The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE the applicants published an article in the Telegraf ( “ T. ” ) newspaper , of which the second applicant was the editor , with the headline “ Former Deputy Mayor PERSON [ ORG ] and serving judge PERSON [ R.M. ] responsible for series of offences in GPE scam ” . The article questioned the legality of a contract which ORG had awarded a company , ORG , to perform the service of towing away illegally parked vehicles , and expressed the following opinions :

“ In a decision ( no . CARDINAL ) of DATE ORG awarded a commercial company , ORG , a contract for impounding illegally parked vehicles or trailers ... It was the task of the city council ’s specialist departments to lay down the practical arrangements for implementing the decision . That did not happen . DATE after adopting decision no . CARDINAL , the city council , knowingly breaching PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , illegally concluded a partnership contract ... with PERSON , a completely different company from the one initially given the contract . It is worth noting , however , that the relevant contract was signed by the deputy mayor , ORG , on behalf of the mayor , ... , and by a certain PERSON on behalf of the legal expert PERSON

By what miracle did PERSON enter into a partnership with the city council when , in decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , the council had awarded ORG SRL a straightforward contract to provide services ? Significantly , there is no evidence that ORG agreed to abandon the task of towing away illegally parked vehicles ! ... The crook PERSON ( the former deputy mayor , now a lawyer ) authorised PERSON ’s irresponsible employees to record any parking offences DATE in other words , to ridicule citizens and their property . What form did the fraud take ? Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL provide that no partnership contract with a commercial company may be signed without a prior decision by the local council , adopted by CARDINAL majority of the total number of councillors . Before a contract is signed , it must be referred to all the local council ’s specialist departments for their opinion . ... The contract with PERSON was negotiated and signed illegally , as the signatories based it on the decision [ of DATE ] , which , as has already been shown , referred to a different company without envisaging any other partnership .

Given that the city council had already signed CARDINAL other contracts before that CARDINAL , the signatories can not claim ignorance of the law , but only an intentional breach of it ! And because any intentional breach of the law pursues an end in itself – generally that of securing material advantages – it is clear that in this case the former deputy mayor , a lawyer by profession , received backhanders from the partner company and either bribed his subordinates , including ORG , or forced them to break the law .

ORG has detected this blatant fraud , which generated huge profits for the briber ( PERSON ) ... The offending company [ ORG ] has never shown that it has adequate facilities for impounding illegally parked vehicles . This has caused large numbers of privately owned vehicles to be damaged and has implicitly given rise to CARDINAL of complaints to that effect .

Furthermore , the alleged partnership contract was valid for DATE , until DATE . From that date [ GPE ] has no longer had any right to interfere with ORG private property ! It has nevertheless carried on towing vehicles away and illegally collecting money ... It is incomprehensible how the police could have provided it with assistance for DATE .

Let us briefly consider the conduct of the council ’s former legal expert , ORG , who is now a judge . Either she was ignorant of our country ’s legislation when she signed the partnership contract , in which case it is hard to understand how she can subsequently have been appointed as a judge ( administering justice on the basis of laws she does not know ) , or she accepted bribes and may continue to do so in future ! It is not surprising that the same judge should be under investigation by ORG for a further unlawful act , again committed while she was at the city council ( as we reported at the relevant time ) . It seems laughable that the court ’s president did not take any action against her on the ground that the sum involved was not ... high enough .

Apparently becoming aware of the danger that the matter might be uncovered , the city council ’s coordination department ... notified PERSON in writing of the possibility of the contract being terminated for the following reason : ... ‘ You have not supplied any documents showing that you have purchased the platform - type equipment necessary for carrying out the activity ORG ( as stipulated in clause CARDINAL of the contract ) . ... In the same letter the city council informed PERSON : ‘ As you have not proved that you have the appropriate equipment , we would assess your contribution to the partnership at up to the sum of your company ’s capital , that is CARDINAL lei . Your share in the partnership ’s net income will have to be recalculated in relation to the parties’ contributions.’ Facts are facts , and the documents in our possession ‘ speak’ for themselves of the illegal ORG scam . ”

The article was accompanied by a photograph of a police car on the scene as an illegally parked vehicle was being towed away , photocopies of extracts from the partnership contract and from ORG decision of DATE , and certain provisions of Law no . CARDINAL , concerning the responsibilities and powers of mayors , prefects and city and county councils .

The article was also accompanied by a cartoon showing a man and a woman arm in arm , carrying a bag marked “ Vinalex ” which was full of banknotes . The CARDINAL characters were depicted as saying to each other :

“ Hey , Revi [ R.M. ] , you ’ve done a good job there ! When I was deputy mayor we made quite a bit , enough to go to GPE ... ”

“ PERSON [ FAC ] , if you become a lawyer , I ’ll become a judge and we ’ll have enough to travel round the world ... ”

On an unspecified date after the article had been published , ORG instituted proceedings against the applicants in ORG for insult and defamation , offences under LAW and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code respectively . She complained , in particular , about the cartoon accompanying the article , arguing that it had led readers to believe that she had had intimate relations with ORG She pointed out that both she and the former deputy mayor were married to other people .

At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the court adjourned the case as the applicants were not present and , scheduling a further hearing for DATE , directed that that they should be brought before the court on that date .

On DATE the second applicant stated at the public hearing that , as editor , he assumed full responsibility for what had been published in the newspaper . He submitted that cartoons were frequently used in the press as a medium for criticism and that he had not intended to damage the complainant ’s reputation . In reply to a question from the court he admitted having learned that , by order of the mayor of GPE , PERSON had been authorised to tow away illegally parked cars . He stated , however , that he had not thought it necessary to publish that information . Lastly , he stressed that he did not intend to reach a settlement with the injured party and that he was prepared to publish an article on her behalf if she could prove that what he had published was untrue .

On DATE the applicants applied to have the case transferred to a court in another county . They also requested an adjournment of the proceedings , arguing that because the complainant was a judge it was impossible for them to find a member of ORG who would agree to represent them .

On an unspecified date GPE , in reply to a question from the court , attested that the applicants had not met with a refusal on the part of each of its members and that , in any event , the matter had not been referred to its executive .

On DATE and DATE the court adjourned the case as the applicants were not present .

In an interlocutory decision of DATE ORG ordered the referral of the case to ORG of First Instance .

On DATE the case was entered on that court ’s list of cases for hearing . Public hearings were held on DATE and on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants did not attend the hearings , although they had been duly summoned . The court summoned them to appear at the hearings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The applicants did not comply with the summonses .

At the hearings on DATE and DATE , representatives of the ORG newspaper applied on behalf of the applicants , who were not present , to have the proceedings adjourned . The court allowed the application .

On DATE a member of ORG , GPE , agreed to represent the applicants .

At the hearing on DATE in the morning PERSON asked the court to consider the case after TIME The court granted his request . However , when it sat to examine the case at TIME and , subsequently , at TIME it noted that neither the applicants nor their counsel were present in the courtroom . It accordingly adjourned the case until CARDINAL DATE .

At the hearing on CARDINAL DATE the court reserved judgment , after noting that neither the applicants – despite their having been duly summoned DATE nor their counsel had appeared . In a judgment delivered that day the court found the applicants guilty of insult and defamation , offences under ORG and CARDINAL respectively of MONEY . It sentenced them to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and prohibited them from working as journalists for DATE after completing their sentences , a security measure provided for in LAW . It also ordered them to pay ORG of CARDINAL lei for non - pecuniary damage .

Attaching decisive weight to ORG ’s position as a member of the judiciary , the court considered that the acts of which the applicants were accused posed a danger to society , not because of their practical consequence – distortion of the truth – but because of their psycho - social effects , namely misinformation of the public , creation of a false scale of values and the psychological trauma suffered by the injured party . The court considered that in publishing the article in issue , the applicants had not pursued a legitimate aim and had acted in bad faith , since the facts they had reported did not correspond to the truth .

On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against that judgment , without stating any grounds for their appeal .

At a hearing on DATE the ORG reserved judgment , having noted that the case was ready for decision and that the applicants , who had been duly summoned , had not appeared in court or given any grounds for their appeal .

The applicants state that for reasons beyond their control they arrived late on DATE , by which time the hearing had already ended . They submit that on TIME of the hearing the level of the GPE had fallen and that the ferry , the only means of travelling to the town where the court was sitting , had been delayed .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court , after examining all the aspects of the criminal case against the applicants , as required by LAW CCP ) , upheld the first - instance judgment , finding it to have been correct . That decision , sent to the archives on DATE , was final and binding and no ordinary appeal lay against it .

