Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of abetting bribery .

On DATE ORG issued an order remanding the applicant in custody for a period of DATE . The court ’s reasoning was the following : “ the suspect has reached the age at which he may be criminally prosecuted , he is suspected of having committed a serious offence and he is unemployed ” .

On DATE the applicant was indicted inter alia for the offence of aiding and abetting bribery , involving large sums of money , which was punishable by up to twenty years’ imprisonment .

On DATE , ORG examined a habeas corpus request lodged by the applicant and a request lodged by the prosecutor to prolong the detention . In his habeas corpus request the applicant argued that he was married , had CARDINAL children and was employed . The court dismissed the applicant ’s request but upheld the prosecutor ’s request and prolonged the detention .

Similar prolongations were ordered up until DATE , when the investigation was completed and the criminal case file was sent by the prosecution to ORG . After DATE , the applicant remained in detention without having his detention warrant prolonged . He submitted numerous habeas corpus requests relying inter alia on his medical condition ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and on the impossibility of receiving appropriate medical care in prison due to a lack of specialised doctors and medication , but they were all rejected .

On DATE the applicant complained inter alia that from DATE he had been detained without any warrant . His request was dismissed .

On DATE the applicant lodged a habeas corpus request with ORG arguing inter alia that his detention was incompatible with his medical condition due to the lack of appropriate medical care in prison . He asked to be released from detention .

On DATE Judges PERSON , PERSON and GPE from FAC found the applicant ’s request well - founded and decided to replace the applicant ’s remand in custody with house arrest .

It appears that at the time of adoption of the present judgment the applicant was still under house arrest .

From DATE the applicant was detained in FAC . CARDINAL of ORG ( Izolatorul Anchetei Preliminare Nr . CARDINAL ) . On several occasions he was hospitalised in FAC .

According to medical certificates submitted by the applicant , and not contested by the Government , he suffered from numerous diseases such as chronic hepatitis , second - degree hydronephrosis ( accumulation of urine in the kidney because of an obstruction in the urethra ) , uric diathesis , increased ecogenicity of pancreatic parenchyma , chronic bilateral pyelonephritis ( inflammation of the kidney and pelvis caused by bacterial infection ) with functional impairment of the right kidney , hydronephrosis of the right kidney with functional impairment , stones in the urinary tract , somatoform disorder , chronic renal failure , head trauma and generalised anxiety disorder of hypertensive type .

On numerous occasions he was prescribed treatment in hospital and even surgery on his right kidney . On DATE and DATE the applicant was consulted by PERSON , an urologist from ORG , a hospital belonging to ORG , who recommended urgent surgery on his right kidney in order to eliminate an obstruction of the urethra . The doctor advised that a delay might result in the degradation of the kidney and its extirpation . A similar recommendation was reiterated on DATE by the Doctor in Chief of ORG , Dr. PERSON , who recommended that the operation be carried out in a specialised urological hospital of ORG . It does not appear from the ORG ’s submissions that this recommendation was ever followed up .

The Government argued that the applicant was provided with sufficient medical care , but the applicant disputed this .

The Government submitted numerous reports drawn up by prison doctors stating that the applicant refused to submit to medical checks and treatment and requested to be transferred to a normal hospital . According to some such reports the applicant argued that the treatment in prison was ineffective and that he needed medication which was not available there .

According to a letter addressed to ORG and to ORG by the prison authorities on DATE , the applicant started a hunger strike to protest against his being treated in the prison .

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to ORG about the lack of adequate medical treatment . By a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s complaint was rejected and he was informed inter alia that he had had medical checks on CARDINAL occasions by prison doctors and by doctors from outside the prison . He had been offered medical treatment in accordance with the “ modest possibilities ” of the prison medical service and with the medication brought by his relatives . He had been hospitalised in the medical section of the prison on CARDINAL occasions , where he had received adequate medical treatment , and on CARDINAL occasions in FAC .

The applicant submitted a letter from the Doctor in Chief of ORG addressed to his lawyer , dated DATE , in which it was stated that there were no urologists , cardiologists and neurosurgeons among the doctors of ORG .

NORP In another letter addressed to the applicant ’s lawyer by the Chief of the Prison where the applicant was detained , dated DATE , the latter was informed that there were no such doctors at the prison either and that in the event of an emergency the applicant would be transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and another co - accused on charges of abetting bribery .

On DATE ORG initiated new criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of fraudulently dispossessing a person of MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG initiated new criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of fraudulent dispossession of CARDINAL persons of their apartments .

All of the above criminal proceedings were joined in CARDINAL single case file and the criminal investigation lasted until DATE , when ORG sent the criminal file to ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG received the criminal file and a judge was assigned to the case .

On DATE the judge set DATE as the date of the first hearing .

On DATE the applicant was unable to come to the hearing due to high blood pressure . He was examined by a doctor who issued him a certificate confirming that the applicant had high blood pressure and was not able to attend the hearing . The hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the hearing did not take place since the prosecutor and CARDINAL of the alleged victims were absent . It was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE due to the absence of CARDINAL of the alleged victims and the applicant ’s lawyers .

On DATE the applicant informed the court that he was not feeling well and asked to be hospitalised . The court decided to send the applicant for a medical examination at ORG , a hospital belonging to ORG . The hearing appears to have been adjourned indefinitely .

On DATE the applicant complained to the court that the authorities were refusing to send him for a medical examination , and that he had therefore commenced a hunger strike on DATE .

On DATE the judge assigned to the case wrote to the prison authorities and asked them to comply with the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the non - enforcement of the decision of DATE .

