Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Adequate time;Preparation of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

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

The applicant is a former officer of ORG of GPE ( FSB ) . In DATE he participated in a much publicised press conference together with CARDINAL other ORG officers . Some time after the press conference the applicant remained in the country but was dismissed from the ORG . DATE he served in the tax police and he later became a practising lawyer and a member of the bar association .

On an unspecified date the Chief Military Prosecutor 's Office initiated an inquiry relating to the period of the applicant 's service in the ORG . The inquiry concerned the alleged disclosure of certain classified material by the applicant .

On DATE the prosecution carried out a search of the applicant 's home and discovered certain documents allegedly containing classified information . Assorted cartridges for various types of weapons were also found in a cardboard box on a shelf above the applicant 's writing table . The applicant alleged that the cartridges did not belong to him and had been planted by an ORG agent , posing as a plumber , shortly before the search .

During the search the prosecution also seized a video recording made by the applicant on CARDINAL DATE in a forest near GPE . It showed the applicant and his friend Mr S. shooting for fun from the applicant 's service weapon . The applicant explained that for the shooting he had used a gun cartridge he had received from Mr S.

On DATE the prosecution charged the applicant with disclosure of ORG secrets and abuse of his official powers ( “ criminal case no . CARDINAL ” ) and unlawful possession of firearms ( the ammunition found in his flat and the gun cartridge he had used to shoot in the forest ) .

From DATE the applicant was under an obligation not to leave GPE without authorisation from an investigator , a prosecutor or the court . On DATE the investigation was completed and the prosecution handed the case file to the applicant and his lawyers for examination . The defence had the file at their disposal until DATE . On DATE the case file was sent to the court . The date of the first hearing was set .

Pending the investigation in case no . CARDINAL , the applicant continued his professional activities as a lawyer . On TIME of CARDINAL DATE his car was stopped by traffic police . The car was searched and a handgun was discovered on the back seat of the applicant 's car . On DATE the ORG remanded the applicant in custody on the ground that he was suspected of committing a criminal offence punishable under LAW ( unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition ) . The detention order was confirmed on DATE by ORG , and , on DATE , by ORG . The applicant was eventually acquitted of the charges against him in criminal case no . CARDINAL ( for more details see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

NORP In DATE the file in criminal case no . CARDINAL and the bill of indictment were forwarded to ORG of ORG . ORG , referring to certain classified information contained in the file , decided to examine case no . CARDINAL in camera .

On DATE ORG of ORG held a preparatory hearing in the applicant 's case no . CARDINAL . The judge heard evidence from the parties and made certain procedural arrangements for the forthcoming trial . Most of the applications lodged by the defence were rejected ; however , the applicant was granted additional time to examine the case file . Given that the file contained classified information , the applicant could have access to it only on the court 's LOC .

In the same ruling the judge ordered that the applicant be kept in custody . The judge observed that on DATE the applicant had been arrested by the police on suspicion of committing another crime . The applicant had thus breached his undertaking not to leave his permanent place of residence . The judge also stated that the evidence in the case file included an invitation to visit GPE , which , in the court 's view , indicated that the applicant intended to leave GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order . He argued that the criminal cases against him had been fabricated by the authorities , and that there had been no evidence that he would flee or tamper with evidence or commit crimes . In addition , the applicant complained that the prosecution and the court had violated various provisions of domestic criminal procedural law in ordering his arrest .

On DATE the judge of the ORG decided not to extend the applicant 's detention for the purposes of the proceedings in case no . CARDINAL . However , the applicant remained in the remand prison on the basis of the detention order of DATE , issued by ORG of ORG .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant requested ORG of ORG to release him . On DATE ORG confirmed that the grounds for his detention , as set out in its earlier decision of DATE , were still valid .

On DATE ORG examined an appeal by the applicant and dismissed it . The hearing took place in the absence of the applicant . The appellate court acknowledged that there had been minor irregularities in the detention order of DATE . Nevertheless , they were not such as to require the applicant 's release . As to the substance of the case , the court upheld the reasoning of the first - instance court .

According to the Government , the first grounds of appeal lodged by the applicant ( on DATE ) were addressed to ORG of GPE . On DATE the grounds of appeal were dispatched by the prison administration to ORG . On DATE the applicant filed supplementary grounds of appeal . They were also addressed to ORG of GPE . From ORG those grounds were transmitted to ORG of ORG .

Furthermore , on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant 's lawyers ( PERSON and PERSON ) filed their own grounds of appeal against the detention order of DATE . Those grounds were addressed to ORG of LOC . They were sent to the prosecutor 's office for comment . On DATE ORG of LOC obtained written submissions from the prosecutor 's office in reply to the grounds of appeal filed by the applicant 's lawyers .

On DATE and DATE the applicant 's original and supplementary grounds of appeal were received by ORG of ORG . ORG sent them to the prosecutor 's office for comments . On CARDINAL and DATE the prosecutor 's office replied in writing to the grounds of appeal . On DATE the complete case file was dispatched to ORG of GPE .

On DATE the appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE arrived at ORG of GPE . The hearing took place on DATE . The applicant was able to participate in the hearing via video link . The applicant 's CARDINAL lawyers ( Mr PERSON and PERSON ) were present and made submissions . As indicated above ( see paragraph DATE ) ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal and considered that the applicant should remain detained on remand for the period of the trial .

The applicant alleged that conditions in the meeting room where he had been allowed to talk to his lawyers and work on the case had been inappropriate . He explained that the room where the detainees met their lawyers was partitioned into CARDINAL small booths for CARDINAL people , with detainees being separated from their lawyers by a grille . This made it impossible to study documents , and detainees had to speak quite loudly to be heard . As a result , other detainees , and the warder walking along the line of booths , could hear conversations between the applicant and his lawyer . It was impossible to pass any document through the grille , even newspapers with the texts of newly enacted legislation . The applicant was unable to meet both of his lawyers at the same time , since the booth had room for CARDINAL persons .

On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to the Director of ORG of ORG . In this letter the applicant submitted that he was unable to meet his lawyer out of the hearing of the prison warders and other detainees .

On DATE when the applicant was transported to the courthouse to study the case file , he was so cold and exhausted that , when brought into the court building , he was unable to read the material in the file or prepare his defence : his only concern was to get warm . Moreover , in the courthouse he was kept handcuffed to a table leg or a chair , so that it was very difficult for him to read the case file or take notes . This position also caused severe pain in his back .

