David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant is a CARDINAL-year old man and a NORP of ethnic origin . His family is active in the GPE party . CARDINAL of his brothers received international protection and residence permits in GPE in DATE and DATE respectively . A third brother was killed because of his political activities .

The applicant allegedly joined the ORG party in DATE while visiting his brother in NORP GPE . DATE after he joined the party , he was arrested and held in custody for DATE . During this time he was ill - treated both physically and mentally . The NORP secret service ORG agreed upon his release on the condition that he provide them with information about the GPE party ’s activities . The applicant travelled back to NORP GPE and agreed with the leaders of the GPE party that he would provide ORG with incorrect information about the GPE party , and this took place . The applicant continued his activities in the GPE party , which included mostly delivering different materials relating to the party , such as posters and information sheets , to different cities in GPE until DATE .

In DATE the applicant travelled to GPE at his brother ’s invitation . ORG had forbidden him to leave the city without their permission but they did not know that he had a passport . The applicant managed to travel to GPE without ORG knowing . His original plan was to visit the GPE ’s members in GPE and then to return to GPE in DATE . However , having heard from his father in GPE that his wife and brother had been arrested because the NORP authorities had found out about his departure from GPE , he became afraid that he would again be illtreated or even killed on returning to GPE . Therefore he sought asylum in GPE . His wife was soon released but she still has to report to the authorities DATE in order to show that she has not left the country . The applicant has continued his activities in the GPE party in GPE , including taking part in meetings and demonstrations .

The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and sought asylum on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( ORG virasto , PERSON ) rejected his application and decided to order his removal to GPE . It found that the applicant had not provided any evidence in support of his alleged activities and membership of the GPE party , nor of the alleged persecution or torture inflicted on him . ORG found that the certificate issued by GPE ’s NORP office , dated DATE , which attested to his party membership , did not constitute an evidentiary basis on which any credible conclusions could be drawn about his activities and status in the party and the possibility that he would face a risk of ill - treatment in GPE . Moreover , the applicant was able to describe GPE ’s objectives and activities only superficially . Even though the applicant had allegedly been tortured repeatedly , he had not provided the ORG with any kind of medical certificate . ORG found the applicant ’s story , as a whole , not credible . Even if he had been a member of the party , he could not be regarded as a high level party member but only possibly a lower level party activist . It was not probable that the NORP authorities would persecute the applicant . This conclusion was supported by the fact that the applicant had been able to leave GPE without any problem . The Service did not find it credible that the arrest of the applicant ’s wife and brother , as alleged , were due to his stay in GPE , or that the NORP authorities would know that the applicant had continued his political activities in the GPE party in GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that ORG decision be quashed and the applicant be granted asylum , or alternatively , a residence permit . He also requested that an oral hearing be held .

On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , rejected the applicant ’s appeal . The court noted that the applicant did not hold a leading position in the GPE party , nor were his or his family ’s political activities known in his home region . It had not been shown that the NORP authorities knew about his activities . Nor did ORG find it probable that the NORP authorities had found out about the applicant ’s political activities during his stay in GPE or that he would otherwise be persecuted by the NORP authorities upon return . The court thus concluded that the applicant would not be subject to any real risk of ill - treatment when returned to GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting also that a stay on removal be granted .

On DATE ORG stayed the applicant ’s removal to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before it .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

According to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW of Finland ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the right of foreigners to enter GPE and to remain in the country is regulated by an LAW . A foreigner shall not be deported , extradited or returned to another country , if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence , torture or other treatment violating human dignity .

According to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( ulkomaalaislaki , utlänningslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL ) , aliens residing in the country are granted asylum if they reside outside their home country or country of permanent residence owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ethnic origin , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion and if they , because of this fear , are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on grounds of subsidiary protection if the requirements for granting asylum under LAW are not met , but substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person , if returned to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence , would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm , and he or she is unable , or owing to such risk , unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . Serious harm means : CARDINAL ) the death penalty or execution ; CARDINAL ) torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; or CARDINAL ) serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts .

NORP Under section CARDINALa of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on the basis of humanitarian protection , if there are no grounds under LAW or CARDINAL for granting asylum or providing subsidiary protection , but he or she can not return to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence as a result of an environmental catastrophe or a bad security situation which may be due to an international or internal armed conflict or a poor human rights situation .

According to section CARDINALb of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the well - founded fear of being persecuted referred to in section CARDINALb or the real risk of being subjected to serious harm referred to in section CARDINAL may be based on incidents after the applicant ’s departure from his or her home country or country of permanent residence or on acts that the applicant has participated in after his or her departure .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) provides that the requirements for issuing a residence permit are assessed individually for each applicant by taking account of the applicant ’s statements on his or her circumstances in the ORG in question and of real time information on the circumstances in that ORG obtained from various sources . After obtaining the available statement , the authorities shall decide on the matter in favour of the applicant on the basis of his or her statement if the applicant has contributed to the investigation of the matter as far as possible and if the authorities are convinced of the veracity of the application with regard to the applicant ’s need for international protection .

According to section CARDINAL of the Act , no one may be refused entry and sent back or deported to an area where he or she could be subject to the death penalty , torture , persecution or other treatment violating human dignity or from where he or she could be sent to such an area .

ORG DATE : The State of the World ’s Human Rights : GPE ( AI Report DATE ) covering events in DATE and published on DATE , notes the following about the general human rights situation in GPE :

“ An intensified clampdown on political protest preceded and , particularly , followed the presidential election in DATE [ DATE ] , whose outcome was widely disputed , deepening the long - standing patterns of repression . The security forces , notably the paramilitary ORG , used excessive force against demonstrators ; CARDINAL of people were killed or fatally injured . The authorities suppressed freedom of expression to an unprecedented level , blocking mobile and terrestrial phone networks and internet communications . Well CARDINAL people had been detained by DATE . Many were tortured , including some who were alleged to have been raped in detention , or otherwise ill - treated . Some died from their injuries . CARDINAL were then prosecuted in grossly unfair mass ‘ show trials’ . Most were sentenced to prison terms but CARDINAL were sentenced to death .

The election - related violations occurred against a background of severe repression , which persisted throughout DATE and whose victims included members of ethnic and religious minorities , students , human rights defenders and advocates of political reform . Women continued to face severe discrimination under the law and in practice , and women ’s rights campaigners were harassed , arrested and imprisoned . Torture and other ill - treatment of detainees remained rife and CARDINAL people died in custody . Detainees were systematically denied access to lawyers , medical care and their families , and many faced unfair trials . GPE remained CARDINAL of the states with the highest rates of execution and CARDINAL of very few still to execute juvenile offenders : CARDINAL people were executed , including one by stoning and CARDINAL juveniles . ”

According to the country information on GPE ( ORG , Operational Guidance Note : GPE , DATE ) , politically active groups and individuals are considered a threat to national security by ORG . If the NORP authorities consider a person to be working against national security ( the person may for example be accused of being a spy or of cooperating with an opposition religious , ethnic or political group ) , they may face severe punishment ranging from CARDINAL years’ imprisonment to execution . For instance , being in possession of a CD , a pamphlet or something similar made by ORG ( KDPI ) , GPE or other NORP organisations , may be considered an act against national security . This form of persecution for political activities is a problem all over GPE . However , the authorities are watching NORP areas and GPE more carefully than other areas .

Both high and low profile persons may risk persecution . Whether a person is harassed does not depend on the person being a high or low profile opponent of the government . While a high profile person is sure to be persecuted when arrested by the authorities , even a low profile person , who has been in possession of documents with a political message , may face persecution even if the person does not know anything about the movement in question . Moreover , if a person had left GPE illegally , he or she would not have been registered in the computer system as having left GPE and therefore would be questioned upon return ( ORG : Human Rights Situation for Minorities , Women and NORP , and ORG , ORG , ORG , and Reporting , etc . , DATE ) .