The applicants did not serve their custodial sentence , since immediately after the decision had been delivered , the Procurator - General suspended its execution for DATE , on the basis of LAW ORG , by which he was empowered to order a stay of execution before applying to have a decision quashed .

On DATE the Procurator - General applied to ORG to have the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE quashed . He submitted the following arguments .

( a ) The courts’ legal classification of the facts had been incorrect . He pointed out in that connection that in the cartoon the applicants had simply highlighted their allegations of corruption on the part of the city council officials . He accordingly submitted that the facts in issue did not constitute the actus reus of insult as defined in LAW .

( b ) The amount which the applicants had been ordered to pay in damages had been extremely high and had not been objectively justified .

( c ) The requirements of LAW , by which the courts could prohibit persons who had committed an offence from practising a particular profession on account of incompetence , lack of training or any other ground making them unfit to practise the profession , were not satisfied in the applicants’ case . He pointed out in that connection that there was no unequivocal proof that the applicants were incompetent or would pose a potential danger by continuing to work as journalists .

In a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the Procurator - General ’s application as being manifestly ill - founded . After examining the evidence before it , ORG

( a ) considered that in publishing the impugned article in ORG , the applicants had made an allegation about the injured party which , if true , would have rendered her criminally liable , and that the offence of defamation as defined in LAW had therefore been made out ;

( b ) held that the cartoon accompanying the article , in which the injured party was depicted in the company of a man carrying a bag of money , had been such as to disparage the complainant ’s honour and reputation and had therefore constituted the actus reus of insult as defined in LAW , and accordingly concluded that the lower courts had been correct in their classification of the acts carried out by the applicants ;

( c ) considered that the high amount which the applicants had been ordered to pay in damages had been justified by the fact that their article had been published in a mass - circulation newspaper , thereby seriously offending the honour and dignity of the injured party ; and

( d ) held , lastly , that it was not possible to review the alleged unlawfulness of the temporary prohibition on practising the profession of journalist in the context of an application to have a decision quashed .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Procurator - General at ORG informed the applicants that he had extended the stay of execution of their sentence until DATE .

On DATE the President of GPE granted the applicants a pardon in respect of their custodial sentence .

In a letter received by ORG on DATE the second applicant informed the ORG that he was still working as editor of ORG , the position he had occupied when lodging his application .

It appears from the copy submitted to ORG first applicant ’s employment record ( cartea de muncă ) that , following ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE :

( a ) he continued to work for T. as editor of the “ Events ” section until DATE , when he was transferred for administrative reasons to the C. company , occupying the same position and receiving the same salary as before ;

( b ) he left that post on DATE on account of staff cutbacks by his employer , a ground for dismissal provided for in LAW ( a ) of LOC as in force at the material time ; and

( c ) he was not gainfully employed until DATE , when he was recruited on a permanent contract by the ORG company as deputy editor .

The relevant provisions are worded as follows :

“ Anyone who disparages the reputation or honour of another through words , gestures or any other means ... shall be liable to imprisonment for DATE or to a fine . ”

“ Anyone who makes any statement or allegation in public concerning a particular person which , if true , would render that person liable to a criminal , administrative or disciplinary penalty or expose them to public opprobrium , shall be liable to imprisonment for DATE or to a fine . ”

The Government state , as a matter of legislative policy , that the NORP parliament is currently studying recent proposals for legislative reform aimed at abolishing imprisonment for the offences of insult and defamation as defined in LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .

“ Anyone who has committed an [ unlawful ] act through incompetence , lack of training or for any other reasons rendering him or her unfit to perform certain duties or to practise a certain profession or occupation may be prohibited from performing those duties or practising that profession or occupation . Such a measure may be revoked on request after DATE if the grounds on which it was imposed are no longer valid . ”

“ A pardon shall have no effect on security measures and educational measures . ”

“ The Procurator - General may , of his own motion or on an application by the Minister of ORG , apply to ORG for any final decision to be quashed . ”

“ An application to have a final conviction ... quashed may be made in the following cases :

I. ...

where the penalties imposed did not fall within the limits prescribed by law ; ...

where the offence was incorrectly classified in law ... ”

“ Before applying to have a decision quashed , the Procurator - General may order a stay of its execution . ”


CASE OF HYDE PARK AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA (No. 4)

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 11;Violation of Art. 5-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

At the time of the events giving rise to the application , LOC ( the first applicant ) was registered with ORG as a non - governmental organisation lobbying , inter alia , for freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly . In DATE its members decided to discontinue the organisation ’s registration on grounds of alleged pressure and intimidation by the ORG . In particular , they complained of the refusal of ORG to register amendments to the organisation ’s articles of association , the repeated freezing of its bank account , the arbitrary arrest of its members , attempts to shut down its newspaper , among other things . Several of the organisation ’s leaders requested political asylum in western countries . It was decided to continue the organisation ’s activity under the same name but without registering it with the ORG authorities . It was also decided that the new unincorporated association would become the former organisation ’s successor . After removal of the organisation from the ORG ’s list of non - governmental organisations on DATE , PERSON activities continued as before on the basis of its new articles of association . The association continued editing its newspaper , its Internet page and continued staging protests and demonstrations .

The other applicants are members and supporters of LOC : PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . They were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the first applicant applied to ORG for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration at the junction of ORG and PERSON streets , not far from the Government building , DATE , to protest against the refusal of ORG to install a monument dedicated to the poet PERSON , donated by ORG .

On DATE ORG authorised the holding of a demonstration in writing , but only on DATE . It stated that it considered that CARDINAL day of protest was sufficient in order to bring PERSON concerns to the ORG ’s attention .

On DATE PERSON challenged ORG decision in court .

On DATE ORG found that the LOC ’s refusal had been unlawful , quashed its decision of DATE and ordered ORG to authorise the first applicant to hold a demonstration in front of the Government building CARDINAL DATE . The court ordered that its judgment should come into force immediately .

On DATE the applicants requested authorisation from the Municipality on the basis of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . However , the GPE refused to comply with the judgment on the ground that it was not final .

On DATE at TIME the applicants started their demonstration at the place indicated in the judgment of ORG . At CARDINAL p.m. the applicants were approached by a group of police officers who asked whether they had authorisation . The applicants showed them the judgment of ORG . From a video which was made by the police and which is part of the domestic case file a police officer can be seen attempting to convince Mr PERSON to stop the demonstration . The latter refuses and argues that PERSON has a court judgment authorising the demonstration . At the same time Mr PERSON speaks through a megaphone declaring that GPE is a totalitarian State where there is no freedom of speech and that it will have to answer for all its illegal behaviour before ORG . He accuses the police and the ORG authorities of illegal behaviour . Suddenly , a person wearing a ORG uniform attacks CARDINAL of LOC members from behind and violently throws him to the ground . The other participants observe the attack and are immediately surrounded by a group of police officers and taken to a police van . Nobody appears to resist and a female voice , apparently one of the participants , calls on somebody not to resist arrest . According to the applicants , CARDINAL of the participants ( Mr Juraveli and PERSON ) were thrown to the ground by ORG officers .

At the police station , the police officers took the applicants’ belongings including their mobile telephones . TIME of arrest indicated , inter alia , that the applicants’ belongings had been taken for storage . The applicants were locked in different cells in groups of CARDINAL persons . The QUANTITY female applicants were put in a separate cell . According to the applicants , they were not allowed to make any telephone calls or to consult a lawyer . The cells were small , humid and dirty . They smelled of urine and faeces . They did not have windows , the electric light was always on and there were only CARDINAL wooden benches inside . The applicants were held in detention for TIME during which time they were not provided with any food . They were only provided with water and occasionally taken to a toilet . Only after the intervention of several human rights NGOs and after TIME of detention , were their relatives allowed to bring them food . The Government disputed the applicants’ description of the conditions of detention .

On DATE at TIME the applicants were taken to court where their mobile telephones and cameras were returned to them and where they learned about the charges against them for the first time , namely holding an unauthorised demonstration ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( the “ CAO ” ) ) , resisting arrest ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG ) and insulting police officers ( LAW of the ORG ) . After receiving their belongings , the applicants alleged that all the video and audio files concerning the demonstration had been deleted from their telephones by the police .

During the proceedings Mr PERSON and PERSON requested the court to order an expert evaluation of their mobile telephone records in order to determine whether the police had deleted files from them ; however , their request was rejected and the proceedings were adjourned . The applicants were released at TIME .

