The applicant is a NORP citizen born in DATE and residing in GPE , GPE . He is a businessman . He is represented by Mrs. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , who was his defence counsel throughout the criminal proceedings outlined below .

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

A.

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the ORG . Upon his arrest , ORG decision was communicated to him , which he acknowledged by signing the document . According to the decision , there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had participated in the murder of PERSON , an offence under PERSON . The applicant was committed to the prison of ORG .

On DATE , the ORG searched the applicant 's home and business LOC and seized cash belonging to him , in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) , in pursuance of S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . His complaint was to no avail .

On DATE ORG heard the applicant . On this occasion he was again informed that there was a strong suspicion that he had participated in the murder of PERSON , a businessman .

On DATE the ORG heard the applicant who denied the charge . ORG ordered his detention on remand , holding that there was a strong suspicion that on DATE the applicant and CARDINAL further suspects had murdered PERSON by means of multiple battery and shooting . This suspicion relied on , inter alia , witness evidence and preliminary forensic pathology expertise . ORG found that , in the light of the serious charge against him and in accordance with S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a)-(b ) of LAW , there was a risk of the applicant 's absconding or of collusion , if he had been left at large .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE . ORG found that ORG had ordered the applicant 's detention on remand on proper grounds .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the detention on remand until DATE , at the latest . ORG observed that the applicant was suspected of murder . The ORG considered that , had the applicant been left at large , there was a serious risk that he would hide from the authorities , abscond or obstruct the proceedings by co - operating with his accomplices . The prolongation was ordered in accordance with S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL and S. CARDINAL/A § CARDINAL of LAW . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the ORG Office heard the applicant . On this occasion he said that he was satisfied with the conditions of his detention . Still on DATE he was transferred to the prison of ORG . On DATE the competent ORG Office carried out a control of the prison LOC , on which occasion the applicant brought no complaint about the conditions of his detention .

On DATE the ORG repeatedly ordered the applicant to be barred from having any contact with his concubine , so as to secure the proper conduct of the investigations .

On DATE a single judge of the ORG prolonged the detention on remand until DATE , at the latest . ORG , referring to the state of the investigations , held that further acts of investigation of crucial importance should take place in the case and that , although the applicant denied the charge against him , a strong suspicion of his guilt prevailed . In its decision , ORG referred to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a)-(b ) , S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL and S. CARDINAL/A. § CARDINAL of LAW . On DATE a panel of ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal as well as his complaint about the lack of reasonable suspicion against him and about the alleged failure to inform him of the charges brought against him .

On DATE the ORG impounded , invoking S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant 's seized money . His complaint in this respect was to no avail .

On DATE CARDINAL officers of ORG carried out a control of the local prison LOC , on which occasion the applicant requested that the time allowed for taking baths be extended . His request was admitted .

On DATE ORG of ORG presented the opinion of an expert serologist .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant 's lawyer that the forensic experts ' opinions which had been completed by then were accessible for her to consult . Furthermore , ORG , in reply to the lawyer 's complaint of DATE about the prohibition of contacts between the applicant and his concubine , permitted that these contacts be resumed .

On DATE a single judge of the ORG prolonged the detention on remand until DATE , at the latest , finding that the results of the investigation - including witness testimonies , expertise from a mobile phone company and fire - arm tests carried out by ORG - had confirmed the strong suspicion against the applicant . The judge , referring to the relevant provisions of LAW , considered that the reasons , which had initially necessitated the applicant 's detention on remand , persisted . On DATE a panel of ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal , finding that the single judge 's reasoning was correct . In particular , ORG held that the risk of the applicant 's collusion was considerable in the light of an incident in DATE , when it had been established by the police that he had attempted to persuade CARDINAL of the co - accused to revoke a testimony .

On DATE the applicant was again committed to the prison of ORG . In DATE , the applicant unsuccessfully complained to ORG about the fact that he had to share his cell with a “ gipsy ” person .

On DATE ORG rejected the complaints of the applicant 's lawyer about the lawfulness of the investigation . Also on DATE ORG forwarded the submissions of the applicant 's lawyer , questioning the lawfulness of the investigation , to the Békés County Public Prosecutor 's Office .

On DATE the Attorney ORG informed the applicant 's lawyer that her complaint of CARDINAL August DATE - in which she had alleged that there had been no reasonable suspicion of the applicant 's guilt , that the authorities had failed to properly inform the applicant of the charges and that his detention on remand had lasted unreasonably long - had been forwarded to ORG for further action and that a hearing of the applicant in that respect had not been considered necessary .

On DATE ORG prolonged the detention on remand until DATE , at the latest . ORG , referring to the relevant legal provisions , stated that the reasons for detaining the applicant on remand persisted .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request for release . On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer wrote a letter to ORG at ORG . Whilst admitting that the general conditions of the applicant 's detention in GPE were good , the lawyer requested that the applicant be granted access to the shower facilities more often than once DATE . In its answer dated DATE the Head of the ORG explained that the relevant rules in force provided that inmates should have access to shower or bathing facilities at least once a week and no exceptional treatment could be granted to the applicant in this respect .

