Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Ms. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , Mr Răzvan - Horaţiu Radu , of ORG .

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

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

DATE and DATE , the applicant , who is of NORP origin , was compelled to carry out forced labour pursuant to the racist legislation passed by ORG .

Once the war was over , starting in DATE and until his retirement in DATE , the applicant worked for ORG and for several other administrative entities .

In DATE , he moved to GPE , where has continued to live to the present day .

On DATE ORG issued a decision , based on Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which regulates military pensions , granting the applicant his pension rights ( CARDINAL CARDINAL lei ( ROL ) per month ) with effect from DATE .

The applicant empowered ORG , who was resident in GPE , to cash his pension at ORG to which the money was sent .

From DATE until DATE , ORG collected the money without sending it to the applicant . The proxy was consequently revoked .

The pension payments corresponding to DATE and DATE were returned by ORG to ORG , as the money had never been collected and ORG had been unable to contact ORG

On DATE , in reply to a letter sent by the applicant on DATE , ORG informed him that ORG and Other Insurance Rights ( ORG ) was responsible , under its authority , for the system of civil pensions . The ORG had signed an agreement with the Bancpost ( ORG ) allowing bank transfers of civil pensions to be made to the beneficiaries ' accounts in GPE . However , as the applicant was the beneficiary of a military pension , he was advised to contact ORG , which was the authority responsible for managing the military pension system , as the CARDINAL pension systems were different and were managed separately .

This information was confirmed by a letter of DATE from GPE to the applicant , in which he was informed that the bank had concluded an agreement with ORG , but only with regard to retirement pensions regulated by the ORG ( civil pensions ) . The agreement did not cover the transfer of military pensions awarded by ORG or by ORG .

At DATE the applicant asked for his pension to be transferred to his NORP account . He contended that his old age and state of health prevented him from travelling to GPE on a DATE basis in order to collect his pension from ORG . In his letter the applicant also referred to the fact that ORG had stopped sending him the pension payments she had cashed , and he had therefore revoked the proxy . Furthermore , as he had left GPE DATE before , he did not know any other person whom he could appoint as his proxy for the purpose of collecting his pension payments on a DATE basis .

In its reply of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that it could not transfer pensions into accounts opened with GPE , as it had only signed agreements with ORG , which was not part of the banking system .

ORG also indicated that the applicant could opt to ask his proxy to transfer the money he / she collected to any account he named . He was also told that in case of disagreement with the proxy , he always had the option of appointing another representative .

On DATE ORG again informed the applicant that no agreement had been concluded by ORG with any bank allowing transfers of military retirement pensions abroad . In any event , according to the new LAW no . CARDINAL regulating military pensions , the money was to be paid directly to the beneficiary or to his legal proxy empowered to cash it . The actual payment was to be collected directly from ORG .

Hence , ORG invited the applicant to appoint a proxy and informed him that from DATE the validity of such a mandate was limited to DATE . No legal basis for that time - limit was indicated .

In a letter sent to the applicant on DATE the ORG 's Secretariat General confirmed that an agreement concluded between ORG and ORG allowed for the payment of military pensions either to the beneficiary himself , or to his appointed proxy . The applicant was informed that he could ask his proxy at any time to transfer the money to him abroad .

Attempting to argue that his pension was a civil and not a military one , the applicant pointed out that the ORG should be the institution responsible for managing his retirement file .

On DATE ORG replied that the applicant 's pension had been awarded on the basis of Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which regulated State military pensions , and therefore it could only be paid in accordance with the relevant provisions therein .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that , according to the legislation in force , if the beneficiary of a pension resided abroad , his pension , whether it was military or civil , was only to be paid to a legal proxy empowered to collect the money . This person , once appointed , could then ask ORG to transfer the money to an account opened with ORG , and afterwards , to an account opened with a bank in GPE .

On DATE the applicant asked to have his rights granted by Legislative Decree no . PERSON acknowledged , as he had been racially persecuted by the regime established by PERSON . According to this decree , the pecuniary rights referred to a DATE indemnity of CARDINAL lei ( ROL ) per year of detention . This indemnity was subject to several increments , reaching the sum of CARDINAL ROL per DATE of detention by CARDINAL DATE .

Persons having proved they had suffered persecution were also entitled , under the decree , to other rights , such as free medical assistance , free public transport and exemption from paying taxes .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) issued a decision granting the applicant 's request and indicating , without any other details , that from DATE he would benefit from all the rights granted by Legislative Decree no . ORG for the period from CARDINAL DATE to DATE when he had been persecuted .

The applicant applied to his former employer , ORG , asking for the above - mentioned decision to be enforced .

On DATE the Ministry informed the applicant that , according to the law , the responsible institution was the ORG , under the authority of ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG informed the applicant that the indemnities granted by Legislative Decree no . ORG could not be paid to him . Firstly , it was explained to him , his file had been transmitted on DATE to ORG , LOC , as the competent institution to make the payments .

However , payment had never been approved , because the file should have been filed personally by the applicant and not sent by post , or at least a representative of the applicant appointed for that specific purpose should have filed the request in his name . In consequence , the applicant 's request and all the supporting documents were returned to him .

On DATE , following further requests from the applicant to be paid the indemnities he was entitled to , the ORG informed him that his file could not be processed because he had not appointed a proxy , as they had already mentioned in their previous letters . Consequently , any other similar request from the applicant would be ignored ( “ any new request to our institution with identical complaints will receive no reply ” ) .

To date the ORG has not calculated the exact amount of the indemnities due to the applicant .

In a letter of DATE , the ORG informed the ORG that the procedure instituted by LAW no . ORG required the money to be paid to the beneficiary in person , or to his appointed proxy . The proxy was to be empowered to file any request , open an account with GPE , collect the indemnities paid and inform the authorities of any change in the beneficiary 's status which might affect the indemnity . All this information had been provided to the applicant , who had failed to comply with the requirement of appointing a proxy .

The ORG also mentioned that once the applicant 's file was complete , as required by the law , the indemnities could be paid directly to GPE , following a specific request filed by the applicant with an NORP bank that had signed an agreement with GPE for that purpose .

Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the granting of certain rights to persons who were persecuted on political grounds by the dictatorial regime established on DATE , as modified by ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE

At the material time , the relevant provisions of Legislative Decree no . ORG , as completed by the provisions of ORG no . CARDINAL , read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The following periods shall be taken into account in determining seniority and shall count as such for the purpose of calculating retirement pensions and any other rights derived from seniority : periods during which a person , after DATE , for political reasons –

served a custodial sentence imposed in a final judicial decision , or was detained pending trial for political offences ; [ ... ]

( CARDINAL ) The same rights will be granted to the person who :

( ORG ) was persecuted or deported for racial or ethnic reasons by the regime established in GPE from DATE to DATE [ ... ] ”

“ The persons referred to in LAW are entitled to receive a DATE indemnity of CARDINAL lei for DATE of detention [ ... ] ”

“ The persons referred to in LAW shall be exempted from the payment of any taxes .

These persons will also benefit from the following rights :

a ) free medical assistance and free medication , which are to be allowed with priority both in the community and while hospitalized ;

b ) free urban transport – public ( bus , tram , subway ) or private ; the costs relating to travelling with a private company shall be reimbursed by the local administrative authorities corresponding to the beneficiary 's residence ;

c ) CARDINAL free tickets for travelling by train , first class [ ... ] ;

d ) CARDINAL free ticket per year for medical treatment in a treatment resort ;

e ) exemption from the payment of radio and television licences ;

f ) priority treatment for setting up a phone line [ ... ] ;

g ) upon request , the granting of a free burial plot . ”

NORP citizens residing abroad will also benefit from the rights set out within the provisions of the present legislative decree .

( CARDINAL ) pecuniary benefits [ ... ] shall be paid to their beneficiary or to his legally appointed proxy empowered to cash the respective benefits or , at the request of the beneficiary , they shall be transferred to his personal account opened at ORG ) or to any other banking institution that has concluded for this purpose a special agreement with ORG .

Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL regulating the public pension system and all other insurance rights

“ The payment of pension rights will be made on a DATE basis .

The pension will be paid either personally to its beneficiary , to his legally appointed proxy , or to his legal representative . ”

Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL regulating military pensions

“ ( CARDINAL ) The payment of pension rights will be made on a DATE basis .

( CARDINAL ) The pension will be paid either personally to its beneficiary , to his legally appointed proxy or to his legal representative . ”


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE . He is a carpenter and is currently detained in the Płock prison .

On DATE the applicant was detained on remand . On DATE he was transferred to ORG . DATE the applicant was on hunger strike .

On DATE the applicant complained to the Governor of ORG about the ill - treatment by prison officers . In a letter of DATE the Deputy Governor of the ORG informed the applicant that he considered his complaint as unsubstantiated . He pointed out that during the applicant ’s hunger strike , which had been prompted by the decision to detain him and by his family problems , he enjoyed constant medical and psychological care .

The applicant alleges that on DATE he was assaulted by CARDINAL prison officers and subsequently spent DATE in solitary confinement .

On DATE the applicant complained to the District Director of ORG about the assault , the absence of medical examination before his transfer to the solitary confinement , and about his poor health . On DATE the District Director rejected the complaint as ill - founded . He admitted that at TIME on DATE the applicant had been overpowered , handcuffed and put in solitary confinement . At TIME on DATE the applicant had been examined by a physician who had concluded that he had not have any injuries except for a slight skin excoriation on his hands . The second medical check - up , conducted at TIME on DATE , had resulted in the doctor ’s opinion that the applicant could remain in the solitary confinement . Moreover , an ambulance had been called in the TIME of DATE as the applicant had been complaining about stomach pain , but the medical examination on that occasion had resulted in the conclusion that the applicant ’s condition had been normal and analgesics could be prescribed . The Director further noted that together with the Chief Medical Officer of ORG he had analysed the applicant ’s medical file and found that the applicant had always been receiving prescribed medicines . Whenever they had not been available in the prison ’s surgery , they had been purchased in the pharmacy outside the prison .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that on DATE he had been assaulted by the prison officers . On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the investigation of the complaint as he concluded that the prison officers had acted lawfully . In particular , ORG found that on DATE the applicant had been kicking the door of his cell , shouting and threatening with self - mutilation . He had been warned several times that force would be used against him if he had not stopped this behaviour . Since the applicant had continued to behave in this manner , the Prison Governor had authorised the use of force against the applicant , handcuffing him and putting in solitary confinement . That decision had been carried out by CARDINAL prison officers under the supervision of CARDINAL senior prison officers . Since the applicant had behaved violently , the officers had used force to overpower him . During his solitary confinement the applicant had been examined on several occasions by physicians who had found no injuries except for a slight skin excoriation on his hands . Further medical examination undertaken after the applicant had complained about stomach pain had resulted in the finding of superficial gastritis . The pain had disappeared after administration of analgesics and a special diet .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of assault and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the District Director of ORG informed the applicant that his complaints submitted on DATE to the ORG were ill - founded . The District Director was of the opinion that the testimony given by the witnesses and medical evidence clearly showed that the alleged assault had not in fact taken place as the prison officers had lawfully responded to the applicant ’s violent behaviour . Moreover , he pointed out that in his conversation with the Prison Governor , which had taken place on DATE , the applicant had not raised any complaints about the alleged assault . The Director also dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant ’s complaints concerning irregularities in the delivery of mail , the failure to give him prescribed medicines and difficulties in contacting his family members .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of larceny and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that his complaints relating to the alleged irregularities in the mail delivery were unfounded . He pointed out that during the interview with the Penitentiary Judge held on DATE the applicant had failed to provide any facts which would make it possible to investigate his allegations . The ORG also observed that the applicant ’s allegations concerning the assault by the prison officers had been investigated by ORG who had concluded that they were unfounded and discontinued the investigation .

On DATE the applicant complained to the District Director of ORG about the inadequate medical treatment and inaccurate diagnosis of his condition at the time of his detention in FAC . In a letter of DATE the District Director dismissed the complaint . He pointed out that after the applicant had complained about problems with his kidneys and urinary system he had undergone several medical examinations . In particular , blood and urine tests had been administered . Furthermore , an x - ray of his abdominal cavity had been taken together with an ultrasound of his urinary bladder . The applicant had also had CARDINAL consultations in the urology clinic . The Director concluded that since the applicant had had access to proper medical care in FAC his complaint was ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant complained to the District Director of ORG about the assault by prison officers on DATE and about an inaccurate diagnosis given by a psychologist who had examined him . On DATE the District Director rejected his complaint . He observed that the incident , which had taken place on DATE , was investigated by a prosecutor who concluded that the prison officers acted lawfully . Furthermore , the Director informed the applicant that he had been given psychological counselling since he had suffered from personality disorders . The psychologist ’s note in the applicant ’s medical records merely described his difficulties in adapting to the prison environment and was not used by the prison administration to make any decision concerning his detention .

On DATE ORG pronounced a cumulative judgment in respect of the judgments of DATE and DATE and reduced the applicant ’s sentence to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother died . On DATE the Penitentiary Judge refused the applicant ’s request for a leave to attend her funeral but apparently granted permission for his attendance under police escort .

On DATE the applicant got married . He still serves his prison sentence .


Violation of Art. 7;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings;Pecuniary damage - reserved

Gaukur Jörundsson;John Freeland;N. Valticos;R. Pekkanen

ORG On DATE Mr PERSON was arrested for suspected drug offences . On DATE he was charged in respect of offences concerning the importation of large quantities of cannabis . Prosecuting Counsel advised , prior to DATE , that there was insufficient evidence to charge PERSON with possession of cocaine with intent to supply .

ORG After further investigations , including forensic examinations , further evidence came to light and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was charged with the offence of possession with intent to supply cocaine alleged to have been committed on DATE . Subsequently , on CARDINAL DATE , he was charged with conspiracy to obtain cocaine within intent to supply in respect of activities which occurred DATE and DATE .

ORG On DATE , PERSON was found guilty on CARDINAL counts and was given an overall sentence of DATE imprisonment . In addition , the trial judge imposed a confiscation order pursuant to ORG DATE ( " LAW " ) in the amount of £ CARDINAL . In default of the payment of this sum he would be liable to serve a consecutive CARDINAL years’ prison sentence . The operative provisions of LAW had come into force on CARDINAL DATE . The LAW applies only to offences proceedings for which were instituted after DATE .

ORG On DATE ORG reduced PERSON overall sentence by DATE . In addition it reduced the confiscation order by £ MONEY to £ CARDINAL .

ORG The intended purpose of LAW was to extend existing confiscation powers to enable the court to follow drug trafficking money which had been " laundered " into legitimate property . In the words of the Secretary of ORG who introduced the PERSON in ORG :

" By attacking the profits made from drug trafficking , we intend to make it much less attractive to enter the trade . We intend to help guard against the possibility that the profits from CARDINAL trafficking operation will be used to finance others , and , not least , to remove the sense of injury which ordinary people are bound to feel at the idea of traffickers , who may have ruined the lives of children , having the benefit of the profits that they have made from doing so .

We need the legislation because the forfeiture powers in existing law have proved inadequate . The courts can not order the forfeiture of the proceeds of an offence once they have been converted into another asset - a house , stocks and shares , or valuables of any sort . The Operation Julie case was the most notorious example of the courts being unable to deprive convicted traffickers , as they wished , of the proceeds of their offences ... the PERSON is designed to remedy those defects . It will provide powers for courts to confiscate proceeds even after they have been converted into some other type of asset . " ( ORG DATE , PERSON and CARDINAL )

ORG The relevant parts of LAW provide as follows :

" CARDINAL . Confiscation orders

( CARDINAL ) ... where a person appears before ORG to be sentenced in respect of CARDINAL or more drug trafficking offences ( and has not previously been sentenced or otherwise dealt with in respect of his conviction for the offence or , as the case may be , any of the offences concerned ) , the court shall act as follows :

( CARDINAL ) the court shall first determine whether he has benefited from drug trafficking .