On DATE ORG continued the administrative proceedings against the applicants and found all of them ( except for the first applicant ) guilty of holding and participating in an unauthorised demonstration contrary to LAW ORG . The court found that after obtaining a favourable judgment from ORG , they should have applied to ORG for authorisation . The court fined each applicant except for PERSON ( the president of PERSON at the time ) CARDINAL Moldovan lei ( MDL ) . Mr PERSON was fined MDL CARDINAL . All the applicants were acquitted of the charges concerning the insulting of police officers and resisting arrest after the court viewed a video of the arrest made by the police officers and found that there was no justification for bringing these accusations .

All the applicants appealed against this decision in so far as it concerned their participation in an unlawful assembly and argued , inter alia , that LOC had applied to ORG for authorisation on DATE ; however , their request had been dismissed on the ground that the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE was not yet in force . They also repeated their request to have an expert evaluate their mobile telephone records .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicants’ appeal while finding that the applicants’ demonstration was lawful by virtue of the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicants were acquitted of the charges relating to their participation in an unlawful assembly .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers who had arrested them . They complained that they had been abused , illegally detained , that their right to privacy of correspondence had been violated , that their right to freedom of assembly had been violated and that they had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment in addition to the refusal to execute the court decisions .

DATE and DATE the criminal proceedings initiated at the ORG request were dismissed and re - opened CARDINAL times . On each occasion , ORG dismissed the complaint and later the courts , or the hierarchically superior prosecutor , quashed the prosecutor ’s decision and ordered a re - examination . The reasons for dismissal were the testimonies of police officers and police witnesses who confirmed the allegations that the applicants had insulted the police and resisted arrest . As to the allegation concerning the tampering with the applicants’ mobile telephones and deleting files from them , ORG accepted the testimony of a police officer who confirmed that CARDINAL mobile telephones had been seized during the applicants’ detention but denied the allegations that somebody had tampered with them . As to the video of the event filmed by the police representatives ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG argued that it had been lost and that , therefore , it could not be examined . On DATE the ORG quashed the last decision dismissing the ORG complaints and ordered a re - examination . After that date , the applicants did not hear any more from ORG about the status of their complaint . On DATE the applicants wrote to ORG to enquire as to the stage reached in their proceedings , but they did not receive a reply . A copy of that letter with a stamp of ORG on it was annexed to the applicants’ observations . According to them , it was only from the ORG ’s observations that they learned that their complaint had been dismissed again on CARDINAL DATE . The Government disputed the applicants’ submissions concerning the letter of DATE which the applicants stated they had sent to ORG . They did not dispute , however , the authenticity of ORG stamp on the copy of that letter .

On DATE ORG examined the appeal on points of law lodged by ORG against the judgment of ORG of DATE . It quashed that judgment and dismissed the applicants’ action , finding that ORG decision of DATE was lawful . ORG also ruled that the ruling of ORG concerning the immediate enforcement of its judgment had been unlawful .

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall be conducted peacefully , without any sort of weapons , and shall ensure the protection of participants and the environment , without impeding the normal use of public highways , road traffic and the operation of economic undertakings and without degenerating into acts of violence capable of endangering the public order and the physical integrity and life of persons or their property .

Assemblies shall be suspended in the following circumstances :

( a ) denial and defamation of the ORG and of the people ;

( b ) incitement to war or aggression and incitement to hatred on ethnic , racial or religious grounds ;

c ) incitement to discrimination , territorial separatism or public violence ;

d ) acts that undermine the constitutional order .

( CARDINAL ) ORG may be conducted in squares , streets , parks and other public places in cities , towns and villages , and also in public buildings .

( CARDINAL ) It shall be forbidden to conduct an assembly in the buildings of the public authorities , the local authorities , ORG offices , the courts or companies with armed security .

( CARDINAL ) It shall be forbidden to conduct assemblies :

( a ) within QUANTITY of the parliament building , the residence of the President of GPE , the seat of the government , ORG and ORG ;

( b ) within QUANTITY of the buildings of the central administrative authority , the local public authorities , courts , ORG offices , police stations , prisons and social rehabilitation institutions , military installations , railway stations , airports , hospitals , companies which use dangerous equipment and machines , and diplomatic institutions .

( CARDINAL ) PERSON access to the premises of the institutions listed in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be guaranteed .

( CARDINAL ) The local public authorities may , if the organisers agree , establish places or buildings for permanent assemblies .

( CARDINAL ) Not DATE prior to the date of the assembly , the organiser shall submit a notification to ORG , a specimen of which is set out in the annex which forms an integral part of this LAW .

( CARDINAL ) The prior notification shall indicate :

( a ) the name of the organiser of the assembly and the aim of the assembly ;

( b ) the date , starting time and finishing time of the assembly ;

( c ) the location of the assembly and the access and return routes ;

( d ) the manner in which the assembly is to take place ;

( e ) the approximate number of participants ;

( f ) the persons who are to ensure and answer for the sound conduct of the assembly ;

( g ) the services the organiser of the assembly asks ORG to provide .

( CARDINAL ) If the situation so requires , ORG may alter certain aspects of the prior notification with the agreement of the organiser of the assembly . ”

( CARDINAL ) The prior notification shall be examined by the local government of the town or village DATE before the date of the assembly .

( CARDINAL ) When the prior notification is considered at an ordinary or extraordinary meeting of ORG , the discussion shall deal with the form , timetable , location and other conditions for the conduct of the assembly and the decision taken shall take account of the specific situation .

( CARDINAL ) The local authorities can reject an application to hold an assembly only if after having consulted the police , it has obtained convincing evidence that the provisions of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL will be breached with serious consequences for society .

( CARDINAL ) A decision rejecting the application for holding an assembly shall be reasoned and presented in writing . It shall contain reasons for refusing to issue the authorisation ...

( CARDINAL ) The organiser of the assembly can challenge the refusal in the administrative courts . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) Illegal deprivation of liberty , if it is not a kidnapping , shall be punishable with community work of TIME or imprisonment of DATE .

( CARDINAL ) The same offence committed

b ) DATE against CARDINAL or more persons ;

d ) by CARDINAL or more persons ;

shall be punishable with imprisonment of DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Violation of the right to freedom of assembly by way of illegal hindering of a demonstration , rally or action of protest or hindering of persons from taking part in them ... :

a ) committed by an official ;

b ) committed by CARDINAL or more persons ;

c ) accompanied by acts of violence which are not dangerous to life or health ,

shall be punishable with a fine of CARDINAL NORP lei or with community work of TIME , or with imprisonment of DATE . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW , in force at the material time , read :

NORP The organisation and holding of an assembly without prior notification to ORG or without authorisation from the ORG , or in breach of the conditions ( manner , place , time ) concerning the conduct of meetings indicated in the authorisation shall be punishable by a fine to be imposed on the organisers ( leaders ) of the assembly in an amount equal to between MDL CARDINAL and CARDINAL . ...

Active participation in an assembly referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of the present article shall be punishable by a fine in an amount between MDL CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

Resisting a police officer [ ... ] in the exercise of his or her duties of ensuring public order and the fight against crime shall be punishable by a fine up to MDL CARDINAL or detention of DATE .

Insulting police officers ... in the exercise of their duties ... shall be punishable by a fine of up to MDL CARDINAL or imprisonment of DATE .

Persons who ... breached the rules concerning the organisation and holding of assemblies ... resisted a police officer or behaved offensively towards him ... may be detained until the case is examined by a court ... ... ”

The relevant provisions of Law No . DATE on ORG read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The detainees shall be subjected to body searches .... They shall not be allowed to have money , precious objects and objects forbidden in places of detention . Money shall be transferred into their personal accounts , while precious objects and other objects shall be stored . ”

More detailed rules concerning GPE belongings and their storage by the authorities in charge of detention facilities are contained in the DATE ’s Decision no . CARDINAL , of CARDINAL DATE :

Money , precious objects and forbidden objects must be taken away from detainees ...

During detention the goods mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above shall be transmitted to the accounting department of the detention facility for storage ...

The forbidden objects and substances shall be taken away from detainees when they are discovered .

The right to take away forbidden objects is vested in the representatives of the administration , guardians and other employees of the penitentiary system .

The taking away of goods shall be carried out by CARDINAL representatives of the administration , in the presence of the detainee whose goods are taken away .

