ORG The applicant company , ORG , is a joint stock company ( Aktiengesellschaft ) incorporated and having its registered office in GPE . Its principal business is metal smelting , but at the relevant time it also dealt in gold and silver coins .

ORG In DATE , ORG began doing business with a NORP citizen , X. In the course of this business , DATE and DATE , ORG bought from X a large quantity of DATE NORP coinage which had a high content of silver . However , it appears that unbeknown to the company the coins had been illegally exported from GPE .

ORG On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , after TIME , X visited ORG ’s factory with Y , whom he introduced as a wealthy businessman . Together they asked to make an immediate purchase of CARDINAL PERSON , gold coins minted in GPE , where they are also legal tender , having a value of CARDINAL . The sale was agreed and the coins were loaded into a car bearing GPE number plates . Payment was accepted in the form of an unguaranteed cheque drawn on an LANGUAGE bank . The cheque bore no sign of having been cleared for exchange control purposes . On DATE , DATE , the cheque was handed to ORG ’s bank for collection . However , on DATE , the bank notified ORG that the cheque had been dishonoured . The contract of sale contained a provision according to which ownership of the coins remained with ORG until full payment for them had been received by it .

ORG Meanwhile , on DATE , the buyers attempted to smuggle the gold coins by car into GPE . The coins were , however , discovered hidden in a spare tyre and were seized by the customs authorities in GPE .

ORG On DATE , the importation of gold coins had been prohibited by the Secretary of ORG , by an amendment to the Open General Import License of DATE . The prohibition was withdrawn on DATE .

ORG On DATE , criminal proceedings were instituted in GPE against X and Y ; they were charged , inter alia , with fraudulent evasion of the prohibition on importation of gold coins , contrary to section CARDINAL ( b ) of ORG " LAW " ) .

ORG On DATE and again on DATE , ORG requested the ORG and Excise to return the coins on the basis that the company was their rightful owner and had been the innocent victim of fraud .

ORG On DATE , officers of the ORG and Excise visited ORG ’s factory in GPE to inquire into the circumstances of the sale . ORG continued to co - operate with the ORG and Excise throughout the criminal investigation .

ORG On DATE , ORG made a declaration of avoidance of the contract of sale by virtue of which the sale of the coins became void ab initio under NORP law .

ORG On DATE , ORG ’s lawyers wrote to ORG , who had taken over responsibility for the case , requesting that the Commissioners exercise their discretion under section FAC of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and return the coins to the company , as they did not constitute goods liable to forfeiture under LAW interpreted in the light of the LAW establishing ORG ( LAW ) , general principles of public international law and LAW , especially LAW No . CARDINAL ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

ORG In their written reply of CARDINAL DATE , the Commissioners inquired whether it was contended by ORG that it had made a valid claim that the coins were not liable to forfeiture . The Commissioners stated that , if so , they would be required to institute condemnation proceedings before ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of the Seventh Schedule to the CARDINAL Act in order to have the coins forfeited . With regard to the company ’s contention that the coins were not liable to forfeiture ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the GPE observed , inter alia , that " there [ was ] no discretion [ vested in the courts ] to refuse condemnation [ of the coins as forfeited ] on the ground of hardship to an innocent owner " . The coins were not restored .

ORG At their trial in DATE , at which ORG ’s director Dr. PERSON testified for the prosecution , X and NORP argued that the prohibition on importation of gold coins was in breach of LAW , which guarantees the free movement of goods , and that accordingly the criminal charges brought against them were void .

ORG The judge at first instance did not accept this argument ; in his judgment of DATE , he held that the prohibition fell within the " public policy " provision of LAW and that the coins were capital rather than goods within the terms of LAW .

X and Y appealed to ORG which , on DATE , referred the question to ORG of ORG in accordance with LAW .

ORG of ORG confirmed in its judgment of DATE that the PERSON were capital rather than goods ( case CARDINAL/CARDINAL , [ DATE ] ORG Reports DATE ) . Accordingly , X and ORG appeal failed and they were convicted and fined .

ORG When , at the close of the criminal proceedings at first instance , ORG did not return the coins , ORG , on DATE , issued a writ against them in ORG . The statement of claim , in so far as relevant , read :

" CARDINAL . ... the provisions of section CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , and the Seventh Schedule to the said LAW , are to be construed in the light of and subject to the general principle of public international law which prohibits the unjustified confiscation of property belonging to friendly aliens .

Further or in the alternative the provisions of LAW and the Seventh Schedule to the said LAW are to be construed in accordance with LAW of LAW No . CARDINAL ] of LAW ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

In the LOC mentioned in DATE herein , the ... coins are not liable to forfeiture .

Alternatively to paragraph CARDINAL , if the said coins are liable to forfeiture , then in the LOC mentioned in DATE and/or DATE herein the Defendant is bound to exercise his powers under section FAC of the Customs and Excise Act DATE and/or paragraph CARDINAL of the Seventh Schedule to the said Act to restore without imposition of any condition the said coins to the plaintiffs .

And the plaintiffs claim :

( i ) a declaration that the ... coins are [ ORG ’s ] property ;

( ii ) a declaration that the ... coins are not liable to forfeiture ... ;

( iii ) a declaration that [ ORG is ] entitled without imposition of any condition to the return of the ... coins " .

The Commissioners counterclaimed that the coins should be condemned as forfeited as they were liable to forfeiture , inter alia , under LAW ( b ) and section CARDINAL ( f ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE , ORG also issued an originating summons requesting ORG to determine the compatibility with LAW of the prohibition on the importation of GPE into GPE and of their confiscation without compensation . The case was heard on DATE and ORG sought to have these questions referred to ORG of ORG for decision .

ORG Mr. PERSON dismissed the originating summons on DATE and indicated that he would also have dismissed the action on the writ had it been brought before him for determination ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant company nonetheless pursued the latter action . On DATE , Mr. PERSON dismissed the action on the writ and ordered , in accordance with the Commissioners’ counterclaim , that the coins be forfeited as constituting goods liable to forfeiture under section CARDINAL(f ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG appealed to ORG arguing that , as ORG had in the meantime found that the coins were not goods ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , section CARDINAL ( f ) could not be applied , and reiterated its submissions as to LAW No . CARDINAL ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and general principles of international law .

ORG The Court of Appeal gave its ruling on DATE ( [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The main judgment was delivered by Lord PERSON , with whom the other CARDINAL judges , Lord FAC and Sir PERSON , concurred .