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of this LAW , a person who has at any time ( whether before or after the commencement of this section ) received any payment or other reward in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him or another has benefited from drug trafficking .

( CARDINAL ) If the court determines that he has so benefited , the court shall , before sentencing ... determine ... the amount to be recovered in his case by virtue of this section .

( CARDINAL ) The court shall then in respect of the offence or offences concerned -

( a ) order him to pay that amount ...

Assessing the proceeds of drug trafficking

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of this LAW -

( a ) any payments or other rewards received by a person at any time ( whether before or after the commencement of LAW ) in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him or another are his proceeds of drug trafficking , and

( b ) the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking is the aggregate of the values of the payments or other rewards .

( CARDINAL ) The court may , for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has benefited from drug trafficking and , if he has , of assessing the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking , make the following assumptions , except to the extent that any of the assumptions are shown to be incorrect in the defendant ’s case .

( CARDINAL ) Those assumptions are -

( a ) that any property appearing to the court -

( i ) to have been held by him at any time since his conviction , or

( ii ) to have been transferred to him at any time since the beginning of the period of DATE when the proceedings were instituted against him ,

was received by him , at the earliest time at which he appears to the court to have held it , as a payment or reward in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him ,

( b ) that any expenditure of his since the beginning of that period was met out of payments received by him in connection with drug trafficking carried on by him , and

( c ) that , for the purpose of valuing any property received or assumed to have been received by him at any time as such a reward , he received the property free of any other interests in it ...

Amount to be recovered under confiscation order

( CARDINAL ) Subject to subsection ( CARDINAL ) below , the amount to be recovered in the defendant ’s case shall be the amount ORG assesses to be the value of the defendant ’s proceeds of drug trafficking .

( CARDINAL ) If the court is satisfied as to any matter relevant for determining the amount that might be realised at the time the confiscation order is made ... the court may issue a certificate giving the court ’s opinion as to the matters concerned and shall do so if satisfied as mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) below .

( CARDINAL ) If the court is satisfied that the amount that may be realised at the time the confiscation order is made is less than the amount the court assesses to be the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking , the amount to be recovered in the defendant ’s case under the confiscation order shall be the amount appearing to the court to be the amount that might be so realised . "

ORG In determining the amount of the confiscation order the trial judge may take into consideration the degree of culpability of the offender . For example , in NORP v. PERSON ( [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG ( sentencing ) CARDINAL ) ORG held that where CARDINAL conspirator was before the court the total proceeds of a drug trafficking conspiracy could be unequally allocated as their respective share of the proceeds if there was evidence that the defendants had played unequal roles and had profited to a different extent . Similarly , in the present case , the trial judge made a much smaller order in respect of the applicant ’s co - defendant in recognition of his lesser involvement in the offences .

ORG After a confiscation order has been made , ORG decides upon the period of imprisonment which the offender has to serve if he fails to pay . The maximum periods of imprisonment are provided for in DATE of ORG DATE . The maximum period for an order between the sums of £ CARDINAL,CARDINAL and £ CARDINAL is DATE .

ORG Prior to the passing of LAW , Lord Salmon expressed the view that forfeitures of money had both a punitive and deterrent purpose ( ORG decision in NORP v. PERSON , [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL ) .

ORG The domestic courts have commented in various cases on the draconian nature of the confiscation provisions in LAW and have occasionally referred to the orders , expressly or impliedly , as constituting penalties ( NORP v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL Criminal Appeal Reports CARDINAL ; NORP v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL Criminal Appeal Reports CARDINAL ; In Re PERSON , High Court decision of CARDINAL DATE and ORG decision of DATE ) .

In the ORG of Appeal decision in the last - mentioned case , which concerned the question whether a power to vary confiscation orders introduced by ORG ) Act DATE could be applied retrospectively , the Master of the Rolls ( Sir PERSON ) stated as follows ( at p. CARDINAL ) :

" While it is true that a confiscation order is made before sentence is passed for the substantive offence , and the term of imprisonment in default is passed to procure compliance and not by way of punishment , these are in a broad sense penal provisions , inflicting the vengeance of society on those who have transgressed in this field . "

ORG However , the domestic courts have also referred to the confiscation provisions as not being punitive but reparative in purpose ( Re T ( Restraint Order ; Disclosure of Assets ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports CARDINAL ) .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who lives in PERSON ( GPE ) . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ( GPE ) .

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

In DATE the applicant bought a plot of land , designated in the area zoning plan as agricultural land , in GPE , PERSON . He had the intention to build a hotel on that land .

In DATE the GPE adopted an area zoning plan ( GPE ) in which the applicant ’s land was designated as building plot ( Bauland ) .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for a building permit for a hotel with CARDINAL beds and a restaurant .

On DATE the mayor of ORG held a hearing . A land use planning expert commented on the project by stating that the applicant ’s plot of land was situated in a completely unspoilt area between CARDINAL built - up areas of GPE and that in his view a project of this size was not desirable .

On DATE the GPE issued a building prohibition for the area in which the applicant ’s land was situated .

On DATE the mayor held another hearing .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for a building permit on the ground that the project would have been contrary to the objectives of the building prohibition , that the water supply and sewage disposal were not ensured for the land and that the project , if realised , would alter the characteristics of the village and the landscape ( Orts- PERSON ) . Moreover , it found that each of these reasons was sufficient in itself to dismiss the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal . He complained that ORG reasoning was insufficient and inconclusive .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It based this decision merely on the finding that his request was contrary to the building prohibition .

The applicant filed a complaint with ORG as well as with ORG , claiming that the building prohibition was unlawful .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with the applicant ’s complaint for lack of prospects of success .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . It found that the building prohibition was lawful and that , therefore , the dismissal of the applicant ’s application for a planning permission was equally lawful .

Subsequently , the GPE opened proceedings for the modification of the area zoning plan .

On DATE ORG issued a new area zoning plan under which the applicant ’s land was designated as undeveloped land ( PERSON ) on which the owner was not allowed to construct buildings .

On DATE the applicant filed a new application for a planning permission for his project in order to challenge the modification of the area zoning plan .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application on the ground that it conflicted with the area zoning plan .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal of CARDINAL DATE and confirmed the decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He submitted that the modification of the area zoning plan had been unlawful and that the planning permission , therefore , should have been granted . He also complained that his right to property had been violated .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success . Consequently , ORG referred the case to ORG .

On DATE the applicant supplemented his complaint pending before ORG . He submitted that the modification of the area zoning plan was unlawful . He requested a hearing and to carry out an inspection of the location .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . It considered that it was unnecessary to institute proceedings with ORG to examine the area zoning plan , as that court had already refused to deal with the case for lack of prospects of success . It found that there was no doubt that the modification of the area zoning plan was lawful . It dismissed the requests for a hearing and an inspection of the location , as the case merely concerned questions of law . This decision was served on DATE .

In NORP administrative law CARDINAL distinguishes decrees ( Verordnung ) and ( individual ) decisions ( Bescheid ) . Decisions of administrative authorities are addressed to individuals and can be challenged by way of appeal ( GPE ) under LAW of ORG ) . Final administrative decisions may be challenged by way of complaints with ORG under LAW and complaints with ORG under LAW .

In contrast , decrees are addressed to the general public . The lawfulness of decrees can only be reviewed by ORG . If it is possible to institute administrative proceedings in which the allegedly unlawful decree applies , the question of its lawfulness can be brought before ORG by a constitutional complaint under LAW , or by a request made by ORG , an ORG or an ordinary court under LAW . In exceptional circumstances a person who is affected by a decree may seize ORG with an independent request for review of the lawfulness of a decree , namely , if the decree has direct consequences on the situation of the person without it being necessary that an administrative decision be taken .