According to the Operational Guidance Note , there is no evidence to suggest that an applicant of NORP ethnic origin , in the absence of any other risk factor , would on return face a real risk of serious mistreatment simply on account of his or her ethnic origin alone . Applicants who are able to demonstrate that they are members or supporters of the GPE , GPE , or active members of ORG , and who are known to the authorities as such , will be at real risk of persecution and a grant of asylum will be appropriate unless there are case - specific reasons why it would not be .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Stelios Nathanael

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals of NORP - NORP origin , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , in the northern part of GPE which in DATE was proclaimed as GPE ” ( the “ GPE ” ) . They were represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .

and as derived from the documents in the file , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE , before the parliamentary elections of GPE to be held on DATE , the applicants submitted CARDINAL applications on behalf of other NORP and themselves to the Minister of the Interior of GPE ( “ the Minister ” ) requesting to be placed on a separate electoral list , namely , a NORP electoral list , in order to vote and stand for the parliamentary elections . The applicants claimed that section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Exercise of the Right to Vote and be Elected by Members of the NORP community with ORG in GPE ) ( “ LAW ” ) was contrary to LAW and the Convention .

Their applications were refused by the Minister on DATE . In his decision the Minister stated that the above - mentioned PERSON had been enacted in compliance with the ORG ’s ruling in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , ECHR CARDINALV ) in order to enable NORP residing in the government - controlled areas of the Republic to exercise their individual right to vote and stand for election . It did not provide , however , for the exercise of these rights as a community . Due to the irregular situation , the relevant LAW provisions concerning separate elections had become impossible to implement in practice . The LAW applied as long as the irregular situation in GPE continued to exist . It was therefore of a temporary nature and did not deprive the NORP community of their constitutional rights . Until a comprehensive settlement was reached , however , the exercise of these rights in the manner provided by the LAW was not possible .

On DATE the applicants filed an application , in the NORP language , at ORG for a declaration that the Minister ’s decision was null and void . The applicants relied on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW as they were before the amendment whereby the number of seats in ORG was increased ( see domestic law part below ) . The document did not comply with any of the procedures concerning the drafting of special proceedings whereby the various competences of ORG are evoked . The officers of the Registrar , taking into account the fact that the applicants were seeking the annulment of the Minister ’s decision in order to enable them to exercise their right to vote and to stand for election , filed the case under the category of electoral applications and submitted it to the Plenary of ORG which has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate finally on any election petition , made under the provisions of LAW ( Article CARDINAL of the LAW ) .

ORG , after considering the application , decided that in substance it constituted a recourse under LAW by which the applicants challenged the LOC decision dismissing their application .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a full bench , dismissed the recourse .

In its judgment ORG noted , firstly that the applicants wished to be registered as voters in a separate electoral list , namely that of the NORP - NORP citizens of GPE . It followed therefore that they also sought the right to be elected by the NORP - NORP voters , who were on a separate list , in order to take a parliamentary seat from the separate number of seats that the LAW allocated to the NORP community . As such the applicants’ demand touched upon the very continuation of the existence of GPE which constituted the internationally - recognised legal state established in DATE . ORG noted that after the withdrawal of the NORP community from the ORG organs in DATE following a decision of its leadership , the relevant Articles of the LAW providing for separate elections by the CARDINAL communities had become impossible to implement in practice . From CARDINAL/CARDINAL the ORG based its legal existence and its continuing functioning on the Law of Necessity , as laid out in the case of The Attorney - General of the Republic v. PERSON and others , ( DATE ) C.L.R. CARDINAL ) . ORG stated that this fundamental legal decision stood side by side with the LAW which contained the consummate rule of law governing the continuing existence and functioning of the ORG as a legal and democratic entity and referred in detail to the situation and the reasons which led unavoidably to the adoption and prevalence of the Law of Necessity . ORG pointed out that these reasons became even more pressing after the NORP invasion in GPE in DATE and the occupation of northern GPE by NORP troops . At present only a small number of NORP Cypriots lived in the occupied part of GPE and very few NORP lived in the territory controlled by GPE .

ORG stated that the above realities were confirmed in a series of judgments by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) in which , inter alia , the international recognition of GPE as the legitimate and lawful ORG was considered an indisputable fact , while at the same time the regime which existed in the northern part of GPE , where GPE exercised effective control , was held to be illegal . In this connection , ORG referred to the ORG ’s findings in the case of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) , PERSON v. GPE ( ( preliminary objections ) , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and PERSON ( cited above ) . With regard to the latter case , ORG pointed out that the ORG had found a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL in that although the relevant constitutional provisions had been rendered ineffective there had been a manifest lack of legislation resolving the ensuing problems ; namely that members of the NORP - Cypriot community , living in the government - controlled area of GPE , had been completely deprived of any opportunity to express their opinion in the choice of the members of ORG of the country of which they were nationals and where they had always lived . Following this judgment , PERSON CARDINAL(I)/CARDINAL was enacted enabling NORP nationals who belong to the NORP - Cypriot community and had their habitual residence in the government - controlled areas of GPE to vote and to stand for election . ORG noted , however , that the applicants had and still had their permanent residence in the northern part of GPE , which was occupied by and under the control of NORP troops . They could not therefore claim a right to vote or to stand for election on the basis of the ORG ’s ruling in the PERSON case and LAW .

LAW safeguards the right to vote . It provides as follows :

“ Every citizen has , subject to the provisions of this LAW and any electoral law of the Republic or of the relevant ORG made thereunder , the right to vote in any election held under this LAW or any such law . ”

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the NORP Constitution concern the composition of ORG and the right to be registered in the electoral lists for parliamentary elections . They provide as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The number of representatives shall be CARDINAL :

Provided that such number may be altered by a resolution of ORG carried by a majority comprising CARDINAL of the Representatives elected by ORG and CARDINAL of the representatives elected by ORG .

NORP Out of the number of Representatives provided in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article CARDINAL per centum shall be elected by ORG and CARDINAL per centum by ORG separately from amongst their members respectively , and in the case of a contested election , by universal suffrage and by direct and secret ballot held on DATE . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Subject to paragraph CARDINAL of this Article every citizen of the Republic who has attained DATE and has such residential qualifications as may be prescribed by the Electoral Law shall have the right to be registered as an elector in either the NORP or the NORP electoral list :

Provided that the members of ORG shall only be registered in the NORP electoral list and the members of ORG shall only be registered in the NORP electoral list .

No person shall be qualified to be registered as an elector who is disqualified for such registration by virtue of LAW . ”

LAW sets out the eligibility requirements to stand for election to ORG . It provides as follows :

“ A person shall be qualified to be a candidate for election as a Representative if at the time of the election that person-

( a ) is a citizen of the Republic ;

( b ) has attained the age of DATE ;

( c ) has not been , on or after the date of the coming into operation of this LAW , convicted of an offence involving dishonesty or moral turpitude or is not under any disqualification imposed by a competent court for any electoral offence ;

( d ) is not suffering from a mental disease incapacitating such person from acting as a Representative . ”

Following the withdrawal of the NORP community from the ORG organs in DATE , a number of Constitutional provisions , including the ORG providing for the parliamentary representation of the NORP community and the quotas to be adhered to by the QUANTITY communities , became impossible to implement in practice .

In DATE , by decision of ORG , the number of seats in ORG was increased from CARDINAL ; CARDINAL seats were allotted to representatives to be elected by the NORP community and CARDINAL seats to representatives to be elected by the NORP community . The CARDINAL seats remain vacant .

According to LAW on the Election of Members of ORG ( Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL , as amended ) , the right to elect belongs to those who have the qualifications provided for under LAW . The residential requirement is that of habitual residence in GPE for a period of DATE immediately before the date fixed by the Minister , by publication in ORG , as the date of acquisition of the electoral qualifications . Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the same PERSON provides that a candidate for parliamentary elections should have the qualifications set out in LAW .

