application of legislation , and if necessary declares recommendations of the higher specialised courts unlawful ;

CARDINAL ) NORP decides to institute proceedings before ORG with regard to constitutionality of the laws and other normative acts , and also with regard to official interpretation of the LAW and the legislative acts ;

... CARDINAL . Draft resolutions of ORG with recommendations on how to apply specific legislation in particular types of cases shall be sent to ORG and the Minister of Justice at least DATE before ORG meets ; ... ”

In accordance with LAW a court of cassation in administrative cases is ORG of GPE . Under LAW the parties to administrative proceedings may lodge cassation appeals with ORG against the judgments or rulings of the first - instance court and the court of appeal . The grounds for appeal in cassation are an erroneous application of the procedural or substantive law . In accordance with LAW , ORG can quash or amend judgments and rulings of the first - instance courts and the courts of appeal or adopt a new judgment upon appeal in cassation .

In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of Chapter VII of LAW , appeals in cassation which concern decisions of the courts of general jurisdiction ( civil and commercial proceedings ) given in administrative cases and which have not been examined by ORG by DATE shall be transferred for examination to ORG .

The content , so far as relevant , of the Resolution of the Plenary Supreme Court of DATE is set out in the ORG ’s decision in the case of GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . ORG explained inter alia , with references to several legislative acts and normative acts of ORG , how the courts should approach examination of complaints lodged by former military servicemen with regard to recalculation of previously determined amounts of pensions previously assigned to them . ORG drew attention to the relevant legal and factual circumstances which should be taken into account in examining these cases by the courts .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture);No violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE the applicant ( a former police officer ) and a Mr B. were placed on the wanted list as suspects in the robbery of a certain PERSON

On DATE CARDINAL police officers arrived at a summer house outside the town of GPE , in the GPE region , as it was believed that the applicant and PERSON were hiding there . When the officers approached the house and identified themselves , they were shot at from a PERSON assault rifle and hand grenades were thrown at them . As a result one police officer was killed and CARDINAL sustained severe injuries . The perpetrators escaped .

On DATE ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) instituted criminal proceedings for murder and attempted murder of police officers on duty .

On DATE the ORG charged the applicant in his absence with the above offences and ordered his arrest . On DATE he was placed on the list of wanted persons .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were suspended because of failure to establish the whereabouts of the applicant and his co - accused .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE under an international arrest warrant .

NORP On DATE he was extradited from GPE to GPE and the criminal proceedings against him were resumed . On DATE the ORG appointed lawyer NORP to represent the applicant in the above proceedings from CARDINAL DATE . The applicant ’s relatives signed a contract with lawyer NORP for the applicant ’s representation .

The applicant alleged that following his arrival in GPE he had been placed in police custody and beaten for DATE until he incriminated himself . According to the domestic court ’s findings in the judgment against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE police officers GPE and PERSON visited the applicant in the police detention unit for a confidential talk ( доверительная беседа ) about unrelated matters , namely arms trafficking in the region . The officers did not ask him about the police officer ’s murder , but the applicant himself told them that on DATE of the murder he had been on the first floor of the DATE house in question and that , when escaping , he had thrown a hand grenade , which had not exploded . CARDINAL other police officers , N. and A. , also visited the applicant in connection with yet another unrelated crime . They stated that he had proclaimed his innocence but refused to make any official statement in the absence of his lawyer . All CARDINAL officers denied any coercion towards the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was presented with charges , amended to take account of evidence collected since DATE . After being formally charged the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer NORP He confirmed his earlier confession statements . He did not complain of any ill - treatment . According to the applicant , after this interview he was not allowed to see his lawyer for DATE . According to the Government , on QUANTITY DATE the applicant was questioned in the absence of his lawyer as he had expressed a wish to be questioned without a lawyer ; on DATE during this period the lawyer PERSON did not ask to see the applicant .

On DATE an ambulance was called for the applicant in connection with renal colic .

On DATE the applicant ’s brother asked the investigator to allow lawyer PERSON to act as defence counsel in the case , as lawyer NORP was busy in other proceedings . This request was allowed .

On DATE the applicant , assisted by lawyer PERSON , participated in an on - site reconstruction of the events of the crime .

On DATE lawyer NORP asked the investigator to allow him unlimited visits to the applicant during the investigation . On DATE the investigator allowed him CARDINAL visit to the applicant . On DATE lawyer NORP challenged the investigator ’s decision before ORG . In DATE the Head of ORG of ORG allowed lawyer NORP unlimited visits to the applicant .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . On DATE and DATE ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE and DATE respectively . On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s detention was extended until DATE and DATE respectively by ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to ORG that the applicant had been ill - treated and that his access to his lawyer had been limited . By letter of DATE , ORG replied to this complaint . They noted , among other things , that there had been no evidence that the applicant had been ill - treated and the applicant himself denied any ill - treatment . They also noted that the applicant had been questioned in the presence of his lawyer NORP on DATE and that there had been no obstacles to communication between the applicant and his lawyer . All requests by lawyer NORP for meetings with the applicant had been satisfied and the lawyer had obtained a permit to see the applicant at any time without limitation on the duration of his visits .

NORP In DATE the applicant changed his evidence and claimed that his confessions had been extracted under duress . The applicant stated that he could not have been involved in the imputed offences to him , as he had been in NORP ( GPE ) at the relevant time . The applicant alleged that , having learned from his relatives that the police were looking for him in relation to the shooting , he had decided not to return to GPE .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for alleged ill - treatment of the applicant on the ground of lack of corpus delicti .

