Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 14;Not necessary to examine Art. 9;Not necessary to examine P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

ORG of PERSON ) in GPE is the cathedral of the NORP Catholic diocese of GPE . Built in DATE , it adjoins a former ORG convent and it has been used as a place of worship continuously since DATE . The building was acquired by the church by adverse possession ( ektakti khrissiktissia ) .

NORP In DATE CARDINAL people living next to the church , PERSON and Mr PERSON , demolished one of its surrounding walls , which was QUANTITY high , and made a window looking onto the church in the wall of their own building .

On DATE the church , represented by the abbot , the Right Reverend PERSON , applied to ORG seeking a declaration that it was the owner of the wall in question and orders that the defendants must cease the nuisance and restore the previously existing situation , that the judgment should be provisionally enforceable and that the defendants should be liable to a fine of MONEY and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment if they did not comply with the judgment .

The defendants raised an objection to admissibility on the ground that NORP churches in GPE had no legal personality and were thus prevented from bringing legal proceedings .

The plaintiff church answered the objection by stating that it was a cloister church , founded and authorised before DATE and recognised under LAW DATE . More particularly , it stated that it was a ORG cloister that had been authorised before DATE and belonged to the diocese of GPE and PERSON , which did have legal personality ( aftotelia ) .

On DATE ORG held that the wall was owned by the church and ordered the defendants to rebuild it to its original height . As to the objection to admissibility , the court held that it was unfounded , accepting the plaintiff church ’s submissions , which – it found – were substantiated by the papal seal of DATE that was in the file ; the court also noted that the abbot was the manager of its wealth and was therefore entitled to represent it in legal proceedings .

The defendants appealed against that judgment to ORG of First Instance on DATE .

On DATE ORG , allowing the appeal , quashed the judgment of the court below for the following reasons :

The provisions of LAW of DATE , which remains in force by virtue of LAW No . CARDINAL annexed to LAW DATE , require GPE to ensure LOC freedom of religion , freedom of worship and equality before the law irrespective of their religious denomination – freedoms which are , moreover , guaranteed in DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the current LAW but do not provide that religious or other establishments founded by a religious minority may acquire legal personality without complying with the ORG ’s laws on the acquisition of legal personality . Furthermore , LAW adopted by the protecting powers on DATE , and ratified in GPE by ORG Memorandum of DATE , … did not confer on the bishops of ORG any jurisdiction other than spiritual and administrative , that is to say relating to that ORG ’s domestic order , and the provisions of the canon law that governs ORG which attribute legal personality to convents and other ORG establishments founded by decisions of the bishops of that ORG were not adopted .

In the instant case ORG of the Capuchins , whose date of foundation is not apparent from the evidence , did not acquire legal personality from the sole fact of being founded by the competent bishop in GPE without the formalities laid down in NORP laws on the acquisition of legal personality having been complied with . Consequently , they have no legal standing and their action must be dismissed for that reason in accordance with LAW . The failure to comply with the ORG ’s laws on the acquisition of legal personality is admitted by the plaintiffs themselves . It must be noted that even if this church was founded before DATE , it accordingly did not acquire legal personality , having failed to comply with the laws of the ORG .

On DATE the church appealed on points of law , alleging a breach of LAW of CARDINAL DATE taken together with ORG DATE , LAW , LAW , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW .

In his opinion of DATE the reporting judge of ORG indicated that he thought the judgment of CARDINAL DATE should be quashed ; he pointed out that under LAW NORP nationals belonging to religious minorities enjoyed the same protection in law and in fact and the same safeguards as other NORP nationals and , in particular , had an equal right to establish religious foundations and practise their religion freely ; furthermore , under the canon law of ORG , churches , convents and monasteries established with the approval of ORG had legal personality without it being necessary to comply with the formalities laid down in NORP laws . Such a restriction would be contrary to LAW .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal in the following terms :

[ LAW ] , having been ratified in a statute , was kept in force as domestic law , but inasmuch as its content is covered by ORG , which is much wider in scope , the treaty must be regarded as having been abrogated by this subsequent Convention , which pursues the same objective . However , the special provisions of the treaty which are not reproduced in LAW and do not conflict with it must be regarded as still being in force . By means of the Convention Greece protects , inter alia , the religious freedom not only of minorities but of any person within its jurisdiction , irrespective of religion , national origin , membership of an ethnic minority , etc . LAW , which provides for freedom to practise any ‘ NORP religion and for freedom to perform religious obligations without hindrance , likewise corresponds to the content [ of the Convention ] .

Regard being had to the foregoing , it is clear that the above - mentioned provisions guarantee to religious minorities freedom of religion , freedom of worship and religious equality and , by extension , the right to found religious associations and establishments , which acquire legal personality as of right but only after complying with the ORG ’s laws on such acquisition … It is even provided ( in LAW ) that the religious convictions of minorities can not constitute a legal ground exempting them from complying with the above - mentioned laws on the acquisition of legal personality , which , by the first sentence of LAW of LAW , is a condition of being able to bring or defend legal proceedings … Consequently , if LAW , whereby everyone is entitled to seek legal protection from the courts , is to apply , the above - mentioned statutory conditions must be satisfied . Furthermore , since section CARDINAL of the Introductory Law to LAW … provides that only legal persons ‘ lawfully DATE at the date of adoption of the Civil Code continue to exist , the court below rightly held that LAW did not apply in the instant case as the formalities required by GPE ’s laws for the acquisition of legal personality had not been complied with by the appellants . ”

The relevant Articles of the LAW provide :

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . The dominant religion in GPE is that of ORG . ORG , which recognises as its head Our Lord PERSON , is indissolubly united , doctrinally , with FAC of GPE and with any other ORG in communion with it ( omodoxi ) , immutably observing , like the other Churches , the holy apostolic and synodical canons and the holy traditions . It is autocephalous and is administered by ORG , composed of all the bishops in office , and by the standing ORG , which is an emanation of it constituted as laid down in GPE and in accordance with the provisions of LAW of DATE and LAW DATE .

The ecclesiastical regime in certain regions of the ORG shall not be deemed contrary to the provisions of the foregoing paragraph .

The text of ORG is unalterable . No official translation into any other form of language may be made without the prior consent of the autocephalous ORG and ORG at GPE . ”

LAW

“ CARDINAL . Freedom of conscience in religious matters is inviolable . The enjoyment of personal and political rights shall not depend on an individual ’s religious beliefs .

There shall be freedom to practise any known religion ; individuals shall be free to perform their rites of worship without hindrance and under the protection of the law . The performance of rites of worship must not prejudice public order or public morals . Proselytism is prohibited .

The ministers of all known religions shall be subject to the same supervision by the ORG and to the same obligations to it as those of the dominant religion .

No one may be exempted from discharging his obligations to the ORG or refuse to comply with the law by reason of his religious convictions .

No oath may be required other than under a law which also determines the form of it . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Introductory Law to the Civil Code provides :

“ Legal persons that were lawfully constituted at the date of adoption of LAW [ DATE ] shall continue to exist . As regards their legal capacity , administration or functioning , the relevant provisions of the Code shall apply . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code gives the following definition of a legal person in general :

“ A union of persons for the purpose of pursuing a given aim or a group of assets assigned to the service of a given aim may acquire legal personality if the requirements laid down by law are satisfied . ”

The legal persons provided for in LAW are associations ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . ) , foundations ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . ) and charitable fundraising committees ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . ) . Non - commercial partnerships only acquire legal personality after taking the publicity measures laid down by law for commercial partnerships ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . and LAW . It must also be noted that LAW makes the provisions on partnerships applicable to unions of persons that have been created to pursue a given aim but are not associations ( LAW ) .

By DATE , “ A person who has the capacity to possess rights and be bound by obligations shall also be entitled to bring or defend legal proceedings . Unions of persons which pursue a specified aim without being associations and also partnerships that do not have legal personality may bring or defend legal proceedings . ”

This concept of a union of persons seems to approximate to the concept of a common - interest group in NORP law , since the courts have applied the concept to co - ownership of a seagoing vessel , to a political party and to an association of co - owners of a building .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . PERSON on GPE confers personality in public law on ORG and on a number of its institutions , at least as regards “ their legal relations ” .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides :

“ NORP nationals who belong to racial , religious or linguistic minorities shall enjoy the same treatment and security in law and in fact as the other NORP nationals . In particular they shall have an equal right to establish , manage and control , at their own expense , charitable , religious and social institutions , schools and other educational establishments , with the right to use their own language and to exercise their religion freely therein . ”

NORP The applicant church annexed to the memorial it filed with the ORG a series of judgments given by the highest courts in the land which , it submitted , substantiated its assertion that neither the legal personality of ORG in GPE nor its capacity to bring or defend legal proceedings had ever been called in question . The decisions were the following :

( a ) judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG , in which the court held that the appropriate NORP bishop represented the legal person of ORG and its parish churches in legal proceedings for the protection of their property , and did so by virtue of the NORP canon law , which was wholly applicable in GPE in so far as it did not conflict with any provisions of national law ;

( b ) judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG , in which the court ruled similarly , holding that the canon law of ORG had been recognised in LAW DATE “ as having the force of law ” in GPE ;