Following the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( cited above ) , LAW was enacted and entered into force on DATE . LAW applies to citizens of the Republic who are members of the NORP community and had , at the time of entry into force of the PERSON or subsequently , their habitual residence in the free areas of the Republic ( section CARDINAL ) and enables them to exercise their right to vote in presidential elections and their right to vote and to be elected in parliamentary , municipal and community elections . As regards parliamentary elections , this relates to the filling of the CARDINAL seats allotted to the NORP community . Section CARDINAL provides that NORP nationals of NORP origin are to be registered on a supplementary electoral list which is then incorporated into the main electoral list in accordance with LAW ( PERSON CARDINAL(I ) DATE , as amended ) . Further , in respect of the right to vote , the requirement is that of habitual residence for a term of DATE immediately before the date of acquisition of the electoral qualifications ( section CARDINAL ) .

Law CARDINAL(I)/CARDINAL does not apply to citizens of the Republic who are members of the NORP community and reside in the free areas occasionally , from time to time or temporarily ( section QUANTITY ) .

According to section CARDINAL the provisions of ORG are also applicable to members of the NORP community who come within the scope of ORG ( I)/CARDINAL as amended ) ; the PERSON on the Election of Members of ORG ( Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended ) ; LAW ( Law CARDINAL of DATE as amended ) ; LAW ( Law CARDINAL(I ) of DATE as amended ) and the Election ( President and Vice President of GPE of DATE as amended ) ] .

Following the entry into force of LAW , members of the NORP community with their habitual residence in the government - controlled areas , were able to participate in the parliamentary elections of QUANTITY DATE . From the information given by the respondent Government to ORG about the measures to comply with the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON , CARDINAL NORP Cypriots cast their vote in those elections while CARDINAL NORP was a candidate MP ( appendix to Resolution CM / ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of DATE ) .

In accordance with LAW , ORG has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate finally on any election petition , made under the provisions of LAW , with regard to the elections of the President or the Vice - President of the Republic or of members of ORG or of any ORG .

Furthermore , under LAW has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate finally on a recourse made to it on a complaint that a decision , an act or omission of any organ , authority or person , exercising any executive or administrative authority is contrary to any of the provisions of this LAW or of any law or is made in excess or in abuse of powers vested in such organ or authority or person ( Article CARDINAL ) ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Just satisfaction reserved

Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Markelian Koca;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicants were born in DATE , respectively , and live in ORG .

Following the conclusion of a purchase contract on DATE , the applicants ' relative became the owner of a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m and situated on the NORP coast . The applicants ' relative 's title to the property was subsequently entered in ORG .

In DATE the ORG nationalised DATE without compensation – all the land situated on the NORP coast , including the applicants ' relative 's plot of land .

On DATE ORG on ORG and Compensation of Property ( PERSON i GPE dhe PERSON Pronave – hereafter “ the Commission ” ) , restored the applicants ' property rights over their relative 's property pursuant to ORG see “ Relevant domestic law ” , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the applicants ' title to the property was entered in ORG .

DATE attempts by the applicants to recover possession of the property proved unsuccessful because buildings had been illegally erected on their land by unlawful occupiers .

On an unspecified date in DATE , being unable to recover possession of their property , the applicants initiated proceedings before ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , seeking an order for CARDINAL occupiers ( PERSON , NORP and NORP ) to cease occupation of their property and for the illegal buildings to be demolished .

On DATE ORG confirmed the applicants ' property rights over the plot of land allocated to them by the ORG and ordered the occupiers to vacate the applicants ' property . That decision became final on DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL of the occupiers , PERSON , submitted a request to the President of the then ORG for supervisory review of ORG decision of DATE on the ground that he had not been notified of the proceedings . On DATE the President of ORG endorsed his request by putting it before LAW .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE on the ground that none of the CARDINAL occupiers had been duly informed of the proceedings before ORG , and remitted the case to the same court for fresh examination .

The applicants were neither informed of the proceedings nor invited to attend the hearings before ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the case as none of the parties had attended the hearing and none had given legitimate reasons for their failure to attend .

It appears that the proceedings were reopened on an unspecified date . They were also directed against another unlawful occupier , B. On CARDINAL DATE ORG confirmed the applicants ' title to their relative 's plot of land and ordered the CARDINAL occupiers ( PERSON , NORP , NORP and PERSON ) to cease occupation .

In DATE the applicants sold a plot measuring QUANTITY m to another party . That transaction was entered in the land register .

On an unspecified date the occupiers of the applicants ' property appealed against ORG decision of DATE , challenging the lawfulness of the applicants ' title to the plot of land . On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed their appeal and upheld ORG decision .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision on the ground that the latter had not examined the lawfulness of the applicants ' relative 's title to the property . It remitted the case to ORG for fresh examination .

On DATE ORG found that on DATE the Commission had allocated to NORP ( who had subsequently donated his property to PERSON ) a plot of land that overlapped with CARDINAL sq . m of the plot of land allocated to the applicants by ORG on DATE . Moreover , the court declared null and void the ORG 's decision of CARDINAL DATE in respect of the plot measuring QUANTITY . m , finding that the applicants ' relative 's purchase contract of DATE was null and void . It therefore revoked the applicants ' title to the entire plot of land measuring QUANTITY m.

On DATE , following appeals by the applicants and by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL occupiers ( M. , NORP and NORP ) , ORG , which had replaced ORG after LAW entry into force on DATE , quashed ORG decision in part . The court dismissed the occupiers ' appeals on the ground that , as they occupied the land without title , they lacked standing to challenge the applicants ' title to the property . ORG therefore ordered them to cease their occupation of the land . Moreover , the court upheld PERSON 's title to the plot measuring QUANTITY . m that overlapped with the land allocated to the applicants and confirmed the applicants ' property rights over the remaining QUANTITY m.

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG under Article CARDINAL ( f ) of the LAW , arguing that ORG judgment of DATE , which resulted in only partial recognition of their property , was unconstitutional . They complained that as ORG had wrongly assessed the evidence , its impartiality was open to doubt .

The Constitutional Court found that the applicants ' constitutional complaint concerned the assessment of evidence , which fell within the jurisdiction of the lower courts and was outside its jurisdiction . It therefore declared the appeal inadmissible by a decision of DATE , which was served on the applicants on DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the bailiffs to enforce ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE the bailiff sent CARDINAL separate letters to PERSON , NORP and PERSON to comply with the judgment within DATE from the notification thereof . The bailiff drew the occupiers ' attention to the mandatory enforcement of the judgment , should they fail to comply with the judgment voluntarily .

On DATE the third applicant requested a stay in the execution of the judgment until DATE for reasons which he did not disclose . The record states that the applicant would appear at the bailiff 's office to request the continuation of the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the applicant and occupiers PERSON and NORP appeared before the bailiff . The record states that “ the parties agreed to postpone the execution of the judgment until DATE ” .

On DATE the third applicant requested the bailiff to waive the applicants ' right of enforcement of the judgment against B. as both parties would resolve the issue by agreement . It appears that on an unspecified date in DATE the applicants sold a plot measuring CARDINAL sq . m to B.

On DATE the third applicant requested enforcement of the judgment against PERSON and NORP by demolishing their constructions . The bailiff agreed to request the assistance of the police for this purpose .

On DATE PERSON and NORP were informed that the bailiff would proceed with the mandatory execution of the judgment on DATE , in the presence of police officers .

On DATE the bailiff decided to postpone the execution to an unspecified date owing to the applicants ' absence . It results from the record that the bailiff did not go to the site to undertake any measures with a view to demolishing PERSON 's and NORP 's constructions .

On DATE the third applicant requested the bailiff to proceed with the enforcement of the judgment , given the failure of PERSON and NORP to comply with an agreement on the amount of compensation in respect of the plots they had occupied .

On DATE the bailiff sent CARDINAL separate letters to PERSON and NORP asking them to comply within DATE with the agreement entered into with the applicants . The bailiff drew the occupiers ' attention to the mandatory enforcement of the judgment , should they fail to comply with the judgment voluntarily .