It appears that on an unspecified date the prison authorities had attempted to take the applicant to ORG , but that he had refused on the ground that the decision of DATE provided for his examination in ORG . The prison authorities informed the judge assigned to the case about the applicant ’s refusal .

On DATE the applicant wrote again to the judge informing him that the prison authorities had refused to take him to ORG as provided in the decision of DATE , and as a result his medical condition was becoming worse . He informed the judge that he had no other solution but to go on hunger strike again .

It appears that DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for examination since the criminal file contains medical documents from ORG dated DATE .

On DATE the resumption of the hearings was scheduled . However , the proceedings were adjourned due to the applicant ’s medical condition . The applicant was seen by a doctor , who concluded that he was suffering from the consequences of a brain disease ( consecinţele afecţiunii organice a creierului cu sindrom cerebral astenic ) and noted that he refused the treatment prescribed to him .

On DATE the prosecutor and CARDINAL of the applicant ’s lawyers were absent . The applicant declared that he was not satisfied with his lawyers and that he wanted to instruct other lawyers . He requested an adjournment . The hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned due to the fact that the applicant had not instructed a new lawyer .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE at the request of the applicant ’s new lawyer , who intended to present evidence confirming the applicant ’s serious medical condition .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer presented medical documents and requested that the applicant undertake a psychiatric examination in order to establish his competence to plead to the charges . The request was allowed and a psychiatric examination of the applicant was ordered .

On DATE a commission of psychiatric doctors concluded that a psychiatric examination would only be possible after the applicant ’s admission to ORG .

On DATE Judge PERSON ordered that the applicant be admitted to ORG in order to carry out the psychiatric examination ordered on DATE .

On DATE the psychiatric examination was completed and the applicant was found competent to plead to the criminal charges . The medical report was sent to the court on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the applicant asked the court inter alia about the state of the proceedings and was informed on DATE by Judge PERSON that the hearings would be resumed in DATE after the lawyer of the other co - accused had returned from a business trip to GPE .

On DATE a hearing was adjourned until DATE on the ground of the applicant ’s request for a change of lawyer .

On DATE the applicant challenged the judge assigned to his case on the ground inter alia that this judge would prolong the examination of the case , would not allow him to undergo surgery on his kidney as recommended by Dr Spânu , would be biased and would reject his habeas corpus requests . The challenge was dismissed and the hearing was adjourned in order to request information from the prison authorities about the applicant ’s medical condition .

On DATE the applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing on the ground that he was not feeling well and that he needed medical treatment . The hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was examined by Dr Spânu , an urologist , who prescribed urgent surgery on his kidney ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the hearing was resumed and the court examined and dismissed a habeas corpus request lodged by the applicant who relied mainly on his medical condition . The hearing was then adjourned .

On DATE the applicant again challenged the judge on the ground that he refused to allow his release on medical grounds ; the challenge was dismissed . He also asked that an ambulance be called ; this request was also dismissed , the court observing that the applicant was attempting to prolong the criminal proceedings against him . The court also gave the applicant an official warning since he had raised his voice to the judge . The applicant finally dismissed his lawyer and he was given time to sign a contract with another lawyer .

On DATE the applicant was absent from the hearing on grounds of health and the court adjourned it until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was absent again and the court adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor informed the court that , according to LAW which entered into force on DATE , ORG no longer had jurisdiction to examine the criminal case against the applicant . He requested that the case be transmitted to ORG for examination . The court allowed the Prosecutor ’s request and the criminal file was sent to ORG .

On DATE the President of ORG wrote to ORG and asked it to order that the case be transferred to ORG because , inter alia , following the judiciary reform of DATE ORG was the successor instance of ORG which had already started to examine the case .

On DATE ORG rejected the request of the President of ORG and drew her attention to the need to ensure the examination of the case within a reasonable time .

On DATE a hearing was held for the first time before FAC . The applicant challenged the newly appointed judge , PERSON , on the ground that he would dismiss all his requests . The challenge was dismissed DATE and the hearing was adjourned .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE due to the absence of the prosecutor and CARDINAL of the alleged victims .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the hearings were adjourned because the judge was ill .

On DATE the judge was involved in a conference and the hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the judge was involved in a hearing in an unrelated case and the hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was absent due to his hospitalisation in ORG and the hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the court started to examine the merits of the case by questioning one of the victims . Since other victims and witnesses were absent , the court adjourned the hearing until DATE .

DATE . On DATE the lawyer of the applicant ’s co - accused was absent and the co - accused requested an adjournment . The court decided to adjourn the hearing for DATE in view of the impending judicial vacation .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE because Judge PERSON had resigned from his functions .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him . He received an answer dated DATE in which he was informed inter alia that the President of ORG had been requested to take all necessary measures to ensure the examination of the case within a reasonable time .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE because the same judge , Judge PERSON , was ill .

On DATE the applicant dismissed his lawyer and a pro bono lawyer was appointed . The applicant requested to be examined by a medical commission , but his request was dismissed . He unsuccessfully challenged the judges who rejected his request .

On DATE the applicant requested that his pro bono lawyer be dismissed on grounds of lack of experience and asked to be examined by a medical commission ; however , his requests were dismissed . CARDINAL of the alleged victims was heard and the hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the court heard a witness and adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE the applicant concluded a representation contract with another lawyer and the hearing was adjourned until DATE .

DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s new lawyer was involved in another case and could not attend the hearing . The court adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE and DATE the judge was ill and the hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was hospitalised in ORG and the prosecutor was absent . The hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE there was a change of prosecutors and the new prosecutor requested an adjournment in order to study the case file . The hearing was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the court heard the statements of the applicant and his co - accused in respect of the charges against them . The applicant also submitted that he was ill and was unable to participate in the court hearing . The court adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE the court read out the declarations of several witnesses made during the investigation stage of the proceedings . The applicant requested again to be examined by a medical commission , but his request was dismissed and he was warned not to attempt to prolong the examination of the case . The court adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE due to the illness of the judge .

It appears that DATE and DATE ( the date on which the Government submitted a copy of the criminal case file to ORG ) no hearings took place .

At the date of the adoption of its judgment the ORG had not been informed by the parties that the criminal proceedings before ORG had been concluded .

DATE , insofar as relevant , states as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Detention takes place on the basis of a warrant issued by a judge for a maximum period of DATE . The lawfulness of the warrant may be challenged , in accordance with the law , before a hierarchically superior court . The period of detention may be extended only by a court , in accordance with the law , to a maximum period of DATE . ”

The relevant parts of the old Code of Criminal Procedure , in force until DATE , read as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL . The length of detention on remand and its prolongation

Detention takes place on the basis of a warrant issued by a judge for a maximum period of DATE . The period of detention on remand may be extended ... to a maximum of DATE , while in exceptional cases ... to a maximum period of DATE . The prolongation of the detention shall be ordered by a judge on the basis of a motivated request by the prosecutor .

After the criminal case file has been sent to a court , the accused may be detained until the final resolution of the case , which should take place within a reasonable time . ”

The relevant provisions of the new Code of Criminal Procedure , in force since DATE , read as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) Preventive measures may be applied by the prosecuting authority or by the court only in those cases where there are serious grounds for believing that an accused ... will abscond , obstruct the establishment of the truth during the criminal proceedings or re - offend , or they can be applied by the court in order to ensure the enforcement of a sentence .

( CARDINAL ) Detention on remand and alternative preventive measures may be imposed only in cases concerning offences in respect of which the law provides for a custodial sentence exceeding DATE . In cases concerning offences in respect of which the law provides for a custodial sentence of DATE , they may be applied if ... the accused has already committed the acts mentioned in § ( CARDINAL ) .

( CARDINAL ) In deciding on the necessity of applying preventive measures , the prosecuting authority and the court will take into consideration the following additional criteria :

CARDINAL ) NORP the character and degree of harm caused by the offence ,

CARDINAL ) NORP the character of the ... accused ,

CARDINAL ) NORP his / her age and state of health ,

CARDINAL ) NORP his / her occupation ,

CARDINAL ) his / her family status and existence of any dependants ,

CARDINAL ) his / her economic status ,

CARDINAL ) NORP the existence of a permanent place of abode ,

CARDINAL) other essential circumstances .

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) Detention on remand ... can be applied only on the basis of a court decision ...

Section CARDINAL . Detention on remand

( CARDINAL ) Detention on remand means the detention of the suspect , accused or indicted person in a state of arrest in places and in conditions provided for by law .

( CARDINAL ) Detention on remand may be applied to someone in the circumstances and in the conditions provided for in Article CARDINAL , as well as when :

CARDINAL ) NORP the suspect , the accused or the indicted person does not have a permanent place of residence on the territory of GPE ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the suspect , the accused or the indicted person is unknown ;

CARDINAL ) NORP the suspect , the accused or the indicted person has breached the conditions imposed on him / her concerning other preventive measures .

( CARDINAL ) The decision by which detention on remand is ordered can be challenged by way of an appeal before the hierarchically superior court .

Section CARDINAL . The length of the remand and its prolongation

( CARDINAL ) The duration of a person ’s remand starts to run from the moment of his or her arrest , or , if the person was not arrested , from the moment of enforcement of the court decision ordering the remand . ...

( CARDINAL ) Remand during the investigation stage of the proceedings , before the case file is sent to the competent court [ by the prosecutor ] shall not be longer than DATE , except in cases provided for in the present code . The running of the duration of the remand during the investigation stage of the proceedings ceases on the date when the prosecutor sends the criminal case file to a court and when the detention on remand is revoked or is replaced by another preventive measure which does not involve a deprivation of liberty .

( CARDINAL ) Any prolongation of detention on remand may not be for a period longer than DATE .

( CARDINAL ) If it is necessary to prolong the duration of detention on remand of an accused , the prosecutor shall , not DATE before the expiry of the remand order , make a request in that respect to the investigating judge .

( CARDINAL ) When deciding on the prosecutor ’s request for the prolongation of the remand , the investigating judge , or , as the case may be , the court , has the right to replace detention on remand by home detention , release under judicial control or bail .

( CARDINAL) After the sending of the bill of indictment to a court all requests concerning detention on remand shall be examined by the court in charge of the criminal case .

( CARDINAL ) The prolongation of the duration of remand for DATE shall be decided by the investigating judge on the basis of a request of the district prosecutor . In case of a necessity to prolong the duration of remand for DATE the request shall be lodged by the district prosecutor with the consent of ORG or his deputies .

( CARDINAL ) The decision concerning the prolongation of the detention on remand may be challenged by way of an appeal to the hierarchically superior court .

Section CARDINAL

A person detained on remand under the provisions of LAW may request , at any time during the criminal investigation , his provisional release under judicial control or on bail .

Section CARDINAL . Provisional release under judicial control of a remanded person

( CARDINAL ) ORG provisional release under judicial control of a remanded person , or of a person in respect of whom a request for detention on remand has been made , may be granted by the investigating judge or by a court only in case of offences committed through negligence or intentional offences punishable with DATE of imprisonment .