( c ) judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG , in which the court held that it was for the PERSON to appoint local administrators of ORG property and , moreover , that there was no need for NORP parish churches “ once established and lawfully in existence , to obtain permission from the ORG authorities to acquire [ their ] legal personality ” ;

( d ) judgment no . CARDINAL of ORG of LOC , in which it was held that NORP parish churches were represented by persons appointed by the PERSON , according to canon law ;

( e ) judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG ( the first to be given on the subject after LAW of DATE had come into force ) , in which the court held that legal persons constituted before DATE were accorded full recognition under section CARDINAL of the Introductory Law to LAW ; as regards , more specifically , ORG foundations in GPE , it was held in the same judgment that NORP bishops had “ special ” power to constitute them by means of a unilateral decision , without any need for that decision to take any particular form or to be subject to any prior authorisation ;

( f ) judgment no . CARDINAL of ORG , whereby that court recognised the legal personality of the NORP convent of PERSON on the island of ORG , established by law in DATE and to which was attached the NORP school operating in GPE under the same name ;

( g ) judgment no . DATE of a full court of ORG , whereby the court recognised the legal personality of the parish church of PERSON the GPE on the island of ORG in a case of expropriation in the public interest ;

( h ) judgment no . CARDINAL of ORG of LOC , delivered in a case of unlawful interference with the rights of possession and ownership of the same parish church of the island of GPE , whose capacity to bring and defend legal proceedings was formally confirmed .

On the other hand , following judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL delivered by ORG in the present case , ORG dismissed an action brought jointly by ORG and the applicant church for recovery of possession of a rented property , holding that the plaintiffs had no standing as they did not have legal personality ( judgment no . ORG ) .

The Government cited a judgment of ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it was held that a monastery founded in DATE by a decision of the NORP bishop of GPE had not by virtue of that fact alone acquired legal personality . ORG said :

“ LAW adopted by the protecting powers on DATE , and ratified in GPE by ORG Memorandum of DATE , … was intended to ensure that the NORP living in GPE enjoyed freedom of religion and freedom of worship and it did not confer on the bishops of ORG any jurisdiction other than spiritual and administrative , that is to say relating to that ORG ’s domestic order , and the provisions of the canon law that governs ORG which attribute legal personality to convents and other ORG establishments founded by decisions of the bishops of that ORG were not adopted . The legal personality of ORG establishments is a question which does not relate to worship or the ORG ’s domestic order but primarily concerns the legal order of the ORG and consequently can not exist unless it is recognised by law . ”

Lastly , in a judgment ( no . DATE ) of DATE ORG held that the abbot of a monastic establishment of ORG is empowered to represent it in legal proceedings concerning its property without the written authorisation of the local bishop as provided in canon DATE .

According to the applicant church , numerous notarial acts to which ORG of GPE and/or NORP parish churches , duly represented by authorised agents in accordance with NORP canon law , were parties unequivocally attest that as regards their property , the churches’ legal personality has never been challenged . By way of example , it has produced the following documents :

( a ) contract of sale no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , whereby ORG , duly represented by the Archbishop of the NORP , purchased QUANTITY of land in the GPE suburb of GPE . Attached to this contract is an ORG certificate dated DATE confirming that the contract was registered according to the rules in force ;

( b ) contract of sale no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , whereby the applicant church , duly represented , purchased a shop in the centre of GPE ;

( c ) contract of sale no . CARDINAL , whereby ORG , duly represented , purchased a QUANTITY building in the centre of GPE . Attached to this contract is an ORG certificate dated DATE confirming that the contract was registered according to the rules in force ;

( d ) contract of sale no . DATE , whereby the applicant church sold to the city council of GPE QUANTITY of land in the city centre ; in this document the church of GPE was represented by its bishop , appointed by papal decree ;

( e ) contract of sale no . DATE , whereby the applicant church , expressly described as a private - law entity and a religious foundation of ORG , purchased a flat in the GPE suburb of PERSON ;

( f ) contract of sale no . DATE , whereby ORG sold a flat in GPE which it had acquired by gift in DATE . This notarial act mentions ( i ) the foundation of the vendor cathedral in DATE by unilateral act of the Bishop of GPE and ( ii ) the papal bull of DATE whereby its representative was appointed according to the rules of NORP canon law . Attached to this contract is an ORG certificate dated DATE confirming that it was registered according to the rules in force .

In all these contracts it is expressly stated that the appropriate transfer tax was duly paid ; and the contracts were all registered with the appropriate mortgage registries . Furthermore , as may be seen from the tax returns duly completed and submitted by the applicant church for DATE and DATE , its rent income from its properties , including some of the abovementioned properties , was exempt from income tax because of the landlord ’s status as a religious legal entity .

In addition , CARDINAL inheritance certificates issued by the clerk of ORG on an application by ORG ( the first certificate ) and the NORP parish church of GPE on the island of GPE ( the second certificate ) attest that these churches were recognised as the sole heirs of persons who died in DATE and DATE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

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

The first applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . Both of them live in GPE .

On DATE the applicants concluded agreements with the ORG city council whereby each applicant would acquire an apartment in a building that the local authority was obliged to build by CARDINAL DATE . The applicants undertook to cover the costs of construction by paying the sums specified in the agreement . They paid their respective contributions by the date agreed in the contract .

On DATE the applicants brought a court action , alleging that the local authorities had failed to complete the construction in time . They requested an order obliging the defendant to complete the works and provide them with property certificates . After the completion of the construction works on DATE , the applicants withdrew the former claim .

The PERSON city council lodged a counter - claim , requesting annulment of the agreements concluded with the applicants , claiming that its administrative division had lacked competence to enter into a contract with the applicants and that the costs of the construction had been incorrectly estimated . The local authority did not request restitution , but suggested that the applicants should cover the additional building costs .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ case .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision , returning the case for a fresh examination . It was noted that the lower court had failed to summon all the parties and that not all the

On DATE the court ordered an expert examination ( documentary audit ) regarding the municipality ’s actions when accepting the contributions from the applicants for the construction of the apartments .

On DATE one of the applicants addressed ORG requesting it to urge the experts to finish the examination and produce their conclusions .

NORP The expert examination was completed on DATE . The next hearing took place on DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed the counter - claims of the local authorities in part . The applicants were ordered to cover the additional construction costs . Upon receipt of the payment , the GPE council was obliged to issue the applicants the documents allowing them to register their titles to the apartments .

On DATE ORG partly amended the decision .

On DATE ORG amended the decisions of the lower courts , fully allowing the applicants’ claims . It was established that the GPE council was not entitled to require the applicants to cover the additional costs . It was ordered to perform the agreement by issuing the applicants the documents which would allow them to register the apartments in their names .

On DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the GPE municipality issued the documents attesting that the applicants had paid the full amount for the apartments constructed under the agreement of DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants registered their titles to the apartments and , under domestic law , became their owners .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , in force until DATE , stipulated that , subject to any contrary legal provision , the purchaser acquired the right of ownership to property from the time of transfer . As regards real estate , the transfer agreement had to be registered in ORG and the time of registration was regarded as the time from which the acquirer acquired title to the property .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in force since DATE , provides that civil liability arises from non - performance of a statutory duty or from a violation of the general duty of care . The remaining relevant domestic law as concerns domestic remedies for the excessive length of civil proceedings is reproduced in the judgment of ORG and Others v. PERSON ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


CASE OF GADAMAURI AND KADYRBEKOV v. RUSSIA

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , a town in LOC .

On DATE the applicants , a lawyer and a driver for a private company , both of NORP origin , were driving back from a business trip when the first applicant felt extreme abdominal pain . He soon felt feverish and dizzy . The applicants decided to stop in the town of GPE in the Republic of GPE on their way and go to a hospital .

NORP However , in GPE the applicants were stopped by the police ( acting in the course of a special operation named “ NORP [ FAC ] - Anti - terror ” ) , allegedly beaten up , handcuffed and brought to a temporary detention centre at LOC police station ( ORG г. PERSON ) for identification purposes .

On DATE charges of hooliganism were brought against the applicants .

On DATE the applicants’ detention was extended on account of their alleged vagrancy and begging .

On TIME CARDINAL September CARDINAL the applicants were transferred to a Republic of Mordoviya Interior Ministry specialised detention centre ( приемник распределитель ORG республики ORG ) .

According to the first applicant , throughout his detention from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he constantly asked for medical help . However , the police officers refused his requests . Several times during that period an ambulance was called for him , and the ambulance doctors ( among them doctor PERSON ) confirmed that his state of health required urgent hospitalisation and treatment .

Finally , on DATE the first applicant , unconscious , was taken to the city hospital ( CARDINAL-я городская больница г. PERSON ) . He was diagnosed with gangrenous perforated appendicitis which had led to peritonitis and he underwent emergency surgery . Throughout his stay in the hospital armed guards were posted at his bedside and at the door to his room .

According to the Government , following the applicants’ transfer to the specialised detention centre on DATE , an ambulance was called for the first applicant upon his request . On DATE the first applicant was hospitalised in the city hospital with a diagnosis of “ acute gangrenous perforated appendicitis ” , on which an operation was performed immediately .

On an unspecified date the charges against the applicants were dropped .

On DATE the second applicant was released .