On DATE the bailiff had a meeting with PERSON and NORP , who informed him that they were unable to pay the price requested by the applicants . The occupiers stated that they would vacate the plot of land on the condition that the applicants compensated them for the construction they had erected or that they provided them with a lawfully constructed flat in another location . The bailiff decided to inform the third applicant of the occupiers ' requests .

On DATE the third applicant requested either the vacation of the plots of land or the payment of compensation by the occupiers at the indicated price . The third applicant consented to having the price paid in instalments over a DATE period . He would come to an agreement with the occupiers as regards the amount of the instalments and the method of payment . Failing an agreement , the third applicant affirmed that he would request that the plot of land be vacated .

The bailiff 's record of a meeting on DATE between the third applicant and both occupiers , states that ,

“ Following a series of discussions the parties did not agree on the price offered by the creditor [ the third applicant ] , who requests [ the amount of compensation per sq . m ] over a DATE period .

The debtors offered to pay a [ lower ] price at ( ... ) .

Given this disagreement , it was decided that the creditor would request the mandatory enforcement of the judgment when he was ready ( ORG gati ) ” .

On DATE the bailiff decided to suspend the enforcement proceedings . The relevant parts of the decision read :

“ The creditor [ the third applicant ] has unsuccessfully been trying to resolve the problem by friendly settlement , save with debtor B.

Under these circumstances , the creditor requested suspension of the enforcement proceedings until DATE appearance before the bailiff at which he would request the mandatory execution as regards the vacation of the plot occupied by PERSON and NORP This has also been reflected in the record of DATE . ”

ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) entered in the land register , inter alia , PERSON 's title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , despite the fact that ORG judgment of DATE had recognised her property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On an unspecified date the applicants initiated proceedings with ORG seeking the removal of CARDINAL sq . m from PERSON 's title of property as entered in ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to suspend the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings for recovery of the property ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , following an appeal by the applicants , ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE on the ground that there was no connection between the CARDINAL sets of proceedings as each of them could be decided upon independently , and remitted the case to the same court for continuation of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG decided to suspend the proceedings until the parties had provided updated copies of mortgage certificates issued by ORG .

On DATE , following an appeal by the applicants , ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE and remitted the case to the same court for continuation of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG , after having received the updated mortgage certificates and the property plans , decided that there was no overlap between the applicants ' property and that of PERSON That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On an unspecified date PERSON commenced construction works , which allegedly encroached upon the plot of land belonging to the applicants . On DATE , following proceedings initiated by the applicants , ORG issued an injunction ordering PERSON to suspend the construction works since the buildings encroached upon the applicants ' property .

On DATE ORG ordered the bailiffs to enforce the injunction of DATE . On DATE the bailiffs decided not to enforce it because PERSON had not encroached upon the applicants ' property .

On DATE , following an action initiated by the applicants in accordance with LAW , ORG set aside the bailiffs ' decision of DATE . It found that the bailiffs had exceeded their powers as they were not authorised to overrule a court decision . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

DATE . On an unspecified date in DATE PERSON lodged an action with ORG requesting that the writ of execution of DATE be set aside in the light of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE ORG dismissed her request on the basis of ORG decision of DATE , according to which the merits of the case would be heard by a different bench of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In view of G 's construction works , which had apparently encroached upon the applicants ' property , on an unspecified date in DATE the applicants initiated proceedings for recovery of possession of their property . In the meantime PERSON filed a counter civil claim requesting the applicants to vacate her plot of land , which was allegedly occupied by their buildings .

On DATE ORG concluded , on the basis of an expert valuation concerning the overlap of the properties , that the applicants had occupied a plot of QUANTITY . m of PERSON 's property . It also found that PERSON had occupied a plot of CARDINAL sq . m of the applicants ' property . ORG ordered PERSON to compensate the applicants in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) for a plot of CARDINAL sq . m , which was the difference between the plots of land occupied by each party to the proceedings . Accordingly , it dismissed the applicants ' civil claim and also decided to lift the injunction that had been issued on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE , following an appeal by the applicants , ORG found that ORG had not examined the parties ' updated property titles , particularly in the light of some changes that had taken place to their properties over DATE . Accordingly , it quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to the same court for a fresh examination by a different bench .

On DATE ORG declared PERSON 's appeal inadmissible in accordance with LAW ( no valid grounds of appeal ) . It accordingly upheld ORG decision .

On DATE , on the basis of an expert valuation , ORG found that the properties overlapped in respect of a plot of CARDINAL sq . m. It concluded that that plot of land belonged to the applicants . ORG did not find any occupation of PERSON 's property by the applicants , but ruled that PERSON had occupied a plot of CARDINAL sq . m that belonged to the applicants . It rejected G 's request to pay compensation for the occupation of that plot of land as this was not envisaged under the law . It ordered PERSON to vacate and return the plot of CARDINAL sq . m to the applicants . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the bailiffs to enforce its judgment of DATE . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the writ of execution of DATE was unlikely to be enforced given the presence of CARDINAL apartment blocks on the occupied plot of land .

On an unspecified date PERSON lodged an action with ORG requesting the suspension of the writ of execution in respect of CARDINAL of the illegal buildings , whose status she was trying to legalise . No further information about the enforcement proceedings has been submitted to the ORG .

The relevant sections of LAW have been set out in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL of the DATE Code of Civil Procedure ( “ the ORG ” ) , which was in force until DATE , provided that decisions could be quashed for serious procedural violations , inter alia , when the case was tried in the absence of other parties without their having been informed of the hearing dates .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE of DATE , which amended LAW of DATE in force at the material time , provided that ORG was empowered to examine the lawfulness of court decisions by way of an application for supervisory review ( kërkesë për mbrojtje ligjshmërie ) lodged by the President of ORG or ORG . The provision did not impose time - limits for applying for such a review .

As provided by DATE ORG , which abrogated LAW of DATE , supervisory review ( rekurs në interes të ligjit ) was an extraordinary remedy that enabled ORG ( the new name for ORG ) to reopen proceedings where judgments had become final . DATE and its abolition in DATE , by virtue of PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the supervisory - review procedure underwent several legislative changes .

Article CARDINAL/a of the ORG provides that a final court judgment is binding on the parties , their heirs , the court that adopted the judgment and other courts and institutions .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG stipulates that a judgment can be enforced only on the basis of an execution title , which includes , inter alia , a final court judgment . Under LAW ORG , an execution title is executed at the request of the creditor . An execution writ is issued for this purpose . In the wording of LAW ORG , an execution writ is enforced by the bailiff at , inter alia , the request of the creditor . The bailiff invites the debtor to comply voluntarily with the execution writ in accordance with the time - limits laid down in LAW ORG . Should the debtor fail to comply with a voluntary enforcement within the prescribed time - limits , the bailiff proceeds with a mandatory enforcement in accordance with LAW ORG .

Under LAW ORG , the parties may complain to the court of an act or failure to act by the bailiff within DATE of the said act or omission . There is a right of appeal against the court decision in accordance with LAW ORG . The appeals has no suspensive effect on the execution .

NORP The bailiff may decide to suspend execution at the request of the creditor in accordance with LAW ORG . The parties may challenge the bailiff 's decision to suspend enforcement at the district court in accordance with LAW ORG .

The relevant sections of ORG have been set out in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ORG DATE ... ( extracts ) ; and PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


CASE OF ALITHIA PUBLISHING COMPANY v. CYPRUS

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

On DATE , just before the DATE elections , the first applicant published an LAW entitled “ The capon and self - esteem Short portrait of PERSON PERSON Archives , ORG of writing ” , of which the second applicant was the author .

