Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the police searched the applicant ’s apartment .

On DATE the applicant was interrogated and charged with aggravated extortion .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and later placed in detention on remand .

On DATE the ORG of Kharkiv sentenced the applicant to nine years’ imprisonment following his conviction for aggravated extortion . During the trial , the court accepted the testimony of the witness L.D.M. during the pre - trial investigation . PERSON ’s evidence concerned CARDINAL of CARDINAL episodes of extortion imputed to the applicant and his accomplices . It did not contain any information about the applicant or his accomplices’ activity and was ancillary to the main evidence ( the testimonies of the victim and other witnesses , and police materials ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The court did not rely on ORG ’s evidence and approved the trial court ’s findings and assessment of facts . This court further rejected the applicant ’s complaint about the first instance court ’s decision to admit as evidence testimony given by PERSON , even though he was absent at the trial . It further noted that the evidence was of an ancillary character and fully corresponded to the other evidence examined .

On CARDINAL DATE the Deputy President of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request to initiate a supervisory review , as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the applicant was placed in detention at FAC by police officer R.A.A. , who imposed an administrative arrest on the applicant for appearing drunk and swearing in a public place . Later on DATE a judge of ORG of ORG authorised the applicant ’s administrative arrest for DATE for committing the aforementioned administrative offence .

On DATE the President of ORG quashed the resolution of ORG of Kharkiv of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , finding that the applicant ’s tenday administrative arrest had been imposed without lawful grounds and that the court ’s resolution was not substantiated .

On DATE police officers from ORG for Combating Organised Crime ( “ ORG ) arrested the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in extortion . At TIME on DATE the officers took him to the premises of the ORG , where he was questioned by the officers about extortion from a Mr M.

According to the investigation reports the applicant left the LOC of ORG TIME on DATE . According to some other reports he remained in the hands of police officers until later . According to the police records and R.A.A. police officer ’s witness statements , on DATE at TIME the applicant was brought to FAC , where he was apprehended for minor hooliganism . He was brought to that station by PERSON , one of the policemen who questioned him before . The applicant was placed in detention at FAC by police officer R.A.A. , who completed a verbatim record on the applicant ’s administrative arrest for appearing drunk and swearing in a public place ( according to that record he had appeared drunk in a public place at TIME on DATE ) . That officer requested ORG of ORG to authorise the applicant ’s administrative arrest for DATE . On DATE a judge of that court approved this request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE and DATE ORG called an ambulance to the applicant as he was complaining of kidney pains . From CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent treatment at ORG for a ruptured kidney and craniocerebral trauma . He was again treated for the same injuries and at the same hospital from DATE to DATE and later at ORG from DATE to DATE . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent in - patient treatment at ORG , where it was established that he was suffering from post - traumatic nearsightedness , his sight having deteriorated since DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint of ill - treatment by police officers with ORG ( “ ORG Office ” ) . On DATE the applicant sent a detailed statement to ORG complaining that he had been beaten by police officers ORG , ORG , ORG , PERSON and L.D.V. from ORG , who had arrested and questioned him on DATE . In a written complaint he stated that these officers had punched and kicked him in the face , chin , nape of the neck , ears , chest , back and other parts of the body . They had also threatened him with rape , ordered him to strip naked and twisted his testicles . He had eventually agreed to cooperate with these police officers . He further mentioned that after his questioning he had been taken by PERSON to FAC where he had been kept under administrative arrest for hooliganism .

As a result of these complaints , on DATE the supervisory prosecutor of ORG instituted criminal proceedings into the allegations of injuries and abuse of power by the police officers ( paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . The matter was referred to ORG ( “ ORG Office ” ) for investigation . The investigator questioned the police officers concerned , together with witnesses and the applicant himself , and ordered the seizure of the medical evidence . On DATE the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant in order to establish whether any injuries had been inflicted on him and the cause of any such injuries . This examination resulted in a report dated DATE which established that the applicant had concussion and a bruised kidney which could have occurred , as alleged , on DATE . The report did not establish the cause of these injuries or any causal link between the injuries and the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment . The investigation undertaken by ORG lasted from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , when the criminal proceedings were discontinued on account of the absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers .

On DATE the Head of ORG ordered that a disciplinary sanction be imposed on R.A.A. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , finding , inter alia , that the applicant ’s arrest on DATE had been illegal . In particular , the internal police investigation established that PERSON acted upon request of R.A.A. to complete a verbatim record of the applicant ’s arrest for drunkenness and swearing in a public place ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The order also stated that R.A.A. had disregarded the injuries that the applicant had at the time of being taken into detention .

The applicant complained of discontinuance of the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on DATE that resolution was quashed by ORG , which found that the circumstances of the criminal case had been insufficiently investigated . The case was sent for additional investigation to ORG , which undertook several investigative measures DATE and DATE . In particular , it ordered an additional forensic medical examination of the medical evidence gathered in the case . On DATE the forensic medical examination established that after the events of DATE the applicant had suffered from concussion and a bruised kidney . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the claims for damages he had lodged against the police officers could not be admitted to the case file as the applicant had no victim status in the criminal investigation . On DATE the proceedings instituted following the applicant ’s complaints of ill - treatment were suspended because the investigation had failed to determine the suspects .

On DATE ORG quashed that resolution as the investigation was incomplete . It recommended that it should be established whether the police officers indicated by the applicant were guilty of abuse of power and of inflicting bodily injuries on him . On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings on the grounds of a lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers involved in the applicant ’s questioning on DATE .

On DATE the ORG of Kharkiv ( “ the ORG ” ) quashed the resolution of DATE as the investigation was incomplete . In particular , it found that the investigation ’s findings contradicted the expert forensic examinations that had established that the applicant had injuries following events of DATE . The court ruled that the applicant should be granted the status of a victim . It also ordered a further investigation into the circumstances which had led to the applicant ’s injuries .

On DATE the investigator of ORG initiated an additional investigation into the applicant ’s allegations of illtreatment . On DATE , after several investigative acts and refusals to initiate criminal proceedings against police officer R.A.A. and to grant the applicant the status of victim , the proceedings were discontinued for the same reasons as on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed the resolution of DATE , finding that the instructions of the judge given on DATE had not been complied with and that the investigation had been perfunctory and incomplete .

A new investigation was conducted from DATE to DATE . On DATE the investigation against the suspected police officers was terminated due to the absence of corpus delicti in their actions . The case was remitted to ORG for further investigation into the charges of “ minor bodily injuries ” ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . The investigation again rejected the applicant ’s request for victim status . On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings as it found there was no evidence of a crime .

On DATE ORG quashed the resolutions of DATE , DATE and DATE and remitted the case to ORG for further investigation . In particular , it ruled that the above - mentioned investigative resolutions were unlawful and the investigation into the allegations of abuse of power and infliction of bodily injuries on the applicant was incomplete and inadequate .