On DATE the ORG preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant , charging him with instigation to premeditated murder and , moreover , with abuse of fire - arms and of ammunition , an offence under PERSON of LAW . The indictment involved CARDINAL further defendants . ORG was relying on the results of the investigation , which involved , inter alia , the following items : findings of the inspection of the murder premises ; evidence given by CARDINAL witnesses ; forensic pathology , chemistry , toxicology , psychiatry , serology and dactylography expertise ; consultants ' opinions concerning physical evidence , documents , fire - arms and other weapons ; and TIME of confrontation .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer requested the ORG to order the applicant 's release . On DATE ORG decided that the applicant 's detention on remand be prolonged until the first instance court decision would be taken . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the applicant again requested the ORG to order his release .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC .

On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant 's release .

On DATE , upon appeal by the Attorney ORG , ORG quashed this decision and ordered the applicant 's detention on remand from DATE .

On DATE the applicant was finally released .

After having held CARDINAL court sessions DATE and DATE , on DATE the ORG acquitted the applicant of the charge of instigation to murder and convicted the CARDINAL further defendants of premeditated murder . ORG established the facts relying upon , inter alia , statements made by the CARDINAL co - accused as well as upon testimonies made by CARDINAL witnesses and some twenty experts . Having examined the entirety of the evidence at its disposal , ORG held that the applicant had not been involved in the murder . At the same time , ORG convicted him of abuse of fire - arms and of ammunition and sentenced him to a fine of ORG CARDINAL . ORG declared that the fine in question was to be regarded settled , having regard to the applicant 's detention on remand DATE and DATE . ORG also ordered that the money , which had been seized from the applicant and had subsequently been impounded , be returned to him .

On DATE ORG , upon the applicant 's appeal , re - qualified his offence as abuse of ammunition only and reduced his sentence to a fine of ORG CARDINAL . As to the grounds of his acquittal of the charge of instigation to murder , ORG amended ORG ruling , holding that the applicant 's guilt had not been proven beyond doubt .

On DATE the applicant brought , under PERSON . CARDINAL - CARDINAL/A. of LAW , a claim for indemnification for his detention on remand . The claim is pending before the ORG .

B. Relevant domestic law

Arrest and detention on remand

According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW , a defendant may be arrested if his or her detention on remand is warranted .

Detention on remand is governed by PERSON . CARDINAL and PERSON . DATE to CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides as follows :

" Detention on remand of a person charged with a criminal offence can take place for crimes punishable with imprisonment , if

a. the person absconded , hid from the authorities , or , because of the severity of the crime or for other reasons there is a risk of his or her absconding ;

b. there is a serious risk that the person would obstruct or render more difficult or endanger the proceedings if released ;

c. the person committed a further crime , also punishable with imprisonment , during the proceedings , or there is a serious risk that he or she might complete the crime which he or she prepared or attempted to commit or that the person would commit another crime . "

According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL , detention on remand shall be ordered by a court . As regards the competence of the different levels of courts to decide on the prolongation of detention on remand , S. CARDINAL provides that detention on remand , when ordered prior to the indictment , may last until the decision of the court in the preliminary proceedings before trial , up to a maximum of DATE . Detention on remand can be prolonged once by ORG for DATE at the most . After DATE , detention on remand can be prolonged twice by a single judge of ORG , but it may not continue beyond DATE after the remand order . Thereafter , detention on remand can only be extended by ORG .

S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the authorities must aim at keeping the length of detention on remand as short as possible . If the person charged with a criminal offence is detained on remand , the proceedings have priority . According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL , detention on remand must immediately be terminated , if its reasons are no longer valid or its period expires without an extension .

S. CARDINAL/A provides that the court orders detention on remand upon the request of the public prosecutor . The latter brings the suspect before the court and notifies the defence counsel . The court then holds a hearing , where the public prosecutor presents the relevant evidence . The suspect and the defence counsel may make oral statements . The hearing can take place in the absence of the defence counsel . The public prosecutor may make a motion to the court for the extension of the detention on remand DATE before the expiry of the deadline of a pending detention order . A suspect 's motion for release is sent to the court via the prosecutor . The court holds a hearing when there are new circumstances necessitating it ; otherwise it decides without a hearing .

S. CARDINAL/B § CARDINAL states that the general rules on appeals against court decisions apply to appeals against court decisions ordering coercive measures unless provided otherwise in DATE . According to paragraph CARDINAL , the public prosecutor , the suspect and the defence counsel may appeal against the decision of the court . If the defence counsel was not present at the hearing , he may appeal within DATE from the hearing . If the decision was taken in camera , there is a time - limit of DATE from the service of the decision concerned . Furthermore , S. CARDINAL/B § CARDINAL provides that the decision upon the appeal shall be taken , within DATE , by a single judge at ORG , if a ORG decision is concerned , and by a chamber of ORG , if a decision taken by a single judge of ORG is at issue .

According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL , if ORG has jurisdiction pursuant to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL to decide on the prolongation of the detention on remand ordered prior to the indictment , the Prosecutor General applies for the prolongation . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that if the period of detention on remand , as fixed by ORG , has expired without an indictment having been filed , the Prosecutor General lodges a further application for the prolongation of the detention on remand .

