The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE .

A.

The applicant ’s criminal conviction in DATE

In DATE , during the martial law which was in force in GPE at that time , the applicant was convicted of disseminating anticommunist leaflets .

The proceedings concerning the applicant ’s claim for restitution of property

Apparently in DATE , within the framework of agrarian reform , the applicant ’s father was awarded a plot of land in S. Later his ownership was listed in the land register run by ORG .

In DATE the municipal administration gave a decision by which the plots in S. were taken over by the ORG , pursuant to the DATE Decree allowing for expropriation of agricultural lands which were not used by their owners , considering that the land in question had not been farmed by the applicant ’s father .

In DATE an administrative decision was issued by virtue of ORG of DATE to the effect that a certain PERSON had become the owner of this plot .

The applicant ’s father was also awarded other plots in K. In DATE this land was likewise expropriated by an administrative decision .

In reply to the applicant ’s enquiry about the possibility of restitution of these plots , in a letter of DATE ORG informed him that the plot in S. had been awarded to PERSON pursuant to ORG of DATE and that he had obtained an administrative decision to the effect that he had become the owner of this plot . The plot located in PERSON had been taken over by the ORG under the Decree allowing for expropriation of agricultural lands , which were not used by their owners . Therefore the applicant ’s request for restitution could not be granted .

On an unspecified later date the applicant lodged a civil action against ORG with ORG , claiming that the nationalisation decisions be declared null and void for being unlawful . He further claimed restitution of the plots in PERSON and PERSON and compensation for damage he had sustained as a result of the allegedly unlawful expropriation decisions . He claimed in particular compensation for lost profits resulting from the fact that the farms could not have been used as a result of their nationalisation .

On DATE lCARDINAL the Suwałki ORG refused to entertain the applicant ’s action , considering that civil courts lacked jurisdiction to examine the applicant ’s claims for restitution of property .

The applicant appealed against this decision , claiming that the expropriation decisions were not in conformity with the laws in force at the time when they had been given .

On DATE ORG upheld the contested decision . The court noted that the applicant sought a judicial review of administrative decisions before the civil court and , eventually , a declaration that they should be declared null and void for being unlawful . However , under legal provisions concerning jurisdiction of ordinary courts and of ORG , civil courts lacked jurisdiction to examine appeals against administrative decisions . The court observed that had ordinary courts been allowed to examine appeals against administrative decisions , this could have led to situations in which contradictions would arise between final decisions rendered by the courts and by the administrative court in respect of the same administrative decision . The court further observed that both decisions about which the applicant complained could not be reviewed in any judicial proceedings . The court referred in this respect to the decision of ORG of DATE ( decision III CZP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Consequently , the decision under appeal was in conformity with the law .

On an unspecified later date the applicant lodged with ORG an appeal against the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeals , considering that under LAW Supreme Administrative Court Act an administrative decision could not be appealed against to that court if administrative proceedings in which the decision had been rendered , had been instituted before DATE .

On DATE the Minister of ORG refused to lodge an extraordinary appeal against this decision , finding that it was in conformity with the law .

The applicant ’s efforts to be awarded veteran status

By a letter of DATE the Veterans’ Office informed the applicant that his request to have veteran status awarded to him could not be satisfied . It was further stated that he had been convicted in DATE , whereas the Veterans’ Act provided for granting veteran status only to persons who had been persecuted by the communist authorities in DATE . Therefore he did not meet the relevant legal requirements .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG which was rejected on DATE , the ORG considering that no appeal to the court against an information of an administrative body lay , and that no administrative decision had been given in the applicant ’s case .

The proceedings concerning the applicant ’s social insurance entitlements

On DATE ORG quashed a decision of ORG concerning the applicant ’s retirement benefits and ordered that the case be reconsidered and that the ORG issues a new decision .

On DATE the ORG gave a new decision . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against a decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against this judgment .

On DATE ORG , in reply to the applicant ’s constitutional complaint , informed him that his complaint did not comply with the relevant legal requirements since it had not been drafted and signed by a lawyer . He was further informed that the constitutional complaint could not be lodged as an ordinary appeal against individual judicial or administrative decisions , but that its purpose was to call in question the compatibility with the LAW of legal provisions , which served as a legal basis for an individual decision .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant legal aid to be paid by the legal aid scheme , and a lawyer was assigned to represent him in the proceedings before ORG . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the lawyer informed the applicant that his complaints did not satisfy the requirements of the constitutional complaint as set out by law .

The applicant complained to ORG . By a letter of DATE ORG informed him that the lawyer ’s conduct was not open to criticism , given that the constitutional complaint could not be lodged against individual decisions . ORG could only examine whether laws which had served as a basis for an individual decision were compatible with LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against a decision of ORG concerning the calculation of periods giving rise to the applicant ’s retirement pension .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Administrative proceedings by which a final administrative decision can be declared null and void

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that an appeal can be lodged against a second - instance administrative decision with ORG on the ground that the decision is not in conformity with the law . LAW states that the ORG shall set the decision aside wholly or in part if it establishes that the decision was issued in breach of substantive law ; that the proceedings leading to the decision were flawed with a deficiency which led to the decision being null and void ; or if such procedural shortcomings had occurred in the proceedings leading to the decision which would justify reopening of the proceedings .

LAW permits the amendment or annulment of any final administrative decision at any time where necessary in the general or individual interest if this is not prohibited by specific legal provisions . In particular , a final administrative decision can be annulled if it has been issued by an authority , which had no jurisdiction or without a legal basis or contrary to the applicable law .

In DATE , by virtue of ORG , the judicial review of second - instance administrative decisions was introduced . LAW relating to temporal scope of its jurisdiction provided that an administrative decision could not be appealed against to the ORG if administrative proceedings in which the decision had been given , had been instituted before DATE .

Provisions concerning the regulation of ownership of agricultural property

Article CARDINAL of ORG of DATE provides that the general provisions of LAW concerning amendment or annulment of final administrative decisions do not apply to decisions confirming the ownership of agricultural real property issued in accordance with ORG of DATE .

A decision of ORG of DATE states that LAW does not confer a right to claim before a civil court that such decisions be declared null and void ( decision III CZP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Veteran status

The PERSON of DATE on NORP and Other Victims of War and Post - War Repression repealed the PERSON of CARDINAL DATE on the Special Status of Veterans and enacted new criteria on which veteran status can be granted .

Under LAW , which was subsequently replaced by LAW , veteran status gives rise to various special employment and social insurance entitlements . The periods of veteran service are taken into account in calculating the periods giving rise to seniority . The same periods are multiplied by CARDINAL in calculating periods giving rise to a retirement pension . Veterans who remain in employment are entitled to CARDINAL days’ additional paid leave per year . They are entitled to retire earlier than other employees : women at DATE , and men at DATE , if they have satisfied another requirement for the acquisition of a retirement pension , i.e. if they have worked for periods set out in LAW . The retired veterans are further entitled to the special veterans’ benefit , paid together with their retirement pension as a certain fixed sum .

Constitutional complaint

Under LAW DATE , every person whose constitutionally guaranteed rights or freedoms were breached , is entitled , pursuant to procedure set out by a statute , to lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG , claiming that a statute law enacted by ORG ( PERSON ) or other legal provision , which served as a legal basis for a final judicial or administrative decision by which his or her rights , freedoms of obligations were determined , are incompatible with the LAW .


Preliminary objection joined to merits (victim);No violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-2;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP police in GPE on the basis of an international arrest warrant issued by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . The applicant was suspected of attempted murder . Following his extradition by the NORP authorities , he was placed in FAC on DATE and remanded in custody .

On DATE ORG referred the applicant ’s case to ORG , charging him with attempted murder , aggravated robbery and the unlawful possession of a weapon .

On DATE an assize court ( Geschwornengericht ) sitting at ORG acquitted the applicant of all the charges against him .