On DATE ORG submitted to ORG ( hereafter “ the ORG ” ) a bill of indictment against the applicant and his co - defendant , PERSON They were to stand trial for the murder and attempted murder of police officers on duty and for illegal possession of firearms .

On DATE a preparatory hearing was held before a judge of ORG . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present . The judge considered that the case was ready for trial and decided , without giving any reasons , that the applicant was to remain in detention on remand .

The trial started on DATE in the premises of ORG . During the court hearings the applicant was held in a metal “ cage ” in the court room . His lawyer sat in the courtroom at some distance from the “ cage ” .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for release . In a letter of DATE the presiding judge informed him that this request would be examined at the next court hearing . That hearing took place on DATE , when the court examined the above request and refused to change the preventive measure imposed on the applicant on the ground that he could flee from justice or obstruct the investigation . The court took into account that the applicant was accused of serious crimes punishable by DATE imprisonment , that he had no permanent residence or work on the territory of GPE and that he had been hiding in GPE with false documents and had been extradited from that country .

On DATE the ORG examined another application for release lodged by the applicant on DATE and rejected it on the same grounds as on DATE .

During the trial the applicant and his mother requested family visits to the applicant on several occasions . By letters of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected their requests and informed them that under LAW detained defendants could receive family visits only after a conviction .

On DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL professional and CARDINAL lay judges ( народні засідателі ) , found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant ’s conviction was based on his and PERSON confession statements , given during the investigation in the presence of their lawyers , and on the statements of QUANTITY police officers involved in the incident of DATE , CARDINAL of whom had identified the applicant as CARDINAL of the perpetrators . The trial court also took into account an airplane ticket issued in the name of the applicant , which had been found at the scene during the investigation , and the applicant ’s passport , discovered in bushes near the ORG escape route . The court examined the applicant ’s complaints about violation of his defence rights . It noted that the initial questioning of the applicant , his confrontation with CARDINAL of the victims and the reconstruction of the scene of the crime , on which the court relied in its decision , had been conducted with the participation of the applicant ’s lawyer . As to his questioning on CARDINAL DATE without a lawyer , the court noted that the applicant had voluntarily agreed to make statements without his lawyer and had not complained on that date of any ill - treatment .

The court also examined the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment by the police , who had allegedly forced him to incriminate himself during DATE of the investigation . The court found that on DATE after his arrest he had been informally questioned by CARDINAL police officers on matters unrelated to his criminal case and had confessed to being at the scene of the crime without having been asked about this event ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court noted that the applicant ’s allegations had not been supported by any evidence and that the applicant did not complain about any ill - treatment in the presence of his lawyer on DATE . The court further noted that the prosecution had investigated the applicant ’s complaints and refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . The court agreed with the prosecutor ’s decision and dismissed the applicant ’s complaints .

On DATE the court also allowed the applicant to see his parents .

The applicant appealed to ORG . In his appeal , among other things , the applicant challenged the bench that had delivered the judgment of DATE , alleging that , whereas section CARDINAL of LAW provided that lay judges were to be appointed from lists approved by the municipal authorities , the names of CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL lay judges who had participated in his trial did not appear in the list approved by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . It noted , in particular , that the bench of the appellate court had been composed in compliance with law .

On his arrival from GPE on DATE the applicant was placed in GPE Temporary Detention Centre ( “ the ORG ” ) . He was subsequently detained in a number of other detention facilities , including ORG trial ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) and the Debaltseve ITT .

In DATE ORG held several hearings in his case in the town of ORG . In consequence , he was transferred to the Debaltseve ITT , where he was held from DATE . During the court hearings , the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention . He alleged that the food supply was inadequate and that he had not been allowed to receive parcels from his relatives . He further complained that , in spite of the DATE heat , the cell had no water supply , which rendered the sanitary conditions unbearable .

On DATE ORG instructed the ORG to investigate the applicant ’s allegations that the applicant was not provided with food and not allowed parcels from his relatives during his stay in the ORG in the period DATE .

On DATE the ORG issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the officers of the Debaltseve ITT , for lack of evidence of a crime . The prosecution established that during his stay in the ORG the applicant had received CARDINAL parcels from his mother and she had never made any complaint . The prosecution further referred to statements by ORG wardens , who alleged that the applicant had been provided with food regularly . The prosecution further noted that during the applicant ’s stay in the ORG carried out several inspections of the conditions and lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention , following his complaints .

Whilst in the Donetsk GPE the applicant was held in a cell designated for ( former ) law - enforcement officers . The applicant states that on DATE , he was transferred to a medical wing in a cell assigned to inmates infected with tuberculosis . He was then allegedly transferred to a cell with another inmate , who threatened him with violence on the ground that he was a former police officer .

