The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

NORP In accordance with an agreement on the division of their mutual property with her former husband , approved by a court decision on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was entitled to a number of shares in CARDINAL companies owned by the husband .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action , requesting that the value of the shares in CARDINAL of the companies be awarded to her .

On DATE , during the hearing of the applicant ’s case , ORG discovered some evidence of crime , allegedly committed by the director and the chief accountant of those companies . In particular , they were suspected of embezzlement and fraud ( ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW as then in force ) . The court considered that , in these circumstances :

“ it was not possible to assess the value of [ the applicant ’s ] claims ; therefore , her civil action should be referred for an examination in the framework of the criminal proceedings . ”

On DATE the applicant was afforded the status of a victim in those proceedings .

On DATE she was granted the status of a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings .

She was further granted the status of a civil claimant on DATE .

On DATE several other criminal procedures against the director were joined in CARDINAL set of proceedings .

On DATE an expert examination was ordered . It was completed on DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant requested the institution of further criminal proceedings against the director and other employees of the companies , alleging that they had falsified certificates as to the number and value of the shares which had belonged to her former husband . On DATE the prosecutors dismissed her request .

On DATE the bill of indictment against the director of the companies and CARDINAL other co - accused was approved . The original charges of embezzlement and fraud were supplemented with accusations of forgery and negligent accountancy ( respectively , Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW as then in force ) .

On DATE the accused were committed for trial .

Hearings scheduled for DATE and CARDINAL DATE were adjourned at the request of the defendants .

On DATE the court ordered a further expert examination . It was completed on DATE .

On DATE and DATE the trial was adjourned due to the illness of the defendants .

Hearings scheduled for DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE were partially adjourned because certain witnesses failed to appear before the court . The court questioned those witnesses present and ordered the police to bring the remaining witnesses to the next hearing .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned due to the illness of the judge .

On DATE the hearing was again adjourned due to the failure of certain witnesses to appear .

On CARDINAL DATE the hearing was further adjourned since CARDINAL of the defendants had failed to appear due to illness .

On DATE another expert examination was ordered at the request of the prosecution .

In a letter to the prosecution of DATE , ORG noted that the proceedings had lasted an unduly long time due to deficiencies in the pre - trial investigation .

On DATE the ORG decided to exclude the applicant from the list of civil claimants . The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decision , the courts ruling that domestic law did not provide her with a right of appeal .

On DATE the ORG convicted the defendants .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the applicant that she could appeal against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested renewal of the time - limit to lodge an appeal against her exclusion from the list of civil claimants .

On DATE the ORG granted her request . It was noted that the courts had erred in deciding that the domestic law had precluded the applicant from appealing .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal whereby she challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE and the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s appeal . The court noted that the applicant was not a participant in the trial , and therefore was not entitled to appeal against the judgment DATE . Moreover , the court found that the applicant had failed to comply with the time - limit for appeal without good reason .

On DATE the applicant challenged that decision .

On DATE the ORG granted her appeal . The court renewed the time - limit for appeal against the judgment of DATE . It was noted , inter alia , that the courts had unduly restricted the applicant ’s rights by refusing to accept her appeal .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of DATE whereby the applicant had been deprived of the status of civil claimant . It was noted that the impugned decision had breached the applicant ’s rights . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE was also quashed , and the case was remitted for a fresh examination .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned as CARDINAL of the defendants , certain witnesses and defence counsel had failed to appear .

On DATE the trial hearing was further adjourned due to the failure to summon CARDINAL of the defendants .

Following the applicant ’s hierarchical complaint about the actions of ORG , an inquiry was conducted by ORG . In a letter of DATE , the latter informed the applicant that ORG had not undertaken all the necessary measures to ensure a speedy trial .

On DATE the ORG convicted the defendants of forgery and negligent bookkeeping , and acquitted them of the original charges of embezzlement and fraud .

By the same judgment , the trial court decided to leave the applicant ’s civil claims “ without examination ” . The court noted that the defendants had neither been accused of nor tried for offences which could have caused damage to the applicant ’s interests as a shareholder . It further reasoned that , as a shareholder , the applicant had no entitlement to any part of the property of a joint - stock company . Only if the company had been liquidated could she claim a part of its property , together with other shareholders . It noted that the applicant had a possibility to pursue her claims by way of a separate civil action . The court concluded that “ the applicant should not be deemed a victim or civil claimant in this case ” .

The applicant appealed , complaining that she had incurred significant pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , particularly as the examination of the case had taken DATE . She reiterated that the criminal case had been instituted on the basis of her civil action , and that she had been granted the status of victim and civil claimant .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It noted :

“ The victim , ORG , took part in the examination of the case throughout the proceedings ; she was entitled [ inter alia ] to submit a civil claim and the evidence in order to substantiate it . However ... the submission of a civil claim does not presuppose the obligation on the part of the court to satisfy it . ... The first - instance court has reasonably established that the victim ’s right to part of the company ’s property would only arise in accordance with company law , and has correctly noted that [ the applicant ] could defend her property rights in accordance with the civil procedure . ...

When adopting the ... judgment , the court must also decide on the civil claim . Civil claims can only be granted if [ the defendants are convicted ] , and it is established that the civil claimant had suffered pecuniary damage due to the criminal acts in question ; finally , there must be a causal link between the criminal actions and the damage incurred . ...

The defendants were not tried for any offence which could have caused damage to [ the applicant ] . ...

As to [ the applicant ’s ] property rights , they are not the object of this criminal case . It is the object of civil law and has only to be decided in accordance with the civil proceedings . ”

The court further noted that the examination of the case had been unjustifiably long , in breach of LAW , LAW and LAW . The court concluded however that , despite the acknowledgement of the breach , “ it was not possible to remedy this flaw at the current stage of the proceedings ” . On DATE , the judgment of DATE entered into force .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , complaining , inter alia , that the courts had failed to bring additional charges of forgery against the defendants , which would have allowed their conviction and the satisfaction of her civil claims . She also alleged that the length of the proceedings had been excessive .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal . ORG established that the prosecution had rightly refused to bring additional charges against the defendants , as they had found no evidence of the crimes alleged by the applicant .

With respect to the applicant ’s civil claims , ORG noted that her entitlement to a certain number of shares had not been questioned . It also found that , in the share certificates issued by the defendants , the number and value of shares belonging to the applicant had been wrongly calculated and did not correspond to the data appearing in the company ’s statute . ORG concluded , however , that this error did not restrict the applicant ’s rights as a shareholder ; nor did it cause her any pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage . ORG further concluded that , in such circumstances , there had been no basis to grant the applicant the status of a civil claimant .

Finally , ORG endorsed the findings of the appellate court as to the length of the proceedings . It emphasised , however , that it was not reasonable to consider that the excessive length was an “ essential violation ” of LAW since , in such a case , the decisions of the lower courts would have to be quashed , and this would have only further prolonged the examination of the case .

The applicant did not bring a new civil action .

“ The person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the right to apply to court . ”

The ruling of ORG of DATE stipulates :

“ ... by virtue of the LAW , a person has the right to claim compensation for damage caused by the unlawful actions of ORG institutions and agents , even if such compensation is not foreseen by law ; the courts adjudicating such cases ... have the power to award appropriate compensation by directly applying the principles of the LAW ... as well as the general principles of law , while being guided inter alia by the principle of reasonableness , etc ” .


CASE OF GASIMOVA AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Peer Lorenzen

All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers ( yaşayış sahəsi orderi ) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority ( see Appendix - Table I ) .

In all CARDINAL cases , the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons ( “ IDPs ” ) from different regions of GPE under occupation by NORP military forces following the ORG conflict over GPE - Karabakh .

The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats .

On the dates indicated in the Appendix ( Table I ) , the ORG claims were granted by different domestic courts , which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats .

The respective judgments became final and enforceable . However , the ORG families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the ORG complaints to various authorities , the judgments were not enforced .

After the communication of application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL to the respondent Government , on DATE the judgment in favour of Ms PERSON was enforced .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


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

On DATE , the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody ( inverzekeringstelling ) on suspicion of trafficking drugs .

