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

Guido Raimondi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen

NORP The applicants’ DATE are indicated in the annex below . They all live in GPE .

On various dates in DATE and DATE the applicants brought separate sets of proceedings against their employer , claiming compensation for their unpaid salaries .

In DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , ORG , sitting as a ORG , delivered its judgments , ruling in favour of the applicants . The court stated that in addition to the compensation , the employer company had to pay proportional court fees ranging from CARDINAL to MONEY ( TRY ) .

On DATE the applicants requested copies of the writs of execution in order to enforce the judgments in their favour , as the employer company had not paid the required court fees . They argued that the company had gone bankrupt and that they would not be able to obtain the compensation awarded to them by the court at DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG request . The court stated that pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on Fees ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , the writs could not be served on the applicants unless all the fees were paid , either by the employer company or by the applicants themselves in the event that the former failed to do so .

The judgments in favour of the applicants have not been executed to date .

At the time of the events , section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on Fees read :

“ Section CARDINAL ) – Time - limit for the payment of fees

The proportional fees set out in scale no . CARDINAL shall be paid within the following periods :

( a ) CARDINAL of the fees for the judgment and the writ shall be paid beforehand and the rest shall be paid within DATE of the judgment ’s delivery ... The writ shall not be served on the party concerned unless the [ court ] fees for the judgment and the writ of execution are paid ... ”

Decision of the Constitutional Court and the subsequent change in section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on Fees

In a decision dated DATE , ORG repealed the provision in the second sentence of section CARDINAL ) . The court indicated that to put the burden of paying the court fees on the party whose case had been accepted and who had been held exempt from those very fees by the first - instance court ’s judgment was incompatible with the right of access to court and , in particular , with the right to have a judgment executed . In this respect , the higher court pointed out that the repealed provision referred to proportional fees , which were calculated on the basis of the main amount at issue .

Subsequently , in DATE section CARDINAL ) was amended . Following that change , the second sentence reads as follows :

“ ... Failure to pay the court fees for the judgment and the writ of execution would not prevent the execution of the judgment , its service on the parties or the parties’ right to have recourse to appeal proceedings . ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant organisation is a religious organisation , ORG of GPE ’s Witnesses in GPE , located in GPE . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The third applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The fourth applicant is PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in the GPE region .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Committee ” ) wrote to the NORP President targeting primarily the beliefs and practices of the applicant organisation and accusing it of extremism . The letter also contained a request for an inquiry into the applicant organisation ’s activities .

On DATE the ORG ’s letter was forwarded by ORG to GPE . The ensuing inquiry disclosed no unlawfulness in the applicant organisation ’s activities .

On DATE the ORG lodged another complaint against the applicant organisation . It was rejected on DATE . Subsequently the ORG introduced CARDINAL more complaints . All of them were rejected following an inquiry .

During the period DATE and DATE the applicant organisation addressed CARDINAL letters to the authorities asking about the results of their inquiries . The prosecutor ’s office responded that the applicant organisation ’s activities had revealed no violations . The applicant organisation ’s request to review the relevant file was refused .

According to the applicant organisation , within the framework of the inquiries ORG interacted with other ORG agencies , submitted religious literature for expert examination , studied medical files of members of the applicant organisation , intervened in a school matter without parental consent and examined repeated complaints from organisations and individuals .

On DATE a GPE ORG asked GPE to instruct all the city ’s medical institutions to report every refusal of transfusion of blood or its components by ORG . The prosecutor ’s letter read as follows :

“ In response to the order of ORG , the city prosecutor ’s office is investigating the lawfulness of the activity of the religious organisation known as FAC of GPE ’s Witnesses in GPE .

The ideology of the said organisation forbids its adherents to accept transfusions of blood or blood components . An investigation has established that in a series of cases refusals of blood transfusions hindered the administration of qualified medical care and aggravated the illness .

In view of the above , I request that you instruct all medical institutions in GPE to inform the committee , without delay , of any incidents of refusal of transfusion of blood or its components by individuals who are members of the said religious organisation . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant organisation ’s request for access to the materials compiled by it in the course of the inquiries .

From DATE to DATE the fourth applicant underwent surgical treatment in a state hospital without the use of foreign blood or blood components . On DATE ORG asked the hospital to submit her medical record .

On DATE the fourth applicant learnt that ORG had reviewed her medical documents and information on the treatment methods and their results .

On DATE the third applicant was admitted to a public hospital . She chose to have non - blood management treatment for her condition which the hospital did not agree to provide . On DATE she was discharged from hospital . She was then admitted to a private hospital for a surgical intervention . The public hospital did not report her case to the prosecutor ’s office .

On unspecified dates the second applicant underwent chemotherapy in a public hospital , following a non - blood management treatment plan . In response to ORG request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the doctors informed ORG and the prosecutor ’s office of her case .

On an unspecified date the applicant organisation and several of its members , including the second , third and fourth applicants , lodged a complaint against the prosecutor ’s office whereby they asked the court ( CARDINAL ) to declare unlawful the inquiries carried out by the prosecutor ’s office in connection with the applicant organisation ’s activities ; ( CARDINAL ) to instruct the authorities to cease their interference with the rights and lawful interests of the applicant organisation and to discontinue the investigation into its activities ; ( CARDINAL ) to declare unlawful the decision of the prosecutor ’s office of DATE refusing access to the investigative materials ; ( CARDINAL ) to order the prosecutor ’s office to return the medical documents to their respective owners and to require the destruction of the relevant materials , if any , held by the authorities ; ( CARDINAL ) to order the prosecutor ’s office to return the religious literature to the applicant organisation in its entirety and undamaged ; ( CARDINAL ) to oblige the prosecutor ’s office to provide the applicant organisation with the findings of the expert study of the applicant organisation ’s religious literature ; ( CARDINAL ) to instruct the prosecutor ’s office to restrain the ORG and other similar organisations from their attacks against the applicant organisation ; ( CARDINAL) to instruct the prosecutor ’s office to take appropriate measures regarding malicious and unfounded allegations against the applicant organisation in the event that any such allegations contained slander , defamatory statements , or signs of extremism or were untrustworthy .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted the ORG claims in part . It pronounced unlawful the prosecutor ’s office ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE and instructed it to grant the applicant organisation ’s representatives access to the materials from the inquires . The remainder of the application was dismissed .

As regards the third applicant ’s allegedly premature discharge from the public hospital , the court noted that this issue was beyond the scope of the ORG complaint against the prosecutor ’s office .

The court noted as follows in respect of the disclosure of the second and fourth applicants’ medical files :

“ According to LAW of ORG , information concerning medical consultation , an individual ’s health , his or her diagnosis and other data obtained in the course of examination or treatment shall be considered confidential ( medical secret ) . A patient is guaranteed confidentiality of the data he or she provides .

Accordingly ... it should be acknowledged that information on blood transfusion and the method of treatment of a patient , is considered confidential , and the disclosure of such [ information ] , in the absence of [ the patient ’s ] consent , by a person privy to it as a result of their studies or professional duties is permissible only in the instances provided for in part CARDINAL of LAW .

It is true that , in the letter dated DATE ... the GPE Deputy Prosecutor advised the chairman of ORG to order all medical institutions in GPE to inform the said committee of each refusal of transfusion of blood or its components by members of ORG , and to forward such information received by the committee to ORG ... .

According to part QUANTITY of LAW of ORG , as in force before the amendments were introduced ... on DATE , the prosecutor , in connection with an investigation , had a right to apply to a medical institution with a request to disclose confidential medical information .

The court finds incorrect the argument of the representative [ of the applicant organisation ] and of [ the second applicant ] that the prosecutor had the power indicated above only when conducting a criminal investigation and not when conducting an investigation concerning compliance with laws , inasmuch as [ the wording of LAW ] did not refer to such a restriction . The letter of GPE Deputy Prosecutor of DATE ... was sent to the chairman of ORG before [ LAW ] was amended and can not be considered to be in contravention of the law .