From DATE the applicant filed a number of complaints with ORG concerning the above incident in GPE and the conditions of his detention in the Debaltseve ITT ; he also alleged that this detention was unlawful .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of the town of ORG issued a certificate ( довідка ) concerning the hygiene norms in the Debaltseve ITT . The certificate stated that the representatives of ORG and the specialists of ORG had inspected the conditions of detention in the above ORG . They found that the ORG had CARDINAL cells , equipped with sanitary facilities and a water supply . The toilets and wash basins were in order . Drinking water was supplied as per the schedule . The ORG had a shower which was also in order . The cells were equipped with bunk beds , a table and benches . The certificate further noted that the ORG had a sufficient quantity of mattresses and bed linen , but the inmates used their own bedding . The inmates were provided with CARDINAL hot meals per day . It also noted that the applicant had complained about the conditions of his detention in the ORG during his stay there in DATE . During the prosecutor ’s regular ( every ten days ) inspections of the conditions of detention in the ORG in DATE the applicant had made no complaints to him . In conclusion , it was noted that no violation of the relevant legislation had been established .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG stated that in DATE the applicant had been examined by a prison doctor and was diagnosed as suffering from chronic gastritis . The doctor recommended that he be moved to the medical wing . There was no indication that the applicant was ever placed in a cell with inmates suffering from tuberculosis . The medical wing did not have a cell designated for ( former ) lawenforcement officers . However , immediately after his request , the applicant was removed from the cell he was sharing with the person who had allegedly threatened him .

On DATE ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG , by a joint order , approved the ORG on the Procedure for Escorting Accused or Convicted Persons ) to and from , or in , Courts at LAW . The relevant provisions of the Instruction read :

“ CARDINAL . ... The area in the courtroom where defendants are held shall be equipped with a bench and a wooden barrier of QUANTITY in height , which shall be fastened to the floor . In courtrooms located on the ground floor the windows shall be barred . In each court building , PERCENT of the courtrooms in which criminal cases are heard shall be equipped with stationary metal barriers separating the defendants from the judges’ bench and from others persons present in the room ... The windows in these rooms shall be barred irrespective of the floor on which they are located . ”

“ CARDINAL . On an oral instruction by the presiding judge , the head guard shall allow the accused or convicted person to speak to his counsel , experts or public prosecutors and shall allow a doctor to examine the accused or convicted person ; during such exchanges , however , the accused or convicted person shall continue to be guarded .

Such talks are usually conducted in an available room designated for holding accused or convicted person during breaks in court hearings and may be conducted in any language ... ”

Under section CARDINAL ) of ORG , permission for relatives to visit a detainee ( in principle , once DATE for TIME ) can be given by the authorities of the place of detention , but only with the written approval of an investigator or a court dealing with the case , depending on whether it is the investigation or the trial stage .

The relevant provisions of LAW DATE read :

Article CARDINAL

Visiting a detainee

“ Visits by relatives or other persons to a detainee may be authorised by the person or institution which is dealing with the case . The duration of the visit shall be fixed from TIME . As a rule , visits may be authorised no more than once a month . ”

Article CARDINAL

Granting relatives permission to visit a convicted person

“ Prior to the entry into force of the judgment , the presiding judge or the president of the relevant court shall be obliged to grant close relatives of a convicted person , upon their request , permission to visit the detained convicted person . ”

Other relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( extracts ) ) , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

“ b. Militia central holding facilities ( ORG )

Despite the measures announced in the responses of the NORP authorities to the recommendations made by the ORG in its CARDINAL previous reports , the delegation could not identify any noticeable improvements in the conditions of detention of the ITTs visited ... ORG believes that it would be more useful to highlight the main deficiencies in the ITTs from an overall perspective , rather than to enter into an in - depth analysis of each ORG visited ; indeed , the challenges facing ORG establishments are , to all intents and purposes , similar .

The majority of ITTs visited were overcrowded . For example , in ORG , CARDINAL persons were being held in cells of CARDINAL m² and in several cells there were more persons than beds .

In all the ITTs visited , access to natural light was obstructed by dense metal netting on the windows or jalousies and the artificial lighting was , in general , insufficient . Reading of any kind was a strain on the eyes . The ventilation was inadequate and the air in the cells visited heavy . The lack of ventilation was exacerbated by the fact that the cells tended to be fetid , detainees being provided with neither products for cleaning their cells nor the possibility of washing themselves other than in a basin of cold water . Only in ORG did all detainees have the possibility of a shower during their stay . Further , the sanitary facilities in nearly all the ITTs visited left something to be desired . A notable exception was PERSON , where the delegation noted the cells were clean and the detainees possessed basic hygiene products .

In several ITTs there was an insufficient quantity of mattresses and blankets for all the detainees , while the cleanliness of those available was questionable . Further , with CARDINAL or CARDINAL exceptions , the ITTs visited did not possess outdoor exercise facilities . Nor was there any provision for activities ; in many ITTs , detainees were not even permitted newspapers .

In most ORG , the single daily meal was supplemented by food parcels from relatives . Those without relatives shared the food of others . Given the fact that the ORG are unable financially to provide sufficient food to detainees , food parcels should not be subject to undue restrictions .

The ORG has already made its position clear ... as regards ready access to drinking water ; it is concerned that detainees in GPE ORG were denied such access .

In the light of the unacceptable conditions referred to above , the ORG was all the more concerned to learn that a significant number of detainees were being held in ITTs for periods much longer than DATE legal limit .

The ORG has already welcomed the measures taken by the NORP authorities in response to the immediate observation made by its delegation . Notwithstanding those measures , the NORP authorities still have some way to go to fulfil their responsibility to detain persons deprived of their liberty under conditions fully consistent with human dignity . It is clear that , in order to achieve lasting improvements , the highest priority should be given to the objective of reducing overcrowding . Only then can the efforts made by the NORP authorities be expected to bear fruit . However , certain steps must be taken in the interim in order to ameliorate the situation . Consequently , the ORG calls upon the NORP authorities to take , without further delay , the following steps already identified in its CARDINAL previous reports :

- ensure that all persons detained in ITTs are :

supplied with essential personal hygiene products and have the opportunity to wash DATE ;

able to take a warm shower on arrival and at least once DATE during their period of detention ;

given the necessary products to keep their cells clean and hygienic ;

authorised to receive parcels from the very outset of their detention .