On DATE , prior to the expiration of the post - operative period , the first applicant was allegedly forced to leave the hospital .

The first applicant was later diagnosed with ruptured sutures and other post - operative complications which resulted in him having to undergo several other operations and in his disability . The doctors concluded that the exacerbation of the applicant ’s illness and the post - operative complications had been directly caused by his belated hospitalisation and surgery .

The first applicant provided the ORG with the documents listed below .

( i ) A medical assessment issued by surgeon NORP from ORG no . CARDINAL dated DATE , which reads as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] ... is being monitored and [ is ] periodically undergoing inpatient and outpatient treatment for his condition resulting from acute gangrenous perforated appendicitis , caecitis , seropurulent diffuse peritonitis and [ an ] appendectomy complicated in the post - operative period by suture sinuses , adhesive obstruction of [ the ] abdominal cavity and secondary bowel dyskinesia .

Analysing the [ applicant ’s ] medical history and [ the ] complications which he subsequently developed and which fundamentally affected [ his ] health , it is possible to [ understand ] the disease pattern .

On DATE whilst under arrest in the temporary detention centre at the LOC police station in GPE , GPE , [ the applicant ] felt acute abdominal pain . However , despite repeated examinations by the ambulance doctors and their urgent requests for [ the applicant ’s ] hospitalisation in the surgical unit of GPE town hospital due to acute symptoms [ pertaining to his ] abdominal cavity and [ the ] increasing deterioration of [ his ] state of health , the [ applicant ] was not taken to hospital .

Only on DATE , in a serious condition , was [ he ] taken to the surgical unit of ORG and urgently operated upon . The early post - operative period was complicated by after - surgery wound disruption [ and the ] appearance of suture sinuses in the abdominal cavity , which necessitated a surgical procedure – a laparotomy [ performed ] on DATE [ ... ] . The latter part of the post - operative period was complicated by [ the ] development of moderately severe peritoneal commissures in the abdominal cavity [ and ] secondary bowel dyskinesia , as a result of which within a short interval on DATE and on DATE [ the applicant ] was hospitalised in ORG no . CARDINAL with adhesive obstruction .

From DATE [ the applicant ] underwent a [ procedure to ] establish [ the extent of his ] disability .

In view of the foregoing , it is possible to conclude that the exacerbation of the [ applicant ’s ] main disease [ ... ] resulting in complications [ ... ] was directly caused by belated surgical treatment and connected with [ the ] prevention by the police officers of [ the ] provision to [ the applicant ] of timely medical assistance . ”

( ii ) Notarized statements with similar contents issued by surgeons NORP of ORG no . CARDINAL ( dated DATE ) and PERSON of ORG no . CARDINAL . ( dated DATE ) .

( iii ) Various other medical documents confirming the applicant ’s operations and subsequent medical treatment .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG of the Republic of GPE of his and the second applicant ’s unlawful detention on DATE and alleged that violence had been used against them by the police officers . The applicant made no specific complaints relating to his allegedly belated hospitalisation for surgery .

Following an inquiry into the facts complained of by the first applicant , on DATE ORG of the Republic of GPE refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in the absence of any indication that a criminal act had been committed .

On DATE the inquiry materials were destroyed following the expiry of the time - limit for their storage .

On DATE and DATE the first applicant challenged the lawfulness of the actions of the police officers before the internal security department of ORG . The facts complained of were found to be unsubstantiated .

The first applicant subsequently appealed against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings to ORG in GPE , ORG of the Republic of GPE and to ORG . The results of their inquiries into the applicant ’s allegations were held to have not established the grounds required for the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers .

On DATE the applicants brought proceedings against ORG and ORG , seeking compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage resulting from their unlawful detention and the first applicant ’s belated hospitalisation for surgery .

On DATE ORG of GPE partly granted the ORG claims , declared that their arrest and detention had been unlawful and awarded them MONEY each in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The court further concluded that the applicants’ allegations of ill - treatment had not been substantiated and that there had been no causal link between the actions of the police and the surgical treatment received by the first applicant .

The applicants appealed . The first applicant claimed , in particular , that ORG had failed to question the ambulance doctor , PERSON , who had examined him and had insisted , in vain , on his urgent hospitalisation . He further claimed that , although his condition had not itself been caused by the actions of the police officers , the severe impact on his health resulting from his belated hospitalisation and surgery had undeniably been directly caused by the actions of the police officers . He relied on the medical documents contained in the case file outlining the complications he had suffered after the first belated operation and also attesting to the ensuing operations .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE provides that damage caused to a person or property of a citizen shall be compensated in full by the tortfeasor . Pursuant to LAW , a ORG agency or a ORG official shall be liable to a citizen for damage caused by their unlawful actions or failure to act . Such damage is to be compensated at the expense of the federal or regional treasury . ORG CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW provide for compensation for non - pecuniary damage . Article CARDINAL states , in particular , that non - pecuniary damage shall be compensated irrespective of any award for pecuniary damage .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of MONEY ( RUR ) . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .

On DATE a writ of execution was issued .

On an unspecified date the writ was returned to the applicant by the bailiff 's service owing to the lack of funds in the debtor 's account .

The applicant forwarded the writ of execution to the debtor 's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor 's account , but the bank refused .

She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant 's claim on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of DATE . On appeal , the judgment was upheld by ORG of GPE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant received RUR CARDINAL in execution of the judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE .

On DATE she received the outstanding balance of RUR CARDINAL , thus completing full execution of the judgment .


Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

On DATE ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) convicted the applicant of participation in robbery with violence resulting in grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to QUANTITY , with deduction of the time spent in pre - trial detention . In addition , having found that the applicant was suffering from a mental disorder and was dangerous , ORG further ordered the applicant ’s confinement in a custodial clinic ( hereafter a “ ORG order ” - terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ) .

On DATE , when the applicant had served his prison sentence , the ORG order took effect . However , the applicant was not transferred to a custodial clinic as there were no places available . He therefore remained in pre - placement detention in the ’sHertogenbosch ordinary remand centre .

NORP In order to expedite his admission to a custodial clinic , the applicant instituted summary civil proceedings ( kort geding ) against GPE . He withdrew these summary proceedings after his transfer to a custodial clinic in GPE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant took civil proceedings against ORG before ORG , claiming compensation in tort ( onrechtmatige daad ) in an amount of MONEY ( NLG ) , i.e. NLG CARDINAL for DATE during DATE of his pre - placement detention after DATE pending transfer to a custodial clinic CARDINAL for DATE until DATE .

In its judgment of DATE ORG held that a delay of DATE was acceptable for a transfer to a custodial clinic and that GPE had only acted unlawfully in so far as this delay had exceeded DATE . It awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of NLG CARDINAL for DATE spent in pre - placement detention DATE after DATE and NLG CARDINAL for each subsequent day until DATE , i.e. a total amount of NLG CARDINAL . It rejected the applicant ’s claim for the remainder .

NORP GPE filed an appeal with ORG ( Gerechtshof ) . The applicant filed a cross - appeal ( incidenteel beroep ) in which he reduced his claim for damages to NLG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in that he no longer sought compensation for DATE of his pre - placement detention , i.e. the period between DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

In its judgment of DATE ORG rejected the principal appeal filed by ORG . It did , however , quash the judgment of DATE on the basis of the cross - appeal filed by the applicant in so far as the applicant ’s claims in excess of NLG CARDINAL had been dismissed in this judgment . It ordered GPE to pay a further amount of NLG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the applicant . ORG filed an appeal in cassation with ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and referred the case back to ORG . It held , inter alia :

“ QUANTITY CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) of the [ DATE ] Prisons Act ( Beginselenwet Gevangeniswezen ) reads :

‘ ORG centres are intended : ( b ) for the accommodation of all others lawfully deprived of their liberty by a judicial decision , court order or public authority , in so far as there is no other suitable place for their accommodation or for as long as admission to another suitable place is not possible.’

The point of departure for the examination ... must therefore be that the [ applicant ’s ] continued stay in the remand centre ‘ for as long as admission to another suitable place is not PERSON is in principle lawful as being based on the law . Moreover , the parties and ORG have taken this approach .

However , where it can no longer reasonably be held that the failure to admit a person to a custodial clinic is justified by the circumstances , the continuation of detention in the remand centre must be regarded as unlawful ( ORG , DATE , PERSON DATE , CARDINAL ) . Also , the parties and ORG have taken this as their point of departure . Part CARDINAL [ of the cassation complaint ] thus lacks a factual basis .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG , faced with the question from what moment the situation referred to in the last paragraph of CARDINAL arises , has held that ‘ apart from exceptional circumstances , the stay of a [ person awaiting admission to a custodial clinic ] should not exceed CARDINAL months’ and , further , that , in the absence of exceptional circumstances , the [ applicant ’s ] stay in ORG remand centre was unlawful after DATE had elapsed . Parts DATE [ of the cassation complaint ] are directed against these findings and the reasons given by ORG .

CARDINAL NORP In the examination of these parts , it must be stated in the first place that the impugned findings of ORG concern a situation prior to the entry into force of LAW on confinement to a custodial clinic of persons subject to a ORG order ( PERSON verpleging ter beschikking gestelden ) . ... this provision entered into force on DATE . ORG considerations hereafter will thus address the legal situation until DATE .