Minutes of the removal of possessions shall be drawn up and copied CARDINAL times by the participants . CARDINAL copy for the detainee whose goods have been removed , another for the accounting department and the third copy for the detainee ’s personal file .

The minutes shall contain the following information :

The name of the detention facility ;

Date , time and place of the removal of goods ;

Reason for the removal of goods ;

First name , last name , position and grade of the persons who participated in the removal ;

First name and last name of the detainee whose goods are removed ;

An exhaustive list of the goods removed indicating denominations , quantity , brand , series , number , registration number ...

Signatures of all the participants , including that of the detainee ...

The minutes shall also contain details relating to the price of the object / s , their material , and any distinguishing features .

If the detainee is not in agreement with TIME , he has the right to write his objections in TIME .

Money and other valuables shall be transmitted urgently ( not DATE ) to the accounting department . The removed goods shall be registered in a special register for valuables .

Any money removed shall be transferred to the detainee ’s bank account ... ”

According to ORG . CARDINAL to ORG , it is forbidden for detained persons to have mobile telephones .


Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr Y. GPE , of ORG of GPE .

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

On DATE a criminal case concerning tax evasion was opened against the management of a private company , ORG , the applicant ’s employer .

On TIME of CARDINAL DATE tax police officers arrested the applicant at his work and brought him to the tax police office . There the applicant was questioned as a witness . When the applicant refused to answer any questions , an unknown person came into the room and started beating the applicant . The tax police officer , NORP , who was present in the room , did not prevent the applicant ’s beating .

The applicant was later brought to ORG and released in TIME of the same day .

Once he was back at home , an ambulance was called for him . He was taken to hospital , where he was diagnosed with a rib fracture and a head injury . The injuries were confirmed by the note issued on DATE by the ambulance station .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to institute criminal proceedings against the tax police officers .

On DATE a medical examination confirmed that the applicant had a rib fracture and a bruise on the right side of his forehead , and that it was possible that these injuries had been inflicted on the evening of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant ’s complaints . The prosecutor found that the applicant ’s complaints were unsubstantiated . No explanation for the applicant ’s injuries had been provided .

On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed by ORG . The applicant was informed that his case had been transferred to ORG .

Following a forensic medical examination carried out in DATE , the expert found that on DATE the rib fracture could not have been DATE and the head injury not DATE .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE of GPE refused the applicant ’s request to institute criminal proceedings against the tax police officers . Officer PERSON , when questioned , said that he had not beaten the applicant . It was further concluded that the applicant ’s injuries had been inflicted before DATE , namely , “ before the applicant was questioned by the tax police officers ” .

On DATE the applicant enquired about the progress of his case .

By a letter of DATE the applicant was informed of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant was again informed of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant states that he never received these letters and only learned of the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE from the ORG ’s observations .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 8

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jean-Paul Costa;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in prison in ORG .

Following a complaint lodged on DATE by the parents of a young girl , PERSON , the applicant was charged with the rape and sexual assault of a minor DATE by a person in a position of authority .

During the investigation he made several requests for additional investigative measures to be taken , which were refused by the investigating authorities .

On DATE an investigating judge at the Bar - le - Duc tribunal de grande instance issued an order discontinuing the proceedings in respect of the sexual assault charges , as the limitation period had expired . The judge committed the applicant for trial on a charge of rape of a minor under DATE by a person in a position of authority over the victim .

On DATE the ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and stripped him of all his civil , civic and family rights for DATE .

The applicant did not appeal against that decision but lodged an application for a retrial , producing a number of documents which he claimed placed his guilt in doubt .

On DATE Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL established the national automated register of sex offenders ( “ the Sex Offenders Register ” ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s application for a retrial .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to have his sentence suspended . On DATE the application was refused on the grounds that , according to the expert medical reports , “ the applicant ’s survival is not in doubt , nor is his state of health incompatible in the long term with detention . Therefore , as matters stand , he does not meet the requirements of LAW and is not eligible for the measure in question ” . The court pointed out that the applicant ’s sentence was due to run until DATE and that his criminal record mentioned another conviction for sexual abuse of a minor under the age of CARDINAL by a person in authority ( a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a judicial and social supervision order imposed by ORG on DATE for sexual assault of a minor ) . The court also took into consideration medical reports according to which the applicant suffered from congenital heart disease which made any physical activity impossible . The report advocated his placement under an enhanced prison regime with an individual cell , no exercise or physical activity , a salt - free diet and regular medication . The court also referred to a psychiatric expert report from DATE according to which the applicant ’s psychological development “ appears very limited in so far as he has failed to reflect on his own conduct . He has expressed no feelings of guilt or responsibility for the offences which he denies committing . A course of psychotherapy would help him develop more satisfactory relationships in the future with the people he comes into contact with ” .

On DATE the post - sentencing division of ORG upheld this judgment .

On DATE the applicant was informed by a police officer from l’Haÿ - les - Roses police station that his name was being entered in the Sex Offenders Register on account of his conviction by ORG , in accordance with the transitional provisions of the abovementioned PERSON of DATE . The official notification was worded as follows :

“ I , the undersigned , PERSON , hereby acknowledge that I have DATE been notified of my inclusion in the Sex Offenders Register on account of the [ sentence ] of imprisonment imposed on DATE by ORG , and that I am accordingly required , under LAW , to :

NORP provide proof of my address : ...

Once a year either to the authority managing the register ( ORG ) ... or to my local police or gendarmerie station ... , during DATE in which my birthday falls or during DATE if my date of birth is not known or not established . ...

I expressly acknowledge having been informed that :

I have been finally convicted of an offence carrying a sentence of DATE or more . Accordingly , I am required to provide proof of my address by reporting in person DATE . ...

I take note of the fact that if I leave the country my obligation to report in person will be suspended for the duration of my stay abroad but that I must continue to provide proof of my address by means of a registered letter with recorded delivery to the authority managing ORG ... accompanied by documents certifying my address and signed by the local consular authority .

NORP declare any change of address within DATE at the latest , in the same manner .

I acknowledge having been informed :

( i ) that I must provide proof of my address for the first time within DATE of this notification , unless the latter is issued DATE before DATE of my birth , referred to above , or I am already required to provide proof of my address on an DATE basis ;

( ii ) that failure to comply with these obligations is punishable by a term of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ;

( iii ) that any breach of these obligations will lead to an alert being issued to the judicial authorities and the police or gendarmerie which may result in my inclusion on the list of wanted persons and may be accompanied by a criminal prosecution ;

( iv ) that , pursuant to LAW , the proof of address and declaration of change of address provided for by LAW shall take the form of any document DATE in my name which gives proof of my home address , such as a bill or invoice ;

( v ) that if the document produced refers to the address of another person , it must be accompanied by a statement written and signed by the latter confirming that I am staying at that address .

I further acknowledge having been informed that I have the following rights :

( i ) under LAW and Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL , I may obtain a copy of all the information concerning me in the register by applying to the public prosecutor in whose district I am resident ;

( ii ) if the decision forming the basis for my placement on the register was issued by a foreign judicial authority , I may apply to the public prosecutor at the GPE tribunal de grande instance to have the information in the register rectified or deleted or to have the frequency of reporting reduced to once DATE , in accordance with Articles R CARDINAL et seq . ”

NORP The national automated register of sex offenders ( “ the Sex Offenders Register ” – GPE ) , which was established in DATE , is a criminal identification register similar to the national fingerprint database ( ORG ) , the national genetic database ( FNAEG ) and the national criminal records ( ORG ) , the last of which have been in existence the longest . An information paper on police registers tabled before ORG on DATE noted an upsurge in the number of such registers . The working party chaired by PERSON noted that there were CARDINAL in DATE compared with CARDINAL in DATE , and that another CARDINAL or so were “ in the pipeline ” .

ORG is responsible for and manages ORG . It is maintained by ORG in GPE , under the supervision of the judge in charge of the national criminal records .

NORP The national automated register of perpetrators of sexual crimes was established by Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on adaptation of the justice system to changing trends in criminal offending . It is aimed at preventing repeat sexual offences , making it easier to identify offenders and allowing them to be traced quickly at any time .

A series of transitional measures lay down detailed arrangements for the placement on the register of persons who committed such offences prior to the entry into force of the above - mentioned PERSON . The provisions are applicable to persons who committed such offences before the date of promulgation of the PERSON but were the subject , after that date , of CARDINAL of the decisions referred to in Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They can also be applied to persons serving a custodial sentence before the promulgation of the PERSON ( at the request of the public prosecutor ) .