- ensure that detained persons , in all ITTs , are provided with reading matter ( if the establishment does not have a library , detained persons should be authorised to receive newspapers or books from relatives ) ;

- review the regulations and practice concerning detainees’ contact with the outside world . ”

The relevant parts of the report read :

“ b. Militia central holding facilities ( ITTs )

NORP The follow - up visit to the ORG in GPE revealed certain improvements : the establishment was not overcrowded ( CARDINAL detainees for CARDINAL places ) ; the third floor had been properly renovated and all the detainees on that floor had a bed ; the ventilation system on the second floor had been improved . In addition , there were now CARDINAL exercise areas . However , there were numerous allegations that access to those areas was limited to TIME or so . Mattresses and blankets ( although dirty ) were available . That said , the cell windows were still hidden by shutters and the other detention floors remained in a state of severe dilapidation ( cf . , inter alia , paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit ) .

As regards the other ITTs visited , the ORG would stress that the best material conditions observed were in the PERSON facility . The cells were well - lit , in part by natural light , clean , correctly equipped ( bed , mattress , blankets , table , bench ) and spacious ( CARDINAL m² ) . There was , however , CARDINAL important deficiency , namely the absence of an outdoor exercise yard .

Elsewhere , material conditions were very mediocre . In reality , the descriptions in the previous reports still very much apply . While some efforts had been made by the authorities shortly before the ORG ’s visit , such as repainting cells or ensuring that mattresses and blankets were provided ( as in GPE or GPE , for example ) , the cells still had no access to natural light , the artificial lighting was often of poor quality and the ventilation deficient . The toilets in the cells were not properly partitioned off , if at all , and the sinks were in a bad state of repair . As in the past , access to hygiene products was dependent on parcels received by the detained persons and there were no arrangements enabling them to maintain adequate personal hygiene .

The situation was variable where food was concerned : in some ITTs , CARDINAL DATE meals were provided , whereas in others there were CARDINAL or even just one per day .

In addition , there was rampant overcrowding : for example , an analysis of the detention registers revealed that ORG , with an official capacity of CARDINAL places , regularly held CARDINAL persons , and the GPE facility , with a capacity of CARDINAL places , held CARDINAL .

... it further recommends that steps be taken to ensure :

- without delay that , in those ITTs already possessing outdoor exercise areas , detained persons actually have access to them for TIME each day ;

- without delay that , in all ITTs , detained persons are supplied with a full set of clean bedding , which is cleaned at regular intervals ;

- without delay that , in all ITTs , detained persons are provided with essential personal hygiene products and are able to wash DATE ( this includes a hot shower once a week , throughout their detention ) ;

- without delay that , in all ITTs , detained persons are given food at appropriate times ;

- the proper and progressive partitioning off of toilets in cells ;

- that detained persons , in all ITTs , have access to reading matter ;

- that the official occupancy level of ORG facilities is not exceeded and that efforts are made gradually to reduce them ; the objective should be to offer living space of CARDINAL m² per person . ”


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The application was lodged by Mr PERSON , a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the town of PERSON , GPE . He acts pro se before the ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON and PERSON , ORG of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant , who participated in the GPE nuclear disaster relief operation , brought proceedings before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) against the local social security office seeking increase of his DATE monetary allowance . He also sought to recover the unpaid sum .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant a lump sum in arrears and ordered that his DATE allowance be increased starting from DATE . ORG also granted the applicant ’s claim for non - pecuniary damage and costs . The judgment of DATE was not appealed against and became final and enforceable .

The lump sum awarded was paid to the applicant shortly after the judgment of DATE had entered into force .

Increased DATE allowance was being paid to the applicant until DATE . Payment was then discontinued . For that reason the applicant lodged a claim with ORG complaining about non - enforcement of the judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG held in the applicant ’s favour and in addition awarded him a sum corresponding to the missing payments DATE . That judgment became final and was swiftly enforced .

Subsequently , the applicant lodged a claim for compensation due to the failure to pay the DATE allowances DATE in line with the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim . With reference to the direct applicability of the LAW pursuant to LAW and the reasonabletime requirement contained in LAW thereof , ORG acknowledged the lengthy non - enforcement of the judgment of DATE in the applicant ’s favour . It concluded that he had suffered nonpecuniary damage . ORG granted the applicant MONEY ( MONEY ) in compensation . That judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . It was enforced on DATE .


Violation of Art. 10;Just satisfaction - reserved

David Thór Björgvinsson;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE an article , entitled “ CARDINAL ” , was published in a LOC DATE magazine , the NORP , in circulation at the time , which was opposed to the Government . The article , which appeared to have been written by a special correspondent from GPE , reported that many journalists from the former GPE were going to be tried for incitement to war before ORG for the former GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , including CARDINAL journalists from GPE . The article named the CARDINAL ORG officials who had allegedly prepared the file and then went on to list the names of the CARDINAL journalists in question . The applicant in the present case was the editor - in - chief of the NORP and its founder was a prominent opposition party at the time .

On DATE CARDINAL of the CARDINAL journalists whose name had appeared in the article ( “ the plaintiff ” ) , and who had himself been an editor of a major ORG - owned media outlet , filed a compensation claim against the applicant and the magazine ’s founder . The plaintiff claimed that the assertions contained in the article , which were later repeated through other media both within the country and abroad , were untrue and that they were harmful to his honour and reputation . He enclosed a copy of a NORP DATE newspaper , the ORG , published on DATE , in support of his claim that the assertions had been transmitted by other media .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE that it had no information whatsoever concerning the plaintiff .