The investigation was renewed on DATE and lasted until DATE . In the course of the investigation the applicant was granted the status of victim , but the proceedings against the police officers were again discontinued on account of a lack of corpus delicti and the grounds for initiating criminal proceedings were reclassified . The case was again remitted to ORG where , on DATE , another investigation into the infliction of bodily injuries was terminated as there was no evidence of a crime . On DATE all the resolutions adopted in the course of the investigation were quashed by ORG as the investigation was incomplete and its conclusions were premature . The case was again remitted for re - investigation to ORG .

The proceedings after this remittal lasted from DATE , when ORG again discontinued proceedings against the police officers as it found no evidence of abuse of power or illegal infliction of injuries on the applicant . It also decided to institute a criminal investigation into the infliction of bodily injuries on the applicant and to remit the case for further investigation to ORG .

Following the remittal of the case for further investigation , on DATE the investigator at ORG instituted a criminal investigation into the infliction of light bodily injuries on the applicant . On DATE the investigation found no evidence of a crime ensuing from the injuries inflicted on the applicant . It discontinued proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime .

On DATE ORG quashed the resolution of DATE as the investigation was inadequate and incomplete . The proceedings were again re - initiated by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the investigator of ORG lodged an application with ORG seeking to discontinue the proceedings on the charges of bodily injuries , on account of the expiration of the statutory limitation period . On DATE the court decided to terminate the proceedings on that ground .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s father ’s request for the extension of the time - limit for lodging an appeal since neither he nor the applicant had ever been informed about the judicial examination of the case . The applicant lodged an appeal seeking to quash the resolution of DATE .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the contested resolution of DATE . In particular , it stated that ORG and the court had failed to ensure that the applicant had an opportunity to familiarise himself with the case - file before it was referred to the court . It remitted the case for rehearing to ORG , which on CARDINAL DATE , ordered an additional investigation into the infliction of bodily injuries on the applicant .

The new additional investigation lasted from DATE to DATE , when the investigator of ORG discontinued proceedings in the case due to lack of corpus delicti .

On DATE ORG quashed the resolution of DATE as unlawful . It remitted the case for a new pre - trial investigation to ORG , which on CARDINAL DATE declared that the applicant was the victim of bodily injuries inflicted on him by unknown persons on DATE . The investigator questioned the applicant and ordered an additional forensic medical examination into the circumstances surrounding his injuries . It remained unclear from the last letter of the applicant dated DATE whether these proceedings were still pending .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of lodging his application , he was serving a prison sentence .

The applicant , a person with previous convictions , was suspected of robbery . On DATE the police conducted a search of his home . The applicant complained to the prosecution that the search had been unlawful . He also alleged that the police had taken some documents and computer files belonging to ORG ( BYA ) , a non - governmental organisation which he ran .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . His detention on remand was authorised by ORG on DATE . It was thereafter extended on several occasions .

On DATE the applicant was placed in custody at FAC ( FAC tardymo izoliatorius - kalėjimas ) .

He unsuccessfully attempted to escape from a convoy vehicle on DATE .

On DATE the prosecution rejected the applicant ’s complaints regarding the search of his home . The applicant did not appeal .

On an unspecified date the pre - trial investigation was concluded and the case transmitted to the trial court .

On DATE the Vilnius City Third ORG convicted the applicant of robbery , the illegal possession of ammunition , assault and an attempt to abscond . He was sentenced to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment and his property was confiscated . During the hearing the applicant was assisted by an officially - appointed defence counsel and an interpreter ( NORP / Lithuanian ) . When calculating the sentence to be imposed on the applicant , the trial court added a period of imprisonment relating to a previous conviction , which the applicant had not served fully as he had been released on licence on DATE .

The applicant appealed , claiming inter alia that the case against him had been fabricated , that the court had based its conclusions on evidence obtained by force , and that the conviction was arbitrary . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s allegations as unsubstantiated . The applicant was not present at the appeal hearing but was represented by officially - appointed counsel .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , claiming that the charges had been fabricated in order to undermine the activities of the ORG , that the evidence had been collected by force , that the first - instance court had rejected his request to have his handcuffs removed during the trial , that some witnesses had not been questioned , and that the transcripts of the hearings had been false . The applicant further alleged that his defence rights had been violated during his questioning on DATE , and that the majority of other procedural acts during the pre - trial investigation had been carried out in the absence of his counsel . He also complained about the quality of the services provided by the lawyers officially appointed to defend him . Finally , the applicant objected to the fact that the appellate court had examined the case in his absence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s cassation appeal , the applicant ’s lawyer being present . ORG noted that the trial court had reasonably refused to call additional witnesses . The applicant had been able to question the witnesses summoned by the court . The applicant could also have submitted his comments on the contents of the trial transcripts . ORG further established that the applicant ’s lawyer had in fact been present during the examination of the applicant on DATE and , subsequently , at each trial hearing . ORG ruled that the applicant ’s presence at the appellate level had not been required in view of the nature of the issues examined , the appellate court not having had any need to question him on issues that could not be determined in the sole presence of his lawyer .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request to reopen the criminal proceedings , as being wholly unsubstantiated .

By decisions of the Vilnius City Third District Court of CARDINAL DATE and ORG of DATE , the applicant ’s sentence of imprisonment was upheld , but the order to confiscate his property was lifted .

On DATE the applicant was released after having completed the sentence .

On an unspecified date the applicant was again arrested , this time on suspicion of possessing a stolen computer . According to the information in the case file supplied by the parties , the applicant was remanded in custody pending trial for that charge .

The applicant was held at FAC in the centre of GPE from DATE to DATE , when he was transferred to FAC which is also in GPE ( Vilniaus CARDINAL-oji griežtojo režimo pataisos darbų kolonija ; sometimes referred to by the parties as ORG ) . He stayed there PERSON until DATE , when he was transferred back to FAC for DATE ( DATE ) . Subsequently , from DATE to DATE , the applicant stayed in FAC , with the exception of a period from DATE to DATE , when he was placed in a prison hospital .

Thereafter , until his release on DATE , the applicant was held in FAC , with short , periodic transfers to other prisons .

In his submissions to the ORG , the applicant alleged that the cells had been severely overcrowded . In particular , CARDINAL to CARDINAL persons had had to share a cell of QUANTITY ( m² ) , all the detainees being confined to the cell for most of DATE . The applicant had frequently been transferred from one cell to another , the conditions in all the cells being very similar . The toilets in every cell had been virtually open , requiring the inmates to relieve themselves in front of the others . This had constituted an affront to human dignity . The cells had been very dirty , inhabited by cockroaches and rodents . Mattresses and bed linen had rarely been washed . Prisoners had done their own washing ( except for the bed linen ) so the cells had often been humid from the attempts to dry clothes . There had been no adequate ventilation system , the applicant being obliged to stay in his cell together with smokers . His health had suffered as a passive smoker . He had only bought cigarettes himself to trade with other prisoners . Opening the windows had caused unhealthy draughts .

