The applicant , a NORP citizen born in DATE , is a businessman residing in GPE in GPE . Before the ORG he is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON in GPE .

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

On DATE at approximately CARDINALhCARDINAL , the applicant was driving on a motorway in GPE in the direction of GPE . At CARDINAL stage , when driving on the left lane , he noted a neutral car behind him which kept coming up towards him and then falling back again . The applicant felt endangered ; as he could not move to the right lane , he decided to accelerate , though the car behind him did the same . Eventually , the applicant was able to move to the right lane and then leave the motorway at the next exit . Still the car followed him . It suddenly overtook him and the co - driver held a police - signal out of the window , ordering him to stop .

The applicant stopped and realised that the persons in the car were CARDINAL policemen . He was accompanied to a motorway stop where he was told that he had exceeded the speed limit of QUANTITY by an average of QUANTITY would be fined MONEY ( CHF ) . The applicant was shown a video film of his driving which the policemen had recorded from their car while following him . The applicant pointed out that he had been followed for a longer period of time ; originally he had driven at QUANTITY / h and had been pressed by the car to drive more quickly . The police replied that they had had to follow him for a certain stretch in order to obtain valid readings . The readings concerned a stretch of QUANTITY .

The applicant did not pay the fine and signed the police report .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) issued a penal order ( PERSON ) sentencing the applicant to DATE imprisonment , suspended on probation , and a fine of QUANTITY for having exceeded the speed limit by QUANTITY

Throughout the ensuing proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer .

Upon the applicant 's objection , ORG ) requested ORG ( Bezirksgericht ) to punish the applicant with DATE imprisonment and a fine of CARDINAL .

On DATE the ORG summoned the applicant and police officer PERSON ( the co - driver ) to the trial . The invitation was sent to the applicant 's previous address in GPE in GPE by means of letters rogatory ( PERSON ) , though the invitation could not be served as the applicant had meanwhile moved to GPE .

At the hearing on DATE the applicant was absent , and considered not to have provided an excuse herefor . At the hearing police officer PERSON was heard , explaining inter alia the video - system used , his experience in such matters , and that the applicant had driven at QUANTITY / h . The police officer submitted CARDINAL photos which were taken from the video film . The photos register inter alia the speed of the applicant ’s car . On CARDINAL photos there is a distance of QUANTITY between the applicant and the police car , often with ample free space on the right lane on the motorway ; and on the twelfth and last picture the police car had come closer to the applicant ’s car in order to film the applicant ’s number plate .

At the hearing , hand written TIME of police officer PERSON were submitted according to which the applicant had overtaken the police car at a speed of just below QUANTITY The minutes also noted : " he has allegedly been chased by the police " ( " er sei durch Pol . gejagt worden " ) . This statement was apparently not included in the subsequent typed TIME of the hearing .

The summons to the applicant for a new hearing on DATE could not be served on him either .

On DATE the ORG President issued a warrant of arrest against the applicant in order " to secure his presence at the trial " ( " Sicherung der Hauptverhandlung " ) . The applicant was arrested on DATE when entering GPE . He then withdrew his objection against the penal order of DATE . As a result , ORG struck the case off its list .

The applicant filed an appeal which was upheld by ORG ) of the GPE of GPE on DATE which found , inter alia , that the applicant had not been absent at the hearing of DATE by his own fault .

Proceedings were resumed before ORG which fixed a new trial for DATE . As the applicant only received the invitation on DATE , a new hearing was fixed for DATE . The applicant challenged the President of ORG , whereupon the Deputy President presided .

At the hearing , the applicant unsuccessfully requested to question the second police officer ( the driver ) and to be shown the entire video film .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment , suspended on probation , and a fine of QUANTITY . In its decision the ORG found that the video film clearly demonstrated the excess in speed , and there was no indication that the registration system was faulty . In view thereof and of PERSON 's statement of DATE , the ORG refused to hear the other police officer . The ORG also found that the applicant , who alleged that he had been pressed by the police , had been able to comment on PERSON 's statements .

On DATE the applicant challenged the Deputy ORG President in view of the manner in which he had conducted the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal in which he requested , inter alia , to be shown the entire video film leading to his conviction , and to be able to put questions to both police officers .

The appeal was dismissed by ORG of the GPE of GPE on DATE . The ORG , which had the competence to decide on both the factual and legal issues of the case , relied in its decision , inter alia , on statements of police officer PERSON as to the events . The ORG found that CARDINAL particular statement of PERSON was an incorrect assessment , namely that a police car regularly drove QUANTITY behind a car when the speed exceeded QUANTITY / h ; in fact the pictures demonstrated that the police had driven QUANTITY behind the applicant .

In respect of the applicant 's requests for the taking of evidence , ORG found that the applicant had been shown CARDINAL pictures of the video film which sufficed to demonstrate that he had exceeded the speed limit , and that he had not been pressed by the police . The gaps of TIME between the pictures were too short to prove otherwise . For the same reason the police officers need not be heard , and their statements would not alter the ORG 's opinion . Indeed , even if the police had pressed the applicant , this would not justify the excess in speed . In any event , police officer PERSON had been heard , and his statement had been shown to the applicant .

The applicant ’s public law appeal ( staatsrechtliche Beschwerde ) and plea of nullity ( PERSON ) were dismissed by ORG on DATE , the decision being served on DATE . In its decision the ORG found that the applicant had not shown that ORG had acted arbitrarily . Thus , even if it was accepted that the police car had pressed him by coming up towards him and falling back again this would not help him , as he would then have had periods where he would have reduced his speed . In respect of the applicant 's complaint about the alleged bias of ORG , ORG found that the decision of ORG would have healed any such shortcoming .

Under the headline " disciplinary punishment " , ORG stated that the applicant 's appeals clearly lacked prospects of success in view of the convincing reasons given by ORG of the GPE of LOC in its decision . The decision continues :

< Translation >

" The long - winded statements in his plea of nullity and in large parts also in his public law appeal are not reasonable . The applicant 's representative shall therefore be admonished in accordance with DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . "


Violations of Art. 6-1 (lack of oral and adversarial hearing);No violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was arrested in GPE on DATE by the police officers from ORG of ORG , on suspicion of being a member of the ORG . She was kept in police custody until DATE .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE , right after her release from police custody , the applicant went to a private hospital to be treated . According to the medical reports dated DATE and DATE , drafted by the doctors who were involved in her treatment , the applicant stayed in the hospital for DATE as she was suffering from hyper - tension . Moreover , it was also noted that she was diagnosed with neurotic anxiety . It was suggested for her to rest for DATE .

On DATE ORG at ORG dropped the charges against the applicant , on the ground of lack of evidence .

On DATE , invoking Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the Law No . CARDINAL , the applicant brought an action before ORG against the ORG , requesting compensation for her unlawful arrest and detention which lasted DATE . She claimed CARDINAL NORP Liras ( GPE ) to compensate for her non - pecuniary damages and CARDINAL GPE for her hospital expenses .

On DATE , after consulting the written opinion of ORG , ORG held that the applicant be awarded compensation for her hospital expenses and CARDINAL GPE for her non - pecuniary damages , calculated on the basis of her personal , financial and social status .

The applicant and the treasury both appealed against the award . The applicant contended on appeal that the amount of compensation was insufficient for her wrongful arrest and detention . The ORG considered that the amount awarded was excessive .

On DATE ORG submitted his opinion on the merits of both parties ' appeals . He advised the court to quash the first - instance judgment . He held that the expenses incurred in a private hospital should not be reimbursed . Moreover , in view of the relevant case law , he considered the compensation awarded for non - pecuniary damages to be excessive .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment on the ground that ORG rendered its decision without first establishing whether the applicant 's hyper - tension was caused by her detention in police custody .

On DATE the court decided to obtain medical opinion concerning the cause of applicant 's illness . Moreover , ORG was asked for his written observations on the applicant 's claim .

CARDINAL medical reports , dated DATE and DATE and drafted by the doctors who treated the applicant , were submitted with ORG . They confirmed the fact that the applicant was hospitalised in DATE for DATE and that she was diagnosed with hyper - tension and neurotic anxiety which were aggravated due to the detention conditions .

On DATE the court questioned the CARDINAL doctors who were responsible for the applicant 's treatment . The doctors confirmed that both the hyper - tension and the neurotic anxiety were health problems of which the applicant must have suffered well before her detention period . However , they also confirmed the aggravating effect of the detention conditions on these illnesses . The court requested ORG at ORG to examine the case file and submit its comments .