The ORG examines whether there has been any infringement of an applicant ’s right under the LAW and whether any decree unauthorised by statute law or any unconstitutional statute or international treaty unlawful under NORP law has been applied ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) .

In PERSON land planning use is governed by ORG ( Raumplanungsgesetz ) . Area zoning plans and any amendments thereto are regarded as decrees . The proceedings in which they are issued are not ordinary administrative proceedings and the persons affected are not parties to them .

The competent local authorities ( NORP ) must take into consideration principles of sustainable land planning use as well as planning proceedings of neighbouring local authorities and other public law corporations ( Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) .

If the area zoning plan is the basis for the granting or withholding of building permits , the persons affected are expected to assert their rights in administrative proceedings concerning the building permit , in which they can allege that the underlying area zoning plan has no legal basis or is contrary to the applicable legislation .

According to LAW , that court is to hold a hearing after its preliminary investigation of the case where a complainant has requested a hearing within the time - limit . LAW ( CARDINAL ) , which was added to the LAW in DATE , provides however that , notwithstanding a party ’s application , ORG may decide not to hold a hearing if it is apparent from the written pleadings of the parties and the files relating to the previous proceedings , that an oral hearing is not likely to contribute to the clarification of the case .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :

" ORG may ... decline to accept a case for adjudication if it does not have sufficient prospects of success or if it can not be expected that the judgment will clarify an issue of constitutional law . The ORG may not decline to accept for adjudication a case excluded from the jurisdiction of ORG by Article CARDINAL . "


Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

The applicants’ son PERSON was born in DATE . On DATE he was remanded in custody by ORG on the suspicion of burglary . He was transferred to the PERSON prison where he was placed in a single cell . TIME , at TIME , he was found dead in his cell , strangled with his shoelaces .

Following a police investigation , in which neither the applicants nor apparently the NORP consular authorities were involved , the NORP authorities concluded on the basis of a post - mortem that the ORG son had committed suicide and discontinued the criminal investigation into his death . On DATE the NORP authorities informed the NORP consular authorities in a note verbale about the outcome of the proceedings .

On DATE counsel for the applicants requested that the criminal investigation into their son ’s death be reopened .

On DATE ORG refused on the grounds that the applicants had not identified a specific suspect responsible for their son ’s death .

Upon counsel ’s motion for reconsideration the criminal proceedings against an unidentified suspect were reopened and , on DATE , again discontinued .

On DATE ORG refused the applicants’ request to order that the investigation be reopened .

On DATE ORG dismissed as inadmissible the applicants’ request for a decision concerning the discontinuance of the criminal investigation into their son ’s death . ORG held that the applicants had failed to name an individual suspect in respect of the alleged manslaughter as required by the relevant provisions of LAW and noted as “ merely supplementary ” that the applicants had failed to provide all the facts and pieces of evidence as required by law ( compare “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . The decision was served on the NORP counsel on CARDINAL DATE .

If a criminal investigation offers sufficient reasons for preferring public charges , the Public Prosecutor shall prefer them by submitting a bill of indictment to the competent court ( LAW ) of LAW ) . In all other cases the Public Prosecutor shall terminate the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .

An aggrieved party may not prefer public charges concerning felonies and serious misdemeanours . If ORG orders a criminal investigation to be discontinued the aggrieved party may , however , complain to ORG within DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) . If ORG dismisses the complaint , the aggrieved party may apply for a decision of ORG ordering ORG to prefer charges ( LAW ) by a bill of indictment that must include the indicted person , the criminal offence with which the person is charged , the time and place of its commission , its elements of crime and the statutory elements which are to applied ( LAW ) . The application for such a decision by ORG must contain all the information in a comprehensive manner needed by ORG to assess whether criminal charges ought to be preferred . ORG decides on the basis of the application without consulting the investigation file .

According to the case - law of ORG an application that ORG be ordered to prefer public charges must contain the name of a specific suspect . Only exceptionally may ORG be ordered to open criminal proceedings against unknown persons PERSON ( see ORG , no . CARDINAL Ws DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Basic PERSON reads as follows :

“ Human dignity shall be inviolable . To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority . ”

Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , in so far as relevant , provides that every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity .

ORG has , inter alia , jurisdiction to hear constitutional complaints , which may be filed by any person alleging that CARDINAL of his basic rights has been infringed by a public authority ( Article PERSON ) ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , and LAW on ORG ) .

A constitutional complaint is , as far as relevant here , only admissible after the exhaustion of all other legal remedies ( Article CARDINAL ) of ORG ) . The complaints before ORG must therefore have been presented – at least in substance – to the relevant courts in conformity with the applicable formal requirements .

ORG has on several occasions quashed decisions of ORG dismissing applications that criminal proceedings be continued on the grounds that a too formalistic handling of the admissibility criteria had resulted in a violation of the applicants’ right of access to a court ( see ORG , no . DATE , decision of DATE ; no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL , decision of CARDINAL DATE ; no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL , decision of CARDINAL DATE ; no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL , decision of DATE ; no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL , decision of DATE ) .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 3 with regard to prison conditions;No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged ill-treatment by prison officers;Violation of Art. 8 with regard to initial restrictions on receipt of parcels;No violation of Art. 8 with regard to later restrictions on receipt of parcels;No violation of Art. 8 with regard to denial of conjugal visits;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP police and detained on remand in GPE ( GPE ) . On DATE he was transferred to PERSON ( GPE ) where he continued to be detained on remand .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( судова колегія Верховного суду PERSON ) convicted the applicant of masterminding and carrying out organised crime and on several counts of aiding and abetting murder and attempted murder , and sentenced him to death . It also ordered the confiscation of his property .

On DATE the Administration of the Isolation Block of ORG of ORG of GPE ( адміністрація слідчого ізолятору Головного Управління Міністерства внутрішніх справ PERSON ) moved the applicant to one of the cells for persons awaiting execution of the death sentence .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE ( судова колегія з кримінальних справ ORG суду GPE ) upheld the judgment given at first instance .

A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of GPE on DATE . In judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG held that the provisions of LAW concerning the death penalty were contrary to LAW . The death penalty was therefore abolished and replaced by life imprisonment by Act no . CARDINAL of DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE commuted the applicant 's death sentence to life imprisonment .

Evidence of the applicant and CARDINAL other witnesses was taken by ORG in ORG on DATE . ORG was composed of Judges PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The evidence taken may be summarised as follows :

The applicant stated that he had not been informed that under the general conditions he was entitled to a visit of TIME by his relatives . In general , he had been allowed to have CARDINAL visit per month for TIME at the most . He said that until DATE of ORG visit , he had not received a document with his rights and obligations under the prison regime . He further said that he had been moved DATE into a newly renovated cell where “ something like ” that was hanging on the wall . He stated that he had been asked by the prison administration to sign the document , but had refused and had said that he wanted first to be informed about his rights and obligations . According to him , in his previous cell there had been no document listing those rights and obligations . Whenever he had been punished , he had always asked to be shown this document . However , he had been told that it was a secret document .

As a punishment , he had once not been allowed to have DATE walks for DATE , he had been kept in isolation under a strict regime , and he had not been allowed to buy food in the prison shop . He had been punished for the first time when he had shared the cell with another inmate ; a warder had found “ something like a knife ” on the other inmate , and the applicant had intervened . On the second occasion , a warder had found a soap of good quality in the cell , had asked where the applicant had found it and had later seized it . The applicant had been punished by being prevented from meeting his CARDINAL children .

According to the applicant , health conditions in the prison were not satisfactory and he was not treated properly as far as his health was concerned . He had never been thoroughly examined , although , according to the rules , inmates had to have a complete medical check - up twice a year . The applicant had complained about food which had caused diarrhoea and stomach - aches , but had been told that such problems were not serious . He had also complained about heart - pains , headaches and toothache and especially problems with his crowns .

According to him , inmates were not provided with soap when taking a shower . However , they were allowed to have their own soap .