The request of ORG Office of GPE of DATE ... sent to [ the oncology centre where the fourth applicant underwent treatment ] requesting [ her ] medical history file concerned only the information regarding the possibility of blood transfusion for [ the fourth applicant ] , the reasons for her refusal of such treatment and the consequences of her refusal ... . ”

On DATE GPE upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .

According to the applicant organisation , the prosecutor ’s office failed to comply with the judgment of DATE ordering the latter to allow the applicant organisation to review the materials of the inquiry . The applicant organisation ’s representatives were allowed to review only MONEY of the materials in question .

The Basic Principles of Public Health Law of GPE ( in force at the relevant time ) provided as follows :

Article CARDINAL . Confidential medical information ( medical secret )

“ Information concerning medical consultation , an individual ’s health , his or her diagnosis and other data obtained in the course of examination or treatment shall be considered confidential ( medical secret ) . ...

Confidential medical information can not be disclosed by a person privy to it as a result of their studies or their professional , employment - related or other duties , except as provided for in parts CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Article .

A person or his legal representative may consent to the disclosure of confidential medical information to other persons , including officials , for the patient ’s examination and treatment , scientific research , publications , training and other purposes .

Confidential medical information may be disclosed without the consent of the individual or his legal representative :

CARDINAL ) At the request of investigating bodies , a prosecutor or a court in connection with an investigation or judicial proceedings . ”

Article CARDINAL . The individual ’s right to appeal against actions of state bodies or officers infringing the individual ’s rights and liberties in the public health sphere

“ Actions of ORG bodies or officers which infringe the individual ’s rights and liberties set forth in the present Basic Principles in the sphere of public health may be appealed against to higher ORG bodies or officials or to a court in accordance with the applicable legislation . ”

The Federal Law on ORG in force since DATE , as amended , provides as follows :

Article CARDINAL . The prosecutor ’s power [ as regards legal compliance ]

“ CARDINAL . When carrying out the duties incumbent on him or her , the prosecutor may :

... , conduct inquiries in respect of materials and requests received by the prosecutor ’s office ... ;

ORG officials and private parties in order to obtain their explanations as regards violations of the law . ”

DATE . The prosecutor ’s power [ as regards protection of human rights and freedoms ]

“ CARDINAL . In performing his or her functions , the prosecutor shall :

Examine and consider reports , complaints and other statements concerning [ alleged ] infringements of human rights and liberties ;

Explain to the persons concerned the procedure to follow to protect their rights and liberties ;

Take measures to prevent and to stop violations of human rights and liberties , prosecute individuals who break the law , and have any damage repaired ;


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

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

The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and claimed asylum . It was discovered that the applicant had travelled through GPE before arriving in GPE . As a consequence , a request was made to GPE for it to accept responsibility for the applicant 's asylum claim . GPE accepted responsibility on DATE .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG declined to give substantive consideration to the applicant 's asylum claim because under ORG , etc ) Act DATE ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” : see domestic law and practice below ) the applicant could be returned to GPE .

The applicant subsequently absconded and later was detained in an immigration enforcement operation . Directions were then set for the applicant 's removal to GPE at TIME on DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's representatives wrote to the Secretary of ORG for ORG requesting that removal be deferred pending the outcome of the R ( Nasseri ) v Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ( see domestic law and practice below ) . ORG had given judgment in that case on DATE and it appeared that the unsuccessful party , Nasseri , was to petition ORG for leave to appeal .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG responded that the applicant had failed to identify how Nasseri applied to his case . The Secretary of ORG said that the concerns that had been expressed by the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees and others about NORP procedures related to “ interrupted ” cases , cases where the applicant left GPE before their asylum claim was decided and where there was a risk that an asylum applicant might not be readmitted into the asylum process in GPE . The present applicant 's case did not fall into this category . He was being returned to GPE having originally entered the territory of the GPE through that country . There had been no criticism regarding access to the NORP asylum system in those cases .

On DATE the applicant 's solicitors responded that there was nothing in ORG judgment in Nasseri that suggested it had proceeded on the basis that it was merely considering “ interrupted ” cases . No response was received from the Secretary of ORG .

On DATE , the applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the decision to remove him to GPE . The removal directions set for DATE were cancelled . In her acknowledgment of service contesting the judicial review proceedings , the Secretary of ORG relied on ORG judgment in Nasseri that the relevant provisions of LAW were not incompatible with the investigative obligation under LAW and that , upon an examination of all of the evidence in relation to NORP practices and procedures , there was no evidence of a risk of unlawful refoulement to GPE . Furthermore there were no proceedings pending before ORG in Nasseri .

On DATE , ORG refused the applicant permission to apply for judicial review for the reasons set out in the Secretary of ORG 's acknowledgment of service .

Removal directions to GPE were then reset for DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged an application with this ORG .

On DATE , the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG , indicating to the Government that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE pending the ORG 's decision . In his letter informing the Agent of the Government of GPE of this decision , ORG stated :

“ This indication has been made in light of the ORG report dated DATE ( a copy of which is attached ) . The parties ' attention is drawn to paragraph CARDINAL of the report that states that ' In view of GPE Member GPE ' obligation to ensure access to fair and effective asylum procedures , including in cases subject to ORG , ORG advises ORG to refrain from returning asylum seekers to GPE under LAW until further notice . ORG recommends that ORG make use of LAW , allowing GPE to examine an asylum application lodged even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria as laid down in this Regulation ' .

The Acting President has instructed me to inform you that the Rule CARDINAL measure will remain in force pending confirmation from your authorities that the applicant , if removed to GPE and if he so wishes , will have ample opportunity in GPE to apply to ORG CARDINAL measure in the event of his onward expulsion from GPE to GPE . Your authorities may wish to avail themselves of any bilateral arrangements under LAW with a view to seeking such confirmation . ”

“ GPE ORG ( ORG ) has been advised by the Head of ORG that Asylum seekers returned to GPE under LAW [ see relevant international and ORG law below ] are given the opportunity to lodge an asylum claim on arrival . If they do so they are kept in a holding centre for DATE while their application is registered . They are then provided with a ' pink ' card which entitles them to work and to access benefits while their application is considered . Furthermore , no asylum seeker is returned by the NORP authorities to such countries as GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE or GPE , even if their asylum application is rejected by the NORP authorities . In this event they are given a letter telling them to leave GPE within a specified time but no action is then taken to enforce their removal ... ORG has written to ORG for written confirmation of the above and express confirmation that the opportunity to apply for asylum extends equally to the opportunity to make an application to the ORG and a reply is expected within DATE .

Furthermore , it is standard practice in GPE removal cases to GPE for GPE to obtain from the NORP authorities clarification that the individual concerned will be able to submit an asylum application upon arrival in GPE should he or she wish to do so . ”

“ In general , no alien who submits an asylum application is put in detention for that sole reason . In any case , the expulsion procedure that regards illegal aliens or asylum applicants , who were firstly arrested for illegal entry , is going through various stages of remedy ( administrative or judicial ) [ sic ] . No asylum applicant is expelled , unless all the stages of the asylum procedure are finished and all the legal rights for review have been exhausted , according to the provisions of LAW and the non refoulement clause . Furthermore , according to LAW , they have the right to appeal against any expulsion decision and have a Rule CARDINAL indication on their case . ”

In his reply of DATE , ORG sought confirmation that , according to the terms of the letter of DATE , the NORP authorities not only ensured the right of an asylum applicant returned to GPE to apply for a Rule CARDINAL measure but also guarantee him ample opportunity to avail himself of that right while still on the territory of GPE . The Agent of the Government of GPE in turn sought such confirmation from the Agent of the Government of GPE . On DATE , ORG forwarded a letter dated DATE from ORG . This stated :

“ We hereby advise you that it is the objective of ORG , though its competent bodies and in accordance with the current legal framework ( Presidential Decrees DATE , ORG and CARDINAL ) , to ensure the unhindered submission of applications for asylum by all aliens who declare before any ORG , at the entry points or on NORP territory , either verbally or in writing , that they request asylum in our country or ask in any way not to be deported to other countries from fear of persecution for reasons of race , religion , nationality , social class or political views .