During the trial the applicant asked the court to lessen the frequency of the hearings , which were held DATE . However , his request was refused . In such conditions , and having regard to the poor conditions of his detention and his transfers to the court building , he was unable to prepare properly for the hearings . The applicant claimed that the case file contained objections lodged by him to that end .

The Government described the meeting rooms as follows . In remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL there had been CARDINAL rooms “ for investigative activities ” . The average size of the room had been QUANTITY . According to the Government , while in remand prison no . FAC the applicant had met his lawyers CARDINAL times . His defence team had included QUANTITY persons . The meetings had lasted TIME on average . The applicant and his lawyers had been able to exchange documents and handwritten notes during those meetings . Each room had been equipped with a table , CARDINAL chairs , a coat - hanger , an alarm button and a peephole . The meeting rooms had never been shared by several prisoners at once . There had been no glass partition or grille in the meeting rooms separating the defendant from his lawyers . The Government produced photos of a meeting room which corresponded to that description . During meetings between a detainee and his lawyers , the prison staff had been unable to hear them , but they had been able to observe the room through a peephole .

The Government denied that the applicant had been handcuffed in the court building while he studied the case file . In the courtroom during the hearings the applicant had been sitting QUANTITY away from his lawyers , so it had been possible for them to talk in private . The trial had started on DATE . On DATE the court had allowed the applicant to consult his lawyer in private before the start of each hearing , as well as during the breaks , in a special meeting room . The Government , referring to the verbatim record of the hearings , maintained that during the trial the applicant had had CARDINAL meetings with his lawyers in the meeting room in the court building . On DATE the applicant had requested the court to allow him to have those meetings directly in the courtroom . That request had been granted by the court . On DATE the applicant had asked the court to give him extra time to talk to his lawyers during the hearings . On DATE the presiding judge had ruled that the applicant should be allowed to talk to his lawyers during the breaks .

The trial in case no . CARDINAL was held behind closed doors . The applicant was represented by CARDINAL lawyers : PERSON , PERSON and PERSON GPE .

The defence maintained that the cartridges had been planted by ORG agents . Since the much publicised press conference in DATE , ORG senior officials had wanted to settle old scores with him . The applicant asked the court to admit the videotape of the press conference in evidence .

The applicant further supposed that the gun cartridges found in his flat could have been planted by ORG agents who had visited him shortly before the search , disguised as plumbers . The defence asked the court to summon these “ plumbers ” .

As to the allegedly “ classified ” documents discovered by the prosecution among his papers , the applicant did not deny that he had kept them . However , these files related to the period of his service in the ORG ( the predecessor of the ORG ) from DATE . In his submissions , the documents were not secret .

The court examined PERSON . , who had allegedly received the classified information from the applicant . The court also examined documents and other evidence discovered in the applicant 's flat during the search of DATE , documents relating to the period of his service in the ORG , and the reports on the expert examination of the documents allegedly disclosed by the applicant , which concluded that these documents contained secret information . The court also called and questioned one of the participants in the DATE press conference , PERSON , who denied the existence of any plan to eliminate the applicant . The court also examined the video record of the DATE press conference .

The court further examined the record of the seizure of DATE , during which the police had discovered cartridges in the applicant 's flat . The court also examined several witnesses who had visited the applicant 's flat before the search . All of them denied having seen the ammunition in the applicant 's flat , but they had not looked in the cardboard box where the cartridges had been discovered . The court called and questioned CARDINAL persons working in the housing maintenance service . They confirmed that on several occasions DATE , plumbers on duty had visited the applicant 's flat .

The court also examined several relatives of Mr S. They testified about the events of CARDINAL DATE , when the applicant and PERSON had gone shooting for fun in a forest near GPE . The court also examined the video which showed Mr S. firing a shot with the applicant 's gun .

On DATE ORG of ORG gave judgment in criminal case no . CARDINAL . The applicant was found guilty on CARDINAL charges and was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , to be served in a “ colony - settlement ” .

First , the court convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of the assorted gun cartridges found in his flat during the search ( LAW ) . Further , the court referred to a videotape seized by the prosecution from the applicant 's flat . The recording was made by the applicant on DATE in a forest near PERSON ; it showed the applicant and his friend Mr S. shooting for fun from the applicant 's service weapon . The court established that the cartridge used by Mr S. to shoot had been unlawfully acquired by the applicant from him .

Second , the applicant was convicted of disclosure of ORG secrets . The court established that in DATE the applicant had served in the NORP secret service , and had had access to certain classified documents . He had kept at his home a number of case files containing information about ORG informers . In DATE and DATE the applicant had shown these documents to his former colleague . Further , in DATE the applicant had handed the same person ( his former colleague ) CARDINAL files containing information about the ORG 's investigative activities in DATE . At the relevant time the applicant 's former colleague had not been serving in the ORG ; therefore , he had not had the necessary security clearance to have access to such documents . The court qualified the documents shown and given to the former colleague as “ secret ” . Thus , the applicant 's acts amounted to the “ disclosure of ORG secrets ” .

The defence appealed . They alleged , in particular , that they had been placed in a disadvantageous position vis - à - vis the prosecution , and that the applicant had not had enough time and facilities to prepare his defence .

On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE . ORG did not find any major irregularity in the investigative proceedings and rejected the argument that the defence had not had sufficient time and facilities during the trial . ORG noted that the pace of the trial ( CARDINAL court hearings per month , each lasting TIME ) had been adequate and had not precluded the applicant from meeting his lawyers and preparing his defence . ORG noted that the applicant had not complained of any breaches of confidentiality during the meetings with his lawyers .

On DATE the applicant was placed in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE following the decision of ORG of ORG in connection with criminal case no . CARDINAL .

The applicant arrived at remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL very late and spent TIME in a cell measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , which had no windows or ventilation , was filthy and smoky and was full of lice . Only on TIME DATE did he receive dried cereal .

From DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL of remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . According to the applicant , the cell was unventilated , although most of his cellmates were heavy smokers . Moreover , some of the other detainees were convicted criminals . The cell was also overcrowded : there were CARDINAL detainees for CARDINAL sleeping places . As a result , the detainees had to sleep in turns . The applicant was unable to sleep TIME a day , and the rest of the time he had to stand , because all the beds were occupied by his sleeping cellmates , and there were no seats in the cell . The applicant shared his sleeping place with CARDINAL other detainees , including CARDINAL suffering from psoriasis ; consequently , their shared sleeping place was constantly covered with this individual 's scabs . The cell was not equipped with radio and the administration provided no newspapers . Although prison regulations provided for a shower once a week , the applicant was unable to wash himself for DATE , despite his numerous complaints about that fact .