With regard to ORG ’s claim that it was entitled to the restoration of the PERSON in view of its alleged innocence , Lord PERSON first made the following observations :

" Before going further , I may say that in any event the customs authorities have a discretion in the matter . It happens sometimes that goods are forfeited and then afterwards the true owner comes up and says that he was defrauded of them . If the customs authorities are satisfied of his claim , they may waive the forfeiture and hand them to him . There is a very wide discretion given to the commissioners under s FAC of the CARDINAL Act under which they can forfeit the goods or release them , or pay compensation and so forth . That may arise at a later time . But the NORP company says that in this case the customs authorities had no right to forfeit the goods at all . It would suit the NORP company much better to have the actual PERSON returned to them , when you consider the value of gold itself , instead of compensation at DATE figures . "

Lord PERSON thereafter went on to deal with the different objections advanced by ORG against the Commissioners’ contention that the PERSON were liable to forfeiture . Lord PERSON held that the definition of goods in LAW was irrelevant for the purposes of section CARDINAL ( f ) and that there was nothing in LAW No . CARDINAL ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) or general international law prohibiting forfeiture in the instant case . He concluded :

" It seems to me that the customs authorities are right . These PERSON are forfeitable to the Crown ... It is entirely a matter for the discretion of the ORG and Excise to consider whether the claim of the NORP company is so good that they should see fit in this case to release them to the NORP company or retain them and pay them some compensation . That is within the discretion of the ORG and Excise . "

Lord Justice Bridge added :

" If I were satisfied , which I am not , that there is such a principle in international law as that for which the [ NORP company ’s counsel ] contends , I should still be wholly unconvinced that it would be open to us to write into LAW DATE the extensive amendments which it would be necessary to introduce in order to give effect to that principle and to make an exception from liability to forfeiture , where there had been a plain case under the language of the statute giving rise to forfeiture , in favour of a foreign owner of goods who could show he had not been a party to the act out of which the liability to forfeiture arose . "

Sir PERSON remarked :

" If [ a foreign owner ] is innocent of any complicity in the smuggling , it is appropriate that there should be an opportunity for him to apply for the exercise of discretion in his favour , but I can not see that it would be possible so to construe the LAW as to exclude from the forfeiture provision any goods belonging to such a [ foreigner ] . "

The appeal was dismissed .

ORG did not grant leave to appeal to ORG . On DATE , ORG petitioned ORG for leave to appeal , but such leave was refused .

ORG On DATE , ORG ’s solicitors again wrote to ORG and Excise requesting the return of the goods . The solicitor for the Commissioners replied in the negative on DATE , without giving any reasons .

ORG Under LAW of LAW , goods being liable for forfeiture under , inter alia , section CARDINAL of the Act may be seized or detained by the customs authorities .

Section CARDINAL reads in relevant parts :

" Where :

( b ) any goods are imported , landed or unloaded contrary to any prohibition or restriction for the time being in force with respect thereto under or by virtue of any enactment ; or

( f ) any imported goods are concealed or packed in any manner appearing to be intended to deceive an officer ,

those goods shall be liable to forfeiture ... "

ORG The procedure to be followed after seizure is set out in the Seventh Schedule to the LAW .

According to paragraph CARDINAL , ORG and Excise shall give notice of seizure to any person who to their knowledge was at the time of the seizure the owner of the seized goods .

Any person wishing to claim that the goods are not liable to forfeiture must , in accordance with paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE , give the Commissioners notice of his claim in writing within DATE of the date of notice of seizure or , if no such notice has been served on him , within DATE of the date of seizure .

Paragraph CARDINAL provides that if notice of a claim is duly served , the Commissioners shall take proceedings for the condemnation of the seized goods by the courts . This paragraph further specifies that " if the court finds that the [ items were ] at the time liable to forfeiture the court shall condemn [ them ] as forfeited . " According to established case - law , the courts will only examine whether the seized goods fall into any of the categories of goods mentioned in the law as liable to forfeiture ; they will not examine the question of the owner ’s innocence . Condemnation proceedings are , according to paragraph CARDINAL , to be considered as civil proceedings .

If no notice of claim has been given to the Commissioners in accordance with paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE , then the goods seized are deemed , in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL , to have been duly condemned as forfeited .

ORG Under section FAC of the CARDINAL Act :

" The Commissioners may , as they see fit ,

( a ) ...

( b ) restore , subject to such conditions , if any , as they think proper , any thing forfeited or seized under LAW ... "

ORG Prior to CARDINAL DATE , judicial review of certain decisions by administrative authorities could be obtained by application for a prerogative order ( mandamus , certiorari or prohibition ) in accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG and LAW . In addition , litigants were entitled to bring ordinary actions for declarations , injunctions or damages in appropriate cases .

In the words of the Government , " the multiplicity of remedies , each with their own procedural idiosyncracies , was considered to be a real disadvantage to litigants , and an inhibition on the ability of the courts to develop a coherent corpus of law in this area " . In particular , an application for a prerogative order might not have been effective if the challenged decision did not contain the reasons on which it was based , since the law did not permit the obtaining of evidence on facts or other matters not appearing on the record of the decision ( see Report on Remedies in Administrative Law , Law Commission no . DATE , ORG . ORG ( DATE ) ) .

ORG The Rules of ORG were amended in DATE by ORG so as to provide for CARDINAL specific procedure , now known formally as judicial review , for all litigants seeking relief in matters relating to public law . The amendments came into force on DATE and were thus applicable when the Commissioners took their decision on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG According to ORG , the new LAW introduced inter alia , the following changes :

" - It created a new procedure called ‘ application for judicial’ review and in this single application , the applicant may apply for any of the prerogative orders , either jointly or in the alternative , without having to select any particular one appropriate to his case .

- The machinery of interlocutory applications such as discovery of documents and interrogatories and orders for the respondent of an affidavit to attend for cross - examination has been introduced into applications for judicial review and such applications may be heard by a Judge or by a Master of the Queen ’s Bench Division .

- If the claim for relief is an order of certiorari , the ORG is empowered , in addition to quashing the decision , to remit the matter to the authority concerned with a direction to reconsider it and reach a decision in accordance with the findings of the ORG so that the ORG may operate not only as a ‘ Court of Cassation’ but also as a ORG of review . " ( Rules of ORG , ORG , DATE , PERSON . CARDINAL , LAW , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL para . CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

ORG The procedure whereby an application for judicial review had to be made in CARDINAL stages was left unchanged by the reform . It is first necessary to obtain leave of the ORG , and , according to ORG , " only if and to the extent that such leave is granted will the ORG proceed to hear the substantive application for judicial review " . " Leave should be granted , if on the material then available the ORG thinks , without going into the matter in depth , that there is an arguable case for granting the relief claimed by the applicant " ( ORG , loc . cit . , p. CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ) .

ORG The grounds on which judicial review under the new LAW can be granted are the same as those held valid for the earlier applications for prerogative orders . They are stated by ORG to fall under the following main headings :

" CARDINAL . Want or excess of jurisdiction ...

Where there is an error of law on the face of the record ...