On DATE Mr PERSON filed a civil action for libel with ORG of GPE . The applicants filed a memorandum of appearance to the writ on DATE . The plaintiff 's statement of claim , which , by virtue of LAW ORG , ought to have been filed within DATE after the appearance , was delivered to the applicants on DATE . Although on DATE ORG had fixed a time - limit of DATE for the filing of the statement of claim , the plaintiff requested and obtained on DATE an extension until DATE . On DATE , as the statement of claim was not yet filed , ORG did not fix the case anew , but gave instructions to the Registrar to bring the case before it , after DATE , in order to dismiss it for want of prosecution .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants filed CARDINAL similar applications whereby they sought to obtain an order of the court striking out or amending paragraph CARDINAL of the plaintiff 's statement of claim , as tending to embarrass or delay the fair examination of the action or as being unnecessary or scandalous . The hearing of the applications was fixed for DATE , but on that date it was adjourned until DATE at the request of both parties and then , ex officio , until DATE , when it was dismissed for want of prosecution . On CARDINAL DATE the applicants filed a third similar application which was subsequently withdrawn on DATE of the hearing on DATE , in the light of a statement made by the plaintiff 's lawyer .

NORP On DATE the applicants applied to ORG for an adjournment of the time - limit to file their defence , on the ground that it had not been possible to do it in time owing to the numerous applications which were submitted in the action . An adjournment was granted until DATE but the applicants did not file their defence until DATE .

On DATE the applicants applied to ORG to expedite proceedings . The court fixed the case for mention on DATE and for hearing on DATE . On DATE the hearing was adjourned ex officio until DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and then until DATE and DATE . On DATE the applicants failed to appear because the plaintiff 's lawyer had omitted to notify them of the date of the hearing .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned again until DATE , owing to the lack of time by the court , and again until DATE , following a request from the applicants . On CARDINAL occasions the hearing was adjourned ex officio : on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE and , following a further request from the applicants , again on DATE .

From DATE until DATE , when the hearing actually started , the hearing was adjourned on CARDINAL occasions , due to lack of time of the ORG : from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from PERCENT CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , from DATE to DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE ( not attributed to ORG ) , from DATE to DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE ( not attributed to the ORG ) , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( not attributed to ORG ) and from DATE to DATE .

The hearing commenced on DATE and involved CARDINAL sessions : on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE , at the end of the morning session , the lawyers of both parties declared that they were unable to continue in the afternoon or the following week due to other court engagements . The applicants ' lawyer refused to resume the hearing on CARDINAL DATE because he had to appear before another court , and on DATE because he was engaged in a pre - election meeting of his party . The hearing thus continued after the parliamentary elections held on DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . It found that the applicants had committed libel and ordered them to pay the plaintiff QUANTITY in damages .

ORG rejected the applicants ' claim that the proceedings were null and void because they had exceeded a reasonable length . ORG noted , on the one hand , that the plaintiff had delayed filing his claims , but , on the other hand , that the applicants had not complained of this delay prior to the hearing .

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG . They relied on CARDINAL grounds : the excessive length of the proceedings and the amount of the award . On DATE the plaintiff filed a cross - appeal whereby he sought higher compensation .

ORG fixed the hearing on DATE but on that date adjourned it until CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicants ' appeal and increased the award of damages to QUANTITY .

As regards the length of the proceedings , ORG held that much of the delay was due to the applicants ' requests for adjournments . It acknowledged , however , that it took DATE for the plaintiff to file his claims because of his frequent trips abroad , and that ORG had adjourned the hearing several times for lack of time . In particular , ORG noted the following : on DATE the applicants had invited ORG to strike out part of the plaintiff 's claims but , as they did not appear for the hearing of that matter , ORG rejected the application . The applicants then asked for an extension of the time - limit to file their observations , which were submitted on DATE . On DATE the applicants ' lawyers withdrew , and on CARDINAL DATE the new lawyer requested ORG to adjourn the hearing because he was obliged to appear before another court . On DATE the applicants ' lawyer was not present . On DATE he asked for a new adjournment . Finally , the hearing started on DATE and was completed on DATE . During that period , the applicants ' lawyer obtained CARDINAL more adjournments .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE LAW received intelligence about the address of a person involved in fraud . They suspected that the applicant , who resided at this address with his parents , might be this person .

On DATE , when police officers arrived at the building where the applicant lived , he tried to escape and broke into his neighbours ' flat , taking them hostage . According to the police reports , the applicant had a knife and resisted the police officers . The police entered the flat with the help of the fire brigade and arrested the applicant by using force . An unregistered gun and a number of bullets were found on the premises .

At TIME DATE , the applicant was taken to ORG , where a medical report was issued . According to this report there was no sign of ill - treatment on the applicant 's body .

The applicant was subsequently taken to the police station . He was allegedly beaten while in police custody .

At TIME DATE , after the police had apparently written an official report , not signed by the applicant , to the effect that he was harming himself , the latter was taken to ORG , where he was examined by a doctor once again . According to the doctor 's report , the applicant was anxious , exhibited signs of restlessness and appeared weak , and there was a QUANTITY MONEY patch of redness and a graze on his forehead , which had possibly been caused by a blow with a blunt object .

On DATE the applicant was handed over to the military officials , as he was found to be a deserter .

At TIME DATE the applicant was examined at ORG , where the doctor noted that there were no new signs of illtreatment on the applicant 's body .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor where , in the presence of his legal representative , he stated that he had been beaten by CARDINAL police officers both in the police car and at the police station . He further maintained that he had blood in his urine and that the police officer who put him in the detention unit had witnessed this .

Afterwards the applicant was brought before a judge at ORG , where he repeated that he had run away because he was a military deserter ; that he had pointed his knife at police officers because they had pointed their guns at him , and that he had not kidnapped his neighbours but had merely been their guest for a short time .

On DATE the prosecutor transferred the applicant to ORG for a medical examination which took place at TIME The doctor noted that the applicant had a CARDINAL x QUANTITY ecchymosed skin lesion on his forehead and scratches on both wrists . The doctor also noted that the applicant complained of being dizzy and of having been laid down and stepped upon .

The applicant was detained in a military detention centre DATE , at TIME , and DATE , TIME It appears that during this time he was medically examined CARDINAL times , on DATE , DATE and DATE , and the doctors noted no health problems . The only medical finding during this time was the presence of a mildly scabbed laceration of CARDINAL . x QUANTITY on the applicant 's forehead .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was received at ORG where the doctor who examined the applicant noted that his forehead and the area underneath his eyelids were swollen , that he had a red patch of QUANTITY on his back and that his wrists were swollen .

DATE and DATE , the applicant was treated at the Urology department of ORG where he was diagnosed with “ microscopic haematuria , renal trauma ” .

On DATE the applicant was found not to be fit to do military service on the ground that he had a chronic antisocial personality .

On DATE the applicant 's father filed a criminal complaint against the police officers at the police station , where he claimed that the police were coercing him and his son to take responsibility for the gun found at the building during the arrest and that they were torturing and beating his son to that end . In this connection , the applicant 's father alleged that he had heard his son 's screams while he was at the police station and had seen his poor state during his visit .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor decided not to prosecute on the ground that there were no signs of ill - treatment on the applicant 's body according to the medical reports issued on CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's objection and upheld the prosecutor 's decision .

On DATE the applicant further applied to ORG and requested that the decision of ORG be quashed by a written order ( yazılı emir ) .

On an unspecified date , the Minister of ORG issued a mandatory order as a result of which ORG quashed the decision of ORG .

On various dates DATE and DATE , the prosecutor heard evidence from CARDINAL police officers on duty at the police station . They all denied that the applicant had been ill - treated . They further maintained that the applicant had been taken for a medical examination because , inter alia , he was hitting his head against the iron bars of the cell . One police officer stated that they had been nice to the applicant because his father was a retired police officer .

On DATE the prosecutor heard evidence from the applicant 's parents .

The applicant 's father , who was a retired policeman , maintained , inter alia , that , when he and his wife went to the police station the police chief had told him that it would be bad for the applicant if he did not accept ownership of the gun . Afterwards QUANTITY police officers , who were also present during his arrest , had brought in the applicant . The latter had a bruise on his forehead and could barely walk . The applicant had told his father to save him because he was being beaten . At that moment some other police officers had arrived and they had taken him away while at the same time beating him . He had heard his son 's screams .