On DATE , after having heard the applicant , the investigating judge ( rechter - commissaris ) ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand ( inbewaringstelling ) for a period of DATE . The reasons stated by the investigating judge were :

“ It appears from the case - file that there are serious indications against the suspect ( there is more than a mere suspicion ) .

There are weighty reasons of public safety that warrant detention on remand , namely :

detention on remand is necessary because there exists a justified fear for recidivism : there is namely a substantial possibility that the suspect will commit an offence which , according to the legal definition , attracts a prison sentence of DATE or more ; ( there is fear for recidivism ) , which appears from the circumstance :

- that there are reasons to believe that the suspect is involved in drug trafficking , which trade is so lucrative that the suspect will be unable or unwilling to do without this source of income . ”

On DATE , after having heard the applicant , ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) ordered the applicant ’s further detention on remand ( gevangenhouding ) for DATE , holding :

“ ORG considers that , after examination , it has appeared that the suspicion , indications and ground , which have led to the order for detention on remand ( bevel tot bewaring ) , currently still exist . ”

On DATE , after having heard the applicant , ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention on remand by a further DATE . It held :

“ ORG considers that , after examination , it has appeared that the suspicion , indications and grounds , which have led to the order for the suspect ’s further detention on remand ( bevel gevangenhouding ) , currently still exist . ”

The applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE – in which he relied inter alia on the ORG ’s considerations in the case of PERSON v. GPE , ( judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) – was rejected on DATE by the ‘ s - ORG ( gerechtshof ) . It upheld the impugned decision , holding :

“ considering that ORG concurs with the above - cited ruling and the grounds on which it is based , on the understanding that the [ applicant ’s ] pre - trial detention is also based on the following weighty reason of public safety , namely :

it concerns suspicion of a fact which , according to the legal definition , attracts a prison sentence of DATE or more and this fact has seriously rocked the legal order , consequently the appeal must be dismissed . ”

By judgment of DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of drug offences and , in accordance with the provisions of inter alia Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment of which CARDINAL were suspended pending a DATE period , and with deduction of the time spent in pre - trial detention . In addition , it imposed a fine of CARDINAL . In the determination of its sentence , ORG took into account that the applicant had never been convicted previously of a drug offence . Although the applicant could have filed an appeal against this judgment , he did not do so .

LAW ; “ ORG ” ) defines pre - trial detention ( voorlopige hechtenis ) as deprivation of liberty pursuant to an order for detention on remand ( inbewaringstelling ) , a warrant for the taking into pre - trial detention ( gevangenneming ) or an order for further detention on remand ( gevangenhouding ) . The statutory rules governing pre - trial detention are set out in ORG CARDINAL of the ORG .

LAW ORG reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . An order for pre - trial detention can be issued in case of suspicion of :

( a ) an offence which , according to the law , carries a punishment of imprisonment of DATE or more ;

( b ) one of the offences defined in Articles CARDINAL , CARDINALc § CARDINAL , CARDINALd § CARDINAL , LAW § CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINALb , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINALa , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINALc , CARDINAL and CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code ;

( c ) one of the offences defined in :

- LAW , part b , of the DATE Road Traffic Act ( ORG ) ;

- LAW ( GPE buitengewone bevoegdheden burgerlijk gezag ) ;

- Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and DATE of ORG ( Conscientious Objectors ) Act ( GPE militaire dienst ) ;

- LAW ( Wet op de kansspelen ) ;

- LAW ;

- LAW ( QUANTITY wapens en munitie ) ;

- LAW ( LANGUAGE toezicht effectenverkeer ) .

The order can further be issued if no permanent address or place of residence of the suspect in the GPE can be established and he is suspected of an offence within the jurisdiction of the regional courts and which , according to the law , is punishable by imprisonment .

The previous paragraphs are only applied when it appears from the facts or circumstances that there are serious indications against the suspect . ”

Article PERSON of the ORG reads :

“ CARDINAL . An order based on LAW can only be issued :

a. if it is apparent from particular behaviour displayed by the suspect , or from particular circumstances concerning him personally , that there is a serious danger of absconding ;

b. if it is apparent from particular circumstances that there is a serious reason of public safety requiring the immediate deprivation of liberty .

For the application of the preceding paragraph , only the following can be considered as a serious reason of public safety :

- CARDINAL . if it concerns suspicion of commission of an act which , according to the law , carries a punishment of imprisonment of DATE or more and the legal order has been seriously rocked by that act ;

- CARDINAL . if there is a serious risk the suspect will commit an offence which , according to the law , carries a prison sentence of DATE or more or whereby the security of the ORG or the health or safety of persons may be endangered , or give rise to a general danger to goods ;

- CARDINAL . if it concerns suspicion of CARDINAL of the offences defined in ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINALa , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE or CARDINAL of the Criminal Code , whereas DATE have passed since DATE on which , on account of CARDINAL of these offences , the suspect has been irrevocably sentenced to a punishment or measure entailing deprivation of liberty , a measure entailing restriction of liberty or community service , and there is further a serious risk that the suspect will again commit CARDINAL of those offences ;

- CARDINAL . if pre - trial detention is reasonably necessary for discovering the truth otherwise than through statements of the suspect .

An order for pre - trial detention shall not be issued if there are serious prospects that , in case of a conviction , no irrevocable custodial sentence or a measure entailing deprivation of liberty will be imposed on the suspect , or that he , by the enforcement of the order , would be deprived of his liberty for a longer period than the duration of the custodial sentence or measure . ”

Orders for pre - trial detention are immediately enforceable ( LAW ORG ) . Pre - trial detention in the form of an order for detention on remand of a suspect may be issued by the investigating judge for a maximum duration of DATE ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG ) .

Under LAW ORG , a subsequent prolongation of pre - trial detention may be ordered by ORG in the form of an order for further detention on remand for a maximum duration of DATE . In case the trial proceedings have not started within the CARDINAL days’ validity of an order for further detention on remand , ORG can prolong it twice , each time for a maximum of DATE ( LAW ORG ) .

LAW ORG reads :

“ An order for pre - trial detention may be lifted by ORG . It may do so of its own motion or upon the request of the suspect , or DATE in so far as it concerns an order for ... further detention on remand DATE upon a proposal from the investigating judge or a request by the public prosecutor . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , states :

“ CARDINAL . Within a maximum of DATE after its execution , the suspect may file an appeal with ORG against a decision of ORG ordering further detention on remand ...

Within the same time - limit , the suspect may file an appeal against an extension of an order for further detention on remand , but only if no appeal has been filed by him against the order for further detention on remand or against a previous prolongation order ... ”

Article QUANTITY of the ORG , in so far as relevant , provides :

“ CARDINAL . The suspect , who has requested for the first time to suspend ( schorsing ) or to lift ( opheffing ) an order for pre - trial detention , may file an appeal with ORG against a negative decision on that request . The suspect , who has filed an appeal against a negative decision on a request for suspension , can not subsequently file an appeal against a negative decision on a request to lift a pre - trial detention order . The suspect , who has filed an appeal against a negative decision on a request to lift a pre - trial detention order , can not subsequently file an appeal against a negative decision on a request for suspension of pre - trial detention . ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

CARDINAL .

The applicants are either owners , or the heirs of owners , of property which is governed by the custodianship regime under LAW .

None of the applicants have taken proceedings in the domestic courts or brought such proceedings to a conclusion . The third applicant in no . CARDINAL claims to have proceedings pending but no documents or details have been provided .

NORP The applicant is the heir of his grandfather who owned properties in GPE . He stated that he was unable to access or enjoy these properties .

He complains under LAW No . CARDINAL and LAW .

The applicant who lived with his family near GPE in the south of GPE prior to DATE owned a number of properties , as did his deceased wife and other members of his family , also now deceased . Following DATE , the applicant sought to take steps to recover possession of this property . He instructed a lawyer who however took no steps to take proceedings . On CARDINAL DATE , the applicant sent a letter to the Minister of the ORG , listing the properties and requesting their return and compensation ; he sent a follow - up letter in DATE . He has received no substantive response .

The applicant invokes LAW No . CARDINAL and LAW as regards the properties , Articles DATE and CARDINAL alleging lack of access to court and lack of an effective remedy and LAW alleging discrimination against NORP .