On DATE the third specialization committee of ORG concluded that they were unable to determine for certain whether the hyper - tension and the neurotic anxiety were the applicant 's existing health problems prior to her detention in police custody . It therefore referred the case file to a different committee of ORG .

According to the fourth specialization committee 's report of DATE , which was submitted to the court on DATE , both the hyper - tension and the neurotic anxiety were not caused by detention conditions .

On DATE , in view of the report dated DATE , ORG held that the applicant be awarded only compensation for non - pecuniary damages . In light of the facts of the case and having considered the applicant 's financial and social status , as well as the intensity of her emotional suffering , the court awarded the applicant CARDINAL GPE by way of compensation for her non - pecuniary damages

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment , claiming that she must have been awarded both pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages together with the interest . She further requested ORG to hold a hearing .

NORP In his written submissions of CARDINAL DATE ORG at ORG recommended to the court to dismiss the applicant 's claims as well as her request for a hearing . It argued that the applicant 's case did not concern a criminal issue which would require holding a hearing at the appeal level . The public prosecutor , nevertheless , advised the court to quash the decision of ORG for procedural reasons .

On DATE ORG followed the opinion of ORG and quashed the decision of ORG .

On DATE the case was resumed before ORG . ORG advised the court to reject the applicant 's claim for pecuniary damages and grant her compensation for her nonpecuniary damages .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG awarded the applicant CARDINAL GPE of non - pecuniary damages together with interest .

On DATE , reiterating her previous reasons , the applicant appealed against the judgment . On DATE ORG at ORG recommended to the court to uphold the decision of the criminal court .

On DATE ORG , having regard , inter alia , to the opinion of ORG , upheld the judgment of DATE .

According to information submitted by the ORG , the applicant never applied to obtain the compensation awarded to her by ORG .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALV ) .


Violation of Art. 10;Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the lack of independence and impartiality;Not necessary to examine other complaints under Art. 6;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is a lawyer practising in GPE . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is a member of ORG ( ORG Sendikası ) . The third applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in PERSON . She is a lecturer at ORG of ORG . The fourth applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is a lawyer practising in GPE . The fifth applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is a member of ORG ( PERSON ) .

The edition dated DATE of the newspaper “ ORG Söz ” and the edition dated DATE of the newspaper “ NORP ” carried a press statement drafted by a delegation which included the applicants , CARDINAL former NORP parliamentarians , PERSON and ORG , and QUANTITY representatives of various political parties and democratic public organisations .

The press statement which appeared in the newspapers read as follows :

“ The NORP nation has enhanced its honourable struggle for its claim to the right to a humane existence . The ORG , which is a party to the problem , has suddenly carried its war mechanism to the region so as to suppress this legitimate struggle by violence .

DATE , DATE of the ORG festival , was declared to the press as the official starting date of the large - scale operation by the President , the Chief of Staff and the Under Secretary of ORG . The covert war in Şırnak , PERSON and PERSON came to light with the images of tanks , armoured carriers and helicopters shown on television . After the mountains , which have been under bombardment since DATE , it is now the civilian population which is being bombed .

The civilians who celebrated ORG in LANGUAGE , PERSON , PERSON and other places where incidents occurred , did not attack or open fire on security forces . That no members of security forces had been killed by gunfire during the PERSON celebrations was confirmed by official declarations .

For the time being , the consequences of the war are CARDINAL dead , CARDINAL of wounded , CARDINAL of disappeared persons , CARDINAL of detentions , burials in collective graves reminiscent of genocide and bombed , destroyed and burnt - down houses .

The security forces lack humane and judicial values . During the incidents , the transport of the injured was hindered , the vehicles carrying injured people were fired on , the health professionals and the relatives of the wounded who tried to help were threatened . Journalists , who tried to observe the incidents , were not allowed to enter the settlement units . They were also threatened , harassed and killed .

The Government can not control the ORG . Laws are not respected in the region . LAW to which the ORG is a party do not apply to this war . The conditions for the application of the DATE LAW exist . We invite the parties to this war to conform to the provisions of LAW .

We invite the public not to be onlookers to the massacre but to act in solidarity with the NORP People who are exposed to massacre and whose rights are violated . ”

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG initiated criminal proceedings against the applicants and CARDINAL other individuals who had signed the press statement . Citing the text of the press statement , the public prosecutor charged them with incitement to hatred and hostility by making distinctions between persons on the basis of ethnic origin . The public prosecutor requested ORG to apply Articles CARDINAL § § CARDINAL of LAW and LAW DATE .

NORP The public prosecutor submitted his observations during the proceedings and requested the court to sever the case of Mr GPE GPE from the others , to acquit GPE , ORG and GPE , and to apply LAW and LAW DATE to the remaining accused persons .

In the proceedings before ORG , the applicants and the other co - accused did not deny that they had drafted the press statement . However , they claimed that the statement was not the same in content as the CARDINAL which had been published in the newspapers and which formed the basis of the charges against them . They submitted that the public prosecutor had relied on another press statement drafted by the parliamentarians , Mr Hatip Dicle and PERSON . They also maintained that their press statement had not been included in the case file and , accordingly , they could not be convicted on the basis of the content of their own press statement .

On DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges including a military judge , accepted the applicants’ defence as well as that of their co - accused . They were all acquitted of the charges .

On DATE the public prosecutor appealed to ORG which , on DATE , upheld the acquittal of GPE , GPE and GPE , but quashed the acquittal of the applicants and other co - accused . The case was remitted to ORG .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicants and CARDINAL of their co - accused of incitement to hatred on the basis of a distinction between regions under LAW of LAW . The court first sentenced them to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and a fine of FAC . The court noted that the press statement in question was a summary of the declaration which the accused had drafted . However , having regard to the fact that the applicants and their co - accused had no previous convictions and to their good conduct during the trial , the court suspended their sentences .

The applicants and their co - accused appealed against their conviction . On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal . It upheld ORG assessment of the evidence and its reasons for dismissing the applicants’ defence .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments : PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and DATE , DATE ) , PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Following the applicant 's unlawful detention for DATE and then his acquittal , on an unspecified date in DATE he brought an action against ORG , seeking compensation for wrongful prosecution .

On DATE the ORG ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him CARDINAL Moldovan lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) . On DATE ORG issued an enforcement warrant . The judgment was not appealed against and after DATE it became final and enforceable .

On DATE a Bailiff of the Edineţ District sent the enforcement warrant to a Bailiff of LOC .

In DATE , after the case had been communicated to the Government , the judgment was enforced .

The relevant domestic law was set out in GPE v. GPE ( no . MONEY , ECHR CARDINALIII ( extracts ) ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( no . FAC , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The Civil Code of DATE reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Default interest is payable for delayed execution of pecuniary obligations . Default interest shall be PERCENT above the interest rate provided for in LAW [ ORG refinancing interest rate ] unless the law or the contract provides otherwise . Proof that less damage has been incurred shall be admissible .

( CARDINAL ) NORP In non consumer - related situations default interest shall be PERCENT above the interest rate provided for in LAW unless the law or the contract provides otherwise . Proof that less damage has been incurred shall be inadmissible . ”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC , GPE .

The applicant has been suffering from epilepsy since his early childhood . More recently he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and other serious mental disorders . Prior to his detention , he had attempted to commit suicide and had received in - patient treatment in a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE FAC ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of committing robbery and battery . Subsequently , the applicant 's pretrial detention was extended by ORG in decisions of DATE and DATE , and by ORG in decisions of CARDINAL June and DATE .

On being taken into detention , the applicant was committed to an unspecified remand centre , presumably ORG .

On DATE he was taken to a ORG psychiatric hospital in PERSON experiencing intensive auditory hallucinations of a psychotic nature . He remained there for DATE .

On DATE the applicant was committed to ORG but on DATE he was transferred to ORG for observation . On CARDINAL or DATE the applicant was transferred back to FAC and he remained there until DATE .

During his detention in FAC the applicant was taking psychotropic medicines and he was examined by a psychiatrist on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE . In addition , the applicant was under the constant supervision of a psychologist who examined him on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . Finally , the applicant was examined by a prison general practitioner in connection with dermatological problems , coughs , backaches and gastrological disorders .

From DATE until DATE the applicant was detained in ORG .

On DATE he was again taken to ORG experiencing auditory hallucinations and suicidal thoughts . On DATE the applicant 's condition stabilised . He was prescribed medicines and returned to ORG . It was suggested that he should remain under psychiatric supervision .

On DATE at TIME the applicant attempted to hang himself in FAC . He was rescued by his fellow cellmates . Immediately afterwards he was examined by the in - house doctor , who did not find any injuries .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG . Because of the lack of places , he was transported to ORG , where he was examined by doctors . The applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia and it was suggested that he remain under psychiatric supervision . Nevertheless , the applicant was not admitted to the hospital as there was no room . As a result , he was taken back to ORG .