At all stages of the proceedings , the accused is entitled to lodge any requests and comments , moreover , to request information from the authorities about his rights and obligations under criminal procedural law , and to ask questions from any person heard at a court session , in accordance with S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL .

Information of the reasons for arrest and of the charges

According to S. CARDINAL of LAW , if strong suspicion occurs that a person has committed an offence , the authority shall inform him or her of the substance thereof , referring to the relevant legal provisions . Minutes shall be taken of the communication of the strong suspicion to the defendant , subsequent to which he or she shall be heard ( within TIME if detained ) .

Seizure and impounding of property

According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the authority can seize any item , which constitutes material evidence , which can be confiscated under the law , or the possession of which is unlawful . S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the seizure must be terminated immediately if it is no longer necessary in the interest of the proceedings . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that the object which should otherwise be returned to the person charged with a criminal offence can be retained as security .

S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that , in criminal proceedings occasioned by an offence in the context of which a defendant 's property may eventually be confiscated , the authority shall have the right to decide to impound the defendant 's property or part of it .

Law - Decree no . DATE

S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( d ) of LAW no . DATE on the Enforcement of Punishments and Measures , as in force at the material time , provides that a person in detention on remand is entitled to correspond with his relatives and - upon approval by the public prosecutor or , after the bill of indictment has been preferred , by the trial court - with other persons and , moreover , to receive a visitor and to receive a parcel at least once DATE .

According to paragraph CARDINAL , these rights - save the detainee 's right to maintain contacts with his defence counsel - may be restricted [ by the public prosecutor or by the trial court , whichever appropriate ] in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings .

Indemnification for detention on remand

According to ORG . CARDINAL - CARDINAL/A. of LAW , a defendant who has been acquitted by the court shall be entitled to indemnification for his or her detention on remand . Such indemnification is payable by the ORG . The means and amount of such indemnification shall be determined according to LAW rules on extra - contractual damages .

Official liability action

According to S. CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , official liability [ of the ORG administration ] may be established only if the relevant ordinary remedies have been exhausted or have not been fit to prevent damages . Unless otherwise regulated , this applies , as appropriate , to the liability for damages caused by courts or prosecution authorities .


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 6-1

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

On DATE a prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and allegedly beaten up by police officers . On DATE the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers .

On DATE she was released on bail .

On DATE the Rostov ORG received the case file and commenced the trial against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons .

On DATE the Rostov ORG found the applicant guilty of fraud and extortion and conditionally sentenced her to DATE imprisonment . However , on DATE ORG of GPE quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial .

On DATE the Rostov ORG found the applicant guilty of fraud , extortion , robbery , kidnapping , and theft and sentenced her to DATE imprisonment . She was taken into custody from the courtroom .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial . The applicant was remanded in custody pending the determination of the criminal charges against her .

On DATE the Rostov ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . It found as follows :

“ The defendants [ the applicant and CARDINAL other persons ] are charged with kidnapping , illegal deprivation of liberty , burglary and other crimes .

They have been in custody : ... , [ the applicant ] – since DATE , ...

The Prosecutor requested that the defendants ' detention be extended by DATE .

Having examined the ORG 's request , and having heard the parties to the proceedings , the court considers it necessary to extend the defendants ' detention by DATE , that is , until DATE inclusive , because they are charged with serious and particularly serious criminal offences .

Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , the defendants ' detention on remand is extended by CARDINAL ( DATE , that is , from DATE to DATE . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the extension order , finding that it was sufficiently justified .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The wording of the decisions was identical to that applied in the decision of DATE .

The applicant appealed against each of the above - mentioned extension orders to ORG , arguing that they were not sufficiently reasoned and that the court had not taken into consideration her individual situation . On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE respectively , ORG upheld the above - mentioned decisions on appeal .

In the meantime , on DATE the Rostov ORG extended the defendants ' pre - trial detention until DATE , citing the gravity of the charges against them . The applicant appealed against the extension to ORG .

On DATE , that is , after the applicant 's conviction by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG of GPE discontinued the examination of the applicant 's appeal because she had been convicted by ORG in the interim .

As regards the trial proceedings in the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the case was adjourned on over CARDINAL occasions : at the request of the applicant and her co - defendants , who wished to study the case file or the records of the hearings ; at the requests of the applicant and her co - defendants for the replacement of their representatives and the need for their newly appointed representatives to study the case file ; due to the illness of the defendants ' representatives and their failure to appear before the court ; and due to the illness of the applicant and co - defendants or following complaints made by them concerning their health . On CARDINAL occasion the hearing was adjourned due to the failure of the authorities to transport the defendants to the courtroom .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of multiple counts of fraud , multiple counts of kidnapping , extortion , theft and robbery and sentenced her to DATE imprisonment .

NORP The applicant lodged an appeal . She claimed , in particular , that lay judges had sat on the bench unlawfully . The law had been changed and after DATE lay judges were no longer permitted to take part in the administration of justice .