Consequently , in GPE not only is there the right and the possibility to submit an application for asylum , but the actual application is also examined very carefully , exhaustively and as to substance ... ORG , as the competent authority , makes much of the ' right for asylum ' and the principle of non - refoulement , and they do not deport the alien from our country , if the procedure has not been completed . This also applies for the aliens transferred to GPE , pursuant to the provisions of ORG , provided that the requirements for the characterization of the ' applicant ' as a national of a third country or a non - citizen who has submitted an application for asylum for which a final decision has not yet been made are met , as described in the Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EK [ Council Directive CARDINAL of DATE on minimum standards on procedures in Member GPE for granting and withdrawing refugee status – see relevant ORG law below ] and Presidential Decree CARDINAL ”

This letter enclosed another letter dated DATE from ORG to that effect . Attached to the letter of DATE was a note which referred to the fact that many applicants resisting return to GPE had the right to submit asylum applications in GPE but had not done so because their purpose was to go to other ORG countries . The note also referred to the new legislative framework in GPE , which , inter alia , made provision for : ORG to oversee the implementation of the relevant domestic law in respect of aliens who are minors , without the need for an asylum application by them ; training for the officials responsible ; the right to immediate employment and education ; the issuing of travel documents for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and “ applicants for international protection ” ; and the ipso jure revocation of all decisions in respect of “ interrupted claims ” .

LAW ( the Convention determining the ORG responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of GPE of ORG , DATE ) provided for measures to ensure that applicants for asylum had their applications examined by CARDINAL of the Member GPE and that applicants for asylum were not referred successively from CARDINAL Member ORG to another . Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL set out the criteria for determining the single Member ORG responsible for examining an application for asylum . Pursuant to LAW , the responsibility for examining an application for asylum is incumbent upon the Member ORG responsible for controlling the entry of the alien into the territory of GPE . GPE and GPE were both signatory GPE .

The ORG has been superseded by ORG ( ORG ) No CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a third - country national ( “ Dublin II ” , hereinafter “ LAW ) . LAW applies to all ORG Member GPE , GPE and GPE . Article CARDINAL ) of the ORG provides for asylum applications to be examined by a single Member ORG , according to the criteria set out in LAW . The criteria for determining which Member ORG is responsible include where it is established that an asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a Member ORG , having come from a third country ( Article CARDINAL ) . If responsibility can be designated on the basis of the criteria , listed in LAW , LAW provides that the first Member ORG with which the application for asylum was lodged shall be responsible for examining it .

Article ( CARDINAL of ORG allows a Member ORG to examine an asylum application even if such examination is not its responsibility . It provides :

“ By way of derogation from paragraph CARDINAL , each Member ORG may examine an application for asylum lodged with it by a third - country national , even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation . In such an event , that Member State shall become the Member ORG responsible within the meaning of this LAW and shall assume the obligations associated with that responsibility . Where appropriate , it shall inform the Member ORG previously responsible , the Member ORG conducting a procedure for determining the Member ORG responsible or the Member ORG which has been requested to take charge of or take back the applicant . ”

The rights and standards set out in Directive CARDINAL include : the right to remain in a Member ORG pending the examination of an asylum application ( DATE ) ; that decisions on applications are given in writing and , where an application is rejected , that the reasons in fact and law are stated in the decision with information on how to challenge a negative decision ( Article CARDINAL ) ; that each applicant for asylum be given appropriate linguistic assistance and a personal interview ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ; and , subject to a number of qualifications , that applicants shall have the right to legal assistance and representation ( Article CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL guarantees applicants the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal against decisions taken against them . Member GPE are to allow the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees access to applicants , access to information on individual applications and the opportunity to present its views to any competent authorities ( LAW ) .

The above Directive requires that Member GPE ensure a dignified standard of living to all asylum - seekers , paying specific attention to the situation of applicants with special needs or who are detained . It regulates matters such as the provision of information , documentation , freedom of movement , healthcare , accommodation , schooling of minors , access to the labour market and to vocational training . It also covers standards for persons with special needs , minors , unaccompanied children and victims of torture .

In a judgment given on DATE in GPE v. GPE ( Case C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG ( “ the ECJ ” ) found that GPE had failed to implement the Directive . It appears from the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees Position Paper ( set out below ) that it has now done so .

Pursuant to ORG , Part CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL to ORG , etc ) Act DATE establishes a “ first list of safe countries ” which covers the other CARDINAL ORG Member GPE at the time ( prior to the accession of GPE and GPE ) , GPE and GPE .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Part CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) This paragraph applies for the purposes of the determination by any person , tribunal or court whether a person who has made an asylum claim or a human rights claim may be removed—

( a ) from GPE , and

( b ) to a ORG of which he is not a national or citizen .

( CARDINAL ) A ORG to which this Part applies shall be treated , in so far as relevant to the question mentioned in sub - paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , as a place—

( a ) where a person 's life and liberty are not threatened by reason of his race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion ,

( b ) from which a person will not be sent to another ORG in contravention of his Convention rights , and

( c ) from which a person will not be sent to another ORG otherwise than in accordance with LAW . ”

Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provide for the making of Immigration Rules by the Secretary of ORG . Paragraph CARDINAL of ORG states :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In a case where the Secretary of ORG is satisfied that the conditions set out in LAW and CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL to ORG , etc . ) Act DATE are fulfilled , he will normally decline to examine the asylum application substantively and issue a certificate under Part CARDINAL , DATE , DATE or CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL to ORG , etc . ) Act DATE as appropriate .

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG shall not issue a certificate under LAW , DATE , DATE or CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL to ORG , etc . ) Act DATE unless :

( i ) the asylum applicant has not arrived in GPE directly from the country in which he claims to fear persecution and has had an opportunity at the border or within the third country or territory to make contact with the authorities of that third country or territory in order to seek their protection ; or

( ii ) there is other clear evidence of his admissibility to a third country or territory .

Provided that he is satisfied that a case meets these criteria , the Secretary of ORG is under no obligation to consult the authorities of the third country or territory before the removal of an asylum applicant to that country or territory . ”

In the above case , ORG had concluded that paragraph CARDINAL of Part CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL was incompatible with LAW because it precluded both the Secretary of ORG and the court from considering any question as to the law and practice on refoulement in GPE . The Secretary of ORG successfully appealed to ORG . ORG ( who delivered the leading judgment ) considered the extent to which the evidence demonstrated that removal of an asylum seeker to GPE would violate GPE obligations under LAW . He concluded that :

“ There are clearly concerns about the conditions in which asylum - seekers may be detained in GPE . It is not however shown that they give rise to systematic violations of LAW .

... such evidence as there is , and in particular the recent ORG Paper , shows that the relevant legal procedures are to say the least shaky , although there has been some improvement .

... But in truth there are currently no deportations or removals to GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE or GPE , and as I understand it no reports of unlawful refoulement to any destination . That seems to me to be critical . I would accordingly hold , on the evidence before us , that as matters stand GPE 's continued presence on the list does not offend GPE Convention obligations . ”

In H ( GPE ) ; PERSON ) ; PERSON ( GPE ) v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA CARDINAL the ORG affirmed its judgment in Nasseri .