CARDINAL In DATE the Minister of ORG gave an undertaking to ORG of ORG that the admission to a custodial clinic of persons in respect of whom a ORG order had been given and in respect of whom a custodial clinic had been selected would be carried out within DATE after the ORG order had taken effect . ...

In a letter to ORG of ORG of DATE , the ORG Secretary of ORG ... stated that she was unable to maintain this undertaking , given the growth in waiting lists .

LAW on confinement to a custodial clinic of persons subject to a ORG order reads :

‘ CARDINAL . The admission [ to a custodial clinic ] of a person in respect of whom a ORG order has been issued takes place within DATE after the date on which the ORG order has become effective .

When Our Minister , taking account of the requirements mentioned in LAW [ of LAW ] , considers that admission is not possible within the period set out in the first paragraph , he may extend this period by DATE each time .

A decision to extend within the meaning of the second paragraph shall be equated to a refusal to decide within the period mentioned in the first paragraph.’

In the Explanatory Memorandum to this Article it is stated , inter alia :

‘ ... in the proposed first paragraph of LAW a time - limit of DATE is set out within which the admission must in general be carried out . This time - limit has been chosen on the basis of the fact that , in addition to the previously accepted guideline for a maximum duration for a ORG admission of DATE , the time needed for the selection examination , the consultation with the envisaged institution of admission and the decision - making at the ORG must also be taken into consideration .

In DATE my predecessor abandoned the above - mentioned time - limit of DATE since , as a result of the lack of capacity of the custodial clinics including the [ forensic psychiatric observation ] ORG , this time - limit could no longer be observed .

It can not be expected for a foreseeable time that all persons in respect of whom a ORG order has been issued can be admitted to the custodial clinic selected for them within the stated time - limit . The proposed second paragraph of LAW therefore opens the possibility of an extension of the DATE period by DATE each time.’

CARDINAL NORP The following must be derived from the statements of the Minister and the ORG Secretary of ORG . After DATE the Government apparently assumed that the undertaking made in DATE concerned the time needed for selection and admission of persons awaiting admission to a custodial clinic and that this period would not exceed a maximum of DATE . The ORG Secretary ‘ ORG this undertaking in DATE on grounds of ‘ the lack of capacity of the custodial clinics , including the Dr F.S. Meijers Institute’ . It follows from this that , where the above - mentioned lack of capacity is not taken into consideration , the point of departure is that the procedure of selection and admission of persons subject to a ORG order does not , in principle , need to take DATE . The consequences of this lack of capacity and other circumstances that might influence the delay in admission will be addressed in considerations nos . MONEY – CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

In the light of the presupposed standard in CARDINAL it can not be said , however , that the mere exceeding of the DATE time - limit in itself renders a lawful detention in a remand centre unlawful under LAW ( b ) of the [ DATE ] Prisons Act . This situation only arises where it can no longer reasonably be held that the failure to admit a person to a custodial clinic remains to be justified by the circumstances . Only then can it be said that , although there is a legal basis for the continued detention in a remand centre of a person subject to a ORG order , the further duration of that detention is contrary to what is fitting conduct in society according to unwritten ( customary ) law ( in strijd is met hetgeen volgens ongeschreven recht in het maatschappelijk verkeer betaamt ) .

PERSON For cases like the present one , this unwritten law is as follows .

It must be stated first that the ORG order in cases like the present one starts to run from DATE release and that the Minister of ORG , pursuant to LAW as in force until DATE ) , had to decide ‘ as soon as possible on the admission to a custodial clinic intended to execute the confinement ORG . This did not , however , mean that the Minister of ORG was obliged to ensure that the required capacity for persons subject to a ORG order was available at any given point in time . A certain friction between available and required capacity is indeed acceptable from the point of view of efficient expenditure of financial resources . It has already become clear in CARDINAL that the Minister of Justice , when he allowed a delay of DATE in DATE , took into account beforehand the fact that this delay would not be sufficient in all cases .

It further needs to be noted that LAW on confinement to a custodial clinic of persons subject to a ORG order entered into force on DATE . In this provision , identical wording to which was already included in the PERSON submitted on DATE , the point of departure is an admission delay , continuously subject to extension , of DATE . The views of the ORG and ORG during the history of the adoption of the aforementioned LAW are relevant to the examination of the question as to the period of delay in a remand centre awaiting admission to a custodial clinic intended for the person concerned which can be considered , in general , justified by the circumstances and thus acceptable in society .

Noting the above , and with due regard for the considerations set out in CARDINAL , ORG is of the opinion that , after the end of the prison sentence , the preplacement detention in a remand centre for DATE of a person subject to a ORG order awaiting admission to a custodial clinic intended for him can not be regarded as unlawful . A period DATE would be unlawful , unless there were special circumstances , as referred to in CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL below .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL In part CARDINAL [ of the grounds of appeal in cassation ] the complaint is made that ORG has not accepted that it is incompatible with the standard given in ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) that a distinction be made between general circumstances , which could be relevant for a waiting period for admission to a custodial clinic of DATE , and special circumstances which could be relevant for the period after DATE . ...

The complaint fails . Only on grounds of special circumstances to be submitted by the ORG and in the event of a proven dispute relating to the person concerned and/or the ORG – such as , for instance , incidental and serious friction between available and required capacity for persons subject to a ORG order – can the exceeding of the maximum duration of an admission delay be justified .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL

CARDINAL

CARDINAL NORP Since the ORG has not adduced any of the special circumstances referred to in CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , it follows from the foregoing that the detention of [ the applicant ] in the ’s - Hertogenbosch remand centre must be considered unlawful from the moment when a period of DATE had passed following the beginning of his stay there awaiting admission [ to a custodial clinic ] .

CARDINAL

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL The complaint set out in part CARDINAL [ of the grounds of appeal in cassation ] about the reasons [ given by ORG for rejecting the ORG ’s argument in relation to the determination by ORG of the amount of compensation of respectively NLG DATE and NLG CARDINAL per day ] is well – founded . The ORG has disputed ... on grounds that can not immediately be refuted that DATE of the ORG would change when the starting date had been postponed . By ignoring this , ORG has not given sufficient reasons for its impugned finding .

CARDINAL Part CARDINAL further contains a complaint that ORG has used an incorrect standard in the determination of compensation by assuming that the stay of [ the applicant ] in the remand centre can at best be compared to the case of a suspect who has spent more time in pre - trial detention than was justified . This complaint is also well – founded . The unlawfulness of detention in a remand centre after DATE does not arise from the continued deprivation of liberty but from the failure to start treatment in a timely manner in a custodial clinic intended for this purpose . The comparison used by ORG does not fit the nature of this form of unlawfulness and the non - pecuniary damage resulting therefrom

On DATE the ORG order against the applicant expired . The public prosecutor had not sought a prolongation of the order .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG of DATE in so far as it had awarded compensation to the applicant in an amount of NLG CARDINAL . It awarded the applicant compensation in an amount of NLG CARDINAL , rejected the rest of his claim and upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE .

ORG found it established that the delay in the admission of the applicant to a custodial clinic constituted an unlawful act in so far as this delay had exceeded a period of DATE . It held that the applicant had been unable to demonstrate that there were special circumstances in his case for holding that a delay of DATE constituted of itself an unlawful act . It agreed with both parties to the proceedings that it could not be determined what had been , in concrete terms , the effect of the applicant ’s lengthy stay in the remand centre on his treatment . Relying on a report of CARDINAL DATE by ORG , ORG further held that no general conclusive findings could be made on that issue . It did not find it established that , in the applicant ’s case , the delay in admission had had a major and serious impact on treatment possibilities .

DATE ’s feelings of uncertainty and frustration . Having found it established that the applicant ’s feelings of unrest had become more intense with the passage of time pending admission to a custodial clinic , it further held that he had sustained increasing non - pecuniary damage with the passage of time . As to this aspect , it considered that a DATE increase of the basic amount by NLG DATE on each occasion was , in the present case , in accordance with the requirements of equitable compensation . It consequently fixed the total amount of compensation at NLG CARDINAL .

It rejected the applicant ’s argument that the compensation should be calculated on a DATE basis . ORG agreed with the ORG that the use of a DATE compensation amount in cases like the present one , where the unlawfulness did not arise from the deprivation of liberty as such , suggested a degree of precision for which there was no basis in reality .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( PERSON ) , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :

“ LAW

A person sentenced to imprisonment who , on grounds of the inadequate development or pathological disturbance of his mental faculties , is eligible for this , may be placed in a judicial institution ( justitiële inrichting ) for the treatment ( verpleging ) of persons subject to a ORG order ; in that case Articles CARDINALc , DATE and DATE shall apply by analogy . ...

Article CARDINAL

The judge may order that a person who , owing to the inadequate development or pathological disturbance of his mental faculties , can not be held responsible for an offence , shall be committed to a psychiatric hospital ( plaatsing in een psychiatrisch ziekenhuis ) for DATE , but only if he represents a danger to himself , to others , or to the general safety of persons or property . ...