Various property including houses , fields and shops were transferred to the applicant by his father and mother DATE . This property was administered by LAW under Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL . On DATE , the applicant wrote to ORG , requesting return of the properties and full compensation for loss of use since DATE . He has received no reply .

The applicant , a NORP , bought land in DATE and rented it out . The tenant paid rent until DATE when the authorities took over the applicant ’s property .

On DATE , the applicant wrote to ORG , requesting return of the properties and full compensation for loss of use since DATE . She received a response in DATE that the application would be examined and she would be informed in due course . She has received no further reply .

The relevant case - law and laws are set out in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . DATE et al , § § CARDINAL , decision of CARDINAL DATE ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-1-c;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE criminal proceedings for murder were initiated ( “ the murder case ” ) . On DATE charges of murder and the unlawful acquisition , storage and transportation of firearms were brought against the applicant ’s brother and another person . The accused persons , having fled , were formally declared wanted on DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE , photographs of CARDINAL persons – the applicant , his brother , the other person accused of murder and the latter ’s brother DATE were posted on the boards of “ wanted persons ” in the police stations of the LOC in GPE , LOC ( western GPE ) and on the NORP - Georgian border . Identified by their names , they were said to be wanted by the police in connection with a murder .

NORP In reply to queries from the applicant ’s lawyers , ORG in GPE stated on DATE that , DATE , no criminal procedural measures of a coercive nature against the applicant had been registered in the relevant log . Further , by a notification of DATE , the NORP - Saburtalo police station confirmed to the lawyers that solely the applicant ’s brother , who was charged with the murder and firearms offences , had been declared wanted and that no similar measure had been taken with respect to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers requested ORG ( “ the NORP ” ) to remove the applicant ’s photograph from the police stations and to punish those who had unlawfully posted it . In a reply of DATE , the ORG reiterated that only the applicant ’s brother had been wanted for the murder and firearms offences . As to the applicant , in view of his constant refusals to appear before the NORP - Saburtalo district prosecutor ’s office , the latter agency had taken “ the relevant operational measures aimed at having him interviewed , in the capacity of a witness ” . No reply was given to the request for the photograph ’s removal .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers requested the ORG to initiate criminal proceedings for libel on the basis of the unlawful posting of the applicant ’s photograph in the police stations ( “ the libel complaint ” ) . Under LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) as in force at the material time , the offence of libel was a matter for private prosecution and , pursuant to LAW ORG , only a competent court was empowered to initiate criminal proceedings on the basis of a complaint by the victim .

As disclosed by the case file , the NORP - Saburtalo ORG decided to summon the applicant to a hearing , reasoning that it was necessary to hear oral submissions from him . The summons could not be served on the applicant at his home address , as his parents stated that his whereabouts had been unknown for DATE .

NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the NORP - Saburtalo ORG dismissed the libel complaint . The court pointed out that a private prosecution could be requested either personally by the victim or by his representative in law ( LAW ORG ) . That being so , the court , whilst accepting the power of the applicant ’s lawyers to represent him , pointed out that the libel complaint had been signed not by the applicant or his representative in law but by the director of the human rights advocacy centre of which the lawyers were members . The lawyers replied that their client had been feeling insecure as to his liberty , hence his non - appearance before the court . They reiterated the content of the complaint orally , requesting the identification and punishment of those officials who had unlawfully posted the applicant ’s photograph and implicated him in the murder . ORG concluded that the disclosed no elements of libel . However , it decided to forward the request and the case file to the competent prosecutor ’s office so that the latter agency could examine whether any offence had been committed by public officials in the performance of their duties .

An appeal lay against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , but had to be lodged within the following DATE . However , as disclosed by the case file , the applicant ’s lawyers did not appeal .

On DATE an article disclosing the story of the posted photograph was published in a national newspaper . Shortly afterwards , the applicant ’s photograph was removed from the police stations .

In a letter of DATE , the NORP - Saburtalo district prosecutor ’s office informed the applicant ’s lawyers that the court decision of DATE had never ordered it to initiate criminal proceedings either for libel or for any offence committed by persons holding public office , but had simply forwarded the case file with the instruction “ to react ” . Accordingly , the prosecutor ’s office had decided , on DATE , to forward the case to the ORG for an internal investigation . The letter of DATE did not enclose a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE and did not advise the applicant of the appeal procedure , if appropriate . As disclosed by the case file , the ORG never informed the applicant of any decision taken in respect of the subsequent developments in his case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the applicant lodged with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) another application to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the unlawful posting of his photographs ( “ the second criminal complaint ” ) . The ORG transmitted this request to the GPE city prosecutor ’s office with the instruction to take “ a decision in accordance with the law ” . The latter agency forwarded this instruction to the ORG district prosecutor ’s office . According to the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE he requested a report from the prosecution authority on the progress of the proceedings in respect of his second criminal complaint but no reply was forthcoming . According to the Government , however , the ORG district prosecutor ’s office examined that complaint and took a decision on an unspecified date . Neither the content nor the date of that decision was specified by the Government in their observations .

According to the applicant , in the course of the investigation into the murder case , the authorities constantly threatened his parents that they would “ catch ” him , unless his fugitive brother surrendered to the authorities .

On DATE the applicant responded to the authorities’ repeated calls to testify as a witness in the murder case by voluntarily appearing before the ORG district prosecutor ’s office . Upon arrival and without being examined in the capacity of a witness , he was arrested on suspicion of unlawfully acquiring , storing and/or transporting firearms and ammunition , which offence formed part of the murder case . The suspicion was formally based on several pieces of evidence – statements by CARDINAL witnesses , the results of a search and the forensic examination of the seized firearms – all of which had been obtained in DATE and DATE , in the course of the investigation into the murder case .

DATE , the NORP - Saburtalo district prosecutor ’s office disjoined the firearms aspect from the murder case and registered it as a separate set of proceedings ( “ the firearms case ” ) . Subsequently , the applicant was confronted , in the presence of his lawyer , with one of the witnesses whose statements had been obtained in DATE and DATE ( see the preceding paragraph ) . During that confrontation , the witness altered his previous testimony in favour of the applicant , by concluding that only the applicant ’s brother had been involved in the firearms offence . The investigator concluded that the applicant and his lawyer had subjected the witness to undue “ moral pressure ” during the confrontation .

On DATE the investigator reexamined the abovementioned witness , this time in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer . The witness retracted the altered testimony he had given the previous day and confirmed the truthfulness of the statements he had made in DATE and DATE .

On DATE the charge of storing and transporting firearms and ammunition was preferred against the applicant . This charge was based on the above - mentioned evidence obtained in the course of the investigation into the murder case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant pleaded “ not guilty ” . On DATE the prosecutor requested that the applicant be remanded in custody for DATE .

As disclosed by the case file , the prosecutor ’s main argument during the remand hearing was that the applicant ’s release could jeopardise the pending investigation of the murder case , particularly when CARDINAL of the accused in that case , his brother , was missing . The applicant replied that it was unlawful to justify his pre - trial detention in the interests of the murder case , as he had been detained solely on suspicion of having committed the firearms offence . He challenged the reasonableness of the latter suspicion as well . In favour of his release , the applicant submitted that he had not committed a single act capable of impeding the investigation for DATE and that he had voluntarily appeared before the prosecutor ’s office for an interview . He also referred to the fact that his father was seriously ill and required his care .

On DATE the FAC ORG ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody for DATE , with effect from DATE . The detention order was a standard form , the reasoning of which had mostly been pre - printed . The judge added by hand the reference to the relevant evidence , the names of the parties’ representatives to the proceedings and the classification of the impugned offence :

“ Having examined [ in accordance with the requirements of procedural law ] the well - foundedness of the detention request , and having heard the parties’ pleadings , I have come to the conclusion that the evidence collected – [ reference to the evidence obtained in DATE and DATE – see paragraph CARDINAL above ] – gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that PERSON has committed the impugned offence . The evidence has been obtained in conformity with the rules of criminal procedure .

Procedural law was also observed in the course of PERSON arrest and in the bringing of charges against him .