The relevant provisions of the ORG read as follows :

“ The provisions of this Title shall apply to proceedings concerning the murder , whether or not premeditated , of a minor preceded or accompanied by rape , torture or acts of barbarity or for the offences of sexual assault or sexual abuse of a minor , living on the immoral earnings of a minor or paying a minor for sexual services ...

These provisions shall also apply to proceedings concerning the crime of murder , whether or not premeditated , accompanied by torture or acts of barbarity , the crimes of torture or acts of barbarity and the crime of murder , whether or not premeditated , committed as a repeat offence . ”

“ The national automated register of perpetrators of sexual or violent crimes shall constitute a database of personal information held by ORG under the authority of the Minister of ORG and the supervision of a judge . In order to prevent repeat offences of the kind referred to in Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL and to facilitate identification of the perpetrators of such offences , the information referred to in Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL shall be gathered , stored and communicated to authorised persons in accordance with the arrangements laid down in this LAW . ”

“ Subject to the provisions of the last paragraph of this LAW , and in so far as they relate to one or more of the offences referred to in Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL , details of an individual ’s identity and home address or successive home addresses and , where applicable , other residences shall be entered in the register where the individual concerned has been the subject of :

A conviction , whether or not final , including conviction in absentia , or a declaration of guilt accompanied by an order dispensing him or her from sentence or adjourning sentence ;

A decision , whether or not final , delivered under sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , QUANTITY of Ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE on juvenile delinquency ;

An agreed penalty scheme provided for by LAW , the implementation of which has been certified by the public prosecutor ;

A decision discontinuing the proceedings or discharging or acquitting the person concerned on the basis of the first paragraph of LAW ;

A criminal charge , accompanied by a court supervision order , where the investigating judge has ordered the entry of the decision in the register ;

A decision of the same kind as those referred to above which was delivered by a foreign court or judicial authority and which , under the terms of an international convention or agreement , was notified to the NORP authorities or was enforced in GPE following the transfer of the convicted person .

The register shall also contain information concerning the judicial decision forming the basis for placement on the register and information on the nature of the offence . The decisions referred to in points CARDINAL and CARDINAL shall be entered in the register on delivery .

Decisions concerning the offences referred to in Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL which carry a sentence less than or equal to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment shall not be entered in the register , except where expressly ordered by the court or , in the case of points CARDINAL and DATE , by the public prosecutor . ”

“ Without prejudice to application of the provisions of ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the information referred to in Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL concerning an individual shall be deleted from the register on the death of the person concerned or on expiry of the periods laid down below , calculated from the date on which all the decisions entered in the register cease to have effect :

A period of DATE in the case of a serious crime or a major offence carrying a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ;

A period of DATE in all other cases .

The information in question shall not be deleted as the result of an amnesty or rehabilitation , or under the rules relating to the removal of convictions from the criminal records .

This information may not , by itself , be used as evidence of recidivism .

Information entered in the register under points CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL shall be deleted from the register in the event of a final decision discontinuing the proceedings , a final discharge or a final acquittal . Information entered under point CARDINAL shall also be deleted in the event of the cessation or lifting of the court supervision order . ”

“ All persons whose identity is recorded in the register shall be bound , as a security measure , by the obligations set forth in this Article .

The person concerned shall be required , by means of a registered letter with recorded delivery addressed to the authority managing the register , or by registered letter with recorded delivery addressed to the local police or gendarmerie station , or by reporting in person , to :

NORP provide proof of his or her address once a year ;

NORP declare any change of address within DATE at the latest .

If the person concerned has been finally convicted of a serious crime or a major offence carrying a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , he or she must provide proof of address DATE by reporting to the local police or gendarmerie station or the gendarmerie or police headquarters in his or her département of residence , or to any other department designated by the prefecture .

Failure to comply with the obligations laid down in this Article shall be punishable by DATE imprisonment and a fine of QUANTITY . ”

“ Any person whose identity has been recorded in the register shall be informed accordingly by the judicial authority , either in person or by registered letter to the last reported address .

The person concerned shall be informed on that occasion of his or her obligations under LAW and the penalties he or she faces in the event of failure to comply .

Where the person concerned is in detention , the information provided for by this Article shall be provided on his or her final release or prior to the first measure relaxing the conditions of the sentence . ”

“ The information contained in the register shall be directly accessible , via a secure telecommunications system , to :

NORP The judicial authorities ;

NORP The criminal investigation police , in the context of proceedings concerning the crimes of deliberately endangering human life , abduction or kidnapping or one of the offences referred to in Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and for the purpose of taking the measures provided for in Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ;

NORP The prefects and ORG administrative authorities listed in the decree provided for by LAW , for the purposes of administrative decisions concerning recruitment , posting , authorisation , approval or permission in relation to activities or professions involving contact with minors and for the purpose of supervising the carrying - on of such activities or professions . ...

The information in the register shall also be made available to mayors and presidents of the département councils and regional councils , via the prefects , for the purposes of the administrative decisions referred to in point CARDINAL relating to activities and professions involving contact with minors and for the purpose of supervising the carrying - on of such activities or professions . ”

“ In the manner specified in the decree provided for by LAW , the authority managing the register shall inform ORG directly of any new entry in the register or change of address , or if a person on the register has not provided proof of his or her address within the prescribed period . The Ministry shall forward the information without delay to the competent police or gendarmerie department .

The police or gendarmerie may conduct all relevant checks and lodge whatever requests are necessary with the public authorities with a view to verifying or tracing the person ’s address .

If it transpires that the person concerned is no longer at the address indicated , the public prosecutor shall enter his or her name on the list of wanted persons . ”

“ Persons who furnish proof of their identity shall be provided with all the information concerning them in the register , on application to the public prosecutor at the tribunal de grande instance for their place of residence . ”

“ Persons whose identity is recorded in the register may request the public prosecutor to rectify or order the deletion of the information concerning them if the information is inaccurate or it is no longer necessary to conserve it in view of the purpose of the register , regard being had to the nature of the offence , the age of the person concerned when it was committed , the interval that has elapsed and the current personality of the person concerned .

A request for information to be deleted shall be inadmissible where the information concerned ( repealed by LAW no . DATE - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , with effect from DATE ) ‘ remains in Bulletin no . CARDINAL of the criminal record of the person concerned or’ concerns judicial proceedings which are still pending ( section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , ‘ in so far as the person concerned has not been rehabilitated or the measure giving rise to the entry in the register has not been deleted from Bulletin no . CARDINAL’ .

If the public prosecutor does not order the rectification or deletion of the information , the person concerned may apply for this purpose to the liberties and detention judge . An appeal shall lie against the latter ’s decision to the President of ORG .

Before ruling on the request for rectification or deletion , the public prosecutor , the liberties and detention judge and the President of ORG may order whatever checks they deem necessary , including an expert medical report on the person concerned . If the information in the register concerns a serious crime or a major offence carrying a sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and committed against a minor , no decision to delete the information may be taken in the absence of such an expert report . ... ”

“ The detailed arrangements for application of the provisions of this LAW shall be laid down by decree of the PERSON d’Etat after consultation of ORG .

The decree shall specify , in particular , the circumstances in which the register shall record the enquiries relating to it and the occasions when it was consulted . ”

“ A record shall be kept in the register for DATE of information concerning entries and enquiries relating to it , specifying the status of the person or authority making the entry or enquiry .

This information shall be accessible only to the judge in charge of the department maintaining the register or to persons to whom he or she gives express permission .