Article PERSON

The judge may impose a ORG order ( terbeschikkingstelling ) on a suspect whose mental faculties were inadequately developed or pathologically disturbed at the time of the commission of the offence if :

CARDINAL the offence he has committed is one which , according to its statutory definition , renders offenders liable to a term of imprisonment of DATE or more or if the offence is defined in Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG or CARDINAL of LAW , LAW ( ORG ) , LAW ( PERSON ) , or LAW , under CARDINAL , of LAW , and

CARDINAL the said measure is necessary in the interests of the safety of others or the general safety of persons or property .

NORP In applying paragraph CARDINAL , the judge may refrain from imposing a penalty , even if he finds that the suspect may be held criminally responsible for the offence .

NORP In making an order referred to in paragraph CARDINAL , the judge shall take account of the statements contained in the reports made concerning the suspect ’s personality , and shall take account of the seriousness of the offence committed and the number of previous convictions for indictable offences .

Paragraph CARDINAL of this Article and LAW may be applied in conjunction with regard to the same offence .

Article CARDINALb

The judge may order that a person who is subject to a ORG order shall be confined to a custodial clinic ( verpleging van overheidswege ) if this is necessary in the interests of the safety of others or the general safety of persons or property . ...

Article CARDINALc

Treatment shall be provided in custodial clinics for persons subject to ORG orders in accordance with rules to be laid down by ORG ( algemene maatregel van bestuur ) .

NORP The Minister of Justice shall ensure that persons subject to ORG orders who are confined to a custodial clinic receive the necessary treatment . In respect of specific patients , the Minister may issue special instructions to the head of the custodial clinic in the interests of the safety of others or the general safety of persons or property .

The rules to be laid down pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL shall make provision for persons subject to ORG orders to appeal against decisions which restrict their freedom of movement or correspondence or their right to receive visitors .

Article CARDINALd

Persons subject to ORG orders may be confined to the following institutions , on condition that the institutions have been designated for this purpose by the Minister of ORG :

a. private institutions managed by legal persons established in the GPE ;

b. State institutions .

Treatment shall preferably take place in a private institution . ...

Article CARDINALe

The costs of the confinement of persons subject to ORG orders shall be borne by the ORG in so far as no other provision is made for them by or pursuant to any ORG . Rules shall be laid down by Order in Council concerning payment for confinement elsewhere than in ORG institutions . ”

A ORG order with confinement to a custodial clinic is not intended to have a punitive effect , but to protect society from any risk posed by the person concerned . In practice , it is imposed in cases concerning murder , manslaughter , rape and other serious violent crimes or sexual offences . ORG orders are initially imposed for a period of DATE and may be prolonged by a judge for further periods of CARDINAL or DATE where the safety of others or the general safety of persons or property so require ( Article MONEY of LAW ) . The total duration of a ORG order may not exceed DATE , unless it has been imposed on the ground of an offence directed against , or constituting a danger to , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons . In the latter case , there is in principle no restriction on the number of extensions that can be granted by a judge ( Article PERSON of LAW ) .

The provisions relating to the proceedings on the extension of a ORG order are set out in ORG CARDINALo – CARDINALx of LAW PERSON ) . Article CARDINALo § CARDINAL provides that the public prosecutor ’s office ( openbaar ministerie ) may submit a request ( vordering ) for the prolongation of a ORG order DATE and DATE before the date on which the order is due to expire . The request must be accompanied by a recent and reasoned recommendation prepared by the custodial clinic where the person concerned is receiving treatment ( LAW ORG ) . The court competent to decide on such a request is ORG that tried the person concerned at first instance for the crime that gave rise to the ORG order ( Article CARDINALp ) .

According to LAW ( ORG tenuitvoerlegging terbeschikkingstelling ; “ NORP ” ) as in force at the relevant time , the prosecution department must inform the Minister of ORG as soon as possible of any judicial decision imposing a ORG order with confinement to a custodial clinic ( LAW ) . Under LAW , the Minister must decide as soon as possible in which specific custodial clinic the person concerned is to be placed , taking into account the available information on the psychological examination and observation of the person concerned , advice on mental treatment , the case file on the criminal proceedings , the available possibilities for treatment , security requirements and the personal wishes of the person concerned .

NORP The custodial clinics , of which there were CARDINAL at the relevant time , are top - security institutions as the persons placed there have been found to pose a great danger to society as well as to themselves . The purpose of treatment provided in these clinics is to reduce this danger and to prevent recidivism . The treatment is geared to individual disorders and personalities and is aimed at helping persons subject to a ORG order to gain insight into and control over their disorders , to make them aware of their responsibilities and to adjust their behaviour accordingly so that they no longer pose a threat to society .

The decision on the selection of the most appropriate custodial clinic DATE given the differences between the various institutions as regards security levels , patient population ( gender , psychiatric diagnosis of the patients and their ability to function in a group setting etc . ) , methods of treatment and average stay of patients – is in most cases preceded by a DATE period of psychiatric observation in the Dr F.S. Meijers Institute , a forensic psychiatric observation institution specialised in this field .

NORP The legal basis for pre - placement detention is provided for in LAW ( PERSON gevangeniswezen ) . This provision , as in force at the relevant time , reads :

“ Remand centres are intended :

a. for the accommodation of those who must undergo punishment by imprisonment or military detention ;

b. for the accommodation of all others lawfully deprived of their liberty by a judicial decision , court order or public authority , in so far as there is no other place suitable for their accommodation or for as long as their admission to another suitable place is not possible . ”

In a judgment given on DATE ORG held that LAW ( b ) of the DATE LAW also covered situations in which persons subject to a ORG order entailing confinement to a custodial clinic were detained in a remand centre pending a decision as to the specific custodial clinic in which they were to be placed , and that such a detention in a remand centre was in principle lawful as being based on the law . It did , however , add that it did not follow from this interpretation that DATE in principle – lawful detention would remain lawful where it could no longer reasonably be held that the failure to admit the person to a custodial clinic remained justified by the circumstances ( PERSON ( GPE Law Reports ) DATE , CARDINAL ) .

In the National Ombudsman ’s report no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , it was stated that , in principle , taking into account the DATE observation period and a margin of DATE for the administrative processing of the selection application and the admission procedure , a delay of DATE between the date on which a sentenced person became eligible for early release and the date of admission to a custodial clinic was acceptable . Acknowledging that incidental friction between the available and necessary capacity of custodial clinics could not be wholly excluded , the ORG further held that an additional delay of no longer than DATE at the very most might still be acceptable . However , given the responsibility of the Minister of Justice for adequate capacity planning , the ORG did emphasise that reliance on force majeure would only be acceptable if the Minister could demonstrate unforeseen circumstances that indeed rendered a longer period of pre - placement detention unavoidable .

On DATE Articles CARDINAL–CARDINAL and CARDINAL–CARDINAL of the Act on confinement to a custodial clinic of persons subject to a ORG order ( PERSON verpleging ter beschikking gestelden ) entered into force . LAW had already entered into force on DATE .

DATE LAW provides that a person subject to a ORG order must be admitted within DATE to a custodial clinic after the ORG order has taken effect . This period can be extended by the Minister of ORG by further periods of DATE each time if placement proves impossible .

In the report of DATE of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman Treatment ( the “ CPT ” ) on its visit to the GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) , it is stated :

“ CARDINAL . ... the delegation also met ( for instance , in FAC , ORG and ORG ) some male and female prisoners in respect of whom treatment measures ( eg . a ORG placement ) had been decided , in some cases a long time before , but who had not yet been transferred because of a lack of places .

The ORG would like to receive the NORP authorities’ comments on this subject . ”

In their response to the ORG report ( ORG ( CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , ORG stated :

“ The increase in the number of persons under a ORG order has placed the existing capacity under severe strain , causing a rise in the number of prisoners awaiting transfer to a ORG clinic . ORG shares the ORG ’s view that such prisoners should be placed in an appropriate hospital facility within a reasonable length of time . The situation has changed , however , since the delegation ’s visit . A programme has been set up to increase the capacity through building projects and the creation of more places in existing establishments , and outpatient departments for part - time treatment have been added to some ORG , widening the prospect for earlier probationary leave . These measures will reduce waiting times considerably . ”

In the ORG report of CARDINAL DATE on its second visit to the GPE from DATE ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) , it is stated :

“ CARDINAL . Since DATE , the NORP authorities have been confronted by a significant increase in ORG orders , a problem which has been exacerbated by the prolonged stays DATE for DATE of CARDINAL persons within the ORG system . As a result , the number of persons waiting in prisons for admission to ORG establishments rose from CARDINAL in DATE to CARDINAL at the time of the ORG ’s second periodic visit . In response to this situation , the NORP authorities have decided to increase the number of ORG places , in order to reach a capacity of CARDINAL in DATE . However , the ORG notes that , in a letter sent to ORG of ORG on DATE , ... the Minister of ORG indicated that the shortage of ORG places in DATE is estimated at CARDINAL .