( CARDINAL ) NORP provisional release under judicial control may not be granted to an accused who has outstanding criminal convictions for serious , very serious or exceptionally serious offences or if there exists information that he or she will commit another offence , will try to influence witnesses , will try to destroy evidence or will abscond .

( CARDINAL ) NORP provisional release under judicial control of a remanded person shall be accompanied by one or more of the following obligations :

CARDINAL ) not to leave the town of residence except in the conditions set by the investigating judge or by the court ;

CARDINAL ) NORP to inform the investigation organ or the court of any change of address ;

CARDINAL ) not to go to certain places ;

CARDINAL ) NORP to appear before the investigation organ or the court when summonsed ;

CARDINAL ) not to make contact with certain persons ;

CARDINAL ) not to commit acts capable of hindering the discovery of the truth ;

CARDINAL ) not to drive cars or exercise any profession of the kind used for committing of the offence .

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) A preventive measure applied may be replaced by a harsher CARDINAL , if the need for it is proved by evidence , or by a lighter one , if by applying it the proper behaviour of ... the accused is ensured , with the aim of ensuring the normal course of the criminal investigation and of enforcing the sentence imposed .

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) In examining a case the court , ex - officio or at the request of the parties and having heard their opinion , shall have the power to apply , revoke or discontinue the preventive measure applied to the accused . A new request for the application , replacement or revocation of a preventive measure may be submitted if there are grounds for such a request , but not DATE from the date of entry into force of the last decision in this respect or if new circumstances have arisen .

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) Within DATE from the date on which the case was distributed for judgment , the judge or the bench , having examined the case - file , shall set a date for the preliminary hearing . The preliminary hearing in cases where the person is arrested shall be held urgently and given priority .

... ( CARDINAL ) At the preliminary hearing the following issues shall be examined :

... CARDINAL ) NORP preventive and protective measures .

Section CARDINAL

... ( CARDINAL ) In setting a date for the examination of the case , the court shall order the maintenance , revocation or discontinuation of preventive measures , in conformity with the present Code . ”

In GPE v. ORG and ORG ( final judgment of ORG of CARDINAL October CARDINAL ) , DATE after being released from detention on remand , the applicant claimed and obtained compensation in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) for having been held in inhuman and degrading conditions for DATE . The case was examined by CARDINAL instances , since the judgment of ORG was not challenged before ORG and the overall length of the proceedings was DATE and DATE . The court based its award on ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention .

In PERSON v. ORG and ORG ( civil judgment of ORG of DATE ) , the applicant was awarded ORG CARDINAL for being subjected to torture by CARDINAL male policemen during the investigation stage of the criminal proceedings against her . The domestic courts based their judgment on a final criminal judgment against the policemen , by which they were found guilty and sentenced for committing acts of torture .

In the cases of GPE and GPE ( judgments of DATE and of DATE of ORG and of the ORG respectively ) the courts examining habeas corpus requests lodged by the applicants and ordered their release on the basis inter alia of their poor state of health . In particular in the case of PERSON the court stated that “ according to medical certificates and to the applicant ’s medical records , he suffers from an ophthalmologic disease which needs treatment ” . In the case of GPE ORG stated that “ the applicant ’s lengthy detention contributed to the aggravation of some of his diseases ” .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person whose rights are violated by a public authority through an administrative act or through the failure to examine a request within the statutory period , is entitled to obtain the recognition of the right claimed , the annulment of the act and compensation for damage .

( CARDINAL ) The ORG bears pecuniary liability , according to the law , for harm caused through errors committed in criminal proceedings by the investigating authorities and courts . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL . Liability of the ORG for damage caused by the actions of the criminal investigation organs , prosecution and courts

( CARDINAL ) Damage caused to a natural person through illegal conviction , illegal prosecution , illegal application of preventive measures in the form of detention on remand or of a written undertaking not to leave the city , and illegal subjection to the administrative sanction of arrest or of non - remunerated community work , is to be fully compensated by the ORG , whether or not officers in the criminal investigation organs , the prosecution or judges were at fault . ... ”


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Myroslava Antonovych

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of PERSON , GPE .

According to the applicant , for DATE she had been living as part of a family with her stepfather , mother and CARDINAL - brother and wanted to associate herself more closely with them by taking the surname of her stepfather and also a patronymic derived from his forename .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG in PERSON ( hereinafter “ the Registration Office ” ) seeking to change her patronymic from ORG to ORG ) .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request , referring to LAW in GPE , approved by ORG , which provided that the patronymic of a physical person could only be changed in the event of a change of forename by his or her father .

On DATE the applicant challenged this refusal in the ORG . She complained that her patronymic , along with her forename and family name , was part of her full name and she had the right to change it . She maintained that the refusal violated her constitutional rights , was unconstitutional and was not based on law . She further contended that she had good reasons for changing her patronymic - to disassociate herself from her biological father and associate herself more closely with her stepfather and CARDINAL - brother .

On DATE the applicant changed her original surname from PERSON to the surname of her stepfather , PERSON , which was also the surname of her mother and CARDINAL - brother .

On DATE the ORG found that ORG had acted in accordance with the law , in compliance with LAW , and so dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . It found that a change of patronymic was only legally possible when the father of the person concerned had previously changed his forename . Therefore , given that the applicant ’s father had not changed his forename , the applicant ’s request for change of her patronymic had not been in compliance with the law . The court also noted that ORG provided more detailed regulation of the relevant provisions of the LAW , LAW and LAW and did not conflict with them .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court , holding that its conclusions were based on law .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant on points of law . It held , in particular , that the argument put forward by the applicant that the new LAW limited the right to change a patronymic was based on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions of LAW .