On DATE ORG of GPE held an appeal hearing . ORG dismissed her appeal as unsubstantiated . As to her allegations about the allegedly unlawful composition of the tribunal , the court found that the trial had begun before DATE and that the participation of CARDINAL lay judges in the determination of the criminal charges against her had been in accordance with the principle of continuity of the trial .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been held in detention facility GPE of GPE - on - Don ( PERSON ИЗ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG управления NORP службы исполнения наказаний по PERSON области ) . Throughout this period the applicant had been held in the following cells :

( a ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ;

( b ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ;

( c ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ;

( d ) cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees ; and

( e ) cell no . DATE ( punishment cell ) measuring QUANTITY and designed for CARDINAL person .

The design capacity of the cells had not been exceeded .

In each cell the applicant had an individual bed and had been provided with bedding ( a mattress , a pillow , a blanket , CARDINAL bed sheets and a pillowcase ) , personal hygiene items , tableware , potable water and cleaning supplies .

Each cell had CARDINAL windows measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , which allowed sufficient access of daylight . The cells had been equipped with filament lamps ( CARDINAL lamps per regular cell , CARDINAL lamp per punishment cell ) and security lights . The level of artificial lighting had corresponded to established sanitary norms and had allowed the inmates to read and write .

All cells had been ventilated by a system of extractor fans . Natural ventilation through windows had also been available .

The applicant had received food of adequate quality and quantity in accordance with established legal norms .

NORP In support of their observations the Government provided several certificates issued by the director of GPE in DATE and photographs of the cells in which the applicant had been held .

The cells in which the applicant had been held had always been overcrowded . They had accommodated up to CARDINAL inmates at any given time . The inmates had slept in shifts .

The cells had been dimly lit by CARDINAL filament lamps . Access to natural light had been limited because the windows had been heavily barred from both the inside and outside . It had been impossible to read or write in such light . The outside grids on the windows had not been removed until DATE .

There had been no vents in the windows , and therefore , no access to fresh air . The air in the cells had always been stiff and heavy with smoke . Starting from DATE the window panes had been taken out in DATE until DATE .

Food had been scarce and of poor quality . The complaints raised by the applicant and other inmates in this regard had been to no avail .

The applicant had never been provided with any personal hygiene items .

The applicant claimed that the photographs of the cells in question provided by the ORG had been taken after her departure from GPE and apparently after emergency repairs .

The Government submitted that the holding cells ( конвойное помещение ) of ORG had been situated in the semibasement of the LOC . The holding cells area had contained CARDINAL individual cells measuring QUANTITY and CARDINAL collective cells measuring QUANTITY . The holding cells area had been equipped with one lavatory pan shared by the detainees and the wardens . All cells had been equipped with extractor fans . They had been illuminated with filament lamps .

The detainees had been provided with dry rations ( сухой паек ) when taken to the courthouse . They had received hot food in accordance with a schedule before their departure from , and after their return to , the detention facility .

The Government supported their submissions with certificates issued by the director of IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE and DATE and photographs of the holding cells area of ORG ( showing the corridor passage with barred doors and the bathroom unit ) .

At the courthouse the applicant had been detained in a badly lit damp windowless cell measuring QUANTITY without ventilation or heating . The furnishing of the cell had consisted of a small bench . The walls in the cell had been coated with “ shuba ” , a sort of abrasive concrete lining . The cell had not been equipped with a lavatory or a wash basin . The applicant had been obliged to beg the wardens to take her to the lavatory .

On DATE of court hearings , the applicant had been taken to the “ assembly section ” of the detention facility before breakfast , and on most occasions she had been taken back to the detention facility after dinnertime had already passed . She had never been given any dry rations to take with her to the courthouse , and she had never seen other detainees receive any . The applicant 's relatives had not been allowed to supply her with food on DATE of court hearings .

The applicant noted that the Government had not provided photographs of the cells of the court 's holding cells area .

On DATE the applicant authorised PERSON to sell her flat . On DATE Mr A. sold the applicant 's flat . The transfer of title to the flat was subsequently registered by the regional registrar 's office .

On DATE the police refused to institute criminal proceedings against the registrar on suspicion of an allegedly fraudulent sale of the applicant 's flat . The applicant was also informed of the right to contest the sale before a civil court .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law governing various aspects of detention , proceedings for the examination of its lawfulness , time - limits for a trial to take place and conditions of detention , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

Relevant international documents concerning the general conditions in NORP penitentiary establishments and the conditions of detention of women can be found in the judgment of DATE in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . ORG were represented by their Agent , Mr J. PERSON , of ORG .

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

It appears that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained and served various prison sentences for , inter alia , rape . In DATE the ORG gave a cumulative sentence and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment of which he apparently served DATE .

In DATE the applicant 's mother brought the applicant , who was in a detention centre , video tapes allegedly belonging to his late father . They were seized by the prison authorities as they turned out to contain pornography involving minors . On DATE ORG decided to treat the tapes as evidence in a criminal investigation into the production and distribution of pornographic materials featuring scenes involving minors . An appeal by the applicant against this decision was dismissed on DATE . The applicant was notified of this decision on DATE at the latest .

On DATE the applicant applied to the prison authorities for special prison leave to participate in administrative proceedings pending before ORG concerning his official registration at a flat he had occupied before his detention . Subsequently , he applied for special prison leave in order to visit his stepfather in hospital . His requests were dismissed by the penitentiary judge . His appeals were dismissed by ORG on DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG , where he remained until DATE . On DATE he was transported to FAC . According to the Government at that time the applicant was serving a sentence of DATE imprisonment .