NORP In their observations in response before the Court , the Government conceded that there had been some overcrowding in the cells , although not as serious as that alleged by the applicant . For reasons beyond the control of the administration of FAC , detainees had had about CARDINAL.CARDINAL m² of floor space per person , instead of the statutory CARDINAL m² ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Government stated that remand prisoners at GPE currently have CARDINAL m² of floor space per person . It had not been possible to provide the applicant with a permanent cell at that prison because there had been a constant turnover of remand prisoners .

The Government informed the ORG that regular inspections and DATE preventive disinfections had been carried out at FAC ( sometimes urgently albeit not during the applicant ’s stay there ) . Whilst the inspection reports had found overcrowding , no other material violation of public health or nutritional standards had been observed . No complaints about smoking in cells or an inadequate supply of soap or toilet paper had been recorded at that time . A few , minor violations of hygiene had been noted , which required repairs subsequently effected within set time - limits . A standard quantity of soap and toilet paper had been issued to each remand prisoner once DATE and bedding had been changed once DATE . Mattresses had been regularly disinfected and replaced when worn out .

The applicant complained to the ORG that he had been refused a social allowance which he had requested in order to purchase basic toiletries . He could only rarely get soap and toilet paper . The standard supply to each prisoner of CARDINAL bar of soap and CARDINAL roll of toilet paper per month had been wholly inadequate . No toothpaste or other such items had been provided . The prison administration had allegedly prevented him from using his own money to purchase certain items of hygiene . He had often been deprived of any social allowance for such purchases due to arbitrary disciplinary measures imposed on him . This had been done to prevent him purchasing stationery to make further complaints . Moreover , his own paltry funds had had to be used for legal representation . He had received a total of QUANTITY in social allowances in DATE , and had suffered severe hardship as a result .

The applicant also complained that his head had been shaved against his will , that the prison food had been of very low quality , and that an orthodox priest had not been invited to visit the prison . The possibility to obtain any information from the outside world had been severely restricted . In particular , the applicant alleged that he had been precluded from visiting the library , and his requests to have books brought to him in the cell had been ignored . He had only occasionally been given some old books and newspapers . The prison administration had also refused to provide him with copies of legislation .

The Government responded that the applicant , as a remand prisoner , had been allowed to purchase food and necessities at the prison shop using his own money held on a personal account for him . He had only once used this facility when he had bought soap , washing powder and , despite his complaint about smoke in cells , cigarettes . Contrary to his submissions to the ORG , the applicant had had a right of access , on request , to legal literature and other materials in the GPE prison library . Moreover , NORP and NORP newspapers were personally delivered to him on DATE and from time to time he had received various materials from outside prison . NORP priests had made regular visits to the prison and had held mass . Short hair had been required of inmates , but they had not been shaved .

The applicant had been provided with CARDINAL meals a day , according to prison nutritional standards , which had been regularly controlled . Although the applicant would have been allowed to receive certain family visits and parcels , none had been requested or sent at the material time .

The applicant next submitted that his outgoing letters had been delayed or withheld by the prison administration . He had thus been impeded in making complaints or prevented from receiving replies to his complaints to various authorities . Finally , the applicant alleged that the prison administration had never registered his complaints about his conditions of detention or the actions of certain prison warders .

On DATE the applicant sued the GPE prison administration , alleging that his personal rights had been violated on account of the inadequate general conditions of detention , as well as his specific treatment by the prison administration . Many of these complaints were similar to those described above at DATE , a recurring grievance being that of overcrowding . He subsequently clarified his complaints on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims in a succinct , global manner , holding that the applicant “ had not proved that [ the prison administration ’s ] acts had breached the law ” . The court also stated that the prison administration had “ substantiated its arguments by evidence ” . The applicant was present at the hearing , assisted by an interpreter .

The applicant appealed , complaining that the court had refused to examine certain evidence or appoint independent experts . The applicant also stated that the court had been biased since it had ignored facts which had been conceded by the prison administration ( i.e. the lack of space in the cells , smokers being detained with non - smokers , and the inadequate sanitary conditions ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It held inter alia :

“ The applicant alleged that his rights were violated by the officials of the [ GPE ] prison . In this case , LAW should be applied , being applicable to situations when damage is caused by the unlawful actions of [ ORG officials ] . The applicant claims non - pecuniary damages . LAW stipulates that in such cases , in addition to an award for pecuniary damage , non - pecuniary damage can also be compensated . Therefore , an award for non - pecuniary damage can be made only where pecuniary damage has been established ” .

The court concluded , as cryptically as ORG , that , since the applicant had sustained no pecuniary damage , there was no legal basis to award non - pecuniary damages . It did not analyse in detail the applicant ’s complaints . In particular , the court did not rule on whether there had been a violation of the applicant ’s personal rights as a result of the allegedly inadequate conditions of detention . The applicant was present at the hearing together with an interpreter .

The applicant also alleged before ORG that he was subjected to unlawful searches , and that he was exposed to the risk of contracting HIV in prison . However , he did not raise these complaints before the domestic courts .

The applicant made similar complaints in his submissions to the ORG about his conditions of detention after his conviction in FAC . The Government referred to this prison as ORG , ( formerly ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . It was a high security corrective labour colony for recidivists who had been sentenced to imprisonment . The applicant had served part of his sentence there .

The relevant periods for the ORG ’s examination ran from DATE until DATE , from DATE to DATE , and from DATE to DATE .

In response to the applicant ’s complaints , the Government contended that the applicant had been detained in a sector which had had CARDINAL unlocked rooms , housing CARDINAL prisoners . Prisoners had been free to walk around the sector , talk to others , watch television , play games , etc . , from TIME on DATE , and from TIME on DATE and holidays . They had been allowed out of the sector , on request , to use educational or recreational facilities , to go to the washhouse , the chapel , the library or the canteen , to perform work , etc .

NORP The prison ’s population increased to CARDINAL at DATE and to CARDINAL at DATE . The minimum standard of CARDINAL m² of floor space per person had been respected and surpassed at the material time . After an inspection in DATE , CARDINAL prisoners being detained , the floor space per person had been CARDINAL m² in the ordinary cells and ORG in the punishment cells . According to the inspection in DATE , the floor space had increased to between CARDINAL.CARDINAL m² in the ordinary cells and PERCENT in the punishment cells . In DATE the latter had been reduced to PERCENT . A refurbishment of cell accommodation had begun .

Prisoners had had access to the law and regulations on the execution of their sentences . The applicant had been allowed DATE visits to the library and had been offered various kinds of work , which he had refused . He had been solvent at the material time due to external remittances or social benefits , so he could have used the prison shops .