The operative provisions and grounds of the judgment read as follows :

“ PERSON is acquitted of the charges brought against him , namely that , on DATE in PERSON , acting as an accomplice to his brother PERSON , who was prosecuted in separate proceedings ,

he had attempted to murder PERSON and PERSON by stabbing PERSON left thigh , left hand , upper part of the body and throat and by shooting at his head which had been grazed by a bullet , ...

he had taken unlawfully by force , as described under point CARDINAL . ) , and with a weapon the luggage of PERSON and PERSON which contained about ATS CARDINAL in different currencies ;

he had unlawfully possessed and carried a revolver ; ...

in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Strafprozessordnung ) .

Grounds

The acquittal is founded on the jury ’s verdict . ”

According to the record of the jury ’s deliberations ( PERSON ) , as regards the attempted murder charge , the jury found , in dubio pro reo , that the applicant ’s defence could not be refuted . In this respect , they noted that the applicant had been alone and the weapon had been in the possession of PERSON and PERSON who had not testified at the trial . As regards the second charge of taking property by force , the jury considered that the applicant had had no intention to commit a robbery . Finally , concerning the unlawful possession of a revolver , they noted that the weapon had been in the possession of PERSON and PERSON and that the applicant had only taken it in the course of the fight .

Upon pronouncement of the judgment , at the same hearing , defence counsel applied for the applicant ’s release and for compensation for pecuniary damage caused by his detention on remand . The prosecutor opposed the claim . The hearing was interrupted for the court to deliberate , but the compensation decision was not announced there and then as the judgment was not yet final . On resumption , the applicant ’s release was ordered and the trial closed .

The decision of the assize court of DATE , dismissing the applicant ’s request for compensation , was served upon the applicant ’s counsel on DATE . In that decision , the assize court found that the conditions laid down by sectionCARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of ORG DATE ( Strafrechtliches Entschädigungsgesetz – “ the DATE LAW ) were not satisfied . In its opinion ,

“ A claim to compensation under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of the Compensation ( Criminal Proceedings ) Act ... is conditional on the applicant being cleared of the suspicion of which he was the object in the proceedings . A person who has been detained is so cleared only if all the suspicious circumstances telling against him have been satisfactorily explained , so that they cease to constitute an argument for the suspect ’s guilt .

Having regard to the record of the jury ’s deliberations , who expressly referred to the principle of ‘ in dubio pro reo’ when answering the first main question , it had to be assumed that the suspicion against the applicant had not been dispelled . This circumstance was decisive for the decision of the assize court to refuse the request for compensation . ”

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) , arguing that the reasoning of the assize court was wrong . Reference was also made to LAW and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG in the case of GPE v. GPE ( Series A no . CARDINAL-A ) .

On DATE ORG , sitting in private , dismissed the appeal as being unfounded . The reasons for its decision started with a summary of ORG decision . They went on to refute the applicant ’s objections as to ORG interpretation of the record of the jury ’s deliberations , confirming that the conditions of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) of the DATE Act were not met . Further , it was stated that the applicant ’s reference to the judgment of ORG in the PERSON case was not relevant as there was no new and independent assessment of guilt in the present case . Finally , it was held that ORG had correctly refused to take further evidence .

Following the ORG ’s admissibility decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) , upon the Attorney General ’s plea of nullity for the preservation of the law as regards the lack of publicity ( Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes ) , found on DATE that there had been a violation of section QUANTITY of LAW , taken in conjunction with LAW CARDINALof the Convention , in that ORG decision of DATE had not been pronounced publicly , a deficiency which had not been remedied by ORG when taking its decision of CARDINAL DATE . Therefore , ORG ordered ORG to pronounce its decision of CARDINAL DATE in public .

On DATE ORG complied with this order , pronouncing its decision of DATE at a public hearing .

Under CARDINAL of LAW , the assize court must acquit the accused as soon as the jury has answered the question of guilt in the negative .

The relevant provisions of the Compensation ( Criminal Proceedings ) Act DATE read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A right to compensation arises : ...

( b ) where the injured party has been placed in detention or remanded in custody by a domestic court on suspicion of having committed an offence making him liable to criminal prosecution in GPE ... and is subsequently acquitted of the alleged offence or otherwise freed from prosecution and the suspicion that he committed the offence has been dispelled or the prosecution is excluded on other grounds , in so far as these grounds existed when he was arrested ; ... ”

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) A court which acquits a person or otherwise frees him from prosecution ... ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) or ( c ) ) must decide either of its own motion or at the request of the individual in question or the public prosecutor ’s office whether the conditions for compensation under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) or ( c ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) have been satisfied or whether there is a ground for refusal under section CARDINAL . If the judgment was based on the verdict of a jury , the bench shall decide together with the jury . ...

( CARDINAL ) Once the judgment rendered in the criminal proceedings has become final , the decision , which need not be made public , must , as part of the proceedings provided for in paragraph CARDINAL , be served on the detained or convicted person personally and on the public prosecutor ...

( CARDINAL ) The detained or convicted person and the public prosecutor may appeal against the decision to a higher court within DATE . ... ”

As a general rule , there is no public hearing in ORG . ORG rules after sitting in private .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled on the constitutionality of LAW . It found that this provision in itself did not violate LAW which , under NORP law , has the force of constitutional law . In the light of the GPE v. GPE case ( judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , it held that it was not the refusal of a claim for compensation which was contrary to the LAW , but the re - examination of the question of guilt after a final acquittal . In ORG view only the separate re - assessment of evidence on the basis of the contents of the whole court file was likely to infringe the presumption of innocence . Nevertheless , ORG observed that it would be desirable to amend section DATE ) of the DATE Act in order to clarify the law .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was injured in a car accident . The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company GPE .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against GPE in ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL NORP tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

DATE and DATE he made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE , none was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

During the proceedings , the court appointed a medical expert .

At the last hearing , the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant DATE

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .


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

The applicant had been on board the seal hunting vessel M / S Harmoni ( “ the NORP ” ) during DATE as a freelance journalist , author and photographer . On DATE Mr PERSON applied to ORG to be appointed seal hunting inspector for DATE on board the NORP . Following his appointment on DATE he served on board the ORG from DATE to DATE , when the vessel returned to its port in GPE .

Thereafter , and until DATE , PERSON published CARDINAL articles on PERSON inspection , including his entire inspection report ( of DATE ) .

In the meantime , by DATE , ORG had decided to exempt the report from public disclosure with reference to the nature of the allegations – criminal conduct – and to the need to give the persons named in the report an opportunity to comment . On DATE the ORG was reported to have stated that veterinary experts would consider the controversial PERSON report . On DATE the ORG expressed doubts as to the applicant ’s competence and the quality of the report .

PERSON report continued to receive a wide coverage in other media as well . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE extensive excerpts from the report were published in GPE , a bi - weekly for fishermen .

Over DATE the debate about Mr PERSON ’s report died out until DATE , when he gave a press conference in GPE . A film entitled “ Seal Mourning ” ( containing footage shot by PERSON from the NORP ) showed certain breaches of the seal hunting regulations . PERSON from the film were broadcast by the ORG ( ORG ) DATE and the entire film was broadcast by NORP TVCARDINAL on DATE . During DATE scenes from the film were broadcast by CARDINAL broadcasting companies world - wide , including ORG and ORG .

On account of various publications of allegations by the applicant to the effect that certain seal hunters had violated ORG issued by ORG and some instance LAW , the CARDINAL crew members of NORP brought , mostly with success , a series of defamation proceedings against the applicant and a number of media corporations and companies , including PERSON and its former editor .

In the defamation case against the applicant himself , ORG ( byrett ) held in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE that a number of his statements were defamatory and should be declared null and void and ordered him to pay compensation to the CARDINAL plaintiffs . Leave to appeal was refused by ORG of ORG in DATE . A more detailed account of those proceedings is given here below . On DATE he lodged an application ( no . ORG ) with the former ORG Rights alleging violations of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL of the ORG , which the Commission declared inadmissible on DATE as having been lodged out of time .