I consider that the detention request by [ reference to the prosecutor ’s name ] is substantiated and that there exist legal grounds for granting it . Thus , in so far as the accused , PERSON , is charged with a less serious crime , the danger that , if released , he might hamper the establishment of the truth or abscond from the investigation and trial is substantiated ... ”

The judge then dismissed , in a handwritten note , the applicant ’s allegations of procedural violations as irrelevant to the classification of the impugned offence .

NORP In a final decision of DATE the NORP ORG upheld the detention order of DATE , reasoning as follows :

“ ... [ The applicant ] has been charged with an offence classified as less serious , which carries a maximum term of DATE imprisonment . The impugned offence of the unlawful acquisition , storage and/or transportation of firearms might be related to the murder case , the investigation of which is still pending . In such conditions , the discontinuation of detention on remand or its substitution with a non - custodial measure of restraint might possibly hamper the establishment of the truth in that case ; if released , the accused might influence witnesses , continue his criminal activities or abscond . Such conclusions can be derived from the insincerity of the accused .

The case discloses both formal ( procedural ) and factual grounds for the imposition of pre - trial detention ... ”

On several occasions in DATE and DATE , the applicant requested to be confronted again with the above - mentioned witness for the prosecution ( paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . His requests were dismissed as unsubstantiated , the authorities reasoning that the previous confrontation had been conducted in conformity with the procedural rules , whilst another one would most likely lead to the same result – the exertion of moral pressure on the witness in question .

On DATE the DATE pre - trial detention period expired , without a court ordering its extension . On DATE , having terminated the investigation , the prosecutor sent the criminal case for trial , forwarding the bill of indictment .

On DATE the judge of the NORP - Saburtalo ORG , dispensing with an oral hearing , decided , in camera , to commit the applicant for trial under LAW ORG . This decision , like the detention order of DATE , was set out in a standard form with preprinted reasoning . The judge added , in the blank spaces provided , a brief statement of facts , the name of the accused and the definition of the impugned offence .

As to the reasoning , the decision of DATE confirmed the applicant ’s pre - trial detention in a pre - printed phrase . The judge added by hand the definition of the measure of restraint :

“ The measure of pre - trial restraint – detention DATE has been correctly chosen . ”

The case file does not refer to any further developments in the criminal proceedings .

DATE ORG provided at the material time as follows :

“ A criminal prosecution may be carried out in the form of a public , subsidiary , private / public or private prosecution . ”

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL , libel , amongst various other crimes , was a matter for private prosecution and criminal proceedings could be initiated by a judge only on the basis of a complaint by the victim ( see also LAW ORG and LAW , cited below ) .

In DATE the term “ representative in law ” was defined as “ next of kin , curator or guardian ” .

Articles CARDINAL , defining the status , rights and responsibilities of a witness , did not envisage that a witness could be declared a “ wanted ” person by the prosecution . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( g ) stated that a witness could not be obliged to testify against a close relative .

Pursuant to LAW , LAW , the precondition for obliging a person to appear before the prosecution to testify in a criminal case was the issue of a relevant court order . Such an order was to be forwarded to the police for enforcement , in accordance with LAW . However , if enforcement was impossible owing to , inter alia , the inability to locate the witness , the role of the police officer responsible for enforcement was limited to recording that fact on the order and returning it to the court as “ unenforced ” .

Article CARDINAL provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A measure of restraint shall be applied to ensure that the accused can not avoid the investigation and trial , that his further criminal activity is prevented , that he can not interfere with the establishment of the truth in a given criminal case , or that the court ’s verdict is implemented .

The application of a measure of restraint shall be justified if the evidence collected in the case file sufficiently substantiates the assumption that it is necessary to secure the aims mentioned in the first paragraph of this Article .

The ground for the imposition of pre - trial detention may be a reasonable suspicion that the accused might abscond or interfere with the establishment of the truth in a given criminal case , or if a serious or grave crime has been committed . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL on detention read :

“ Detention on remand shall be imposed only with regard to a person who is charged with an offence which carries more than two years’ imprisonment ... ”

An appeal lay under LAW against such measures :

“ Any decision or action of an inquiry officer / inquiry agency , investigator / investigative agency , prosecutor / prosecutor ’s office or judge / court may be appealed by the parties to the criminal proceedings or by CARDINAL parties . ”

Under LAW , that appeal against any action or decision by the inquiry officer , investigator or prosecutor could be lodged throughout the entire period of the preliminary inquiry or investigation ( that is , before the criminal case had been sent to the competent court for trial ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL regarding the bill of indictment required it to be accompanied by all relevant documentation about the detention . When endorsing the bill of indictment , the prosecutor had to consider , amongst other issues , whether any restraint measure which had been imposed was correct ( Article CARDINAL ) . The case materials had to be referred to the competent court , along with the bill of indictment , within TIME following the prosecutor ’s endorsement ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , if the court considered that the case had a sufficient basis , the accused was to be committed for trial after holding an admissibility hearing in certain circumstances . At such a hearing , the court was to consider whether a measure of pre - trial restraint should be imposed on the accused .

Following an amendment on DATE , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL made it mandatory to hold an admissibility hearing when deciding to commit the accused for trial in relation to all types of criminal case . Article CARDINAL laid down the following time - limits on committals :

“ The judge ( court ) shall decide whether to commit the accused for trial within DATE or , in complicated cases , within DATE of delivery of a final judgment on the last criminal case registered with the same judge ( court ) . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL enabled a judge to initiate criminal proceedings following a complaint lodged either by the victim or that person ’s representative in law . Moreover , under Articles CARDINAL and DATE ) , only a person against whom charges had been brought or who had been convicted could be declared “ wanted ” in connection with a crime by means of a formal decision by the investigative , prosecution or judicial authorities . No provision of the Code provided for such a measure in respect of a witness .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provided at the material time for the punishable offence of libel . It was removed from LAW on DATE .

The Operational Investigative Measures Act provided at the material time , in so far as relevant :

“ A person who considers that , as a result of an operational investigative measure , his or her rights and freedoms have unlawfully been restricted may appeal against such a measure to a hierarchically superior agency , prosecutor or court . ”

“ The basis for an operational investigative measure may be ...

( c ) a formal decision declaring that a person who absconds from the investigation and trial or evades the sentence is wanted . ”

In the course of the Plenary Sitting of the First Session of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe ( “ the CACE ” ) , held on DATE , the representatives discussed the rights and freedoms which might be guaranteed by the Convention :

“ ... We have all been compelled to bear unbelievable encroachments on our rights [ such as ] the loss of security of person ; arbitrary arrest ...

All have an equal right to life , liberty and personal safety ...

It is a pitiable commentary on our boasted progress that in our generation it should be necessary to declare that everyone has the right of life , liberty and security of his person ... These things were taken for granted ... in DATE before the sophists told us that man could make himself happy by making the ORG into a god , to be fed with blood , toil , tears and sweat ... We are now concerned to safeguard and preserve our very selves , and all that we are and have , against the insatiable appetite of the totalitarians ... ”

During the CACE Plenary Sitting of DATE , a report of ORG was presented . The relevant excerpts from that report read as follows :

“ The ORG has drawn up the list of rights and freedoms which are to be covered by the collective guarantee ...

Here are the rights and freedoms included in this list : security of person ... freedom from arbitrary arrest , detention , exile and other measures ... ”


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The first , second and third applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively .

In the period DATE the first applicant visited GPE on a number of occasions . It appears that in DATE he obtained a temporary residence permit on the strength of his business activity . In DATE he was granted a permanent residence permit .

In DATE he met the second applicant and from DATE they lived together . Following a complicated pregnancy , on DATE their son , the third applicant , was born . The child ’s health has been fragile ever since , with frequent episodes of pulmonary disease .

On DATE the head of ORG at ORG made an order for the first applicant ’s expulsion on the ground that he presented a threat to national security . He also deprived the applicant of the right to reside in GPE and excluded him from entering NORP territory for a period of DATE . No factual grounds were given . The order relied on a classified internal document of DATE , which was not served on the applicant . It appears that the applicant was able to consult it during the ensuing court proceedings ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) .