The prison had been regularly inspected and found to comply with sanitary and nutritional standards .

Nevertheless , the applicant complained to ORG on several occasions in DATE , but the ORG found most of his complaints to be unfounded . Instead , the applicant was advised to behave better and respect the rights of others , in accordance with his statutory duties .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before the administrative courts , complaining about the general conditions of detention and his specific treatment by the administration of FAC . On DATE he raised further complaints . ORG and the ORG administration were the respondents in the proceedings . The applicant complained of the following :

He had been refused a social allowance to purchase toiletries and certain basic items of hygiene .

There had been no possibility of work in the prison to earn a little money , as a result of which he had been constantly hungry and unable to maintain his personal hygiene .

He had been obliged to live in a cell with hostile persons or people suffering from infectious diseases .

His relatives had not been allowed to visit him .

He had not been allowed to make a telephone call freely , as he had been required to fill in a questionnaire , stating an addressee and the reason for every call ; at times the right to make a call had been refused even after completing the questionnaire .

The prison administration had refused to issue him with certain official documents , including those required to bring court proceedings .

He had not been able to make photocopies or have free postage stamps for his complaints , and he had not been provided with paper , envelopes or pens .

The prison administration had prevented him from having a personal stamp with his name , or a floppy disc with educational programmes , and had prohibited him from using a personal computer to type his various complaints about the conditions of detention .

The prison administration had seized paper which the applicant had received in a parcel .

They had unlawfully deleted his personal notes from his electronic note - book .

The prison administration had refused to provide him with information about the internal prison rules or the statutory requirements for ORG diet .

He had not been afforded free legal and translation assistance to prepare various court proceedings concerning the alleged violation of his personal rights .

The prison administration had delayed his letters and withheld some of them ; he had not been given certain letters sent to him , and certain of his letters and documents had been removed .

He had been victimised by the prison administration in view of his criticism of the conditions of detention , by being subjected to unlawful disciplinary measures , such as solitary confinement ( for an unspecified period ) .

The temperature in the solitary confinement cell had been very low and the toilet had smelled awful ; he had also been precluded from attending certain educational courses , church services or social activities , or from reading and using electronic equipment while in the solitary confinement cell .

The applicant alleged that these grievances about his conditions of detention had been ignored by the authorities , and that he had never been informed about the decisions reached in response to his complaints .

On DATE ORG partly rejected the applicant ’s case regarding numerous disciplinary sanctions , because he had not submitted a hierarchical complaint to ORG of ORG , and had missed the statutory time - limit of DATE to raise certain issues before the court . The applicant failed to appeal against the decision of DATE in accordance with the relevant statutory requirements , namely to set out his complaints in a comprehensible manner .

However , the court agreed to hear the applicant ’s complaints regarding other conditions of his detention and ordered him to submit the necessary documents proving that he had suffered damage . These complaints involved , inter alia , alleged persecution for having lodged complaints criticising the prison administration , a lack of legal aid , long term personal visits or telephone calls , a failure to supply copies of documents and envelopes , a failure to control cell temperatures , the censorship of correspondence , the lack of opportunity to attend educational courses , and the like ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the applicant , assisted by an interpreter . His complaints were subsequently rejected as unsubstantiated . In particular , the court :

“ ... found no indication of unlawful action or inaction on the part of the employees of [ the prison ] or ORG of ORG . Nor is there any indication that the applicant has suffered damage ... There is no evidence in the case file that the applicant has been victimised by way of revenge or psychological pressure in response to his complaints and criticism [ regarding his conditions of detention ] , or that his rights have [ otherwise ] been violated . The applicant ’s statements about psychological pressure and a violation of his rights are [ thus ] unsubstantiated . ”

This decision was read out at the hearing . Subsequently , the applicant was served with a written copy of it in the NORP language .

The applicant appealed , complaining inter alia that the first - instance court had been biased , that it had refused to examine certain witnesses and evidence , and that it had ignored various facts . In his appeal , the applicant also raised new complaints . In particular , he submitted that he had not been given enough food , that he had been deprived of the right to dial a certain telephone number , and that the prison administration had refused to communicate with him in the LANGUAGE language .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision . It noted that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaints as to the alleged violation of his personal rights . In this connection , the court accepted the following explanations provided by ORG and ORG administration ( the respondents ) :

- The respondents argued that the prison diet had been in conformity with Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE on food norms , as well as Regulation no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . Catering had been organised in accordance with the requirements of the Order of the Minister of Justice no . CARDINAL of DATE , the conditions being regularly checked by the competent health authorities . The last inspection had been carried out on DATE , establishing that the quality of the food had been satisfactory , and that there had been no violation of the relevant food norms .

- In response to the applicant ’s complaint about the inability to dial a certain telephone number , the respondents submitted that the making of telephone calls had been regulated by ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and LAW , which had stipulated that the cost of a telephone call should be met by the prisoner .

- All the official communications and correspondence in the prison had been conducted in the NORP language , pursuant to domestic regulations , the applicant having been afforded the possibility to learn the NORP language since DATE .

- In response to the applicant ’s complaint about the refusal to grant him a social allowance , the court noted that social benefits had been distributed in accordance with the Rules of ORG , approved by Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE . The rules stipulated that an inmate was eligible for a social allowance if , during DATE , he had no money or a sum inferior to CARDINAL of the statutory minimum standard of living , and had had no disciplinary penalties . The amount of such an allowance in each case also depended on the availability of funds . Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had received disciplinary penalties , the prison administration had taken into account his difficult financial situation , awarding him an allowance of LTL CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) on CARDINAL occasions : in DATE and DATE , and in DATE and DATE .

- Insofar as the applicant had complained about the refusal of the prison administration to grant him free legal aid , his complaints were wholly unsubstantiated .

- The applicant had been able to make photocopies of the documents necessary for the submission of his complaints . However , the prison administration had had the right to require reimbursement of the costs incurred in this respect , in accordance with Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE .

The court refused to examine the applicant ’s other complaints which had not been raised at first instance .

By final decisions of DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s further claims for moral and pecuniary damages in relation to his conditions of detention , which claims had been lodged against various authorities , such as the central ORG of ORG , ORG itself and the PERSON prison administration .

The applicant had unsuccessfully tried to bring numerous civil and criminal proceedings against certain private newspapers and journalists and other private persons , as well as various ORG agencies and officials , for alleged affronts to his dignity and reputation , as well as an interference with his private life . However , his actions had been dismissed because he had failed to comply with the statutory procedural requirements to formulate his submissions adequately , to present his complaints in the NORP language or to pay stamp duty . The applicant had not appealed against those decisions .

