CASE OF VESELINSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He used to be an army serviceman of ORG until he retired in DATE .

NORP In former GPE , the citizens used to pay a tax for housing . On the basis of the accumulated funds the ORG constructed “ socially owned ” apartments which were then rented to individuals at legally fixed rates .

ORG was the single army on the territory of former GPE governed by laws which were applicable throughout former GPE . The applicant , as an officer of ORG , paid DATE contributions from his salary to ORG for the construction of army apartments . All army servicemen were entitled to live in army apartments as tenants .

The applicant , as an army serviceman , used to live until DATE as a tenant in an apartment owned by the former ORG in GPE . Once he started working for the NORP Secretary of Defence , he sought to obtain a bigger apartment . On DATE ORG GPE совет ) of GPE issued a decision by which it rented to the applicant a bigger apartment in its possession . The applicant gave up his previously rented apartment which remained the property of the former ORG . In DATE the applicant retired and continued living in the new apartment .

On DATE ORG of the Socialist GPE enacted a Law on Housing of the Army Servicemen ( ORG за станбено обезбедување во ЈНА ) ( “ Z.S.О.J.N.A. ” ) , according to which army servicemen , current and retired , could purchase apartments in which they lived with a price adjustment for the amount of the paid contributions for the construction of army apartments and for development of the construction land . Section CARDINAL of that law provides that the same purchase conditions apply to apartments which do not belong to the army , as it was in the case of the applicant . According to regulations issued by ORG , the price difference was to be paid by the federal army ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

Following the fall of GPE and a referendum held on DATE , the former GPE declared independence . On CARDINAL DATE it adopted LAW ( Устав на РМ ) and the PERSON on the Implementation of the LAW ( Уставен Закон за спроведување на Уставот ) . According to the LAW the laws from former GPE remain in force , except for the laws regulating the organisation and competence of the former NORP federal organs . On DATE the NORP President and the General of ORG concluded an agreement for the withdrawal of ORG from NORP territory .

On DATE ORG concluded an ORG ( ORG за правата и обврските во врска со примопредажбата на недвижностите на територија на ORG ) ( “ the S.P.O.V.P.N.T.R.M. ” ) with ORG . According to this agreement ORG took over all the obligations of ORG in respect of army apartments , including the obligation to sell these apartments with a price reduction . ORG in DATE and DATE enacted regulations implementing this agreement . In DATE ORG of the Apartments Obtained by LAW from ORG ( ORG за продажба на државниот стамбен фонд наследен од ЈНА ) ( “ U.P.D.S.F.N.J.A. ” ) , according to which present and former army servicemen living in apartments owned by ORG , could purchase them under the Z.S.О.J.N.A.

From ORG decision of DATE it appears that the ORG exchanged the title of its apartments which were inhabited by civilians with the title of the apartments owned by ORG ( “ ПУИГ ” ) which were inhabited by servicemen . Thereby , the servicemen were able to exercise the right under the Z.S.O.J.N.A. to purchase the apartments at a reduced price . However , this exchange was limited and concerned CARDINAL apartments owned by ORG and CARDINAL owned by ORG . No details were provided as to the criteria concerning the exchange .

In DATE an amended version of the DATE Law on the Sale of Socially Owned Apartments ( ORG за продажба на станови во општествена сопственост ) ( “ the Z.P.S.O.S. ” ) was promulgated in ORG . Under the law their tenants were entitled to purchase them on credit and at a beneficial price . Unlike the Z.S.О.J.N.A. , the law did not provide for a price adjustment for the amount of the paid contributions for the construction of “ socially owned ” apartments and for development of the construction land , despite the fact that the tenants had also paid them .

On DATE ORG abrogated the Z.S.O.J.N.A. without retroactive effect and the respective Government ’s regulations on the ground that they had been contrary to the DATE LAW . In particular , the court stated that : a ) ORG , its “ housing fund ” and the “ social ownership ” no longer existed ; b ) the DATE LAW had abolished all the privileges enjoyed by army servicemen ; and c ) the Z.S.O.J.N.A. had created an unequal treatment in comparison to the citizens who were entitled to purchase their apartments under the Z.P.S.O.S. The PERSON was not mentioned in ORG decision .

NORP In DATE the applicant requested ORG to allow him to purchase the apartment owned by ORG at a reduced price or to give him another apartment which used to be owned by the former ORG . On an unspecified date the applicant asked ORG to speed up the proceedings . On DATE the Ministry informed him that it had been waiting for the Government to settle the issue .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other persons asked ORG to examine the compatibility of the Z.P.S.O.S. and the relevant regulations issued by ORG with the Z.S.O.J.N.A. On DATE this was refused by ORG .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG ( Општински Суд Скопје I ) against the former GPE , requesting that the apartment be sold to him at a reduced price in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of the Z.S.O.J.N.A. On DATE the court granted the applicant ’s request . The court held , inter alia , that the applicant , as a retired army serviceman , was entitled under sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the Z.S.O.J.N.A. to purchase the apartment at a reduced price . The court stated in particular that the purchase price should be reduced by the re - evaluated amount of the DATE contributions which the applicant had paid to ORG for the construction of apartments and for the improvement of construction land . Whether the apartment had belonged to ORG or to the Government was irrelevant as both apartments now belonged to the single ORG - owned housing fund .

The Solicitor - General ( DATE правобранител ) acting for ORG appealed against the above decision on the ground that there was no formal agreement between ORG and , at that time , ORG for an exchange of the apartments and that the applicant had given up the apartment owned by the army for a bigger apartment owned by ORG . Therefore , he had accepted that the apartment in question would be subject to different statutory rules . It further stated that the Z.S.O.J.N.A. had been applicable only to the apartments owned by the former ORG which had later become the property of ORG , but not to other apartments .