Failure to comply with the rules of natural justice ... Broadly the rules of natural justice embody a duty to act fairly ... The rules of natural justice will normally apply where the decision concerned affects a person ’s rights , for example where his property is taken by compulsory purchase ... The rules of natural justice can also apply where the applicant for judicial review does not have a right , for example where he is applying for some requisite statutory licence : in such cases , although he has no right to a licence unless and until it is granted , there is a duty to comply with the rules of natural justice and to act fairly because a legal power which affects his interests is being exercised . ...

The ORG principle - A decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where the ORG concludes that the decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it .... "

ORG The requirement that administrative authorities direct themselves properly on the relevant law and act reasonably has been expounded upon in several cases before LANGUAGE courts ( see also " Administrative Law " , H.W.R. PERSON , CARDINALth edition ( DATE ) , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Thus in ORG [ DATE ] ORG , p. CARDINAL , Lord PERSON stated :

" The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered . It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law . That means at least this : the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant . If its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account , then the decision can not stand . No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith ; nevertheless the decision will be set aside . "

Due regard must be had , inter alia , to the scope and object of the enactment conferring the power . According to Lord PERSON in NORP v. Minister of ORG [ DATE ] Appeal Cases p. CARDINAL : " ORG must have conferred the discretion with the intention that it should be used to promote the policy and objects of the LAW " .

ORG The Government have conceded that , except for a decision by ORG of DATE ( NORP v. Commissioners of ORG and Excise , ex parte PERSON ) , there have been no cases applying the above - mentioned principles to the exercise of discretion by the Commissioners with regard to restoration of forfeited goods .

The PERSON case concerned the seizure by the customs authorities of a yacht involved in a drug smuggling attempt and the Commissioners’ exercise of discretion under section CARDINAL of the Customs and Excise Management Act DATE . Under this provision , the wording of of which is almost identical to that of section FAC of LAW , " the GPE may as they see fit , ... restore subject to such conditions ( if any ) as they think proper , any thing forfeited or seized " . The owner of the yacht , who claimed to be innocent of any smuggling attempt , made an application for judicial review of the Commissioners’ failure or refusal to exercise their statutory discretion to restore the yacht . ORG ( Mr. Justice PERSON ) found that the exercise of the Commissioners’ discretion under section CARDINAL involved a consideration of the culpability of the owner and held that the Commissioners had not properly exercised their discretion under section CARDINAL in the case before it , as they had not provided the owner with the necessary information regarding the matters held against him and had not given him the opportunity to reply thereto .


No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 6-1 and 6-3-c;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE .

In DATE , DATE and DATE criminal inquiries were opened following discoveries of the dismembered bodies of women ( victims PERSON , Ok . and PERSON , Os . ) .

On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of counsel in relation to an accusation of rape by victim PERSON On DATE the case was discontinued for lack of a corpus delicti , in view of the apparently consensual nature of the relations .

Thereafter , on DATE PERSON the applicant of rape and unlawful deprivation of liberty . It appears that on DATE the applicant either came to the Barnaul police or was arrested with regard to that complaint . The applicant explained that he had consumed alcohol with the victim at his home on TIME , but denied any sexual assault . It appears that , having been apprised of his procedural rights , including the right to legal assistance , he waived this latter right . He was then questioned but apparently made no further statement . The investigator ordered his placement in custody and asked the administration of the temporary detention centre to ensure that the applicant , then a ORG official ( a driver in a sobering - up centre ) , be kept separately from other detainees ( see also DATE and DATE below ) . According to the applicant , on the same date he was refused permission to contact his family in order to retain counsel . The case against the applicant was entrusted to CARDINAL investigators in view of the case 's “ complexity and the large amount of work to be done ” . On DATE , the investigator heard FAC in relation to the accusations against the applicant .

In addition to the investigators , on DATE investigator PERSON of ORG requested the police department to assign officers for a “ series of operational and search measures ” to verify whether the applicant had been involved in recent cases concerning the disappearances of female students from a local university ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .

According to the applicant , after his arrest he asked to be represented by PERSON , an advocate at the local bar association . It appears that the investigator decided that PERSON could not represent the applicant , given a potential conflict of interest arising from the fact that at the time PERSON already represented a Mr P. According to the applicant , however , PERSON retained PERSON as counsel not earlier than on DATE .

On DATE investigator A. listed charges against the applicant in relation to victim F. The applicant was informed of his right to remain silent and his right to legal assistance and admitted his guilt “ in part ” . He did not want to be represented by the on - duty legal - aid lawyer and thus required adjournment until DATE in order to be represented by ( unspecified ) counsel retained by his parents .

According to the applicant , his mother first learnt about his arrest on DATE from his girlfriend , who in turn had learnt about it from a relative , a former law - enforcement officer . When the applicant 's mother came to the investigator 's office , she was reassured that the applicant did not wish other counsel . She was later told that the applicant was satisfied with the services of counsel NORP According to the Government , the applicant 's mother first learnt about the applicant 's arrest on DATE .

On DATE the investigator appointed NORP as legal - aid counsel , the applicant 's objection notwithstanding . The applicant reiterated his wish to be represented by counsel retained by his parents and remained silent . He was still refused permission to receive visits from them or to contact his family , on the ground that it would adversely affect the conduct of the investigation . As can be seen from the interrogation record , this interview with the investigator was held from CARDINAL to CARDINAL However , according to the visitors ' logbook , the investigator saw the applicant from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. on DATE .

According to the applicant , he was DATE questioned in relay for TIME by investigators and police officers in the temporary detention centre until DATE . Only the leading officer 's name was noted in the visitors ' logbook . According to the applicant , he was beaten up by officers who used techniques leaving no traces . In order to obtain confessions , officers also proffered threats against the applicant 's next of kin , suggesting , for instance , that they would allow publication of an article in a local newspaper mentioning the names of the applicant 's brother and girlfriend ; that they would carry out searches in their flats ; that they would stage his suicide with the aid of cellmates . On unspecified dates , the applicant was allegedly beaten up by his cellmates , who had been instructed to induce him to make admissions . The applicant subsequently accused the officers of ill - treatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL and DATE below ) .

Thus , the following interviews took place :

On DATE - by officers , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. ;

On DATE - by officers , from TIME to TIME and from TIME . On the same date the authorities re - opened the proceedings concerning the alleged rape of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE by officers , from TIME to TIME ;

On DATE by the investigator , from TIME

On DATE investigators A. and PERSON . had access to the applicant from TIME and from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. In his written statement the applicant confessed to a sexual assault against F. and the double murder of A. and Ok . in DATE . The applicant was questioned from CARDINAL to TIME in the presence of counsel NORP During that interview , the content of LAW was explained to the applicant , and he confirmed that he understood it . He also confirmed he was willing to give testimony and endorsed his earlier confessions on DATE , stating that his admissions had been voluntary and were due to the fact that “ he could no longer bear the burden ” . According to the applicant , counsel NORP was present only from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m.