The applicant produced a written statement signed by PERSON , his cellmate in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , in which the latter confirmed that the applicant had had no individual sleeping place in the cell . Mr N. also testified that the applicant had often had no possibility of sleeping before going to the court in the mornings , and had not received adequate medical treatment . Depositions to the same effect were signed by the applicant 's cellmates PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON .

The applicant was detained in that cell until DATE .

The Government maintained that DATE the overall number of prisoners in remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL had varied from CARDINAL ( DATE ) to CARDINAL ( in DATE ) , with an average of CARDINAL . The overall number of sleeping places in remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL was CARDINAL . Only on CARDINAL occasion ( in DATE ) had the number of sleeping places exceeded the number of inmates .

The Government further maintained that the applicant 's description of conditions in cell no . CARDINAL was inaccurate . They contended that the cell had a combined supply - and - exhaust ventilation system . The toilet and the water tap were separated from the residential area ; the cell had a table , several benches , cupboards for the detainees ' personal belongings , a wall cupboard for food , a mirror , a television set , a refrigerator and cold and hot water . The cell had a surface area of QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places and housed CARDINAL detainees , including the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was summoned by the deputy chief administrator of the remand prison . The latter enquired about the applicant 's complaints to ORG concerning the conditions of his detention and threatened him with various disciplinary measures , in particular , placement in a strict isolation cell . The applicant immediately informed his lawyer of the conversation .

On DATE the applicant signed a declaration in which he stated that he had no complaints about the conditions of detention . He was then transferred to cell no . CARDINAL in building no . CARDINAL of the remand prison . The conditions in that cell were better than in his previous one . It contained CARDINAL people and a hot shower was available twice a week for the detainees in that cell . However , the room was not ventilated and the other detainees smoked constantly . Moreover , the unit had no appropriate courtyard for outdoor exercise . Instead , the detainees were taken to a dusty and covered cubicle , made out of concrete , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , under a roof . Walking in this room in clouds of concrete dust aggravated the applicant 's asthma and various other health problems .

The applicant 's lawyers complained to the prison authorities . As a result the applicant was examined by a general practitioner ; the doctor diagnosed asthma and cardiological problems and prescribed glasses . At the same time , the doctor concluded that the applicant 's state of health had not deteriorated during his detention in the remand prison .

On DATE the applicant withdrew the declaration made on DATE . He explained to his lawyer that he had been given an opportunity to sign the declaration in return for his transfer to a cell where he would have an individual sleeping place and access to a hot shower .

On an unspecified date the applicant 's counsel wrote to ORG complaining about the conditions of her client 's detention .

In its reply of CARDINAL DATE ORG confirmed that , on arrival at remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the applicant had been placed in a cubicle because no appropriate cells had been available . He had spent TIME there . From TIME to CARDINAL a.m. he had undergone , among other things , a medical examination , fingerprinting , photographing and a personal search . At TIME he had received a “ bag meal ” and had been conveyed to the court . On his return to the remand prison the applicant had been placed in a cell for CARDINAL people , although at that time QUANTITY people had been detained there .

The ORG explained that at the relevant time the population of the remand prison had exceeded its planned maximum capacity by PERCENT . The cell was not equipped with seats because it was too small .

As to the timing of the applicant 's transfers to the court , detainees were usually woken up at TIME and were taken out of their cells at TIME Every day CARDINAL persons were conveyed from the remand prison to the courts . Convoy officers were always informed about detainees ' illnesses or other special conditions .

According to the ORG , time for visits by relatives was limited to TIME because of the lack of appropriate meeting rooms ; as regards meetings with defence counsel , the applicant had experienced no restrictions in this respect . Thus , in DATE the applicant had had CARDINAL meetings with his lawyers ( on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) which had lasted TIME on aggregate . The applicant had been unable to take a shower for DATE because the “ sanitary treatment ” ( washing ) of detainees had taken place on the dates when the applicant had been in court .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his complaints about the delays in transporting detainees to and from the court had proved to be accurate , at least in part . The applicant was assured that the necessary measures would be taken to improve the situation in future .

On DATE the applicant complained to the prison administration about the conditions in the room for physical exercise ( or rather , the “ walking room ” ) . On DATE he repeated his complaints , stressing that he suffered from asthma of allergic origin and could not breathe normally in the walking room , because of the clouds of concrete dust and the lack of fresh air arriving from outside . He also complained that patients from the prison hospital who suffered from infectious diseases , such as hepatitis , aseptic meningitis , dysentery , syphilis and Aids , were taken to the same room for exercise . They often had diarrhoea and vomited in this very room , but nobody cleaned up after them . In the letters he listed a total of CARDINAL cellmates who were willing to confirm the accuracy of his account . He did not receive a reply to his letters .

The Government maintained that on DATE the conditions of the applicant 's detention had improved after he had been transferred to cell no . CARDINAL . On CARDINAL May CARDINAL the applicant had been transferred to cell no . CARDINAL . Those cells had recently been renovated ; his transfer was justified by the fact that he was a former law - enforcement official and suffered from chronic diseases . The surface area of the cells was QUANTITY each ; they had CARDINAL sleeping places for CARDINAL inmates . According to the documents submitted by the Government , in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL it was impossible to detain smoking prisoners separately from non - smokers . There was CARDINAL window in the cell measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , which had a ventilation pane that could be opened from inside the cell . Both cells ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) had shower cubicles . The Government further maintained that at least once DATE the detainees were given an opportunity to take a TIME shower .

Every day the detainees were taken out for a TIME walk in a walking yard , normally during the DATE . Wing no . CARDINAL of the remand prison had QUANTITY , measuring QUANTITY on aggregate , each ranging from QUANTITY to QUANTITY . The height of the walls of the walking yards was QUANTITY .

Wing no . CARDINAL of the remand prison had QUANTITY , measuring QUANTITY each and QUANTITY on aggregate , with the walls QUANTITY high .

The Government explained that the inmates detained together in the same cell were taken for a walk to the corresponding walking yard . All walking yards had benches and rain shelters . The top of the walking yards was covered by a metallic grille . Further , the Decree of the Ministry of Justice of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) provided that each detainee should have QUANTITY of personal space in a walking yard . The Government produced photocopied photographs of some of the walking yards .

The Government produced a letter , signed by the head of the prison administration , dated CARDINAL DATE , which stated that on DATE of the hearings the applicant had been entitled to a DATE walk in accordance with the applicable rules during the TIME .