On DATE the ORG ) dismissed the appeal on the grounds ( i ) that an exchange of the right to use the apartments between the former ORG and ORG had taken place ; ( ii ) that the applicant , as a former officer of ORG had paid contributions for the construction of army apartments and was therefore entitled to purchase an apartment at a reduced price under sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the Z.S.О.J.N.A. ; and ( iii ) that its section CARDINAL had explicitly regulated the cases of purchase of an apartment by an army serviceman that had not been owned by the army .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG lodged an appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) with ORG ( Врховен Суд ) alleging , inter alia , that since DATE of independence it had been for the former GPE to regulate the use and purchase of the apartments owned by the former ORG and that the agreement which had been concluded with the army could not have been applicable to the apartments not owned by the said army . In DATE ORG enacted a regulation which had made clear that the Z.S.O.J.N.A. applied only to sale - purchase agreements for the apartments previously owned by the former ORG .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant and the Government concluded a purchase contract for the apartment on the basis of the Municipal and Appellate Courts’ judgments . The applicant thus purchased the apartment at a price reduced by the amount of contributions he had paid to the former ORG . On DATE the ORG authorised the contract .

From the copy of CARDINAL document issued by ORG претпријатие за стопанисување со стамбен и деловен простор на Република Македонија ) , it may be deduced that the applicant paid for the apartment in DATE at the latest . It is not clear whether later ORG reimbursed ORG with the price difference for the apartment .

On DATE ORG granted the appeal on points of law submitted by ORG and dismissed the applicant ’s request to purchase the apartment at a reduced price . It found that the Z.S.O.J.N.A. had provided for more beneficial conditions for the sale of apartments to army servicemen , and that it had governed the relations and status of the former ORG and its housing fund , both of which had ceased to exist . The court held , inter alia , that as the former GPE was not a legal successor of the former ORG , it was under no obligation whatsoever to cover the price difference . In addition , the new NORP LAW had abolished special privileges of the army servicemen .

The court did not mention at all the decision of ORG and the S.P.O.V.P.N.T.R.M. Nor did it observe that the applicant had already purchased the apartment by contract or that ORG had exchanged a number of apartments owned by ORG and inhabited by other servicemen .

The applicant was served with the decision on DATE .

The parties have not indicated whether the applicant was formally registered as the owner of the apartment in ORG ( ORG завод за геодетски работи ) after the purchase agreement was authorised by ORG in DATE . From their submissions it appears that the applicant had already recorded his title over the apartment . In addition , the parties have not indicated whether the Government have taken any legal action to enforce ORG judgment of DATE . There is no information that such proceedings have ever been instituted .

The applicant still lives in the apartment in question .

Section CARDINAL provides , as far as relevant , that ORG decides on the conformity of laws with LAW .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the ORG shall repeal or invalidate a law if it determines that it does not conform to LAW .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final and executive .

Section CARDINAL provides that all issues of succession arising out of the break - up of GPE shall be regulated by way of treaties with the other former GPE .

Section QUANTITY provide that the existing federal laws of former GPE shall be in force in the former GPE with the exception of the laws regulating the organisation and competence of the NORP federal organs .

Section CARDINAL provides that all federal laws which are inconsistent with LAW shall be amended accordingly within DATE from DATE when the LAW was promulgated .

Section CARDINAL provides that the law in question regulates the housing of present and former ORG servicemen and their families .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the purchase price for an apartment owned by ORG shall be determined on the basis of the apartment ’s re - assessed construction value , its quality , equipment , location and other similar factors . The price thus determined shall be reduced by the amortisation of the apartment , but not PERCENT of the total amount of amortisation .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that when an apartment is purchased by an active or retired army serviceman , the purchase price shall be reduced by the adjusted ( re - assessed ) amount of the DATE contributions paid by the servicemen for construction of army apartments and improvement of construction land .

Section CARDINAL provides that when an army serviceman mentioned in LAW § CARDINAL wishes to purchase an apartment which is not owned by the army , the army shall pay to the owner of the apartment the price difference between the adjusted and the normal purchase price .

According to LAW of that agreement , concluded between ORG and the former ORG , army apartments should be sold to army servicemen under the conditions set forth in the DATE former PERSON on ORG ( Z.S.O.J.N.A. ) .

Section CARDINAL of the said agreement provides that the former ORG shall not have any right to impose further obligations on ORG after the signing of the agreement .

Section CARDINAL provides that all other rights and obligations which the former ORG had on the territory of the former GPE until DATE in connection with real property , housing fund and business premises owned by it shall be transferred to ORG .

Section CARDINAL of the Law on Defence ( ORG за одбрана ) provides that real property which was owned by the former ORG on the territory of the former GPE shall become the property of the former GPE .

Section CARDINAL provides that this law regulates the conditions , manner and procedure for the sale of socially owned apartments . The law does not provide for a price adjustment for the amount of the paid contributions for the construction of “ socially owned ” apartments and for development of the construction land .

Section CARDINAL provides that a decision to sell the ( socially ) owned apartment will be issued by its owner ( the ORG ) within DATE from DATE when this law enters into force .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the socially owned apartment may be sold to the tenant of that apartment or to members of his family .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that if the owner of the apartment ( the ORG ) does not issue a decision to sell that apartment within the time limit specified in LAW , then the holder of tenancy right may within DATE request the appropriate court to issue a decision in non - contentious civil proceedings to replace the sale contract .

Section CARDINAL provided that the filed appeal on points ( ревизија ) of law does not adjourn the execution of judgment against which it has been filed .

Section CARDINAL provided that parties may present new facts and introduce new evidence in the proceedings only if these concern essential violations of the provisions for civil procedure for which an appeal on points of law is permitted .

Section CARDINAL provided that ORG may dismiss an appeal on points of law as unfounded if it determines that the grounds it must examine ex officio , or which were included in the appeal , are ill - founded .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided that when ORG finds that the substantive provisions of an act are wrongly applied by the lower courts , it shall grant the appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) and deliver a judgment on the merits .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the lawful acquiring of ownership over a property does not have any bearing on the rights of other persons over that property .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the ownership title over real estate obtained by a legal act is acquired by recording that right ( act ) in the public records for registering real estate rights unless otherwise provided by the law .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the ownership title over a real estate is acquired by virtue of the recording .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the removal of ownership title from the public records , on the ground that the recording was incorrect , may be initiated by an action within DATE from DATE when the real estate was recorded .

Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that ORG ( ORG завод за геодетски работи ) is responsible for recording property rights over real estates .

Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the ORG shall record ownership rights over real estates .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in FAC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , of FAC .

The applicant is head of the arbitrage department of ORG , a company , and is in charge of the transactions carried out by ORG , a commercial partnership in which ORG has a stake of PERCENT .

In the light of a report drawn up by its inspectors following an inquiry , ORG des opérations de bourse ) applied to ORG ( ORG financiers – “ the ORG ” ) to have disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant .

On DATE the chairman of the ORG notified the applicant of the complaints against him .

On DATE ORG , exercising its disciplinary powers , decided to suspend the applicant ’s trading licence for DATE and fined him MONEY .

On DATE the applicant brought an action in the ORG d’Etat , seeking to have the decision in issue quashed and its execution stayed .

On DATE the ORG d’Etat dismissed the applicant ’s action . It held , in particular , that when dealing with a case concerning acts for which disciplinary penalties could be imposed , “ ORG must be regarded as determining criminal charges within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions of the ... Convention for ORG ” .

The PERSON d’Etat further held :

“ Seeing that an action may be brought in the PERSON d’Etat in respect of a decision by ORG , the fact that proceedings before ORG might not satisfy the requirements of LAW in every respect can not be taken to constitute an infringement of the right to a fair hearing in all such cases .

However , even though ORG , when exercising its disciplinary powers , is not a court under domestic law , the ground of appeal to the effect that the manner in which it dealt with the case contravened the principle of impartiality set forth in the aforementioned LAW may , having regard to its nature , membership and functions , be validly relied on in support of an action in the ORG d’Etat in respect of a decision by ORG .

... the rapporteur , who does not initiate the referral process , plays no part in the formulation of complaints . He does not have the power to discontinue proceedings or , conversely , to broaden the scope of a case . The investigative powers he enjoys in assessing the validity of the complaints and of the observations of the person against whom proceedings have been brought do not authorise him to make searches or seizures or to take any other coercive measures during the investigation . In the present case ... it has not been established , or even alleged , that in performing his duties the rapporteur exceeded the powers which were conferred on him by the provisions cited above and which are no different from those available to ORG disciplinary panel itself . Consequently , his participation in the deliberations and vote that resulted in the imposition of a penalty on PERSON did not give rise to any breach of the principle of impartiality as set forth in LAW . ”

The relevant provisions of Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE on the disciplinary panels of ORG are worded as follows :

“ The decision shall be served on the person concerned and on the Government Commissioner by means of a registered letter with recorded delivery . The ORG shall , where appropriate , notify its decision to the referring entity . Persons on whom penalties are imposed and the Minister for ORG and Finance shall have DATE to bring an action in the ORG d’Etat ; in the Minister ’s case , that time shall start to run from the date on which the decision is served on the Government Commissioner . ... ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

In DATE the applicant applied to a bank for a low - interest loan to which he was allegedly entitled under the PERSON on Veterans . His application was refused on the grounds that the implementation of the above law required a ORG 's directive on the matter , which had never been issued .

The applicant challenged the ORG 's failure to issue the directive in question .

On DATE the ORG of GPE declared the ORG 's failure to issue the directive unlawful and required it to do so within DATE .

As submitted by the Government , on DATE the same court examined another claim brought by the applicant against ORG of GPE and ORG of GPE . He sought a low - interest loan to be provided to him by the authorities . The court dismissed his claim having found that the right to a low - interest loan as set out in the PERSON on Veterans was not directly enforceable , and could not be implemented in the absence of a Government directive .

On DATE , after the case was communicated to the Government , the President of ORG ordered supervisory review to be conducted over the judgment of DATE , and it was quashed in view of the allegedly unlawful composition of the court .


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant , a GPE national , born in DATE , is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in FAC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG , GPE .

Drugs use is prohibited in prisons in GPE . In DATE ORG carried out an anonymised survey in CARDINAL prisons , the results of which indicated that the prevalence of HIV was PERCENT , Hepatitis B was PERCENT and Hepatitis C was PERCENT . PERCENT of the prisoners surveyed had injected drugs at some stage , PERCENT of whom had injected whilst in prison . PERCENT of those who injected in prison shared equipment . The most recent ORG CARDINAL , DATE ) suggested that PERCENT of prisoners inject drugs while detained , acknowledging that there may however have been significant under - reporting due to the stigma attached to drugs use . ORG identify Hepatitis B and C and HIV as the most common serious viruses carried in the bloodstream . They can cause serious long - term health problems or be life - threatening . ORG considers Hepatitis C as being the certified cause of death in CARDINAL people per year and as contributing to a further CARDINAL deaths DATE from the complications of chronic liver disease . It has also identified the sharing of needles by intravenous drugs users as being responsible for PERCENT of cases of Hepatitis C DATE .

Needle exchange programmes , whereby equipment is exchanged for sterile needles and syringes , are generally acknowledged as an important way of reducing the risk of infection from the sharing of needles and syringes . Reports suggest that once - only use of sterile needles and syringes is the most effective measure for preventing infections . There are also a number of studies suggesting that in practice disinfection of needles is less effective at preventing transmission . ORG statistics suggest that PERCENT of health authorities have needle exchange programmes available to the general public . In prisons there have never been needle exchange programmes .

In DATE ORG recommended that disinfecting agents be made available to prison inmates in GPE and GPE as a measure to lessen the risks of spreading infections from shared use of drug injecting equipment . This recommendation was implemented but withdrawn after DATE due to health and safety concerns surrounding the tablets . DATE a pilot project was launched , involving CARDINAL prisons , which was evaluated by ORG in a detailed report . It concluded that there were real benefits from reintroducing disinfecting tablets and recommended that tablets be made available throughout prisons . On DATE Prison Service Instruction No . CARDINAL issued , introducing a scheme to make tablets available as from DATE . The scheme is currently being implemented and evaluated .