The internal document stated that the first applicant was involved in drug trafficking for the purposes of financing the militant NORP separatist group ORG ( the former ORG ) . The order stated that the first applicant should be detained pending expulsion and that it was subject to appeal to the Minister of ORG , but not to judicial review , and that it was immediately enforceable .

The first applicant was served with the order on DATE . On DATE the head of another government agency , ORG of the national police , made another order for the first applicant ’s detention pending expulsion . The applicant was arrested and placed in a detention facility in GPE . Pursuant to an order of DATE he was transferred to another special detention facility outside the city .

The first applicant was released on DATE . It appears from his submissions that on an unspecified date after his release he was interviewed at the NORP embassy about his alleged connections with a NORP separatist organisation .

NORP On DATE the first applicant sought judicial review of the expulsion order by ORG , claiming that the order was unlawful and referring to his difficult family situation due to the complicated pregnancy of his partner , the second applicant .

On DATE the first applicant also appealed against the order for his expulsion to the Minister of ORG . On DATE the appeal was returned to the applicant on the ground that it had been submitted out of time and that judicial proceedings for the order ’s review were pending .

In the course of the court proceedings the first applicant provided the court with a document , issued by ORG , certifying that at that time no criminal proceedings were pending against him . He also submitted written observations in which he claimed that he had never been involved in the activities mentioned in the classified internal document . He also referred to his family situation , the ORG and the case of LOC v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The defendant , ORG , submitted a copy of the internal document of DATE which had served as the basis for the expulsion . Despite the first applicant ’s request to this effect , the court did not order the head of ORG to produce further information or evidence regarding the reasons for the applicant ’s expulsion .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court found , inter alia , that the document of DATE had to be regarded as an official certification that the first applicant was a threat to national security and that as such it was binding on the court .

Upon the first applicant ’s appeal , by a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment , fully endorsing its conclusions and not engaging in examination of the evidence allegedly supporting the view of the authorities that the first applicant posed a threat to the national security . The court held that the deportation order was lawful and fully justified by the attached internal document and did not run counter to the Convention because the applicant had been able to challenge it before a court . The court further stated that the first applicant ’s rights had been restricted in accordance with the law and for the protection of the public interest . It also noted that given the existence of information about the first applicant ’s involvement in drug trafficking for the purpose of financing a terrorist organisation , the executive authority had rightly decided that the applicant constituted a threat to national security .

On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant challenged the order of CARDINAL DATE for his placement in a special detention facility before ORG . On DATE he requested suspension of the execution of the detention order .

In a decision of DATE the court granted the request and suspended the effect of the detention order for the course of the proceedings . The court stated , in particular , that the authorities had failed to provide evidence for the necessity of such a measure . It pointed to the duration of the detention ( at that time DATE ) and to the family situation of the first applicant . The decision became final on an unspecified date as the parties had not lodged an appeal and the applicant was released on DATE .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings without examining the appeal on the merits . It held that the order for the applicant ’s placement in a detention facility was subordinate to the order for his expulsion and issued within the course of expulsion proceedings . It was not therefore subject to judicial review by itself .

NORP The relevant domestic law and practice has been summarized in the ORG ’s recent judgments in the cases of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time)

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant is a former police officer who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in ORG ( GPE - popravni zavod u ORG ) .

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

On CARDINAL DATE ORG in ORG found the applicant guilty of murdering his former wife , and sentenced him to TIME years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial .

On DATE ORG in Leskovac again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to MONEY . In so doing , it provided extensive reasoning .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . The appeal bench included judge PERSON and the applicant received the judgment on DATE .

On DATE , through the prison authorities and as evidenced by their certificate , the applicant filed an appeal on points of law ( zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude ) . ORG received this appeal on DATE , as certified by its stamp of even date .

NORP On DATE ORG noted that the appeal had been lodged on DATE and consequently had to be rejected as out of time ( neblagovremen ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG bench again included judge PERSON and the applicant received this decision on DATE .

The relevant domestic provisions are contained in LAW ( PERSON o krivičnom postupku , published in ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , as well as in ORG – OG RS – nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

DATE ( CARDINAL ) provides that a judge may not sit in a case when he or she has already taken part in the adoption of a decision before a lower court or before “ the same court ” should its decision subsequently “ be appealed ” .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that as soon as a judge discovers this ground for recusal , he or she shall cease dealing with the case and request the president of the court to appoint another judge in his or her stead .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a defendant who has been sentenced to a prison term shall have the right to file his submissions through the prison authorities , thereby interrupting any time - limits .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a time - limit set in DATE shall expire by DATE , of DATE , which corresponds by number to the date when the running of the time - limit commenced .

Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the competent public prosecutor “ may ” ( može ) file a Request for ORG ( zahtev za zaštitu zakonitosti ) against a “ final judicial decision ” , on behalf of or against the defendant , if the relevant substantive and/or procedural “ law has been breached ” ( ako je povređen zakon ) .

On the basis of the above request , under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG may uphold the conviction at issue or reverse it . It may also quash the impugned judgment , in its entirety or partly , and order a re - trial before the lower courts . If ORG , however , finds that there has been a violation of the law in favour of the defendant , it shall only be authorised to declare so but shall leave the final judgment standing .

Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a defendant who has been found guilty and sentenced to an effective prison term at first and second instance shall have the right to file an appeal on points of law ( zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude ) with ORG within DATE as of the date of receipt of the judgment rendered on appeal .

NORP In accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL and CARDINAL , inter alia , ORG shall , should it accept an appeal on points of law , have the power to overturn the impugned judgment or quash it and order a retrial before the lower courts . It shall also be able to do so if there are serious doubts as to the veracity of the decisive facts established in the impugned decision and this impinges upon the proper application of the relevant law .

In DATE amendments to MONEY ( Zakon o izmenama i dopunama PERSON o krivičnom postupku , published in ORG no . CARDINAL ) removed the appeal on points of law as an existing domestic remedy . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of this Act , however , provides that in respect of all defendants who had already lodged their appeals on points of law before the entry into force of these amendments it is the “ repealed provisions ” that shall be applicable .

Lastly , in its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that a Request for ORG is not a remedy which needs to be exhausted before one may file an appeal with ORG , the reason being , inter alia , that it was only the public prosecutor who could have filed such a request on behalf of the defendant and , further , that the former had full discretion in respect of whether to do so ( Už-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE - On - Don . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

In DATE the applicant took part in the emergency operations at the site of the GPE nuclear plant accident . In DATE a medical board found that , as a result of exposure to radioactive emissions , he had a “ category CARDINAL ” disability .

The applicant brought proceedings against ORG of GPE ( Военный Комиссариат PERSON области – “ the Commission ” ) seeking to obtain compensation for damage to his health .

On DATE ORG of Rostov - on - Don granted the applicant ’s claim and obliged the Commission to pay him MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of arrears for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , and RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of DATE compensation for health damage as from DATE , subject to further indexation .

The Commission did not lodge an ordinary appeal against the above judgment , and it became binding and enforceable DATE .

In DATE the applicant brought proceedings before the court seeking to have his DATE compensation recalculated to take account of inflation .

On DATE ORG of Rostov - on - Don granted the applicant ’s claim and obliged the Commission to pay him RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of arrears for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , and RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of DATE compensation for health damage as from DATE , subject to further indexation .

The judgment was not appealed against and became binding and enforceable on DATE .

On DATE the Commission requested the court to reconsider the judgment of DATE . The request read as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] receives [ social benefits ] in accordance with the PERSON on social protection of the victims of the GPE nuclear plant accident .

The PERSON on social protection of the victims of the GPE nuclear plant accident obliges the welfare authorities to index - link the sums in question in accordance with the law .

In view of the newly discovered circumstances related to indexation of [ social benefits ] in line with the increase of the minimum cost of living , previously unknown to the ORG , ... , [ the ORG ] requests the court to quash the judgment of ORG of DATE and reconsider the case due to the discovery of new circumstances . ”

On DATE ORG of PERSON - on - PERSON decided to grant the ORG ’s request . The court held that when the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was pronounced , there was no court practice concerning indexation of sums of compensation for health damage , which had led to an incorrect interpretation of the decision of ORG of DATE . However , in the meantime , on DATE the Rostov ORG took a decision in another individual case , subsequently upheld on appeal by ORG of GPE , whereby it determined the mechanism of indexation of social benefits to GPE victims in compliance with the existing legislation . Therefore , in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , the court quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for reconsideration . No appeal lay against this decision .