To ORG question : “ You are complaining about the food . I understand that you consider that the food provided here provokes diarrhoea and stomach - aches . You also complain that you are not allowed to receive parcels of food , vitamins , books and clothes . We learned that the situation had changed recently , DATE Now you can receive parcels and you can buy more goods from the prison shop . Do you confirm that ? ” the applicant replied : “ Yes , more or less . However , what we can get is not sufficient . ” In fact , the applicant confirmed that he was allowed to receive CARDINAL parcel and CARDINAL small packets DATE .

The applicant did not have any contact with other prisoners , apart from the period when he shared his cell with another inmate .

To ORG question : “ Did you ever have a feeling that there was any real attempt by the Government to hinder your complaint to the GPE institutions ? ” the applicant 's lawyer who is also the applicant 's wife replied : “ Yes , by ORG . As long I was associated with Mr PERSON , they were reluctant to help me all the time . Actually , he was arrested in GPE , in GPE , but the head of ORG no . PERSON , PERSON , personally went there and brought him here without any documents . The applicant was beaten and intimidated . Afterwards , it was recorded that he had been arrested in PERSON . ”

NORP The applicant was handcuffed during his wife 's visits . A warden was present all the time , listening to the conversation . He could interrupt the visit . Once , the applicant was allowed to speak for TIME . He was not allowed to speak in the NORP language , which is his mother tongue . The warden interrupted him when he spoke in that language . The applicant did not answer the Delegates ' question whether he had complained about the interruption of the visits . On DATE Delegates ' visit , he stated that there was no longer any language ban during his visits . However , in response to the Government representative 's question : “ Since when ? The Government has your letter in which you say that there is no problem with communicating in your native language ” , the applicant stated : “ Now there is no problem because we do not speak it . ”

NORP In response to the Government representative 's questions : “ Have there been any cases when the prison administration refused you permission to meet your lawyer ? ” the applicant stated : “ Yes , that has happened . I was even told that there was some information coming from GPE about that . ” When asked : “ When was the last time you met your representative ? ” , he replied : “ DATE . ” When the Government representative said : “ So , DATE you met your lawyer . Earlier you said that you had a meeting with your relatives in DATE , which means you have not seen them for DATE . However , your lawyer is in fact your wife ” , the applicant 's lawyer answered : “ I am his lawyer . I am a member of ORG . According to the international legal rules , I can represent my husband 's interests abroad , and thus even in GPE . However , when I come to ORG , I always fear that my request to visit him will be refused . DATE I found a letter from ORG saying that , according to ORG , GPE can only be represented by a NORP citizen , so I can not represent him any more . Owing to legal restrictions I have not , for DATE , had any intimate contact with my husband . I have CARDINAL children ; my DATE child realises that his father is in prison . ”

To the Government representative 's question : “ Do you confirm that for DATE you have not had meetings with your relatives , bearing in mind that DATE you met your wife ? ” the applicant replied : “ I did not have a date with my wife ; it was a formal meeting with my lawyer . It is different . ”

The applicant had been allowed to have outdoor walks since CARDINAL DATE . He said that he had been allowed to go for a walk except for DATE when he had taken a shower , i.e. once DATE . He then specified that in DATE the prison administration had arranged a shower DATE , and on DATE the inmates could not have a DATE walk . He stated that during the walks the inmates had been handcuffed , holding their hands behind their backs . On DATE they had been allowed to go for a walk without handcuffs . According to him , in DATE they had not gone for walks .

Since DATE the applicant was allowed to write CARDINAL letter per month . His mail was censored , and CARDINAL letter from his wife had not been given to him , a fact that he learned during his wife 's visit .

In his original application , the applicant alleged that he had been beaten in DATE , that some masked men had entered his cell and that the prison governor had also been present . Before the Delegates he stated that only a certain Captain PERSON had not been wearing a mask . To the Court Delegates ' question : “ What , in your view , was the motive for this action ? ” the applicant replied : “ In prison here everything is controlled by fear ; nobody tries to educate or rehabilitate people , only to use force . ” To ORG further questions : “ But why did that only happen to you ? We have no other complaints . Why did they select you to enforce this ' fear policy ' ? ” the applicant replied : “ Many people complain . However , their complaints do not reach the complaints bodies . When someone is afraid , it is easier to control him . ”

The applicant saw the governor of the prison for the first time on DATE after having been beaten because he had not wanted to take off the shorts he had been wearing in hot weather . According to him , beatings had happened quite often before . He had not recognised the people who were beating him , apart from Mr PERSON who had not been masked and had given the orders . They had beaten him on his back and had torn his shorts to pieces . The applicant had neither complained to the prison governor nor requested medical assistance considering it to be “ useless ” .

He had also complained to ORG , but his letter had not , according to him , reached the addressee , having been stopped by the prison authorities . He said that ORG had visited the prison in DATE , but the applicant was not aware of the results of the visit . ORG , accompanied by Colonel PERSON from ORG of the ORG , had asked the applicant about his complaints to the ORG . The applicant had confirmed that there had been pressure exerted on him not to complain to GPE . He had expressed fear about the consequences of ORG visiting him .

The applicant said that prison warders had organised some sort of training CARDINAL or CARDINAL times a year or when inmates had seriously violated the prison rules . He described the training as follows : “ People in masks come and throw explosive packets with nuts at the cells , making a sound like a grenade . They also shoot with rubber bullets . The inmates are forced to lie down on the floor and the wardens walk through , beating them and pulling some of them to the corridor by the leg . ” The applicant had once been burned . According to him , the last “ training session ” had taken place in DATE .

The witness was the governor of ORG . He had been working as governor for DATE .

The witness said that CARDINAL prisoners were serving sentences of whom CARDINAL were on death row . According to him , all prisoners were aware of their rights and duties . A copy of the list of rights and duties was posted in every cell . He confirmed that there was no secrecy as to the rights and obligations of prisoners and that after the decree about prisoners ' rights and obligations had been published , the prisoners were aware of them .

The witness said that he regularly visited all death row prisoners DATE .

He considered the heating conditions to be sufficient . The prison had its own boiler and there was a fresh - air ventilation system in the cells . According to him , the prisoners took a hot shower once DATE , when the bed linen was also changed . He denied the applicant 's allegation that all death row prisoners used the same razor , which would have created health problems on account of the risk of infection . He said that they shaved separately with blades given to them by the prison administration .

He stated that in the daytime there were CARDINAL lamps lit in addition to the natural light from the cell windows , which he considered sufficient . At TIME , they had CARDINAL lamp lit . He said that every death row inmate had a cell of not QUANTITY . It was possible to read books and literature using both natural and artificial light .

The witness said that the inmates underwent an X - ray examination twice a year . Once a week the head of the medical division visited them , and DATE a medical assistant conducted an inspection .

The witness said that death row prisoners had the right to communicate with the outside world without any limitations on either sending or receiving letters . He further said that this situation had improved since DATE . He admitted that under the existing procedure , inmates ' correspondence was censored , but he could not remember any cases when an incoming letter had been stopped without being given to its addressee , including letters from ORG . He confirmed that the applicant 's correspondence had been registered in the journal . Moreover , all death row prisoner could complain of any violations of the right to exchange letters to the governor , to the Prosecutor who supervised the prison , or to any other official in the relevant department .

According to the witness , the possibilities for receiving parcels had improved in DATE . Since then , the prisoners had been allowed to receive CARDINAL food parcels ( посилка , передача ) and CARDINAL small packets ( бандероль ) per year [ ORG : Parcels to be forwarded to a prisoner may be sent by post ( посилка ) or brought in person to the prison ( передача ) . Small items like books or periodicals can be sent by post as a small packet ( бaндepoль - literally a “ bundle ” ) . ] . Previously , they had not been allowed to receive any parcels until the judgment in their criminal case had become final . Moreover , the prisoners could buy food in the prison shop . They could spend CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) per month at prices which were the same as in the ORG - owned shops from which the prison bought the food .