Tablets have been available in NORP prisons DATE , in which jurisdiction a pilot needle exchange programme has been reported to have been recently initiated .

The applicant is a prisoner . In DATE , he instructed solicitors as he was concerned that the provision of tablets instead of needle exchange programmes failed sufficiently to address the risks caused by the sharing of infected needles . Such risks were not confined to drugs users but also other prisoners or prison staff who could be accidentally infected .

In correspondence with his solicitors , ORG acknowledged that tablets would only disinfect , not reach the clinical standards of sterilization . They stated that there was no plan to introduce a needle exchange programme . In correspondence with his solicitors , ORG explained that the introduction of tablets was a reasonable and proportionate response as Hepatitis B and C would be inactivated by several moderately potent disinfectants and stated the view that needle exchanges would increase drugs use and the number of needles in circulation . It was stated that it was not always possible to replicate health care provided in the community and that disinfecting tablets provided an effective way of cleaning needles and fell within the range and quality of health services to be provided to prisoners .

On DATE , the applicant commenced judicial review proceedings arguing that the failure to introduce a trial of needle exchanges into LANGUAGE and NORP prisons violated ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention . He did not specify whether he was himself an intravenous user of drugs , claiming that other prisoners and staff could be affected by the risks of needle sharing . Permission to pursue such proceedings was refused after consideration of the papers by ORG . The application was renewed orally and there was a full hearing before Mr Justice PERSON at which the applicant and the Secretary of ORG were represented by counsel .

The Secretary of ORG relied on the following grounds :

ORG was concerned not to increase drugs use and there was no safe way of injecting drugs ;

drugs use was dropping in prison DATE this might in part be due to a lack of needles and a concern about infectious diseases ;

needle exchanges would increase the number of syringes in prison ;

the introduction of needle exchanges was to be kept under review .

It was accepted that if a prisoner did inject drugs it was safer to use a new syringe rather than a disinfected syringe . Later , in the oral proceedings , counsel for the Secretary of ORG also alleged that syringes could be used as weapons .

At the conclusion of argument , Mr Justice PERSON refused the applicant ’s renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review . He found that steps taken by the Secretary of ORG to protect the health of prisoners were not unreasonable , noting that providing syringes would remove CARDINAL of the disincentives to prisoners injecting themselves and that the effect of a decision to introduce a policy of distributing disinfecting tablets had yet to be assessed . He also found that the security considerations of managing a prison population in which people lived cheek by jowl meant that it was not realistic to assume that the same regime could apply as in the community . He found no issues arising under LAW .

The applicant ’s legal representatives obtained new evidence which was submitted in the renewed application to ORG . This was a report dated DATE from the Addiction Development Officer of ORG which inter alia noted that rigorous evaluations in GPE and GPE consistently found that needle exchange programmes did not increase drugs use , drugs users or the amount of drugs in circulation ; that the provision of bleach was only a partial solution and its use often inadequate ; lower transmission rates of HIV and hepatitis had been found to result from needle exchange schemes which had been in operation in CARDINAL prisons in CARDINAL NORP countries for DATE , without any increase in drugs use , interference with drugs prevention strategies or attacks on either staff or prisoners . It was stated : “ ... it could be argued that the refusal to make sterile equipment available to prisoners is actually condoning the spread of HIV and ORG among prisoners and , indirectly , to the community at large . ”

On DATE , ORG refused the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review . It noted that it was far from clear on the facts of this case that LAW was engaged . On the assumption that it was , it was nonsense to suggest that the failure to attempt a trial of needle exchanges amounted to a violation of the positive right to life . The applicant himself had only argued for a trial period which was an indicator in itself that the overall benefits of such a policy had yet to be established . There was no satisfactory evidence as to the difference in the decreased risk to life inherent in a needle exchange programme as opposed to a disinfectant scheme . Also GPE was far from alone in refusing to introduce such programmes . It was satisfied that there remained a legitimate concern that a needle exchange programme might increase drugs use and the number of syringes in prison . While in the future the balance might tip in favour of needle exchange programmes this was not inevitable and ORG had put in place an effective and sensible policy of assessing such programmes and the results thereof . It was emphasised that the matter should be kept under review .

ORG policy provides as follows :

Standards : ORG ( DATE )

“ To provide prisoners with access to the same range and quality of services as the general public receives from ORG . ”

ORG has set out in its general standards the following approach to medical services in prison ( Chapter III Health Care Services in Prison ) :

“ b. Equivalence of care

i ) general medicine

A prison health care service should be able to provide medical treatment and nursing care , as well as appropriate diets , physiotherapy , rehabilitation or any other necessary special facility , in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community . Provision in terms of medical , nursing and technical staff , as well as LOC , installations and equipment , should be geared accordingly .

d. Preventive health care

The task of prison health care services should not be limited to treating sick patients . They should also be entrusted with responsibility for social and preventive medicine .

... ii ) transmittable diseases

A prison health care service should ensure that information about transmittable diseases ( in particular hepatitis , AIDS , tuberculosis , dermatological infections ) is regularly circulated , both to prisoners and to prison staff . Where appropriate , medical control of those with whom a particular prisoner has regular contact ( fellow prisoners , prison staff , frequent visitors ) should be carried out . ”

Rule CARDINAL of ORG

" Medical services in prison shall be organised in close relation with the general health administration of the community or nation . ...

Prisoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation . "

Drug use was common in prison , with most studies reporting prisoners who have used drugs as at PERCENT or greater . While it was true that some prisoners stopped injecting on entering prison , some continued : a DATE ORG report showed that PERCENT of the prison population injected while incarcerated . Elevated risks of HIV and ORG flowed from the prevalence of sharing needles , often home - made ( with additional risks of scarring , vein damage and other infections ) . HIV infection ran from a reported PERCENT in GPE to PERCENT in some prison populations in GPE . The vast majority of peer - reviewed studies put ORG infection at PERCENT of prison populations .