In the course of the civil proceedings , the applicant maintained that he had relied on the information provided by the magazine ’s special correspondent . Commenting on the ORG ’s statement , however , the applicant said :

“ I ’m not interested in there being no proceedings against [ the plaintiff ] , the contents of the ORG ... letter , or whether [ the plaintiff ] is on that list . I have personally witnessed [ his ] work as the editor - in - chief of the [ media outlet in question ] during the reporting on the GPE operation .... ” .

On DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of the plaintiff , ordering the applicant and the magazine ’s founder , jointly , to pay him the sum of MONEY ( “ EUR ” ) for the non - pecuniary damage suffered . On the basis of the ORG ’s statement , the court found that the published assertions had not been true and , in particular , that the applicant had not been interested in their veracity . The court refused to hear the author of the article , considering it unnecessary in the light of the information provided by the ORG . It considered that the applicant ’s proposal that the author be heard was also aimed at delaying the proceedings as the applicant did not know his exact address . In any event , the author had not mentioned in his text the number of the case file , dates or any other data which would in a convincing manner support the veracity of the information . The court held that the applicant should not have allowed the publishing of untrue information , as it represented a misuse of freedom of expression , and that he should have attempted to check its accuracy first instead of trusting his correspondent unreservedly . The court further held that personal beliefs and convictions could not justify the publishing of such information and concluded that the assertions in question had harmed the honour and the reputation of the plaintiff .

Both the plaintiff and the applicant appealed against the judgment . The plaintiff , in particular , complained that the compensation awarded was too low . The applicant , for his part , disputed that he , as the editor - in - chief , should be held responsible for the publishing of information of dubious veracity . He submitted that the information was of particular importance to the public and proposed additional evidence , namely that the court hear a colleague of his as an additional witness , as he was present when the fax with the impugned information was received and whom he consulted on whether to publish the information or not , as well as to see a documentary film broadcast in DATE by the same media outlet whose editor - in - chief in DATE had been the plaintiff himself , and which allegedly contained an unfavourable reference to the plaintiff and his work at the time . The applicant concluded that , in any event , the damages awarded were too high .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE increased the amount of damages to LAW and assessed the litigation costs at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . In so doing , it endorsed the reasoning of ORG , adding that the applicant should have focused on the accuracy of the information in question rather than having it published as soon as possible . The court took the view that the veracity of the assertions could not be established by the applicant consulting the article ’s author or another colleague but only by reliable evidence , which was lacking in this case . It further held that , according to the legislation in force at the time the article was published , the editor - in - chief , inter alia , could also be held responsible for publishing untrue information ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court made no reference to the documentary film referred to by the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE amended ORG judgment , reducing the damages and costs awarded to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , respectively .

On DATE ORG ordered the payment of the amounts awarded by ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a further order , specifying that payment should be made by regular transfers of CARDINAL of the applicant ’s salary ( zarada ) which he was earning in another magazine .

On DATE , following a request by the applicant , ORG terminated ( obustavio ) the enforcement of ORG judgment . At the same time , it confirmed that the amount owed was the CARDINAL awarded by ORG , to be paid by regular transfers of CARDINAL of the applicant ’s salary to the plaintiff .

By DATE the applicant had paid to the plaintiff ORG CARDINAL in total .

It would appear that DATE the founder of the magazine ceased to exist , leaving the applicant as the only remaining debtor .

The applicant ’s pension DATE ranged between ORG CARDINAL and ORG DATE .

The average DATE income in GPE when the relevant domestic decisions were rendered was LAW in DATE and ORG CARDINAL in DATE . Financial brokers had the highest incomes , these being on average ORG CARDINAL in DATE and EUR CARDINAL in DATE .

There are no copies of any articles relating to the impugned information published by other media in the case file except for a copy of part of the article published in the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On an unspecified date after the impugned article had been published another journalist from the list of the CARDINAL lodged a private criminal action ( privatna krivična tužba ) against the applicant for defamation ( kleveta ) . On DATE ORG Instance found the applicant guilty and ordered him to pay a fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) and costs in the amount of ORG CARDINAL . On DATE ORG rejected the criminal action as the prosecution had become time - barred in the meantime . There is no information in the case file whether other journalists whose names appeared in the article instituted proceedings , either civil or criminal , against the applicant .

NORP The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ Everyone is entitled to freedom of expression ....

Freedom of expression can be limited only by the right of others to dignity , reputation and honour .... ”

An Act ... can not have a retroactive effect .

Exceptionally , certain provisions of an LAW can have retroactive effect , if required by the public interest ....

“ The Constitutional Court shall ...

( CARDINAL ) ... [ rule on a ] ... constitutional appeal ... [ lodged in respect of an alleged ] ... violation of a human right or freedom guaranteed by LAW , after all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted ... ”

The LAW entered into force on DATE .

Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that while decisions upon a constitutional appeal may be published in ORG , they must be published on the website of ORG .

Sections DATE provide additional details as regards the processing of constitutional appeals . In particular , section CARDINAL provides that when ORG finds a violation of a human right or freedom , it shall quash the impugned decision , entirely or partially , and order that the case be re - examined by the same body which rendered the quashed decision .

This Act entered into force in DATE .