Statistics may be compiled on the basis of this information . ”

In its ruling no . DATE - CARDINAL DC of DATE , ORG held as follows :

“ ... the recording of a person ’s identity in the [ Sex Offenders Register ] ... is designed ... to prevent repeat offences of this kind and to facilitate the identification of the perpetrators of such offences . It follows that placement on the register is not a sanction but a public - order measure . ” ( § CARDINAL )

ORG further held , with regard to the entry of information in the register and its consultation and use :

“ ... regard being had firstly to the safeguards provided by the conditions on the use and consultation of the register and the fact that the power to enter or delete personal data rested with the judicial authority , and secondly to the seriousness of the offences giving rise to the entry of personal data in the register and the rate of reoffending with this type of offence , the impugned provisions were such as to reconcile respect for private life and the protection of public order in a manner that clearly struck a fair balance . ” ( § CARDINAL )

Lastly , it held :

“ ... the requirement for persons on the register to give periodic notice of their home address or the address where they are resident does not constitute a sanction , but rather a public - order measure aimed at preventing reoffending and facilitating the identification of offenders . The very purpose of the register makes it necessary to check the addresses of the persons concerned on an ongoing basis . The burden imposed on them in order to ensure that such checks are carried out does not constitute a non - essential [ measure ] for the purposes of LAW ... ” ( § MONEY )

In a judgment of ORG , ORG ruled on the nature of placement on the register ( see also PERSON . crim . DATE , ORG . crim . no . CARDINAL ) . It held as follows :

“ Whereas ... in ordering placement on ORG , ORG accurately applied section CARDINAL of the Law of DATE , according to which the provisions concerning placement on the register apply to offences committed before the date of promulgation of the PERSON . This section is not in breach of the LAW provisions relied on , as placement on ORG , which is merely a security measure and not a penalty , is not subject to the principle prohibiting the retrospective application of more severe provisions of substantive law . ... ”

ORG has upheld the automatic nature of placement on the register in the case of offenders sentenced to more than DATE imprisonment ( PERSON . crim . DATE ) .

NORP In DATE this working party submitted a report to the Minister of the ORG , ORG entitled : “ Tightening procedures to improve the protection of freedoms ” . According to the report , CARDINAL names had been entered in ORG when it was established in DATE ; by DATE the number of entries was CARDINAL .

Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the ORG deal with the operation of the national criminal records . These record convictions imposed by the criminal courts , as well as some commercial , administrative and disciplinary convictions which entail incapacity . A person ’s criminal record is divided into CARDINAL headings . The information contained in the criminal record is provided in the form of bulletins .

Bulletin no . CARDINAL ( LAW ) records all the files in the criminal record , in other words all the person ’s convictions . It may be issued only to the judicial authorities .

Bulletin no . CARDINAL ( LAW ) contains most of the convictions for criminal offences with the exception , in particular , of youth convictions , foreign rulings , convictions for minor offences and suspended sentences once the probationary period has expired . A request can be made to the judge for a conviction not to be entered in Bulletin no . CARDINAL ( although it will remain in Bulletin no . CARDINAL ) . This bulletin is made available only to certain administrative and military authorities ( prefects , military authorities , heads of public companies , etc . ) on specific grounds .

Bulletin no . CARDINAL ( LAW ) records the most serious convictions for major offences , and especially custodial sentences of over DATE . This bulletin is the only one of which the person concerned may obtain a copy .

The Criminal Code provides for a rehabilitation procedure for convicted individuals , enabling a conviction to be deleted from the criminal records before expiry of the statutory period ( DATE ) . Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of that Code states that rehabilitation erases the conviction .

Article CARDINAL lays down the conditions for automatic rehabilitation :

“ A convicted individual who has not been the subject of a further criminal conviction within the periods set out below shall be automatically rehabilitated :

In the case of a single prison sentence not exceeding DATE or multiple prison sentences not exceeding DATE in total , after a period of DATE calculated from the date on which the sentence ends or from the date of expiry of the limitation period .

The ORG lays down the arrangements governing the judicial rehabilitation procedure :

“ During the lifetime of the convicted person , an application for rehabilitation may be made to the courts only by the person concerned or , if he or she is disqualified , by his or her legal representative . In the event of the person ’s death and where the statutory conditions are met , the application may be pursued by his or her spouse , ascendants or descendants or may even be lodged by them , within DATE of the person ’s death . ”

“ The application for rehabilitation may be made DATE in the case of persons convicted of a serious crime ...

This period shall be counted ... in the case of persons who have received a custodial sentence , from the date of their final release or , in accordance with the provisions of LAW , third paragraph , the date of their conditional release where the latter was not revoked subsequently ... ”

The rules governing the removal of an offence from the criminal records are as follows :

“ ... Files concerning convictions which have been erased by an amnesty or have been overturned shall be deleted from the criminal records ... The same shall apply ... to files concerning convictions ... imposed DATE previously where there have been no further convictions for any category of criminal offence .

The following shall also be deleted from the criminal records :

Convictions in respect of which the offender has been granted judicial rehabilitation , where the court expressly orders the removal of the conviction from the records in accordance with the second paragraph of Article CARDINAL . ”

The DATE ORG for the protection of individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data ( “ the LAW ” ) defines “ personal data ” as any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual . The LAW provides , inter alia , as follows :

Considering that it is desirable to extend the safeguards for everyone ’s rights and fundamental freedoms , and in particular the right to the respect for privacy , taking account of the increasing flow across frontiers of personal data undergoing automatic processing ;

Personal data undergoing automatic processing shall be :

b. stored for specified and legitimate purposes and not used in a way incompatible with those purposes ;

c. adequate , relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are stored ;

e. preserved in a form which permits identification of the data subjects for no longer than is required for the purpose for which those data are stored .

Personal data revealing racial origin , political opinions or religious or other beliefs , as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life , may not be processed automatically unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards . ...

Appropriate security measures shall be taken for the protection of personal data stored in automated data files against accidental or unauthorised destruction or accidental loss as well as against unauthorised access , alteration or dissemination . ”

Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG regulating the use of personal data in the police sector ( adopted on CARDINAL DATE ) provides , inter alia , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The collection of personal data for police purposes should be limited to such as is necessary for the prevention of a real danger or the suppression of a specific criminal offence . Any exception to this provision should be the subject of specific national legislation .

Principle CARDINAL – Storage of data

As far as possible , the storage of personal data for police purposes should be limited to accurate data and to such data as are necessary to allow police bodies to perform their lawful tasks within the framework of national law and their obligations arising from international law .

Principle CARDINAL – Length of storage and updating of data

Measures should be taken so that personal data kept for police purposes are deleted if they are no longer necessary for the purposes for which they were stored .

For this purpose , consideration shall in particular be given to the following criteria : the need to retain data in the light of the conclusion of an inquiry into a particular case ; a final judicial decision , in particular an acquittal ; rehabilitation ; spent convictions ; amnesties ; the age of the data subject , particular categories of data . ”

In DATE the ORG of GPE published a “ Comparative law study ” ( no . CARDINAL ) concerning the treatment of sexual offences committed against minors . The report stated that “ a sex - offenders register exists only in GPE and GPE ” . In GPE , there is no Federal register but CARDINAL Länder ( GPE and GPE ) have their own registers . The NORP register , known as HEADS ( PERSON ) , can be accessed only by police officers and judges . In GPE , data concerning offenders sentenced to CARDINAL thirty months’ imprisonment are kept indefinitely and there is no possibility of having the data deleted ( Sexual Offences Act DATE , section CARDINAL ) .


The application was originally submitted by CARDINAL applicants of which PERSON was DATE ( later ; the applicant ) . The other applicants’ complaints were declared inadmissible by ORG DATE . The present applicant was born in DATE in GPE of parents who were born in the former GPE and were citizens of that country . The applicant and his parents are currently resident at FAC in GPE .

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

A.

The applicant ’s parents and his brother , who was born in DATE in the former GPE , arrived in GPE from the then GPE on DATE , holding tourist visas valid from DATE . On the last - mentioned day they requested asylum in GPE , referring to the attempted coup d’etat in GPE . On DATE ORG ( sisäasiainministeriö , inrikesministeriet ) rejected their asylum request and found no reason to grant them a residence permit .

On DATE the Hollola Police District proposed that the family be expelled . The family objected on DATE , arguing , inter alia , that although they had been citizens of the former GPE they had not become citizens of GPE . On DATE ORG ordered their expulsion to GPE , considering , inter alia , that they were citizens of the former GPE with no such ties to GPE as could prevent their expulsion . The ORG also prohibited the family from returning to GPE or any other NORP country during a period of DATE . The family appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) .

On DATE the present applicant was born . He was not registered as being entitled to NORP social security benefits . ORG ( sosiaali- ja terveyslautakunta , social- och hälsovårdsnämnden ) of GPE refused the applicant ’s mother ’s request for maternity allowance , noting that she was not a NORP citizen and had not been granted a residence permit in the country . No appeal was lodged against this refusal . The municipality donated to the applicant ’s mother a maternity package with various supplies .

In DATE the applicant ’s father obtained employment in PERSON . On DATE the applicant ’s parents were refused housing allowance , as they had no residence permits in GPE . They did not appeal .

On DATE ORG referred the matter back to the Ministry for renewed consideration , since the expulsion order had not concerned the present applicant .