The defamation case against PERSON and its former editor also became the subject matter of an application ( no . CARDINAL ) lodged under the LAW , in which the newspaper and its former editor disputed ORG ( herredsrett ) findings of CARDINAL DATE ( against which ORG had refused leave to appeal on DATE ) that its publication of several statements from the applicant ’s report ( crew in specific instances “ beat to death a female harp seal which was protecting her pup ” ; “ Seals skinned alive ” ; the applicant was “ being beaten up by furious hunters , who also threatened to hit him on the head with a gaff if he did not keep quiet . ” ) made them liable for defamation and that the statements should be declared null and void : In its PERSON and PERSON v. GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( [ MONEY ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-III ) , the ORG , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , found that there had been a violation of LAW with regard to the newspaper and the former editor ( see paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment and point CARDINAL of the operative provisions ) .

The present application relates to the NORP ORG refusal to prevent the enforcement in GPE ( where the applicant lived ) of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the defamation proceedings against the applicant on account of similar or comparable allegations . For a broader view of the factual background of the case complex , the context of the impugned allegations and also details of NORP defamation law , the ORG refers to paragraphs DATE of its above - cited judgment .

In DATE the crew members of the ORG had instituted defamation proceedings against Mr PERSON before ORG , referring to statements which he had made about them in respect of the DATE and DATE hunting seasons , in his report of CARDINAL DATE , in a television programme “ Antenne CARDINAL ” broadcast by ORG on DATE and the film broadcast by the NORP TVCARDINAL on DATE in its programme “ LOC ” ( Environment pictures ) . They sought the mortification of certain statements imputing reprehensible conduct on the part of the crew . The plaintiffs further requested a prohibition against the publication of the report and of film footage taken by the applicant during the seal hunt on LOC in DATE and DATE .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( extending to CARDINAL pages ) , ORG , after holding an oral hearing DATE , found for the applicant with regard to some of the impugned statements but declared CARDINAL statements in his inspection report null and void under LAW , as well as CARDINAL other statements made by him in television programmes :

In the report

i “ Finally , it is my firm opinion that every seal in the hunting area was to be put to death – no matter the cost or risk . ”

ii “ The sharp end of the gaff was forcefully driven into the head of the animal by an intoxicated man . ”

ii “ Some of these people seem to have an excessive , raw lifestyle . ”

iv “ Since I thought the mental health of [ Mr. PERSON ] was unbalanced ( DATE I made the same observation reg . this man ) I found it best to avoid the man for the rest of DATE . ”

v “ When the hunter realises that he has failed – that he is the loosing party DATE he kills the female ... .The hunter always invokes self - defence as an excuse for killing the female – who is able to prove the contrary ? ”

In the TVCARDINAL programme

vi “ Due to the present conditions , it is a tragedy to the seal , to GPE as a nation it is a scandal – that the set of rules , as it is drafted by ORG , is violated nearly to PERCENT . ”

In the ORG programme

vii “ I often saw these whitecoats , bluebacks also for that matter , being kicked to death or being stamped to death when they came on board . ”

ORG further prohibited the applicant from making accessible to the relevant public film footage , where the plaintiffs could be identified , and ordered him to pay to each of them ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , plus ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of profits he had obtained through illegal publication of the film , as well as legal costs .

ORG reasoning , which went CARDINAL pages or so , included a detailed analysis of , inter alia , the contents of the impugned allegations , with an assessment of whether they were defamatory in character ; whether the applicant had adduced sufficient proof to establish the veracity of those allegations that were found defamatory , the justification of the request for a prohibition on publication and compensation .

The applicant ’s request for leave to appeal against the judgment was rejected by ORG of ORG ( Høyesteretts Kjæremålsutvalg ) on DATE .

The applicant opposed the execution of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . Since he was residing in GPE , the crew members requested ORG ( kronofogdemyndigheten ) of GPE to execute the award of compensation and costs made in the said judgment . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay certain specified sums . The applicant lodged a judicial appeal against that decision , invoking that the CARDINAL DATE judgment violated his right to freedom of expression under LAW .

In proceedings to which the CARDINAL crew members were parties , ORG ( tingsrätt ) , by a decision ( beslut ) of DATE , rejected the applicant ’s claim . It noted that the impugned matter predated the entry into force of the DATE LAW ( on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ) for GPE and GPE ( respectively on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , so it fell to be considered under LAW CARDINAL:CARDINAL regarding ORG judgments in the area of GPE , section CARDINAL § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of which provided that a judgment which was obviously incompatible with the NORP public order should not be recognised or implemented in GPE . According to the preparatory works this provision should be applied with great caution . In practice it had only been applied in narrowly defined and exceptional circumstances , when there was question of principles fundamental to the NORP legal system and provisions protecting the interests of a weaker party . In this respect ORG observed that the principle of exclusive responsibility on the part of the publisher of an allegation in a periodical or a film was a very important part of the NORP constitutional protection of free speech . That principle did not exist in the NORP legal system , under which several persons might incur liability with respect to the contents of a periodical or a television programme . However , this difference between the NORP and the NORP law , albeit decisive in part for the outcome before ORG , did not amount to an exceptional circumstance warranting the application of the public order provision in LAW . Accordingly , there was no obstacle to recognition and enforcement of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . Nor could that judgment be said to breach the Convention .

The applicant appealed to ORG ) of LOC which by a decision of DATE upheld ORG reasoning in the main and its conclusion that public order considerations did not prevent the execution of the NORP court ’s judgment in GPE .

ORG held that it was not for a NORP court to review compatibility with the LAW beyond considering what followed from the NORP public order rules . Of particular interest were the rules on exclusive responsibility of the publisher and the limitations on the possibilities for bringing compensation proceedings against persons other than the publisher of a programme . The question was whether it would be inconsistent with fundamental principles of NORP law to allow enforcement of the compensation award against the applicant for statements with respect to which he would not have been made liable under NORP law . Since the Freedom of the Press Act ( tryckfrihetsförordningen , an instrument forming part of LAW ) only applied to printed matters which had been published , it could not apply to the report published by the newspaper without ORG consent . The applicant ’s statements during television programmes , on the other hand , were such that they were covered by the principle of the publisher ’s exclusive responsibility . The legal grounds on which the applicant was made liable to pay compensation differed in part from the NORP rules . In particular he would not have been liable with regard to the statements made during the television programmes .

In the assessment of whether execution of the NORP judgment would be obviously incompatible with the fundamental principles of the NORP legal order , ORG had special regard to its consideration that a restrictive attitude ought to be adopted in matters that had particular links to the other ORG . The applicant ’s statements concerned NORP matters and an activity in that country which did not concern NORP interests beyond those of public opinion .

On a further appeal by the applicant , ORG ( ORG domstolen ) , by a decision of DATE , upheld the lower courts’ decision . It gave the following reasons :

“ A first question arising is whether , in a case concerning enforcement , there is an obligation under the Convention for NORP authorities to examine the conformity of a foreign judgment with the Convention .

ORG has been inclined to consider enforcement proceedings following a judgment as part of the proceedings concerning the determination of civil rights and obligations ( see PERSON , PERSON rättigheter i europeisk praxis pp CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The ORG ’s judgment in GPE v GPE , dealing with an issue of enforcement in GPE of a criminal judgment delivered in GPE , could be interpreted to mean that in cases of flagrant denial of justice in foreign proceedings , a certain review ought to be carried out prior to the execution of a criminal judgment ( see PERSON , ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .

In these circumstances ORG finds that an examination ought to be made of [ the applicant ’s ] submission that ORG judgment must not be executed on the grounds that it violates LAW . It can , however , not be a question of undertaking a complete review of ORG judgment . Such a scheme would cause an excessive burden to the international co - operation aimed at facilitating the execution of judgments in countries other than that where the judgment was delivered ( cp . , PERSON , ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .

It is also apparent that a court in the ORG of origin is normally better placed than an authority in the ORG of enforcement to make certain assessments , for example evidentiary matters and the application of the national law of the ORG of origin . Normally the proceedings in that ORG have been complete and afforded the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence and legal arguments in support for their case . This can be presumed to be the case especially with respect to GPE which have ratified the Convention ( cp . , PERSON , ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .

In the relations among the Convention States themselves it should normally suffice for the authority in the country of execution to pursue a rather summary assessment in verifying whether the judgment is in conformity with the Convention . However , should there , for example on a claim by a party , emerge circumstances that would make it questionable whether the judgment fulfils the requirements in the ORG , a closer scrutiny must be carried out .

According to paragraph CARDINAL of LAW everyone has a right to freedom of expression . Pursuant to the second paragraph this right may be subjected to certain limitations , provided that they are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society inter alia for the protection of the reputation of others . If a person has made a defamatory statement against another person and the case is brought before a court , the court has to weigh the former ’s interest in enjoying his right to freedom of expression against the latter ’s interest in protecting his personal integrity . As a principle , the person who has made a defamatory allegation against another person must be able to prove that the statement is true . This applies in particular if the statement includes an allegation that the person pointed at has committed a criminal offence . The person who has made the statement must however not be imposed with an unreasonable burden of proof ( see ORG judgment in PERSON [ of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ] ) .

The balance that shall be struck between the interest of freedom of expression and the interest of protecting the reputation of an individual may depend on who is the victim of the defamatory allegation and the accusation ’s importance to public debate . A politician , for instance , must be prepared to accept more than a private person . The same holds true for political and other institutions . If the allegation is part of a public debate or serves to enlighten on a question of public interest , that is a factor that carries great weight .

In the examination of ORG judgment to be carried out in the present enforcement case , ORG finds from the outset that it must be deemed acceptable that ORG has placed the burden of proof on [ the applicant ] with regard to the truth of his statements . ORG further finds no reason to question the establishment of facts made by ORG . It must , amongst other , be taken into account that ORG held an oral hearing of the case DATE and must be assumed to have had ample opportunity to go into the different issues of the case . Finally , as regards to the balancing of interest to be carried out between [ the applicant ’s ] right to freedom of expression and each individual seal hunters’ interest in protecting his reputation , regard must be had inter alia to the fact that the subject that [ the applicant ] raised in the debate was of great public interest and that he had the mission to serve as a seal hunting inspector and had special reasons for expressing himself . Against this it should be weighed that the applicant ’s statements were not pointed at seal hunters in general but at individual persons and that these persons did not occupy a position suggesting that they should accept to be pointed at in the same way as public persons . Having regard to these circumstances , ORG finds that ORG assessment did not entail a violation of [ the applicant ’s ] right to freedom of expression under LAW . There is thus no hindrance under this Article to the enforcement of ORG judgment .

As regards the question whether there are obstacles to enforcement of ORG judgment in view of public order considerations it should be underlined that , generally speaking , only in exceptional cases can there be question of refusing enforcement of a judgment on such grounds ... This applies especially when there is question of enforcement of a judgment delivered in another NORP country .

The issue of NORP public order in this case concerns firstly [ the applicant ’s ] participation in the film that was shown on NORP television . This participation should be considered against the background of the principles on the freedom to impart information under LAW ( tryckfrihetsförordiningen , an instrument forming part of LAW ) and LAW ( yttrandefrihetsgrundlagen ) . According to this principle everyone is free to provide information for publication by a printed matter , by radio or television broadcast or other medium , which enjoy special constitutional protection . A person who contributes in this way to the creation of for example a television programme ( except in certain circumstances which do not apply here ) , is free from criminal liability and liability to pay compensation , which instead lay on the publisher and , in the case of liability to pay compensation , on the company . LAW is certainly not applicable to the NORP television programme , as it was shown before the entry into force of the constitutional provisions on DATE , though corresponding provisions existed under LAW DATE on ORG .

The freedom to impart information is a fundamental principle under LAW ... It must therefore be assumed that NORP public order considerations bar the enforcement in GPE of a foreign judgment imposing criminal punishment or an award of compensation , where the establishment of liability on the other country constitutes a circumvention of the NORP constitutional protection of persons who contribute to the preparation of a presentation in any of the constitutionally protected media . However , NORP public order considerations can not go as far as to always protect a person who has contributed to a programme shown on NORP television against the enforcement of a foreign judgment concerning liability for participation in the programme . Thus , a person who defames another person in a programme shown in another country , which is later shown in GPE , can not , as a rule , avoid enforcement of a judgment delivered in the [ first ] country establishing that defamation has occurred there . The conclusion is that in an enforcement matter , the question whether there are circumstances warranting the refusal of enforcement in GPE must be considered on a case - by - case basis .

As regards the film in question it has been stated that it was shown at press conferences in GPE and GPE , in which [ the applicant ] participated , DATE before it was broadcast on NORP television . On DATE as the press conferences took place , the film was also broadcast by LANGUAGE television . It does not appear clearly from ORG judgment what instances of visioning of the film gave rise to liability , but there is no reason for assuming that it did not concern also those instances that did not occur in GPE . Even if a greater NORP public could view the film only when it was broadcast by NORP television , in the above - mentioned circumstances and the situation as a whole , it can not be considered against NORP public order to enforce the NORP judgment in this point .

Nor were there any other public order grounds constituting a hinder to the requested enforcement . ”


Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE and is currently serving a life sentence in FAC .

The applicant was sought by the law - enforcement authorities for complicity in a number of criminal offences , including CARDINAL murders , committed in DATE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and on DATE he was extradited to GPE .

On DATE ORG , sitting as the court of first instance , convicted the applicant of complicity in CARDINAL counts of murder , several counts of theft , illegal possession and sale of weapons , and hooliganism . The sentences for these offences were merged , and the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment and confiscation of property .

Following his conviction , in DATE the applicant was transferred to the CARDINALth wing of Bayil Prison , formerly designated for convicts sentenced to death .

On DATE he was transferred to FAC , located outside GPE , where he is currently detained . The applicant is held , together with CARDINAL other inmate , in a cell measuring QUANTITY high . The cell has CARDINAL beds , a small bedside cupboard , and CARDINAL small table and CARDINAL chairs fixed to the cell floor . The toilet area is separated from the rest of the cell . The floor and ceiling are made of stone and concrete respectively . The temperature inside the cell is very high in DATE and very low in DATE . Central heating is available , but insufficient .

The window has metal bars and no pane and , in DATE , is closed with a transparent polyethylene film . The air inside is stale and the cell can not be naturally ventilated . The food served in the prison is often of poor quality and lacks sufficient meat and vitamins , and the menu is unvaried and monotonous . The inmates are allowed TIME outdoor exercise a day .

After his transfer to FAC , the applicant was detained respectively in cell CARDINAL in the CARDINALth unit and in cell CARDINAL in the CARDINALth unit . Since DATE he has been detained in cell CARDINAL in the CARDINALth unit . All these cells are intended for CARDINAL prisoners and their size is QUANTITY m.

The conditions of the applicant ’s detention meet all the national and international requirements and standards . The window of the cell can be opened from the inside . The window is large enough and does not prevent the entrance of natural light and fresh air . The cell is also provided with electric lamps , a ventilator and a radio set .

NORP Since DATE the prisoners have had the right to watch TV for TIME a day and TIME at weekends and holidays . The prison has a library accessible to the prisoners . The sanitary conditions are normal and the food is of good quality . The applicant has the right to TIME ’s outdoor exercise a day .

When he arrived at FAC , he was in good health and was not suffering from any illness . In Bayil Prison , the applicant was initially placed in a cell which had previously accommodated inmates who were suffering from contagious conditions , and which had not been disinfected .

In DATE the applicant was transferred to another cell , which he shared with A. , an inmate suffering from tuberculosis . According to the applicant , he contracted tuberculosis from his cellmate . He began to feel the first symptoms of the disease shortly after his transfer to that cell . He had been in the same cell as A. from DATE , from DATE to DATE or DATE and from DATE to DATE .

During that period inmates of the CARDINALth wing of Bayil Prison who were suffering from tuberculosis were generally not transferred to any specialised medical facilities but received treatment while remaining in their cells . There was a high mortality rate among inmates suffering from tuberculosis .

Following his transfer to FAC , in DATE the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis . By that time , he had lost a significant amount of weight and was coughing blood . On DATE he was transferred for in - patient treatment to ORG with Tuberculosis . He received treatment based on ORG DOTS ( Directly Observed Treatment , Short Course ) programme .