The relevant provision of the LAW reads as follows :

“ ... The content and scope of existing rights and freedoms shall not be diminished as a result of the enactment of new laws or in the amendment of laws that are in force . ”

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ Registration of a change of surname , forename or patronymic of a citizen of GPE shall be conducted by civil status registration offices at his or her place of residence .

Registration of a change of surname , forename or patronymic shall be notified to those civil status registration offices in GPE which keep the records of births , marriages and divorces of those who have changed their surname , forename , or patronymic . ”

The relevant provisions of the Code read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . An individual acquires rights and responsibilities and exercises them under his or her own name .

The name of an individual who is a citizen of GPE consists of his or her surname , forename and patronymic , unless the law or custom of the national minority to which they belong provides otherwise ... ”

“ CARDINAL . An individual has the right to a name ... ”

“ CARDINAL . An individual who has reached DATE has the right to change his or her surname and forename in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law .

An individual ’s patronymic can be changed if his or her father changes his forename ... ”

Where family relations are not regulated by this LAW or by agreement ( contract ) between the parties , the rules of this LAW governing similar relations shall apply to them ( analogy of statute ) .

Where the analogy of statute can not apply to the regulation of family relations , these are governed by the general principles of family law ( analogy of law ) .

The patronymic of a child shall be determined by the forename of her or his father .

NORP The patronymic of a child who was born to an unmarried woman , where the paternity of the child is not recognised , shall be determined by the forename of the person who the child ’s mother called his or her father .

“ CARDINAL . If a father changes his name , the patronymic of his child who has reached DATE shall be changed with the latter ’s consent . ”

In her commentary on LAW ( Ромовська З. В. Сімейний кодекс GPE : ORG коментар. – DATE вид. , ORG і доп. – К. : Видавничій Дім Ін Юре , DATE . GPE CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , Professor Z. V. ORG , a drafter of the LAW , noted , in particular , in respect of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL :

“ CARDINAL . ... The forename of the person recorded as the child ’s father automatically defines the patronymic of the child ...

Every child , must , in all circumstances , have a " patronymic " even when the identity of his or her real father is not established . In that case , the " patronymic " can be invented . ”

“ CARDINAL . A child who has attained the age of CARDINAL , already has his or her place in society , is preparing for independent life and associates his or her name with the patronymic which appears in his or her documents . Therefore , his or her consent or objection to the change of patronymic will be crucial . A situation may thus arise in which the father has changed his forename , while the patronymic in the documents of his son or daughter remains [ the old one ] .

Can the patronymic be changed when the forename of the father has not been changed ? There is no response to this question in LAW . However , LAW ] allows the analogy of statute and law and can help in finding a solution in such a situation . ”

The Decree provided inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . Citizens of GPE are allowed to change their surname , forename and patronymic when they attain DATE .

NORP ... A refusal to change a surname , forename or patronymic can be challenged before the court in accordance with the established procedure . ”

As with LAW , the procedure approved by this ORG provided that any citizen who had reached DATE could apply for a change of surname , forename and patronymic and that a refusal of such a change could be appealed against to the courts . The procedure further provided that :

“ CARDINAL . change of surname , forename or patronymic shall not be allowed if

a ) the applicant is under investigation or trial or has been convicted ;

b ) there are objections from the police . ”

This ORG replaced the ORG ’s Resolution of DATE . It set forth a procedure for changing all parts of the individual ’s name ( surname , forename , patronymic ) . CARDINAL provision refers exclusively to patronymics :

“ CARDINAL . ... The application of an individual for a repeated change of patronymic shall be lodged and examined in accordance with this procedure . ”

The procedure further provides for the circumstances in which an application for change of name can be refused :

“ CARDINAL . The grounds for refusal to allow the change of name are :

( i ) the applicant is under investigation , trial or administrative supervision ;

( ii ) the applicant has a criminal record which has not been cancelled or overturned in accordance with the procedure established by law ;

( iii ) there is an official request from the law - enforcement agencies of foreign countries for the applicant ’s placement on a list of wanted persons ;

( iv ) the applicant submits false information .

Refusal to allow the change of name can be appealed against to the court . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of the Rules , in the wording at the material time , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Registration of change of name

... The name of an individual who is a citizen of GPE consists of a surname , forename and patronymic , unless the law or custom of the national minority to which he or she belongs provides otherwise .

A change of surname and forename by individuals who are citizens of GPE shall be allowed once they have reached DATE .

The patronymic of an individual can be changed in the event of a change of forename by his or her father .

If the father changes his forename , the patronymic of his child who has reached DATE may be changed with the latter ’s consent . ”


Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of P1-3;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant stood as a candidate in the parliamentary elections of DATE in the single - seat electoral constituency no . DATE in the Zakarpattya ( Transcarpathia ) region ( PERSON виборчий округ № DATE ) .

Among the candidates registered in that constituency was PERSON , who , at the material time , occupied the post of Head of ORG ( GPE ) ( Берегівська державна адміністрація PERSON області ) .

On DATE the local NORP - language newspapers PERSON and Karpati Igaz Szo published the following appeal to voters :

“ We firmly believe that anyone who honours [ Mr PERSON ] with their support on DATE can do so with a clear conscience , placing their faith and trust in him to ensure the best possible future for our country . He is the only candidate who respects all our interests and is capable of representing and defending those interests at the highest level . He is a man of action who will never abuse your trust in him and who will do his utmost to retain the full support of voters in the future . ”

The appeal was followed by a large number of signatures , including those of PERSON , secretary of ORG of constituency no . CARDINAL ( PERSON виборча комісія ) , and PERSON , the Chairman of the same electoral commission .