On DATE the Hollola Police District proposed to that the applicant and his family be expelled . The applicant and his family objected and requested that the expulsion order would at least not be enforced until the applicant ’s possible entitlement to NORP citizenship had been examined .

In DATE the applicant requested to be granted NORP citizenship by application . On DATE ORG found no reason to grant him a residence permit . Instead the applicant and his family were ordered to be expelled to GPE , as they were all considered to be citizens of that ORG pursuant to its DATE LAW which had entered into force on DATE . In a memorandum of DATE the ORG recalled that the applicant ’s parents and his brother had arrived in GPE on a tourist visa . At the time when LAW had entered into force , the applicant ’s parents and his brother had not been permanently residing in GPE but in GPE . As the applicant ’s parents had thus become citizens of GPE , the Ministry concluded that the applicant had obtained NORP ( and thus not NORP ) citizenship by birth .

In DATE the applicant ’s father established his own company in PERSON .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s and his family ’s appeal against the new expulsion order .

In DATE the applicant and his family lodged a further request for residence permits , supported by , among others , the Chief of LOC . He stated that the applicant and his family had integrated well in GPE and that it would clearly be unreasonable to refuse them residence permits . In CARDINAL decisions of DATE the Ministry of the ORG nevertheless rejected the applicant ’s and his family ’s request . They then lodged an extraordinary appeal ( purkuhakemus , ansökan om återbrytande ) to ORG , requesting that the ORG ’s decision be quashed .

On DATE ORG objected to the applicant ’s and his family ’s request to ORG . ORG referred , inter alia , to its own inquiry according to which the applicant and his family had received NORP citizenship .

On DATE the Office for Alien Affairs ( ulkomaalaisvirasto , utlänningsverket ) requested the applicant ’s local Police District to inform the parents of the applicant of the costs of a negative decision on pursuing the application for citizenship .

On DATE ORG again considered that the applicant had already acquired NORP citizenship . Accordingly , he did not meet the conditions prescribed by section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( kansalaisuuslaki , medborgarskapslag CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) for granting him NORP citizenship by application .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s and his family ’s extraordinary appeal .

On DATE the Consul General of ORG in GPE certified that the applicant ’s parents or his brother were not citizens of GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s request for NORP citizenship by application was withdrawn . Instead he requested that his NORP citizenship be confirmed by the President of the Republic , given that his parents had not acquired NORP citizenship whether by application , declaration or acceptance . It was therefore argued that he had received NORP citizenship by birth , pursuant to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE the Consul General of the ORG certified that the applicant was not a citizen of GPE .

On DATE the Chief of ORG ordered the applicant and his family to leave GPE by DATE . The applicant and his family objected , referring , inter alia , to the pending request for a confirmation of the applicant ’s NORP citizenship and stating that they lacked the necessary travel documents .

On DATE the head of ORG of the Russian Embassy certified that pursuant to LAW of GPE none of the applicant ’s family members were NORP citizens . Their NORP passports were no longer in force and were to be handed over to the ORG . The family could request that new documents be issued to them by the NORP authorities “ because they were stateless ” . They would be unable to enter GPE without proper documents . In the letter it was also stated that the applicant ’s and his family ’s expulsion from GPE “ was not based on law ” .

On DATE the local ORG decided to afford the applicant municipal day care as from DATE . The applicant ’s brother enjoys the right to attend a public school in GPE .

On DATE the Chief of Police of PERSON stated that the enforcement of the expulsion order had been postponed indefinitely .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG of ORG again confirmed that the applicant or his family were not citizens of GPE .

On DATE ORG considered , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , that the applicant and his family were not entitled to sickness insurance benefits under the DATE LAW . ORG noted that the members of the applicant ’s family had arrived in GPE as refugees . Moreover , at the time of ORG decision the applicant and his family had no passports or work permits in GPE nor had they been entered in the NORP population register . The applicant and his family appealed to ORG ( sosiaalivakuutuslautakunta , socialförsäkringsnämnden ) on DATE , referring , in particular , to the fact that the applicant had been born in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s parents and brother were granted DATE residence permits in GPE . ORG now considered that their citizenship was unknown . It recalled that the attempts to enforce the expulsion order regarding the applicant and his family had failed . Most recently , the NORP authorities had stated , on DATE , that the applicant and his family would not be accepted back into that country .

The applicant ’s parents and his brother were granted aliens passports and temporary residence permits . The applicant has not lodged with the competent authorities an application for an alien ’s passport and a residence permit

On DATE ORG ( maistraatti , magistraten ) of PERSON stated that it could not yet deal with the applicant ’s request to be registered as resident in GPE and to be granted a personal identification number . The registration ORG referred to the pending citizenship proceedings and recalled that the applicant ’s registration would require proof of his NORP citizenship or residence permit .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother was granted a DATE child allowance for the applicant ’s brother exclusively .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to seek clarification from the NORP authorities as regards the applicant ’s and his family ’s citizenship . ORG now stated that under the terms of LAW , citizens of the former GPE who were permanently resident within GPE territory when the LAW entered into force were automatically granted NORP citizenship provided they did not refuse it within DATE from the entry into force of LAW . In the view of ORG , the applicant ’s parents had not presented evidence of such a refusal ( according to the applicant ’s family , their objection to becoming NORP citizens was addressed to the NORP authorities and lodged with ORG ) . The Ministry requested especially clarification , inter alia , as to why the applicant may not have received NORP citizenship at birth or , if he did so receive the citizenship , why and when he lost it later .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s mother a housing allowance as from DATE and , on DATE , she was granted an employment allowance as from DATE . The applicant was not taken into account when the amounts of these allowances were fixed . On CARDINAL DATE the employment allowance and housing allowance were nevertheless increased , both children having been taken into account .

On DATE ORG of PERSON registered the applicant as resident in GPE and gave him a personal identification number . The applicant is registered in the official registry as born in GPE , which is a municipality in GPE , but stateless while the nationality of his mother is registered as unknown .

In a diplomatic note of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE conveyed the reply of ORG of the President of GPE to the NORP Ministry ’s question concerning the citizenship of the applicant and his family . The ORG stated as follows ( translation ) :

“ ORG of GPE expresses its respect for ORG and , referring to ORG notice no . ORG DATE dated DATE and to the notice no . ORG DATE dated DATE , it gives notice that ORG of the President of GPE has examined the citizenship of the PERSON family and declares as follows .

According to Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( GPE Decree implementing GPE Decree amending and supplementing of GPE ) of ORG of GPE , citizens of the former GPE who , prior to DATE , were permanently resident abroad or had left the country temporarily for the purposes of work , studies , health care or private affairs , and who returned to the country after LAW of GPE entered into force , were , under LAW subsection CARDINAL of that Act , recognised as citizens of GPE . However , the PERSON family did not return to the country by this time and , as far as is known , have no intention of doing so .

According to GPE , citizenship is constituted by a continuous legal connection to the ORG , expressed in the unity of the mutual rights , obligations and liability between the person concerned and the ORG .

ORG , which examined the ORG case , which is comparable with the present case , defined nationality as a “ legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment , a genuine connection of existence , interests and sentiments , together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties ” .

Given that the PERSON have resided in GPE for DATE they have , in the ORG ’s opinion , lost those ties to GPE and , more importantly , have not expressed their willingness to renew those ties .

The Commission concludes that the PERSON are , therefore , not citizens of GPE . ... ”

On DATE the applicant ’s mother was also granted a child allowance for the applicant .

In response to the applicant ’s and his family ’s appeal of DATE ORG ( tarkastuslautakunta , prövningsnämnden ) , onCARDINAL DATE , referred the matter back to ORG . According to the applicant and his family , ORG has considered it unnecessary to decide this matter separately and has referred to its decisions of CARDINAL and DATE .

In its opinion to the President of ORG , on DATE , considered that the applicant had not obtained NORP citizenship on his birth in GPE . ORG noted , inter alia , that on their arrival in GPE the applicant ’s parents and his brother had been citizens of GPE . They had not lost the citizenship of the successor ORG ( GPE ) by the time the applicant had been born . ORG decision discusses neither the NORP Decree of DATE to which ORG of the President of GPE referred in the applicant ’s and his family ’s case nor ORG certificates according to which the applicant and his family are not NORP citizens .

On DATE ORG , in a statement signed by an attaché , certified that pursuant to LAW the applicant was not and had not been a citizen of that ORG .

On DATE the President of the Republic declared , with reference to ORG opinion , that the applicant was not a NORP citizen .