The applicant was questioned by the investigator on DATE from CARDINAL to TIME According to the Government , at this interview the applicant confirmed his admission in respect of victim F , in the presence of counsel D ..

On DATE the applicant was questioned by officers from TIME to TIME

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the applicant confessed to several offences . According to the applicant , on each occasion he was brought to the principal investigator after questioning by officers , and signed the record . The events during the relevant period can be described as follows :

On DATE investigator PERSON visited the applicant from CARDINAL to TIME The applicant was questioned in the presence of counsel NORP from TIME about the double murder . In reply to the investigator 's question , the applicant stated that he had not committed any other murders .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by officers from CARDINAL to TIME

On DATE the applicant was questioned by police officers from TIME The applicant made a written statement concerning the murder of PERSON , indicating that “ the confession was voluntary without physical or psychological duress ” .

NORP Subsequent interviews ( without the presence of counsel ) were as follows :

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator from TIME to CARDINAL and by ( an ) officer(s ) , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. ;

On DATE by ( an ) officer(s ) , from TIME to TIME ;

On DATE by the investigator , from TIME to TIME ;

On DATE by officers , from TIME ;

On DATE the applicant was questioned by officer(s ) from TIME to TIME and by the investigator from CARDINAL to CARDINAL p.m. The applicant made a written statement confessing to the murder of victim Os .

As transpires from the visitors ' register , on DATE the investigator saw the applicant from TIME to TIME , while police officer S. saw him from CARDINAL to TIME on DATE . The photo identification lasted from TIME in the presence of counsel NORP

Visits continued thereafter in DATE and DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

According to the applicant , after his mother had read in the local newspaper that he had admitted to serious grave crimes , she realised that she had been misled by investigator PERSON and retained counsel PERSON ( see below ) .

On DATE the applicant was allowed for the first time to see his privately - retained counsel , PERSON The applicant retracted and sought exclusion of all previously - collected evidence , including his confessions , as obtained under compulsion and without effective legal advice .

On DATE police officer S. reported back to investigator P. that , following the order of DATE , a series of “ operative measures ” had disclosed the applicant 's involvement in the murders of Ok . , A. , PERSON and Os . At the same time , no connection was established in relation to the disappearances of female students . The report mentioned that the applicant was still being investigated .

On DATE the applicant was placed in solitary confinement after an altercation with cellmates .

During the preliminary investigation a large number of forensic reports were prepared and CARDINAL persons were heard as witnesses ; many of them gave oral testimony during the trial . Searches were conducted in the applicant 's flat and a number of documents were seized .

Counsel PERSON complained that the applicant continued to be visited by police officers who , in his view , were not authorised to deal with the criminal case . On DATE the investigator issued an order stating that CARDINAL investigators , including himself , were authorised to have meetings with the applicant . When questioned about their activities , the above officers explained to the investigator that they had been assigned the task of verifying whether there might be a link between the applicant and the disappearances of female students other than those already investigated .

Upon counsel 's complaint , in DATE the investigator ordered an inquiry concerning the injuries to the applicant 's face , caused on DATE , and whether he had complained about any ill - treatment . Investigator PERSON also informed the applicant that the investigators had not been aware that various officers had had meetings with the applicant in the temporary detention centre or the remand centre .

NORP In DATE the investigator reported to the trial prosecutors ' department that the activities carried out by the assigned officers did not permit the conclusion that the applicant had been involved in other criminal offences .

The case against the applicant was scheduled for trial before ORG . The applicant admitted in substance the charges in relation to PERSON He argued that his intercourse with PERSON had been consensual ; that he had no link to the other QUANTITY persons ( victims PERSON , Ok . , Os . , PERSON ) ; and that his pre - trial confessions in that connection had been obtained through ill - treatment and psychological pressure on the part of the police officers . In support of his allegation of duress the applicant provided the trial court with an extract from the visitors ' logbook of the temporary detention centre for the period from DATE . During that period the applicant received visits from various officers and investigators .

The trial court dealt with the applicant 's allegations of ill - treatment , confession under duress and the alleged violation of his right to legal assistance during the preliminary investigation . The court heard investigator PERSON , who confirmed that the applicant could not be represented by counsel “ named by him ” ( possibly meaning PERSON ) because at the time the latter represented PERSON investigator also confirmed that the applicant was not allowed to receive visits from his mother , in order to prevent them from tampering with evidence and perverting the course of the investigation . The trial court upheld that argument , referring to the applicant 's mother 's attempt to hand over a message to the applicant asking him to remain silent and to possibly plead temporary insanity .

The trial court rejected the allegation of ill - treatment , relying on medical reports dated CARDINAL and DATE and considering that the admissions were thus “ truthful ” . The court heard some of the officers who visited the applicant in detention , and concluded that they had been empowered to question the applicant in relation to the cases for which he was being investigated and also other cases . The court also heard a Mr M. , who had been detained with the applicant in DATE . PERSON stated that the interrogations of the applicant had spanned DATE and the applicant had returned to the cell “ exhausted ” ; there had been no traces of violence on him .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of several counts of rape and murder , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

Regarding the applicant 's conviction for raping PERSON , the trial court held that “ despite the applicant 's retraction of his earlier admission , his guilt was proven by the victim 's deposition ” . The court also referred to several witness statements and medical evidence .

In finding the applicant guilty of the rape and unlawful deprivation of liberty of victim PERSON , the trial court relied on the applicant 's own admissions reiterated at the trial , the victim 's deposition , statements by witnesses who saw the victim escaping from the applicant ' flat , and medical expert reports .

In finding the applicant guilty of murdering victim PERSON , the court relied on the applicant 's pre - trial confession , his interview with the investigator in the presence of counsel NORP and the applicant 's identification of the victim by a photograph . The trial court considered that the above statements were collaborated by CARDINAL witness statements as regards the victim 's clothes on DATE of the murder , the inspection record of the crime scene and the medical expert reports .

The trial court convicted the applicant of murdering Ok . and PERSON on the basis of the applicant 's pre - trial admissions , his interview with the investigator in the presence of counsel NORP and the applicant 's identification of the victim by a photograph . The trial court considered that the above statements were collaborated by the other available evidence .

The applicant 's conviction for murdering Os . was based on the applicant 's pre - trial confession , which the court considered to be “ truthful ” , despite his retraction . The court held that the applicant could not have learnt the details of this crime from another source .