On DATE the parliamentary elections were held . During the elections an observer , acting on behalf of PERSON in electoral division no . CARDINAL of constituency no . DATE , drew up a report ( акт ) stating that she had witnessed an unknown person depositing several ( she believed there were CARDINAL ) ballots in the ballot box . The report was signed by CARDINAL voters . The observers sent by PERSON to electoral divisions ORG . CARDINAL and DATE drew up similar reports of such breaches of electoral law , stating that they had seen respectively CARDINAL and CARDINAL ballots being cast in the ballot box unlawfully .

According to the first results generated by the computerised system , the applicant had obtained CARDINAL votes , compared with CARDINAL for his main opponent , PERSON In electoral division no . DATE the applicant had obtained CARDINAL and Mr G. CARDINAL votes out of CARDINAL votes cast . In division no . CARDINAL , out of CARDINAL voters CARDINAL had voted for the applicant and CARDINAL for his opponent . In division no . CARDINAL there had been CARDINAL votes , of which CARDINAL had been cast for the applicant and CARDINAL for PERSON In division no . DATE , of CARDINAL voters CARDINAL cast their ballots for the applicant and CARDINAL for his opponent . In total , in the CARDINAL above - mentioned electoral divisions the applicant had obtained CARDINAL votes , against CARDINAL for PERSON

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG of constituency no . DATE , on the basis of the above - mentioned ORG reports , declared the results in electoral divisions CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE invalid on the grounds of serious breaches of electoral law . It was also established that on TIME , after the close of polls and the count , the members of ORG of division no . CARDINAL had unlawfully opened the sealed polling station and retrieved the original voting records and several invalid ballots . DATE the Chairman of that division ’s ORG had brought those voting records and ballots to ORG of constituency no . DATE . No reason had been given for these actions . Therefore , the results of the elections in division no . CARDINAL were also declared invalid . On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision to ORG ( NORP виборча комісія – “ the ORG ” ) .

By decision no . DATE , ORG of constituency no . DATE announced the final results of the ballot , according to which the applicant had obtained CARDINAL votes compared with CARDINAL for PERSON This result corresponded to that set out in the first voting record , referred to above , after deduction of the votes in divisions CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL . PERSON , therefore , was declared elected as a member of parliament for the constituency .

On DATE the chairmen and members of ORG of divisions CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL sent statements to the Chairman of the ORG to the effect that none of the official observers had drawn their attention to any breach of electoral law during the voting or the count , and that the documents submitted by the observers complaining of irregularities had been drawn up after the count , “ the results of which did not suit CARDINAL of the candidates ” .

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , the ORG , following the applicant ’s complaint of DATE , set aside decision no . CARDINAL and instructed ORG of constituency no . DATE to give a reasoned decision on the results of the vote in the CARDINAL divisions in question . Referring to the first paragraph of section CARDINAL of LAW , the ORG observed that the impugned decision had not been duly reasoned and that there was no conclusive evidence of the alleged irregularities or the allegation that the number of ballots deposited unlawfully had exceeded PERCENT of the votes cast in each electoral division .

At a meeting of DATE , ORG of constituency no . DATE , by a majority of CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL with CARDINAL abstaining , adopted decisions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , whereby the vote in electoral divisions CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE was declared invalid for the same reasons as before . In these decisions the Commission noted that the twelfth paragraph of section CARDINAL of LAW allowed a vote to be declared invalid on account of “ other circumstances making it impossible to establish the results of the expression of the electorate ’s wishes ” , in addition to those enumerated in section QUANTITY . The Commission further noted that since section CARDINAL did not list these “ other circumstances ” , the matter fell within its exclusive competence . Lastly , ORG of constituency no . DATE concluded that the irregularities which it had established and those noted by the observers could be considered as “ other circumstances ” , making it impossible to establish the electorate ’s wishes .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint challenging decisions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE . He submitted that ORG of constituency no . DATE had not followed the instructions given by the ORG in its decision of DATE concerning the need to give sufficient reasons .

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , the ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint of DATE on the ground that , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW , the task of establishing the existence of “ other circumstances ” causing the vote to be declared invalid fell to the constituency electoral commission .

The applicant appealed against this decision to ORG , which , in a judgment of DATE , upheld the findings of the ORG , including that concerning the exclusive competence of the constituency ORG to establish the “ other circumstances ” provided for in DATE LAW .

On DATE Mr V. , the applicant ’s observer , in the presence of the observers of other candidates and the Chairman and CARDINAL members of ORG of constituency no . DATE , drew up a report alleging a breach of electoral law . According to the authors , the conditions in the office of the electoral commission located in the basement of the ORG building in GPE were not adequate to ensure that the ballots were kept secure and intact ; in particular , they alleged that the doors and filing cabinets had not been sealed , and that one of the doors did not even have a lock on it .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG , challenging decision no . CARDINAL of DATE whereby PERSON had been announced the winner of the elections in constituency no . DATE

On DATE , after the ORG ’s decision no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a recount of the votes in the electoral divisions CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL was held . After the recount , ORG of constituency no . DATE issued a detailed voting record dated DATE setting out the results of the ballot in the constituency , which were the same as those stated in its decision no . DATE .

On DATE a member of ORG , together with CARDINAL observers of CARDINAL of the unsuccessful candidates , prepared a memorandum , addressed to the ORG , alleging that the packages containing the ballot papers had not been sealed by ORG of division no . CARDINAL , that some of the ballot papers had been damaged and that , in view of these factors , access to the ballots by third parties before the recount could not be ruled out .