In ORG the applicant was qualified as a “ detainee requiring reinforced protection ” ( osadzony wymagajacy wzmocnionej ochrony ) . He was placed in a “ protected cell ” ( cella chroniona ) normally intended for persons detained pending trial .

On an unspecified date he requested the ORG district prosecutor to initiate an investigation into his allegations that he had been ill - treated in ORG DATE and DATE . The applicant submitted that the prison officers had been illegally monitoring and eavesdropping on phone calls he had made using a telephone booth installed in the prison . He further alleged that the prison officer PERSON had ordered him to strip naked and do knee bends each time he wanted to use the phone . He complained about the manner in which those searches had been conducted by prison officer PERSON , alleging that the latter had tormented and humiliated him .

On DATE ORG ) discontinued the investigation into the allegations made by the applicant , finding that the prison officer had not breached his duties . The prosecutor established that the applicant had been transferred from FAC because of his conflictual relations with other detainees . In ORG he had been placed in a special cell normally intended for persons detained pending trial , which offered him protection and isolated him from convicted prisoners . The prosecutor stated as follows :

“ In accordance with section CARDINAL of the [ DATE Ordinance of the Head of the Prison Service ] [ the applicant ] , as was the case for other detainees , was subjected to a personal check ( kontrola osobista ) when leaving the sleeping unit and after returning to it , as well as before individual meetings in the sleeping unit with the representatives of the prison authorities or other bodies . Moreover , [ the applicant ] was subjected to personal checks for security reasons each time he left or returned to his cell on the basis of a security instruction given to all prison officers working in the unit , namely , the “ LAW ” [ ORG – detainee requiring reinforced protection ] .

In such cases the officers working in Unit CARDINALA were obliged to perform , in a separate room , a meticulous check of PERSON and of his clothes and belongings . The control of PERSON consisted of checking the inside of his mouth , armpits and anus . For this purpose PERSON , after undressing , was required to open his mouth , hold up his hands and do a knee bend ( przysiad ) . ”

The prosecutor confirmed that detainees were authorised to make one phone call per day for up to a maximum duration of TIME and that the applicant had often used the phone . Thus , on each occasion , as well as each time he left the unit , he had been subjected to a personal check .

The applicant appealed against the decision .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed his appeal . The court established that the applicant 's complaints about being hindered when using the phone had already been examined and had been found to be manifestly ill - founded . The court did not find any shortcomings in the procedure allowing the applicant to use the phone and considered that the internal prison rules had been complied with . Further , the court stated that the applicant 's further allegation that an offence had been committed “ had not been confirmed in the course of the investigation . ” The court did not make any direct reference to the applicant 's complaints about being subjected to personal checks before using the phone .

On DATE , after the applicant was released from prison , the police conducted a search of the applicant 's flat and seized , inter alia , several video tapes , CDs and DVDs and a personal computer .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police in connection with this set of criminal proceedings against him . On DATE FAC decided to remand the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he owned films containing child pornography and had shown such films to a minor . He was also charged with having threatened , in the presence of a police officer , to blow up an apartment block .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention finding that there was a risk that he would interfere with the proceedings and that the investigation was ongoing . An appeal by the applicant against that decision was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's detention was further extended . The court reiterated the grounds given previously and relied on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant and on the complexity of the case . The court further considered that there was a risk of the applicant interfering with the proper course of the proceedings given the nature of the offences he had been charged with . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was indicted before the Dabrowa ORG on CARDINAL charges : owning pornographic films featuring scenes involving minors , showing them to a minor and uttering threats .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the trial court extended the applicant 's detention in almost identically reasoned decisions . The court considered that there had been no exceptional personal or health reason to release the applicant from detention or to change the preventive measure imposed on him . On DATE the first hearing was held .

Subsequently , the applicant 's detention was extended on DATE , DATE and DATE . In addition to the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the applicant that he had committed the offences the court relied on the risk that he would interfere with the course of the proceedings , in particular by influencing witnesses . The court also underlined that the probability that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant was high as he had been a recidivist offender . Appeals by the applicant against those decisions were dismissed .

On DATE ORG dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicant on DATE alleging a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time under LAW June CARDINAL on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) . The court found that since the indictment the trial court had been diligent and had acted speedily . In particular the first hearing was held as soon as it had been practicable and the trial court held hearings once DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of possession of pornographic films featuring scenes involving children DATE , showing such films to a minor under DATE and uttering threats . The court sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment and ordered the seizure of the pornographic video tapes , CDs and DVDs as well as of his computer .

Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant 's request to attend the appeal hearing scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals as manifestly ill - founded . The court also decided to release the applicant from detention .

On DATE ORG examined a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant . It acquitted the applicant of the charge of having uttered threats and remitted the remaining part of the judgment regarding the charges of possession of pornographic films and showing them to a minor to the lower court .

The criminal proceedings regarding the last CARDINAL charges are pending .

Under section QUANTITY NORP karny wykonawczy ) and rule CARDINAL of the DATE Rules on Serving Sentences ( PERSON wykonywania kary pozbawienia wolności ) , in force at the material time , a personal check of prisoners could be ordered if such a need arose . Their clothes , underwear and shoes , as well as their cells , could be searched . A personal check was permissible in particular when convicts or detainees left or returned to their cell .