On DATE the applicant was transferred back to Gobustan Prison , where he continued to receive outpatient treatment . CARDINAL October CARDINAL , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE the applicant was sent to various medical facilities for examination and inpatient treatment .

According to a statement issued on DATE by ORG following the applicant ’s latest examination and in - patient treatment , the applicant was diagnosed with , inter alia , focal tuberculosis of the upper lobes of both lungs in the consolidation phase and residual symptoms of tuberculosis .

The Government submitted that it was doubtful that the applicant had contracted tuberculosis in LOC . When he was sharing a cell with A. in DATE the latter had recovered and his disease was not contagious . In this regard , the Government noted that the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis in DATE , when he was in FAC .

The applicant was sent to ORG with Tuberculosis , where he received in - patient treatment on the basis of the ORG programme of the ORG . The applicant ’s treatment lasted until DATE and after his recovery he was transferred back to FAC .

On DATE the applicant received outpatient treatment with vitamins . On DATE this treatment was completed and the applicant ’s health was considered satisfactory . On DATE and DATE and on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor and no deterioration of his health was observed .

NORP The applicant was subsequently examined , on DATE , on DATE , on DATE and on DATE , by a group of doctors in FAC . According to each examination , the applicant was diagnosed with clinically recovered pulmonary tuberculosis and prescribed dispensary supervision .

From DATE the applicant was examined in the prison medical unit and , according to the clinic laboratory and X - ray examination results , there was no need for in - patient treatment .

NORP In DATE the applicant was again instructed to go to the medical unit , however he refused to go there because of his religious fast .

Following examinations on CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant ’s health was pronounced fully improved and it was stated that there was no need for any special treatment under the ORG programme .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against the Bayil Prison authorities , seeking compensation for damage caused to his health . He claimed that the prison authorities were directly responsible for his having contracted tuberculosis , taking into account the poor conditions of detention and the fact that he had been held in the same cells as inmates with tuberculosis . In support of his claims he submitted written statements by other inmates who had previously been detained in Bayil Prison . The applicant further asked the court to ensure his presence at the hearings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim , finding that the applicant had failed to prove that he had been deliberately placed in a cell with inmates who were ill and had contracted tuberculosis as a result . The court further held that , in such circumstances , FAC authorities could not be considered to have ill - treated the applicant in any way . Concerning the written statements of other inmates detained at that time in Bayil Prison , the court held that these statements were not reliable , because as former inmates of Bayil Prison the authors of these statements could be biased against the administration of Bayil Prison .

The applicant was not personally present at the hearings of the firstinstance court , but was represented . The judgment of the first - instance court was silent as to the applicant ’s request on his attendance at the hearing .

The applicant lodged an appeal , reiterating his previous complaints and his request for leave to appear at the hearings . On DATE , having examined the applicant ’s appeal in the absence of the applicant and his representative , ORG rejected the appeal , finding that the applicant ’s arguments were unsubstantiated . Following the applicant ’s cassation appeal , on CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for a new examination . ORG found that ORG had neither examined the question of the applicant ’s participation in the appeal hearing nor informed his representative about the time and place of the hearing . The relevant part of ORG decision read as follows :

“ As a court of full jurisdiction under LAW , the appellate court which examines the case on its merits on the basis of the evidence in the file or additionally submitted evidence , did not discuss the question of N. PERSON ’s impossibility to exercise his right to attend the hearings because of his imprisonment , thus independent of his will , and did not take any measure or decision in order to ensure his presence at the hearings . PERSON representative was not informed of the place and date of the hearing . Therefore , PERSON was deprived of the possibility to attend the hearing on his case and to benefit from the procedural rights provided for by LAW .

On DATE , having examined the case in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of his representative , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld ORG judgment of DATE . The appellate court ’s judgment was silent as to the applicant ’s request for leave to appear .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal and upheld ORG judgment . The proceedings before ORG were held in the applicant ’s absence , but in the presence of his lawyer . ORG noted that the absence of the applicant was not a ground for quashing the appellate court ’s judgment , because the applicant had been represented in those proceedings . ORG also noted that the applicant ’s personal presence was not mandatory and his presence should be secured only if the court considered it necessary . The relevant part of ORG decision read as follows :

“ It appears from the legislation that the right to call a person who is represented before the court by a representative , to attend the hearing in person belong to the court which examines the case , only if this court considers it necessary , and the application of this provision is not mandatory ...

... taking into consideration the fact that PERSON presence at the hearing was not necessary , because he was represented by his representative when the appellate court examined the case , the panel of court considers unfounded to quash the judgment for the lack of PERSON presence at the hearing . ”

In DATE , the applicant lodged a civil action against the Gobustan Prison authorities , seeking compensation for damage caused to his health . He complained in particular that adequate medical assistance was not available in FAC . The application was drafted in NORP .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s complaint . The court held that the application had been drafted in NORP , not in NORP , which is the official language of the country , and that no justification had been given for drafting the application in NORP .

Following an appeal by the applicant against this decision , ORG agreed to hear the applicant ’s complaint and on DATE held a preliminary hearing . At the request of the applicant ’s representative , the court commissioned an expert report on the applicant ’s illness and adjourned the proceedings .

The proceedings were then adjourned because of the expiration of the power of attorney of the applicant ’s representative . On DATE the court decided to leave the applicant ’s complaint unexamined due to the failure of both the claimant and the defendant to attend the hearing .

The proceedings were subsequently continued and on DATE ORG delivered a judgment on the merits . The court dismissed the applicant ’s complaint , noting that the applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance after he was diagnosed with tuberculosis . The court also held that the applicant ’s allegations had not been confirmed by the expert opinion , according to which it was impossible to establish that the applicant had contracted tuberculosis in prison .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the first - instance court ’s judgment and reiterated his previous complaints .

NORP The proceedings before the appellate court are still pending .

NORP Parties to civil proceedings may appear before a court in person or act through their representative ( Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( “ the ORG ” ) ) .

The Code on Execution of Punishments ( “ the CEP ” ) provides that a convicted person may be transferred from a prison to an investigative unit if his participation is required as a witness , suspect or accused in connection with certain investigative measures ( LAW ) . The ORG is silent as to the possibility for a convicted person to take part in civil proceedings , whether as a plaintiff or a defendant .


Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election)

Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He stood for the elections to ORG ( PERSON ) of DATE as a candidate of the opposition bloc GPE .

The applicant was registered as a candidate by ORG ( “ the ConEC ” ) for the single - mandate ORG no . CARDINAL .

There were a total of CARDINAL polling stations in the constituency . At the end of DATE , the applicant obtained copies of official records of election results ( səsvermənin nəticələrinə dair protokol ) drawn up by all CARDINAL Polling Station Electoral Commissions ( “ PECs ” ) . According to the copies of the ORG records in the applicant ’s possession , he received the majority of votes in the constituency .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , claiming that , after the submission of all the ORG records of results to the ConEC , the ORG records for ORG . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE had been falsified in favour of CARDINAL of his opponents .

On DATE the ORG acknowledged receipt of the applicant ’s complaint and also notified him that , on DATE , it had issued a decision to invalidate the election results for the entire ORG no . CARDINAL . The decision , in its entirety , stated as follows :

“ Pursuant to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of LAW and sections CARDINAL of the PERSON of CARDINAL DATE on Approval and Entry into Force of LAW , ORG decides :

To invalidate the election results in Polling Stations nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of ORG no . CARDINAL due to impermissible alterations [ “ yolverilməz düzəlişlər ” ] made to the ORG records of election results [ “ protokollar ” ] of those polling stations as well as infringements of the law [ “ qanun pozuntuları ” ] which made it impossible to determine the will of the voters .