Having heard the prosecution and counsel PERSON , on CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the trial judgment . The appeal court considered that there had been no violation of the defence rights since on DATE the applicant had been apprised of his rights to remain silent and to legal assistance . The applicant had signed the record and had waived the right to counsel . From DATE the applicant had been represented by counsel NORP who attended all investigative measures relied up by the trial court . The appeal court noted that the applicant 's pre - trial admissions had revealed circumstances which had not been previously known to the investigative authorities . For instance , as regards victim PERSON , the applicant had given descriptions of the victim and her clothes , and had referred to circumstances concerning her character and way of life . The information supplied by the applicant was then confirmed by statements from various persons heard as witnesses at the trial . Thus , as regards victim Ok . , her mother confirmed that the hairpin seized at the applicant 's flat belonged to her late daughter . The other physical evidence , taken together , also refuted the allegation that the applicant had not been involved in the murders .

After the trial , the applicant sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the principal investigator in his criminal case , alleging forgery of evidence . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG refused that request . The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this refusal in the courts .

The applicant also sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the officers who had interrogated him in DATE , alleging ill - treatment . On DATE the investigator in ORG refused to prosecute the officers . This decision was upheld by the higher prosecutor on DATE . On DATE and DATE ORG took final decisions upholding the district courts ' decisions declining jurisdiction in relation to the applicant 's complaint about the decision of DATE . In separate proceedings , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG decided in the final instance that the applicant 's complaint about the decision of DATE was not amenable to court review .

The applicant was kept in the temporary detention centre of ORG of the ORG ( ORG УВД г. PERSON ) from DATE , and from DATE . Together with other CARDINAL detainees , he was kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY . The applicant slept on the floor because no bed , mattress or bedding was provided . The cell was not heated ; the ventilation and light were poor . The toilet was not separated from the living area . Food was distributed once a day . The applicant remained all the time in his cell since no outdoor activity was allowed . The applicant was refused permission to have visits or other contact with his family .

The applicant subsequently indicated that the levels of heating and humidity in the cell had been unacceptable ; he had been given a cup of tea and a piece of bread in the morning and , at times , soup and porridge in the afternoon ; he had had no access to a shower and no items for personal hygiene .

In the temporary detention centre the applicant was kept in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , together with another inmate . A toilet was separated from the main area . The applicant , like other detainees , was provided with a bed and a mattress . Although no bedding was provided , detainees were allowed to use their own bedding . The applicant was also given various items for personal hygiene and allowed to have a shower once per week . The cell had adequate lighting , ventilation and heating systems . The applicant was allowed TIME of outdoor exercise per day , was properly fed and allowed to receive food parcels from his relatives or family . He had access to drinking water . The applicant made no complaints about his detention in the temporary detention centre until DATE .

The applicant 's initial description of the conditions of his detention in ORG remand centre no . CARDINAL reads as follows . The applicant was placed in a cell situated in the basement of the building . The number of inmates in his cell substantially exceeded the design capacity . The cell had a small window , which was not glazed but was instead covered with metal shutters , barring access to natural air and light . The internal light was poor . The toilet was not separated from the main area . The cell was infested with cockroaches . The applicant slept on the floor . The unheated cell was extremely damp . The quality of food was unsatisfactory . During family visits and outdoor activity the applicant remained handcuffed .

The applicant subsequently amended his account , indicating that he had been kept in the remand centre from DATE , and DATE and DATE . In the most recent period of his detention he had been alone in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY in the basement of the remand centre . During that period , the unheated cell was extremely damp ; there was no ventilation . The quality of food was unsatisfactory . No bedding was provided . The cell window was not glazed ; it was covered with metal shutters , barring access to natural air and light . The internal light was poor . The toilet was not separated from the main area .

According to the ORG , the applicant was kept in ORG remand centre no . CARDINAL from DATE to DATE and from DATE . DATE , the applicant was kept in a GPE remand centre .

The Government explained that the relevant logbooks had been destroyed due to the expiry of the retention period . Thus , with reference to affidavits from Mr M , the remand centre governor , the ORG affirmed that from DATE the applicant was kept in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ; from DATE to DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ; from DATE to DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ; and from DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY . The applicant shared cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL with CARDINAL other detainees ; upon his request , he was detained alone in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . The latter cells were situated on the ground floor and had windows measuring QUANTITY . In compliance with the national legislation in force at the time , the windows were covered with metal shutters , which , however , did not bar the normal access of air and light into the cell .

Mr M confirmed that as of DATE the above cells had proper lighting , ventilation and heating systems , water supply and toilet facilities . The Government supplied photographs showing the interior of the above cells .

In reply to the applicant 's complaint , on DATE ORG of the LOC admitted that his handcuffing on CARDINAL occasion had been unlawful .

In DATE the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to various public authorities . On DATE ORG acknowledged that the cell windows in ORG remand centre had been covered with metal shutters but rejected the other allegations as untrue .

On DATE ORG of the ORG accepted that some ( unspecified ) complaints concerning the applicant 's detention in the temporary detention centre “ had been confirmed ” . On DATE the LOC prosecutor 's office forwarded the applicant 's renewed complaint for examination by ORG of the Interior .

The applicant brought proceeding against the ORG district prosecutor 's office on account , inter alia , of their alleged failure to examine his complaint and to bring the conditions of detention into compliance with the law . Having examined the matter under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE ORG rejected his claim . On DATE ORG set aside this decision and remitted the matter to the district court . The court held that the first - instance court should have examined why the applicant had been detained in the temporary detention centre for DATE . On DATE ORG decided that the prosecutor had failed to examine the applicant 's complaint about his lengthy detention in the temporary detention centre .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG informed the applicant that the cells in the temporary detention centre had plank beds , toilet facilities and normally housed CARDINAL persons ; no bedding was provided to detainees . It is unclear whether the above reply concerned DATE or the period complained of by the applicant .

It appears that , having examined the applicant 's complaints about the conditions of his detention , on DATE the district prosecutor 's office refused to initiate criminal proceedings under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , concerning abuse of power by a public official .

Under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW , in force at the material time , counsel could be admitted to the proceedings from the moment of announcing / listing charges , or DATE for an arrested or detained suspect – from the moment of giving him or her access to the arrest record or detention order . If a privately - retained counsel did not appear within TIME , the authority in charge of the case was allowed to suggest that the person retain another counsel , or to appoint counsel ( LAW ) . In order to act as counsel in criminal proceedings an advocate had to be in possession of an order issued by the legal office ( LAW ) . A single counsel could not represent persons with conflicting interests ( § CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG declared the limitation period for access to legal assistance contained in LAW unconstitutional . On DATE ORG indicated that LAW did not require any special permission for meetings with counsel . However , in the same decision ORG invalidated CARDINAL provision of the DATE LAW in so far as the authorities applied it as requiring counsel who wished to see their clients to obtain special leave from the authority in charge of the criminal case .