During his remaining time in FAC the applicant claimed that he had experienced hallucinations . He received regular pharmacological treatment , including psychotropic medicines . DATE he was examined CARDINAL times by a psychiatrist or a general practitioner .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC .

On his admission to ORG the applicant was examined by a neurologist . The examination did not confirm that the applicant suffered from the disorders which he had described , such as epilepsy , hallucinations and anxiety ; nevertheless , the doctor prescribed pharmacological treatment and ordered a psychiatric consultation and observation .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist . He complained that he was suffering from insomnia and auditory hallucinations . Moreover , he claimed to have been followed and spied on by his cellmates . The doctor prescribed a drug to treat the applicant 's schizophrenia and ordered that he should remain under the supervision of a psychiatrist .

On DATE the applicant missed his appointment with a psychiatrist but he was examined DATE . On DATE he was examined by a general practitioner and on DATE once more by a psychiatrist . During the latter visit , the applicant declared that he was well .

Subsequently , DATE and DATE the applicant was examined CARDINAL times by doctors with different specialities , including a psychiatrist and a neurosurgeon .

It appears that from DATE until DATE the applicant was hospitalised in a prison psychiatric ward .

From DATE until CARDINAL or CARDINAL DATE he was again detained in FAC . On DATE of his release the applicant declared that he was well and had not been experiencing any hallucinations lately .

On DATE the applicant was again committed to FAC . He has been detained there to DATE .

The parties ' statements relating to the conditions of the applicant 's detention are , to a large extent , contradictory .

In FAC , from DATE until DATE , the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL and from DATE until DATE in cell no . DATE . Both cells measured QUANTITY .

The Government did not provide any information as to the number of detainees sharing cells with the applicant . They submitted , however , that FAC had faced the problem of overcrowding ; indeed , its governor decided to reduce the statutory minimum standard of QUANTITY per person . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE a penitentiary judge was informed about the Governor 's decision .

The Government also submitted that in FAC each of the applicant 's cells had had an annex with a toilet cubicle and a washbasin . That area was separated from the rest of the cell and offered privacy . Detainees were supplied with toiletries and bed linen was changed once DATE . The window surface in each of the applicant 's cells was QUANTITY . The applicant was allowed to take a shower once a week . The shower room had CARDINAL shower heads . CARDINAL people were allowed inside and they showered in CARDINAL groups on a rotation basis .

In the ORG 's submission the applicant had been allowed to have TIME of outdoor exercise in CARDINAL of QUANTITY , CARDINAL of which measured CARDINAL and QUANTITY . The applicant could also participate in social activities CARDINAL or CARDINAL times per week for TIME . In addition , he could stay in an entertainment room watching television , reading or playing board games . Finally , in the ORG 's submission the applicant had access to radio and television programmes through the prison internal broadcasting system and he could rent CARDINAL books per week from a prison library .

The Government submitted that the applicant had not been given any disciplinary punishments while in FAC . On the contrary , he had twice been rewarded for good behaviour .

The applicant submitted that he shared the cells in question with CARDINAL other inmates .

Moreover , he maintained that his cells had been dirty and infested with bedbugs , cockroaches and fungus . Detainees had smoked cigarettes DATE inside the cells . The bed linen and towels were not properly washed and there was a stench in the air . The detainees had washed in cold water . The applicant also claimed that there had been no television set or board games in the entertainment room and that he had not been informed about any social activities available in the remand centre .

The applicant also complained of the practice of bullying detainees by the staff of FAC . He submitted that warders had ordered disciplinary punishment under any pretext , demolished cells during frequent and unjustified searches , made detainees undress and do squats and also deprived them of sleep .

In FAC , DATE and DATE , the applicant was initially detained in cell no . DATE , which measured QUANTITY and was shared by CARDINAL persons including the applicant . From DATE until DATE he was detained together with CARDINAL other detainees in the medical wing 's cell no . DATE . That cell measured QUANTITY . Finally , from DATE until DATE he was detained in cell no . DATE , which measured QUANTITY and a half and was shared by CARDINAL people . When the number of new admissions increased as of DATE , the governor of ORG decided to reduce the available cell space below the minimum statutory limit and to convey the necessary information to the competent penitentiary judge .

The Government submitted that the sanitary conditions in ORG had been decent . Each cell had a separate sanitary annex with a toilet cubicle and a washbasin . Detainees took a hot bath or shower once DATE . During his detention in cell no . CARDINAL the applicant could take CARDINAL bath per day . In that cell detainees had access to hot water . In all other cells they were allowed to use a water immersion heater or a wireless kettle . All cells were sufficiently lit and ventilated . Detainees had TIME of outdoor exercise per day and they were also allowed to spend time in an entertainment room . The entertainment room in ORG of ORG , where the applicant had been detained , was equipped with board games and tables to play table football and table tennis . In addition , in the remand centre detainees had access to a library and , in DATE and summertime , to a volleyball court .

The applicant contested the above submissions by saying that sanitary conditions in ORG had been inadequate . The cells were damp and dirty , the towels and bed linen were not washed and the detainees washed in cold water .

The applicant was detained in FAC during CARDINAL separate periods : from DATE and DATE , from DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and from DATE .

The Government supplied the list of cells which the applicant had occupied at different periods . The surface area of these cells varied between QUANTITY . Their occupancy rate , however , had not been disclosed . On the other hand , the Government submitted that the prison 's governor had made a decision to reduce the available cell space below the minimum statutory limit and that DATE he had informed a penitentiary judge about that fact on nineteen occasions .

They claimed that in FAC the sanitary conditions had been decent . Each cell had a separate sanitary annex with a toilet cubicle and a washbasin . Detainees took a hot bath or shower once DATE . The bath house was equipped with CARDINAL shower heads and CARDINAL persons were allowed inside at a time .

NORP The applicant argued that all the cells in which he had been detained had been seriously overcrowded . For example , cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY , had been shared by CARDINAL persons .

The applicant also submitted that sanitary conditions in FAC had been inadequate . Similarly to the other detention facilities where he had been held , the cells were damp and dirty , the towels and bed linen were not washed and the detainees washed in cold water . In addition in FAC the shower room was located in a separate building . In wintertime in particular , it had been difficult for detainees to walk back to DATE with wet hair and without proper clothing . Moreover the applicant complained of the lack of privacy because the showers had not been separated .

The applicant did not lodge any formal complaints with the penitentiary authorities on the basis of LAW . He complained , however , to various ORG authorities , i.e. to the ORG ( PERSON ) about the inadequate medical care he had received and the conditions of his detention . He also filed several requests for release on health grounds .

In a letter of DATE the ORG informed the applicant that his allegations had been considered illfounded . It was emphasised that the applicant had been under constant psychiatric supervision and that he had been hospitalised whenever necessary .

On DATE the ORG refused to release the applicant from pretrial detention on health grounds as requested by his lawyer . The court referred to unspecified medical reports which stated that the applicant was not suffering from any mental illness , but merely from an antisocial personality disorder .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant against a decision of DATE by which ORG had extended his pretrial detention .

The applicant argued that , because of his mental illness , he should not be held in a detention centre but in a psychiatric hospital . He referred to a number of medical reports which had confirmed his schizophrenia diagnosis and in which it had been recommended that he should remain under psychiatric supervision .

ORG held that there were no contraindications to the applicant 's detention in a remand centre . The court stated that , admittedly , a number of psychiatrists from both ORG and prison hospitals had directed that the applicant should be placed under psychiatric supervision . The court observed , however , that the diagnosis was not credible since the doctors had not had longterm contact with the applicant and had not had full access to his medical records . Instead , the court relied on an opinion delivered by experts in psychiatry from ORG , who were of the view that the applicant was not suffering from any psychotic disorder . The court stressed that , unlike the others , the latter expert opinion was thorough , as it had been drawn up further to the applicant 's fiveweek period under psychiatric observation at ORG in DATE and based on the medical records of his psychiatric treatment prior to his detention . On the other hand , the court took note of discrepancies between the medical reports before it and recommended that the report of the experts from ORG be updated . Nevertheless , the court did not agree to release the applicant from pretrial detention in a remand centre .

“ GPE shall be a democratic ORG ruled by law and implementing the principles of social justice . ”

LAW reads :

“ No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel , inhuman , or degrading treatment or punishment . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW , in its relevant part , provides :

“ CARDINAL . Anyone deprived of liberty shall be treated in a humane manner . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( NORP karny wykonawczy – “ the Code ” ) provides :

“ CARDINAL . A sentenced person shall be placed in an individual cell or a cell shared with other inmates .