On DATE ORG of constituency no . DATE drew up the corrected voting record ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) setting out the results of the vote .

On DATE the deputy chairman and CARDINAL members of ORG of division no . CARDINAL drew up a memorandum , addressed to the ORG , in which they stated that , in breach of the law , the deputy chairman and secretary of ORG , accompanied by CARDINAL officials of the municipal council and ORG acting as observers appointed by PERSON , had come to their homes asking them to sign the corrected voting record . The signatories of the document expressed doubts as to the accuracy of the figures given in the record of DATE .

On DATE the corrected voting records were sent to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG seeking to have the record of DATE declared invalid . Referring to the appeal to voters published on CARDINAL and DATE in the newspapers ORG and PERSON , he criticised the fact that the chairman and the secretary of the commission had engaged in election campaigning for his opponent . He also noted that the conditions in which the ballot materials had been kept and the new voting record produced cast doubt on the accuracy of the results of the vote obtained after the recount on DATE .

In a letter of DATE , ORG of constituency no . DATE informed the ORG that , in accordance with the instructions of ORG ( ORG в FAC області ) , the commission ’s office had been properly protected and that no illegal entry had been found to have occurred .

By a decision of DATE , the ORG examined and rejected the applicant ’s complaints of CARDINAL and DATE . It noted that the voting record drawn up after the recount of DATE did not contain certain data , namely the number of invalid ballots , and that the amended record of DATE had corrected that error . The ORG further noted that decision no . CARDINAL of DATE had been lawful and valid given that , according to the corrected voting record , PERSON had obtained the highest number of votes . Moreover , no indication was found that the way in which the recount had been organised had affected the accuracy of the results of the vote . The ORG referred in this regard to the letter of DATE of ORG of constituency no . DATE concerning the security of its office . Lastly , the ORG found that the applicant had failed to indicate any ground provided by LAW for the dismissal of the Chairman and the secretary of ORG of constituency no . DATE .

The applicant challenged this decision before ORG , which , in a judgment given on DATE , rejected his complaint . It held that the decision of DATE had been taken within the ORG ’s competence and in a manner prescribed by the applicable domestic law .

The relevant LAW provides :

“ ... A citizen of GPE who has reached DATE on DATE of the elections has the right to vote and , if that citizen has resided on the territory of GPE for DATE , is eligible to be elected a member of parliament ... ”

At the material time the NORP electoral system was governed by CARDINAL of this LAW . It was based on a mixed - member proportional system , where CARDINAL of the CARDINAL members of PERSON ( the NORP unicameral parliament ) were elected from the single - seat constituencies by simple plurality ( “ first past the post ” ) ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI ) and another CARDINAL seats were reserved for candidates from party lists ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALX ) .

In accordance with section CARDINAL of the LAW , the system of electoral commissions included the ORG , commissions of electoral constituencies and electoral divisions . Each electoral constituency consisted of several divisions .

Section CARDINAL of the Act provided that the candidates for election were entitled to challenge the decisions , actions and omissions of the electoral commissions before the higher electoral commissions or the courts . The higher electoral commission , following such an application , the decision of the court or of its own motion , could set aside the decision of the lower commission and either take a new decision or oblige the commission concerned to reconsider the matter . Decisions , actions and omissions of the ORG could be challenged before ORG .

Section CARDINAL of the Act determined the procedure for having the vote in an electoral division declared invalid by the electoral commission of that division .

Paragraph CARDINAL of this section stipulated :

“ An electoral commission of a division may declare the vote in the division invalid in the event of a breach of this LAW making it impossible to establish the results of the expression of the electorate ’s wishes . The electoral commission of a division may declare the vote invalid only in the following circumstances :

NORP if actual unlawful voting has been established ( depositing of a ballot in the ballot box by a person other than the one to whom it has been issued ; voting by persons who have no right to vote ; voting by persons who are not included in the electoral lists of the relevant electoral division or by persons who have been wrongly included in the lists ; multiple voting by one voter ) if the number of fraudulent votes exceeds PERCENT of the total votes cast ;

NORP if a ballot box has been damaged or destroyed so that it is impossible to establish the content of the ballots deposited , and if the number of damaged ballots exceeds PERCENT of the total votes cast ;

NORP if the number of ballots deposited exceeds the number of voters who voted by PERCENT or more . ”

Section CARDINAL of the LAW regulated the procedure for examination by the constituency commissions of voting records issued by the division commissions .

Paragraph CARDINAL of this section provided :

“ If the electoral commission of a constituency establishes the existence of the circumstances enumerated in paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL or of other circumstances which make it impossible to establish the wishes of the voters in the division , it may declare the vote in the division concerned invalid . ”

The DATE LAW ( as amended on DATE ) provides for proportional representation in elections . LAW retains the power for commissions of electoral divisions to declare a ballot inadmissible if the number of fraudulent votes exceeds PERCENT of the total votes cast . Section CARDINAL provides that , after a recount , commissions of electoral constituencies are entitled to annul the vote in an electoral division if the circumstances set out in CARDINAL have been established , or if intentional acts have wrongfully interfered with the work of the members of the electoral commissions or the candidates’ observers .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and , at the time of lodging his application , he had been serving a custodial sentence at FAC .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant - together with an accomplice - of attempted drug dealing in large quantities ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW as then in force ) . The court established that the offence had been disclosed using a “ Criminal Conduct Simulation Model ” ( “ the model ” ) , which had been authorised by ORG on DATE .