The applicant 's mother submitted , inter alia , that a police officer had brought in her son , who had been in a terrible state and had bruises on his forehead . She claimed that her son had told her that they were ill - treating him . They had pleaded with the police officers not to ill - treat their son . The applicant had then been taken away by a police officer who had started to hit him . The applicant had started screaming and they had then been thrown out . The person who had hit his son was a police officer named GPE but there were a lot of police officers entering the detention unit . In the verbatim records it was noted that the applicant 's mother , after having read her testimony with her husband in the corridor , had gone back into the prosecutor 's room and submitted that there had been QUANTITY police officers , having stated by mistake that there had only been one .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG against CARDINAL police officers from ORG , accusing them of torturing the applicant in order to extract a confession of guilt under LAW .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against the accused police officers commenced before ORG . The applicant joined the proceedings as a third - party .

In an additional indictment dated DATE the GPE public prosecutor charged CARDINAL other police officers from ORG with torturing the applicant in order to extract a confession of guilt under LAW . In the hearing held on DATE the trial court joined these other cases to the proceedings .

During the proceedings the trial court heard evidence from the accused police officers , the applicant , the applicants ' parents , the CARDINAL neighbours whose house the applicant had broken into , the detention supervisor , CARDINAL detainees , the soldier who had arrived at the police station to transfer him to the army , the doctor who had examined him at ORG on DATE and the doctor who had examined him at ORG on DATE .

The applicant maintained , inter alia , that all but CARDINAL of the accused were those police officers who had beaten him up . In this connection , he alleged that he had been punched until he fell to the floor , blindfolded , hit by an object resembling a truncheon on various parts of his body , pulled across the floor by his hands and feet , strangled by CARDINAL police officer and stepped on and kicked .

The applicant 's father alleged that CARDINAL of the accused had beaten up his son before his eyes and that his son , who had looked worn out , had told him that he had been beaten .

The applicant 's mother stated that , when she and her husband had gone to visit the applicant at the police station , they had heard him screaming “ why are you beating me up ? ” . She claimed that , at that moment , a tall police officer , who was not CARDINAL of the accused , had brought the applicant to them and had told him to accept ownership of the gun , but when he refused they started to take him back to the cell while at the same time hitting him . She said that the accused police officers were at the detention cells and that there were others , but she did not know who they were .

The accused police officers repeated , inter alia , that the applicant had had to be handcuffed because he was violent , that he was hitting himself in the detention cell , and that he had started crying out that he was being beaten as soon as he saw his parents .

NORP The Doctor PERSON , who had examined the applicant on DATE of the incident , maintained , inter alia , that the applicant 's head injury could have been caused either by a blow on the head with a sharp object or by his having hit his head , and that medically it was impossible to distinguish between them . He further maintained that the applicant had not complained to him of pain in his kidneys .

The doctor , PERSON , who had examined the applicant at ORG , maintained that he had noted down all the physical signs he had found on the applicant 's body and that , although the applicant had stated that he had been stepped upon , he could not find any lesions on his back .

Mr GPE , the army official who had picked the applicant up from the police station , testified , inter alia , that he had seen that the applicant had only a QUANTITY patch of redness on his forehead and bruises on his wrists due to the handcuffs .

Mr O.A. , a suspect who was also at the police station DATE , stated that he had been put in the same detention unit as the applicant and that the latter was constantly swearing and hitting his head against the walls and kicking the bars , saying that he was going to complain about the police and get them into trouble . He stated that he had not witnessed the applicant being beaten .

Mr GPE , another suspect who was at the police station DATE , maintained that he had been in the same detention unit as the applicant until TIME and that he had not witnessed him being beaten . In this connection , Mr GPE stated that the applicant had been somewhat aggressive , hitting the door and saying that he was going to see his family .

Mr GPE , the detention supervisor , claimed , inter alia , that at CARDINAL point he had heard some noises coming from the detention unit and , when he arrived , he saw that the applicant was hitting his head against the bars and was bleeding . He submitted that he had immediately informed the police officers on duty , who took him to the hospital .

In the course of the proceedings , the applicant disputed unfavourable testimony against him . In particular , he claimed that he had not been properly examined at ORG and that , although he had stated that he had blood in his urine , he was not transferred to a hospital .

During the proceedings the trial court requested expert opinions from ORG . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE LAW ( PERSON ) gave CARDINAL opinions . The applicant was also examined by LAW . However , the trial court considered that these opinions were insufficient and requested ORG of ORG to submit an opinion .

On DATE ORG of ORG gathered to examine the applicant 's case . ORG examined the factual context as alleged by the parties and the following medical evidence regarding the applicant : ( a ) the medical reports dated CARDINAL and DATE issued at ORG ; ( b ) the medical report dated DATE issued at ORG ; ( c ) the medical report dated DATE from ORG ; ( d ) the medical report dated DATE issued by a military doctor prior to his entry into military detention ; ( e ) the medical report dated DATE issued by ORG ; ( f ) the medical report dated DATE issued by a military doctor prior to his discharge from military detention ; ( g ) the applicant 's complete medical file from ORG ; ( h ) various scan results concerning the applicant 's cranium and neck dated CARDINAL , DATE and DATE DATE ; ( i ) the medical report issued by ORG on DATE ; and ( j ) the opinions of LAW dated CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

The plenary assembly opined , inter alia , that the physical findings noted in the medical reports , dated DATE at TIME and DATE at TIME , had originated on DATE TIME and that the wound on the forehead could have been the result of a blow with a blunt object or could have been caused by a person hitting his head against the bars of the cell and that it was not possible to distinguish between them medically . They further considered that the findings noted in the medical reports of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , concerning the applicant 's head and wrist injuries , were the type of wounds seen in the recovery phase . Finally , the ORG held that the findings of ORG regarding the applicant 's skin lesion and the haematuria found in his urine demonstrated that he had sustained a trauma and that this trauma could have been the result of a direct contact with a hard and blunt object , but it would not be possible medically to establish the exact time of this trauma .

On DATE the trial court , relying on the evidence in the case file , acquitted the police officers of the offences with which they had been charged . It held that the findings indicated in the medical reports were consistent with the accused officers ' contention , backed up by witnesses , that the applicant had banged his head and hands against the bars of his cell . In this connection , the court dismissed the applicant 's parents ' testimony as unreliable due to their kinship with the applicant and to the fact that it was not likely that police officers would commit a serious crime like torture in front of first - degree relatives . Moreover , as to the other symptoms recorded in the medical report of DATE , the court noted , firstly , that the applicant had been medically examined on DATE and that no such findings were recorded . Secondly , it noted that the haematuria had been found in the applicant 's urine DATE after he had been transferred to the army . Finally , it took into account that it was not possible to pinpoint the date when the applicant had suffered the trauma which led to haematuria . It therefore considered that this trauma could have occurred after the end of the applicant 's detention . Taking into account the principle “ in dubio pro reo ” , the court considered that the evidence in the case file did not suffice to convict the accused police officers of torture .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

In the meantime the applicant unsuccessfully sought the prosecution of CARDINAL police officer , PERSON , and CARDINAL military officer , PERSON ORG , for forgery of official documents , and the prosecution of Mr O.A. for perjury .

DATE . On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of resisting police officers with a knife and breaking into his neighbours ' flat . It sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . In the course of this trial the applicants ' neighbours maintained that , since the applicant 's actions had been strange and he looked as if he had lost control of himself , fearing for their life , they had not attempted to open the door to the police . The applicant maintained , inter alia , that he had escaped from the police because he was an army deserter . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of possessing a gun without a licence and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and to a fine .

The applicant submitted an PERSON scan dated CARDINAL DATE in support of his claim that he still suffered from injuries resulting from his ill - treatment . According to this scan , the applicant had annular bulging at GPE , flattening of the cord and slight uncovertebral degeneration .


Remainder inadmissible;Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 8

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a lawyer . He used to be a public prosecutor and is now a practising member of the NORP bar association .