The Government further enumerated the measures taken by the authorities to improve conditions of detention in NORP remand prisons . They described the conditions in the meeting rooms , where detainees could study the case files , communicate with their lawyers , and so on . Each detainee was entitled to a private visit of TIME every day .

On DATE the judge of the ORG of Moscow Region ordered the applicant 's transfer from the remand prison in GPE to a remand prison in LOC ( no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , in order to secure his appearance at the trial before ORG in connection with case no . CARDINAL . The applicant appealed against that decision , but to no avail : on DATE it was upheld by ORG .

DATE . On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL in LOC . He was examined by a commission of doctors , who concluded that he was suffering from bronchial asthma and chronic bronchitis .

The applicant submitted that he had first been placed in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , with CARDINAL other people ; some of them were heavy smokers . He had no individual sleeping place , the table was very small and inmates received no toilet paper . The drinking water tank was broken . On DATE the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to the administration of the remand prison . As a result , he was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL , where the conditions of detention were somewhat better .

NORP Over DATE the applicant was detained in a number of other cells , which were always overcrowded and infested with lice and bugs . In DATE he was detained in a cell measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL other detainees . His DATE physical activity was limited to a walk of TIME in the prison courtyard , under the supervision of guards with Rottweiler dogs .

The applicant produced written statements by his cellmates , who submitted that he had been detained in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the LOC remand prison in DATE ( shortly after his arrest ) , and from DATE until DATE ( after his definite transfer from the GPE remand prison IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . All of them confirmed that the cells were infested with lice and bugs and that the prison administration had done nothing to get rid of them . They also stated that the cell had been overcrowded : thus , in cell no . CARDINAL the applicant had not had an individual sleeping place and there had been CARDINAL seats for CARDINAL or eleven inmates . Though the applicant was sick , he had not received the necessary medicines and had not been examined by a doctor . Their account was confirmed by CARDINAL other inmates who had been detained with the applicant at the relevant time .

On several occasions , DATE and DATE , the applicant was transferred to the GPE detention centre in order to participate in the hearings in ORG . The conditions of detention in the FAC detention centre were even worse than in the Volokolamsk remand prison . Thus , there was no opportunity for any physical exercise , the cells were always overcrowded and badly ventilated , there were no washtubs or seats and the lighting was poor . On each occasion when the applicant was transferred from the remand prison to the detention centre , he had to carry all his personal belongings and documents and travel in smelly , dark and unheated metallic compartments in the prison vans . On CARDINAL occasion the applicant was placed in a cell with repeat offenders and “ ordinary ” criminals . He did not receive proper medical aid and his state of health deteriorated .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the remand prison in LOC to a remand prison in GPE ( no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . On DATE the applicant was transferred to a “ colony - settlement ” in PERSON , to serve the sentence imposed by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in cell no . CARDINAL only once , on DATE of his arrival at remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( on DATE ) . The ORG maintained that cell no . CARDINAL was equipped with a water tank which contained boiled water . In addition , the tap water in the cell was drinkable . The cell measured QUANTITY and had CARDINAL sleeping places .

According to the Government , remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL had CARDINAL sleeping places ( the exact number varied slightly during DATE and DATE ) . The number of inmates had not exceeded the number of sleeping places , except for DATE in DATE .

DATE . In DATE the applicant was detained in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL ( QUANTITY , CARDINAL sleeping places ) , CARDINAL ( QUANTITY , CARDINAL sleeping places ) , CARDINAL ( QUANTITY , CARDINAL sleeping places ) , and then in cell no . QUANTITY again ( in DATE the number of that cell was changed to CARDINAL ) . The number of sleeping places in those cells was reduced after DATE .

The Government produced an official record indicating the number of persons detained in each cell together with the applicant . According to them , the number of inmates was always equal to or lower than the number of sleeping places . The applicant had spent most of the time in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL ( from DATE to DATE ) , and CARDINAL ( or CARDINAL , from CARDINAL DATE until DATE ) . During the period under consideration the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL with CARDINAL other people for fortyfive days , and with CARDINAL other people for DATE . During the remaining time the applicant was detained with CARDINAL other people or fewer . As to cell no . CARDINAL , the applicant was detained for DATE with CARDINAL other people , DATE with CARDINAL other people , DATE with CARDINAL other people , DATE with CARDINAL other people , and the remaining time with CARDINAL other people or fewer . From DATE the number of the applicant 's fellow detainees in cell no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) did not exceed CARDINAL .

The detainees in the remand prison were entitled to a shower once DATE for a duration of TIME . The prison had QUANTITY shower hoses for the detainees .

As to the DATE walks , the Government produced a description of the walking yards . In addition , they produced CARDINAL letters from the governor of the remand prison . In the first letter he had informed the ORG that persons detained in the same cell were taken for a walk together . Consequently , the number of people in the same walking yard always corresponded to the number of people detained in a cell . In the second letter the governor of the remand prison certified that detainees who were conveyed to the courts or to other places were given the possibility of a walk in TIME , before being transferred .

According to the Government , on CARDINAL occasions the applicant was transferred to the LOC detention centre to take part in the proceedings before ORG ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) , and from there back to remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL . In total , he spent DATE in the LOC detention centre . His stays there varied from DATE ; the last stay there was CARDINAL DATE .

The LOC detention centre was built in DATE . It was situated in a semi - basement under the LOC police station . The Government admitted that at the relevant time the detention centre had had no walking yards , which were under construction . The applicant was detained in a single - occupancy cell measuring QUANTITY . The Government produced photos of that cell ( cell no . CARDINAL ) . The cell was “ equipped with a window opening ” measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY . The bed was a wooden deck , QUANTITY from the floor . The cell was also equipped with a toilet with a combined “ sink and toilet plumbing system ” . The toilet was separated from the other parts of the cell by a partition . Heating in the cell was provided by the town 's central heating system . The cell was lit by QUANTITY lamp installed in the wall above the entrance . The cell had a cold - water supply ; in addition , hot water was available in the shower room and in the “ room for warming up food ” . The detainees were given the opportunity to use the shower . The cells were ventilated naturally and through a “ forced exhaust ventilation ” system . The applicant was given bedding . On arrival every detainee received soap and toilet paper .

On DATE the cell was examined by the detention centre 's administration . The examination did not reveal any problems with the sanitary conditions in the cell , which were described as “ satisfactory ” . The administration noted that the cells had been cleaned with disinfectants .