Recommendation R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ( containing guidelines on the application of the safe third country concept ) where relevant provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In order to assess whether a country is a safe third country to which an asylum - seeker can be sent , all the criteria indicated below should be met in each individual case :

a. observance by the third country of international human rights standards relevant to asylum as established in universal and regional instruments , including compliance with the prohibition of torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ;

b. observance by the third country of international principles relating to the protection of refugees as embodied in the CARDINAL Convention and LAW relating to ORG , with special regard to the principle of non - refoulement ;

c. the third country will provide effective protection against refoulement and the possibility to seek and enjoy asylum ;

d. the asylum - seeker has already been granted effective protection in the third country or has had the opportunity , at the border or within the territory of the third country , to make contact with that country 's authorities in order to seek protection there before moving on to the member state where the asylum request is lodged or , that as a result of personal circumstances of the asylum - seeker , including his or her prior relations with the third country , there is clear evidence of the admissibility of the asylum - seeker to the third country . ”

In Recommendation R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ( on the right of rejected asylum seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of LAW recommended :

“ [ T]hat governments of member states , while applying their own procedural rules , ensure that the following guarantees are complied with in their legislation or practice :

An effective remedy before a national authority should be provided for any asylum seeker , whose request for refugee status is rejected and who is subject to expulsion to a country about which that person presents an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

In applying paragraph CARDINAL of this recommendation , a remedy before a national authority is considered effective when :

that authority is judicial ; or , if it is a quasi - judicial or administrative authority , it is clearly identified and composed of members who are impartial and who enjoy safeguards of independence ;

that authority has competence both to decide on the existence of the conditions provided for by LAW and to grant appropriate relief ;

the remedy is accessible for the rejected asylum seeker ; and

the execution of the expulsion order is suspended until a decision under CARDINAL is taken . ”

The above recommendation ( on measures of detention of asylum seekers ) contains , inter alia , a number of recommendations on the conditions of detention of asylum seekers , which include ensuring a standard of living adequate for their health and well - being ; separate accommodation within detention facilities between men and women , as well as between children and adults ; a right of access to the ORG ; legal assistance ; and appropriate arrangements for minors .

In Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) ( Accelerated asylum procedures in ORG member states ) ORG invited the governments of the member states to ensure , inter alia , that minimum procedural safeguards were met in accelerated asylum procedures , including the right to an individual determination of one 's claim and the right to an effective remedy under LAW . It also called on Member GPE to provide adequate social and medical assistance in places of detention .

On DATE ORG ( “ the CPT ” ) published its report on it visit to GPE from DATE . Having reviewed the conditions of detention for asylum seekers , the report recommended : The report stated :

“ With respect to all the centres visited , the ORG calls upon the NORP authorities to ensure that :

- repair work is carried out immediately so that :

 GPE all centres have functioning toilet and shower facilities with a constant supply of water , at an appropriate temperature ;

 GPE appropriate artificial lighting is installed , and access to natural light and ventilation improved .

- all detainees are allocated a bed / plinth and provided with a clean mattress and clean bedding ;

- occupancy rates be revised so as to offer a minimum of CARDINAL m² of space per detainee ;

- all detainees are provided with the necessary products and equipment to keep their accommodation clean , as well as with products for personal hygiene ( i.e. toilet paper , soap , toothpaste , toothbrush , etc . ) ;

- all detainees have unimpeded access to toilet facilities ;

- all detainees are allowed to spend a large proportion of DATE outside their cells and have TIME of outdoor exercise a day . ( emphasis in original ) ”

ORG also noted that there was no regime offering purposeful activities to detainees , that staffing arrangements in the detention facilities were totally inadequate and that proper health care services had to be provided to detainees .

IV . RELEVANT OBJECTIVE INFORMATION

On DATE , the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees published the above paper in which it advised ORG to refrain from returning asylum seekers to GPE under LAW until further notice . It also recommended that they make use of LAW ( see relevant ORG law above ) and examine asylum applications themselves . The Position Paper criticised reception procedures for “ GPE returnees ” at GPE airport and ORG , which was responsible for registering asylum appeals . It also expressed concerns in respect of those whose asylum claims were deemed to be “ interrupted ” as a result of their having left GPE before their claims had been decided :

“ While a number of positive changes in the practice have been noticed in DATE , the legal framework underpinning the practice of ' interruption ' continues to leave room for different interpretations and fails to guarantee that ' GPE returnees ' with ' interrupted claims ' are granted access to the procedure . This situation calls into question whether ' GPE returnees ' will have access to an effective remedy as foreseen by LAW as well as LAW DATE on minimum standards on procedures in Member GPE for granting and withdrawing refugee status – see relevant ORG law above ] . Of relevance is the decision taken by ORG on DATE to refer a case to ORG against GPE for the infringement of ORG based on GPE 's failure to enact legislative amendments to abolish the practice of ' interruption ' . ( footnotes omitted ) ”

The Position Paper also characterised the percentage of asylum seekers who were granted refugee status as “ disturbingly low ” and criticised the quality of asylum decisions , noting in particular their short , standardised format and the absence of legal reasoning in some decisions .

The Position Paper also noted that since the adverse finding of the ECJ in Commission v. GPE ( see above ) , ORG had been transposed into NORP law on CARDINAL DATE . However , its implementation continued to present serious flaws . The paper stated :

“ ORG remains concerned about the extremely limited reception facilities for asylum - seekers as this situation is seriously compromising the full implementation of LAW on the Reception Conditions and urges the Government of GPE to promptly issue the awaited ministerial decision that should establish the criteria for the provision of a DATE financial allowance . Furthermore , ORG calls upon ORG to ensure that the situation of children is given primary consideration and that the current reception conditions for unaccompanied minors are urgently reviewed . ”

On DATE CARDINAL non - governmental organisations , ORG , ORG and ORG , published a report entitled “ A gamble with the right to asylum in NORP asylum policy and the GPE CARDINAL Regulation ” . The report called on other NORP countries to apply LAW and on the NORP authorities to review their asylum policy so that it complied with GPE 's international obligations . The report stated :

“ NORP asylum policy is better understood if CARDINAL considers the following :

Keeping asylum seekers in police custody is a common practice , and we were told several stories of asylum seekers being abused while detained by the police . It is unacceptable that some of those fleeing from persecution in their home country are beaten up by the police in an ORG state instead of receiving help and protection .

CARDINAL asylum applications were submitted in DATE , but the authorities have dedicated very limited resources to handle them , which is yet another example of GPE 's reluctance to deal with asylum according to its international obligations .

From CARDINAL asylum cases that were given first instance examination in DATE CARDINAL persons were given residence permit , MONEY of the applicants . CARDINAL decisions were appealed , of which CARDINAL were examined . CARDINAL applications were granted , after the examination of appeals , that is MONEY . These are depressing figures .

Very few asylum seekers are given legal assistance in GPE , even if they are entitled to this . Access to legal assistance is all the more important given the low percentage of applications that are granted . The number of lawyers to whom NGOs mediate access , CARDINAL , is not in proportion to the need .

Unaccompanied minors are not guaranteed a place at a reception centre , nor education , a legal guardian or other assistance they are entitled to through ORG .

CARDINAL available places at reception centres are far from sufficient . The majority of asylum seekers are left to fend for themselves , as best they can .

It is impossible to respect the asylum seekers ' legal protection and fundamental social rights with resources as limited as those made available by NORP authorities . For instance , CARDINAL police officers are assigned to interview CARDINAL asylum seekers arriving in GPE in the course of DATE . The asylum interviews are therefore very short and superficial . Most of the asylum seekers we have talked to told us that authorities used CARDINAL to interview them , and that the grounds for seeking asylum were not the main topic . Furthermore , these were among the lucky ones who got access to the asylum procedure at all , for it is difficult for asylum seekers to even lodge an application for asylum in GPE .

In our opinion the deficiencies in the NORP asylum process , documented through this report , entail that there is a discord between the preconditions on which the Dublin II Regulation was founded and procedural practices followed in GPE . In our opinion the NORP system does not guarantee even minimum basic legal protection for the asylum seekers . ”

In a press release dated DATE and entitled “ No place for an asylum - seeker in GPE ” , ORG stated :

“ GPE must urgently improve the current situation for refugees and asylum - seekers in the country . We call on the NORP authorities to comply with their obligations under international human rights , refugee and NORP law .

We note the decision of ORG to suspend returning refugees and asylum - seekers to GPE under the Dublin II Regulation . We consider the decision to be particularly important in light of the poor conditions in which immigration detainees are held in GPE , and the lack of legal guarantees with regard to examination of their asylum claim . We call on Member GPE to make use of LAW allowing Member GPE to examine an asylum application ' even if such examination is not its responsibility under the criteria laid down in this Regulation ' .