Under LAW , the officer or authority in charge of the criminal case was required to inform without delay the next of kin of the arrested or detained suspect or defendant about his or her place of detention .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code concern judicial supervision over any ( in)action on the part of an inquirer , investigator or prosecutor in so far as such ( in)action affects a complainant 's rights or impedes his or her access to a court . The judge either ( i ) invalidates the impugned ( in)action as unlawful or lacking justification and requires the respondent authority to remedy the violation , or ( ii ) rejects the complaint .

Article CARDINAL of the DATE Code of Criminal Procedure provides that criminal proceedings may be reopened if ORG has found a violation of the Convention .

Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG to member states on ORG ( adopted by ORG on DATE at the PERSON meeting of ORG ) provides that prisoners shall be allowed to inform their families immediately of their imprisonment ( Rule CARDINAL ) . Upon the admission of a prisoner to prison , the authorities shall , unless the prisoner has requested them not to do so , immediately inform the spouse or partner of the prisoner , or , if the prisoner is single , the nearest relative and any other person previously designated by the prisoner ( Rule CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW for the Treatment of Prisoners , adopted by ORG on ORG and the Treatment of Offenders , held at GPE in DATE , and approved by ORG by its resolutions CARDINAL C ( XXIV ) of DATE and CARDINAL ( LXII ) of CARDINAL DATE , every prisoner shall have the right to inform at once his family of his imprisonment or his transfer to another institution .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE he issued nuisance proceedings against his landlord . Those proceedings were settled in DATE . Subsequently , and as a result of alleged further nuisance problems and new evidence , he unsuccessfully attempted to re - enter the nuisance proceedings in DATE .

On DATE he issued negligence proceedings in ORG against the firm of solicitors ( “ ORG ” ) who had acted for him in the above - described nuisance action . He took issue with the advice given to him by ORG during the settlement and , in particular , in relation to the possibility of re - entering his nuisance action . ORG filed an appearance dated DATE . The applicant ’s statement of claim was filed on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE he filed an application seeking judgment in default of defence which he obtained from ORG on DATE . However , ORG filed its defence on DATE and sought an order to set aside the default judgment . On CARDINAL DATE the default judgment was set aside . Further particulars of the applicant ’s claim were requested by ORG on CARDINAL DATE and the applicant responded on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG applied for discovery and on DATE ORG refused that application .

On DATE the applicant applied for discovery by ORG . On CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered discovery to be made by ORG within DATE . On DATE he applied to strike out the defence of ORG as they had not made discovery as ordered . That application was adjourned on DATE and on DATE his strike out application was refused . On CARDINAL DATE he applied for further discovery from ORG and on DATE ORG ordered ORG to make further discovery within DATE . ORG filed affidavits of discovery on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant applied for further discovery to be made by ORG . The hearing of this application was adjourned on CARDINAL and DATE and was considered on DATE . While the specific directions of ORG after that hearing are not known , costs were awarded against ORG .

On DATE a notice of trial was filed by the applicant . On CARDINAL DATE ORG filed a motion for discovery by the applicant . On CARDINAL DATE ORG struck out this motion and costs were awarded against ORG . The applicant then lodged a notice to amend his statement of claim on DATE . The action was put in a list to fix a hearing date CARDINAL times ( DATE ) . On the latter occasion the hearing date was fixed for DATE . However , on that date ORG was informed of settlement negotiations and in DATE or DATE the case was accorded a further hearing date in DATE .

The High Court heard the case on DATE , legal submissions were heard on DATE and the court reserved its judgment . Judgment was delivered on DATE dismissing the applicant ’s case . The High Court judge found the evidence of a senior counsel ( who had acted for the applicant in the nuisance proceedings – “ GPE ” ) more convincing than that of the applicant and found that ORG had simply relied on the ORG ’s advice during the nuisance proceedings . Accordingly , it was found that no negligence could be attributed to ORG . Costs were awarded to ORG “ when taxed and ascertained ” .

On DATE the applicant lodged his appeal to ORG : he argued that ORG should not have relied on evidence of ORG which was given in breach of GPE ’s privilege of confidentiality to the applicant .

SC was the subject of a complaint by the applicant to ORG of ORG of GPE . On DATE the tribunal found that ORG had been in breach of LAW and by decision of DATE he was formally admonished by the tribunal for dealing directly with the applicant and for giving evidence in court as to the advice he had given to the applicant without any protest as to confidentiality or privilege . On DATE ORG rejected an appeal and upheld the tribunal ’s decisions .

On DATE his representatives confirmed that all documents for the appeal had been filed . A letter of DATE confirmed to the applicant that his appeal had been listed for hearing on DATE .

NORP However , it was then listed for mention on DATE when the applicant ’s solicitors applied and were allowed to come off record . On that date the appeal hearing was adjourned ( to DATE ) and final submissions were ordered to be lodged by DATE . The applicant was not represented for the remainder of the proceedings . On DATE the applicant applied for leave to amend his appeal and on DATE ORG granted him leave .

The appeal came on for hearing on DATE . Since CARDINAL of the judges had previously participated in a ORG action brought by the applicant , the applicant was given the opportunity of having the appeal heard by a differently constituted ORG , the applicant accepted and the hearing was adjourned for mention on DATE . On that latter date , the appeal was listed for hearing on DATE .

On DATE ORG adjourned the applicant ’s request for leave to introduce fresh evidence until the date fixed for the hearing of the action . Due to the illness of one of ORG judges , that hearing date was vacated . A further hearing date was set for DATE . The hearing took place on DATE and judgment was reserved . Judgment was delivered on DATE rejecting the applicant ’s appeal . The ORG found that the applicant had impliedly waived his privilege by instituting the proceedings . The court noted that , even if the alleged negligence had been established , it was questionable whether he had suffered loss as the original nuisance action on which ORG had advised him was more likely to fail than to succeed . The costs of the appeal were also awarded to ORG “ when taxed and ascertained ” .

On DATE ORG filed a note of their High and ORG costs . In the absence of the applicant ’s agreement on the level of the costs , on DATE ORG issued a summons to taxation , returnable for CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the parties consented to the matter being adjourned until DATE . On DATE the applicant issued a motion for an order staying the taxation of costs . On DATE ORG dismissed his application for a stay . On DATE the taxation matter was adjourned on a consent basis until DATE . On that date taxation of the ORG costs commenced and concluded with a stay agreed on the issuance of the taxation certificate for DATE on the applicant ’s request . On DATE also ( DATE ) the taxation of ORG costs also commenced , but was not finalised as some information was outstanding . On DATE the taxation of ORG costs was concluded and , on the applicant ’s request , a stay was put on the issuance of the relevant certificate until DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested and obtained a further stay until DATE . On that date leave was granted by the taxing master to ORG to take up both certificates of taxation . On DATE those certificates were taken up by ORG and were served on the applicant with a demand for payment by DATE . The costs payable by the applicant amounted to MONEY inclusive of value added taxation . Further demands were sent to the applicant on DATE and DATE indicating that ORG would apply for his bankruptcy should he not discharge the sums due .