While in detention , the applicant always received the necessary medical aid . Thus , during his stay in remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE the applicant was supervised by a doctor in connection with his bronchial asthma and received “ supportive treatment ” . In DATE the applicant was examined by the doctors in remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL in LOC . They concluded that the applicant was suffering from “ vegetovascular dystonia ” ( autonomic neuropathy ) . The applicant received all the necessary treatment in connection with his diseases .

From DATE the applicant was regularly taken from the remand prison to the court to attend hearings and examine the case file . The transfers usually started at TIME However , in order to be able to wash himself or to go to the toilets , the applicant had to get up earlier , and wait his turn in a queue .

DATE the applicant , together with other detainees , waited for a prison van in a small , seatless and smoky cell in the remand prison . Whilst being transported , the applicant and other detainees were kept in the closed metal rear section of an unheated prison van . The van was so overcrowded that the detainees , some of them with active tuberculosis , had to stand face to face during the transfer . Although , in principle , a prison van should carry CARDINAL to CARDINAL detainees , in fact the applicant 's van carried QUANTITY people on average , convicted criminals as well as suspects .

The van arrived at the courthouse shortly after TIME and the applicant had TIME to examine the case file . In the courthouse he was kept in a “ convoy room ” , which was also overcrowded , unheated and smoke - filled . At QUANTITY the convoy officers collected the detainees from different courts and transported them in a van to a central collection point . There the detainees waited for TIME in the vans to be dispatched to their respective detention facilities . As a result , the applicant often arrived at his detention facility after TIME , although a convoy officer recorded an earlier time in the register of detainees . According to the applicant , he spent an average of TIME in total per day in the van , convoy room and collection point . On several occasions , in particular on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , he was left without food and water for the whole day .

On DATE , DATE after his arrival at remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the applicant wrote a letter to the court in which he described the conditions of his detention in and transfers to and from the courthouse . He submitted that in these circumstances he was unable to examine the case file and prepare his defence properly . He also indicated that the convoy officers had refused to accept any written complaints from him . He sought permission to read the case file in the detention centre . By letters of CARDINAL and DATE the court explained that it had no control over the prison administration and convoy services and that all such complaints should be addressed directly to them . The court further stated that the case file had to be kept in the courthouse , since it contained classified documents and information .

On DATE the applicant wrote a new letter to the court , asking it to provide him with additional time to read the case file . He repeated his complaints about the conditions of his detention and the transfers . He asked the court to order the guards not to handcuff him during the reading of the file .

On DATE , on his way back from the court to the collection point , the applicant was placed in the metal - clad compartment of a prison van with another detainee , a mentally disturbed person . The latter was on his way from ORG to the prison hospital . The compartment was so small that the applicant had to stand on one leg and then the other . After TIME of this very uncomfortable posture , the applicant asked the convoy officers to put him in a different compartment , but they refused . He then knocked on the door of the compartment , repeating his demand . In reply the convoy officers opened the door and hit him with a rubber stick .

Because of the conditions in which he was transported , the applicant had a constant cold , from which he would never have recovered without the medicines sent to him by his relatives . He stated that it was very hard to obtain an appointment with a prison doctor and that the quality of medical aid available in the detention facility was very poor .

The Government specified DATE on which the applicant had been in court . In DATE he had been taken to the court from the remand prison CARDINAL times . In DATE he had been taken to the court CARDINAL times , in DATE QUANTITY times , in DATE times , and in DATE times . In DATE he had CARDINAL visits to the courts per month . After his transfer to remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL he was taken to various courts CARDINAL times .

NORP Under the prison rules the applicant was woken up at TIME Most of the time he was supposed to arrive at the court by TIME The time of his return to the remand prison was not specified , since it varied depending on the circumstances . However , the applicant was always back in the remand prison before TIME ( the “ last post ” hour ) .

Detainees were conveyed from and back to the prisons in prison vans measuring CARDINAL by CARDINAL by CARDINAL ( height ) metres or CARDINAL by CARDINAL by CARDINAL ( height ) metres . The prison vans were designed to hold CARDINAL and QUANTITY people respectively . They had CARDINAL “ shared ” compartments for CARDINAL ( or CARDINAL ) detainees each , CARDINAL ( or CARDINAL , depending on the model ) single - occupancy compartment(s ) , and a compartment for CARDINAL ( or CARDINAL , depending on the model ) prison warders .

The Government maintained that the detainees conveyed from the remand prison to the court were provided with an “ individual DATE ration of food ” , in accordance with the rules in force . The Government referred to a certificate issued by the governor of the remand prison .

Detainees were transported in a separated compartment of the prison vans . According to reports by the CARDINAL chief officers of the unit responsible for transfers , dated CARDINAL and DATE , the number of detainees in the prison vans always corresponded to the rules then in force . The Government referred to photographs of prison vans and plans showing how the detainees were seated inside the vans . The vans corresponded to domestic standards in the field of transporting detainees . During the cold season they were kept TIME in a heated garage . Furthermore , the vans were heated with a heating system using the warmth of the engine . The temperature in the prison vans corresponded to the local regulations ; in this connection , the Government referred to a document issued by the officers in charge . The inside of the vans was washed DATE ; furthermore , the vans were disinfected DATE ( the Government referred to a report of DATE ) .

During his detention in remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL the applicant was taken to the court CARDINAL times ( on the whole , during the period of his detention in different remand prisons the applicant was taken to the court CARDINAL times ) . The average duration of the transfer between remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL and the court was TIME ( for a journey of QUANTITY ) . However , sometimes the convoy used an alternative route which was QUANTITY long .

Cells for the detainees in the court building were “ of standard [ dimensions ] ” , and “ suited different categories of detainees ” . The applicant was detained separately from other detainees . Handcuffs were applied only during embarkation of and disembarkation from the prison van . The detainees in the court cells were provided with boiled water .

In the remand prison there were CARDINAL “ transition cells ” for those being dispatched to other prisons , courts , and so on . Their overall size was QUANTITY .

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , adopted by ORG on ORG and the Treatment of Offenders , held in GPE in DATE and approved by ORG in its resolution CARDINAL C ( XXIV ) of DATE and CARDINAL ( LXII ) of CARDINAL DATE , provide , in particular :

“ CARDINAL . All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health , due regard being paid to climatic conditions and particularly to cubic content of air , minimum floor space , lighting , heating and ventilation ...

In all places where prisoners are required to live or work ,

( a ) The windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light , and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air whether or not there is artificial ventilation ;

( b ) PERSON light shall be provided sufficient for the prisoners to read or work without injury to eyesight .