The Government submitted that the issue of personal search in the present case was also governed by the provisions of the unpublished Ordinance of the Head of ORG . Section CARDINAL stipulated that a strip search could be ordered in order to search for dangerous and prohibited items or in other justified circumstances . Section CARDINAL provided that a strip search could be ordered , in particular , before leaving and after returning to the sleeping unit or work place .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during judicial proceedings ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the ORG 's judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . She was represented before the ORG by Mr T. Klauberg , a lawyer practising in Rīga . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant was staying in a café in GPE . On the premises there was also a certain K , who at the material time was an employee of ORG ) . K gave his gun to a private person , P , assuring him that the gun was unloaded . However , there was CARDINAL bullet left in the barrel and the gun fired while P was examining it . Accidentally , the applicant was hit by the bullet . As a result of the injuries , she had to undergo several operations and rehabilitation procedures and was granted the status of a person with a second - degree disability . On DATE a prosecutor of ORG opened criminal proceedings in this connection .

Criminal proceedings against K

On DATE K was charged with carelessly storing a firearm , LAW . The charge was not presented to K as he did not appear at the prosecutor ’s office .

NORP In DATE ORG decided to separate the criminal case against P from the case against K , who had left GPE in the meantime and had gone to GPE without the permission of the prosecutor in charge of the case . The pre - trial investigation against K was stayed and he was put on the wanted - persons list .

On DATE and DATE the applicant complained to the Presiding Prosecutor of GPE about the lack of progress in the investigation of the criminal case against PERSON

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that K was not wanted by the police any longer . K had been on the wanted - persons list from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . It was established that he was living in GPE and his extradition had to be decided by ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG , complaining about the lack of progress in the investigation of the criminal case against K and requesting him to take a decision concerning his extradition .

On DATE the Prosecutor General informed the applicant that K was residing in GPE and ORG had requested ORG to provide information concerning his citizenship . Thereafter it could be decided whether to request the extradition of K or to transfer the proceedings to ORG . In addition , ORG was requested to speed up the investigation .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s complaint , the Prosecutor General informed her that the relevant information concerning ORG citizenship had not yet been received . ORG was requested to speed up the investigation .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s complaint of DATE , the Prosecutor General informed her that the case against K had been closed on DATE having regard to the statute of limitations . This decision was quashed and the case returned for additional investigation . The Presiding Prosecutor of GPE was requested to establish whether K could be held liable as a ORG official because of his previous employment with ORG and to conduct the investigation by DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that , in order to proceed with the criminal case against K , additional investigation was necessary .

On DATE a prosecutor of ORG decided to close the criminal case against PERSON acknowledged the accuracy of the events of CARDINAL DATE and the status of K at the time , as established in the course of the pre - trial investigation . The prosecutor noted that on DATE K had been dismissed from ORG for infringement of service discipline . The prosecutor considered that K had not misused his official position on DATE and that he could not therefore be held liable in accordance with Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . According to the prosecutor , K could be formally held liable under LAW as he , when giving his gun to P , being convinced that it was unloaded , had failed to examine the barrel . The prosecutor also established that on DATE the registration of K ’s domicile in GPE had been deleted . The prosecutor decided to close the case , in accordance with LAW , taking into consideration the facts that K had been punished at a disciplinary level , that he was residing abroad , that DATE had passed since the incident and that – although he had committed a criminal offence provided for in LAW he personally had not caused a degree of harm such as to justify criminal punishment .

On DATE a prosecutor of ORG quashed the decision of the prosecutor of ORG of DATE as unsubstantiated , and decided to close the criminal case against K having regard to the statute of limitations . She also established that K had committed a criminal offence under LAW of LAW and that he could not be found liable for the criminal offence provided for in LAW . In the accompanying letter , the prosecutor informed the applicant that any material issues had to be dealt with in civil proceedings .

Criminal proceedings against P

On DATE P was charged with unintentional grievous bodily harm , pursuant to LAW , and the charge was presented to him on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to separate the criminal case against P from the case against PERSON

On an unspecified date the prosecutor in charge of the investigation at ORG transferred the criminal case against P to ORG for adjudication .

On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a detailed list of claims for medical and rehabilitation expenses amounting to MONEY ( CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ; ORG CARDINAL ) . She amended the list on CARDINAL DATE , claiming MONEY ( approximately ORG ; ORG CARDINAL ) for medical and rehabilitation expenses .

On DATE ORG found P guilty of unintentional grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The court left the applicant ’s civil claim unexamined , stating that , in order to claim pecuniary damages , the applicant would have to bring civil proceedings .

On DATE ORG of the ORG of ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court , which entered into force on DATE .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings against P commenced . He was sent to PERSON to serve his sentence .

On DATE , following an application ( protest ) by ORG in the framework of the supervisory review procedure , ORG decided to transfer the case against P for adjudication de novo to ORG . The court acknowledged that the first - instance court had not taken into consideration , when it sentenced P , that he had been sentenced previously for another criminal offence and he had not served the sentence at that time .

On DATE P was released after having served his sentence .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG received the decision of ORG of DATE .