NORP The area of the cell shall be QUANTITY per detainee . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . In particularly justified cases a governor of a prison or remand centre may decide to place detainees , for a specified period of time , in conditions where the area of the cell is QUANTITY per person . Any such decision shall be promptly communicated to a penitentiary judge .

NORP The Minister of Justice shall determine , by means of an ordinance , the rules which are to be followed by the relevant authorities in a situation where the number of persons detained in prisons and remand centres exceeds on a nationwide scale the overall capacity of such establishments ... ”

On the basis of LAW , the Minister of ORG issued the LAW of DATE on the rules to be followed by the relevant authorities when the number of persons detained in prisons and remand centres exceeded on a nationwide scale the overall capacity of such establishments ( ORG w sprawie trybu postępowania właściwych organów w wypadku , gdy liczba osadzonych w zakładach karnych lub aresztach śledczych przekroczy w skali ORG ogólną pojemność tych zakładów DATE “ the DATE Ordinance ” ) . On DATE the Minister of ORG issued a new ordinance with the same title ( “ the DATE LAW ) , which replaced the previous ordinance . It entered into force on DATE .

Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL of this Ordinance provided :

“ In the event that the number of detainees placed in prisons and remand centres , as well as in subordinate detention facilities , hereinafter referred to as ' establishments ' , exceeds on a nationwide scale the overall capacity of such establishments , the Director General of ORG , within DATE from DATE the capacity is exceeded , shall convey the relevant information to the Minister of ORG , the regional directors of ORG and the governors of the establishments ... ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Ordinance read :

“ CARDINAL . Having received the relevant information , the regional director of the prison service and the governor of the establishment are under a duty , each within their own sphere of competence , to take action in order to adapt quarters not otherwise included in the establishment 's [ accommodation ] capacity , to comply with the conditions required for a cell .

In the event that the establishment 's capacity is exceeded , detainees shall be placed in supplementary cells for a specified period of time .

In the event that the additional accommodation in the supplementary cells is used up , detainees may be placed in conditions where the area of a cell is QUANTITY per person . ”

The general duty of the ORG to protect persons with mental disabilities is derived from ORG of DATE ( LOC o ochronie zdrowia psychicznego – “ the DATE LAW ) , which entered into force on DATE . The DATE LAW recognises mental health as a fundamental personal right of every person .

Specific rules regarding detention in a medical institution , as well as psychiatric care in prisons and remand centres , are provided for in LAW and LAW , as well as in a number of ordinances issued by the Minister of ORG .

Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW provides that , unless there are particular reasons to the contrary , pre - trial detention should be waived if it could result in putting a detainee 's life or health at risk .

LAW , on the other hand , provides :

“ If required by the accused 's health condition , [ his ] pre - trial detention may take the form of placement in a suitable medical establishment . ”

LAW provides :

“ In cases described in LAW , pretrial detention shall take place outside a remand centre , in a medical establishment indicated by an authority responsible for the detainee . The same authority shall also provide directions as to the conditions of the detainee 's placement in the indicated medical establishment . ”

On the basis of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , the Minister of ORG issued the LAW of DATE on the detailed rules , scope and procedure relating to the provision of medical services to persons deprived of their liberty by healthcare establishments for persons deprived of their liberty ( ORG w sprawie szczegółowych zasad , zakresu i trybu udzielania świadczeń zdrowotnych osobom pozbawionym wolności przez zakłady opieki zdrowotnej dla osób pozbawionych wolności – “ the DATE LAW ) . It entered into force on DATE .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance , healthcare establishments for persons deprived of their liberty provide , inter alia , medical and psychological examinations , medical and psychological treatment and preventive medical care to persons deprived of their liberty .

Paragraph CARDINAL of this GPE further provides :

“ CARDINAL . NORP In justified cases , if the medical services as enumerated in subparagraph CARDINAL can not be provided to persons deprived of their liberty by the healthcare establishments for persons deprived of their liberty , in particular owing to the lack of specialised medical equipment , such medical services may be provided by public healthcare establishments .

NORP In cases described in subparagraph CARDINAL , the head of a health - care establishment for persons deprived of their liberty shall decide whether or not such medical services [ provided by public healthcare establishments ] are necessary ... ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE LAW states :

“ CARDINAL . The decision to place a person deprived of his liberty in a prison medical centre shall be taken by a prison doctor or , in his absence , by a nurse ...

NORP The decision as to whether or not it is necessary to place a person deprived of his liberty in a ... prison hospital shall be taken by the prison hospital 's director or by a delegated prison doctor . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance provides :

“ In the event of a suspicion that a person deprived of his liberty suffers from mental disorders , mental retardation ... , the prison doctor :

( CARDINAL ) NORP shall give directions as to the placement of the person concerned in prison , the manner of observation and the mode of proceeding [ with the person concerned ] ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP shall direct the person concerned to undergo a psychiatric examination . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the DATE LAW states :

“ A person deprived of his liberty shall be placed in the psychiatric ward of a prison hospital :

( CARDINAL ) if a court has ordered the examination of such person together with psychiatric observation ;

( CARDINAL ) [ if this has been ] directed – in compliance with the rules of ORG of DATE by a psychiatrist because of the diagnosis of mental disorders which require examination or treatment in hospital . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance further provides :

“ In justified cases , if , as a result of a psychiatric examination together with psychiatric observation , a person deprived of his liberty has been diagnosed with mental illness , mental retardation or any other mental dysfunction ... , based on the decision of a chief doctor , [ such person ] shall remain in the psychiatric ward of a prison hospital until the relevant court 's ruling . ”

On the basis of LAW , the Minister of ORG issued the Ordinance of DATE on the code of practice for the organisation and arrangement of pretrial detention ( ORG w sprawie regulaminu organizacyjno - porządkowego wykonywania tymczasowego aresztowania “ the DATE LAW ) . It entered into force on DATE .

The DATE LAW states that pretrial detention takes place in remand centres . However , paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . With regard to detainees held in hospitals ... , as well as chronically ill [ detainees ] , the governor [ of a remand centre ] may , at the request of or after consultation with a doctor , make necessary exceptions to the arrangements for pretrial detention as envisaged in the code of practice , in so far as this is justified by the health condition of the detainees concerned .

Subparagraph CARDINAL shall be applied in respect of detainees who have been diagnosed with non - psychotic psychiatric disorders , mental retardation ... The governor [ of a remand centre ] may make [ necessary ] exceptions at the request of or after consultation with a doctor or a psychologist . ”

The rules governing cooperation between prison healthcare establishments and public healthcare facilities are set out in the Ordinance of the Minister of ORG issued on DATE on the detailed rules , scope and procedure for the cooperation of healthcare establishments with health services in prisons and remand centres in the provision of medical services to persons deprived of their liberty ( ORG w sprawie szczegółowych zasad , zakresu i trybu współdziałania zakładów opieki zdrowotnej ze służbą zdrowia w zakładach karnych i aresztach śledczych w zapewnianiu świadczeń zdrowotnych osobom pozbawionym wolności – “ the DATE Ordinance ” ) . It entered into force on DATE .

Detention and prison establishments in GPE are supervised by penitentiary judges who act under the authority of the Minister of ORG .

Under LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) a convicted person is entitled to make applications , complaints and requests to the authorities enforcing the sentence .

Article CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of the LAW provides that a convicted person can challenge before a court any unlawful decision issued by a judge , a penitentiary judge , a governor of a prison or a remand centre , a regional director or ORG or a court probation officer . Applications relating to the execution of prison sentences are examined by a competent penitentiary court .

The remainder of LAW reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Appeals against decisions [ mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL ] shall be lodged within DATE of the date of the pronouncement or the service of the decision ; the decision [ in question ] shall be pronounced or served with a reasoned opinion and an instruction as to the right , deadline and procedure for lodging an appeal . An appeal shall be lodged with the authority which issued the contested decision . If [ that ] authority does not consider the appeal favourably , it shall refer it , together with the case file and without undue delay , to the competent court .

The ORG competent for examining the appeal may suspend the enforcement of the contested decision ...

Having examined the appeal , the court shall decide either to uphold the contested decision , or to quash or vary it ; the court 's decision shall not be subject to an interlocutory appeal . ”

In addition , under LAW , a penitentiary judge is entitled to make unrestricted visits to detention facilities , to acquaint himself with documents and to be provided with explanations from the management of these establishments . A penitentiary judge also has the power to communicate with persons deprived of their liberty without the presence of third persons and to examine their applications and complaints .