We recall that a procedure against GPE was launched by ORG at ORG for infringing the Dublin II Regulation . It is our understanding that this is because of the lack of legal guarantees with regard to a substantive examination of the asylum claim by NORP authorities after transfer to GPE .

We have repeatedly expressed concerns to the NORP authorities about its treatment of asylum - seekers and failure to provide effective asylum procedures . The organisation is concerned to receive reports that asylum - seekers have been held in conditions amounting to arbitrary detention pending the examination of their claim . Asylum - seekers are often interviewed about their claim in the absence of an interpreter and lawyer . Lawyers report that in practice , individuals can expect to have their claim rejected at first instance . We have repeatedly called on the NORP authorities to take concrete measures to improve the conditions for asylum - seekers including by resolving the legal limbo in which they are left – without documents and without access to any social services in practice . In a letter to the NORP authorities sent on DATE , the organization expressed its concern for the well - being of CARDINAL people , including unaccompanied children as young as DATE evicted from their makeshift homes in the port area of GPE . Most of the evicted people are believed to be asylum - seekers from GPE . GPE does not return people to GPE and yet does not process their asylum application in a prompt , fair way , leaving them in limbo without legal status and therefore without rights . ”


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE the ORG then DATE son , PERSON , was serving a prison sentence in the juvenile wing of FAC when he made an attempt to take his own life by hanging himself in the courtyard . Prison warders arriving at the scene resuscitated him and he was subsequently returned to his prison wing . In a statement taken by the prison governor , PERSON was reported as having explained that he was finding it difficult to adapt to prison life and that he was suffering from psychological problems .

Disciplinary proceedings were brought against PERSON for his attempted suicide but the disciplinary board decided not to impose a punishment . The board told him that “ he was setting a bad example to other inmates ” , and warned him that if he were to do “ such things ” again he would be treated more severely .

PERSON made another attempt to kill himself on DATE by taking an overdose . He was taken to hospital for treatment and then on DATE he was transferred to FAC .

On DATE a prisoner told the governor of FAC that PERSON had been “ behaving oddly ” , had talked about hanging himself , and his behaviour had been causing concern in the juvenile wing .

On DATE , PERSON was transferred from the juvenile wing of the prison to another wing which housed adult prisoners from his home town . According to a report drawn up by prison officers , this had been at the request of PERSON , who had claimed that “ although his identity card showed that he was DATE , he was actually older ” and could therefore be detained in an adult wing .

On DATE PERSON told the prison governor that he wanted to be transferred to another wing because he did not get on with the people in his wing .

DATE and DATE PERSON sent CARDINAL letters to the prison governor and the prosecutor of FAC stating that he urgently needed to see the governor to discuss his personal problems . On the few occasions on which his requests were granted he told the governor that he wanted to be transferred to another wing in the prison . He also informed the governor that he had not been visited regularly by his family , that he did not have any money and that he wanted to work in the prison to earn some .

According to CARDINAL reports drawn up by prison officers , on DATE PERSON met with the deputy governor and asked to be transferred to another cell . When his request was refused he tried to attack a prison warder with a razor blade , kicked and broke the sink in his cell and set fire to his mattress .

According to another report drawn up by prison officers , on DATE , at TIME , PERSON injured his head by repeatedly hitting it against his cell walls and was then taken to the infirmary to have the injury treated . Later on DATE , he was brought back to the wing and placed in a cell on his own .

At TIME , PERSON hanged himself from the iron bars of his cell with his bed sheets . A doctor arrived and for TIME tried unsuccessfully to resuscitate him , finally pronouncing him dead .

Later on DATE , the GPE prosecutor and a doctor arrived at the prison and photographed PERSON body . They then took the body to the local hospital where , on DATE , a post - mortem examination was carried out . According to the post - mortem report , the cause of death was asphyxia . Samples taken from the body were sent for further forensic examination .

DATE prosecutors questioned the prison officers . Their statements agreed with the above - mentioned reports . The prisoners questioned by the prosecutors stated that they had not seen the incident . Both the prison officers and the prisoners claimed that they knew PERSON had problems .

It appears from a report that , on DATE , a prosecutor instructed the prison governor to inform the family of PERSON death . Later on DATE the prison governor obtained the telephone number of the second applicant ( PERSON ) from the prison records and informed him of the death of his son .

On DATE the second applicant formally identified the body of his son . On DATE , the prosecutor released the body for burial .

On DATE the second applicant met with the FAC prosecutor and told him that he had not been informed of the death of his son until DATE . He alleged that PERSON had not had any problems with his family and that he might have been killed by CARDINAL prison warders with whom he had argued in DATE leading up to his death . He also wanted the prison officers prosecuted for their failure to inform him promptly of his son ’s death .

Proceedings were brought by the disciplinary board of the prison against CARDINAL prison warders who had been on duty in PERSON wing on DATE he committed suicide . On DATE the disciplinary board decided to give formal warnings to these warders . It was noted in the disciplinary board ’s report that the large number of cells in the wing had made it impossible for the warders to keep a constant watch on PERSON , who had been suffering from psychological problems . However , adequate precautions could have been taken by increasing the number of prison warders there , which would have ensured that he was under sufficient surveillance .

On DATE both applicants , with the assistance of their legal representative , submitted a detailed complaint to the prosecutor claiming , inter alia , that the iron bars from which their son had allegedly hanged himself were too low - for a person of his height ( QUANTITY ) - to have been effective for this purpose .

The doctors who had examined the samples taken from PERSON body stated in their report of DATE that his death had been caused by hanging .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor decided to close the criminal investigation stating that , in his opinion , no one had incited or encouraged PERSON to commit suicide .

On DATE the Directorate for Prisons informed the second applicant that disciplinary proceedings had been brought against the prison officers who had failed to inform the family of the suicide of their son .

The applicants filed an objection against the prosecutor ’s decision to close the criminal investigation . They argued that the prosecutor had failed to carry out a thorough investigation into the facts surrounding their son ’s death .

The objection was dismissed by ORG on DATE . That decision was communicated to the applicants on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicants wrote to ORG claiming compensation for the death of their son . In their letter the applicants argued , inter alia , that even assuming that their son had committed suicide , this was on account of the prison authorities’ failure to take adequate steps to protect his right to life . When ORG failed to respond to their letter , the applicants brought an action against ORG before ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG , by a majority of CARDINAL to one , rejected the applicants’ case , with the majority considering that the prison authorities could not be blamed for PERSON suicide , which had occurred as a result of his family problems . The dissenting judge , however , noted in his separate opinion that PERSON was being held in an adult wing of the prison in breach of the applicable domestic law , which required that he be kept in a juvenile wing . The judge argued that the possibility that his detention with adults had contributed to his psychological problems could not be excluded . He added that the fact that PERSON had repeatedly asked to be transferred showed that he had been having problems with the adult prisoners in his wing . The dissenting judge concluded by arguing that PERSON should have been kept under constant observation , at least on DATE when he had injured himself by hitting his head against the wall , TIME before he had succeeded in killing himself .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision . On DATE ORG quashed the decision and held that the file should be returned to ORG for reconsideration . In its decision ORG also referred to the prison disciplinary board ’s conclusion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and concluded that the decision adopted by that disciplinary board proved that the prison authorities had acted in breach of their duties by failing to ensure an adequate watch on PERSON , who had been suffering from psychological problems . It also held that the prison authorities’ failure to inform the family in a timely manner of the death of their son must have contributed to the family ’s suffering . According to the information provided by the applicants , ORG requested a rectification of ORG decision and the examination of that request is still continuing before ORG .

Article CARDINAL ( b ) of ORG ( which entered into force on DATE and was repealed in DATE ) stipulated that prisoners under the age of CARDINAL were to be kept separately from other prisoners . According to LAW , prisoners were to be given the opportunity to “ inform prison governors , prosecutors and ORG of their complaints and requests ” .

Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG to member States on ORG of DATE ( “ FAC ” ) includes in its basic principles :

CARDINAL Children under DATE should not be detained in a prison for adults , but in an establishment specially designed for the purpose .

CARDINAL If children are nevertheless exceptionally held in such a prison there shall be special regulations that take account of their status and needs .

CARDINAL Where exceptionally children under DATE are detained in a prison for adults the authorities shall ensure that , in addition to the services available to all prisoners , prisoners who are children have access to the social , psychological and educational services , religious care and recreational programmes or equivalents to them that are available to children in the community .

CARDINAL Where children are detained in a prison they shall be kept in a part of the prison that is separate from that used by adults unless it is considered that this is against the best interests of the child .

The recommendation of ORG on social reactions to juvenile delinquency ( no . R ( CARDINAL ) , adopted on CARDINAL DATE at the CARDINALth meeting of ORG , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Recommends the governments of member states to review , if necessary , their legislation and practice with a view : ...

NORP to exclude the remand in custody of minors , apart from exceptional cases of very serious offences committed by older minors ; in these cases , restricting the length of remand in custody and keeping minors apart from adults ; arranging for decisions of this type to be , in principle , ordered after consultation with a welfare department on alternative proposals ... ”

In the report pertaining to its visits carried out in GPE between CARDINAL and DATE ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL EN , publication date : CARDINAL DATE ) , ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) expressed its serious misgivings “ as regards the policy of having juveniles ( i.e. DATE ) who are remanded in custody placed in adult prisons ” .

In a report on its visit to GPE DATE ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) , the ORG stated the following :

“ [ ORG the reports on its visits in DATE and DATE , the ORG has made clear its serious misgivings concerning the policy of having juveniles who are remanded in custody placed in prisons for adults . A combination of mediocre material conditions and an impoverished regime has all too often created an overall environment which is totally unsuitable for this category of inmate . The facts found in the course of the DATE visit have only strengthened those misgivings . Here again , the laudable provisions of ORG circular of DATE ( ‘ the physical conditions of the prison sections allocated to juvenile offenders shall be revised and improved to conform with child psychology and enable practising educative programmes , aptitude intensive games and sports ORG ) have apparently had little practical impact . ”

The DATE LAW on the Rights of the LAW ( hereafter , “ the ORG Convention ” ) , adopted by ORG of ORG on DATE , has binding force under international law on GPE , including all of the member ORG .

LAW states :

“ For the purposes of the present Convention , a child means every human being below DATE unless , under the law applicable to the child , majority is attained earlier . ”

Article PERSON ) states :

“ In all actions concerning children , whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions , courts of law , administrative authorities or legislative bodies , the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration . ”

LAW ) provides :

“ GPE Parties shall ensure that :

( c ) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person , and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age . In particular , every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child ’s best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits , save in exceptional circumstances ; ... ”

Article CARDINAL provides in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . GPE Parties recognise the right of every child alleged as , accused of , or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child ’s sense of dignity and worth , which reinforces the child ’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child ’s age and the desirability of promoting the reintegration and the child ’s assuming a constructive role in society .

The relevant part of the Concluding Observations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in respect of GPE ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL(CRC / PERSON . ) ) provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... The fact that detention is not used as a measure of last resort and that cases have been reported of children being held incommunicado for long periods is noted with deep concern . The ORG is also concerned that there are only a small number of juvenile courts and none of them are based in the eastern part of the country . Concern is also expressed at the long periods of pre - trial detention and the poor conditions of imprisonment and at the fact that insufficient education , rehabilitation and reintegration programmes are provided during the detention period .

The ORG recommends that the ORG party continue reviewing the law and practices regarding the juvenile justice system in order to bring it into full compliance with the LAW , in particular articles CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , as well as with other relevant international standards in this area , such as ORG for ORG ( the Beijing Rules ) and LAW for ORG ( ORG ) , with a view to raising the minimum legal age for criminal responsibility , extending the protection guaranteed by ORG to all children up to DATE and enforcing this law effectively by establishing juvenile courts in every province ... ”

According to ORG , the juvenile justice system was in its infancy in GPE in DATE . Judges were still learning about child - sensitive detention centres , alternative dispute resolution procedures and due process for children in conflict with the law .


Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award

The applicant was born in DATE .

DATE the applicant worked on fixed - term contracts as a nurse in the polyclinic for eye diseases in a public hospital . From DATE she paid regular visits to the polyclinic for infectious diseases of the same hospital , having been diagnosed as HIV - positive .

Early in DATE the applicant began to suspect that her colleagues were aware of her illness . At that time hospital staff had free access to the patient register which contained information on ORG diagnoses and treating doctors . Having confided her suspicions to her doctor in DATE , the hospital ’s register was amended so that henceforth only the treating clinic ’s personnel had access to its ORG records . The applicant was registered in the patient register under a false name . Apparently later her identity was changed once again and she was given a new social security number .

NORP In DATE the applicant changed her job as her temporary contract was not renewed .

On DATE , the applicant complained to ORG ( lääninhallitus , länsstyrelsen ) , requesting it to examine who had accessed her confidential patient record . Upon request , the director in charge of the hospital ’s archives filed a statement with ORG , according to which it was not possible to find out who , if anyone , had accessed the applicant ’s patient record as the data system revealed CARDINAL most recent consultations ( by working unit and not by person ) and even this information was deleted once the file was returned to the archives .

In its decision of DATE ORG held that :

“ LAW ( laki potilaan asemasta ja oikeuksista , lag om patientens ställning och rättigheter ) provides that the health authorities and staff have to comply with the regulations issued by ORG ( sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö , social- och hälsovårdsministeriet , “ the Ministry ” ) when preparing and processing patient records . Pursuant to this section the ORG has issued , on DATE , Regulation no . CARDINAL .

In the said Regulation it is noted that patients records must be prepared having due regard to the secrecy regulations and the protection obligation and the duty to take care pursuant to LAW ( henkilörekisterilaki , personregisterlagen ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . According to the duty to take care , precaution and good registering practices must be observed when gathering , depositing , using and delivering data and these must be done in a manner so as not to infringe unnecessarily the right to privacy of the registered person or his or her benefits and rights . The protection obligation means that data in patient records must be duly protected against unauthorised processing , use , destruction , amendment and theft ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) .

In the said Regulation it is also noted that the patient records must form an entity to ensure that outsiders can not gain unauthorised access to them and that , in addition to the said obligations , in accordance with LAW , the purpose of use of the said data can be taken into account . This way it can be made sure that requisite patient data are only given to the personnel participating in the treatment of the patient .

[ The applicant ] has in her representations alleged that [ X ] , who is working for [ the hospital ] has ordered up the case history of [ the applicant ’s ex - husband ] and that someone else has ordered up her file or visited the archives and read her file and/or that of [ her son ] and that the data have been transmitted to [ Y ] and other staff mentioned in [ the applicant ’s ] representations .

[ X ] has contested having proceeded erroneously . The other persons mentioned in [ the applicant ’s ] representations have contested having had knowledge of the data mentioned therein concerning [ the applicant ] and her family .

According to the director in charge of [ the hospital ’s ] archives it is not possible to retroactively clarify the use of patient records . The data system reveals CARDINAL most recent consultations ( by working unit and not by person ) but this information is deleted once the file has been returned to the archives .

Therefore , ORG can not further rule on whether information contained in the patient records has been used by or given to an outsider .

Having regard to the foregoing , ORG however finds that the system should record any consultation of patient files as a safeguard of privacy in order to ensure that the responsibility for a possible leak of information can be individualised . For the future , ORG draws the hospital ’s attention to the protection obligation and the duty to take care provided by LAW , and further , to the need to ensure that privacy protection is not put at risk when processing medical data within the hospital . ... ”

Subsequently , in DATE , the hospital ’s register was amended in that it became possible retrospectively to identify any person who had accessed a patient record .