On DATE , after the fresh examination of the case , ORG of PERSON - on - Don partly granted the applicant ’s claim and determined that his DATE compensation should amount to RUB ORG as from DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the Presidium of the Rostov ORG granted the applicant ’s request , quashed the judgment of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE , by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for a fresh examination . Until the quashing of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant continued to receive his DATE compensation in the amount established by the judgment of DATE .

As a result of the fresh examination of the case , on DATE ORG of Rostov - on - Don partly granted the applicant ’s claim and determined that the applicant ’s DATE compensation should amount to RUB CARDINAL as from DATE .

On DATE the Rostov ORG quashed the above judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination .

On DATE ORG of Rostov - on - Don determined that the applicant ’s DATE compensation should amount to RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as from DATE . The court also obliged the defendant to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in arrears for the period from DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal .

The Code of Civil Procedure of GPE ( “ the CCivP ” ) , in force as from DATE , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . [ Judgments ] which have come into force may be re - considered on the basis of newly discovered circumstances .

The grounds for reconsideration ... shall be :

CARDINAL ) NORP significant circumstances which were not and could not have been known to the party who applies for reconsideration ; ... ”

“ ... [ An application for reconsideration of a [ judgment ] due to the discovery of new circumstances ] shall be lodged within DATE after the discovery of the circumstances . ”

“ The time - limit for lodging an application for reconsideration of a [ judgment ] due to the discovery of new circumstances shall be calculated from DATE of the discovery of such circumstances ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Following the examination of an application for reconsideration of a [ judgment ] due to the discovery of new circumstances , the court may either grant the application and quash the [ judgment ] , or dismiss the application .

NORP The court decision by which an application for reconsideration of a [ judgment ] due to the discovery of new circumstances is granted shall not be subject to appeal .

Provided that a [ judgment ] is quashed , the case shall be examined in accordance with the rules of this LAW . ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against PERSON , a journalist , and ORG , a publishing company , claiming non - pecuniary damages for suffering and distress due to an article published in DATE .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) held an oral hearing . On DATE it rejected the action , holding that publishing the name of a convicted person did not amount to an offence and that , therefore , no right to compensation existed under LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( vahingonkorvauslaki , skadeståndslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL ) .

The applicant appealed . On DATE he changed counsel .

On DATE ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) held an oral hearing . On DATE the court partly upheld the applicant 's claim and ordered the journalist and the publishing company jointly to pay the applicant LAW for suffering and distress . The court found that there had been no justification for publishing the name of a private person such as the applicant .

All the parties requested leave to appeal , which was granted on DATE .

In its judgment of DATE ( precedent no . ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) overturned the appellate court 's judgment and rejected the action .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON PERSON , former Representative of GPE at ORG , and subsequently by their Representative , PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant was sent to correctional facility OX-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in Lgov of the Kursk Region to serve his sentence .

On his arrival at the facility he was placed in quarantine . DATE NORP , a facility administration official , invited him to become a member of the so - called “ секция порядка ” ( literally , “ order section ” , an informal category of prisoners who cooperated with the prison administration ) . The applicant refused . Then NORP threatened him with rape . The applicant insisted on his refusal . As a result of his refusal he was beaten by NORP and other facility officers whose names he did not know but who , according to him , he would be able to identify .

In the applicant 's submission , he was then taken to unit no . CARDINAL . Security unit officers ORG , GPE , ORG and ORG tried to persuade him to write a statement on adhesion to the “ order section ” . Following his refusal , for TIME V.R. and ORG beat and kicked the applicant in different parts of his body but not his face . Then ORG told ORG that if the applicant had not written a statement by the TIME , ORG should bring him to the security unit DATE TIME . TIME for DATE the applicant was taken to the security unit where he was beaten by ORG and ORG , who continued to demand that he join the “ order section ” . The beatings continued throughout the applicant 's detention in the facility .

According to the applicant , on several occasions he requested medical aid , which was not provided to him . His injuries were not recorded either . He lodged written complaints concerning the actions of the facility officials . However , he received no replies and was not even provided with the numbers of his complaints in the facility register .

On TIME CARDINAL inmates at the facility self - inflicted injuries ( they cut their veins and stomachs ) as a protest against ill - treatment on the part of the facility administration . Nothing in the materials of the case suggests that the applicant self - inflicted any injuries .

According to the applicant , on DATE he and other inmates sent a complaint to ORG of the Kursk Region alleging that the inmates had been systematically beaten by the facility officers and asking for criminal proceedings to be instituted against the head of the facility and the officers , including ORG The applicant did not submit a copy of the complaint in question .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and CARDINAL other inmates under LAW ( disruption of penitentiary facilities ' work ) .

On either CARDINAL or DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison GPE of GPE , in GPE .

On DATE he was charged with disrupting penitentiary facilities ' work .

According to the applicant , on DATE he complained to ORG , deputy head of the regime unit of remand prison GPE , that the conditions of detention in his cell were poor . He claimed that water was constantly leaking from the ceiling , and that his cell was wet and damp . The applicant asked that he and the other inmates be transferred to a different cell . In response A. hit the applicant in the face CARDINAL times and said that he was beating him for what they had done in facility OX-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and that he would not get out of there alive .

According to the applicant , in the remand prison he was often placed in a disciplinary cell in the absence of any grounds for disciplinary measures . He had to spend from DATE in the cell CARDINAL times a month . The cell was unfit for living as it was always very cold and damp .

According to the applicant , he sent a number of complaints concerning the actions of the remand prison officers to ORG of the Kursk Region , ORG and the ORG . However , he received no replies and was not even provided with the numbers of his complaints in the remand prison register . The applicant has not submitted any information on the nature of such complaints or their dates .

In the ORG 's submission , between CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant was visited by his lawyers CARDINAL times . During the applicant 's detention in remand prison GPE he was questioned first as a witness and then as an accused in the criminal proceedings concerning the disruption of the work of correctional facility OX-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . However , he was never questioned in relation to criminal proceedings opened following the numerous complaints lodged by the inmates with regard to unlawful actions on the part of the OX-CARDINAL/CARDINAL administration .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of disrupting penitentiary facilities ' work .

LAW provides that inaction by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in criminal proceedings or prevent access to a court may be the subject of a complaint to a court . The court has the power to declare such inaction unlawful and indicate to the investigators and/or prosecutors which deficiencies are to be rectified .

LAW , as amended on DATE , provides that all incoming and outgoing correspondence of detainees is subject to censorship by the administration of the correctional facility . Correspondence with courts , prosecutors , penitentiary officials , the ORG , the public monitoring board and ORG is not subject to censorship . Correspondence of convicted persons with their counsel is not subject to censorship unless the administration of the correctional facility has reliable information to the effect that it is aimed at initiating , planning or organising a crime or involving other people in the commission of a crime . In this case the correspondence is subject to control on the basis of a reasoned decision by the head of the correctional facility or his deputy .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Päivi Hirvelä

On DATE the applicant newspaper published an article about ORG . The article was not based on investigations by the newspaper ’s reporters but merely quoted an anonymous letter it had allegedly received from a group of GPE parents . The letter criticised the situation in the school , in particular , overcrowding and a lack of proper facilities for children . It alleged that the school ’s principal used the school ’s funds for inappropriate purposes , spending money on decorating his office and building a separate bathroom for himself , launching a school newspaper which only published articles related to relationships and sex . It also alleged he had received bribes of MONEY for enrolling children in the school and that the authors of the letter had been afraid to sign for fear of reprisal against their children .

On an unspecified date the principal and the editorial staff of the school newspaper asked ORG to publish a reply to the article of CARDINAL DATE ; however , their request was rejected . They finally managed to have their reply published in another newspaper called ORG .