Rule CARDINAL ) provides that public access to the work of the court is to be ensured , inter alia , by publishing its decisions in ORG and on the website of the court .

Section CARDINAL regulated responsibility for pecuniary damage caused by an individual ’s harming another person ’s reputation or asserting or disseminating untrue allegations where that individual knew or should have known that these allegations were untrue .

Under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , inter alia , anyone who had suffered mental anguish as a consequence of damage to his honour or reputation could , depending on its duration and intensity , sue for financial compensation before the civil courts and , in addition , request other forms of redress “ which might be capable ” of affording adequate non - pecuniary compensation .

Section CARDINAL provided that if untrue information , which harmed another ’s honour or reputation , was published in the media ( javno glasilo ) , an interested person would be entitled to sue the relevant author , editor - in - chief , founder and publisher for financial compensation .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that if a person ’s honour or integrity is harmed by information published in the media , that person may file a compensation claim against the author and the founder of the particular medium in question .

This Act entered into force in DATE .

As of DATE a total of CARDINAL constitutional appeals would appear to have been examined by ORG : CARDINAL of them were rejected on procedural grounds ( odbačene ) , CARDINAL were rejected on the merits ( odbijene ) , in CARDINAL cases the proceedings were terminated ( obustava postupka ) , and in CARDINAL cases examination was adjourned . By DATE , CARDINAL constitutional appeals had been accepted , the first CARDINAL having been accepted on DATE ; this decision was published in ORG on DATE .

A single document containing CARDINAL decisions rendered in DATE was posted on the website of ORG on an unspecified date in DATE . Another single document containing CARDINAL decisions , out of CARDINAL rendered in DATE , was posted on the website on an unspecified date after CARDINAL DATE . By DATE none of CARDINAL decisions rendered in DATE has been made public on ORG website .

By DATE CARDINAL decisions had been published in ORG and in these CARDINAL constitutional appeals were accepted .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr T. Kiss , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by PERSON , Agent , ORG and Law Enforcement .

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

In DATE the applicant brought an action in trespass before the ORG alleging that his neighbour ’s very noisy activities with a heavy lorry at TIME interfered with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property . In DATE the court found for him , ordering the neighbour to refrain from manoeuvring his lorry in his yard TIME On appeal , on DATE the ORG - ORG upheld the first - instance decision on the merits , but dismissed the applicant ’s additional claim to have his neighbour prohibited from parking his lorry in his own garden . The applicant requested the execution of this judgment on DATE .

On DATE an enforcement order was issued . On DATE ORG called on the applicant to state whether or not the neighbour had complied with the judgment . In reply , the applicant alleged that the neighbour had breached the injunction on several occasions .

On DATE ORG imposed a fine on the neighbour in order to secure his observance of the injunction .

On DATE the neighbour appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG held a hearing . It heard evidence from the applicant , the neighbour and CARDINAL witnesses . Relying on the evidence thus obtained , on DATE the court found against the applicant , holding that his neighbour had observed the injunction .

The applicant did not appeal .


Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant is a company based in ORG .

NORP In DATE , it became the owner of several flats in GPE , which had all been leased by the previous owner .

In a writ served on the tenant on DATE , the applicant communicated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before ORG .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was made enforceable on DATE , ORG upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by DATE .

On DATE , the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises .

On DATE , it served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on DATE .

DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession . Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as , under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions , the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession .

On DATE , the applicant recovered possession of the flat .

In DATE , the tenant vacated the premises .

On an unspecified date , the applicant recovered possession of the flat .

DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession . Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions , the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession .

NORP The relevant domestic law is described in the ORG 's judgment in the case of ORG GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-V.


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

On DATE the applicants applied to an employment tribunal in a dispute between themselves and their employer , contesting the grade in which they had been placed under an additional clause modifying a workplace agreement .

On DATE the employment tribunal gave judgment in their favour .

On DATE their employer appealed . On DATE ORG varied the first - instance judgment .

On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed an appeal on a point of law lodged by the applicants , ruling that their ground of appeal was “ not such as to warrant admitting the appeal ” , thus applying Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , as amended by PERSON no . DATE of DATE , which had introduced a special procedure for the consideration of appeals on points of law .

The relevant part of LAW , as amended by PERSON no . DATE of DATE , provides :

“ After pleadings have been filed cases before a civil division shall be tried by a bench of CARDINAL judges of the division to which they have been assigned .

The bench shall refuse to admit appeals which are inadmissible or not founded on a serious ground of cassation . ”


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE an article entitled “ Experts have doubts about the impartiality of the child ombudsman . Children are weapons in bitter disputes . ” was published in a magazine PERSON article , written by a free - lance journalist PERSON , concerned the applicant and her work .

On DATE the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against ORG , the editor - in - chief of the magazine , PERSON , and the publishing company ORG before the then ORG ( raastuvanoikeus , rådstuvurätt ) of GPE , for public defamation , alleging that the article insulted and defamed her professional experience . On DATE the court dismissed the action . It referred to the amendments to LAW ( painovapauslaki , tryckfrihetslag ) , according to which the proceedings should have been initiated before ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) of GPE . Apparently the applicant ’s counsel failed to lodge new charges in time .

On DATE the applicant instituted criminal - based civil proceedings against ORG , ORG and the publishing company before ORG of Espoo , requesting compensation for non - pecuniary damage of MONEY ( ORG , amounting to MONEY ( ORG ) ) for mental distress and suffering due to the allegedly incriminating and insulting nature of the article .