Cleaning syringes with disinfectant such as bleach did not sufficiently reduce the risk of infection . Bleach was not fully effective in reducing ORG transmission . While repeated applications of bleach had been shown to eliminate HIV in syringes , field studies indicated users ( amongst those who bothered to avail themselves of available bleach ) had trouble following the instructions correctly and thus the method offered no , or little , protection .

Needle exchange programmes ( NEPs ) had been acknowledged to be the most effective harm reduction method in the community , reducing infection substantially without increasing the initiation , duration or frequency of illicit drug use . NEPs had been in operation in prisons since DATE and now existed in CARDINAL prison within CARDINAL jurisdictions : GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . NEPs were also in development in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . The evidence and experience from the prison schemes showed that they reduced needle - sharing , reduced drug overdoses and led to a decrease in abscesses and injection - related injections and facilitated referral of users to treatment programmes . It had not been demonstrated that they resulted in an increase in drug consumption , increase in drug injection or in any incidents of intentional use of needles as weapons or accidental needle - stick injuries .

HIV prevalence in drug injectors ( IDUs ) was PERCENT in GPE and GPE . PERCENT of ORG infections occurred in current IDUs and PERCENT in ex - IDUs as opposed to PERCENT in non - IDUs . Infection rates were substantially higher amongst the prison population than the general population . ORG identified NEPs as the key to preventing infections amongst IDUs in the community . This was also the established opinion of ORG . PERCENT of IDUs in GPE and GPE had accessed a needle exchange service . No such facilities were available in prisons . CARDINAL prisons appeared to be using disinfectant tablets , which were to be made available in all prisons during DATE . ORG nonetheless had the responsibility , under guidelines , to ensure that prisoners had access to health services broadly equivalent to those in the community . ORG did not consider that disinfectant tablets were an adequate response to risks of HIV and ORG transmission for the general public . There was strong evidence from around the world that NEPs in prison did not produce countervailing effects that could outweigh the benefits to prisoners . There had been no instances of needles being used as a weapon , nor any increase in drug use or injections . The only difference was that the possession of needles had ceased to be illegal . The fact that drugs use did drop on entry to prison was probably a consequence not of the absence of clean needles but of the fact that possession and use were illegal in prisons and that prisoners were closely supervised .


CASE OF TSONYO TSONEV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)

Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Free legal assistance;Legal assistance of his own choosing;Required by interests of justice);No violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-b - Adequate time;Preparation of defence;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Free legal assistance;Insufficient means;Required by interests of justice;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general};Non-pecuniary damage - award

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the relevant time he was unemployed .

At TIME on DATE the applicant and PERSON , after having consumed alcohol , went to the flat of PERSON , apparently with the intention of recovering certain items which Mr PERSON ’s former girlfriend had left there . A violent incident ensued and the police , who were called by neighbours , arrested the applicant and Mr D.M.

On DATE a police officer drew up a report describing the applicant ’s conduct on the previous evening . On the basis of this report , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE the mayor of GPE found the applicant guilty of breaching section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of municipal by - law no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and fined him MONEY ( ORG ) . The mayor explained that , while drunk , the applicant had broken down the door of PERSON flat and had beaten him up . These actions had constituted a breach of public order and an expression of manifest disregard towards society , contrary to the above - mentioned provision . The decision , which specified that it was subject to judicial review within DATE after being served on the offender , was not served on the applicant , whose address was unknown . It was put in the file and considered as constructively served under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Administrative Offences and Penalties Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant did not learn about it within the timelimit for seeking judicial review and the decision became final .

NORP Some time later the prosecution authorities charged the applicant with inflicting “ intermediate ” bodily harm on Mr G.I. , contrary to LAW , and breaking into his home , contrary to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . They alleged that he had acted in concert with Mr D.M.

The applicant ’s trial took place before FAC TIME on DATE and between CARDINAL p.m. and TIME on DATE . He was represented by CARDINAL lawyers . It is unclear whether they were retained by him or appointed by the court . The court heard the QUANTITY coaccused , CARDINAL experts and CARDINAL witnesses . It admitted numerous documents in evidence and heard the parties’ closing argument .

In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of inflicting “ intermediate ” bodily harm on Mr G.I. It found him not guilty of committing this offence in concert with others and not guilty of entering another ’s home by force . It sentenced him to QUANTITY . The court found that PERSON alone had broken down the door of PERSON flat and that the applicant had entered the flat after him . The court further found that in the ensuing scuffle the applicant had broken CARDINAL of Mr G.I. ’s teeth , which amounted to “ intermediate ” bodily harm , but at the same time held that in committing this act the applicant had not acted in concert with PERSON , because the latter had not hit Mr G.I. in the head .

The applicant appealed to ORG . He drafted the appeal himself . Mr D.M. did not appeal .

ORG held a hearing on TIME . The counsel previously appointed by the court for the applicant did not show up and new counsel was thus appointed . The applicant said that the new counsel was acquainted with his arguments and the case , and that he agreed to be defended by her . The record of the hearing says that the newly appointed counsel took TIME to acquaint herself with the file ; according to the applicant , she only had TIME to do so , because , as shown by the record , the hearing started at TIME and finished at TIME

In her closing speech , counsel for the applicant argued that it was not certain whether he had hit Mr G.I. in the head . Even if that had been so , he had done so in selfdefence , because Mr G.I. had tried to shoot him with a gas pistol and he had panicked . It was furthermore unclear whether the blows allegedly administered by the applicant could result in the type of injuries sustained by Mr G.I. The experts’ statements on this point had not been properly recorded . Counsel later filed a memorial previously drawn up by the applicant .

In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment . It found that it had assessed the evidence properly and had established the facts correctly , and went on to say that there was no indication that the applicant had acted in selfdefence .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law , again drafting the appeal himself . On DATE he asked ORG to appoint counsel for him . He relied on LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and asserted that he had no legal knowledge and could not afford to retain counsel , whereas the interests of justice required that he be legally represented because he risked imprisonment .