NORP In their reply they expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that Flux had failed to seek their side of the story before publishing an anonymous letter , and said that the manner in which Flux had acted had been contrary to journalistic ethics . In their view , the fact that Flux had published an anonymous letter without even visiting the school or conducting any form of investigation showed that its aim was purely sensationalism . It was true that the school was overcrowded , but that was a result of its popularity . Had the journalist from Flux visited the school , she would have noted that it was not only the principal ’s office that had been renovated , but many other parts of the school . As to the issue of bribes , it was far too serious an accusation to be published without any supporting evidence . The editorial staff of the school newspaper stressed that the anonymous letter had misinformed the readers by only citing certain articles and overlooking many others concerning such matters as sport , cultural events and school events .

On DATE the applicant newspaper reacted to the reply published in ORG by publishing a new article which NORP inter alia :

“ The first people to visit us , were , to our surprise , not the [ principal ] , but the ‘ creation team’ of the school newspaper ... headed by the teacher PERSON They had prepared a so called ‘ reply’ to the article [ of CARDINAL DATE ] . In reality a scrap of paper attacking our editorial staff , full of ironic comments such as ‘ ORG , the newspaper which pretends to write the ORG . We have nothing against this school newspaper , which started to give us marks for behaviour . We tried to explain to our as yet too young colleagues , in a friendly way , of course , that since ORG had pledged to publish the [ anonymous ] letter in full , it could not change its content . We were merely reproducing a point of view which had the right to exist . We simply did not care about other details , such as the quality of the school newspaper or the IQ of its editors .

Maybe the ‘ reply’ from the editors of the Spiru Haret newspaper , would have been published by ORG if its tone had been measured and shown at least a little respect for a newspaper [ ORG ] from which their school newspaper still has a lot to learn . Not to mention that the ‘ ORG who came to our office were arrogant and spoke down to us from a great height . We had the impression that these ‘ editors’ were from ORG or at least from ORG . Incidentally , we later found out that the chief of the ‘ GPE , PERSON is the partner of the school principal , but we readily overlooked this delicate detail .

When we agreed to publish the letter from the group of parents , we were not intent on sensationalism , as was insinuated by the principal in his reply . Everybody knows that the situation in our schools is far from satisfactory . Nobody is surprised by this anymore . PERSON is not the first school we have written about , nor will it be the last ....

We published the letter in the hope that the principal would descend from his lofty perch and understand that there also are dissatisfied parents . Many people complained to us that the principal was a spiteful person . Just to prove the point , after the publication of our article , he convened a meeting of the GPE association at which he demanded the names of the persons who had written the letter . He also demanded that the association write a letter critical of our newspaper ....

Obviously , the most serious problem is that of the bribes , which , according to the cynics among us , are not causing the principal any loss of sleep . We have been accused of libelling him without any proof . However , it was not we who accused him , but the parents . And we are sure that we will be able to bring witnesses to the court . We will find people willing to overcome their fear ...

We will now refer to a person who called us [ after the publication of the article of CARDINAL DATE ] . His name is PERSON and he is a former university colleague of the principal of PERSON . Before moving to PERSON , he lived in GPE . After coming to PERSON , he had to find a school for his daughter . He approached his former colleague , who hinted that he had to pay not only with fond memories of their student years but also with cash . PERSON refused and told the principal that he had no money . After a lengthy period in which he was fobbed off with promises , PERSON gave up the idea of enrolling his daughter in PERSON .

‘ The official reason given by the principal was that we lived in another part of the city . I was surprised to learn that a friend of my daughter , who lived in the same neighbourhood , had told my daughter that her father had paid the principal MONEY . Now she is a student at PERSON while my daughter is at another school , where no money is required’ , said PERSON .... ”

On an unspecified date the principal brought civil proceedings for defamation against the applicant newspaper , arguing that many statements in the above article were defamatory of him .

During the proceedings the applicant newspaper called CARDINAL witnesses , including PERSON , who testified that bribes were taken for the enrolment of children in PERSON .

On DATE ORG gave judgment for the principal , after finding the allegations of bribery to be untrue and defamatory . It concluded that the statements of the CARDINAL witnesses called by the applicant newspaper were not sufficient to overturn the presumption of innocence enjoyed by the principal . It ordered the newspaper to issue an apology within DATE and to pay the principal CARDINAL Moldovan Lei ( ORG ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) . As to the witnesses called by the newspaper , it stated :

“ The court has no reason not to believe the witnesses PERSON , GPE and ORG However , in order to be able to declare publicly that someone is accepting bribes , there is a need for a criminal - court decision finding that person guilty of bribery . Since there is no such finding against [ the principal ] , he can not be accused of bribery . ”

Both the applicant newspaper and the principal appealed against this judgment . The applicant newspaper contested the finding that the statement concerning bribery was defamatory , arguing that it had not directly accused the principal of bribe - taking , but had brought to the attention of the public the well - known phenomenon of bribe - taking in schools . The principal claimed that the statement concerning bribery was not the only defamatory statement in the article . On DATE both appeals were dismissed by ORG , which found the applicant newspaper ’s submissions ill - founded . As to the principal ’s appeal , it stated that being a public figure , he had to be more tolerant to criticism .

The applicant newspaper lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG , arguing again , inter alia , that the purpose of the article was not to accuse the principal of taking bribes but simply to make public the rumours to that effect . It submitted that the circulation of such rumours had been confirmed by witnesses . PERSON the newspaper for the lack of a criminal court judgment against the principal was disproportionate and unnecessary in a democratic society . Moreover , the newspaper had simply disseminated statements made by third parties .

On DATE ORG dismissed its appeal .

The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the material time read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Any natural or legal person shall be entitled to apply to the courts to seek the withdrawal of statements which are damaging to his or her honour and dignity if the person who made such statements can not prove that they are true .

( CARDINAL ) Where such information was made public by a media body , the court shall compel the publishing office of the media body to publish , not DATE after the entry into force of the judicial decision , a withdrawal of the statements in the same column , on the same page or in the same programme or series of broadcasts . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Damage caused to a person as a result of the dissemination of statements which do not correspond to the truth and are damaging to his or her honour or dignity shall be compensated by the natural of legal person responsible .

( CARDINAL ) The amount of the award shall be determined by the court in each case as an amount equal to CARDINAL months’ minimum wages if the information was disseminated by a legal person and CARDINAL months’ minimum wages if it was disseminated by a natural person . ”


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 25-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award

ORG The applicant , Mr PERSON , was a NORP citizen who , at the time of the events in question , lived in GPE , NORP , in LOC , where he was a metal worker . He was born in DATE and was shot and killed on DATE . Since then , his father has indicated that he wishes to pursue the case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG Since DATE , serious disturbances have raged in the South - East of GPE between the security forces and the members of the ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) . This confrontation has so far , according to the ORG , claimed the lives of CARDINAL civilians and CARDINAL members of the security forces .

ORG At the time of the ORG ’s consideration of the case , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL provinces of south - eastern GPE had since DATE been subjected to emergency rule .

ORG The facts in the case are in dispute .

ORG According to the applicant , he was taken into custody on DATE , TIME . Approximately twenty policemen had come to his home , accompanied by a detainee called ORG who , allegedly , had identified the applicant as a member of the ORG , although PERSON told the police that he did not know ORG .

ORG The Government submitted that the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on DATE at TIME , together with CARDINAL others , on suspicion of aiding and abetting ORG terrorists , being a member of the NORP branch of the ORG and distributing ORG tracts .

ORG The applicant stated that he was taken to ORG . After TIME , he was transferred to ORG .

He was allegedly detained , with CARDINAL others , in a cell measuring CARDINAL , with CARDINAL bed and a blanket , but no pillow . He was provided with CARDINAL meals a day .

ORG He was interrogated about whether he knew PERSON ( the man who had identified him ) . He claimed to have been told : " If you do n’t know him now , you will know him under torture . "

According to the applicant , on DATE of his detention he was stripped naked , his hands were tied behind his back and he was strung up by his arms in the form of torture known as " NORP hanging " . While he was hanging , the police connected electrodes to his genitals and threw water over him while they electrocuted him . He was kept blindfolded during this torture , which continued for TIME .

During DATE , he was allegedly beaten repeatedly at intervals of TIME , without being suspended . The torture continued for DATE , the first CARDINAL being very intensive .