On DATE , upon the decision of DATE , ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . The hearing was not held as P had left GPE in the meantime and the court decided to stay the proceedings . On DATE the court decided to put P on the wanted - persons list and ordered a precautionary measure , namely his detention on remand .

On DATE P was put on the wanted - persons list .

On DATE P ’s name was deleted from the list as he had been arrested in GPE .

On DATE the Jelgava City and ORG informed ORG that P had been detained abroad for burglaries .

The case remained in the court without any progress until an unspecified date in DATE when a judge of ORG applied to the police , inquiring about the progress of the investigation of the criminal case against P.

On DATE the Jelgava Police replied to the judge of ORG , informing him of the events of DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that P had been on the wanted - persons list from DATE to DATE . He had been apprehended in GPE for robbery and his stay there was being verified .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it had been decided to stay proceedings in the criminal case against P , as he was wanted by the police .

In its decision of DATE concerning the closure of the criminal case against K , the prosecutor of ORG stated that at that date the criminal case against P was still pending before ORG as his whereabouts had not been established .

The Government submitted a letter from the Presiding Judge of ORG dated DATE , the relevant part of which reads as follows :

Article CARDINAL provided that a criminal case had to be discontinued in accordance with the statute of limitations .

The relevant part of LAW provided that a public prosecutor could take a decision on the closure of a criminal case if a person had committed a criminal offence which was provided for by LAW but of which the consequences were not such as to justify criminal punishment .

Article CARDINAL stipulated that a civil claim could be submitted by persons who had suffered damage as a result of a crime and , irrespective of the amount of the claim , it had to be examined jointly with a criminal case . The civil claim could be brought against the accused or a person who was vicariously liable for the acts of the accused ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The civil claim could be lodged upon the initiation of a criminal case , during pre - trial investigation , or with the court before the adjudication of the case ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . If the court stayed the adjudication , the civil claim could be lodged before the beginning of the adjudication and also in the subsequent court hearing ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . A person had the right to lodge a civil claim in civil proceedings if the claim had not been brought in criminal proceedings or if the claim had not been adjudicated owing to the discontinuance of the criminal case or a not - guilty verdict ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL stipulated that if a civil claim was dismissed after its examination in criminal proceedings , the victim had no right to lodge the same claim in civil proceedings . If a civil claim was left without examination , the victim had the right to file the same claim in civil proceedings .

Under LAW , the penalty for unintentional infliction of grievous or moderate bodily harm was up to DATE imprisonment or a fine of CARDINAL minimal DATE salaries .

Under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , the penalty for causing grievous consequences as a result of abuse of an official position was from DATE imprisonment .

The relevant part of LAW provided inter alia for imprisonment from DATE for causing grievous consequences as a result of careless storage and carrying of firearms and ammunition which enabled a third person to use them .

Article CARDINAL states that a judgment in criminal proceedings is binding in civil proceedings to the extent that it concerns the determination of the offence , for which a defendant has been sentenced , and the liability of the defendant .

The court must stay its proceedings if adjudication of the case is not possible prior to determination of another matter which is required to be adjudicated in accordance with criminal procedure ( the relevant part of Article CARDINAL ) .

DATE stipulates that every wrongful act or failure to act per se shall entitle the injured party to claim compensation from the wrongdoer , in so far as he or she may be held liable for such act .

Everyone has a duty to compensate for losses they have caused through their acts or failure to act ( LAW ) .

Under DATE , all obligation - based rights which have not been expressly exempted from the impact of the statute of limitations , and the use of which is not by law subject to shorter terms , will lapse if the party entitled to them does not use them within a DATE period .

The Instruction on the Carrying of Arms and Ammunition , as approved by Order no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( Latvijas PERSON CARDINAL.augusta CARDINAL.gada pavēle nr . CARDINAL par Instrukcijas par bruņojuma un munīcijas glabāšanu apstiprināšanu )

The relevant part of the ORG prohibits the handing - over of a weapon to other persons .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

She and her husband married in DATE . Their daughter was born in DATE . It appears that the applicant 's husband abused alcohol and subjected her to psychological harassment over a long period of time . In DATE that situation led to the applicant 's nervous breakdown . She began receiving neurological treatment . In DATE she and her daughter left the matrimonial home . Nonetheless , the applicant 's husband continued to harass her .

NORP In DATE the applicant applied for a divorce order which was granted in DATE . The divorce court found that the applicant 's husband had been at fault in respect of the breakdown of their marriage .

NORP In DATE the applicant began receiving psychiatric treatment . In DATE she was declared to have a “ second degree of invalidity ” and granted an invalidity pension on account of the state of her mental health . In DATE the applicant was declared entirely unfit for work .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG a claim for maintenance in the amount of ORG DATE against her former husband . At that time she was in receipt of a gross DATE invalidity pension in the amount of PLN MONEY .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment by default , allowing the applicant 's claim in full .

Subsequently , the defendant filed an objection against the judgment by default . On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and ruled on the applicant 's maintenance claim . It ordered the defendant to pay DATE maintenance in the amount of ORG CARDINAL as of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment . She requested ORG to exempt her from the court fees and to appoint a legal - aid lawyer in the appeal proceedings . She submitted that she was unable to represent herself during the proceedings due to stress related to her presence in the court . She further submitted that she could not afford a lawyer .