To invalidate the election results in ORG no . CARDINAL due to the fact that the number of polling stations in which the election results have been invalidated constitutes CARDINAL of the total number of polling stations in the constituency and that the number of voters registered in those polling stations constitutes CARDINAL of the total number of voters in the constituency . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG , arguing that the findings in the ORG decision were wrong . He argued that , while the ORG decision stated that “ impermissible alterations ” had been made to the results records of CARDINAL PECs , in reality such alterations had been made to the records of CARDINAL PECs ( in FAC . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) . As for the ORG records for other polling stations , the photocopies of the same ORG records which were in his possession did not contain any such alterations or changes . According to those ORG records ( and excluding the ORG records for ORG . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) , he had obtained the highest number of votes in the constituency . The applicant requested the court to quash the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and to declare him the winner of the election in the constituency .

During the hearing held on DATE , the judges of ORG did not independently examine the originals of the ORG and the PERSON records of results or hear witnesses called by the applicant . ORG upheld the ORG decision by reiterating the findings made in that decision and concluding that the invalidation of the election results based on those findings had been lawful .

NORP The applicant lodged a cassation appeal . In addition to the arguments advanced in his appeal before ORG , he also complained , inter alia , that ORG had refused to independently examine the primary evidence and had simply taken the ORG ’s findings as fact . He also complained that the ORG had failed to consider the possibility of ordering a recount of the votes as required by LAW and to summon him as an affected party and hear his explanation as required by LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal and upheld ORG judgment as lawful .

On DATE ORG ordered repeat elections to be held on DATE for all electoral constituencies in which the results had been invalidated , including the applicant ’s constituency .

After the votes in a polling station have been counted at DATE , the ORG draws up an official record of election results ( in CARDINAL original copies ) documenting the results of the vote in the polling station ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL copy of the ORG record , together with other relevant documents , is then submitted to the relevant ConEC within twentyfour TIME ( Article CARDINAL ) . The ConEC verifies whether the ORG record complies with the law and whether it contains any inconsistencies ( Article CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . After submission of all ORG records , the ConEC tabulates , within DATE of DATE , the results from the different polling stations and draws up a record reflecting the aggregate results of the vote in the constituency ( Article CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL copy of the ConEC record of results , together with other relevant documents , is then submitted to the ORG within DATE of DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) . The ORG checks whether the PERSON records comply with the law and whether they contain any inconsistencies ( Article CARDINAL ) and draws up its own final record reflecting the results of voting in all constituencies ( Article CARDINAL ) .

NORP If within DATE of DATE the ORG discovers mistakes , impermissible alterations or inconsistencies in the records of results ( including the accompanying documents ) submitted by ConECs , the ORG may order a recount of the votes in the relevant electoral constituency ( LAW ) .

Upon review of a request to declare invalid the election of a registered candidate , an electoral commission has a right to hear submissions from citizens and officials and to obtain necessary documents and materials ( Article CARDINAL ) .

In the event of the discovery of irregularities aimed at assisting candidates who were not ultimately elected , such irregularities can not be a basis for the invalidation of the election results ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The CARDINAL or ORG may invalidate the election results for an entire single - mandate constituency if election results in CARDINAL of polling stations , representing CARDINAL of the constituency electorate , have been invalidated ( Article CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

According to former LAW in force at the material time , during the initial vote - counting at a polling station at the end of DATE , if a voting ballot which had not been properly placed in the corresponding envelope was found in the ballot box , the vote on that ballot was considered to be invalid . Article CARDINAL was subsequently repealed on DATE .

The relevant excerpts from the report read as follows :

“ Although constituency aggregate results were made available within the legal deadline , detailed results by polling station were only released on DATE , DATE after the election , despite the computer networking of all ConECs with the ORG . This made it difficult for candidates and observers to check that results had been reported accurately . Protocols from CARDINAL constituencies , CARDINAL and DATE , were never posted publicly . ...

The ORG invalidated the results of CARDINAL constituencies [ including ORG no . CARDINAL ] under LAW , which states that if a ConEC or the ORG cancels CARDINAL of PECs representing CARDINAL of the total electorate in a constituency , then the entire constituency result is considered invalid . ...

At least ... CARDINAL ConEC chairpersons [ ConECs CARDINAL and DATE ] were dismissed after DATE for involvement in electoral malfeasance . The CARDINAL ConEC chairpersons were arrested and charged with forging election documents . ... The ORG forwarded materials on possible criminal violations to ORG Office regarding CARDINAL PECs . ...

The process of invalidation of aggregated results in CARDINAL constituencies by the ORG did not have sufficient legal grounds or an evidentiary basis , nor was the process transparent . The ORG decisions on the invalidation of the election results in the CARDINAL constituencies concluded that there were “ unacceptable modifications performed on the protocols and law infringements which made it impossible to determine the will of the voters ” but did not provide any factual basis to support this conclusion . ...

Furthermore , when it invalidated results , the ORG did not make the required initial factual inquiry [ as required by LAW ] , and ignored LAW , which authorizes the ORG to order a recount of votes in a constituency if the protocols and documents submitted by the ConEC reveal “ mistakes , inadmissible corrections and inconsistencies . ” Protocols of ConECs and PECs were not examined or reviewed at ORG sessions . Invalidation of results in a polling station was premised solely on the conclusion of an individual ORG member as to whether a protocol should be invalidated . The judgment of a single ORG member that there were deficiencies in the protocol was accepted as established fact without any explanation of the alleged defect or identification of the number of votes involved . Accordingly , there was no factual basis presented publicly for invalidating results in any of the CARDINAL constituencies , which is particularly troubling since the ORG registered few complaints that alleged violations in these constituencies . ...

The adjudication of post - election disputes in the courts largely disregarded the legal framework , and fell short of internationally accepted norms . ... In most cases , complaints and appeals were either dismissed without consideration of the merits or rejected as groundless by both ORG and ORG .

Opposition candidates appealed the ORG ’s invalidation of results in constituencies CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL . ORG upheld the CARDINAL ORG decisions without any investigation or review of the primary documents and evidence , such as the ORG protocols . In constituency CARDINAL , the appellant petitioned ORG to examine the protocols , which had been forwarded to ORG office by the ORG . This petition was denied . In constituency DATE , the appellant made an identical request and the court again denied the petition , ruling that it was impossible to obtain the protocols from the Prosecutor General within the legal deadline . The ORG was not able to explain or give any information as to any specific defect in an invalidated protocol or offer any explanation as to what change to a protocol was sufficient for invalidation . ...

Proceedings in ORG did not correct the shortcomings noted above . ORG upheld each ORG decision . ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE ORG of PERSON ordered ORG , a private company , to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in salary arrears and compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG of PERSON instituted enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was paid ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG terminated the enforcement proceedings in view of the debtor ’s lack of funds . The applicant did not challenge that decision before the domestic courts .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE remains partially unenforced ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the applicant lodged with ORG of PERSON CARDINAL separate defamation claims against the newspapers “ Litsa ” and “ PERSON ” , and a journalist PERSON The applicant sought refutation of the information contained in CARDINAL articles published by the defendants and compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

The applicant failed to provide any further information as to the outcome of these proceedings .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , Director in ORG .

The applicant sustained injuries to his shoulder , arms and wrists in an accident on DATE while driving a kick sledge . An insurance company granted the applicant a DATE allowance ( päiväraha , dagpenning ) for CARDINAL % reduction of his working capacity from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

As the applicant apparently had continued problems , especially with his right wrist , he submitted medical opinions to the insurance company , applying for a continued DATE allowance / accident pension for DATE . On DATE the insurance company rejected his application and denied the compensation claim for loss of income , considering that the applicant ’s working capacity was reduced by CARDINAL PERCENT and that he was able to work at his post as technical director in a company .

The applicant sought medical help in DATE and participated , inter alia , in a rehabilitation examination . Right elbow nerve damage and signs of damage to the right wrist as well as depression were diagnosed in a medical opinion dated DATE . The applicant also underwent an isotope survey on DATE and submitted to the insurance company a medical opinion dated DATE regarding his hands and wrists .

On DATE the insurance company upheld its previous decision and decided not to grant the applicant a DATE allowance for DATE .