The applicant had been subjected to various disciplinary penalties during his detention . According to the ORG , once , on DATE at FAC , his right to use the prison shop or receive parcels from the outside had been withdrawn for DATE . This penalty had been revoked before term by the prison director . DATE at FAC , he had been disciplined CARDINAL times , as a result of which he had served varying periods of DATE in the punishment cell on CARDINAL occasions . Otherwise the sanctions had involved mere warnings or reprimands . The applicant had frequently challenged such sanctions and , on CARDINAL occasion in DATE , the decision to confine him to a punishment cell had been quashed by the director of ORG of ORG . The Government contended that the applicant had had access to the prison administration and the administrative courts .

According to LAW , no one may be subjected to torture , or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

At the material time , detention on remand was governed by the PERSON on Pre - trial ORG ( the “ Law ” ) and ORG of Pre - trial ORG ( the ‘ Regulations ” ) , approved by ORG . CARDINAL of DATE and replaced by ORG . CARDINAL of DATE . Article CARDINAL of the PERSON provided that inmates were to be kept in common cells housing a maximum of CARDINAL inmates , in adequate living conditions . The official norms on cell space fixed a minimum of CARDINAL m² per person . This standard was increased to CARDINAL m² of floor space per person in DATE .

The execution of prison sentences at the material time was governed by LAW DATE , revised in DATE and DATE ( the “ Prison Code ” ) , as well as LAW ( the “ Prison Rules ” ) . LAW provided that imprisonment was not intended to cause physical suffering or offend human dignity . LAW required the provision of adequate conditions of detention for convicted prisoners . The official standard floor space was also CARDINAL to CARDINAL m² for such prisoners ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The sanitary , space , food and medical requirements in detention facilities were further regulated by ORG . CARDINAL and Ministerial ( health care ) Order No . CARDINAL . Adequate heating , ventilation ( windows ) , sanitation and cleanliness were necessary requirements for all places of detention , but no distinction was made between smoking and non - smoking cells . Prisoners were to be provided with a bath , clean bedding and underwear once DATE . Men were to have short hair ( not shaved ) , and all prisoners on arrival or transfer ( including placement in solitary confinement ) had to be “ sanitised ” . The floors of sanitary facilities were to be cleaned DATE . Food was free of charge and had to comply with governmental nutritional standards .

Detainees were required to conform to their respective regimes or face disciplinary sanctions , to be determined according to the gravity and character of the offence . LAW set out GPE duty to observe order in prison , to comply with lawful demands , to refrain from communicating with people in other cells , etc . LAW specified the possible disciplinary penalties for remand prisoners , such as a warning or reprimand , extra cleaning duties , a denial of access to the prison shops and the receipt of parcels for DATE , or incarceration in a punishment cell for DATE . LAW provided similar penalties for convicted prisoners and , in addition , DATE in a punishment cell or a cell transfer of DATE . LAW provided for information , defence possibilities and appeals .

Article CARDINAL of the PERSON foresaw detainees’ right to correspond , subject to censorship , with outgoing letters being posted within DATE of being handed in . Letters to certain ORG institutions ( extended to all such institutions in DATE ) , the Minister of ORG and ORG were not to be censored , and were to be posted within DATE . Detainees were to be informed of incoming correspondence within DATE of its arrival but were not given it . Instead , until DATE , it was kept in the individual ’s file . The ORG ’s letters were , however , to be notified within DATE of receipt . As of DATE , the decision to censor a detainee ’s correspondence was only to be taken by the investigating officer , the prosecutor or a court ( as well as the prison director in respect of a convicted prisoner ) . Article CARDINAL of the Prison Code allowed the general censorship of the correspondence of convicted prisoners , subject to certain exceptions such as that addressed to ORG institutions and the ORG .

Visits to remand prisoners were allowed by LAW ; LAW for convicted prisoners . The ORG visits had to be authorised by the investigating officer , could last TIME and were held within sight of prison officers . The latter ’s visits could be of short or long duration , the frequency of which was determined by the nature of the individual ’s regime . Short visits were to be held in the presence of prison officers .

Article CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the PERSON enabled remand prisoners to attend religious services held in the detention centre . The same right for convicted persons was contained in LAW . Clergymen of all confessions were to be given free access to all places of detention .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( hereafter the “ CPT ” ) visited several NORP detention centres DATE and its ORG was published ( ORG ) . CARDINAL such centre was FAC where the present applicant was detained . ORG called it FAC which was designated as both a remand establishment and closed prison . It was built in DATE and is located in the city centre . With an official capacity of CARDINAL , on DATE it was holding CARDINAL prisoners , including CARDINAL women and CARDINAL male minors . CARDINAL of the prisoners were on remand ; the rest were sentenced prisoners , CARDINAL of whom were serving life sentences ( § CARDINAL of the CPT ’s Report ) .

The ORG noted , inter alia , serious overcrowding in the prisons it inspected , a particularly high rate of prisoners remanded in custody pending trial , a lack of recreational and employment facilities and insufficient staffing . At GPE , cells measured TIME m² and held CARDINAL people instead of a maximum of CARDINAL , with insufficient room for furniture other than double or triple bunk beds . The in - cell toilets provided little privacy or separation from the sleeping and eating area , where prisoners were obliged to spend TIME a day ( § CARDINAL ibid ) . It commented at paragraph CARDINAL of its ORG as follows ( emphasis added ) :

“ Prison overcrowding is an issue of direct concern to the ORG . An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation ; a constant lack of privacy ( even when using a sanitary facility ) ; reduced out - of - cell activities , due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available ; overburdened health - care services ; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff . The establishments visited by the ORG ’s delegation ( and , in particular , FAC ) vividly illustrated these negative consequences of overcrowding , which were all present in varying degrees of severity . ”

The ORG noted at paragraph CARDINAL of its Report that :

“ At FAC , CARDINAL prisoners sentenced for minor offences were employed full - time on maintenance work . Efforts were also being made to provide some activities to male minors held in the establishment . Other inmates , including life - sentenced prisoners , were not offered anything which remotely resembled a regime of activities . The only DATE out - of - cell activity consisted of TIME of outdoor exercise ( TIME for women and for ill prisoners ) , which was itself a relatively recent development . The yards used for this purpose were of an insufficient size ( CARDINAL ORG ) to allow prisoners to exert themselves physically , and were generally oppressive . ... ”

The ORG recommended as a priority , amongst other elements , that :

- The living space for inmates should be increased to CARDINAL m² per person ;

- Adequate in - cell sanitary facilities should be installed to allow greater privacy ;

- Programmes for vocational and recreational activities should be developed ;

- Sufficient possibilities for DATE outdoor exercise should be provided ;

- Visiting entitlements should be upwardly revised to enable prisoners to maintain relations with their families ( visits to remand prisoners being particularly limited , even non - existent at that time ) ; and

- a study should be made of whether the control of ORG correspondence was causing excessive delays and , if appropriate , remedial action should be taken , particularly with a view to ending the practice of systematic censorship .