In a letter of DATE the president of ORG of ORG advised the applicant that it was not possible to appoint counsel for him , as the prerequisites of LAW were not met .

ORG held a hearing on DATE . The applicant acted pro se . The prosecution argued that his appeal should be dismissed . On DATE ORG , which had the power to quash , vary or reverse the lower court ’s judgment , decided to uphold it . It found that the lower court had properly established the facts , had fully examined all relevant issues , and had not breached the rules of procedure .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE LAW makes it an offence to inflict “ intermediate ” bodily harm on another . LAW defines “ intermediate ” bodily harm as , among other things , the knocking out of teeth whose loss makes chewing or speaking more difficult .

By LAW , it is an offence to enter another person ’s home using force , threats , dexterity , abuse of power , or special technical devices . LAW provides that the offence is aggravated if it has been committed at TIME or by an armed individual .

Points ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE Code of Criminal Procedure listed situations in which the appointment of counsel for the accused was mandatory : ( i ) the accused was a minor ; ( ii ) the accused suffered from a disability preventing him or her from defending himself or herself in person ; ( iii ) the accused was charged with an offence punishable by PERCENT ten years’ imprisonment ; ( iv ) the accused did not speak NORP ; ( v ) another accused who had diverging interests had already retained counsel ; or ( vi ) the case was heard in the absence of the accused . On DATE a new point ( CARDINAL ) was added . It was part of a comprehensive overhaul of the LAW intended to bring it in line with the LAW , based on LAW ( c ) , and it provided that the appointment of counsel was compulsory if the accused could not afford it but wished to be legally represented and the interests of justice so required .

On DATE the DATE Code was superseded by DATE Code of Criminal Procedure . The text of its LAW ( CARDINAL ) matches exactly that of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . LAW provides that the participation of counsel in the proceedings before ORG is compulsory . Where the participation of counsel is compulsory , the competent authority has to appoint counsel when not retained by the accused ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Code provided that a hearing had to be adjourned if counsel for the accused failed to appear and if such counsel could not be replaced without causing prejudice to the accused ’s defence .

In DATE the text was amended , providing that an adjournment was only necessary where the case could not proceed without the accused being legally represented . In a decision of DATE ( решение № CARDINAL от CARDINAL април DATE г. по к. д. № DATE г. обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL от CARDINAL април DATE г. ) ORG declared the amendment unconstitutional , finding that it made it possible to hold hearings in which the accused would not be legally represented and that this would certainly prejudice the defence . It was true that certain limitations on the rights of the defence were permissible under LAW in the interest of the proper administration of justice . However , this particular limitation was disproportionate , because it made it harder to ascertain the truth and put the accused at a disadvantage vis - à - vis the prosecution , in breach of the principle of equality of arms .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( whose text has been copied almost verbatim into LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Code ) provided that criminal proceedings could not be opened or had to be discontinued if in respect of the same person and in respect of the same offence there existed a final judgment or decision . The former ORG DATE in a binding interpretative decision – , and later ORG , have construed this provision as not barring the opening of criminal proceedings in respect of persons who have already been punished in administrative proceedings ( тълк. реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по н. д. № DATE г. , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. по н. д. № DATE г. , ORG , ORG н. о. ; и ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по н. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , I ORG ) .

Bylaw no . CARDINAL for safeguarding public order on the territory of the municipality of GPE ( GPE № CARDINAL за опазване на обществения ред на територията на габровската община , приета с решение № CARDINAL , протокол № CARDINAL от CARDINAL март DATE г. ) was adopted by ORG on DATE pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of the DATE ORG LAW , which , as worded at the material time , empowered municipal councils to make bylaws concerning local issues . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the bylaw provided that citizens were prohibited from committing acts which breached public order and expressed manifest disregard towards society . Section ORG ) provided that violations of the by - law were punishable with a fine of up to BGN CARDINAL . Under section CARDINAL of the bylaw , the procedure for establishing such violations and their punishment was governed by ORG .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Administrative Offences and Penalties Act provides that municipal councils may , in issuing bylaws , determine the elements of administrative offences and provide for penalties among those envisaged by ORG of DATE . Under section CARDINAL ) of that LAW , as in force at the material time , the breach of a municipal by - law was punishable with a fine of MONEY .

The DATE Act governs administrative offences and penalties and lays down the procedure for punishing such offences . It defines them , in section CARDINAL , as acts or omissions which run counter to the established order , have been committed wilfully and are punishable with administrative penalties . LAW provides that , absent specific provisions in the LAW , the DATE LAW governs all questions concerning mens rea , capacity , exculpating circumstances , complicity , preparation and attempts .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , a decision imposing an administrative penalty must be served on the offender . If , however , the offender can not be found at the address he specified and his new address is unknown , a note to this effect is made on the decision and it is considered as served on the date of the note ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The decision may be challenged by way of judicial review ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) within DATE after it has been served ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Under section CARDINAL , decisions imposing administrative penalties become final when ( i ) they are not subject to review , ( ii ) have not been challenged within the statutory timelimit , or ( iii ) have been challenged but have been upheld or varied by the competent court .


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

In DATE CARDINAL prostitutes , X , Y , V and Z , lodged a criminal complaint , alleging armed robbery , and gave the police information which they claimed would enable them to identify those responsible . After a police investigation proceedings were instituted against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons , A and B. Among other offences , the applicant , a carabinieri officer , was charged with trafficking in soft drugs ( hashish ) and hard drugs ( heroin ) , fraud , forgery , receiving and a number of counts of armed robbery and abuse of a public office .

During the preliminary inquiries A and B made confessions , stating that the applicant was the person who had committed the armed robberies with them . W , a client of the prostitutes , identified the applicant as one of their assailants .

In a decision of DATE the ORG judge responsible for preliminary investigations committed A , B and the applicant for trial in the GPE ORG .