According to the witness , prior to DATE the inmates had not been allowed to go for DATE outdoor walks . Since then , they had been taken out for TIME without handcuffs .

He denied that any “ training ” described by the applicant had ever taken place . He said that ORG had ordered that such training should be carried out without explosives or masks .

The witness was the doctor in ORG , where he had been working since DATE .

He said that the prison medical staff included CARDINAL doctors ( CARDINAL general practitioners , CARDINAL psychiatrist and CARDINAL radiologist ) , medical assistants ( фельдшер ) , an X - ray laboratory assistant , a pharmacist and a clinical assistant . According to him , medical services were provided TIME a day . Any inmate could apply at any time and get urgent medical assistance . The death row prisoners were seen by a medical assistant every day during their DATE walk . They could ask him for any medical assistance and , if his help was not sufficient , they could request to see the doctor . Besides , they could apply directly to the doctor . Every inmate had a medical file compiled upon his arrival where all details and results of medical examinations were recorded and which was kept during the period of his imprisonment .

The witness had received no complaints about the sanitary conditions in the prison . He considered that the changes in regime for death row prisoners , especially the possibility of having outdoor walks and natural light in their cells , had improved their health conditions .

According to him , HIV testing of inmates was not obligatory and was only conducted upon individual request . The test was preceded by a confidential interview between the doctor and the prisoner . The witness did not confirm if there were inmates infected with the HIV virus , claiming that this was confidential information . The only other person who knew about inmates infected by HIV was the doctor responsible for the testing and the preceding consultations .

The witness confirmed that the applicant had never applied for medical assistance . Nor had he asked for help because he had been beaten ; even if he had done so , the result of his medical examination would have been recorded in his medical file .

The witness was a medical assistant who had been working in ORG for DATE . He was responsible for the DATE inspection of the inmates ' sanitary conditions , while the doctor conducted visits and attended emergency situations . He considered that there were particular problems with death row inmates and , in fact , he worked mostly with them . He accompanied these prisoners during their DATE outdoor walks .

He confirmed that the improvement of living conditions in the death row prisoners ' cells had had a positive influence on their health . Since then he had not received any further complaints from them regarding health and hygiene .

The witness stated that he had never seen any signs of brutality by warders against the death row inmates , or any bodily injuries . He had never heard about any such complaints made to other staff in the prison . He examined the inmates on a DATE basis and reported to his superiors . According to him , the applicant had not complained any more than the other inmates .

He further said that for DATE there had been a dentist in the hospital and that other doctors were able to provide assistance . According to him , the applicant had not applied for dental help .

The witness was the senior warder of ORG . His duties consisted in observing inmates , ensuring that they abided by the prison regime , receiving applications and complaints from them , and taking them for outdoor walks or to any meetings they had .

He had first met the applicant DATE . He said that he had behaved like other inmates , without any distinguishing characteristics . The applicant had never made any complaints to the witness , and the witness had not heard about any complaints made by the applicant to other institutions . He saw him CARDINAL times a day during the breaks for meals and sometimes at other times of DATE .

The witness had not heard about any serious complaints from other inmates or any complaints about ill - treatment of an inmate . He could not remember if the applicant had ever been punished for violating the prison rules . He was not personally entitled to punish inmates . If an inmate behaved inappropriately , the witness wrote a report to his superior , who took a decision . The witness had never written anything about the applicant .

ORG visited the cell where the applicant was detained . The size of the applicant 's cell area was QUANTITY . The cell was in order and clean . There was an open toilet , a washbasin with a cold water tap , CARDINAL beds fixed on the floor , central heating and a window with bars . There were some books , newspapers , a stock of soap and toilet paper . The cell was sufficiently heated and ventilated .

The Delegates were shown the prison shower area , which was reasonably clean . They also visited an exercise yard .

The applicant 's medical file was created on DATE . It includes a list of vaccinations , according to which the applicant was vaccinated on DATE and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Moreover , he underwent a test for detection of tuberculosis on DATE and DATE , and on DATE and DATE . On CARDINAL DATE he underwent a full medical examination . He complained of pain in his hand . He underwent a blood test . The doctor noted that the applicant 's state of health was normal and suggested that he take more vitamins .

From the documents produced before the ORG it appears that the applicant 's wife , in her capacity as the applicant 's legal representative , made several requests to visit her husband . She received permission to see him on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . Moreover , on QUANTITY DATE she was given permission to visit her client DATE .

According to the prison records , the applicant received money in his prison bank account on CARDINAL May ( UAH CARDINAL ) , DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) , DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) and DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) , and on DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) , DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL DATE ( UAH CARDINAL ) .

According to the prison shop records , he spent his money purchasing various items in the prison shop on the following occasions :

On CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ( ORG MONEY , CARDINAL respectively ) , CARDINAL DATE ( UAH MONEY ) , CARDINAL ( UAH CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , DATE and DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) , DATE and DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) , and on DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( UAH CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) , CARDINAL May ( UAH CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) , DATE and DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( UAH MONEY and CARDINAL respectively ) and CARDINAL DATE ( UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

On DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant bought some books .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE he paid UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively for posting CARDINAL letters .

Under LAW and DATE , the LAW is directly applicable . There is a guaranteed right to lodge an action in defence of the constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual and of the citizen directly on the basis of LAW .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that international treaties , which are in force and accepted as binding by the Verkhovna Rada of GPE , are part of the national legislation of GPE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL prohibits censorship .

Under LAW the legal order in GPE is based on the principles according to which no one may be forced to do what is not envisaged by the law . State authorities and local self - government bodies and their officials are obliged to act only according to those principles , within the limits of their authority , and in the manner envisaged by the LAW and the laws of GPE .

Article CARDINAL provides that human and citizens ' rights and freedoms are guaranteed and may not be diminished by the adoption of new laws or the amendment of laws that are in force .

Under LAW and CARDINAL no one may be arrested or held in custody other than pursuant to a reasoned court decision and only on grounds and in accordance with procedures established by law . Everyone arrested or detained must be informed without delay of the reasons for his arrest or detention , apprised of his rights , and from the moment of detention must be given the opportunity to defend himself in person , or to have the assistance of a defence lawyer .

Under LAW and CARDINAL , everyone is guaranteed the right to challenge the decisions , actions or omissions of ORG authorities , local self - government bodies , officials and officers of a court of law . After exhausting all domestic legal remedies everyone has the right to appeal for the protection of his rights and freedoms to the relevant international judicial institutions or to the relevant authorities of international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant .

DATE . Under LAW everyone has the right to legal assistance . Such assistance is provided free of charge in cases envisaged by law . Everyone is free to choose the defender of his rights . In GPE the Bar ( адвокатура ) ensures the right to a defence against charges and the provision of legal assistance in deciding cases in courts and before other ORG authorities .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that a convicted person enjoys all human and citizens ' rights , subject only to restrictions determined by law and established by a court ruling .

According to LAW , human and citizens ' rights and freedoms may not be restricted guaranteed by LAW , except in cases envisaged by LAW .

Conditions on death row in the NORP prison system were governed successively by an ORG of DATE on conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment ( hereinafter “ the Instruction ” ) and by Temporary Provisions of DATE on the conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment in the isolation blocks ( hereinafter “ the Temporary Provisions ” ) .

The Instruction provided that after the sentence had become final , persons sentenced to death had to be kept in isolation from other prisoners in specially designed cells . Save in exceptional cases , CARDINAL such prisoners were to be detained in one cell . The cell area allocated to CARDINAL prisoner in a single cell had to be not QUANTITY and in a double cell not QUANTITY . The prisoners were provided with an individual sleeping - place and with bed linen . They wore a uniform designed for the category of especially dangerous recidivists . Reference was also made to their legal status and obligations . This determined the frequency of meetings with relatives and the number of letters inmates could send and receive : they were allowed CARDINAL visit per month and could send CARDINAL letter per month . There was no limitation on the correspondence they could receive . The inmates could receive CARDINAL small packets a year . They were allowed to have a DATE TIME walk in the fresh air . Outside their cells , inmates were handcuffed . They were not allowed to work .