DATE the applicant acted as the legal representative of several industrial companies belonging to a group associated with a strategic steelworks in eastern GPE . For a period of time starting on DATE he was on the board of directors of the company owning the works .

In DATE the Minister of the ORG set up a special team of investigators to investigate large - scale organised criminal activities of a financial nature which were supposedly being committed in connection with a company belonging to the above group . The team was composed of officers from the financial police .

On an unspecified date the investigators charged an individual , ORG , with aggravated fraud .

On an unspecified date the investigators applied for judicial authorisation to tap the applicant ’s telephone . At an unspecified time a judge of ORG granted the authorisation . The applicant ’s professional mobile phone was subsequently tapped .

NORP In DATE the applicant learned that calls from his phone were being intercepted ; that the interception was being carried out by the financial police ; and that the contents of his telephone communications were known outside the police .

On DATE the applicant received an anonymous letter confirming the above information and advising him that the interception had taken place from DATE and had been carried out at the request of opponents of his clients .

On DATE and DATE a DATE paper published interviews with the Minister of the ORG and the chief of ORG . From those interviews the applicant understood that there had been confirmation that the interception had actually taken place .

Verbatim records of the applicant ’s calls had been leaked to various interest groups , politicians and journalists , as well as to representatives of several legal persons .

Thus in DATE the DATE PERSON received by mail a transcript of the applicant ’s telephone conversation with a journalist of ORG . On DATE PERSON published a statement by a politician who had declared at a press conference that he possessed approximately CARDINAL pages of copies of transcripts of the applicant ’s telephone conversations .

In DATE the applicant was informed that verbatim records of his conversations with third persons which had been made by the financial police were freely accessible on a website . They included conversations with his colleagues , clients , the representative of the other party in a case , and friends . The records had been manipulated in that they included statements which the applicant and the other persons involved had not made .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG ( “ the Inspection Service ” ) that he had been warned in a letter signed “ member of the Financial Police ” about the interception of his telephone . He claimed that the interception was unlawful and unjustified and accused CARDINAL or more unknown police officers of having abused their official authority . The applicant stated that an appropriate investigation should be carried out into the matter in accordance with the law .

The director of the special division of the financial and criminal police ( odbor zvláštnych úloh správy kriminálnej a finančnej polície ) lodged a criminal complaint as , on the basis of his own examination of the case file , he had come to the conclusion that the interception contravened sections DATE and DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see Relevant domestic law and practice below ) . This was so in particular because it had not been based on any specific suspicion against the person being targeted and no specific purpose had been indicated . In his view , the members of the special investigative team had abused their official authority within the meaning of LAW .

On DATE the judge who had authorised the interception made a written statement to the President of ORG . The judge stated that the request for the authorisation had met all formal and substantive requirements . In his view , the police director had no authority to challenge the authorisation . The judge therefore considered it inappropriate to address the substance of the director ’s objections . He nevertheless remarked , in general , that requests for authorisation were made in writing , but were submitted in person . The officer submitting the request had presented the case orally and the oral presentation was usually more comprehensive than the written request . As requests for authorisation had to be handled with the utmost urgency , judges had had no realistic opportunity to examine the case file or to check that the request for authorisation corresponded to the contents of the case file . Furthermore , the information in the case file was often obtained from unverifiable sources . Judges therefore had to rely on the information in the request for authorisation , which presupposed a certain element of trust . The judge further observed that there had been an enormous increase in the workload concerning tapping and that this was due , inter alia , to an interagency agreement which had been reached under the auspices of ORG ( see Relevant domestic law and practice below ) and had extended the jurisdiction of ORG in this area . In his view , questions of jurisdiction should not be regulated by “ agreements ” but by statute , which was not the case in relation to tapping . The judge stated that telephone tapping had been authorised on CARDINAL previous occasions in the course of the investigation into the suspected extensive criminal transactions within the industrial group mentioned above . He had thus had sufficient and detailed knowledge about the applicant ’s case . The judge associated himself completely with the decision taken , although the suspicion against the applicant might later have been dispelled . This was nothing unusual and happened in PERCENT of cases .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to take measures with a view to eliminating unlawful interception and recording of telephone conversations .

On DATE ORG questioned the applicant in connection with his complaint . According to the applicant , since then there has been no official communication concerning his complaint and he has not been informed of the outcome of the investigation .

On DATE and DATE ORG requested that ORG discharge members of the special investigative team from the obligation of confidentiality in respect of the subject matter of the investigation . ORG agreed on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant , in reply to his above request of CARDINAL DATE , that the framework for the interference was defined by LAW and the relevant statutory provisions including LAW DATE . Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL defined the court ’s jurisdiction in such matters in cases where criminal proceedings had not been brought . The fact that the relevant issue was not governed by a law was only a formal shortcoming . Moreover , a draft law had been prepared to cover the relevant issue .

DATE ORG questioned CARDINAL members of the investigative team . Their depositions included , inter alia , the information that the operative part of the team had been colluding with the applicant ; that the applicant had been in close contact with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; that the applicant had been involved in several contractual transactions within the group , which had eventually harmed the interests of the steelworks ; that the request for authorisation to tap the applicant ’s phone had been based on the suspicion that he had committed the offences of aggravated fraud ( LAW ) and money laundering ( LAW ) ; that the request had been drafted without consultation of the case file ; that the interception had been necessary because it had not been possible to move the investigation forward without it ; and that after the interception had been compromised the case file had been made available to various officials , including the Minister of Justice , who at that time also acted as the Minister of the ORG ad interim .

On DATE ORG dismissed the criminal complaint by the police director . It noted that a “ committee of experts specialising in operational tasks ” had been set up and “ had detected no breach of the applicable regulations ” . The interception had been authorised by a judge and had thus been lawful . There was no basis for scrutinising the judge ’s decision . In conclusion , there was no case to answer . The decision has never been served on the applicant .

According to the applicant , he had lodged some CARDINAL criminal complaints DATE about the interception of his telephone conversations and mishandling of the verbatim records . Without submitting further details the applicant indicated that those complaints had been rejected without an appropriate examination of the facts .

NORP The chief editor of the DATE PERSON filed a criminal complaint after receipt of a transcription of the applicant ’s telephone conversation with a journalist of ORG . In the context of the proceedings a journalist of PERSON was heard . On DATE the police also heard the politician who had stated that he possessed CARDINAL pages of copies of transcripts of the applicant ’s telephone conversations . The applicant was involved in the proceedings as the injured party .

The parties have not informed the ORG about the outcome of the proceedings .

NORP In DATE lieutenant colonel PERSON , attached to ORG department specialised in combating corruption and organised crime , contacted the applicant and informed him that there was a general order within ORG to reject all the applicant ’s complaints . The police officer had been obliged to leave the police after he had started criminal proceedings upon one of the applicant ’s complaints . In DATE that officer had complained to ORG office and to ORG office about abuse of authority in the context of examination of the applicant ’s complaints .

The Government submitted a standpoint of ORG dated DATE . It indicates that the above decision of ORG of DATE had been taken in accordance with the law . As to the criminal complaints which officer PERSON had lodged in DATE , an investigator had set the case aside , on DATE , on the ground that no offence had been committed in the context of examination of the applicant ’s complaints . Finally , reference was made to the reply which ORG had sent to the applicant on DATE .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL , everybody has the right to protection against unjustified interference with his or her private and family life ( § CARDINAL ) and against the unjustified collection , publication or other misuse of personal data ( § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL guarantees the secrecy of correspondence , other communications and written messages delivered by post , and of personal information ( § CARDINAL ) . The privacy of letters , other communications and written messages kept privately or delivered by post or otherwise , including communications made by telephone , telegraph and other means , can not be violated by anyone except in cases specified by law ( § CARDINAL ) .

In proceedings no . II . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL an individual alleged , inter alia , a breach of LAW in that his telephone had been tapped unlawfully . On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill - founded . It established that the interception had been authorised by a regional court judge in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW DATE .