ORG He claimed that , as a result of the torture , he lost the movement of his arms and hands . His interrogators ordered him to make movements to restore the control of his hands . He asked to see a doctor , but was refused permission .

ORG On DATE the applicant was seen by a doctor in the medical service of the sub - prefecture . A medical report was prepared , stating in a single sentence that the applicant bore no traces of blows or violence . According to PERSON , the doctor asked how his arms had been injured and was told by a police officer that he had had an accident . The doctor then commented , mockingly , that everyone who came there seemed to have an accident .

The Government submitted that there were fundamental doubts as to whether the applicant had been ill - treated while in police custody .

ORG On DATE , immediately before his release , PERSON was brought before the PERSON public prosecutor .

According to the Government , he was able to sign a statement denying any involvement with the ORG and made no complaint about having been tortured .

The applicant , however , submitted that he was shown a statement for signature , but said that its contents were untrue . The prosecutor insisted he sign it but PERSON told him that he could not because he could not move his hands .

Mr Aksoy was released on DATE . He was admitted to ORG on DATE , where he was diagnosed as suffering from bilateral radial paralysis ( that is , paralysis of both arms caused by nerve damage in the upper arms ) . He told the doctor who treated him that he had been in custody and strung up with his arms tied behind his back .

He remained at the hospital until DATE when , according to the Government , he left without having been properly discharged , taking his medical file with him .

ORG On DATE , the public prosecutor decided that there were no grounds to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant , although CARDINAL of the others detained with him were charged .

ORG No criminal or civil proceedings have been brought in the NORP courts in relation to the alleged ill - treatment of the applicant .

Mr Aksoy was shot dead on DATE .

According to his representatives , he had been threatened with death in order to make him withdraw his application to the ORG , the last threat being made by telephone on DATE , and his murder was a direct result of his persisting with the application .

The Government , however , submitted that his killing was a settling of scores between quarrelling ORG factions .

A suspect , allegedly a member of the ORG , has been charged with the murder .

ORG Delegates of the Commission heard evidence from witnesses in the case in GPE DATE and in GPE DATE , in the presence of representatives from both sides who were able to cross - examine the witnesses . In addition , the Commission heard oral submissions on admissibility and the merits at hearings in GPE on DATE and DATE .

After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence , the ORG came to the following conclusions with regard to the facts :

a ) It was not possible to make a definite finding as to the date on which PERSON was arrested , although this clearly took place no later than DATE . He was released on DATE , therefore he was detained for DATE .

b ) On DATE he was admitted to hospital and was diagnosed with bilateral radial paralysis . He left hospital on DATE on his own initiative , without having been properly discharged .

c ) There was no evidence that he had suffered any disability prior to his arrest , nor any evidence of any untoward incident during DATE between his release from police custody and his admission to hospital .

d ) The Commission noted that the medical evidence indicated that the applicant ’s injuries could have had various causes , but one of these could have been the trauma suffered by a person who had been strung up by his arms . Moreover , radial paralysis affecting both arms was apparently not a common condition , although it was consistent with the form of ill - treatment known as " NORP hanging " .

e ) The delegates heard evidence from CARDINAL of the policemen who had interrogated PERSON and from the public prosecutor who saw him prior to his release ; both claimed that it was inconceivable that he could have been ill - treated in any way . The ORG found this evidence unconvincing , since it gave the impression that the CARDINAL public officers were not prepared even to consider the possibility of ill - treatment occurring at the hands of the police .

f ) The Government offered no alternative explanation for PERSON injuries .

g ) There was insufficient evidence to enable any conclusions to be drawn with regard to the applicant ’s other allegations of ill - treatment by electric shocks and beatings . However , it did seem clear that he had been detained in a small cell with CARDINAL other people , all of whom had had to share a single bed and blanket , and that he had been kept blindfolded during interrogation .

ORG LAW makes it an offence for a government employee to subject someone to torture or ill - treatment ( Article CARDINAL in respect of torture , and Article CARDINAL in respect of ill - treatment ) .

LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE provides as follows :

" No criminal , financial or legal responsibility may be claimed against ORG or a NORP Governor within a state of emergency region in respect of their decisions or acts connected with the exercise of the powers entrusted to them by this decree , and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to this end . This is without prejudice to the rights of an individual to claim indemnity from the ORG for damage suffered by them without justification . "

ORG Prosecutors are under a duty to investigate allegations of serious offences which come to their attention , even if no complaint is made . However , in the state of emergency region , the investigation of criminal offences by members of the administration is taken up by local administrative councils , composed of civil servants . These councils are also empowered to decide whether or not to bring a prosecution , subject to an automatic judicial review before ORG in cases where they decide not to prosecute ( Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL ) .

ORG LAW provides as follows :

" All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review ...

The administration shall be liable to indemnify any damage caused by its own acts and measures . "

By virtue of this provision , the ORG is liable to indemnify any person who can prove that he has suffered damage in circumstances where the ORG has failed in its duty to safeguard individual life and property .

ORG Any illegal act which causes damage committed by a civil servant ( except the regional or district prefects in the state of emergency region ) may be the subject of a claim for compensation before the ordinary civil courts .

ORG Pursuant to LAW , a person arrested and detained shall be brought before a justice of the peace within TIME . This period may be extended to DATE when the individual is detained in connection with a collective offence .

The permissible periods of detention without judicial control are longer in relation to proceedings before the ORG security courts . In such a case , it is possible to detain a suspect for a period of TIME in connection with an individual offence , and DATE in connection with a collective offence ( section CARDINAL of Law no . QUANTITY of DATE , re - enacting LAW having the force of law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

In the region under emergency rule , however , a person arrested in connection with proceedings before the ORG security courts may be detained for DATE in the case of individual offences and DATE in the case of collective offences before being brought before a magistrate ( ibid . , re - enacting section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

ORG Article CARDINAL of LAW gives to a detained person the right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed , on application to the court with jurisdiction over his case .

ORG In a letter dated DATE , ORG of GPE to ORG informed the Secretary General of ORG that :

" GPE is exposed to threats to its national security in LOC which have steadily grown in scope and intensity over DATE so as to amount to a threat to the life of the nation in the meaning of LAW ( article CARDINAL ) .

During DATE , CARDINAL civilians and CARDINAL members of the security forces have been killed by acts of terrorists , acting partly out of foreign bases . Since DATE only , the numbers are CARDINAL civilians and CARDINAL members of the security forces .

The threat to national security is predominantly occurring in provinces [ i.e. ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON , ORG , Batman and PERSON ] of ORG and partly also in adjacent provinces .

Because of the intensity and variety of terrorist actions and in order to cope with such actions , the ORG has not only to use its security forces but also take steps appropriate to cope with a campaign of harmful disinformation of the public , partly emerging from other parts of GPE or even from abroad and with abuses of trade - union rights .

To this end , the Government of GPE , acting in conformity with LAW , has promulgated on DATE the decrees with force of law nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . These decrees may in part result in derogating from rights enshrined in the following provisions of ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ( article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) . A descriptive summary of the new measures is attached hereto . The issue of their compatibility with LAW is currently pending before LAW .

The Government of GPE will inform the Secretary General of ORG when the measures referred to above have ceased to operate .

This notification is given pursuant to LAW . "

Attached to this letter was a " descriptive summary of the content of the Decrees which have the force of law nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL " . The only measure therein described relating to LAW ) was as follows :

" The Governor of the state of emergency region can order persons who continuously violate the general security and public order , to settle at a place to be specified by the Minister of the ORG outside the state of emergency region for a period which shall not exceed the duration of the state of emergency ... "

ORG By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE informed the Secretary General that Decree no . CARDINAL had been enacted , which limited the powers previously afforded to the Governor of the state of emergency region under Decrees nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

ORG On DATE ORG wrote to the Secretary General that :

" As most of the measures described in the decrees which have the force of LAW . CARDINAL and CARDINAL that might result in derogating from rights guaranteed by ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention ( article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) are no longer being implemented , I hereby inform you that GPE limits henceforward the scope of its LAW with respect to LAW ) only . The Derogation with respect to Articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention ( article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) is no longer in effect ; consequently , the corresponding reference to these ORG ( article CARDINAL , LAW , LAW , article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) is hereby deleted from the said LAW . "