Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants live in GPE and PERSON in LOC . They are founders of the Arsenyevskie Vesti DATE newspaper .

PERSON published an article under the title “ All Power Comes from the ORG ” ( « Вся власть из леса ORG ) in issue no . CARDINAL of the applicants ' newspaper , dated DATE . The article stated that , while the town of Dalnerechensk suffered from underfunding , massive and unlawful felling of trees and illegal sales of timber to GPE thrived . A regional roundtable ( panel ) on the rational use and protection of forests revealed that representatives of NORP companies were constantly present at many timber yards in GPE and offered cash dollars for timber , whether documented or not . Such companies were registered at fictitious addresses outside the region .

The article went on to quote from an open letter which had been adopted by the participants in the panel :

“ All these irregularities have clearly been on the rise since the town 's police department ( timber purchasing quota of QUANTITY ) and the courts ' management department of ORG of GPE ( timber purchasing quota of QUANTITY ) became the forest operators . ”

The quotation was bold - faced and the source was clearly identified . The letter had been signed by CARDINAL individuals , including the head of the Dalnerechensk municipal council and his first deputy , the deputy head of the town police , the deputy head of the local department of ORG , the deputy head of the tax police , a senior ORG tax inspector , the deputy head of the department for environmental resources , CARDINAL directors of regional forest operators , and others . The letter had been sent on behalf of the Dalnerechensk municipal council to the Presidential Envoy in ORG and also made public at a press - conference held on the premises of ORG .

On DATE the courts ' management department of GPE ( NORP судебного департамента при PERSON в ORG крае ) brought a civil action against the applicants – as the founders of the newspaper DATE for the protection of its professional reputation and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . They submitted that the impugned extract had impaired the professional reputation of the department and undermined the authority of the courts ' management department of LOC and that of the judicial system as a whole .

Following the institution of the civil action , the applicants printed the letter in full in issue no . CARDINAL of the newspaper , dated DATE , under the headline “ ORG at FAC ” ( « Фирмы-призраки и Управление судебного департамента на лесозаготовках GPE ) . The letter was followed by an editor 's note under the headline “ It was not about you . Refutation ” ( « Вас тут не стояло. Опровержение » ) . The note emphasised that the quoted letter did not specify which courts ' management department had purchased timber . It went on as follows :

“ It is certainly easier for the head of ORG , Mr PERSON , who lodged the [ defamation ] action , to tell who[se department ] , in addition to its principal functions , has been a forest operator and whose professional reputation has been impaired when a newspaper brought this fact into the limelight ...

This is why the editor 's office decided not to wait for a court decision and considered it necessary to refute conjectures that readers might have made about ORG . Having regard to potential adverse consequences of the publication , we officially announce -

THAT WE DID NOT MEAN THE COURTS ' MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIMORSKIY REGION . ”

On an unspecified date Mr PERSON , the director of the courts ' management department of LOC , filed a civil action , in his personal capacity , for the protection of his honour , dignity and professional reputation and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . He alleged that the refutation had not been valid because it had been clear for a reasonable reader that his department had been targeted in the publication . He contended that he was personally responsible for his department and that the publication had caused substantial non - pecuniary damage to his reputation .

On DATE the ORG of the Primorskiy Region granted Mr PERSON 's action against the applicants . The court found that the publication had targeted Mr PERSON 's department because it had been the only courts ' management department in the region that had been allocated a timber purchasing quota of QUANTITY for construction of a new courthouse . On the other hand , the applicants had failed to show that the inclusion of the department in the number of forest operators had given rise to “ irregularities ” . The court held that the disseminated information could not have been the applicants ' opinion or value judgment because they had disseminated it without verifying its truthfulness .

The court rejected the applicants ' defence that they had quoted from an official statement which did not require additional verification under section QUANTITY and CARDINAL of the Mass - Media Act . In the court 's view , ORG that had circulated the letter was an “ autonomous non - commercial organisation ” rather than a “ public association ” , as provided in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL , and the head of the municipal council who had signed the letter was a municipal employee rather than an official of a ORG authority , as required by the same section .

The court ordered the applicants to publish a refutation and each of them to pay MONEY to Mr PERSON .

On DATE ORG upheld , on an appeal by the applicants , the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the ORG granted the defamation action lodged by the courts ' management department . The court held that the contested information had originated from a letter approved by the participants in a regional roundtable ( panel ) held in ORG , which was not a ORG authority , organisation or a public association . Therefore , in the court 's opinion , it was incumbent on the applicants to verify the truthfulness of the information before publishing it . Since the applicants had failed to do so and had also failed to prove before the court that the information had been true , they were at fault for the dissemination of information damaging the reputation of the courts ' management department .