However , the ORG commented that there was no medical justification for the segregation of prisoners who were HIV - positive or ill with AIDS unless they were known for their unsafe or irresponsible behaviour . Steps needed to be taken to respect medical confidentiality on this subject .

DATE . In its renewed visit from CARDINAL to DATE to the ORG [ FAC , the ORG noted the continued , severe overcrowding ( CARDINAL prisoners in a cell of seven m² ) , and that the conditions of detention , whilst varying from CARDINAL part of that prison to another , nevertheless for the most part remained very poor . These conditions were further exacerbated by the absence of personal hygiene products , the lack of proper clothing for indigent prisoners , insufficient heating , dirty bedding , no access to hot running water or showers , poor ventilation , etc . No improvement was noted regarding any programme of activities for remand prisoners ( § § CARDINAL of its Report - CPT / inf ( CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) .


András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

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

On DATE the applicant was caught red - handed while throwing a Molotov cocktail into a bank during an illegal demonstration in support of the ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan ) . According to the arrest record signed by the applicant , while escaping from the police the applicant entered an empty building under construction , where he fell on the staircase and was subsequently caught by the police . According to the same document , the police used force to counteract the applicant 's resistance .

The applicant was examined by a number of doctors on DATE . According to CARDINAL medical reports issued following these examinations , the applicant sustained a cut and a haematoma on his right eyebrow , a bruise and oedema on his nose and a graze on his chin . In his statement to the doctor , the applicant maintained that the injuries had occurred during his arrest .

According to the medical report issued on DATE at the end of the applicant 's detention in police custody , the applicant had a sutured injury on his right eyebrow , a CARDINAL x QUANTITY bruise under his right eye and a QUANTITY graze on his chin . In his medical examination , the applicant declared to the doctor that he was beaten during his arrest but that no such treatment had occurred in police custody .

On DATE the applicant was taken before the public prosecutor , where he submitted that police officers had caused his injuries during his arrest . On DATE the applicant 's lawyer complained before the investigating judge that the applicant had been illtreated and forced to sign self - incriminating statements in police custody . The applicant was detained pending trial by the investigating judge .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG lodged a bill of indictment charging the applicant with membership of the ORG and with throwing explosives .

On DATE the applicant complained before the trial court that he had been ill - treated during his arrest and his detention in police custody .

Following the abolition of ORG , on DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were transferred to ORG of ORG .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and of possession of and throwing explosives . In its decision , the court found that the applicant 's injuries had occurred at the time of his arrest , as he had claimed in his initial statements to the authorities . The ORG relied , inter alia , on the applicant 's police statement , the arrest record , on - site inspection records , medical reports and the statements it took from the accused and witnesses .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment on procedural grounds due to the absence of the trial judges ' signatures on the verdict .

Following the remittal of the case to the first - instance court , on DATE the applicant was released pending trial .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant once again of the same offences .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant 's conviction for membership of the ORG and possession of explosives .

On DATE the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings against CARDINAL police officers before ORG for the alleged ill - treatment of the applicant . The applicant took part in the proceedings .

On DATE the first - instance court acquitted the accused police officers during the hearing when the applicant was present . The court found that the applicant 's injuries had happened as a result of his fall whilst running away from the police and due to his resistance to the arrest by the police officers . The judgment became final , in the absence of any appeal request .


Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is the mother of CARDINAL daughters , ORG , who was born in DATE , and ORG , who was born in DATE . At the time of their births the applicant was living in GPE with Mr PERSON , a NORP citizen . The children were born out of wedlock .

On DATE the couple married in GPE . PERSON obtained NORP citizenship DATE .

NORP The applicant and PERSON separated in DATE and PERSON moved from the house they shared in DATE .

NORP In DATE PERSON went to GPE with the QUANTITY girls for a holiday . The applicant gave her consent to allow her daughters to accompany their father to GPE . In DATE the applicant received a telephone call from PERSON , who told her that her daughters would not be returning to GPE . From that point on PERSON refused to communicate with the applicant . Over DATE the applicant received no information about the children or their condition in GPE .

The applicant applied to the NORP authorities for a decree of divorce and custody of her QUANTITY daughters .

On DATE ORG issued a separation licence and provisionally granted custody of the children to the applicant .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant should be granted custody of the children in view of the fact that they had been living with their mother since their parents separated and that GPE had always been their home . ORG based its decision on the opinion of ORG , which made an overall assessment of the applicant ’s and PERSON financial situation and living conditions .

On DATE ORG issued a divorce decree , under which PERSON was to pay the applicant maintenance for each child until DATE and the children were to have access to their father under arrangements to be determined by mutual agreement between the parents .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG ( Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi ) in GPE in which she sought a divorce and custody of her daughters .

At a hearing held on DATE ORG and ORG appeared before the court . ORG stated as follows :

“ I want to remain in the custody of my father . PERSON was my mother once upon a time . She is not my mother anymore . She was bad to me . She has left us alone . She was going out with other men . I love my father . ”

ORG stated :

“ I want to remain in the custody of my father . PERSON was my mother once upon a time . I do not want her anymore . She has left us alone . We were frightened . She was always going somewhere . I love my father . ”

On DATE the ORG declared the applicant and PERSON divorced and granted custody of the children to the father . It considered in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL that the applicable law in the case was NORP law .

ORG considered that the children had expressed the wish to stay with their father , who tended to their emotional needs and gave them a decent education . The children had adjusted to their life in GPE and to their father ’s environment . If they were removed from their surroundings , they would suffer psychologically and emotionally . It was therefore in the children ’s best interest to remain with their father , who had sufficient income to support them and pay for their education . ORG also granted the applicant visiting rights allowing her to see the children DATE for DATE .

The case attracted the attention of the media and the general public and a group of NORP and NORP reporters were in court when it gave its decision .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG on the grounds that it had failed to clarify whether the applicant had obtained NORP citizenship and whether PERSON had obtained NORP citizenship as a consequence of their marriage . It had also failed to establish whether the couple ’s marriage had been recognised and certified in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided not to follow ORG decision . In its opinion the nationality of the couple bore no relevance to the case before it . Furthermore , the case - file revealed that the couple had been married in accordance with NORP law and , therefore , it was unnecessary to consider whether the marriage had been certified by the NORP authorities .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( Yargıtay Hukuk Dairesi PERSON ) quashed the decision of DATE . It held that the couple ’s nationality and the question whether their marriage had been recognised in GPE were the main issues in the case . ORG task was to clarify those facts so that it could decide on the applicable law in the light of the rules governing conflicts of laws and the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL .

The case was remitted to ORG .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG requested ORG to inform it whether the marriage certificate issued by the NORP authorities on DATE had been certified by the NORP authorities .

In a letter of DATE ORG informed ORG that the marriage certificate issued on DATE by ORG and the divorce decree issued on DATE by ORG had been certified by ORG in GPE .

At a hearing on DATE the applicant withdrew her divorce petition and asked ORG to rule on the issue of custody .