Concern has been expressed in the GPE about the position of inmates waiting in prison for admission to a ORG institution . During this waiting period , currently averaging DATE , the persons concerned do not receive the treatment they require , a situation which , it has been pointed out , is likely to provoke feelings of anxiety , self doubt and anger in the persons concerned . Further , as they are considered dangerous , those inmates run a serious risk of being placed in restrictive regimes in the prison establishments where they are temporarily being held . ”

In their response to the ORG report ( ORG ( CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , ORG informed the ORG of the measures taken by the NORP authorities in order to overcome the difficulties flowing from the large number of prisoners awaiting admission to a custodial clinic and of the steps taken to ensure that such prisoners received at least minimally adequate treatment whilst awaiting admission . According to ORG , efforts were being made to improve / accelerate the outflow of ORG patients to mainstream psychiatric facilities and the new statutory provision for the conditional lifting of ORG orders was expected both to increase the outflow of ORG patients as well as to reduce the number of patients entering custodial clinics .

The Government further informed the ORG that lengthy waiting lists for places in custodial clinics would continue to exist pending a resolution of the capacity problem , but that experiments had started in a few places providing special psychiatric treatment for inmates awaiting admission to a custodial clinic in ordinary prisons . In these experiments , therapists attached to forensic outpatient departments offered a form of preparatory therapy designed to alleviate anxiety about the eventual ORG treatment and to reduce the growing hostility felt by these people towards the justice system . According to the Government , the initial results of these experiments were encouraging in that the persons involved – therapists , prison staff and inmates DATE had all responded positively and there was a growing demand among prisoners awaiting admission to a ORG institution for this kind of support ( pp . DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-3-c;Non-pecuniary damage - award

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in ORG no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the dead body of a Mr L. was found , with a blood - stained axe lying next to it . A criminal investigation was initiated in respect of a suspected premeditated murder .

From DATE the applicant underwent medical treatment for an unspecified psychiatric condition in the medical centre GPE

On DATE he was arrested in the framework of an unrelated murder investigation .

In DATE the applicant , who was at the time serving a fixed - term prison sentence for several counts of premeditated murder , made a confession , first to the prison administration and later to the investigation authorities , that on DATE he had twice hit PERSON on the head with the back of an axe without having the intention of killing him .

Free legal counsel was appointed for , and represented , the applicant during the pre - trial investigation and the proceedings before the first - instance court .

During the pre - trial investigation the applicant unsuccessfully requested the investigator to arrange for the translation into NORP of some materials in the case file which were in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , sitting as a court of first instance , found the applicant guilty of premeditated murder committed repeatedly and sentenced him to life imprisonment . It noted that although the applicant had alleged that he had had no intention to kill , the fact that he had hit the victim with an axe on a vital part of his body twice and with considerable force , indicated the opposite . While taking into account the applicant ’s voluntary confession , ORG noted that it was the fourth murder he had committed and considered life imprisonment to be the appropriate penalty . At the applicant ’s request , the proceedings before ORG were held in NORP .

The applicant , who was no longer represented , lodged a cassation appeal in which he mentioned , inter alia , that he had no means to pay for legal assistance .

On DATE ORG , following a hearing in which the applicant participated , upheld his conviction .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , premeditated murder committed repeatedly ( with some exceptions not applicable to the circumstances of the instant case ) is punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE , or life imprisonment .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that legal representation during an inquiry , a pre - trial investigation and a trial before a court of first instance is obligatory if , inter alia , a life sentence is a possible penalty . Under LAW , the legal representation envisaged by LAW is obligatory in the proceedings before the appellate court if the appeal could potentially worsen the situation of the convicted ( or acquitted ) person .

According to LAW , verdicts of appellate courts delivered at first instance may be reviewed under the cassation appeal procedure .

Pursuant to LAW , a verdict delivered by an appellate court as a court of first instance may be quashed or modified on the grounds of partiality or incompleteness of the inquiry , pre - trial investigation or trial , or because the court ’s conclusions in its


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

The applicants , Mr PERSON Siyavuş PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON Türkan Semercioğlu , were NORP nationals who lived in GPE . By a letter of DATE the ORG was informed that PERSON PERSON had died on DATE and that his heirs , Ms PERSON , Ms Mihriban Tulu Kortel ( Aykut ) and PERSON Hacer Öztürk ( Aykut ) , wished to pursue his application . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

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

In DATE GPE the Municipality ” ) expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicants ( block no . CARDINAL , plot no . CARDINAL ) in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicants brought an action before ORG for additional compensation .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicants additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) plus interest at the statutory rate , running from DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

The administration subsequently requested rectification of the decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the administration ’s rectification request .

On DATE the applicants signed a document of discharge ( ibraname ; “ the discharge ” ) indicating that they had received CARDINAL separate cheques from the LOC in the amounts of GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , GPE CARDINAL and GPE CARDINAL respectively as additional expropriation compensation , and releasing the GPE from all liability in relation to the compensation claim . The applicants thereby stated that they had no outstanding rights or claims against the LOC which might become the subject matter of further legal or enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the applicants collected the cheque of GPE DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) ; Aka v. GPE ( DATE , Reports CARDINALVI ) ; and GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


No violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13

PERSON is a NORP citizen , born in DATE . He lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was involved in a road accident . The Brussels Crown prosecutor , who was informed of the accident by the police officers called to the scene , ordered the applicant ’s driving licence to be immediately withdrawn on the ground that he was presumed to have been driving with a blood - alcohol level of QUANTITY , which was the prescribed limit in GPE at the material time . That presumption was , however , disputed by the applicant . As the applicant was unable to perform a breath test at the scene of the accident , a blood test was carried out at TIME on DATE . The applicant was informed of the result in DATE . It revealed an alcohol level of QUANTITY of blood , which , to allow for the time which had elapsed , was adjusted to QUANTITY at the time of the accident .

As the applicant had not been carrying his driving licence on DATE , the police came to seize it at his house DATE pursuant to the order for its immediate withdrawal . It was handed to them by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant sent a registered letter to the ORG prosecutor asking for his driving licence to be returned to him . In a letter of DATE he was invited to collect it , which he did .

On DATE , after receiving the result of the test which had been taken to determine the level of alcohol in his blood ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant requested a second test from a different medical laboratory . He informed the ORG prosecutor DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was served with a bailiff ’s writ in which he was summoned by the ORG prosecutor to appear on DATE before the police court in GPE on charges of unintentionally causing bodily injury ( charge A ) , driving a vehicle whilst drunk or in a similar condition ( charge B ) , driving a vehicle with an alcohol level of QUANTITY of blood ( charge C ) , failing to give way to traffic coming from the right ( charge D ) and failing to maintain constant control of a vehicle driven by him ( charge E ) .

On DATE the police court in GPE sentenced the applicant to a fine of MONEY ( BEF ) and disqualified him from driving for DATE , less DATE for which his driving licence had already been withdrawn . The court also made the reinstatement of his right to drive conditional on his being medically certified fit to drive . It gave the following reasons for its decision :

“ CARDINAL . As regards charges A , D and E

It appears from the criminal investigation and the evidence adduced at the hearing that these CARDINAL charges have been made out .

At TIME on DATE in ORG the defendant , who was driving a ORG , came out of FAC onto the crossroads between that main road and FAC and should have given way to a ORG being driven by PERSON , who was coming from the right out of FAC and heading towards FAC .

The plan accepted by the defendant shows that the collision between the CARDINAL vehicles occurred in the middle of the crossroads . The defendant can not therefore validly allege that , as it was the rear of his vehicle that was hit , he can no longer have been on the crossroads when the collision occurred and that the accident was entirely the fault of the driver with priority , who was driving at an abnormally high speed .

It would appear , on the contrary , that it was the defendant who , in addition to failing to give way to the driver with priority , lost control of his vehicle , since after colliding at the crossroads with ORG ’s ORG , far from managing to stop , he continued his course , mounting the pavement of the ORG beyond the crossroads , and crashing successively into the front of CARDINAL buildings and into the right - hand side of a number of legally parked vehicles .

As luck would have it , there were no pedestrians on the pavement in front of the buildings . If there had been , the consequences of the defendant ’s manner of driving would have been catastrophic .

Nonetheless , the accident caused by the defendant resulted in injuries to the CARDINAL passengers in the ORG car .

As regards charge B

On their arrival at the scene , the police noted that the defendant was clearly drunk , since he was staggering and smelt strongly of drink .

The defendant was incapable of blowing , so a breath test could not be taken .

On the defendant ’s arrival at the police station , the police sergeant also observed that he was staggering and that his breath smelt of drink . He noted that Doctor PERSON , who had been called out TIME after the accident , had concluded in his report that although the defendant exhibited no outward signs of drunkenness , the symptoms he had noted were due to the consumption of alcohol and that the defendant must have been under the influence of drink , since he claimed not even to have been involved in any accident .

On being interviewed TIME after the accident , at TIME ( after being detained ) , at which time the result of the breath test was known to be negative , the defendant stated :

( i ) that a vehicle he had not seen approaching had crashed into him ;

( ii ) that he could remember nothing after the crash , even though he was neither injured nor bruised ;

( iii ) that he had drunk CARDINAL alcohol - free beers at home , which he then corrected to CARDINAL ‘ Tourtel’ , and taken morphine - type medicines for his cancer .

It follows that Mr Escoubet must have been driving his vehicle on the public highway whilst drunk or in a similar condition caused by drugs or hallucinogenic substances , inferences being capable of standing as proof ( see PERSON . [ Court of Cassation ] CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , PERSON . [ Pasicrisie ] DATE , I , CARDINAL ) .