The court ordered the applicants to publish a refutation and each of them to pay MONEY to the department and also bear the legal costs and expenses .

Article CARDINAL guarantees freedom of thought and expression , together with freedom of the mass media .

Article CARDINAL provides that an individual may apply to a court with a request for the rectification of statements ( svedeniya ) that are damaging to his or her honour , dignity or professional reputation if the person who disseminated such statements does not prove their truthfulness . The aggrieved person may also claim compensation for losses and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the dissemination of such statements . The same rules are applicable in cases where the plaintiff is a legal entity .

The ORG ( in force at the material time ) provided that , in order to be considered damaging , statements had to be untrue and contain allegations of a breach of laws or moral principles ( commission of a dishonest act , improper behaviour at the workplace or in everyday life , etc . ) . Dissemination of statements was understood as the publication of statements or their broadcasting ( section CARDINAL ) . The burden of proof was on the defendant to show that the disseminated statements had been true and accurate ( section CARDINAL ) .

The founder ( co - founders ) of a newspaper is a person or a group of persons who applied for registration of the newspaper ( section CARDINAL ) . The founder may not interfere with the functioning of the newspaper unless otherwise provided by law and by the articles of association ( section CARDINAL ) . The founders , editors , publishers , journalists , and authors , may be held liable for breaches of NORP legislation on mass - media ( section CARDINAL ) .

NORP The editor 's office and journalists may not be held liable for dissemination of information which is untrue and damaging to the honour or reputation of citizens and organisations if such information originated in press - releases of ORG bodies , organisations , agencies , companies or public associations ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) or if such information is a verbatim reproduction of official statements by officials of ORG bodies , organisations or public associations ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

A report on the honouring of obligations and commitments by GPE , presented by co - rapporteurs of ORG to ORG of ORG . DATE , DATE ) , noted as follows :

“ Libel lawsuits

We are concerned by the current defamation legislation and its application by the NORP judiciary and executive powers . Journalists are often prosecuted through libel suits ( CARDINAL lawsuits a year ) ...

Also the legislation concerned should not grant any special protection against criticism to public officials ... Finally , the possibility of filing lawsuits against media and journalists by public authorities should be abolished as the latter per se can not possess any dignity , honour , or reputation .

Therefore , we urge the NORP authorities to reform its defamation legislation , inter alia : ... to introduce a clear ban on public bodies to institute civil proceedings in order to protect their ' reputation ' ( without hindrance to the right of public officials to litigate in their private capacity ) , to clearly establish that no one should be liable under defamation law for the expression of an opinion ( ' value judgements ' ) ... ”


Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1-c;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and previously resided in the town of GPE , in GPE .

He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment ORG in the town of PERSON of GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having taken part in multiple episodes of organised armed robbery , along with CARDINAL other people .

NORP Since that date he has remained in custody .

On DATE the ORG of the town of PERSON ( “ the ORG ” ) , having heard submissions from a prosecutor and from the applicant in person , authorised the applicant 's arrest and pretrial detention .

NORP The court examined the materials of the case file and noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed a series of particularly serious crimes , had no fixed place of residence , work or registration in GPE , that he was a foreign national , that there were grounds to believe that being at large the applicant might flee from justice or continue his criminal activity , and that the application of less drastic preventive measures was generally not justified .

It does not appear that the applicant brought appeal proceedings in respect of this detention order .

On DATE the charges were brought against the applicant on suspicion of his involvement in multiple episodes of organised armed robbery .

Subsequently , on an unspecified date , the applicant 's case was merged with other cases which concerned the applicant 's criminal activity in the PERSON , PERSON and GPE Regions .

By order of DATE ORG , having heard submissions from the applicant , his counsel and the prosecutor , extended the applicant 's detention until DATE , for a total period of DATE and DATE .

The court mentioned the same reasons as in the order of CARDINAL DATE , adding that the applicant could put pressure on other participants in the criminal case , attempt to eliminate evidence and otherwise impede the proceedings .

The decision also noted the need to finalise investigative actions in the PERSON , PERSON and GPE Regions . The prosecutor estimated that these actions could take DATE and DATE . The court examined the materials in the case file as collected so far and agreed with the investigator 's reasons .

It does not appear that the applicant brought appeal proceedings in respect of this decision .