A hearing at which W was due to give evidence was fixed for DATE . Having received a number of threats by telephone , W had installed a system for recording calls onto audio cassettes . In TIME of DATE the applicant rang PERSON A detective sergeant friend of W who was at his home at the time of the incoming call , suspecting that it might contain threats to the witness , switched on the recording apparatus .

The hearing scheduled for DATE did not take place because CARDINAL of the CARDINAL parties did not appear . W at first kept the cassette at his home and then , DATE , decided to give it to the police , who seized it . W gave evidence at a public hearing on CARDINAL DATE and a transcript of the conversation of DATE was added to the judge ’s file . The applicant challenged the production of the transcript , asserting that it was the result of illegal and unauthorised telephone tapping . However , his arguments were rejected on the ground that the cassette had never been listened to by the detective sergeant , who had done no more than switch on the recording apparatus . W , who enjoyed the right to keep his communications secret , had then freely decided to give the cassette to the police . Accordingly , there had been no “ telephone tapping ” within the meaning of Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) ; the transcript was a document created by a private individual who had authorised it and produced it legitimately during the trial .

In the course of the proceedings it was established that X , Y , V and Z were now untraceable . Accordingly , on DATE , ORG , having taken formal note of the parties’ agreement on the point , ordered the statements the witnesses concerned had made to the police to be added to the judge ’s file ( LAW ORG ) . A and B declared that they wished to exercise their right under LAW of the ORG to remain silent . Pursuant to LAW ORG , the statements they had made before the trial were also added to the file and used when the court determined the merits of the charges against the applicant .

At a later hearing the applicant challenged the production of the records of the statements made by CARDINAL of the prostitutes , X , Y and Z , observing that it had been entirely foreseeable that they would be tempted to make themselves scarce . The court dismissed the applicant ’s objection , noting that the prostitutes had given addresses in GPE where they could be contacted and that there was nothing to suggest that they would become untraceable . Moreover , the applicant had not immediately objected to the inclusion in the file of the statements he now sought to challenge , so that he was estopped from objecting to their use .

In a judgment of DATE the ORG sentenced the applicant for armed robbery , trafficking in soft drugs ( hashish ) , fraud , forgery and abuse of a public office to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( MONEY ) . It acquitted him of trafficking in hard drugs ( heroin ) and receiving , and of CARDINAL count of abusing a public office .

The judgment was based on the statements by A and B , which were held to be precise , credible and corroborated by other evidence . In particular , the applicant , A and B had been recognised by some of the victims , and the version of events given by the women matched the evidence of the applicant ’s CARDINAL co - defendants . In addition , W had identified the applicant and , as appeared from the transcript of the telephone conversation on DATE , the latter had unlawfully tried to bring pressure to bear on his accuser . Admittedly , the applicant had pleaded that W ’s evidence had been unlawfully admitted , since he should have been considered a co - defendant , not a witness , but ORG held that it had not been established that W had been guilty of obscene behaviour in a public place . Lastly , a security guard had seen a car identical to the applicant ’s near the place where CARDINAL of the armed robberies had been committed , and it had been established , on the basis of evidence given at the trial and his own partial admissions , that the applicant had paid for certain goods with a cheque stolen from CARDINAL of the victims .

The applicant appealed , contesting the credibility of the prosecution witnesses . He repeated his objections concerning the unlawfulness of admitting in evidence the conversation with W and the prostitutes’ statements .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . It repeated , for the most part , the reasoning of the ORG and observed that at the hearing on DATE the applicant had accepted the reading out of the prostitutes’ statements and had thus implicitly waived any objection to their use .

The applicant appealed on points of law , arguing in particular that his co - defendants’ statements had not been credible and that the recording of the conversation on DATE had amounted to unauthorised and therefore illegal telephone tapping .

On DATE the applicant , as he was entitled to do by virtue of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , requested application of a sentence negotiated with ORG at ORG . At the same time he withdrew all his grounds of appeal .

In a judgment of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on CARDINAL DATE , ORG reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY . It observed that the applicant and the prosecuting authorities had reached an agreement about the appropriate sentence and that examination of the decisions at first and second instance had not revealed any circumstance warranting the applicant ’s acquittal .

In the version in force at the material time , LAW ORG provided :

“ At the request of CARDINAL of the parties , the judge shall order to be read in court documents resulting from enquiries by the police [ or ] by the representative of the prosecuting authorities ... where , on account of unforeseeable events or circumstances , [ those enquiries ] can no longer be repeated . ”

LAW ORG , as amended by ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , read as follows :

“ Where the defendant ... refuses to answer questions , the judge , at the request of CARDINAL of the parties , shall order to be read in court records of the statements made by the defendant to the representative of the prosecuting authorities [ or to the police acting on the instructions of the prosecuting authorities ] ... during the preliminary investigation ... ”

As a consequence of being read out the documents and statements referred to in ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG are added to the judge ’s file and may be used for assessment of the merits of the charges .

By means of LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE the NORP parliament added the principle of a fair trial to the LAW itself . Paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the LAW , as now worded , provide :

“ CARDINAL . NORP In criminal proceedings , the law shall guarantee that the person accused of an offence is informed promptly and in confidence of the nature and grounds of the charge against him ; that he shall have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence ; that he shall be given an opportunity before the court to examine or to have examined anyone giving evidence against him , to obtain the attendance and examination of any defence witnesses on the same conditions as witnesses called by the prosecution and to obtain the production of any other evidence in his favour ; and that he will have the assistance of an interpreter if he can not understand or speak the language used at the trial .

The principle of adversarial process shall be observed during criminal proceedings with regard to the examination of evidence . An accused ’s guilt can not be established on the basis of statements made by a person who has freely and wilfully eluded examination by the accused or his lawyer .