On DATE the insurance company corrected its previous decision of CARDINAL DATE so as to grant the applicant an accident pension for CARDINAL % reduction of working capacity from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( tapaturmalautakunta , olycksfallsnämnden ) requesting an accident pension ( tapaturmaeläke , olycksfallspension ) as of DATE . He relied , inter alia , on a medical opinion in which he was regarded as unfit to work until DATE ; on a medical opinion of DATE , in which he was regarded as unfit to work for DATE ; and on documents from the rehabilitation examination in DATE .

The insurance company submitted in its observations that the applicant was not entitled to compensation after DATE . It maintained that the accident had caused impact injuries to the applicant ’s left shoulder joint , left forearm and both wrists . The applicant claimed that he had sustained injuries in addition to his shoulder , neck , right shoulder joint and right forearm , requesting an accident pension as from DATE with interest .

The insurance company further adduced a medical opinion dated DATE in which the applicant was regarded as unfit to work due to depression until DATE . The company maintained that the applicant ’s neck strain and depression were not caused by the accident of CARDINAL DATE and that the elbow nerve damage , which was caused by the said accident , was so mild that it did not render the applicant incapable to work .

On DATE ORG upheld the insurance company ’s decision of DATE . It reasoned its decision as follows :

“ Based on the medical evidence submitted [ the applicant ] has sustained impact injuries to both his wrists , left shoulder area and left forearm area as well as damage to his right elbow nerve as a result of the accident on DATE . These injuries have not reduced his working capacity by CARDINAL PERCENT as from DATE and [ the applicant ] is therefore not entitled to an accident pension pursuant to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL of GPE . [ The applicant ] must be regarded as capable of working as a managing director / technical director at his post . ORG holds that [ the applicant ’s ] present difficulties with his right hand and arm are to a high degree of probability not caused by the accident on DATE , given that hardly any tissue damage has been found in the magnetic scan of his right hand or in the ORG - examination . The left elbow nerve damage , for which the applicant has received compensation from the insurance company , is mild and ORG holds that it is probably sickness - related . ORG further finds that [ the applicant ’s ] depression , which reduces his working capacity , was neither caused by the accident of DATE , or by the subsequent injuries . Initially no neck strain was found and neither had any damage to [ the applicant ’s ] right shoulder joint been reported in connection with the accident . ”

The applicant appealed to ORG requesting an accident pension as from DATE with interest . He submitted to ORG CARDINAL medical opinions dated DATE and DATE supporting his claims and a certificate indicating that the applicant had tried to find employment on DATE . According to ORG decision it invited observations from both parties and received letters from the applicant dated DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the appeal and upheld ORG decision . ORG reasoned its decision as follows :

“ Reasons mentioned in ORG decision . The submitted new evidence does not give rise to different conclusions . ”

The applicant sought leave to appeal from ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) . ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal on DATE .

Following an appeal on DATE ORG Health ( sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö , social- och hälsovårdsministeriet ) maintained that the insurance company had in some of its observations by mistake mentioned nerve damage in the applicant ’s left elbow whereas the nerve damage was in fact in the right elbow . It however noted that the mistake had not affected the outcome of the case as the appellate bodies had had access to the original medical opinions which described the injuries correctly .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of LAW ( hallitusmuoto , regeringsform , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that everyone should have the right to have his case considered appropriately and without undue delay by a lawfully competent court of justice or other public authority as well as the right to have a decision concerning his rights and obligations reviewed by a court of justice or other independent judicial organ . LAW said section provided that the publicity of proceedings and the right to be heard , to receive a decision with stated grounds and to appeal against the decision as well as other guarantees of a fair trial and of good public administration were to be secured by ORG .

At the relevant time chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) provided that a judgment had to be reasoned , indicating the facts and the legal argumentation on which it was based and the grounds which had led the court to hold a disputed issue established or unsubstantiated .

Section CARDINAL of the Decree on ORG ( asetus tapaturmalautakunnasta , förordningen om olycksfallsnämnden ; CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that ORG functions as the first appellate body in matters concerning obligatory accident insurance .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( tapaturmavakuutuslaki , lag om olycksfallsförsäkring ; DATE ) provides that appellate bodies in accident insurance matters are ORG , ORG and ORG .

On ORG there are a full - time president , CARDINAL vice - presidents and CARDINAL lawyer and medical doctor members as well as CARDINAL members representing labour market organisations . They all bear the responsibility of a judge . The president , the vice - presidents and the lawyer members must be qualified to sit as a judge and they must have a good knowledge of accident insurance . The medical doctor members must be registered and have a good knowledge of insurance medicine . All the members and their personal substitutes were at the relevant time appointed by ORG for a fixed term of DATE . The labour market members were appointed on a proposal by the ORG and GPE organisations .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL of GPE ( tapaturmavakuutuslaki , lag om olycksfallsförsäkring , DATE ) an accident pension is paid on condition that an employee ’s working capacity because of the injury or illness caused by an accident is estimated to have been reduced by PERCENT .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from a job before GPE ORG .

On DATE ORG found that GPE ORG had violated the applicant ’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delays . In its finding ORG noted , in particular , that the case had to be adjourned on CARDINAL occasions as the chamber dealing with it was incomplete .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s dismissal unlawful . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE and the defendant company appealed on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the compensation awarded to the applicant and the decision on court fee . ORG upheld the remainder of ORG judgment .

In the proceedings concerning the outstanding part of the applicant ’s claims GPE ORG scheduled hearings for DATE and DATE . The proceedings are pending .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides , inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay .

Pursuant to LAW , as in force until DATE , ORG could commence proceedings upon the petition ( “ podnet ” ) presented by any individual or a corporation claiming that their rights have been violated .

According to its case - law under the former LAW ) of LAW , the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from a violation of a petitioner ’s rights under LAW . It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found . In ORG view , it was therefore for the authority concerned to provide redress to the person whose rights were violated .

As from DATE , the LAW has been amended in that , inter alia , individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to LAW . Under this provision ORG has the power , in case that it found a violation of LAW ) of the LAW , to order the authority concerned to proceed with the case without delay . It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose constitutional right was violated as a result of excessive length of proceedings ( for further details see , e.g. , ORG and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ) .

According to an explanatory letter by the President of ORG of DATE , nothing has prevented ORG from dealing with complaints about length of proceedings in cases in which proceedings have also been instituted before ORG provided that the domestic proceedings complained of are still pending at the moment when the constitutional complaint is filed . The letter further states that where ORG earlier found a violation of LAW ) of the LAW , a further complaint about delays in the same proceedings can be entertained only to the extent that it relates to the period after the delivery of the first finding of ORG . However , when deciding on such cases ORG will , as a rule , take into account that the ordinary courts have failed to proceed with the case without undue delays following its finding of a violation of LAW ) of LAW .


No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Ethiopia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Ethiopia)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in DATE .

The applicant appears to have arrived in GPE in DATE . He applied for asylum and submitted that in his home country he had been a deacon in the NORP church . In DATE he had been called upon to be an observer in the national elections . Serving in this capacity , he had witnessed many wrongdoings by officials . The personal integrity and freedom of election of voters had been violated . Due to this , the applicant had refused to sign a statement asserting that the election procedure had been carried out correctly . Subsequently he had received several death threats . In connection with a sermon on DATE he had been severely beaten outside the church by CARDINAL unknown men . He had lost a tooth and had been cut on the hand . In DATE he had attended a traditional NORP feast . There he had been pursued and arrested by CARDINAL policemen who had taken him to a police station in GPE . He had been accused of activities against the regime and had been incarcerated for DATE and DATE , during which time he had been tortured . On DATE , after being released , he had participated in a demonstration against the election results . He had again been taken into custody by CARDINAL unknown men and taken to the LOC prison in GPE . There , he had been kept without criminal charges or a trial and had been tortured through violence with fists and truncheons , cut with sharp objects , chained and blind - folded , forced to hear other inmates being tortured , forced to crawl on his knees on sharp rocks and have his head shaved with broken bottle glass . The detention had lasted for DATE . During his time in the prison , he had preached to his fellow inmates . He had told his story to CARDINAL of the military prison guards , who had then helped him to escape . He had hidden from the authorities by travelling between NORP holy places where he had preached . A group of pilgrims had helped him and had paid him to travel with them and preach to them . On CARDINAL DATE , the pilgrims had informed him that they had decided to help him flee the country . They had arranged for his travel to GPE , where he had had to wait for a while . A smuggler had then helped him to reach GPE , via an unknown NORP country .