LAW in its relevant part reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A penitentiary judge shall quash an unlawful decision [ issued by , inter alia , the governor of a prison or remand centre , the Regional Director or ORG ] concerning a person deprived of his liberty .

An appeal to the penitentiary court lies against the decision of a penitentiary judge ...

In the event of finding that the deprivation of liberty is not in accordance with the law , a penitentiary judge shall , without undue delay , inform the authority [ in charge of the person concerned ] of that fact , and , if necessary , shall order the release of the person concerned . ”

Lastly , LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Code guarantees a convicted person a right to lodge applications , complaints and requests with other competent authorities , such as the management of a prison or remand centre , heads of units of ORG , penitentiary judges , prosecutors and the ORG . Detailed rules on the procedure are laid down in the Ordinance of the Minister of ORG issued on CARDINAL DATE on dealing with applications , complaints and requests by persons detained in prisons and remand centres ( ORG w sprawie sposobów załatwiania wniosków , skarg i próśb osób osadzonych w zakładach karnych i aresztach śledczych – “ the DATE LAW ) .

DATE the Civil Code contains a non - exhaustive list of socalled “ personal rights ” ( prawa osobiste ) . This provision states :

“ The personal rights of an individual , such as , in particular , health , liberty , honour , freedom of conscience , name or pseudonym , image , secrecy of correspondence , inviolability of the home , scientific or artistic work , [ as well as ] inventions and improvements , shall be protected by the civil law regardless of the protection laid down in other legal provisions . ”

Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Civil Code provides :

“ A person whose personal rights are at risk [ of infringement ] by a third party may seek an injunction , unless the activity [ complained of ] is not unlawful . In the event of infringement [ the person concerned ] may also require the party who caused the infringement to take the necessary steps to remove the consequences of the infringement ... In compliance with the principles of this LAW [ the person concerned ] may also seek pecuniary compensation or may ask the court to award an adequate sum for the benefit of a specific public interest . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , applicable in the event a person suffers a bodily injury or a health disorder as a result of an unlawful act or omission of a ORG agent , reads as follows :

“ ... [ T]he court may award to the injured person an adequate sum in pecuniary compensation for the damage suffered . ”

Under LAW , a person whose personal rights have been infringed may seek compensation . That provision , in its relevant part , reads :

“ The court may grant an adequate sum as pecuniary compensation for non - material damage ( krzywda ) suffered to anyone whose personal rights have been infringed . Alternatively , the person concerned , regardless of seeking any other relief that may be necessary for removing the consequences of the infringement sustained , may ask the court to award an adequate sum for the benefit of a specific public interest ... ”

In addition , Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the NORP LAW provide for the ORG 's liability in tort .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Civil Code formerly provided :

“ The State Treasury shall be liable for damage ( szkoda ) caused by an agent of the ORG in carrying out acts entrusted to him . ”

After being amended in DATE , LAW provides :

“ ORG , or [ as the case may be ] a self - government entity or other legal person responsible for exercising public authority , shall be liable for any damage ( szkoda ) caused by an unlawful act or omission [ committed ] in connection with the exercise of public authority . ”

In their submissions on the admissibility and the merits of the case the Government referred to the judgment of ORG of DATE and to CARDINAL recent judgments in which domestic courts had examined claims for compensation brought by former detainees on account of the alleged infringement of their personal rights .

On DATE ORG recognised for the first time the right of a detainee under LAW , read in conjunction with LAW , to lodge a civil claim against ORG for damage resulting from overcrowding and inadequate living and sanitary conditions in a detention establishment .

That judgment originated from the civil action brought by a certain DATE , who was remanded in custody shortly after he had suffered a complicated fracture of his leg and arm . The plaintiff argued that he had not received adequate medical care in detention and that he had been detained in overcrowded cells in poor sanitary conditions .

ORG quashed the second - instance judgment in which the applicant 's claim had been dismissed . ORG held that the case should have been examined under LAW , in conjunction with LAW of LAW , and that it was the respondent who had the burden of proving that the conditions of detention had been in compliance with the statutory standards and that the plaintiff 's personal rights had not been infringed . The case was remitted to the appeal court .

On DATE ORG examined the case under LAW in conjunction with LAW , as interpreted by ORG . The appeal court reiterated that overcrowding coupled with inadequate living and sanitary conditions in a detention facility could give rise to degrading treatment in breach of a detainee 's personal rights . The court condemned the practice of maintaining high rates of occupation in detention facilities throughout the country and stressed that the minimum standard of QUANTITY per person was to be reduced only in exceptional circumstances and for a short period of time . On the other hand , ORG observed that in the light of ORG established case - law , a trial court did not have a duty to award compensation for each personal right 's infringement . CARDINAL of the main criteria in assessing whether or not to award compensation for a breach of a personal right was the degree of fault on the part of a respondent party . The court held that in relation to the overcrowding , no fault could be attributed to the management of a particular detention facility since the management were not in a position to refuse new admissions even when the average capacity of a detention facility had already been exceeded . Considering the large scale of the problem in the country and the fact that the competent authorities had not acted with a particular intent to humiliate the plaintiff or in bad faith , the appeal court found that awarding compensation for a breach of personal rights on account of overcrowding and poor conditions of detention would contradict the universal sense of justice . Ultimately , the case was dismissed .

In CARDINAL of the other cases cited by the ORG the plaintiffs , non - smokers detained with smoking inmates , had been awarded compensation because it had been found that they were at risk of suffering or had actually suffered a health disorder .

Another CARDINAL of the cases referred to concerned a prisoner who had suffered food poisoning in prison and another CARDINAL concerned a detainee who had been beaten up by his fellow inmate .

In another case , of a certain PERSON , who had been detained for DATE in an overcrowded and unsanitary cell , ORG had granted partial compensation on account of the fact that the prison 's governor had failed to inform a competent penitentiary judge , in compliance with the applicable procedure , about the problem of overcrowding present at the time when the plaintiff was serving his sentence there .

Finally , in the case of a certain ORG had held that there had been no legal basis to grant compensation for detaining the plaintiff in an overcrowded cell . The court observed that the protection of personal rights offered by LAW was conditional on CARDINAL elements : firstly , there must have been an infringement or a risk of infringement of the right protected ; secondly , the infringement must have resulted from an unlawful act or omission . It was reiterated that an act or omission was not unlawful , even though it might breach personal rights , as long as it was based on a valid legal provision . The court further noted that the plaintiff had the burden of proving the infringement or the risk of infringement while the respondent had the burden of proving that his acts or omissions were not unlawful . ORG held that detaining the plaintiff in conditions below the minimum standard established by LAW was not unlawful , as it was regulated by the DATE Ordinance .

On DATE the ORG made an application under LAW , read in conjunction with LAW , to ORG , asking for the DATE Ordinance to be declared unconstitutional . More specifically , the ORG asked for it to be declared incompatible with ORG DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW . In particular , the ORG challenged paragraph CARDINAL ) of the DATE Ordinance , which allowed the prison authorities to place a detainee in a cell where there was an area of QUANTITY per person , for an indefinite period of time . This , in his opinion , was contrary to the interim nature of Article CARDINAL of LAW and led to the legitimisation of the chronic overcrowding in detention facilities .

On DATE the ORG limited the scope of his initial application , asking ORG ( skarga konstytucyjna ) to declare paragraph CARDINAL ) of the DATE Ordinance to be in breach of LAW .

On DATE , a day before the date set for ORG hearing , the Minister of ORG abrogated the impugned Ordinance in its entirety and issued a new one under the same title and with immediate effect ( “ the DATE Ordinance ” ) . The provisions of the new CARDINAL Ordinance remain the same as in the previous instrument , except for paragraph CARDINAL ) , which currently reads as follows :

“ In the event that the additional accommodation in the supplementary cells is used up , detainees may be placed , for a specified period of time , in conditions where the area of a cell is QUANTITY per person . ”

As a consequence of these changes , on DATE the ORG withdrew his application .

On DATE a certain PERSON , who was at the time in prison , made a constitutional complaint ( skarga konstytucyjna ) under LAW , read in conjunction with LAW of the LAW , asking for LAW to be declared unconstitutional . He alleged that the impugned provision infringed , inter alia , the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment as derived from ORG CARDINAL of the LAW . He challenged LAW in particular in so far as it allowed for the placement of detainees for an indefinite period of time in cells below the statutory size .

On DATE ORG held , inter alia , that the impugned LAW was in breach of LAW torture or cruel , inhuman , or degrading treatment or punishment ) , LAW ( right of a detainee to be treated in a humane manner ) and LAW ( the principle of the rule of law ) of the LAW . The court stressed that the provision lacked clarity and precision , which allowed for a very broad interpretation .