On DATE ORG dismissed her application for a legal - aid lawyer . It considered that assistance of a legal - aid lawyer was necessary only in complex cases or where a party to the proceedings was incapable of defending his / her interests . However , in the present case those conditions had not been met . It further found that the content of the applicant 's submissions to the court supported the finding that she was capable of effectively representing herself .

On DATE the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal ( zażalenie ) against the decision of DATE . She referred to the stress caused by her participation in the proceedings . She further submitted that she was receiving psychiatric treatment , had been granted an invalidity pension on account of her mental health and was regularly taking various medicines . Those medicines significantly affected her memory , concentration and the ability to express her thoughts clearly . Furthermore , she submitted that she was not an educated person and that her friends had assisted her in preparation of the court 's submissions . Thus , she considered that legal aid was necessary in order to enable her to defend her interests adequately in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the interlocutory appeal . It endorsed the reasoning of ORG . In addition , it held that the applicant had not submitted any proof to the effect that she had been receiving psychiatric treatment .

The applicant submits that the case - file of the maintenance proceedings included a medical certificate issued on CARDINAL DATE . That certificate attested that the applicant has been regularly treated in a psychiatric clinic DATE .

On DATE ORG , following a hearing , dismissed the applicant 's appeal against ORG judgment of DATE . The court instructed the applicant that a cassation appeal was not provided for in the present case .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to appoint a legal - aid lawyer with a view to filing a cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that a cassation appeal in her case was not provided for by law and inquired whether she wanted to pursue her legal aid application . On DATE the applicant replied in the affirmative .

On DATE ORG dismissed her application for legal aid . It considered that a cassation appeal in her case could not be lodged as a matter of law , and thus there was no need to provide her with legal assistance . On DATE the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against that decision .

On DATE ORG rejected her interlocutory appeal as inadmissible in law . Her further appeals were rejected on DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that she had been previously advised that a cassation appeal in her case , which could only concern the amount of maintenance , was not available . She was further informed that in the case of a change of circumstances she could seek an increase of her maintenance .

On DATE the applicant in person lodged a cassation appeal against ORG judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG rejected her cassation appeal . It considered that , pursuant to LAW , the cassation appeal in her case was not available as it concerned the amount of maintenance . It also found that the cassation appeal had not been lodged by a lawyer and within the statutory time - limit of DATE from the date of the service of the second - instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG an interlocutory appeal against the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's interlocutory appeal . Firstly , it held that , contrary to the position of ORG , the applicant 's cassation appeal , which concerned the issue of her entitlement to maintenance , was allowed in accordance with the provisions of LAW as applicable at the relevant time . It found that the applicant 's case did not concern the issue of the amount of maintenance , which was excluded from ORG jurisdiction . However , the applicant 's cassation appeal was inadmissible on CARDINAL other statutory grounds invoked by ORG , namely non - compliance with the applicable time - limit and compulsory legal representation in cassation appeal proceedings .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

“ Everyone shall have the right to a fair and public hearing of his case , without undue delay , before a competent , impartial and independent court . ”

At the relevant time , LAW ( “ ORG ” ) , provided , in so far as relevant :

“ § CARDINAL . A party [ to the proceedings ] exempted partly or entirely from court fees , may request that an advocate or a legal adviser be appointed for him / her . ... The court shall grant that request , if it considers that the participation of an advocate or a legal adviser in the case is necessary .

§ CARDINAL . The provision of the preceding paragraph is also applicable to a party who enjoys a statutory exemption from the court fees , provided that that party demonstrates , by way of the declaration referred to in LAW , that the fees of the advocate or legal adviser would entail a reduction in his / her and his / her family 's standard of living . ”

At the relevant time LAW ORG provided that a party seeking maintenance was statutorily exempted from court fees .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , in the version applicable at the material time , stipulated :

“ An individual may ask the court competent to deal with the case to grant him an exemption from court fees provided that he submits a declaration to the effect that the fees required would entail a substantial reduction in his and his family 's standard of living . Such a declaration shall contain details concerning his family , assets and income . It falls within the court 's discretion to assess whether or not the declaration satisfies the requirements for granting the exemption requested . ”

The Code of Civil Procedure lays down the principle of mandatory assistance of a lawyer in cassation appeal proceedings . Article DATE § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , applicable at the relevant time , required that a cassation appeal be filed by an advocate or a legal adviser . Cassation appeals lodged by a litigant in person would be rejected .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , in the version applicable until DATE , provided , in so far as relevant :

“ No cassation appeal may be lodged in cases :

CARDINAL ) ...

CARDINAL ) relating to maintenance , when it concerns its amount ,

Following the amendments to the LAW which entered into force on DATE , no cassation appeal may be lodged with ORG in all cases relating to maintenance ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

Pursuant to LAW ORG if a party to the proceedings did not perform a procedural measure ( czynność procesowa ) within the relevant time - limit through no fault of his / her own , the court shall grant leave to perform such measure outside the prescribed time - limit at the party 's request . LAW of the ORG stipulated that the relevant measure shall be performed simultaneously with lodging the request .