The sanitary installations shall be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner .

Adequate bathing and shower installations shall be provided so that every prisoner may be enabled and required to have a bath or shower , at a temperature suitable to the climate , as frequently as necessary for general hygiene according to DATE and geographical region , but at least once a week in a temperate climate .

All pans of an institution regularly used by prisoners shall be properly maintained and kept scrupulously clean at all time .

Prisoners shall be required to keep their persons clean , and to this end they shall be provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness ...

Every prisoner shall , in accordance with local or national standards , be provided with a separate bed , and with separate and sufficient bedding which shall be clean when issued , kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness .

( CARDINAL ) Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual TIME with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength , of wholesome quality and well prepared and served .

( CARDINAL ) Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it .

( CARDINAL ) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have TIME of suitable exercise in the open air DATE if the weather permits .

( CARDINAL ) The transport of prisoners in conveyances with inadequate ventilation or light , or in any way which would subject them to unnecessary physical hardship , shall be prohibited ... ”

The relevant extracts from the General Reports prepared by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) state :

“ CARDINAL . Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG 's mandate . All the services and activities within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate ; the overall quality of life in the establishment will be lowered , perhaps significantly . Moreover , the level of overcrowding in a prison , or in a particular part of it , might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint .

A satisfactory programme of activities ( work , education , sport , etc . ) is of crucial importance for the well - being of prisoners ... Prisoners can not simply be left to languish for DATE , possibly DATE , locked up in their cells , and this regardless of how good material conditions might be within the cells . The ORG considers that one should aim at ensuring that prisoners in remand establishments are able to spend a reasonable part of DATE ( TIME or more ) outside their cells , engaged in purposeful activity of a varied nature ...

Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise . The requirement that prisoners be allowed TIME of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard ... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities should be reasonably spacious ...

Ready access to proper toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane environment ...

The ORG would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding , poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet / washing facilities in the same establishment . The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners .

It is also very important for prisoners to maintain reasonably good contact with the outside world . Above all , a prisoner must be given the means of safeguarding his relationships with his family and close friends . The guiding principle should be the promotion of contact with the outside world ; any limitations upon such contact should be based exclusively on security concerns of an appreciable nature or resource considerations ... ”

“ CARDINAL . As the ORG pointed out in DATE ORG , prison overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG 's mandate ( cf . ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) . An overcrowded prison entails cramped and unhygienic accommodation ; a constant lack of privacy ( even when performing such basic tasks as using a sanitary facility ) ; reduced out - of - cell activities , due to demand outstripping the staff and facilities available ; overburdened health - care services ; increased tension and hence more violence between prisoners and between prisoners and staff . This list is far from exhaustive .

The ORG has been led to conclude on CARDINAL occasion that the adverse effects of overcrowding have resulted in inhuman and degrading conditions of detention ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The phenomenon of prison overcrowding continues to blight penitentiary systems across LOC and seriously undermines attempts to improve conditions of detention . The negative effects of prison overcrowding have already been highlighted in previous ORG ...

In a number of countries visited by the ORG , particularly in central and eastern LOC , inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a DATE basis , such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities . The ORG has objections to the very principle of such accommodation arrangements in closed prisons and those objections are reinforced when , as is frequently the case , the dormitories in question are found to hold prisoners under extremely cramped and insalubrious conditions ... Large - capacity dormitories inevitably imply a lack of privacy for prisoners in their everyday lives ... All these problems are exacerbated when the numbers held go beyond a reasonable occupancy level ; further , in such a situation the excessive burden on communal facilities such as washbasins or lavatories and the insufficient ventilation for so many persons will often lead to deplorable conditions .

The ORG frequently encounters devices , such as metal shutters , slats , or plates fitted to cell windows , which deprive prisoners of access to natural light and prevent fresh air from entering the accommodation . They are a particularly common feature of establishments holding pre - trial prisoners . The ORG fully accepts that specific security measures designed to prevent the risk of collusion and/or criminal activities may well be required in respect of certain prisoners ... Even when such measures are required , they should never involve depriving the prisoners concerned of natural light and fresh air . The latter are basic elements of life which every prisoner is entitled to enjoy ... ”

NORP Under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , a judge 's ruling remanding a person in custody ( detention order ) may be appealed against to a higher court within DATE from the date on which the ruling was given . A judge of the appellate court ( кассационная инстанция ) must give a decision on any such complaint or representation within DATE of the date of its receipt .

Appellate procedure in general is governed by ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW . Pursuant to LAW , all appeals must be lodged with the court which delivered the decision at issue . Under LAW , that court keeps the case file until the expiry of the timelimits for the appeal . Under LAW , after having received an appeal , the court must send a copy of it to the other parties , invite them to submit written replies and set the time - limits for any replies , where appropriate . Article CARDINAL provides that the overall length of the examination of the appeal may not exceed DATE from DATE when the case file is received by the court of appeal .


No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 12

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE , respectively . The first applicant is in prison ( FAC , PERSON ) and the second applicant lives in Hull .

In DATE the first applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of DATE . He is imprisoned in a private prison and his earliest expected release date is DATE . He has no children .

In DATE he met the second applicant , while she was also imprisoned , by correspondence through a prison pen pal network . She has since been released , although it is not clear when . In DATE the applicants married . The second applicant already had CARDINAL children from other relationships .

NORP Since the applicants wished to have a child , in DATE the first applicant applied for facilities for artificial insemination . In DATE the second applicant joined this application . Their solicitors made representations to the Secretary of ORG , relying on the length of the relationship and the fact that , given the first applicant ’s earliest release date and the second applicant ’s age , it was unlikely that the applicants would be able to have a child together without the use of artificial insemination facilities .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the Secretary of ORG refused their application . He first set out his general policy ( “ the policy ” ) :

“ Requests for artificial insemination by prisoners are carefully considered on individual merit and will only be granted in exceptional circumstances . In reaching decisions particular attention is given to the following general considerations :

- whether the provision of AI facilities is the only means by which conception is likely to occur

- whether the prisoner ’s expected day of release is neither so near that delay would not be excessive nor so distant that he / she would be unable to assume the responsibilities of a parent

- whether both parties want the procedure and the medical authorities both inside and outside the prison are satisfied that the couple are medically fit to proceed with AI

- whether the couple were in a well established and stable relationship prior to imprisonment which is likely to subsist after the prisoner ’s release

- whether there is any evidence to suggest that the couple ’s domestic circumstances and the arrangements for the welfare of the child are satisfactory , including the length of time for which the child might expect to be without a father or mother