Prisoners were also allowed to read books , magazines and newspapers borrowed from the prison library and/or bought through the prison distribution network ; they could receive money transfers ; they could keep personal objects and food in their cells , and buy food and toiletries in the prison shop DATE ( up to the value of the statutory minimum wage ) , and play board games . They could meet lawyers . Medical treatment was provided in accordance with national legislation .

The prisoners could lodge complaints with ORG authorities . Such complaints had to be dispatched within DATE . Complaints to ORG were not censored .

The Temporary Provisions extended the rights of persons sentenced to capital punishment in comparison with the ORG . In particular , prisoners were allowed to have TIME of sleep during TIME ; they could receive CARDINAL parcels and CARDINAL small packets per year , buy food and toiletries in the prison shop ( up to the value of PERCENT of the statutory minimum wage ) , pray and read religious literature and have visits from a priest , and write complaints to ORG authorities . They were allowed to send and receive letters without any limits and to have DATE visits of TIME from their relatives . A prison official had to be present during those visits . Meetings with a lawyer in order to provide the inmates with legal aid were carried out in accordance with the correctional - labour legislation .

According to LAW , pre - trial detention is a preventive measure applicable to an accused , a defendant or a person suspected of having committed a crime punishable with imprisonment , or a convicted person whose sentence has not yet been enforced .

In accordance with section CARDINAL ) , persons sentenced to capital punishment whose sentence had not become final were held separately from all other detained persons .

DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides inter alia that detainees have the right ( a ) to be defended in accordance with the rules of criminal law , ( b ) to be acquainted with the rules of detention , ( c ) to take a TIME DATE walk , ( d ) to receive DATE a parcel weighing QUANTITY and to receive unlimited money transfers and amounts of money by way of remittance or personal delivery , ( e ) to buy foodstuffs and toiletries to the value of DATE statutory minimum wage , paying by written order , as well as unlimited amounts of stationery , newspapers and books in prison shops , ( f ) to use their own clothing and footwear and to have with them documents and notes related to their criminal case , ( g ) to use TV sets received from relatives or other persons and board games , newspapers and books borrowed from the library in their previous place of detention or bought from shops , ( h ) individually to perform religious rituals and use religious literature and objects made of semi - precious materials pertaining to their beliefs , provided that this does not lead to a breach of the rules applicable to places of pre - trial detention or restrict the rights of other persons , ( i ) to sleep TIME a night , during which time they are not required to participate in proceedings or to do anything else except in cases of extreme emergency , and ( j ) to lodge complaints and petitions and send letters to ORG authorities and officials in accordance with the procedure prescribed by LAW .

Under LAW , detainees are required to be provided with everyday conditions that meet sanitary and hygiene requirements . The cell area for CARDINAL person may not be QUANTITY . Detainees are to be supplied with meals , an individual sleeping - place , bedclothes and other types of material and everyday provisions free of charge and according to the norms laid down by the Government . In case of need , they are to be supplied with clothes and footwear of a standard form .

In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , permission for relatives or other persons to visit a detainee ( in principle , once DATE for TIME ) can be given by the administrative authorities of the place of detention , but only with the written approval of an investigator , an investigative authority or a court dealing with the case . Under paragraph CARDINAL , detainees have the right to be visited by defence counsel , whom they may see alone with no restrictions on the number of visits or their length , from the moment the lawyer in question is authorised to act on their behalf , such authorisation being confirmed in writing by the person or body dealing with the case .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , detainees can exchange letters with their relatives and other persons and enterprises , establishments and organisations with the written permission of an authority dealing with the case . Once a sentence starts to run , correspondence is no longer subject to any limitations .

According to LAW ( Main requirements of the regime in detention institutions ) , the main features of the regime in detention establishments are : the compulsory isolation and permanent supervision of sentenced persons , so as to exclude any possibility of the commission of new crimes or other acts against public order being committed by them ; strict and continuous observance of obligations by these persons ; and various detention conditions dependent on the character and gravity of the offence and the personality and behaviour of the sentenced person .

Sentenced persons must wear a uniform . They must also be searched ; body searches must be conducted by persons of the same sex as the person searched . Correspondence is subject to censorship , and parcels and packages are subject to opening and checking . A strict internal routine and strict rules must be established in corrective labour establishments .

Sentenced persons are prohibited from keeping money and valuables , or other specified objects , in corrective labour establishments . Any money and valuables found are to be confiscated and , as a rule , transferred to the ORG in accordance with a reasoned decision of the governor of the institution , sanctioned by a prosecutor .

A list of objects which sentenced persons are allowed to possess , giving the number or quantity of each item and the procedure for confiscating objects whose use is prohibited in corrective labour establishments , must be established by the internal regulations of such establishments .

Under the procedure established by the Code , sentenced persons are allowed to buy food and toiletries , to be paid for by written order , to be visited , to receive parcels and small packets and money by remittance , to correspond and to send money to relatives by remittance .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( Purchase of food and toiletries by sentenced persons ) provides that sentenced persons are allowed to buy food and toiletries , paying by written order , from the money received by remittance .

Article CARDINAL provides inter alia that a lawyer may be given permission to meet his client on presentation of his licence and identity card . Visits are not limited as to their number and length and , at the lawyer 's request , may be carried out without a prison warder being present .

Under LAW ( Receipt of parcels and small packets by persons sentenced to imprisonment ) sentenced persons held in corrective labour GPE ( виправнo-тpудова колонія ) are allowed to receive , per year : CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the general regime ( колонія загального режиму ) , CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the restricted regime ( колонія посиленого режиму ) and CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the strict and special regime ( колонія суворого режиму ) . Sentenced persons held in educational labour GPE ( колонія виховно-трудова ) are allowed to receive per year : CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the general regime and CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the restricted regime .

Convicted offenders serving their sentence in a prison are not allowed to receive parcels .

Irrespective of the type of regime under which they are held , sentenced persons are allowed to receive not CARDINAL small packets per year , and to buy literature through the sales distribution network without any restrictions .

The quantity of parcels and small packets of all types is not restricted for sentenced persons held in corrective labour colony camps ( виправнo-тpудова колонія-поселення ) .

A list of foodstuffs and toiletries which sentenced persons are allowed to receive in parcels and small packets , as well as the procedure for their receipt by and delivery to the sentenced persons , is to be established in the internal regulations of corrective labour establishments .

Under LAW ( Receipt and sending of money by sentenced persons by remittance ) sentenced persons are allowed to receive unlimited amounts of money by remittance , as well as to send money to their relatives and , if this is permitted by the authorities of the corrective labour establishments , to other persons . The money received by remittance is transferred to the personal account of the sentenced person .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( Correspondence of persons sentenced to imprisonment ) provides that sentenced persons held in prisons may receive unlimited mail and may send letters as follows : CARDINAL letter per DATE for those held under the general regime and CARDINAL letter DATE for those held under the strengthened regime .

According to section CARDINAL ) , the public prosecutor deals with petitions and complaints concerning breaches of the rights of citizens and legal entities , except complaints that are within the jurisdiction of the courts . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that an appeal lies from the prosecutor 's decision to the supervising prosecutor and , in certain cases , to the court . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that the decision of ORG is final .

Under LAW the prosecutor or his deputy has the power to make a request to a court for any material in a case where a judgment or another decision has come into force . If there are any grounds for reopening the proceedings , the prosecutor may challenge the court judgment or any other decision .