ORG found that , in effect , the provision in question allowed for an indefinite and arbitrary placement of detainees in cells below the statutory size of QUANTITY per person , thus causing chronic overcrowding in NORP prisons and exposing detainees to the risk of inhuman treatment . The court observed that the overcrowding of detention facilities had to be treated as a serious problem , posing a permanent threat to rehabilitation of prisoners . Moreover , in the court 's view , the overcrowding in itself could be qualified as inhuman and degrading treatment . If combined with additional aggravating circumstances , it may even be considered as torture . In that connection the court noted that already the minimum statutory standards of QUANTITY per person was one of the lowest ones in LOC .

ORG further stressed that the provision in question was meant to be applied only in particularly justified cases , for example an engineering or building disaster in prison . Such a provision should not leave any doubt as to the definition of those permissible circumstances , the minimum size of the cell and maximum time when the new standards would apply . It should also lay down clear principles on how many times a detainee could be placed in conditions below the standard requirements and the precise procedural rules to be followed in such cases . Conversely , in practice LAW gave a wide discretion to prison governors to decide what constituted “ particularly justified circumstances ” and in consequence sanctioned the permanent state of overcrowding in detention facilities . It allowed for the placement of detainees in a cell where the area was below the statutory size for an indefinite period of time and it did not set a minimum permissible area .

ORG , taking into consideration “ the permanent overcrowding of the NORP detention facilities ” , ruled that the unconstitutional LAW should lose its binding force within DATE from the date of the publication of the judgment . ORG justified the delayed entry into force of its judgment by the need to undertake a series of actions to reorganise the whole penitentiary system in GPE , in order to , ultimately , eliminate the problem of overcrowding . It was also noted that , in parallel , a reform of criminal policy was desired with the aim of achieving a wider implementation of preventive measures other than deprivation of liberty . The court observed that an immediate entry into force of its judgment would only aggravate the already existing pathological situation where , because of the lack of room in NORP prisons , many convicted persons could not serve their prison sentences . At the time when the judgment was being passed , the problem concerned CARDINAL persons .

In addition , ORG under the principle of the so - called “ right of privilege ” ( przywilej korzyści ) ordered an individual measure , namely that with regard to the author of the constitutional complaint the judgment should enter into force immediately after its publication . The right of privilege is relied on by ORG in the event the proceedings instituted by an individual terminate with a judgment with a delayed entry into force . This principle aims at rewarding the individual who brought the first constitutional complaint concerning a particular matter for his or her proactive attitude .

As regards the context of the case , all the ORG authorities involved in the proceedings before ORG , namely ORG , the ORG and the Speaker of the PERSON , acknowledged the existence of the overcrowding in the NORP detention facilities . ORG , in his pleadings of DATE , submitted that the problem of overcrowding in NORP detention facilities had continually existed since DATE , arising from the flawed interpretation of the impugned provision by domestic courts and penitentiary authorities . He also pointed out that , with the rate of overcrowding peaking at PERCENT on DATE , the prison authorities estimated that CARDINAL new places were needed in order to secure to detainees the statutory space of QUANTITY per person .

Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG to the member GPE concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison , in its relevant parts , reads as follows :

“ I. Main characteristics of the right to health care in prison

NORP Access to a doctor

NORP When entering prison and later on while in custody , prisoners should be able at any time to have access to a doctor or a fully qualified nurse , irrespective of their detention regime and without undue delay , if required by their state of health . All detainees should benefit from appropriate medical examinations on admission . Special emphasis should be put on the screening of mental disorders , of psychological adaptation to prison , of withdrawal symptoms resulting from use of drugs , medication or alcohol , and of contagious and chronic conditions .

A prison 's health care service should at least be able to provide outpatient consultations and emergency treatment . When the state of health of the inmates requires treatment which can not be guaranteed in prison , everything possible should be done to ensure that treatment is given , in all security , in health establishments outside the prison .

Prisoners should have access to a doctor , when necessary , at any time during DATE and the night . Someone competent to provide first aid should always be present on the prison LOC . In case of serious emergencies , the doctor , a member of the nursing staff and the prison management should be warned ; active participation and commitment of the custodial staff is essential .

Access to psychiatric consultation and counselling should be secured . There should be a psychiatric team in larger penal institutions . If this is not available as in the smaller establishments , consultations should be assured by a psychiatrist , practising in hospital or in private .

III . NORP The organisation of health care in prison with specific reference to the management of certain common problems

D. Psychiatric symptoms , mental disturbance and major personality disorders , risk of suicide

Prisoners suffering from serious mental disturbance should be kept and cared for in a hospital facility which is adequately equipped and possesses appropriately trained staff . The decision to admit an inmate to a public hospital should be made by a psychiatrist , subject to authorisation by the competent authorities .

The risk of suicide should be constantly assessed both by medical and custodial staff . Physical methods designed to avoid self - harm , close and constant observation , dialogue and reassurance , as appropriate , should be used in moments of crisis . ”

Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG to member States on ORG , in its relevant parts , reads as follows :

“ ORG , under the terms of Article CARDINAL.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe ,

Having regard to LAW and the case law of ORG , ...

Recommends that governments of member states :

- be guided in their legislation , policies and practice by the rules contained in the appendix to this recommendation , which replaces Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG on ORG ;

Appendix to Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL

CARDINAL LOC who are suffering from mental illness and whose state of mental health is incompatible with detention in a prison should be detained in an establishment specially designed for the purpose .

CARDINAL If such persons are nevertheless exceptionally held in prison there shall be special regulations that take account of their status and needs .

Prison authorities shall safeguard the health of all prisoners in their care .

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

CARDINAL ORG services in prison shall seek to detect and treat physical or mental illnesses or defects from which prisoners may suffer .

CARDINAL NORP All necessary medical , surgical and psychiatric services including those available in the community shall be provided to the prisoner for that purpose .

CARDINAL ORG prisons or sections under medical control shall be available for the observation and treatment of prisoners suffering from mental disorder or abnormality who do not necessarily fall under the provisions of Rule CARDINAL .

CARDINAL NORP The prison medical service shall provide for the psychiatric treatment of all prisoners who are in need of such treatment and pay special attention to suicide prevention . ”


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant is a single mother of CARDINAL children . Prior to her application for an early - retirement pension she had been employed from DATE until DATE and paid social security contributions to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an earlyretirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called “ EWK ” pension .

Along with her application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning her daughter ’s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre on DATE . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from epilepsy and other medical conditions and was in need of her parent ’s constant care .

On DATE ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension as of DATE in the net amount of CARDINAL , MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant ’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . On DATE the doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .

On DATE the ORG issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant . By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant ’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG reopened the proceedings , revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early - retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .

NORP The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early - retirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant ’s original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the appeal . ORG concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant ’s child did not require her mother ’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care .

The applicant further appealed against the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the appeal .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant .

Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her earlyretirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of her right to an earlyretirement pension .

The applicant submitted that after the revocation of the EWK pension she opened a small business in DATE but it did not generate any income . For many years she had been unsuccessfully looking for a job but received no unemployment or other benefits from the ORG .

The Government submitted that DATE and DATE the applicant had registered as selfemployed ( dzialanosc gospodarcza ) . They did not specify whether the applicant ’s business generated any income . Afterwards , in DATE she received unemployment benefit for DATE in the amount of ORG CARDINAL and since CARDINAL DATE she has been employed . The ORG also stated that the applicant had been receiving childsupport payment in the amount of ORG CARDINAL .

In addition , the ORG submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in GPE . However , they did not specify which of those benefits , if any , were available in the applicant ’s situation .

NORP Under the relevant laws currently in force , it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in DATE .

CARDINAL applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the ORG . The majority of the applicants form ORG ( ORG przez ZUS ) ( “ the Association ” ) , an organisation monitoring the practices of ORG in GPE , in particular in the ORG region .

Out of all applications lodged with the ORG , CARDINAL applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of ORG given in their case .

One hundredandfour applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases . ORG entertained and dismissed on the merits DATE appeals . In eightyone applications ORG refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require ORG to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts . In the remaining CARDINAL cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements .

NORP The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgment in the case of GPE GPE , no . CARDINAL , § ORG , DATE .

NORP The social security scheme for farmers is regulated by ORG the DATE LAW ; ustawa o ubezpieczeniu społecznym rolników ) .