The defendant must have known that he could not drive if he was taking medicine such as morphine at the same time as drinking beer , even ORG .

Such a mixture inevitably affected his driving , since he did not even know where the driver with priority had appeared from and continued his course for QUANTITY along the pavement beyond the spot at which the collision had occurred , without making any attempt whatsoever to stop .

Charge B has therefore been made out .

As regards charge C

Despite the fact that Professor PERSON concluded that the level of alcohol in the defendant ’s blood was QUANTITY , adjusted to QUANTITY to allow for the time which had elapsed since the accident , and that the second expert opinion DATE requested within the prescribed time , and carried out by PERSON , a laboratory analyst – showed there to have been QUANTITY of ethanol per litre of blood , which is well over the prescribed limit , the ORG , having regard to the rights of the defence and to the fact that the criminal law must be narrowly construed , considers that in the instant case the result of the blood test can not be taken into consideration .

It appears from the criminal case file that Doctor PERSON , who performed the blood test at TIME , had to use his own equipment , as CARDINAL blood collection tubes were necessary .

PERSON , the laboratory analyst , noted that the blood sample had not been submitted to him in the statutory collection tube and had not been labelled with the defendant ’s name .

LAW of DATE requires the authority requesting a blood test to supply the doctor with a collection tube and disinfectant in aqueous solution containing sodium fluoride and LAW tube to be labelled with the first name and surname of the person from whom the blood sample was taken .

Blood tests carried out in breach of the strict rules laid down by LAW of DATE can not be admitted in evidence ( see ORG [ Editor ’s note : the capital of water consumption ] CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . PERSON . GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) ; likewise , a blood test taken with a syringe instead of a tube is inadmissible and the ORG can not take the result into consideration ( see ORG , CARDINAL , PERSON . GPE DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

LAW of DATE requires the relevant authority to provide the doctor taking a blood sample with a collection tube that complies with the conditions laid down in that LAW and in a ministerial decree ( of CARDINAL DATE ) . A tube so supplied is deemed , subject to contrary evidence , to comply with the legal requirements , whereas an analysis of a blood sample taken with a tube which has not been supplied to the doctor by the said authority has no probative value unless it can be established that it satisfied the said legal requirements ( see PERSON . , CARDINAL , Pas . DATE , I , CARDINAL ) .

Thus , in the instant case , for the reasons set out above , as Doctor PERSON had to use his own equipment , and no further details as to the type of equipment have been given , charge C has not been made out .

Charges A , B , D and E all arise out of the same criminal act .

It is therefore appropriate to impose a single penalty , namely the heaviest one applicable , being that attracted by charge B.

Having regard therefore to the fact that Mr LOC has no criminal record and that , according to his counsel , he is suffering from throat cancer , this ORG will dispose of the case by sentencing the defendant only to the fine stipulated hereafter and , under charge B , to disqualification from driving any motor vehicle ( for a period which takes account , in particular , of the above - mentioned factors ) and the obligation to undergo only the medical examination to determine whether or not he can be permitted to drive again ( LAW of LAW of DATE ) since Mr Escoubet was personally responsible for the offence and , moreover , admitted that he had been driving whilst under the influence of morphine - type medicines . ”

The applicant appealed to ORG , which held that charges A , D and E had been made out , but not charge B. It gave the following grounds for its decision :

“ The police officers did indeed observe that after the accident the defendant was staggering and smelt strongly of alcohol ; however , unsteadiness after an accident can be caused by the shock suffered at the time of the collision . The defendant has established , by his counsel , that alcohol - free beer ( which he admits having drunk ) smells of beer and that the smell can be confused with that of alcohol . ”

Accordingly , the court sentenced the applicant to a fine of BEF CARDINAL,CARDINAL and disqualified him from driving for DATE .

Immediate withdrawal of driving licences was introduced in GPE by section CARDINAL of the Law of CARDINAL DATE . The explanatory memorandum of that PERSON states that “ immediately withdrawing a driver ’s or learner driver ’s licence will take a dangerous driver off the roads pending a court ’s decision in his or her case and will also encourage drivers to obey the regulations ” ( PERSON . Doc . , ORG , DATE - CARDINAL , no . DATE ) .

The various legal provisions governing road traffic have been grouped together under the consolidated Acts of CARDINAL DATE on the policing of road traffic , which constitute a separate criminal statute . Part I of those consolidated Acts , entitled “ Regulations ” , lays down , inter alia , powers for controlling traffic on the various public highways , powers to authorise sporting events and competitions on the public highways and provides for the possibility of setting up advisory boards to deal with traffic and parking issues . Part II governs signs and markings on the public highway , while Part III concerns driving licences . Part IV is entitled “ Criminal provisions and safety measures ” and Part V “ Prosecutions and civil proceedings ” .

Chapter VIII of the consolidated Acts of CARDINAL DATE , contained in Part IV , is entitled “ Immediate withdrawal of a driver ’s or learner driver ’s licence ” . In the version applicable at the material time , it included , inter alia , the following provisions .

“ Without prejudice to the provisions of section DATE , a driving licence or document issued in lieu thereof can be withdrawn immediately

( CARDINAL ) if the driver or person accompanying a learner driver is obviously drunk or exhibits visible signs of being drunk ;

( CARDINAL ) if the driver has failed to stop and give particulars after an accident ;

( CARDINAL ) if a road accident , which was prima facie caused by gross negligence on the driver ’s part , has resulted in serious injury to or the death of another ;

( CARDINAL ) if the driver or person accompanying a learner driver has been disqualified from driving a motor vehicle of the category being driven ;

( CARDINAL ) if the driver has committed a serious breach of the implementing regulations of these consolidated Acts .

Immediate withdrawal of a driving licence shall be ordered by the ORG prosecutor or , if the offence is triable by a military court , by an auditeur militaire . ...

The driver or person accompanying the driver , referred to in the provisions set out in the first paragraph , sub - paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , and the second paragraph , shall hand over his driving licence or document issued in lieu thereof at the request of the police or gendarmerie on the instructions of the ORG prosecutor who has ordered the licence to be withdrawn . Should the driver fail to comply , the ORG prosecutor can order the document to be seized .

The police or gendarmerie shall inform the driver as to which ORG prosecutor has ordered withdrawal . ”

“ The driving licence or document issued in lieu thereof may be returned by the ORG prosecutor who ordered it to be withdrawn , either of his own motion or at the request of the holder .

It must be returned

( CARDINAL ) after DATE , unless the authority which ordered it to be withdrawn extends that period for a further period of DATE after hearing submissions from the licence - holder or his counsel if they so request ; the decision to extend may be renewed once ;

( CARDINAL ) where a court does not disqualify the holder from driving ;

( CARDINAL ) where the holder of a foreign driving licence , who does not satisfy the conditions laid down by the King for obtaining a NORP driving licence , leaves the country . ”

“ Where a court disqualifies a person from driving , his driving licence or document issued in lieu thereof shall be sent to the court registry for the procedure laid down in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)-(CARDINAL ) to be carried out .

Where a person is temporarily disqualified from driving , the period for which the driving licence or document issued in lieu thereof has been withdrawn under section CARDINAL , first paragraph , sub - paragraphs ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) shall be set off against the period of disqualification , after deduction of any periods for which the defendant has been detained during that time . ”

“ Anyone who infringes section DATE , final paragraph , shall be liable to a term of imprisonment ranging from DATE to DATE and to a fine ranging from MONEY , or to CARDINAL or other of those penalties alone .

Where there are mitigating circumstances , the fine may be reduced but may not be MONEY .

The penalty shall be doubled if the offender has reoffended within DATE of a previous conviction which has become final . ”

Section CARDINAL of the consolidated Acts of DATE was amended by LAW DATE . Section CARDINAL , thus amended , came into force on DATE . The amendment concerned point CARDINAL : the provision “ … if the driver or person accompanying a learner driver is obviously drunk or exhibits visible signs of being drunk ; ” has been replaced by “ … in the cases referred to under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ; ” .

ORG has ruled that tribunals of fact do not have jurisdiction to assess whether the immediate withdrawal of a driving licence pursuant to sections CARDINAL et seq . of ORG is compatible with the Convention because it is not the role of the courts to criticise the use made by the ORG prosecutor of his powers ( PERSON . , CARDINAL DATE ) . In a judgment of DATE that court specified that “ the withdrawal of a driving licence under LAW of the Law of DATE on the policing of road traffic is not a penalty , but a preventive measure designed to take a dangerous driver off the roads for a specific period of time ” .

Paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of section DATE , reproduced in LAW ORG and also amended by LAW of DATE , provide that a driver may be banned from driving a vehicle for TIME where a breath analysis measures – or breath test detects – a concentration of alcohol of QUANTITY of exhaled breath ; where the driver refuses to submit to a breath test or a breath analysis ; or where it is impossible to carry out such a test for a reason other than the driver ’s refusal and the driver appears drunk or under the influence of alcohol .