Rules shall be made governing the circumstances in which adversarial examination of the evidence is to be dispensed with , either because the accused has consented or because there is due evidence that such examination is objectively impossible or that there has been unlawful conduct . ”

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE provides that where an appeal on points of law is pending in criminal proceedings in which a ORG gave judgment before DATE ORG at ORG and the defendant may agree on the acceptance , in whole or in part , of some of the grounds of appeal , provided that the other grounds are withdrawn . Where acceptance of the grounds of appeal which the defendant has not withdrawn has a bearing on the severity of the sentence , the parties are required to inform ORG what sentence they have agreed upon .


Violation of Art. 6-2;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

András Baka;Antonella Mularoni;Elisabet Fura;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Jean-Paul Costa

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody by an investigating judge of ORG on suspicion of fraud and murder .

On DATE the district public prosecutor ’s office in ORG issued an indictment against the applicant on charges of fraud and incitement to commit murder .

On DATE the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention on remand for DATE . In its reasoning , justifying this decision , the panel relied on the applicant ’s prior convictions as well as his persistent anti - social behaviour . In addition , the panel expressly stated that the applicant had “ committed the criminal offences which are the subject of this prosecution ” ( “ počinio kriv . dela koja su predmet ove optužbe ” ) and concluded that the applicant , if released , would be likely to commit further offences .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that his detention be terminated or , alternatively , that the remand decision be quashed and the case remitted to ORG for reconsideration . He argued , inter alia , that , since the impugned decision had prejudged the outcome of the pending criminal case , it had blatantly breached his fundamental right to be presumed innocent as “ guaranteed in LAW , LAW and , indeed , LAW of LAW ” .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , focusing exclusively on the applicant ’s prior criminal convictions and the alleged danger that he would commit further offences if released . It did not refer to the applicant ’s submission concerning the presumption of innocence .

On DATE the Novi Sad ORG found the applicant guilty of incitement to murder and sentenced him to DATE in prison .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . As stated by the applicant in a separate case currently pending before ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , his lawyer received that decision on DATE .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provided as follows :

“ Everyone shall be deemed innocent until proved guilty of a criminal offence in a final decision of a court of law . ”

“ Everyone who believes that any of his human or minority rights as guaranteed by this LAW have been violated or denied by an individual act or action of ORG institution , or a member - State body or organisation exercising public powers , shall have the right to submit a complaint to ORG and GPE , if no other legal redress is provided in a member ORG , in accordance with LAW . ”

The relevant part of LAW provided as follows :

“ ORG and GPE :

– shall examine complaints lodged by citizens in cases where an institution of GPE and GPE has infringed their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by LAW , if no other legal redress has been provided ;

Article CARDINAL CARDINAL of this LAW provides as follows :

“ No one shall be considered guilty of a criminal offence until so proved in a final decision of a court of law . ”

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW provided , inter alia , that anyone who had suffered fear , physical pain or , indeed , mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of personal rights ( prava ličnosti ) was entitled , depending on their duration and intensity , to sue for financial compensation in the civil courts and , in addition , to request other forms of redress “ which might be capable ” of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction .

The relevant provisions of this legislation were as follows :

“ A citizen ’s complaint may be filed by anyone who considers that an individual act or action of an institution of GPE and GPE , or a member - State body or organisation exercising public powers , has violated his human or minority rights , if no other avenue of legal redress is available or if redress has not been secured within a member ORG . ”

“ A citizen ’s complaint may be lodged within DATE from the date of receipt of the individual decision or the commission or cessation of an action in violation of a human or minority right guaranteed by LAW . ”

“ If the ORG finds that an individual decision or action is in violation of a human or minority right guaranteed by LAW , it may annul the individual decision in question , prohibit the continuation of such actions or order the implementation of other specific measures and , in view of the circumstances of each case , order the removal of all consequences stemming from such decisions and/or actions .

The decision of the ORG accepting a citizen ’s complaint shall constitute a legal basis for requesting compensation , or the removal of other adverse consequences , from a competent body , in accordance with the law . ”

In a ORG report on ORG and GPE of DATE , it was stated that ORG and GPE had still not been established and that the setting - up of such a court had not been considered a priority by ORG authorities since accession to LAW and GPE : Compliance with obligations and commitments and implementation of the post - accession cooperation programme , document presented by the Secretary General of ORG , fourth report , DATE , § CARDINAL ) .

In a subsequent report of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found that ORG and GPE had finally started operating in DATE . The court ’s financing , however , had not been fully secured . Lastly , CARDINAL individual human rights complaints had been registered as cases , but no decisions had yet been rendered ( GPE and GPE : Compliance with obligations and commitments and implementation of the post - accession cooperation programme , document presented by the Secretary General , eighth report , DATE , § § DATE ) .

In a reservation contained in their instrument of ratification of the Convention and its Protocols , deposited with ORG DATE , the Government of GPE and GPE stated that “ the provisions of LAW shall not apply in relation to the legal remedies within the jurisdiction of ORG and GPE , until the said ORG becomes operational in accordance with ORG DATE of LAW of ORG and GPE ( NORP list PERSON i PERSON , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ” .

This reservation was withdrawn by a letter dated DATE from ORG and GPE , which was registered at the Secretariat General on DATE .

NORP In a letter of DATE , ORG and GPE clarified that it was yet to rule in respect of a single “ citizen ’s appeal ” . It further pointed out that the reason for this was the proposed amendment to the relevant legislation regulating the court ’s work which , at the time , was still pending ( Statement no . CARDINAL , provided in the context of a separate application pending before this Court ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ) .

ORG and GPE ratified LAW .

Following a referendum , on DATE , GPE declared its independence from ORG and GPE , whereupon that entity ceased to exist , together with all of its public bodies including ORG and GPE .

On DATE the President of GPE informed the Secretary General of ORG was the sole successor to the former ORG and GPE

In its decision of DATE , ORG noted , inter alia : ( i ) that “ GPE ... [ had continued ] ... membership of [ ORG of ] GPE and GPE in ORG with effect from DATE ” , and ( ii ) that it had remained a party to a number of ORG signed and ratified by the former ORG and GPE , including LAW .