- whether having regard to the prisoner ’s history , antecedents and other relevant factors there is evidence to suggest that it would not be in the public interest to provide artificial insemination facilities in a particular case . ”

He then gave his reasons for refusal in the present case . On the one hand , the second applicant would be DATE at the earliest possible date of release of the first applicant so that the likelihood of her being able to conceive naturally was small . Both applicants were also in full agreement about their wish to conceive artificially . However , on the other hand , and in the first place , the relationship was established while they were in prison and had not been tested in the normal environment of DATE life . Secondly , there was insufficient provision in place to provide independently for the material welfare of any child which might be conceived . Thirdly , there was little in the way of an immediate support network in place for the mother and any child which might be conceived . Fourthly , any child would be without a father for an important part of its childhood years . Fifthly , in light of the violence of the first applicant ’s crime , there would be legitimate public concern that the punitive and deterrent elements of his sentence of imprisonment were being circumvented if he were allowed to father a child by artificial insemination .

The applicants sought leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of ORG ’s decision . On DATE the ORG refused leave on the papers . The applicants renewed their application and on DATE leave was again refused after an oral hearing . On DATE the applicants introduced an application to this ORG and it was declared inadmissible in DATE on the basis that they had failed to exhaust domestic remedies ( App . No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The applicants then applied to ORG for leave to appeal .

On DATE their application was unanimously rejected by ORG . ORG relied in principle on the judgment of ORG in R ( PERSON ) v Secretary of ORG for ORG ( [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL ) . He pointed to the similarity of the arguments put by the applicants in the present case and in the PERSON case . ORG relied on the conclusion of Lord PERSON in the PERSON case ( see “ Relevant Domestic Law and Practice ” below ) and commented :

“ ... Lord PERSON clearly had in mind , and he set it out in the course of his judgment , the provisions of LAW setting out various matters that may justify interference with the right to respect for private and family life , including the protection of health or morals and the protection of the rights and freedom of others . It seems to me that concern , not only for the public attitude to the exercise by prisoners of certain rights in prison which they would take for granted outside , and concern for the rights of a putative child in the upbringing it would receive depending on the circumstances and the length of the imprisonment involved , are highly relevant circumstances for the purposes of LAW

Accordingly , in my view , it is not open to [ the applicants ] to seek to re - open the validity of the Secretary of ORG ’s policy which this court has held in PERSON is rational and otherwise lawful . As Lord PERSON made clear in his judgment in that case , although the starting point of the policy is that deprivation of facilities for artificial insemination may prevent conception altogether , the finishing point is whether there are exceptional circumstances for not applying the policy ... ”

He then noted that on occasions the Secretary of ORG had “ dis - applied the policy ” when the circumstances had merited it : he referred to a letter from the ORG Solicitor to the applicants which apparently demonstrated this fact and pointed out that counsel for the Secretary of ORG had informed the court that there had been other such instances .

Auld LJ then applied the policy to the present case :

“ To the extent that [ the applicants have ] suggested that he Secretary of ORG has irrationally misapplied his own policy to the circumstances , or has otherwise acted disproportionately in applying it , I would reject the suggestion . There is no basis for saying that the Secretary of ORG ’s approach can be equated , as [ the applicants ] suggested , with the extinction of a fundamental right . It was a weighing of the starting point of the policy against the other considerations for which the policy itself provided , an exercise of discretion and proportionality in respect of which , in my view , the Secretary of ORG can not be faulted on the circumstances as presented to him . ”

NORP The other judges also relied on the judgment in PERSON . PERSON said the following :

“ The case of PERSON is also clear authority that considerations and potential consequences of public interest over and above a narrow view of the requirements of good order and security in prison can play a role in a decision whether or not to permit such artificial insemination ... I note that , in addition to the NORP authorities specifically mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL by Lord PERSON , the Commission , in its decision in PERSON v ORG App No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL at DATE , also recognised the potential relevance of more general considerations of public interest . ”

NORP The Secretary of ORG is empowered to make rules for the management of prisons by LAW of FAC , DATE , which , in so far as material , provides as follows :

“ The Secretary of ORG may make rules for the regulation and management of prisons ... and for the classification , treatment , employment , discipline and control of persons required to be detained therein ... ”

The relevant rules are the Prison Rules DATE ( SI DATE No CARDINAL ) . Rule CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ Outside Contacts

( CARDINAL ) Special attention shall be paid to the maintenance of such relationships between a prisoner and his family as are desirable in the best interests of both .

( CARDINAL ) A prisoner shall be encouraged and assisted to establish and maintain such relations with persons and agencies outside prison as may , in the opinion of the governor , best promote the interests of his family and his own social rehabilitation . ”

The long standing policy of the prison service , set out above in the letter of Secretary of ORG of CARDINAL DATE was challenged by a Mr PERSON , a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder . He was DATE of age at the time his case came before ORG with a minimum of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment to serve . His wife was CARDINAL of age . At his earliest release she would have been CARDINAL . He and his wife had been refused artificial insemination facilities : it was considered that there was nothing exceptional about their case .

They challenged the policy rather than its application to their case arguing that it was an unjustified interference with their LAW . They distinguished that policy from the policy on conjugal visits : the latter gave rise to pragmatic ( security ) concerns whereas artificial insemination did not . The Government argued that the policy was justified : ( a ) it was an explicit consequence of imprisonment that prisoners should not have the opportunity to found a family ; ( b ) there would likely be serious and justified public concern if prisoners continued to have the opportunity to conceive children while in prison ; and ( c ) it was undesirable , as a general rule , for children to be brought up in single parent families .

ORG considered , while the first reason did no more than restate the policy , the second and third reasons were legitimate justifications for the policy . In giving judgment for the court , Lord PERSON said ( at DATE ff ) :

“ [ The Secretary of ORG ] submitted that this passage demonstrated that public perception was a legitimate element of penal policy . I agree . GPE sanctions are imposed , in part , to exact retribution for wrongdoing . If there were no system of penal sanctions , members of the public would be likely to take the law into their own hands . In my judgment it is legitimate to have regard to public perception when considering the characteristics of a penal system .

Furthermore , [ the applicants’ ] submissions did not recognise the significance of the word “ justified ” in the phrase “ justified public concern ” . A policy which accorded to prisoners in general the right to beget children by artificial insemination would , I believe , raise difficult ethical questions and give rise to legitimate public concern ...