On DATE ORG issued and served a “ notice of the particulars of demand and requiring payment prior to the issue of a bankruptcy summons ” , a notice which was updated with the interest accrued and served on the applicant on DATE . ORG then filed affidavits dated DATE and DATE and on DATE ORG issued a bankruptcy summons on the application of ORG .

The applicant applied on DATE to dismiss the summons . ORG filed an affidavit in response on DATE to which the applicant replied by affidavits filed on DATE and DATE . ORG therefore filed an affidavit in response on DATE . On DATE the High Court gave the applicant time to submit a further replying affidavit . The applicant submitted this affidavit on DATE . The matter was heard by ORG on DATE ( by a judge different from the judge sitting DATE ) . The detailed judgment delivered on DATE acceded to the request for the applicant ’s bankruptcy and refused his application to dismiss the summons . Noting that ORG had undertaken not to take steps to enforce the bankruptcy summons for DATE , ORG put no stay on its order .

On DATE the applicant appealed , requesting ORG to dismiss and stay indefinitely the bankruptcy summons . On DATE he also issued a notice of motion before ORG requesting a stay on the order of ORG of DATE pending the finalisation of his appeal . On DATE ORG rejected that motion , finding that it was not possible to stay a summons and that an injunction restraining ORG from taking any action on foot of the bankruptcy summons would not be justified . In any event , it was extremely unlikely that ORG could take any further action based on the existing bankruptcy summons since there was a DATE time - limit from the date of issue of the summons , within which ORG should have applied for adjudication against the applicant . On DATE ORG issued and served a further “ notice of the particulars of demand and requiring payment ” of the costs award plus relevant interest , amounting to the sum of DATE ( ORG ) .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

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

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

On DATE the applicant brought an action before the Plzeň - město ORG ( okresní soud ) against the ORG claiming damages under LAW . He referred to CARDINAL allegedly incorrect and unlawful expert medical opinions drawn up by experts in psychiatry without having sufficiently examined the applicant ’s condition . The action was notified to the court on DATE .

It appears that the proceedings for damages are still pending .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by PERSON , ORG at ORG .

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

By the judgment of DATE the justice of peace of ORG of LOC awarded the applicant damages in the total amount of MONEY ( RUB ) against PERSON The writ of execution for the abovementioned amount was issued on DATE .

On DATE the ORG returned the unenforced writ of execution to the applicant because the document did not contain the information on the date and place of birth of the debtor and his place of work .

The applicant complained about the bailiff ’s actions to court . On DATE the ORG allowed the complaint in part . The court ruled the bailiff ’s actions unlawful , annulled the decision to return the writ of execution and ordered the bailiff to institute enforcement proceedings . On DATE ORG , acting on appeal , found that the writ of execution had indeed been defective and that the bailiff could have returned it for correction to the court , but not to the applicant . The appeal court removed the order to institute enforcement proceedings upholding the rest of the judgment . The applicant did not re - submit the writ of execution to the bailiffs’ service as it was prescribed by the domestic law .

On DATE the justice of peace of ORG of LOC , acting on the applicant ’s claim , ordered indexation of the recovered amount to RUB MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

It appears that the judgment has not been enforced to date .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The Government are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , of ORG , and their Co - agent , PERSON , of ORG .

The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE . He entered GPE in DATE , when he was DATE .

DATE , in GPE he married a NORP woman who remained in their country of origin . There , the spouses had a daughter in DATE and a son in DATE .

In DATE , the applicant ’s wife and his CARDINAL children entered GPE under the rules regarding family unification . In DATE the spouses had another daughter .

On DATE the applicant was detained on remand , charged with sexual offences allegedly having been committed throughout DATE against his eldest daughter as from the time when she was DATE .

An indictment of DATE was submitted to ORG ( PERSON ) , before which the applicant , the daughter and CARDINAL witnesses were heard , including a teacher in whom the daughter had confided , and a police officer who worked at the institution where the daughter had been placed . The applicant pleaded not guilty and explained among other things that he had commenced sleeping on a mattress in his daughter ’s bedroom DATE , DATE , usually in connection with him having come home from TIME out . He did not wish to wake up his wife and his youngest daughter , who slept in the spouses’ bedroom . Also , he was suffering from backache , and it did him good to sleep on a flat surface . In response to the fact that a forensic examination of the sheets in his daughter ’s bedroom revealed sperm cells , the applicant explained that he had slept with his wife in the daughter ’s bedroom .

Before the ORG the daughter explained among other things that the applicant had started sleeping with her when she was DATE in connection with her mother having gone to GPE for a funeral .

The applicant ’s wife was called to the witness stand but declined to give testimony against her husband . She was therefore exempted in accordance with ORG ( Retsplejeloven ) .

By judgment of DATE , pursuant to sections CARDINAL ; CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL taken together with subsection CARDINAL ; and CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL taken together with subsection CARDINAL ; section CARDINAL ; and partly section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) the applicant was convicted of having sexually abused his daughter by resorting to violence and threats during the period from DATE until DATE

The ORG found it established that the sexual abuse involved masturbation , oral sex , and attempts of intercourse , the latter having failed only because the daughter had expressed pain and because it had been physically impossible for the applicant .

The applicant was also convicted pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW for having uttered threats against his daughter ’s life in that , after the sexual abuse had been reported to the police , he sent her a Short Message Service ( SMS ) in which he wrote : “ you are superfluous in GPE , if I see you on the street , I will kill you . This I promise ” . Also , it was found established that he had sent her an SMS in which he threatened to come and “ fuck her ” if she did not call him within TIME .

The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . Furthermore , pursuant to section CARDINAL ( ii ) and ( vi ) of LAW ( PERSON ) he was expelled from GPE forever . As to the latter the court noted on the one hand that the applicant had entered GPE when he was DATE , that he had lived there for DATE , and that his father and CARDINAL siblings also lived in GPE . On the other hand the court noted the seriousness and the nature of the crime , that the applicant ’s mother and CARDINAL siblings lived in GPE , that the applicant had maintained strong contact with them and that DATE he had spent his vacation in GPE .

On DATE , on appeal , the judgment was upheld by the High Court of Eastern Denmark ( PERSON ) , before which the applicant ’s wife agreed to testify . She confirmed that in DATE she had been in GPE for DATE to participate in a funeral , and stated among other things that she had initiated a divorce from the applicant .

Leave to appeal against the judgment to ORG ( Højesteret ) was refused by the Leave to Appeal Board ( Procesbevillingsnævnet ) on DATE .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s wife a divorce and awarded her custody over the CARDINAL children . The applicant did not request access to any of his children .