The defendants lodged a counterclaim , which was served on the applicant on DATE . She lodged an additional claim on CARDINAL DATE .

The defendants served their written submissions on DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted further written submissions .

On DATE ORG held a preparatory hearing .

On DATE ORG held the principal trial , which terminated on DATE after a hearing , which DATE .

By its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims and ordered her to reimburse the GPE legal costs . She appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) of GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel requested an extension of the time - limit for the appeal . This was extended to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged her appeal documents .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to suspend the enforcement of ORG judgment .

On DATE ORG dismissed her request .

On DATE ORG invited the parties to submit written observations . These were received on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted further written evidence .

On DATE ORG requested the defendants to submit their observations on the further evidence and the applicant to submit her comments on the new witnesses proposed by the defendants . It informed the parties that there would be an oral hearing and proposed dates in DATE .

According to the Government , the dates fixed had to be vacated due to the unavailability of the parties . The hearing took place instead on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE . The parties were told that the judgment would be delivered on DATE . This however was postponed due to the illness of CARDINAL of the judges .

On DATE ORG revoked the judgment of ORG , finding a part of the article to be defamatory . It ordered the defendants to pay the applicant CARDINAL FIM ( ORG CARDINAL ) plus interest for non - pecuniary damage caused by the defamation . It further ordered that both parties should bear their own legal costs incurred before the domestic courts .

On DATE the applicant sought leave to appeal from ORG and lodged further submissions on DATE . On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

The applicant and her husband were involved in a number of real estate transactions . On DATE the applicant 's husband presented her with a flat in PERSON of LOC which she subsequently exchanged for another flat in a different locality .

On DATE the applicant became involved in the dispute challenging the CARDINAL - way real estate exchange transactions through the claims brought by the other parties to the transactions .

On DATE the ORG of LOC ( “ the ORG ” ) annulled the transactions concerning the applicant and her husband . The parties did not appeal , and the judgment came into force .

On DATE and DATE CARDINAL other trial courts of the region adopted further judgments related to the same dispute . The parties did not inform ORG content of those judgments .

On DATE , at the applicant 's request , the deputy president of ORG of GPE brought an extraordinary appeal against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted the appeal , quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG suggested that the ORG review the judgments of DATE and DATE on account of newly discovered circumstances .

NORP On DATE and DATE ORG explained to the applicant that it was necessary to file a request for review of the impugned judgments on account of newly discovered circumstances .

On DATE the applicant filed such a request with ORG , at the same time claiming invalidation of CARDINAL exchange transactions , involving her husband and third parties LOC and PERSON .

On DATE ORG decided to quash the judgment of DATE on account of newly discovered circumstances .

DATE and DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings . CARDINAL of them did not take place due to the parties ' failure to appear . According to the Government , on DATE ORG “ made certain arrangements to ensure the parties ' appearance for the next hearing ” .

On DATE ORG annulled all the real estate exchange transactions between the parties to the dispute . The court found it lawful to examine the case and adopt the judgment in absence of CARDINAL of the respondents PERSON . who had been notified of court hearings on multiple occasions .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) set aside the above judgment on appeal for errors in application of the procedural law , including insufficient measures to ensure PERSON . 's appearance in court , and ordered a new hearing .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings until DATE a counter - terrorist operation in GPE of GPE , where one of the disputed flats was located . The proceedings were resumed on DATE .

On DATE the court postponed the hearing due to some of the parties ' failure to appear , having again “ made certain arrangements to ensure their appearance for the next hearing ” .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned due to the failure to appear of CARDINAL of the parties ' legal counsel .

After a hearing on DATE , the court decided to send a rogatory letter to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for questioning of CARDINAL of the parties . The proceedings were stayed until its execution .

On DATE the proceedings were resumed . The court scheduled the next hearing for DATE due to examination of CARDINAL of the parties ' appeal of an injunction order .

On DATE the hearing did not take place due to some of the parties ' failure to appear .

On DATE ORG accepted some of the parties ' renunciation of their claims , transferred the rest of the claims for consideration to ORG and discontinued the proceedings .

After QUANTITY hearings , on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , including the part concerning the applicant 's flat .

On DATE ORG overturned the above decision of on appeal and ordered a new examination .

On DATE president of ORG brought an extraordinary appeal ( протест в порядке надзора ) against ORG decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . It is not clear from the parties ' submissions when the higher court called up the case for examination of the extraordinary appeal .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the impugned decisions by way of supervisory review for errors in application of the procedural law and remitted the matter for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG admitted the claims for new consideration and scheduled preparatory meetings with the parties .

On DATE following CARDINAL of the parties ' protest against examination of the case in absence of the respondent PERSON . , ORG stayed the proceedings until PERSON . 's whereabouts could be established . In particular , the court noted that it had procured information from the post office , town administration and address bureau of the region of PERSON . 's possible residence and obtained a police report . The parties were apprised of their right to file a request with the police for PERSON . 's search .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .

On DATE ORG quashed its decision of DATE at the parties ' request and resumed the proceedings .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's claims for invalidation of the CARDINAL - way exchange transactions . It transpires from the text of the judgment that PERSON . , whose whereabouts were still unknown , was represented by legal counsel appointed by the court in accordance with LAW . The applicant appealed the judgment but did not inform the ORG about the outcome of her appeal .

On DATE the Justice of Peace of Court Circuit No . CARDINAL of GPE of LOC dismissed the applicant 's claim for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages allegedly resulting from delayed payment of the guardian 's allowance to her .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .

Section CARDINAL provided that in case of unknown whereabouts of a respondent party the court should begin examination of the case upon receipt of the summons with a note testifying that it had been viewed by the housing authority or local council of people 's deputies at the respondent 's place of residence . It further provided that the court should put a missing respondent on the wanted list if the dispute concerned alimony , health damages and damages resulting from the loss of the main provider , and was entitled to do so in disputes brought by ORG or public agencies .

Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL provided that the court was entitled to stay the proceedings if the respondent had been put on the wanted list in accordance with LAW .

Section CARDINAL provided that the proceedings that were stayed in accordance with LAW should be resumed upon establishing the respondent 's whereabouts .

Section CARDINAL provides that the court should appoint legal counsel to represent a respondent with an unknown place of residence and in other cases envisaged by the federal law .

Section CARDINAL provides that court proceedings should be resumed upon clearance of the factors impeding continuation of the proceedings , by way of the parties ' request or court 's own initiative .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Gdańsk .

On DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE he was charged with having assisted in counterfeiting a secondary education diploma ( udzielenie pomocy w podrobieniu świadectwa maturalnego ) . The applicant was released on DATE , after having paid a bail of MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons was lodged with ORG ( FAC ) .

On an unspecified date , CARDINAL of the co - accused , DATE , requested the court to sentence her without carrying out the whole proceedings and her case was severed for separate examination . A judgment against DATE was given on DATE .

A first hearing , scheduled on DATE , was adjourned . No reasons for this decision were provided .

The trial started on DATE .

On CARDINAL occasion a hearing was adjourned , as the applicant ’s coaccused failed to appear .

Two hearings were adjourned , as the applicant and his co - accused have not been transferred to the court from prison .

On CARDINAL occasions the applicant ’s lawyer failed to attend the hearings . It appears that on CARDINAL of those occasions he has not been properly summoned .

QUANTITY hearings , scheduled on DATE and DATE , were adjourned , as the case - file concerning another set of criminal proceedings has not been delivered to the trial court .

CARDINAL hearings , scheduled on DATE and DATE , were adjourned , without any reasons being provided .

A hearing scheduled on DATE was cancelled due to the judge - rapporteur ’s illness .

On DATE ORG ) requested the trial court to exclude judge PERSON , to whom the applicant ’s case was assigned , from the proceedings . The prosecutor relied on the fact that PERSON had given a judgment against DATE and that , according to the recent case - law of ORG , in circumstances like those of the present case , the same judge could not examine a case against several co - accused on the basis of the same evidentiary material .

On DATE the ORG granted the prosecutor ’s request and excluded PERSON from the proceedings . The trial has recommenced .

On DATE the ORG quashed the preventive measure imposed on the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The amount paid as bail was returned to the applicant .

The proceedings are still pending before the first - instance court .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time with respect to the first set of criminal proceedings against him . He relied on the PERSON of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . The applicant sought PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL in just - satisfaction .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) acknowledged that the proceedings have indeed been lengthy and awarded LAW to the applicant . It underlined that the trial court has failed to ensure that the hearings were adequately prepared and organised . It also noted that the applicant ’s lawyer has partly contributed to the overall length of the proceedings . In that respect the trial court was criticised for not having taken disciplinary measures against the applicant ’s lawyer at an earlier stage of the proceedings , by informing the FAC about the advocate ’s failure to perform his duties .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking .

On DATE the Gdańsk Distirct Court remanded him in custody , relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question . It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given the risk that if released , the applicant might tamper with evidence . In that respect the court underlined the fact that the applicant has not admitted to having committed the offence he had been charged with . The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence .

The applicant ’s appeal against the detention order , likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful .

On DATE a bill of indictment was lodged with ORG . It comprised CARDINAL charges of drug trafficking brought against CARDINAL defendants .

On an unspecified date charges against CARDINAL of the co - accused , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , were severed , as they requested the court to sentence them without carrying out the whole proceedings . A judgment in their case was delivered on DATE .

On DATE the trial court held its first hearing .

During the court proceedings , the applicant ’s detention was further prolonged on DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE and on DATE and DATE .

In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question , which was supported by evidence from witnesses . They attached importance to the grave nature of that offence and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant . They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , especially the need to obtain evidence from witnesses , justified holding him in custody .

On DATE the applicant requested the trial court to exclude judge PERSON from the proceedings . He relied on the fact that PERSON had given a judgment against GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE and that consequently , he could not examine a case against him , on the basis of the same evidentiary material ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the judge was excluded from the proceedings . The trial had to restart .

On DATE the ORG lifted the applicant ’s detention . The court found that the applicant ’s detention was already approaching a DATE period and that , taking into consideration that the trial had to be repeated , he could no longer be held in detention . According to the court , the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings has no longer been a relevant factor , in view of the lapse of time .

From DATE the applicant served a prison sentence ordered in another set of criminal proceedings against him .

The proceedings are still pending before ORG .

On DATE the applicant received a letter from his lawyer . In that respect the applicant presented a copy of an envelope which bears a stamp “ censored ( “ ocenzurowano ” ) . The stamp is crossed out . The envelope also contains a handwritten note which says “ censorship abandoned ” ( “ odstąpiono od cenzury ” ) , date and illegible signature .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its prolongation , release from detention and rules governing other , so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant statistical data , recent amendments to the Code of Criminal procedure designed to streamline criminal proceedings and references to the relevant ORG materials can be found in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE and CARDINAL , DATE ) .

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