The applicant has petitioned to ORG ( eduskunnan oikeusasiamies , riksdagens justitieombudsman ) concerning the excessive length of the proceedings pertaining to the applicant ’s request for a citizenship declaration . No decision has been made .

B. Relevant domestic law

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , of LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads as follows ( translation ) :

“ A child receives NORP citizenship by birth :

... if [ it ] is born in GPE and does not at that time receive citizenship of any other country . ”

Under LAW ( sairausvakuutuslaki , sjukförsäkringslag CARDINAL ) , every “ resident ” in GPE is entitled to the benefits guaranteed therein . The interpretation of “ residence ” shall be decided by ORG ( kansaneläkelaitos , folkpensionsanstalten ) pursuant to the DATE Act on Social Security based on Residence ( laki asumiseen perustuvan sosiaaliturvalainsäädännön soveltamisesta , lag om tillämpning av lagstiftningen om bosättningsbaserad social trygghet DATE ) . Under this LAW a person shall be considered resident in GPE if his or her actual residence and home are in that country and he or she is permanently and principally staying there . An immigrant who intends to settle permanently can be considered resident as from his arrival , provided he or she is holding a residence permit valid for DATE ( should a permit be required ) . An asylum - seeker is not considered a resident if the decision on the asylum request or in the expulsion matter has not acquired legal force ( section CARDINAL ) . An appeal against ORG interpretation of “ residence ” lies to CARDINAL out of several authorities , depending on the requested benefit which underlies the dispute ( section CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW ( ulkomaalaislaki , utlänningslag CARDINAL ; later amended ) an aliens passport may be issued if the alien is unable to obtain a passport from his or her country of origin or if there is another exceptional reason for issuing such a document .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . She is represented before the ORG by her husband , PERSON PERSON .

The respondent Government are represented by its Agent PERSON , ORG .

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

In DATE the applicant stood security for an amount of MONEY ( ORG ) , for her husband ’s debt to ORG ( ORG ) . In DATE her husband entered into negotiations concerning the development of a golf course , which involved selling CARDINAL plots of land belonging to him . As part of the husband ’s original terms of sale he made it a condition that ORG would release the applicant from the above guarantee . Though the bank did not comply with this wish , the applicant ’s husband signed a conditional deed to sell the land on DATE . Subsequently , the applicant ’s husband signed a power of attorney on DATE , permitting CARDINAL named lawyers to sign all documents relating to the above sale .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant ’s husband had signed a declaration according to which he owed the applicant DKK CARDINAL . With reference thereto the applicant levied execution on her husbands “ rights emanating from the sale of CARDINAL of the above plots of land ” and on DATE she requested ORG to sell the land at a foreclosure auction .

Due to default in payments , on DATE ORG called in all loans granted to the applicant ’s husband . Consequently , on DATE the bank ordered the applicant to pay the DKK CARDINAL she stood security for . Since the applicant did not pay , the bank sent a bankruptcy petition to ORG Skifteretten i Århus ) , which declared the applicant bankrupt on DATE . On appeal , this decision was upheld by ORG ) on DATE . The trustee in bankruptcy thereafter withdrew the applicant ’s request to sell the land at a foreclosure auction .

On DATE the applicant , represented by a lawyer , initiated civil proceedings in ORG against ORG and the above CARDINAL lawyers . The applicant claimed compensation from the bank in the amount of DKK CARDINAL . In the alternative she claimed the same amount of compensation from the bank and the lawyers . In a counterclaim , the bank maintained that the applicant should pay DKK CARDINAL emanating from her bank guarantee .

During the pre - trial period written pleadings were submitted by the CARDINAL defendants on CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and DATE respectively . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer withdrew from the case . The applicant ’s pleading was submitted on DATE .

Following exchange of correspondence between the parties and the court on DATE the preparations were closed . On DATE the hearing was scheduled to commence on DATE . On that date the applicant appeared with the intention of being represented by her husband . However , ORG found it impossible to give the case a proper consideration without legal assistance and pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Administration of Justice Act ( retsplejeloven ) the applicant was ordered to retain counsel . According to the said provision the court can order a litigant in civil proceedings to be represented by counsel “ if the court finds it impossible to hear the case properly ( “ på forsvarlig måde ” ) without such representation ” . The case was consequently adjourned on this matter . On DATE the High Court assigned a lawyer for the applicant . He requested a DATE extension of the timelimit for lodging a pleading on the applicant ’s behalf . At a court session on DATE his request was complied with and at the same time , in order to avoid that ongoing further preparation would delay the proceedings the trial was re - scheduled to commence on DATE . Having requested another adjournment on CARDINAL and DATE , the lawyer informed ORG on DATE that he wished to withdraw from the case . In a session held on DATE , the applicant was instructed to find another counsel . On DATE the High Court assigned a third lawyer for the applicant , but on DATE also this lawyer wished to withdraw from the case as the trust between counsel and client had broken down . At a session on DATE a fourth lawyer was appointed and at the same time the High Court emphasised that the applicant could not expect to have yet another lawyer appointed , should problems of cooperation arise between her and her lawyer .

The applicant ’s submissions were finally delivered to ORG in writing on DATE .

The trial took place from CARDINAL until DATE and on DATE ORG pronounced its judgment finding for the bank and the CARDINAL lawyers .

On DATE the applicant , represented by her husband , appealed against this judgment to ORG ( Højesteret ) . Pleadings from the defendants were received on DATE . On DATE the applicant requested permission to procure additional evidence , notably to hear a witness before an alternative court . With the defendants’ consent ORG complied with her request and the witness in question was heard in ORG of Assens on DATE . On DATE the defendants were ready for the scheduling of the trial . On DATE the applicant submitted her reply . Thereafter , on DATE drawing attention to the scope and complexity of the case she requested that a named attorney , who apparently had agreed to represent her , be appointed . At a court session held on DATE ORG refused to appoint a lawyer , but ordered that the applicant be represented by one . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the said named lawyer informed the applicant ’s husband that he could not undertake to represent the applicant , partly because he found the prospects of success extremely poor . Subsequently , although the applicant alleged that she could not find a lawyer who would represent her without being appointed ORG upheld its decision on this subject on CARDINAL and DATE . Having succeeded in finding an attorney who would represent her , at a session held on DATE the lawyer in question requested an adjournment in order to procure additional evidence . The proceedings were then adjourned and on DATE the lawyer ’s specified that he wished to re - hear one of the witnesses already heard before ORG , however only as regards a limited specified subject . At a session held on DATE the request was complied with , and the examination of the witness was carried out before ORG on DATE . On DATE the defendants stated being ready for the scheduling of the trial . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested an adjournment pending his evidential and procedural considerations . The request was granted . On DATE the applicant ’s pleadings were submitted containing a statement that the proceedings gave rise to no further claims . Thus , on DATE the parties were summoned to a pre - trial review on DATE . However , on DATE the applicant requested that ORG revoke its order that she retain counsel as in her opinion no lawyer were able to appear on her behalf in an adequate manner . Also she revoked her pleading of DATE . By letter of DATE the said lawyer regretted to inform ORG that the applicant ’s husband had asked him to resign from the case . In the circumstances on DATE ORG decided to release the applicant from its previous order , and her husband subsequently represented her . On DATE the court received a pleading from the applicant replacing the former of CARDINAL DATE and entailing new submissions . Against the GPE objections on DATE ORG allowed the new submissions and a pre - trial review was set for DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted yet another pleading containing additional submissions . Correspondence in this respect were exchanged between the parties and ORG and it appears that at the session on DATE the defendants accepted the new submissions and thus the final hearing was scheduled to take place on DATE . The trial was eventually conducted on CARDINAL DATE and ORG pronounced its judgment on DATE upholding the ORG judgment .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE the applicant ’s parents , by way of a donation contract , transferred to the applicant their ownership title to a garage .

On DATE the applicant was sued by her parents . They asked the ORG to order the applicant to return the above gift .

The applicant ’s request for an interim measure was dismissed on DATE .

Several hearings took place DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s right under LAW to a hearing without unjustified delay and her right under LAW to a hearing within a reasonable time . It held that the case was not complex and the applicant ’s conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings . The period of inactivity totalling DATE was imputable to ORG .

The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) ( the equivalent of CARDINAL at that time ) as just satisfaction in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It also ordered ORG to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant ’s costs .

A hearing took place on DATE . Another hearing , scheduled for DATE , was adjourned .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the action . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE and became final and enforceable on DATE .