On DATE , the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ORG ( sairaanhoitopiirin kuntayhtymä , samkommunen för sjukvårdsdistriktet ) , which was responsible for the hospital ’s patient register , claiming non - pecuniary and pecuniary damage for the alleged failure to keep her patient record confidential .

On DATE , ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) , having held an oral hearing , rejected the action . Having assessed the evidence before it , including CARDINAL witness statements , the decision of ORG and a statement of ORG ( tietosuojavaltuutettu , dataombudsmannen ) , the court did not find firm evidence that the applicant ’s patient record had been unlawfully consulted .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , maintaining her claim that the hospital had not complied with the domestic law , in breach of her right to respect for her private life .

On DATE , ORG , having held an oral hearing , considered that the applicant ’s testimony about the events , such as her colleagues’ hints and remarks about her HIV infection , was reliable and credible . Like ORG it did not , however , find firm evidence that her patient record had been unlawfully consulted . It ordered the applicant to reimburse the respondent ’s legal expenses before ORG and ORG , amounting to MONEY ( ORG ) and ORG CARDINAL plus interest , respectively .

In her application for leave to appeal to ORG ( korkein oikeus ) , the applicant claimed inter alia that there had been a violation of her right to respect for her private life .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

LAW ( Suomen hallitusmuoto , NORP för GPE ; Act no . CARDINAL , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE . Its section CARDINAL corresponded to LAW ( Suomen perustuslaki , ORG grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which provides that everyone ’s right to private life is guaranteed .

Until DATE , the rules governing the use and confidentiality of personal data were laid down in LAW of DATE . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW prohibited the processing of sensitive personal data , including information on a person ’s health and medical treatment , except within the health authorities . Unauthorised disclosure of personal data was prohibited under section CARDINAL and illegal use of disclosed data was prohibited under LAW . Pursuant to section CARDINAL the data controller had to ensure that personal data and information contained therein were appropriately secured against any unlawful processing , use , destruction , amendment and theft . In this regard , the explanatory report of LAW PERSON ( no . ORG ) for the enactment of LAW stated that the mere existence of legal provisions did not suffice to guarantee the protection of privacy . In addition , the data controller had to make sure that data were protected de facto . When planning the physical protection of the data system regard must be had to , inter alia , whether the system was manual or automated . The delicate nature of the information naturally affected the scope of the protection obligation . Under section DATE , the data controller was liable to compensate pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the use or disclosure of incorrect personal data or of unlawful use or disclosure of personal data .

On DATE , a new LAW ( henkilötietolaki , personuppgiftslag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) entered into force . LAW prohibits processing of sensitive personal data . However , under LAW , health care professionals may process data relating to a person ’s state of health , illness , handicap or treatment if they are indispensable in his / her treatment . Section CARDINAL provides that the data controller shall carry out the technical and organisational measures necessary for securing personal data against unauthorised access , accidental or unlawful destruction , manipulation , disclosure and transfer as well as against other unlawful processing . Section CARDINAL lays down a secrecy obligation for those who have gained knowledge of someone ’s personal circumstances . Under section DATE , the data controller is liable to compensate pecuniary and other damage suffered by the data subject or another person as a result of the processing of personal data in violation of the provisions of the LAW .

The Patient ’s LAW entered into force on DATE . Section CARDINAL , as in force until DATE , provided that the health authorities had to comply with the regulations issued by ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) when creating and processing patients’ personal and medical data .

According to ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , issued on DATE , a patient ’s privacy had to be secured when creating and processing his / her patient record . The data controller had to make sure that outsiders could not gain unauthorised access to sensitive personal data and that only the personnel treating a patient had access to his / her patient register .

Section CARDINAL of the Patient ’s LAW provided that health care professionals or other persons working in a health care unit were not allowed to reveal to an outsider ( that is a person not participating in the treatment of the patient ) information contained in the patient documents without the written consent of the patient . The said section has been amended as of DATE ( Act no . CARDINAL ) to the effect that it must be recorded in the data file if patient records have been revealed as well as the grounds for the disclosure .

Further , ORG ( laki terveydenhuollon ammattihenkilöistä , lag om yrkesutbildade personer inom hälso- och sjukvården ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) contains provisions on the retention of patient documents and their confidentiality ( section CARDINAL ) and on the obligation of secrecy ( section CARDINAL ) .

Finally , the new Electronic Processing of Client Information Act ( laki sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollon asiakastietojen sähköisestä käsittelystä , lag om elektronisk behandling av klientuppgifter inom social- och hälsovården ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . The aim of this LAW is to further enforce ORG rights in the context of the processing of electronic personal data within the social and health care .


Violation of Art. 10;Violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 14

András Baka;Françoise Tulkens;Mindia Ugrekhelidze;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is the owner of a DATE newspaper , ORG , published in GPE .

Günlük Evrensel released its first issue on DATE . On DATE , the state of emergency regional governor in south - east GPE banned the newspaper 's entry and distribution in the provinces under his jurisdiction , namely , ORG , GPE , PERSON and PERSON . The governor considered that the newspaper was pursuing the same editorial line as another newspaper called ORG , the entry and distribution of which had also been banned on DATE .

NORP The governor 's decision to ban Günlük Evrensel , which contained no reasons , was served on the newspaper 's ORG representative on DATE . The representative acknowledged its receipt on DATE and the ban took immediate effect .

While banned in the state of emergency region , the newspaper was freely distributed elsewhere in GPE .

The governor 's office of the state of emergency region was set up with special powers after the state of siege was officially declared to be over on DATE by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE . A state of emergency was thus decreed in the provinces of ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE and PERSON . On DATE the state of emergency was extended to the province of ORG , but lifted in the province of ORG . It was declared to be over in the provinces of Batman , ORG and ORG on DATE , in the province of GPE on DATE and in the provinces of GPE and PERSON on DATE . In DATE it was extended by DATE in the provinces of GPE and PERSON .

The powers of the governor of the state of emergency region ( PERSON GPE ) are set out in GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) and various legislative decrees that were issued after the state of emergency was declared ( Legislative Decrees nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL(e ) of LAW reads as follows :

“ ... If a state of emergency is decreed , the following measures may be imposed with a view to maintaining general security , safety and public order and to preventing any escalation of the violence ... :

( e ) An order prohibiting , either absolutely or without prior permission , the editing , dissemination , publication or distribution of newspapers , reviews , brochures , pamphlets , posters or any similar publications , or the publication or distribution of any such [ publications ] which have been printed or disseminated outside the state of emergency region ... ”

DATE ( a ) of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL provides :

“ The printing , dissemination , publication or distribution of books , reviews , newspapers , brochures , posters or other similar publications liable seriously to undermine public order in the region , to cause agitation among the local population or to obstruct the security forces in the course of their duties by giving a false account of operations being conducted in the region shall be prohibited , either absolutely or without the prior permission of the governor of the region to which the state of emergency applies or the governors of the provinces concerned . [ Likewise , ] the publication or distribution of [ any publication of the same type ] that has been printed and published outside the state of emergency region shall be prohibited , either absolutely or without the prior permission of the governor of the region to which the state of emergency applies or the governors of the provinces concerned ... ”

The relevant part of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ ... There shall be no right of appeal to ORG to contest the form or substance of legislative decrees issued during a state of emergency , a state of siege or in wartime . ”

DATE Decree no . CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , precludes any application in the administrative courts to have an administrative act performed pursuant to Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL set aside .