The consolidated Acts of CARDINAL DATE also provide , in LAW IV , for disqualification from driving . Disqualification can be ordered by a court as a penalty ( sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) or on grounds of physical unfitness ( sections DATE ) . Disqualification , which can be ordered where the driver has committed CARDINAL of the particular offences referred to in section ORG ) , is usually for a minimum period of DATE and a maximum period of DATE . It can , however , be ordered for a longer period , or permanently , where the driver has left the scene of an accident without reporting it ; has driven without a licence or during a period of disqualification ; or has already been convicted of an offence under section MONEY ) within DATE .


NORP The applicant company was founded in DATE with the aim of constructing a gas supply network for the town of GPE .

On DATE ORG issued a permit for another company , authorising it to construct principal gas pipe sections in CARDINAL streets in GPE . On DATE the applicant filed an administrative appeal . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , holding that the applicant had no locus standi . The applicant sought judicial review on DATE .

After CARDINAL hearings , on DATE the ORG quashed the administrative decisions .

NORP On appeal , on DATE the ORG quashed this decision and dismissed the applicant 's action . It held that the plaintiff had no locus standi in the case , because it could not prove that – in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW the subject matter concerned its rights or lawful interests . Nor could the applicant company ( which itself had not been a party to the administrative proceedings ) prove – as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW that it had suffered prejudice to its lawful interests .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition for review . ORG held hearings on DATE . On the latter occasion , the applicant declared that another administrative litigation concerning its licence to supply gas was in progress . ORG suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the other case .

After the second - instance court on DATE had finally dismissed the applicant 's action concerning the licence , ORG resumed the proceedings . On DATE it upheld ORG decision . It endorsed the reasoning of the second - instance decision , and refuted the applicant 's allegation that it had been deprived of its locus standi without an examination of the merits of the case . In the court 's view , the fact that , after having deduced in a detailed analysis that the applicant company had no locus standi in the case , ORG had not embarked on an examination of the underlying administrative dispute did not amount to a denial of justice .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP citizen , who was born in DATE and presently serves a prison term in LOC ( PERSON zavod GPE - hereinafter the “ LSP ” ) . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Ms PERSON .

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

Following his conviction for murder in DATE the applicant was sent to serve his prison term in the LSP .

It appears from the medical documentation submitted by the Government that since DATE the applicant has suffered from various health complications including problems with his teeth , gastritis , rheumatism and swollen joints .

According to the Government , from DATE the applicant often sought medical help in the ORG ’s dental clinic . He complained about toothache . CARDINAL dentists working there , GPE and TIME , provided the applicant with necessary care , including implantation of fillings . In spite of that treatment , the applicant continued to complain about toothache and CARDINAL of his teeth were pulled out .

On DATE ORG pills ( antibiotic ) were prescribed to the applicant . The expiry date of the pills was DATE .

The applicant still continued to complain about toothache and asked that some other teeth be pulled out . Having doubts as to the applicant ’s allegations , TIME sent the applicant to an oral surgeon on DATE . He decided that there was no need to pull out more teeth . After that the applicant stopped visiting the dental clinic .

According to the applicant he did not receive proper dental care . Instead , he had continuously been given wrong medication and treated with medication which was useless and old . Due to this improper treatment he suffered immense pain and had to have CARDINAL teeth removed .

He once received ORG pills and once ORG pills ( both antibiotics ) . After he took that medication he suffered strong abdominal pain . In DATE he went to a hospital in GPE where he was diagnosed with gastritis . There , he also had CARDINAL teeth pulled out .

When he returned to the LSP the dentists TIME and GPE refused to see him again .

In DATE a new dentist arrived to the Prison dental clinic and he pulled out CARDINAL other of his teeth . Altogether the applicant had CARDINAL teeth pulled out .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Ivancu ) against GPE and TIME , dentists in the LSP , alleging that they had administered him medication whose date of use had already expired . As a consequence he had suffered strong pain and also contracted gastritis . He alleged further that PERSON , the director of the LSP , had abused his office and official authority in so far as he had allowed that the inmates in the LSP receive unhealthy food of low quality .

ORG interviewed GPE and TIME , examined the applicant ’s medical documentation and on DATE dismissed the above complaint , stating that the applicant had failed to show a reasonable suspicion for his allegations . The applicant was instructed that he might takeover the prosecution .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for an investigation with ORG Istražni Odjel Županijskog suda u Varaždinu ) , with the same allegations . The investigating judge of that court instructed the applicant that for the offence allegedly committed by GPE and TIME he had to file a motion for prosecution ( optužni prijedlog ) with the competent municipal court . Concerning the allegations against ORG investigation judge examined the reports on the control of the quality of food served to the inmates in the LSP and did not find inadequacy in the quality of food . He expressed his disagreement with the applicant ’s request and forwarded the case - file to the panel of ORG ( PERSON ) to decide thereon .

On DATE the applicant repeated some of his allegations in a letter to ORG , stating that the dentists in the LSP had administered wrong medication to him .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG ( ORG pravosuđa PERSON ) , alleging that dentist PERSON had poisoned him with wrong medication which had caused him gastritis . He alleged further that he was given the wrong medication and medical treatment by other medical personnel in the prison and was not provided with an adequate diet .

On DATE the above complaint was forwarded to ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG a request for damages caused to him due to the wrong medical treatment and inadequate diet in the LSP .

By letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant that it had no jurisdiction to decide upon the above request and instructed him to file his request for damages against GPE with a regular civil court .

On DATE ORG accepted the investigating judge ’s disagreement with the applicant ’s request for an investigation of DATE . It stated that in respect of the applicant ’s allegations against the medical personnel of the LSP for the offence of medical malpractice the applicant was not entitled , according to the relevant provisions of LAW , to request an investigation but , instead , had to file a motion to indict with the competent court . As regards the applicant ’s allegations against the director of the LSP the court accepted the report submitted by the investigating judge who had found , based on the reports of the inspection regularly conducted in the LSP , that the quality of food for the inmates was adequate .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision to ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG ( PERSON ) a motion to indict PERSON and PERSON , dentists in the prison , and PERSON , the director of the prison . He repeated his allegations against them .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed various of the applicant ’s motions to indict CARDINAL judges of ORG , the director of the LSP , a member of the prison personnel and CARDINAL prison dentists . In respect of the allegations against the prison director , a member of the prison personnel and CARDINAL dentists , the court found that the applicant had previously filed a criminal complaint and a request for an investigation with the public prosecutor , which were dismissed , of alleged medical malpractice and abuse of the office and official authority , while in his motion to indict he had alleged that they had accepted a bribe . Accordingly , he had to file a criminal complaint with the competent public prosecutor for alleged bribing .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG against the medical personnel in the LSP for “ the brutal treatment of the wounded , sick and prisoners of war and medical malpractice ” alleging that they had administered to him wrong medication and failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment for his various illnesses . He also requested compensation for physical and mental suffering caused to him by ill - treatment in prison .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE to ORG .

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG alleging , inter alia , that the LSP authorities had been depriving him of medical assistance .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld ORG decision of DATE accepting the investigating judge ’s disagreement with the applicant ’s request for an investigation .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG decision .

On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) rejected the applicant ’s complaint as inadmissible .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant then filed a constitutional complaint against that decision . On DATE ORG rejected the complaint as inadmissible .

On DATE the ORG director adopted a disciplinary measure against the applicant , ordering solitary confinement for DATE , for using obscene and insulting language against the prison personnel in his letter of DATE sent to ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed a motion with ORG to indict PERSON , the prison director , his deputy and CARDINAL other members of the prison personnel alleging that the deputy director had ordered solitary confinement against him for DATE and that he had threatened to kill the applicant if he continued to file criminal complaints against him . The applicant alleged also that the members of the prison personnel had tortured him , attempted to poison him and prevented him from receiving medical treatment .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the president of GPE repeating his allegations against the prison personnel .

On DATE the applicant appealed to the LSP director against the decision ordering disciplinary measure against him .

On DATE the LSP director dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE the applicant was placed in solitary confinement for DATE .

According to the Government , before he was placed in solitary confinement , the applicant had been examined by a doctor who found that the applicant ’s health condition apart from slight digestive problems and minor back - pain was well .

According to the applicant his health was not well because he suffered pain in his joints which were broken .

On DATE the Minister of ORG visited the applicant in solitary confinement . He talked to the applicant for TIME and the applicant did not complain about his treatment in solitary confinement .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG additional submissions to his previous motions to indict the director of the LSP and CARDINAL other members of the prison authorities . He alleged , inter alia , that the prison authorities had placed him in a solitary confinement for DATE although he was seriously ill and prevented him from using his bed during DATE . In addition he maintained his allegation that the deputy director had threatened to kill him if he continued with his allegations against the prison authorities . The submissions were sent to ORG .

The applicant was medically examined once again DATE after being released from solitary confinement , on DATE because he complained that he had breathing problems . The doctor stated that the applicant had for DATE been suffering from breathing problems through nose , from nose secretion and headache .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG alleging that he had been tortured in the LSP .

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG alleging that the LSP authorities had been confiscating his letters , torturing him and depriving him of medical assistance .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it found no ground to institute criminal proceedings against the LSP personnel . It also pointed out that the applicant had not submitted any evidence in support of his allegations .

On DATE the applicant filed yet another motion with ORG to indict the prison director and CARDINAL other members of the prison authorities , repeating his previous allegations .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG alleging that he had been physically attacked by inmates and prison guards and requesting to be taken to another department .