The court found that on DATE V , a policeman acting as an undercover agent under the model , had met the applicant and , during their conversation on various topics , asked where he could get psychotropic drugs . The applicant had said that he could procure and sell samples to the policeman straight away , and more thereafter if the samples were good . The samples would cost CARDINAL LTL per QUANTITY , depending on the quantities required . He refused to lower the price for the first transaction , but suggested that it might be cheaper thereafter if V needed a regular supply . However , the officer replied that he could not wait and they agreed to telephone each other on the matter . V had to undergo a hospital intervention . Thereafter it was the applicant who contacted V , suggesting a meeting so that he could provide V with drug samples . On DATE , the applicant sold V some drugs .

On DATE V had telephoned the applicant , requesting more drugs for a total sum of CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant provided V with QUANTITY of amphetamines . He said that he had around QUANTITY of drugs ( amphetamines ) and that the price would be lower next time . The applicant and his accomplice were arrested immediately . The applicant pleaded guilty to the attempted drug offence .

The court questioned V as an anonymous witness , outside the courtroom via an audio relay . His identity was not disclosed in order to protect him and the proper functioning of the police drug squad . At that stage the defence did not put any questions to ORG After his testimony had been read out by the trial judge , the defence formulated some supplementary questions which were put to him by the judge and answered . The other evidence examined by the court included the transcripts of the conversations between V and the applicant , the testimony of another police officer who acted as V ’s back up during the operation , their supervising officer , the testimony of the applicant and his co - accused and an expert ’s conclusions .

The documents relating to the authorisation of the model were classified as secret and were not disclosed to the defence because they would have disclosed the identity of the police officers involved and the operational methods of the drug squad . The Government contended that the applicant was not , however , denied access to information about the execution of the model . In their submissions to the ORG , the Government provided further information about it . The police had information about the applicant ’s continued large scale drug dealings in GPE and abroad under the nickname of “ PERSON ” . CARDINAL police officers were authorised to contact the applicant and his associates and , should their suspicions prove to be founded , they were authorised to procure drugs from him . The steps to be taken and the equipment to be used to obtain proof were set out in the model , which was authorised for DATE .

Defence counsel , in his final submissions to the trial court , contended that the applicant had been incited to commit the offence by the undercover police officer , who had acted unlawfully . Consequently , the latter ’s evidence could not be relied on . Counsel requested that the applicant ’s acts be qualified as an attempted offence , for which a milder sentence would be appropriate .

The trial court concluded that the use of the model in the case had been lawful . It observed inter alia as follows :

“ [ T]he ORG is used to collect evidence about the criminal activities of a particular person . That is what happened in the present case . Having obtained information that the defendant ... was selling psychotropic substances , the police officer - whose identity was concealed - expressed his wish to get some drugs . The subsequent activities of [ the applicant ] , i.e. , the selling of a large quantity of drugs , were in part determined by the conduct of the police officer . ”

The court acknowledged that the applicant ’s conduct had been influenced by Officer V from the outset , and commented at the sentencing stage that it had not been established the applicant had sold or tried to sell drugs to anyone other than this officer . The applicant was convicted of the attempted offence and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , as well as to the confiscation of CARDINAL NORP Litai ( “ LTL ” ; MONEY [ “ ORG ” ] ) .

The applicant appealed , complaining inter alia that V had overstepped the legitimate limits of investigation by influencing and inciting him to sell a large quantity of drugs . In his view , this warranted a lesser penalty . The Government contended that he did not dispute the finding of the first instance court that the authorisation of the model had been lawful and , consequently , that he had been involved in drug dealing previously . The parties did not request that the evidence be re - heard de novo .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction , considering that the applicant was guilty of a completed offence , not a mere attempt . The court thus re - classified the conviction under LAW of LAW and increased the sentence to DATE imprisonment . With respect to the applicant ’s entrapment allegations , the court noted :

“ [ I]n establishing the persons involved in drug - dealing , [ the officers ] did not overstep the limits of ORG . ... [ T]he police have only uncovered the ring of persons committing crimes and have discontinued their criminal activities . The officers joined in the crime that was already taking place ... Having established the group of accomplices , the officers discontinued their criminal activities , but did not influence or incite them . ”

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal . He alleged that the actions of V had been unlawful . He could have discontinued the crime on DATE , when the applicant had handed over the drug samples . However , V had offered to buy more drugs for a price significantly higher than their market value . The applicant alleged that V had thus provoked him into selling drugs in large quantities . According to the Government , the aim of this appeal was thus to receive a reduction in sentence .

ORG partially dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal on DATE . It held , inter alia , as follows :

“ In the present case , ORG ... was applied in order to protect society and the ORG from the challenges posed by the consumption and illegal circulation of drugs and psychotropic substances . The model was sanctioned by ORG , in view of the possession of information about [ the applicant ] selling narcotic substances . Such data ... is a lawful ground for the use of the model .

By entering into contact with the applicant and offering to buy psychotropic substances from him ... , V only joined in the criminal activity of [ the applicant ] and uncovered his accomplice . Such actions can not be considered to be entrapment ( nusikaltimo provokavimas ) : it appears from the case file that [ the applicant ] was not subject to any pressure ... [ The applicant ’s ] allegation that the police undercover agent induced ( paskatino ) a person who had never offended before to commit a serious crime is unsubstantiated . On the contrary , the use of [ the model ] helped stop the criminal activity . ”

The applicant ’s conviction was again re - classified as an attempt to sell drugs in large quantities ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the new Criminal Code ) , but the sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment was retained .

The relevant domestic law and practice , as well as the relevant international law , concerning police undercover activities and criminal conduct simulation models , have been summarised in the judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON GPE ( [ ORG ] no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE ) .