The reopening of the proceedings concerning the earlyretirement pension is regulated in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE on the system of social insurance ( Ustawa o systemie ubezpieczeń społecznych ) , which at the relevant time read as follows :

“ The right to benefits or the amount of benefits will be reassessed upon application by the person concerned or , ex officio , if , after the validation of the decision concerning benefits , new evidence is submitted or circumstances which had existed before issuing the decision and which have an impact on the right to benefits or on their amount are discovered . ”

On DATE a new subparagraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) a was added , which reads as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL shall apply respectively , if , after the validation of the decision it is discovered that the evidence that had been submitted did not give the right to a pension , disability pension or its amount . ”

A party to civil proceedings could , at the material time , lodge a cassation appeal with ORG against a judicial decision of a secondinstance court . A party had to be represented by an advocate or a legal adviser .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure as applicable at the material time listed the grounds on which a cassation appeal could be lodged . It read as follows :

“ The cassation appeal may be based on the following grounds :

CARDINAL ) a breach of substantive law as a result of its erroneous interpretation or wrongful application ;

CARDINAL ) a breach of procedural provisions , if that defect could significantly affect the outcome of the case . ”

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL¹³ ORG , having allowed a cassation appeal , could quash the challenged judgment in its entirety or in part and remit the case for re - examination . Where ORG failed to find nonconformity with the law , it dismissed the cassation appeal . According to Article CARDINAL if the cassation appeal was wellfounded ORG could also amend the impugned judgment and adjudicate on the merits .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG ( LOC o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the DATE Ordinance to persons born before DATE . More specifically , the ORG submitted that the introduction of an agelimit in respect of persons taking care of a child , which in essence amounted to a deprivation of the right to a benefit , constituted a violation of the principle of equality set forth in LAW .

On DATE ORG ( KCARDINAL/CARDINAL ) declared the impugned section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE Law unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the DATE Ordinance to persons born before DATE . ORG reiterated among other things the constitutional principle of acquired rights which guarantees particularly strong protection for the right to receive social welfare benefits .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(a ) of the DATE Law to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the ORG to reopen ex officio proceedings relating to the grant of a pension or a disability pension on the basis of a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted .

On DATE ORG ( GPE declared the impugned section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(a ) of the DATE Law unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the ORG to reopen such proceedings following a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted .


Violation of Art. 2 (presumed death);Violation of Art. 2 (failure to investigate);Violations of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Not necessary to examine Art. 6;Violation of Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , a NORP citizen of NORP origin , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The facts of the case , particularly concerning events which took place on DATE , are disputed by the parties .

The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) . The Government ’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) . GPE evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

At the time of the events giving rise to the present application the applicant and her family were living in the PERSON hamlet of GPE , located within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of GPE , near GPE , south - east GPE .

On DATE approximately CARDINAL soldiers from ORG came to the applicant ’s hamlet and forced the villagers out of their houses . The villagers were herded together into the village square and the soldiers began to burn the villagers’ houses .

One of the soldiers then read out a list of names of CARDINAL male villagers : PERSON ( DATE ) , PERSON ( DATE ) , PERSON ( DATE ) , PERSON ( DATE ) , PERSON Akdeniz ( DATE ) , and finally the applicant ’s son PERSON ( DATE ) ( hereinafter “ the CARDINAL persons ” ) . The QUANTITY persons seemed to have been identified by a masked man who was with the gendarme officers . The soldiers then beat up the QUANTITY persons ; the applicant ’s son was the subject of the worst treatment . The QUANTITY persons were then taken away , out of sight of the villagers .

The soldiers stayed in the village for TIME and then walked with the group of CARDINAL persons to another hamlet , QUANTITY away , where they got into waiting vehicles and drove away .

Eye - witnesses , who were held in detention together with the applicant ’s son , subsequently informed the applicant that PERSON had been held at ORG for DATE . He had been tortured whilst being detained and according to the eye - witnesses , he had received the worst treatment of the CARDINAL persons .

Eye - witnesses confirmed that in PERSON , where he was held for DATE before being taken to ORG , he was also in a very poor condition .

The applicant has heard nothing further about the whereabouts or fate of her son since that time . She has brought several applications , both orally and in writing , to ORG at ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) and tried , unsuccessfully , to obtain information about her son .

No operation was carried out in the ORG area on DATE and , according to the custody records , neither the applicant ’s son nor any of the other CARDINAL persons mentioned were taken into custody or detained .

DATE the PERSON hamlet was attacked by members of the ORG and the inhabitants of the hamlet fled from their homes because of intimidation by the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that , according to the custody records , PERSON ( sic . ) had not been taken into custody .

The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties .

According to a record of arrest , drawn up on DATE and signed by CARDINAL gendarme officers and CARDINAL gendarme soldiers from the ORG gendarmerie , CARDINAL of the QUANTITY persons , namely , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG PERSON were arrested in an operation carried out by the gendarmerie . The reason for the operation was the fact that the gendarmerie had been informed , by reliable sources , that these persons had been aiding and abetting the ORG . The report further states that the CARDINAL men had various injuries on their bodies obtained as a result of their attempts at escape and also of the use of force .

On unspecified dates these QUANTITY persons were questioned by a gendarme commander . All but PERSON denied ever having been members of the ORG . PERSON stated that he had been a member briefly . All CARDINAL men stated that GPE had often been visited by ORG members who forced the villagers to give them food .

On DATE the CARDINAL men were questioned by a judge at ORG . The judge then ordered the release of CARDINAL of them . PERSON detention on remand was ordered by the judge .

The applicant , in a petition she submitted to ORG at ORG on DATE , informed the Prosecutor that her son had been detained by members of the security forces on DATE in her hamlet of PERSON . She further stated that she had not heard from him since that date and that she was concerned for his life . She asked to be informed about her son ’s fate .

According to a handwritten note , written by ORG at ORG on the applicant ’s above mentioned petition of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant ’s son was not recorded in custody records .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the Directorate ” ) sent a letter to ORG at ORG and informed him about the application introduced with the Commission by the applicant . The Prosecutor was requested to question the applicant in relation to her complaints and to open an investigation into her allegations .

In his letter of DATE ORG at ORG requested the Prosecutor in the town of GPE to take the steps requested in the letter of the ORG .

The commander of ORG was requested on DATE by ORG to summon the applicant , as well as the CARDINAL persons who had allegedly been detained together with the applicant ’s son ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , to the prosecutor ’s office . The Prosecutor also asked for a certain PERSON and one PERSON , both of whom were apparently living in the applicant ’s village , to be summoned .

According to a report , which was drawn up on DATE by CARDINAL gendarme soldiers from the ORG gendarme station – located near the applicant ’s village of ORG and which was submitted to ORG , the persons referred to in ORG letter of DATE had left the village for an unknown destination because of terrorist incidents . This report was subsequently sent to the ORG ’s office at ORG .

On DATE ORG sent a letter , this time to the commander of ORG , and asked for the applicant and the other CARDINAL persons mentioned above to be summoned to his office .

According to a report , drawn up on DATE by CARDINAL gendarme soldiers and sent to ORG , the persons referred to in ORG letter of DATE had left the village for an unknown destination DATE previously because of terrorist incidents .

Similar correspondence between the Prosecutors and the gendarmerie setting out the former ’s unsuccessful attempts to find the applicant and CARDINAL persons continued until DATE , when PERSON , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL persons who was allegedly detained at the same time as the applicant ’s son , was located .

In a statement taken by ORG on DATE , PERSON stated that a large number of soldiers had come to the village in DATE and gathered the villagers outside the village . They then set fire to the houses in the village . He , his son PERSON , the applicant ’s son PERSON , and the other QUANTITY persons had been singled out by the soldiers and ill - treated in the village . They had then been taken to the ORG gendarme station where they had stayed TIME . The following TIME they had been taken to ORG where they had been detained for DATE during which they were blindfolded , beaten up and questioned . At DATE they had been brought to the FAC where the applicant ’s son PERSON had been separated from the rest of them and he had not been seen again . They had continued to be detained for DATE and at the end of their detention all but PERSON had been released .

Also on DATE ORG questioned PERSON who confirmed the version of events as set out by his father above . He also added that PERSON had been beaten up more severely than the rest of them .

On DATE ORG took a statement from PERSON , another one of the QUANTITY persons allegedly detained together with the applicant ’s son . PERSON , who gave a remarkably similar statement to that of PERSON and PERSON , added that the applicant ’s son PERSON had been identified by the itirafçı who had came to the village with the soldiers in DATE .

On DATE PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was found in a prison in PERSON . He refused to go to the ORG ’s office to make a statement on the ground that he was protesting against the NORP courts .

ORG took a statement from the applicant on DATE . In her statement the applicant confirmed her account of events as set out above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL above ) . She finally asked the Prosecutor for information about her son ’s fate .