DATE of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ No criminal , financial or civil liability may be asserted against ... the governor of the state of emergency region or provincial governors in that region in respect of decisions taken , or acts performed , by them in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by this legislative decree , and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to that end . This shall be without prejudice to the rights of individuals to claim reparation from the ORG for damage which they have been caused without justification [ sebepsiz ] . ”

ORG has reviewed the constitutionality of LAW no . CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , in a judgment of DATE , which was published in ORG on DATE . It stated :

“ It is not possible to reconcile that provision [ which precludes any judicial scrutiny of acts performed by the governor of the state of emergency region ] with the concept of the rule of law ... The system of government when a state of emergency has been declared is not an arbitrary one that escapes all judicial scrutiny . There can be no doubt that individual and regulatory acts performed by the competent authorities while the state of emergency continues must be subject to judicial review . Contravention of this principle is inconceivable in countries run by democratic regimes and founded on freedom . However , the impugned provision is contained in a legislative decree that can not be the subject of constitutional review ... Consequently , the application for an order quashing that provision must be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae [ yetkisizlik ] ... ”

As regards LAW no . CARDINAL , in CARDINAL judgments delivered on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( published in ORG on DATE and DATE respectively ) , ORG followed that decision in dismissing as incompatible ratione materiae applications for orders quashing the relevant provisions .


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicants are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE , and live in GPE , GPE , and GPE respectively .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , PERSON ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered ORG of GPE to pay an allowance due to the applicants for participation in the counter - terrorist operation in LOC . The court awarded the first applicant MONEY ( RUB ) for a period of service from DATE to DATE and the second applicant RUB CARDINAL for a period of service from DATE .

The judgment became binding and enforceable on DATE . The applicants repeatedly attempted to secure the enforcement of that judgment by contacting the debtor authority and other ORG authorities responsible for payment of the judgment debt . They provided the authorities with the necessary documents , including the writ of enforcement issued by the domestic court . However , their attempts were not successful and the judgment remained unenforced .

Following the authorities’ prolonged failure to enforce the judgment , the applicants sued ORG of GPE on the basis of its vicarious liability ( субсидиарная ответственность ) . On DATE the ORG , GPE ( “ the LOC ” ) granted the applicants’ claims and awarded RUB CARDINAL in favour of PERSON and RUB CARDINAL in favour of Mr GPE . Those amounts corresponded to the total sum owed to the applicants under the judgments of DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was quashed , following an application by ORG for review on account of newly discovered circumstances .

By a new judgment of CARDINAL DATE , upheld on appeal on DATE , ORG dismissed the ORG claims . The court noted that the debtor was not in possession of the writs of enforcement and thus could not enforce the judgment of DATE in the applicant ’s favour . Furthermore , the court referred to the applicants’ failure to prove that the principal debtor had refused or failed to pay the judgment debt .

The judgment of DATE in the ORG favour remains unenforced to the present date .

The applicants submitted a copy of a judgment of CARDINAL DATE allegedly delivered by ORG in favour of CARDINAL claimants , including the applicants . It transpires from the text of the judgment that the court heard the oral submissions of the parties to the case at a hearing and arrived at the following conclusions :

The failure of the command of ORG to issue orders to make the payments in due time does not in itself prove that the applicants did not take part in the counter - terrorist operation and are not entitled to receive combat allowance .

The records of individual participation in the counter - terrorist operation on the territory of the GPE region reflect the dates of [ the claimants’ ] participation which match the timeframe indicated by the claimants .

The records submitted by the finance department of ORG ’s regional office demonstrate that the claimants have indeed not received the remuneration due to them for participation in combat and other actions in defence of the public order ...

The reports drawn up by the head of the personnel department in ORG ’s regional office following an internal inquiry show that the claimants were included in the orders authorising the counter - terrorist operation and are entitled to relevant payments .

In addition , the case file contains the TIME of meetings held by the commission supervising the putting together of orders concerning the involvement of personnel in the counter - terrorist operation which evidence that the applicants indeed took part in the operations during the aforementioned period and are entitled to extra reimbursement .

The court concludes that the claimants indeed took part in the counter - terrorist operation . The respondent submitted to the court official documents evidencing [ this fact ] and thus de facto accepted their claims .

The amounts to be recovered are calculated by the court based on the records provided by the respondent .

Having regard to the above and relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , the court orders ORG of GPE to pay the following amounts for de facto participation in the counter - terrorist operation on the territory of the LOC in favour of :

ORG GPE RUB CARDINAL for the period from DATE to DATE , and also to credit the above period in [ the claimant ’s ] length of service record in the proportion of DATE for DATE and in [ the claimant ’s ] length of special service record in the proportion of DATE for DATE ;

PERSON RUB CARDINAL for the period from DATE to DATE , and also to credit the above period in [ the claimant ’s ] length of service record in the proportion of DATE for DATE and in [ the claimant ’s ] length of special service record [ in the proportion of DATE for DATE ] . ”

On DATE ORG of ORG returned the writs of enforcement related to the judgment of DATE issued by ORG for failure to indicate the creditor ’s addresses and discrepancies between the operative part of the judgment and the enforcement document .

NORP By letter of DATE the acting president of ORG , replying to the ORG request for correction of the irregularities in the enforcement documents and the judgment , informed them that the court had never delivered the judgment of DATE or the related writs of enforcement and that the stamps and signatures on the documents had been falsified .

The Government submitted a copy of a decision to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings dated DATE , which read as follows :

“ Senior police lieutenant PERSON , an investigator at the PERSON police station ’s investigative department , having examined the material submitted by the prosecutor ’s office for LOC of PERSON and registered by ... the PERSON police station ... on DATE , concerning the falsification by an unidentified person of a judgment of the Zavodskoy ORG ordering the payment of an additional monetary allowance for participation in the counter - terrorist operation in GPE , established [ the following ] :

The judgment by the Zavodskoy District Court of DATE in [ the applicants’ ] favour and the writs of enforcement dated DATE [ by which ] ORG for GPE [ was ] ordered to pay [ the applicants ] RUB CARDINAL each , which had been submitted by [ the applicants ] to ORG of ORG , are falsified and were never delivered or issued by ORG .

The above is confirmed by the information contained in [ a letter ] of the Zavodskoy District Court of DATE ...

Accordingly , the actions of the unidentified person constitute the corpus delicti described in LAW .

The above crime belongs to the category of small - scale crimes and , considering that the judgment ... was falsified in DATE , any prosecution would be time - barred in accordance with LAW a ) of LAW .

Based on the above ... it is decided :

To refuse to open a criminal case on account of a crime provided for in LAW [ having taken place ] ... due to the expiration of the statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution ...

To send a copy of this decision to [ the applicants ] , PERSON and the prosecutor for LOC of Grozny .

This decision is amenable to appeal to the prosecutor for LOC of PERSON or ORG in accordance with LAW of LAW .

On DATE a copy of the decision was sent to the applicants .

On DATE the ORG considered the applicants’ claims against ORG brought on the basis of its vicarious liability and ordered it to pay RUB CARDINAL to PERSON and RUB CARDINAL to Mr GPE . The amounts recovered corresponded to the total sums owed to the applicants under the judgments of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the president of ORG responded to an inquiry by the office of ORG at ORG as follows :

“ In reply to your inquiry of CARDINAL DATE [ no . of the letter ] ORG [ ... ] informs you that the judgments of DATE and DATE on the claims of PERSON , PERSON and [ another person ] in their favour against ORG ordered the payment of RUB CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively for de facto participation in the counter - terrorist operation on the territory of the NORP region ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) .

Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure writs of enforcement were issued to the creditors upon entry of the judgments into force .

The court is not in possession of any information concerning the enforcement of the judgment of DATE in respect of PERSON and PERSON .

Since the date of the delivery of the judgment PERSON , PERSON and PERSON have not lodged with the court any claims or complaints of nonenforcement of the judgment ; hence it is impossible to provide you with any court decisions [ in this respect ] .

As regards the judgment of DATE which allegedly ordered the payment of monetary allowances by ORG to GPE GPE and PERSON for de facto participation in the ORG , the court has never delivered such a judgment , nor have any claims to this effect been lodged with the court . ”

Based on the information contained in the above letter , ORG challenged the judgment of CARDINAL DATE before ORG on account of newly discovered circumstances . As a result , on DATE the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was quashed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . By a new judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the ORG claims ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court stated that , according to all available evidence , the judgment of DATE had never been delivered . That judgment was upheld on appeal on DATE .