On DATE ORG extended the pre - trial detention until DATE , for a total period of DATE and DATE . The court noted that the applicant had been accused of a serious crime , that he was unemployed , and that from the case - file materials it followed that further investigative actions were required .

According to the court , there was reason to believe that being at large the applicant might flee , continue his criminal activity or impede the criminal proceedings .

It is not clear whether the judge heard submissions from the applicant or his counsel in person or whether any appeal proceedings were brought in respect of this extension .

On DATE further charges were brought against the applicant on account of other alleged criminal activity on his part .

On DATE the applicant 's pre - trial detention was further extended by ORG , this time until DATE , for a total period of DATE . The court gave reasons essentially similar to those mentioned in its previous decisions .

In a decision dated DATE ORG again extended the applicant 's pre - trial detention , this time until DATE , referring to the same reasons as in its previous decisions . The total period of the applicant 's authorised detention now amounted to DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the pre - trial detention until DATE , for a total period of DATE and DATE . The court justified the decision with reference to essentially the same reasons as previously .

It appears that on DATE the investigation in respect of CARDINAL co - accused in the case , including the applicant , was over and the prosecution authority sent the bill of indictment , along with the case file , to the trial court for examination on the merits .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) carried out a preliminary examination of the case and , having detected various shortcomings and defects in the investigation , decided to return the file to the prosecutor .

Those defects included the following : failure to notify the accused of their rights in relation to the jury trial procedure ; failure to decide whether there was any need to split the case in view of the fact that some co - accused had opted for a jury trial procedure ; and lastly certain inconsistencies and shortcoming in the factual conclusions made by the prosecution in the bill of indictment .

The court noted that all accused in the case should remain in detention as there were no reasons to release them . The court did not set any specific time - limit for their detention . The decision referred to all accused collectively , without analysing their circumstances individually . In taking this decision the court relied on LAW .

Upon expiration of the DATE time - limit for appeal on DATE , the court sent the case file back to the prosecutor 's office .

On DATE , having introduced necessary corrections and amendments , the prosecution sent the corrected case file to the trial court for examination on the merits .

On an unspecified date , the trial court decided to hold a preliminary hearing in the case on DATE . It does not appear that any formal decision was taken as regards the applicant 's detention on remand .

On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , applied for release . The request referred to the alleged lack of any lawful basis for his continued detention as of DATE .

This request was examined and rejected by ORG at the preliminary hearing on DATE . The court decided that the investigation should be suspended because CARDINAL of the accused , PERSON PERSON , was seriously ill , while one of the others , Mr PERSON , could not take part in the proceedings as he was being tried in a different set of proceedings for a different offence . The court noted that it was impossible to try the applicant separately from the other coaccused and that DATE time - limit , as set out in LAW , was not breached .

In respect of the lawfulness of the applicant 's detention on remand , the court noted that until DATE , the date on which the case had been sent to the trial court for examination on the merits , the applicant had been regarded as “ detained pending investigation ” and that after that date he was “ detained pending trial ” . In view of the trial court 's decision of CARDINAL DATE remitting the case to the prosecution as of DATE , the applicant was again detained “ pending investigation ” . On DATE the case was again sent to the trial court and the applicant detained “ pending trial ” . The court then gave the following reasoning :

“ Under Part CARDINAL of LAW , if a preventive measure in the form of detention on remand is chosen ... , then the term of the detention counted from the date on which the case reached the court and until the verdict has been given may not exceed DATE , except for cases explicitly mentioned in Part CARDINAL of the above - mentioned Article . The norm in question means that as of the date on which the case reached the court the accused is counted as being detained pending trial .

Under Part CARDINAL of LAW , the court in charge of the case may , upon expiry of the above - mentioned DATE , extend the term . At the same time , such an extension is possible only in cases involving serious or particularly serious offences , and each time for a term not exceeding DATE .

At the time when the case reached the court that is on DATE [ the applicant ] was counted as being detained pending trial . The DATE time - limit mentioned in Part CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL has not expired to date . The court finds no violation of the domestic law in this respect . ”

NORP The decision of CARDINAL DATE was contested by the applicant , through his lawyer , before ORG on DATE .

On DATE , that is DATE thereafter , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) examined and rejected the complaint . The decision referred to all the accused collectively , without analysing their circumstances individually . In its relevant part , the court ruling stated as follows :

“ [ the applicant and CARDINAL others ] are accused by the investigation of commission of crimes , including serious and very serious offences .