On DATE the statements taken by ORG from PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were forwarded to the ORG ’s office at ORG . ORG further stated that his efforts to find PERSON and PERSON GPE would continue .

PERSON was questioned on DATE by ORG . PERSON also gave a remarkably similar statement to those made by PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and the applicant .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG and asked whether an operation had been conducted in GPE in DATE .

On DATE the deputy commander of ORG replied to ORG in writing , stating that according to the records at the ORG , no operation had been conducted in GPE or in PERSON hamlet in DATE .

Another statement was taken from the applicant on CARDINAL DATE by ORG . The applicant confirmed , once more , her allegations and added that she had made an application to the Commission .

On DATE ORG informed the Prosecutor at ORG that he had taken another statement from the applicant and that she still had not heard from her son . He further informed him that his efforts to find PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who had allegedly seen PERSON in the custody of gendarmes , would continue .

The applicant was questioned on DATE , this time by the Prosecutor in the town of PERSON . She confirmed her allegations .

On DATE the applicant was questioned once more by ORG . She repeated her allegations and added that she had nothing to add to her previous statements .

On DATE ORG also took a statement from PERSON , the fifth person who had allegedly been detained together with the applicant ’s son . PERSON confirmed the version of events given by the other four persons who claimed to have been detained with the applicant ’s son .

ORG informed the Prosecutor at ORG on DATE that he had taken yet another statement from the applicant and that he had found out from her that her son was still missing .

On DATE ORG asked the GPE and ORG , ORG and also ORG to send to his office copies of custody records showing the names of persons who had been taken into custody DATE and DATE at their respective ORG .

On DATE the commander of ORG forwarded to ORG office the names of those persons detained between DATE and DATE . According to this letter , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had been taken into custody on DATE on suspicion of collaborating with the ORG . No information was provided in the column showing dates of release .

On DATE the ORG asked the Prosecutor at ORG for information about the investigation into the disappearance of the applicant ’s son .

The Prosecutor at ORG was informed on DATE by ORG that the statements taken from PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON corroborated the allegations of the applicant . His efforts to obtain information from the gendarme as to whether the applicant ’s son had indeed been detained by them were still continuing . The applicant ’s son was still missing .

On DATE ORG took a statement from PERSON . Mr PERSON stated that he used to live in the village of GPE , near the town of GPE . He and a number of his friends had been taken into detention by soldiers in the town of PERSON during DATE in DATE . During his time in detention he had not seen PERSON , the applicant ’s son ; in any event , he did not know who PERSON was .

In a reply of CARDINAL DATE to ORG letter of DATE , the chief of ORG stated that PERSON had not been detained by the police .

Also on CARDINAL DATE the ORG asked the Prosecutor ’s office at ORG to verify the accuracy of the contents of the statements given by the persons who claimed to have been detained together with the applicant ’s son . This letter was forwarded to ORG DATE .

On DATE ORG drew the attention of the commander of ORG to the fact that the release dates of the CARDINAL persons detained on DATE did not appear in the form he had received ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Prosecutor asked the commander to inform his office as to what action had been taken in relation to these persons . It appears that the gendarme commander subsequently complied with this request . According to the custody records of ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had been detained there from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE when they had been transferred to ORG .

According to a set of custody records , showing the names of those detained at ORG DATE and DATE , the CARDINAL men had been detained there on DATE until their release was ordered by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Prosecutor at ORG forwarded to the ORG a number of documents concerning the criminal proceedings which had been brought against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON following their detention in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to these documents , the QUANTITY persons had been tried and acquitted of the offence of aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation .

On DATE ORG once again asked ORG for the names of those detained in GPE since DATE .

On DATE the commander of ORG stated in a report that no operation had been conducted in GPE on DATE by soldiers from his station .

Mehmet Nuri Sansar , the headman ( muhtar ) of the Karaorman village at the time of the alleged events , was questioned by ORG on DATE . Mr ORG stated that on DATE he had been in the LOC village mosque praying , when CARDINAL soldiers had come in and asked those present to leave the mosque . Mr Sansar and the villagers in the mosque had complied with this order and left the mosque . Mr Sansar had then seen that the village had been surrounded by soldiers and that the villagers had been gathered outside the village . The commander of the soldiers had called Mr Sansar over and told him that food supplies had been brought to the Karaorman village by vehicles and that , from the village , they had been taken by mules to the ORG in the mountains . The commander asked PERSON for the identity of the villagers who had carried the foodstuff to the ORG . When PERSON replied that he did not know , the soldiers had taken him away and beaten him . Among the soldiers there had also been an itirafçı , whose face was covered . The itirafçı had not spoken a word but pointed to the QUANTITY persons . All QUANTITY persons had been taken away and all but PERSON had been released DATE .

Cevdet Yılmaz ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) was questioned by a Prosecutor on DATE . PERSON stated that he used to live in GPE village , near PERSON hamlet where PERSON used to live . He further stated that in DATE he had been arrested and taken to a detention centre in PERSON where he had seen PERSON . However , unlike all other detainees , PERSON had not subsequently been brought before the judge at ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG asked his opposite number in the town of PERSON to enquire with ORG in the latter ’s town to verify whether , as alleged by a number of eye - witnesses , PERSON had ever been detained there .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG also asked ORG whether an operation had been carried out in GPE where , according to the allegations , PERSON was arrested by soldiers .

On DATE the commander of the ORG informed ORG that , according to the custody records , PERSON had not been detained at the ORG in DATE .

On DATE the deputy commander of ORG replied to ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE and stated that no operation had been carried out in the region of GPE in DATE .

DATE . A description of the relevant law may be found in GPE v. GPE , no . GPE , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL ... ( extracts ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant had a quarrel with PERSON and CARDINAL other persons , which led to a fight in the course of which the applicant wounded PERSON in the face with a gas pistol .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for inflicting grievous bodily harm .

On DATE the investigative authorities decided that the applicant had acted within the permissible limits of self - defence and terminated the proceedings .

On CARDINAL DATE the Prosecutor of Razdolnensky District of GPE ( “ the ARC ” ) , quashed the decision of DATE and reopened the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was charged with having exceeded the limits of self - defence . On DATE he was placed on the wanted list . According to the applicant , he never left his place of residence in PERSON ( QUANTITY from the ARC ) , and the authorities had been well aware of his permanent address . However , they failed to contact him concerning the criminal investigation .

On DATE the charges against the applicant were amended : he was accused of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm .

On DATE , when the applicant was visiting the ARC , he was placed under an undertaking not to abscond .

On DATE the investigation was completed and the case was referred to ORG of the ARC ( PERSON районний суд GPE республіки ORG ) .

On DATE the court questioned the accused , the victim and witnesses , ordered an additional forensic medical examination and adjourned the hearing .

The next hearing was scheduled for DATE . This hearing was adjourned at the request of the applicant ’s advocate . The following hearings were scheduled for DATE and DATE respectively . After the adjournment of the hearing of DATE at the applicant ’s request , the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the court transferred the case file to the investigative authorities and ordered them to carry out a reconstruction of the crime .

On DATE the reconstruction of the crime was carried out and the case was transferred back to the court for consideration .

DATE the court scheduled CARDINAL hearings , none of which took place . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned on account of the absence of the applicant ’s advocate , CARDINAL on account of the absence of the prosecutor and CARDINAL on account of the absence of CARDINAL witnesses . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the court ordered an additional medical forensic examination .

On DATE the results of the examination were produced to the court . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE . This hearing was adjourned at the prosecutor ’s request .

On DATE the court ordered an additional medical and ballistic assessment . On DATE the designated expert institution refused to make the assessment , referring to the unavailability of qualified experts .

On DATE the court ordered the assessment at a different facility . On DATE the case file was sent to the expert facility . The next hearing took place in DATE .

On DATE the court terminated the criminal proceedings as the charges against the applicant had become time - barred . On DATE the applicant appealed , seeking acquittal .

On DATE ORG of the ARC ( PERSON суд GPE республіки ORG ) quashed the ruling of DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

DATE the trial court scheduled CARDINAL hearings , CARDINAL of which was adjourned on account of a witness ’s failure to appear .

On DATE the trial court found the applicant guilty , sentenced him to one year ’s restriction of freedom and released him from punishment as the charges had become time - barred . The court also lifted the applicant ’s undertaking not to abscond . On DATE the applicant appealed , seeking to be acquitted .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ARC excluded the mention of a punishment from the judgment and otherwise upheld it .

On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation before ORG of GPE .

On DATE ORG took a final decision in the applicant ’s case .