On DATE ORG ( Migrationsverket ) rejected the application . It stated that , although the applicant had not submitted any identification papers , a language test had shown it probable that he was from GPE . It further stated that the general situation in GPE was not a sufficient ground for asylum . Regarding the applicant ’s situation and individual reasons for asylum , the ORG found that his story lacked credibility and that his submission about his escape from prison was not plausible . Also , the applicant had never been convicted of any crime , nor had he tried to contact the judicial authorities in GPE regarding the violence to which he had been subjected . He had not shown it probable that he would be at risk if he returned to GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( NORP - domstolen ) in GPE . He maintained his earlier submissions and added the following . He had been harassed in GPE due to his foreign appearance , his mother being NORP . He also claimed that he had been accused by the Government of being a spy . He submitted an arrest order issued by the NORP authorities on DATE and stated that some members of his church in GPE had been visiting GPE and the local police had handed them the arrest order . He also submitted a medical certificate from ORG at ORG ( Kris- och traumacenter vid PERSON ) containing a psychiatric and physical evaluation as well as a forensic evaluation .

NORP The psychiatric evaluation had been carried out by GPE , a licensed physician and specialist in general and forensic psychiatry , and was based on a meeting with the applicant on DATE . The applicant had claimed to worry a lot , to have a dark outlook on life and to suffer from depression and loss of appetite . He had had thoughts of being better off dead , but had not seemed to consider suicide as an option and had claimed to leave himself in the hands of God . He had tried to cure his depression with holy water and by staying in a monastery . During the examination the applicant had been very formal and had given clear and distinct answers to all the questions . However , he had given an emotionally detached impression and had seemed to have an intellectual and distant attitude towards the story he told . There had been no signs of psychosis . He had seemed rigid in his personality and had had difficulties in adjusting his mind - set and the topics discussed to the limited time of the examination . The risk of suicide had been hard to assess . The applicant had expressed a clear will to die , but had seemed to have religious doubts about actually committing suicide and would therefore deny any such plans . The assessment was that he was probably suffering from Post - Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD ) and that his depression was a result of this .

NORP The forensic evaluation was issued by FAC , associate professor and specialist in forensic medicine , on DATE . According to the forensic findings the applicant had scar tissue on his head , right arm , both legs and also an artificial tooth . The concluding assessment was that none of the findings contradicted that the applicant ’s injuries had occurred at the time he described . Furthermore , the injuries were visibly compatible with his story and could support his claims that he had been subjected to torture in the way he had submitted .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It noted that the applicant had not proved his identity . Moreover , it stated that the arrest order submitted by the applicant was very simplistic in nature and hence had little evidential value . Regarding the medical certificate , the court found that it confirmed that the applicant was suffering from PTSD and that he had scars , but that it could not confirm how his injuries had occurred . The court further stated that the applicant ’s submissions had been vague and had escalated during the proceedings . The applicant had submitted for the first time at the oral hearing , among other things , that he had been suspected of being a spy . Moreover , it found peculiar his explanations as to how he had escaped from prison and how he had received information on being wanted by the NORP authorities . The court thus found that the credibility of the applicant ’s submissions was weak . It also added that the incidents described by the applicant had happened DATE , that he had not been politically active and that he had not had any problems prior to the DATE elections . Moreover the court stated that the political situation in GPE had calmed down since then and that the applicant ’s submissions did not substantiate that he would risk being subjected to persecution to such an extent that he should be perceived as a refugee . Nor did they substantiate that he would be at risk of being subjected to degrading or inhuman treatment if he were to return . He was therefore not considered to have other needs for protection .

On DATE ORG ( Migrations - överdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal .

The applicant subsequently claimed that there were impediments to his deportation and requested that his application for a residence permit be examined anew . In support of his claim he mainly referred to his previous submissions but also stated that the general situation in GPE was such that he feared , due to his background as a critic of the regime , that he would be subjected to further ill - treatment upon return . The applicant further stated that the general situation in the country had become more serious after the elections of DATE .

In its decision of DATE , ORG found that the applicant ’s submissions did not qualify as impediments to deportation nor reasons to examine his asylum application anew . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

The basic provisions applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in the DATE LAW ( Utlänningslagen , DATE hereafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) .

An alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE ( LAW , LAW CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ) . The term “ refugee ” refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a wellfounded fear of being persecuted on grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

NORP Moreover , if a residence permit can not be granted on the above grounds , such a permit may be issued to an alien if , after an overall assessment of his or her situation , there are such particularly distressing circumstances ( synnerligen ömmande omständigheter ) to allow him or her to remain in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . Special consideration should be given , inter alia , to the alien ’s health status . According to the preparatory works ( Government PERSON , pp . CARDINAL ) , life - threatening physical or mental illness for which no treatment can be given in the alien ’s home country could constitute a reason for the grant of a residence permit .

As regards the enforcement of a deportation or expulsion order , account has to be taken of the risk of capital punishment or torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW . In addition , an alien must not , in principle , be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution ( LAW , LAW ) .

NORP Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has gained legal force . This is the case where new circumstances have emerged which indicate that there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that an enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . If a residence permit can not be granted under these criteria , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not having done so . Should the applicable conditions not have been met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW , matters concerning the right of aliens to enter and remain in GPE are dealt with by CARDINAL instances : ORG , ORG and ORG ( LAW , section CARDINAL , and LAW , section CARDINAL ) .


CASE OF ASLANGIRAY AND OTHERS  v. TURKEY

Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

On DATE the applicants brought separate actions before ORG of First Instance against ORG . They alleged that their plots of land had been illegally seized by the administration for dam construction without any payment being made and requested compensation in this respect .

On DATE ORG of First Instance held that the cases should be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation rather than compensation claims arising from the illegal seizure of the applicants’ land since a committee of experts had assessed the value of the land and this amount had been paid by the authorities to those who were indicated as the owners of the land in ORG . The court ordered the administration to pay the applicants an amount of increased compensation , plus interest at the statutory rate , running from DATE , when the plots of lands were submerged in the waters of the dam .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgments of the first - instance court and held that the cases could not be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation . The applicants requested rectification of the decisions of ORG .

On DATE ORG rectified its decisions , holding that the cases could be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation . It quashed the judgments of the first - instance court only in respect of the date from which the statutory rate of interest began to run from .

On DATE the first - instance court abided by the ruling of ORG . It accordingly ordered the administration to pay PERSON GPE , PERSON and PERSON MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , ORG ( QUANTITY ) and GPE CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) respectively , plus interest at the statutory rate , running from DATE , the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to ORG . ORG appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgments of ORG of First Instance .

On DATE the decisions of ORG were served on the applicants .

On DATE the administration paid the applicants the amounts due together with interest .

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


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

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

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

The applicant received a notice of intended prosecution requiring him to name the driver of his car on DATE . The applicant replied that either he or his wife had been driving but neither could actually remember which CARDINAL of them had been driving through the location of the speed trap on that date .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of an offence under section CARDINAL of LAW DATE and Schedule CARDINAL to FAC DATE for failing to give information which might have led to the identification of the driver of his car . He was fined GBP CARDINAL and ordered to pay GBP CARDINAL costs , with his licence to be endorsed with CARDINAL penalty points .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal , amending the sentence such that he would have to pay GBP CARDINAL costs .

The applicant appealed to ORG by way of case stated claiming a breach of his rights under LAW .

In the case stated , the ORG trial judge , having set out the facts of the case , stated that the court had been of the opinion that the applicant was trying to evade responsibility for the disregard of the speed limit , that the right against self - incrimination did not apply and accordingly dismissed the appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal , referring to established domestic case - law on the point in PERSON v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL .

The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in O’Halloran and PERSON the GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . ORG , § § DATE , ORG DATE ...