The circumstances which served as a basis for the preventive measure in the form of detention did not change . Having noted its reasons in the decision , the court came to the conclusion that the need for the preventive measure in respect of [ the applicant and other co - accused ] had not ceased to exist , and that there had been no reason to release him or to choose a milder preventive measure , which is why the court had taken the decision ...

This court has no reason to differ . ”

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings in the case and decided to hold a preliminary hearing on DATE .

In view of the fact that the DATE time - limit set out in Part CARDINAL of LAW was about to expire , on DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention for DATE until DATE . The court gave the same reasons as previously .

The decision of DATE was contested by the applicant through his lawyer before ORG on DATE .

On DATE , that is DATE and DATE , ORG examined this appeal and decided to uphold the decision of DATE . The court essentially relied on the fact that the circumstances relevant in the applicant 's situation had not changed and that the proceedings could not be finalised “ for objective reasons ” . Again , the court referred to all the accused collectively , without analysing their circumstances individually .

On DATE ORG yet again carried out a preliminary examination of the case and decided to return the case to the prosecution . The court ordered an additional investigation to be carried out , having spotted a number of defects in the work of the investigator , including multiple breaches of the rights of the accused .

By the same decision the court decided to leave the applicant 's preventive measure unchanged . The court referred to all the accused collectively , without analysing their circumstances individually . It gave the following reasoning :

“ ... Deciding on the question of the preventive measure in respect of all the accused , the court is of the view that they are accused of committing a few crimes in the categories of serious and especially serious offences , do not have any fixed abode in LOC , and according to the bill of indictment had committed crimes as part of a criminal group , and therefore the preventive measure imposed on them should be left unchanged . ”

The decision of DATE was contested by the applicant through his lawyer in ORG on DATE .

DATE . On DATE , that is DATE and DATE , ORG examined and rejected the appeal . The court referred to all the accused collectively , without analysing their circumstances individually . It upheld the decision of DATE in full , having noted that :

“ ... the grounds for choosing the preventive measure in the form of detention in respect of [ the applicant ] had not changed ; the need for its application had not ceased ... ”

On DATE ORG , whilst the case was still pending with the investigator , authorised the applicant 's detention for DATE more , until DATE . It indicated the same reasons for the detention as in the previous decision . In particular , it noted :

“ The extension of the term of detention of [ the accused ] is justified by objective reasons and is well - founded . [ The applicant ] is accused of the commission of a number of crimes , including very serious offences that were highly dangerous to society , and has no fixed place of residence in GPE ; this is why there are reasons to believe that if at large he may continue his criminal activity , abscond from the investigative bodies or impede the investigation in the case . In these circumstances , there are no grounds for a change in the preventive measure or for its cancellation ... ”

On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , complained to ORG about the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . The court noted that the applicant 's detention on remand was lawful and that :

“ ... the impossibility of applying to [ the applicant ] a different , milder , preventive measure was justified in the court decision on several occasions and the circumstances which served as a basis for confinement of [ the applicant ] have not become obsolete [ since then ] ... ”

On DATE ORG , whilst the case was still pending with the investigator , further extended the applicant 's detention , this time until DATE .

The decision of CARDINAL DATE was contested by the applicant through his lawyer on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to uphold the decision of ORG dated DATE , having noted that “ [ the applicant ] had been accused of a number of crimes , including serious and very serious offences ” and that the applicant 's detention on remand had been , and remained , lawful and justified .

On DATE the prosecutor finalised the investigation and referred the case to the trial court for examination on the merits .

On DATE ORG decided to hold the first preliminary hearing of the case . It rejected the applicant 's request for release and decided that the applicant should remain in detention , relying essentially on the same reasons as previously .

On DATE the applicant through his lawyer contested the decision of CARDINAL DATE in ORG .

On DATE the court hearing was delayed until DATE with reference to the absence of co - accused PERSON and his lawyer .

On DATE the hearing resumed . The court decided to continue the examination of the case on DATE because CARDINAL defence lawyers were busy in other sets of proceedings .

On DATE the court decided to postpone further examination of the case because of the illness and absence of co - accused ORG until DATE .

The hearing of DATE was again postponed because of the absence of co - accused PERSON , some witnesses and CARDINAL defence lawyer .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was cancelled and postponed with reference to the illness of the applicant 's counsel .

On DATE the hearing resumed , but later it was decided to postpone it again , this time with reference to the inability of CARDINAL of the defence lawyers to continue on DATE .