... [ the applicants ] submitted that [ the disadvantage of single parent families ] was not a material consideration when formulating prison policy ... Again , I do not agree . By imprisoning the husband the ORG creates the situation where , if the wife is to have a child , that child will , until the husband ’s release , be brought up in a single parent family . I consider it legitimate , and indeed desirable , that the ORG should consider the implications of children being brought up in those circumstances when deciding whether or not to have a general policy of facilitating the artificial insemination of the wives of prisoners or of wives who are themselves prisoners .

For those reasons [ the applicants have ] failed to make out his case that the Secretary of ORG ’s policy only to facilitate artificial insemination in exceptional circumstances is irrational . [ The applicants ] accepted that there were in this case no exceptional circumstances , and [ they were ] right to do so . ”

For those reasons the court concluded that the policy was not a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ rights under LAW . Lord PERSON remarked that , for any applicant claiming exceptional circumstances , the normal “ starting point ” should be the need to demonstrate that , if facilities for artificial insemination were not provided , conception would not just be delayed but prevented altogether .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE .

On DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings before ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT , MONEY ) for the death of a family member in a car accident .

DATE the applicants lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and requests that a date be set for a hearing .

On DATE a hearing was held and the first - instance court delivered a partial judgement . All CARDINAL defending parties appealed .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) delivered a judgment upholding the appeal in part . An appeal on points of law was lodged against the rejected part of the appeal by CARDINAL of the defending parties .

On DATE ORG Vrhovno sodišče ) rejected the appeal on points of law and the proceedings continued before the first - instance court .

On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment upholding the applicants ' claim in part . An appeal was lodged .

On DATE ORG issued a judgment upholding the appeal in part . An appeal on points of law was lodged .

On DATE ORG upheld the appeal on points of law in part and changed the second - instance judgment . The judgment was served on the applicants on DATE .


The applicants are Mr B. PERSON , Ms A. LAW ( on behalf of the Tolvsnäs & PERSON fiskelag ) , Mr J .- H. Lindqvist ( on behalf of the PERSON fiskelag ) , Mr PERSON GPE ( on behalf of the GPE fiskelag ) , PERSON V. PERSON ( on behalf of the PERSON fiskelag ) , Mr B. PERSON ( on behalf of the PERSON fiskelag ) , Mr PERSON Knuts ( on behalf of the PERSON kyrkoby fiskelag ) , PERSON T.Ylitalo ( on behalf of the GPE kalastuskunta ) , Mr P. ORG on behalf of the Iso - Säkylän kalastuskunta ) , Ms L. PERSON , Ms K. LOC , Mr K .- H. PERSON ( on his own and on behalf of a company called PERSON ) , PERSON Å. PERSON , Ms B. PERSON , PERSON H. Isaksson , Mr J. Isaksson , PERSON , Ms A. Jansson , Mr S. Jansson ( the CARDINAL last mentioned on their own and on the behalf of NORP stugor och fisk ) , PERSON J. Ylitalo , Mr PERSON , Ms PERSON ( the CARDINAL last mentioned on their own and on behalf of PERSON ) and PERSON E. Eela ( on behalf of the Pyhäjärven kalastuskunta ) . The individual applicants are NORP nationals and the association applicants are statutory local fishing associations ( kalastuskunta , fiskelag ) . All the applicants are represented before the ORG by Mr M. Fredman , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

LAW ( kalastuslaki , lag om fiske ) , as amended on DATE , provides that fishing with hand - held tackle is a public right as everyone who has paid the lure - fishing fee to the ORG is allowed to fish with hand - held tackle also in privately owned water areas . Pursuant to the same amendment , fishing with hook and line as well as ice - fishing are rights guaranteed to everyone . With the amendment , the owner of a water area lost his exclusive right to control fishing , and the amount of fishing licenses , in his water area .

According to the LAW as amended , the fees for the right to fish with a hand - held tackle are now paid to the ORG . This system replacing the earlier one , in which the owner of a water area himself received the fees paid for the fishing licenses . However , the income from the fees paid for the right to fish with a hand - held tackle are , after the ORG has deducted its expenses for collecting the fees , reimbursed to the owners of the fishing waters as compensation for the fishing with hand - held tackle in their waters . If the reimbursement for an individual owner of a water area is less than ORG CARDINAL , the amount is reimbursed to the local fishing association .

According to the old LAW , everyone who was DATE and wanted to fish or crayfish , had to pay - in addition to the local fishing license - an DATE payment of ORG to the ORG for the maintenance of the fishing waters .

The applicants are owners of water areas and local fishing associations . Some of the individual applicants are professional fishermen , who fear for their income as everyone is now entitled to fish in their fishing waters . Others are individuals who , due to the amendment of LAW , have lost income which they used to earn by selling fishing licenses , by renting their water areas to fishing associations , and so on . The applicant associations have lost their income by losing their right to receive payments for fishing licenses . According to the applicants , their income from the fishing licenses and related sources in DATE has been QUANTITY per year per applicant . Some of the fishing associations have , however , earned up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL per year for selling fishing licenses .

By virtue of LAW , the individual owners of fishery waters form a fishing association . Fishing associations are members of ORG kalastusalue , fiskeområde ) . Activities of Fishing Areas are directed and supervised by LOC ( kalastuspiiri , fiskeridistrikt ) , which are authorities subject to ORG ( maa- ja metsätalousministeriö , jord- och skogsbruksministeriet ) .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LANGUAGE .

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

On DATE the applicant 's employment with ORG was terminated . He challenged the school 's decision before ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed his action . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision . The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG . On DATE the review bench of ORG finally dismissed his action . The applicant requested its re - opening , but to no avail .

NORP In DATE the applicant , transporting medical equipment in his lorry , was halted at the GPE border . While he was completing the necessary documents , the contents of his lorry were robbed . Purportedly in order to clarify the events , the GPE authorities took the applicant into custody for DATE , after which he was allowed to return to GPE .

On DATE the applicant initiated a civil action in ORG against a GPE official who had participated in the above events .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his case had been registered as a claim for compensation . In view of the fact that the case file had meanwhile been lost , it requested him to reproduce certain documents .

On DATE the applicant again submitted his action .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to state his financial situation with a view to determining his request for legal aid . On DATE the applicant submitted the necessary documents .

The case is still pending before ORG .

In DATE the applicant 's luggage was lost during his flight to GPE . The applicant unsuccessfully requested the airline to compensate him .

On DATE the applicant brought an action in compensation against the company . On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that that case file had been lost and requested him to reproduce certain documents .

The case is apparently is still pending before ORG .