On DATE the applicant was released from prison and expelled to GPE .

The applicant ’s father and brother who lived in GPE also returned to GPE , and the applicant ’s family in GPE thus consisted of his parents and CARDINAL siblings .

In DATE the applicant ’s wife went to GPE to obtain a divorce from the applicant also according to NORP law . It appears that the applicant objected thereto and that the proceedings thereon are still pending .

During DATE the applicant ’s CARDINAL youngest children visited him and his family in GPE .

During DATE the applicant ’s son stayed with him in GPE .

LAW provided in so far as relevant :

Section CARDINAL

“ An alien who has lawfully lived in GPE for more than DATE , and an alien issued with a residence permit under sections DATE may be expelled if :

( ii ) the alien , for several criminal counts , is sentenced to minimum PERCENT imprisonment or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this duration ;

( vi ) the alien is sentenced , pursuant to provisions in Parts PERSON and PERSON of LAW or pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL a , DATE ) , ORG ) , CARDINAL a , section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , cf . subsection ( CARDINAL ) , section CARDINAL , CARDINAL , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , cf . sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL a , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) , section CARDINAL , cf . section CARDINAL , sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL , cf . section CARDINAL , section FAC or CARDINAL ) of LAW , to imprisonment or other criminal sanction involving or allowing deprivation of liberty in respect of an offence that would have resulted in a punishment of this nature .

Section CARDINAL :

NORP “ In deciding on expulsion , regard must be had to the question whether expulsion must be assumed to be particularly burdensome , in particular because of :

( i ) the alien ’s ties with the NORP community , including whether the alien came to GPE in his childhood or DATE ;

( ii ) the duration of the alien ’s stay in GPE ;

( iii ) the alien ’s age , health , and other personal circumstances ;

( iv ) the alien ’s ties with persons living in GPE ;

( v ) the consequences of the expulsion for the alien ’s close relatives livening in GPE ;

( vi ) the alien ’s slight or non - existent ties with his country of origin or any other country in which he may be expected to take up residence ;

( vii ) the risk that , in cases other that those mentioned in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , the alien will be ill - treated in his country of origin or any other country in which he may be expected to take up residence .

An alien may be expelled pursuant to section CARDINAL ) to ( vi ) unless the circumstances mentioned in subsection CARDINAL above constitute a decisive argument against doing so . ”


Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Sverre Erik Jebens;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Prokurator Prokuratury Okręgowej ) ordered the applicant ’s detention in connection with a criminal investigation pending against her . The prosecutor also issued a search warrant for the applicant ’s apartment with a view to locating any book - keeping records or other documents which could be used as evidence in the ongoing investigation .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of abuse of her powers and office in her role as head of a certain division at ORG ( ORG ) and accepting a bribe ( in the amount of MONEY ( PLN ) ) .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody , relying on the reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offences in question . It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given the risk that if released , the applicant might induce witnesses to give false testimony . The court also stressed that a severe sentence was likely to be imposed .

The applicant ’s appeal against the detention order was dismissed by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

In the course of the investigation , the applicant ’s detention was extended on several occasions by ORG , namely on DATE , DATE , and DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision whereby the possible penalty to be imposed on the applicant was to be secured by means of a charge on the applicant ’s assets , amounting to ORG CARDINAL , as well as through the forfeiture of benefits deriving from her crime in the amount of PLN MONEY . On DATE this decision was upheld together with the relevant enforcement order by ORG .

The applicant appealed . The ORG ’s decision was eventually upheld by ORG on DATE .

The applicant ’s detention was subsequently extended by decisions of ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) delivered on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .

NORP In all their decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant ’s detention . They also considered that keeping her in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given the risk that she might tamper with evidence or induce witnesses to give false testimony . Further , they attached great importance to the considerable number of witnesses and the extensive body of evidence to be considered .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE the court noted that the investigation has been lengthy and informed the prosecutor that any subsequent motion for having the applicant ’s detention extended would be critically reviewed .

The applicant ’s subsequent appeals against decisions extending her detention , as well as her other numerous applications for release were all unsuccessful . In her appeals she argued that the charges against her were based on unreliable and contradictory evidence . She subsequently invoked the principle of the presumption of innocence and also relied on her personal circumstances , in particular her age and health problems .

On DATE a bill of indictment was lodged with ORG . The bill of indictment comprised charges of abuse of powers and office , bribery and numerous tax offences . The applicant was accused of having gained through her criminal activities a permanent source of income . The charges were brought against CARDINAL defendants .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be kept in custody until DATE . It further held that she could be released if she put up bail of PLN MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) by DATE , to be deposited in cash into ORG account . The court held that the amount of bail was appropriate in view of the applicant ’s financial situation and the role she had played in the alleged criminal activities . In addition , the court placed the applicant under police supervision and prohibited her from leaving the country .

The applicant appealed , contesting the amount of bail to be paid and requesting its reduction to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . She stressed that since the date of her arrest she had no longer been gainfully employed and further relied on the difficult financial situation of her family . She also requested that bail be accepted in the form of a charge on her apartment .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE , refusing to alter the conditions for the applicant ’s release .

As it appears from the documents submitted , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s release as she had eventually paid the bail ( in cash ) .

On DATE the applicant filed a motion requesting that the amount of bail be reduced to PLN CARDINAL . On DATE the ORG reduced the amount of bail to PLN CARDINAL .

It appears that subsequently the amount of bail was reduced to ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG reduced the amount of bail to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Subsequently , the measure prohibiting the applicant from leaving the country was quashed .

The proceedings are still pending before ORG .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ) the grounds for its extension and release from detention are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

NORP The relevant domestic provisions governing the imposition of other “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) , inter alia , bail , are covered by LAW of LAW , which entered into force on DATE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides that detention shall not be imposed if another preventive measure ( for example , bail ) is considered to be adequate . Pursuant to LAW , bail in the form of cash , securities or by way of a charge on property can be deposited by the accused or by another person . Determination of the amount , form and the relevant methods for the payment of bail should be made by a decision , having regard to the financial situation of the accused and , as the case may be , that of another party depositing bail , as well as to the assessment of the damage which may have been caused by the offence concerned and to the character of the offence .

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


Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The General Directorate of National Roads and Highways ( PERSON ) , a ORG body responsible , inter alia , for motorway construction , expropriated CARDINAL plots of land belonging to the applicant in ORG in order to build a motorway . A committee of experts assessed the value of the land and the sum so fixed was paid to her when the expropriation took place .

Following the applicant ’s request for increased compensation , on DATE ORG of First Instance awarded her additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( EUR ) ) , plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court ’s decision , running from DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the administration paid the applicant TRL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in additional compensation , together with interest .

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