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) the matters subject to the public prosecutor 's supervision are : adherence to the legal rules on pre - trial detention and corrective labour or other establishments for the execution of sentences or coercive measures ordered by a court ; adherence to the procedures and conditions for holding or punishing persons in such establishments ; the rights of such persons ; and the manner of carrying out by the relevant authorities of their duties under the criminal law and legislation on the enforcement of sentences . The public prosecutor may at any time visit places of pre - trial detention , establishments where convicted persons are serving sentences or establishments for compulsory treatment or reform , in order to conduct interviews or peruse documents on the basis of which persons have been detained , arrested or sentenced or subjected to compulsory measures ; he may also examine the legality of orders , resolutions and decrees issued by the administrative authorities of such establishments , terminate the implementation of such acts , appeal against them or cancel them where they do not comply with the law , and request officials to give explanations concerning breaches which have occurred .

In its ORG , the ORG deplored the executions which , reportedly , had been carried out recently in GPE , GPE and GPE . In particular , it condemned GPE for apparently violating its commitments to introduce a moratorium on executions of the death penalty upon its accession to ORG . It called upon this country to honour its commitments regarding the introduction of a moratorium on executions and the immediate abolition of capital punishment warning it that further violation of its commitments , especially the carrying out of executions , would have consequences under Order No . CARDINAL ( DATE ) .

The ORG confirmed in this ORG that it had received official information that , in DATE , CARDINAL executions had been carried out in GPE , and regretted that the NORP authorities had failed to inform it of the number of executions carried out in DATE . The ORG was particularly shocked to learn that executions in GPE had been shrouded in secrecy , with apparently not even the families of the prisoners having been informed , and that the executed had reportedly been buried in unmarked graves . It condemned GPE for having violated its commitment to put into place a moratorium on executions , deplored the executions that had taken place , and demanded that GPE immediately honour its commitments and halt any executions still pending .

In these texts , the ORG noted that GPE had clearly failed to honour its commitments ( CARDINAL persons had been executed DATE and DATE , according to official sources ) . At the same time , it noted that since DATE a de facto moratorium on executions had been in effect in GPE . The ORG insisted that the moratorium be reconfirmed de jure and that the PERSON Rada ratify LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . It stressed the importance of the de facto moratorium on executions and firmly declared that , if any further executions took place , the credentials of the NORP parliamentary delegation would be annulled at the following part - session of the ORG , in accordance with Rule CARDINAL of its Rules of Procedure .

Delegates of the ORG visited places of detention in GPE in DATE , and DATE . Reports on each of the visits were published on DATE , together with the Responses to the Reports of ORG .

The visit of the delegation , which took place from DATE , was the ORG 's first periodic visit to GPE . In the course of the visit the delegation inspected , inter alia , the pre - trial prison ( GPE ) ( “ investigation isolation ” establishment ) No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in ORG . On the ground floor of building No . CARDINAL of GPE No . CARDINAL were housed at the time of the visit CARDINAL prisoners who had been sentenced to death , although as was recorded in a footnote to the ORG , the delegation had received assurances that since DATE a de facto moratorium on executions had been observed .

In its ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , the ORG expressed at the outset its serious concern about the conditions under which these prisoners were being held and about the regime applied to them . It was noted that prisoners sentenced to death were usually accommodated CARDINAL to a cell , the cell measuring CARDINAL - CARDINAL m² . The cells had no access to natural light , the windows being obscured by metal plates . The artificial lighting , which was permanently on , was not always sufficiently strong with the result that some cells were dim . To ventilate the cells , prisoners could pull a cord that opened a flap ; despite this the cells were very humid and quite cold ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The equipment in the cells was described in the ORG as being rudimentary , consisting of a metal bed and/or sloping platform ( equipped with a thin mattress , sheets of dubious cleanliness and a blanket which was manifestly insufficient to keep out the cold ) , a shelf and CARDINAL narrow stools . Prisoners were supposed to be able to listen to radio programmes via a speaker built into the wall of the cell , but it had been reported to the delegation that the radio only functioned sporadically ( ibid . ) .

All the cells had un - partitioned toilets which faced the living - area ; as a result , a prisoner using the toilet had to do so in full view of his cellmate . As regards toiletries , prisoners sentenced to death were in a similarly difficult situation as many of the other inmates ; items such as soap and toothpaste were rarities ( ibid . ) .

It was further recorded that prisoners sentenced to death had no form of activity outside their cells , not even an hour of outdoor exercise . At best they could leave their cells once DATE to use the shower in the cell - block , and for TIME a month , if they were authorised to receive family visits . In - cell activities consisted of reading and listening to the radio when it worked . Apart from the DATE visits which some inmates received , human contact was limited essentially to the occasional visit by an NORP priest or a member of the health - care staff , who spoke to the prisoners through a grill in the cell - door ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The ORG summarised its findings in this regard as follows :

“ In short , prisoners sentenced to death were locked up for TIME a day in cells which offered only a very restricted amount of living space and had no access to natural light and sometimes very meagre artificial lighting , with virtually no activities to occupy their time and very little opportunity for human contact . Most of them had been kept in such deleterious conditions for considerable periods of time ( ranging from DATE to over DATE ) . Such a situation may be fully consistent with the legal provisions in force in GPE concerning the treatment of prisoners sentenced to death . However , this does not alter the fact that , in the ORG 's opinion , it amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment . ” ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

It was further recorded that the delegation had received numerous complaints from prisoners sentenced to death about the fact that they lacked information with regard to their legal situation the progress of their cases , follow - up to applications for cases to be reviewed , examination of their complaints etc . ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In its Response to the DATE Report , ORG recorded that a number of organisational and practical steps had been taken to resolve the problems identified by the ORG . In particular , LAW had been introduced to guarantee to prisoners sentenced to death the right to be visited once DATE by relatives , to be visited by a lawyer to get legal assistance , to be visited by a priest and to receive and send correspondence without limitation . It was further noted

( i ) that prisoners sentenced to death would have DATE walks in the open air and that for this purpose QUANTITY of the pre - trial prisons had been rebuilt or re - equipped ;

( ii ) that , in order to improve natural lighting and air of all cells , the blinds and metal peakes over cell windows had been removed ; and

( iii ) that , for the purposes of informing inmates sentenced to death of their rights and legal status , extracts from LAW had been placed on the walls of each cell .

A ORG delegation visited GPE from DATE in the course of which they again inspected GPE No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE where , at the time of the visit , there were detained CARDINAL prisoners who had been sentenced to death . The ORG noted that certain changes had occurred since the previous visit . In particular , the cells had natural light and were better furnished and the prisoners had an hour of exercise per day in the open air , although it was observed that there was insufficient space for real physical exercise ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The ORG further recorded that important progress had been made in the right of prisoners to receive visits from relatives and to correspond ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . However , the ORG noted certain unacceptable conditions of detention including the fact that prisoners continued to spend CARDINAL out of TIME a day in their cells and that opportunities for human contact remained very limited ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

A third visit to GPE took place from DATE , in the course of which the delegation inspected , inter alia , the pre - trial prison ( GPE PERSON ) in PERSON . The ORG welcomed the decision of the NORP authorities to abolish the death penalty and noted that most of the CARDINAL prisoners subject to the death sentence had had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment .

Despite these welcome steps , the ORG recorded that the treatment of this category of prisoner was a major source of concern to ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . It was noted that , further to a provisional instruction issued in DATE and pending the establishment of CARDINAL high - security units specifically intended for life prisoners , such prisoners were subjected to a strict confinement regime ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . While living space in the cells was generally satisfactory and while work had started on refurbishing cells in all the establishments visited , there were major deficiencies in terms of access to natural light and the quality of artificial light and ventilation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Moreover , life - sentence prisoners were confined in their cells for TIME a day with no form of organized activities and , by way of activities outside their cells , were entitled to TIME outdoor exercise , which took place in unacceptable conditions . There was virtually no human contact : since the entry into force of the DATE instruction , visits from relatives had been forbidden and prisoners were only allowed to send CARDINAL letter DATE , although there were no restrictions on receiving letters ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In their Response to the Report the Ukrainian Government noted further legal amendments which ensured that life prisoners had TIME of exercise per day and CARDINAL family visits of TIME . Further , to ensure adequate access to light , metal shutters had been removed from windows in all cells .