In its decision of the same date ORG referred to its correspondence with ORG , which confirmed that PERSON had both NORP and NORP citizenship and that the applicant had not obtained NORP citizenship as a consequence of their marriage . It dismissed the divorce petition . It held that it did not , therefore , have jurisdiction to decide the issue of custody .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE . In the opinion of ORG , the first instance court should have decided which parent would be granted the custody of the children pursuant to the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL and LAW . It was necessary to determine who would have the parental authority over the children because they had been registered as “ children born out of wedlock ” ( gayri sahih nesepli ) in ORG .

The case was once again remitted to ORG .

On DATE the children were brought to the courthouse for a hearing along with CARDINAL other girls all wearing the same headscarves and black sunglasses as the applicant ’s daughters . A group of people gathered in front of the courthouse chanting slogans and waving banners calling for the children to be allowed to remain with their father in GPE . The applicant and her lawyers were harassed by the crowd .

CARDINAL

At the hearing ORG stated as follows :

“ I have been staying with my father for DATE . I am happy with my father . I do not want to stay with my mother . I want to enjoy the NORP way of life . That ’s why I want to stay with my father . My mother tried to kidnap me . That ’s why I do not want her . I do not want to stay with her . I am having an NORP education . At the same time I go to a public school . I can not say the name of the school for security reasons . I am not under the pressure of my father . ”

ORG stated :

“ I have been staying with my father for DATE . I am happy with him . I am happy being with him . I have no worries . My stepmother PERSON is staying with us . My father takes care of us . My stepmother helps him . I do not want to see my mother . I do not want to say the name of my school . I am afraid that my mother will intervene . ”

The applicant ’s lawyer alleged that the children were under the influence of their father and not giving testimony of their own free will . He submitted that the children should undergo a psychological examination by child therapists . The court did not rule on that request .

Having regard to the statements of the children and other evidence before it , ORG decided to award custody of the children to their father and granted the applicant visiting rights . It reached the following conclusions :

During the proceedings the children had stated on several occasions that they had been living with their father for DATE and were happy being with him . They did not want to see their mother and feared that she might kidnap them . The case - file showed that the children had no psychological , mental or physical problems . Their father had given them sufficient financial support , they had adjusted to their father ’s environment and were happy to live with him . In the light of those facts the children ’s interest would best be served by their remaining with their father . However , it was also necessary to satisfy the children ’s maternal needs . Therefore , having regard to the distance between GPE and GPE and the children ’s DATE , the applicant should be granted visiting rights DATE for DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

ORG rejected an application by the applicant for rectification of the judgment on DATE .

The applicant brought civil proceedings against PERSON claiming that he had abused his authority as the children ’s guardian ( velayetin nezi davası ) .

At a hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the children appeared before ORG .

ORG stated :

“ I am living with my father . He takes care of my sister and me . I do not agree to seeing my mother because I do not want to see her . I do not sympathise with my mother because she did not show any interest or concern during my childhood . I am studying at a private school . I do not want to disclose its name for security reasons . I want to remain in the custody of my father . I do not agree to my mother ’s request [ to see us ] . I am aware that it is a criminal offence to refuse to see my mother . In DATE , I met my mother at the request of police officers . I do not have any involvement in the PERSON cult . ”

ORG stated :

“ I have been living with my father for DATE . My sister is also living with us . My father has always fulfilled his parental duties . My sister and I did not want to live with our mother because we were not happy with her . She never took care of us . I want to stay with my father . I am continuing my studies at a private school . I am not going to tell the school ’s name . If I do , my mother might follow us . I met my mother in DATE and DATE because I wanted to see her . My mother forced me to testify against my father in the proceedings before the Bakırköy CARDINALth ORG . ”

On DATE the ORG provisionally granted the applicant access to her children on DATE . However , she was able to see her children on CARDINAL occasions . Her subsequent attempts to have access were unsuccessful .

On DATE PERSON informed the PERSON Enforcement Officer ( PERSON ) that his daughters would be staying in GPE DATE and DATE for DATE . He also communicated his addresses in GPE and in GPE .

While staying in GPE , PERSON informed ORG that the family had prolonged their stay because V.A. was ill and that they would now be staying in GPE until DATE .

In the meantime , the Magistrate ’s Court ( Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi ) in PERSON acquitted the applicant , on DATE , of a charge of attempted kidnapping of the children on CARDINAL DATE , following a complaint by PERSON .

On DATE the ORG dissolved the applicant ’s marriage and granted custody of the children to their father and access to the applicant . Having regard to the need to satisfy the children ’s maternal needs , the distance between GPE and GPE and the children ’s DATE , the court held that the applicant should be granted visiting rights DATE for DATE ( see , paragraph QUANTITY above ) .

Subsequently , PERSON requested the office of ORG ( PERSON ) to stay the execution of that decision . He submitted that ORG had quashed the decision of the first - instance court and that , therefore , the execution proceedings should be halted . In the meantime , the applicant applied to ORG for access to her children since ORG had quashed the decision of the first - instance court ( see , paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG provisionally granted the applicant visiting rights from TIME on DATE to TIME on every DATE . The court noted that the children could visit their mother in the apartment that she had rented in GPE .

DATE and DATE the enforcement officers went to PERSON home CARDINAL times . However , on none of these occasions did they manage to find him or the children . On CARDINAL occasions the doorkeeper of the building told the officers that PERSON had gone to PERSON with his daughters for a holiday .

The applicant filed several complaints . ORG instituted criminal proceedings against PERSON on the ground that he had failed to comply with court orders .

On DATE ORG ) sentenced PERSON to DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . The penalty was converted into a fine of CARDINAL NORP Liras .

Attempts by the applicant to see her children on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE all failed . The officers did not find the children at their home on any of those dates .

On DATE the enforcement officers forcibly entered PERSON house and found the children ’s stepmother . PERSON arrived later . He told the officers that only ORG was at home . The officers left without taking ORG with them since PERSON was not there .

When the officers returned to PERSON house on DATE they again found the children ’s stepmother . The children and their father were absent . PERSON again refused to comply with the access arrangements on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE ( see , paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE PERSON again failed to comply with the access arrangements . He was not found at his home on any of those dates .

On DATE the applicant arrived at PERSON house accompanied by enforcement officers . The children ’s grandfather , who was at home , said that the children were at school but he did not know which school . The enforcement officers searched the house but could not find the children .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant visiting rights DATE for DATE ( see , paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG sent an official letter to PERSON on DATE inviting him to be present at his home on DATE at TIME

On DATE PERSON requested the office of the PERSON Enforcement Judge to set aside the order for enforcement of access rights . On DATE the judge rejected that request . However , the officers who visited PERSON home did not manage to find the children or PERSON .

In a letter of the same day PERSON informed ORG that ORG was in GPE and ORG was in PERSON for a holiday and that the applicant could visit the children in those cities .