NORP In proceedings no . I. ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( judgment of DATE ) ORG found a breach of an individual ’s rights under LAW on the ground that , contrary to the statutory requirement , CARDINAL judicial decisions to authorise the interception of the plaintiff ’s telephone contained no specific reasons justifying the interference .

The Code distinguishes between the procedure before the formal institution ( commencement ) of a criminal prosecution , which is governed by the provisions of LAW , the procedure after the commencement of the prosecution but before the filing of the bill of indictment , known as the “ preliminary proceedings ” and governed by the provisions of LAW , and the procedure in court which begins with the filing of the indictment and is governed by the provisions of LAW .

The procedure before the institution of a criminal prosecution encompasses receiving and verifying information , obtaining documentation and explanations and securing evidence with a view to determining whether a criminal offence has been committed and whether it is justified to bring a formal prosecution in connection with it . As a general rule , eavesdropping and interception is not allowed at this stage of the proceedings ( LAW ) unless such measures can not be postponed or repeated within the meaning of LAW .

The procedure before the commencement of a criminal prosecution ends with a formal decision either not to accept the criminal complaint ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) , or to refer the matter to the relevant authority dealing with minor offences or disciplinary or other matters ( LAW ) , or to refuse to take action ( LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , or to institute formal criminal proceedings ( LAW ) .

The scope of the jurisdiction and competence of criminal courts is defined in CARDINAL of LAW . Proceedings at first instance are to be conducted before a district court unless the law provides otherwise ( LAW ) .

The Act governs the organisation and powers of the police . LAW CARDINAL ) defines the tasks of the police . These include serving ( a ) to protect fundamental rights and freedoms , life , health , personal safety and property ; ( b ) to detect criminal offences and to identify the culprits ; ( c ) to detect illegal financial operations and money laundering ; ( d ) to investigate criminal offences and to examine criminal complaints ; and ( e ) to combat terrorism and organised crime . The provisions relevant in the present case read as follows :

“ Information technology devices

Section CARDINAL

For the purpose of this LAW information technology devices are , in particular , electro - technical , radio - technical , photo - technical , optical and other means and devices or their combinations secretly used for

a ) search for , opening and examination of consignments and their evaluation while using forensic methods ,

b ) interception and recording of telecommunications ,

c ) obtaining image , sound or other recordings .

Section CARDINAL

ORG is entitled to use information technology devices when complying with its tasks in the fight against terrorism , money laundering in the context of the most serious forms of criminal activities , in particular organised crime , ... tax evasion and unlawful financial operations , ... The preceding provision does not apply to contacts between an accused person and his or her defence counsel .

ORG can use information technology devices also in respect of criminal activities other than those mentioned in sub - section CARDINAL subject to the agreement of the person whose rights and freedoms will thereby be interfered with .

Conditions of use of information technology devices

Section CARDINAL

ORG can use information technology devices only where the use of other means would render the investigation of criminal activities mentioned in section CARDINAL , identification of their perpetrators or securing evidence necessary for the purpose of criminal proceedings ineffective or considerably difficult .

Information technology devices can only be used subject to a prior written consent of a judge and for a period strictly necessary which however can not exceed DATE . That period starts running on DATE when such consent has been given .

The judge who approved of use of information technology devices can , on the basis of a fresh request , extend the period , but for no longer than DATE each time .

In exceptional cases , where no delay is possible and a written consent of a judge can not be obtained , information technology devices can be used without such consent . However , ORG must apply for a written approval by a judge without delay . If such consent is not given within TIME from the moment when the use of devices started or if the judge refuses to give his or her consent , ORG must put an end to the use of information technology devices . Information thus obtained can not be used by ORG and they must be destroyed in the presence of the judge competent to decide on the request .

ORG shall submit a request for approval of the use of information technology devices to a judge in writing ; it must contain data about the person concerned , specify the device to be used , place , duration and reasons for its use .

The judge who gave consent to the use of information technology devices must examine on a continuous basis whether the reasons for their use persist ; where such reasons no longer exist , the judge is obliged to immediately order that the use of the devices be stopped .

ORG can use information technology devices without prior consent of a judge ... where the person whose rights and freedoms are to be interfered with has consented to such in writing ...

Section CARDINAL

When using information technology devices ORG must constantly examine whether the reasons for such use persist . Where those reasons are no longer valid , ORG must immediately put an end to the use of an information technology device .

ORG must inform the judge who gave consent to the use of information technology devices of the termination of such use .

Information obtained by means of information technology devices can be used exclusively for attaining the aim set out in section CARDINAL .

The use of information technology devices can restrict the inviolability of one ’s home , the privacy of correspondence and the privacy of information communicated only to the extent that it is indispensable .

Information obtained by means of information technology devices can exceptionally be used as evidence , namely where such information constitutes the only proof indicating that a criminal offence listed in section DATE was committed by a specific person and where such proof can not be obtained by other means . In such case the relevant recording must be accompanied by TIME indicating the place , time , means and contents of the recording and the reason for which it was made . ”

Section CARDINAL deals with police information systems and databases . The police are entitled to set up and operate information systems and databases containing information about persons and facts which are relevant for their work ( subsection CARDINAL ) . The police have the duty to protect the data stored in such systems from disclosure , abuse , damage and destruction ( subsection CARDINAL ) . If the data are no longer needed , they must be destroyed or stored so that they are not accessible to anyone except a court ( subsection CARDINAL ) .

Sections CARDINAL , PERSON ) , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW DATE were repealed by LAW . on ORG against Unjustified Use of Information Technology Devices ( “ LAW DATE ” ) which entered into force on CARDINAL DATE .

The Act governs the use of information technology devices without the prior consent of the person concerned . It does not extend to the use of such devices in the context of criminal proceedings which is governed by LAW ( section CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL defines the authorities entitled to use such devices ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG and ORG ) . The devices used must be secured against tampering . Personnel involved in using the devices must undergo a lie - detector test at intervals fixed by the head of the authority concerned .

Section CARDINAL allows for use of information technology devices only where it is necessary in a democratic society for ensuring the safety or defence of the ORG , prevention or investigation of crime or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . The information thus obtained can not be used for purposes other than one of those enumerated above .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL , such devices can be used subject to prior approval by a judge within whose jurisdiction the case falls . Their use should be limited to a period which is strictly necessary and it should not exceed DATE unless the judge grants an extension . The judge involved is obliged to examine on a continuing basis whether the reasons for the use of such devices persist .

In exceptional cases specified in section CARDINAL the police can use the devices without the prior consent of a judge . In such cases , the judge must be notified within TIME after the use of the devices has started and a request for authorisation of such use must be submitted within TIME . In case of disapproval by the judge of such interference the data obtained must be destroyed .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL govern the use and disposal of data obtained and the liability of the ORG in case of failure by the authorities concerned to comply with the law .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL ORG ( the ORG ) shall examine at its plenary meeting , DATE , a report of its committee set up for the purpose of supervising the use of information technology devices . The report must indicate any unlawful use of the devices established . The report can be made available to the media . The authorities entitled to use information technology devices must make available to the above committee all relevant information within DATE following the committee ’s request .

The decree was issued , inter alia , pursuant to Article CARDINALa § CARDINAL of LAW , which authorised the Minister of Justice to lay down further details of the procedure before district courts and regional courts “ in dealing with criminal matters ” .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) obliged the presidents of each regional court to assign CARDINAL judge to deal with matters concerning use of information technology devices .

The decree of DATE was repealed by Decree no . DATE with effect from DATE .

On DATE a conference took place under the auspices of ORG Representatives of the Ministry , the regional courts , the head office of the police and the office of ORG took part . The participants agreed that matters concerning authorisation of wiretapping would be handled by the regional court in the judicial district in which the agency requesting it had its seat .

The amendment entered into force on DATE . It introduced , inter alia , subsections CARDINAL and CARDINAL to section CARDINAL of ORG . They provide that , as a general rule , authorisation for monitoring telecommunications falls within the jurisdiction of the regional courts . Territorial competence is conferred on the regional court in the judicial district in which the authority seeking the authorisation has its seat .