On DATE the enforcement officers were again unable to find PERSON at his home . The doorkeeper of the building told them that the children had left home TIME .

The applicant lodged CARDINAL complaints with the office of ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG , accusing PERSON of non - compliance with court orders .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the local police station of a visit planned on DATE and requested a policeman to accompany the officers . In their subsequent visits a policeman accompanied the enforcement officers .

DATE . On DATE ORG filed a further bill of indictment with ORG , again accusing PERSON of non - compliance with court orders .

When they attended the LOC on DATE the children ’s grandfather told the officers that the children had not come back from PERSON . The officers noted that the children ’s beds were made .

On DATE the enforcement officers did not find anyone at PERSON home . A neighbour told them that she had not seen anyone come in or out of the house for a long time .

The applicant ’s subsequent visits on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE were also in vain . The children were not at their father ’s home on any of those dates .

According to ORG , an exceptional meeting had been arranged between the applicant and her children on DATE following previous discussions between the NORP and NORP authorities and pressure imposed on the NORP authorities by ORG and the Ambassador of GPE to GPE who was also present at the meeting .

On DATE ORG convicted PERSON of non - compliance with court orders and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment .

In a letter of DATE ORG informed ORG that the applicant would be coming to GPE on DATE and requested it to take the necessary steps so that she could exercise her access rights without hindrance .

On DATE the applicant urged the office of ORG to have PERSON arrested .

DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer travelled to Divriği in the province of NORP in order to meet the applicant ’s daughters . PERSON arrived at the meeting point with his daughters . When the children left their father they started shouting and were reluctant to travel with the applicant ’s lawyer . They said that they did not want to see their mother anymore because she had never been a real mother to them . They refused to get into the car when the applicant ’s lawyer told them to do so . He requested assistance from the police officers and asked if they would accompany them to GPE . However , the police officers refused , saying that they would only escort him to the boundaries of GPE . The applicant ’s lawyer declined to travel with the children , as he feared for their safety owing to terrorist activity in the region .

The applicant lodged another criminal complaint with the office of ORG . On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant ’s claims and acquitted PERSON . It noted that the children had repeatedly expressed their reluctance to see their mother and stayed in friends’ houses just before the scheduled visits in order to avoid seeing her . They were not under the influence of their father and genuinely did not want to see their mother . The court held that there was no evidence on which to convict PERSON .

DATE . On an unspecified date ORG notified ORG that the applicant had been informed that she could see her children in GPE , GPE or GPE and that it would be more appropriate for her to go to CARDINAL of these cities in order to satisfy the children ’s maternal needs . However , the applicant had not considered visiting her children in those cities . ORG further emphasised that , as a general rule , a claimant should make use of the relevant legal procedures and apply to the competent authorities in order to exercise his or her access rights . In the present case , however , the applicant had not made use of the legal procedures that were available to everyone .

ORG brought the criminal proceedings that had begun on DATE ( see , paragraph CARDINAL above ) to an end . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE it convicted PERSON of non - compliance with court orders and sentenced him to CARDINAL - months’ imprisonment . The penalty was converted into a fine of CARDINAL NORP Liras .

By letters of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG requested the public prosecutors in GPE and PERSON to take the necessary measures to facilitate the access arrangements specified in the order of ORG . ORG also informed ORG that the applicant ’s lawyer ’s efforts to have access to her children had been hampered during the meeting of DATE because of security concerns . It was suggested that ORG take the necessary measures in order to facilitate the applicant ’s meeting with her daughters the following DATE .

On DATE ORG again sentenced PERSON to DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . The penalty was converted into a fine of CARDINAL NORP Liras .

The applicant met her daughters on DATE for DATE in GPE . However , PERSON did not allow his daughters to see their mother for any longer period . The applicant returned to GPE .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE in order to meet her daughters . However , she was not able to see them .

The access rights became unenforceable when ORG reached DATE in DATE and ORG in DATE , as the children were considered adults under NORP law .

The relevant provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL ( Law on Private International Law and Procedural Law - Milletlerarası PERSON ve PERSON )

“ The capacity to marry and conditions for the validity of marriage shall be governed by the legislation in force in each party ’s country of origin at the time of the marriage . A marriage celebrated in the form prescribed by the legislation in force in the country where the marriage takes place shall be valid . A marriage celebrated in a consulate in accordance with the provisions of an international agreement shall be valid .

The general provisions relating to contracts of marriage shall be governed by the spouses’ national law . If the spouses have different nationalities , the legislation in force in the place where they are domiciled shall apply . If the spouses are not domiciled in the same place NORP law shall apply . ”

“ The grounds for divorce and judicial separation shall be determined by the spouses’ national law .

If the spouses have different nationalities , the legislation in force where they are domiciled shall apply . If the spouses are not domiciled in the same place , the legislation in force where they reside shall apply . If the spouses do not reside in the same place , NORP law shall apply . ”

“ Affiliation proceedings shall be governed by the national law of the father . If it is not possible to determine the legislation in force under the father ’s national law , the affiliation proceedings shall be governed by the national law of the mother . If it is not possible to determine the legislation in force under the mother ’s national law , the affiliation proceedings shall be governed by the national law of the child . ”

“ The rights and duties of the mother and of a child born out of wedlock shall be governed by the legislation in force under the mother ’s country of origin . The rights and duties of a father and of a child born out of wedlock shall be governed by the legislation in force in the father ’s country of origin . ”

“ The law governing custody of the children shall be the law under which the divorce was obtained . ”

At the material time GPE was not a party to ORG and on Restoration of Custody of Children ( the LAW came into force in respect of GPE on DATE and in respect of GPE on DATE ) or to LAW ( the LAW came into force in respect of GPE on DATE and in respect of GPE on DATE ) .

At the material time LAW provided :

“ The judge shall take the necessary provisional measures concerning , in particular , ... the protection of the children ... in a pending divorce or judicial separation case . ”

At the material time Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provided :

“ When issuing a decree of divorce or judicial separation the judge shall decide at the same time which parent will have custody of the children and which parent will be granted access rights .

The parent to whom custody is not given shall pay allowances for the maintenance and support of the children and exercise his or her access rights without any hindrance . ”

DATE ( a ) of ORG ( İcra ve PERSON ) provides :

“ The enforcement officer shall issue an enforcement order requiring access to be given as specified in the court order . In the enforcement order the enforcement officer shall specify that access must not be hindered and that a failure to comply will constitute a criminal offence under LAW .

A person who fails to comply with access arrangements specified in the enforcement order shall be liable to prosecution under LAW . ”

Article CARDINAL of ORG provides :

“ A person against whom an enforcement order has been issued hides the child when required to give access or abducts the child following the enforcement of access rights shall be liable on conviction to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment on a complaint by the person entitled to access . ”