On DATE the hearing resumed . At the end of the hearing , it was decided to continue on DATE , since in DATE there were some public holidays , and CARDINAL of the defence lawyers as well as CARDINAL translator were busy in a different set of proceedings .

The hearing of CARDINAL DATE took place as planned . At the end of it , the court decided to continue the examination of the case on DATE .

On DATE the examination of the case resumed .

DATE . The next hearing took place on DATE , since the applicant 's lawyer , CARDINAL of the translators and yet CARDINAL other defence lawyer were busy and could not attend earlier .

The hearing of DATE took place as planned .

On DATE the hearings resumed .

The hearings scheduled for CARDINAL and DATE did not take place because of the absence of CARDINAL of the defence counsel .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , yet again referring to all the accused without analysing their circumstances individually .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the trial court hearings resumed .

On DATE the prison authorities failed to escort co - accused PERSON to the courtroom and the court had to adjourn the hearing of the case until DATE .

The hearings of CARDINAL and DATE did not take place as CARDINAL of the defence counsels was ill .

DATE . The hearings of CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE did not take place owing to the illness of CARDINAL of the co - accused and the unavailability of CARDINAL of the translators and CARDINAL defence lawyers , including the applicant 's counsel .

The examination of the case resumed on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the court was unable to continue owing to the illness of CARDINAL of the defence counsel . It was decided to adjourn the hearing until DATE .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention for DATE , until DATE . The court again referred to the same reasons as in previous decisions .

The court could not continue the examination of the merits of the case owing to the absence of CARDINAL of the translators who was busy elsewhere .

On CARDINAL DATE the hearing of the case resumed .

On DATE the applicant contested the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The decision of CARDINAL DATE was upheld by ORG on DATE , again repeating the same reasons .

On DATE ORG ordered the extension of the applicant 's detention for DATE , until DATE . The court again mentioned the same reasons as previously , having rendered a decision in respect of a number of co - accused in the case . In response to the applicant 's argument about poor conditions of detention , the court noted that the applicant had failed to present any evidence of the alleged conditions .

On DATE the decision of DATE was contested by the applicant .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It also essentially dismissed the assertion about poor conditions of detention as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG , in a decision collectively referring to a number of co - accused , including the applicant , again extended the applicant 's detention on remand , this time until DATE .

On DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL other coaccused , was found guilty by ORG of having taken part in aggravated robbery , participation in a criminal gang , and illegal storage , trafficking and use of firearms , and was sentenced to DATE and DATE of imprisonment . The court established that the applicant and the co - accused , acting as a criminal gang , had robbed trucks by disguising themselves as police officers and using real firearms to scare the drivers . They had subsequently sold the stolen property at local markets . The body of evidence included , among other items collected in various regions of LOC , oral and written submissions given by TIME witnesses and CARDINAL victims .

The judgment of DATE became final after it was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . It appears that the applicant raised an argument concerning the conditions of his detention on remand , but the court rejected it as irrelevant .

NORP Since DATE the applicant has remained in custody .

Between that date and CARDINAL March CARDINAL the applicant was detained in a Temporary Detention Wing of ORG of the town of PERSON .

DATE and DATE he was held in pre - trial detention centre IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

Since DATE he has been detained in penitentiary establishment IK-CARDINAL .

The applicant submitted that he had been detained in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL : cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY with QUANTITY sleeping places and CARDINAL forty inmates at all times ; cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places and contained CARDINAL inmates ; cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places for the total number of inmates ranging from QUANTITY to QUANTITY ; cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places and contained QUANTITY inmates ; cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places for CARDINAL inmates .

In all cells toilets were situated close to the dining table and were very dirty . No toilet accessories , such as toilet paper , toothpaste , toothbrushes or toilet soap , were provided by the prison administration . There was no ventilation and many inmates were heavy smokers . The air in the cells was very humid . The walls in all cells were infested with mice , lice and insects . There was furthermore no proper day - time light so that it was impossible to read and write . Each cell was provided with one bucket of warm water per day . It was possible to take a TIME shower once a week . The inmates had no access to clean water and had to drink tap water . The cells were not cleaned . The prison walks took place within a limited space almost entirely covered by a roof .

The Government commented only on the period starting from DATE .

As of that date and until DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places . The Government submitted a certificate dated DATE , in which the head of prison administration and a senior inspector certified that there had been CARDINAL inmates in the cell at the relevant period of time . At the same time , they conceded that the cell had been “ somewhat overcrowded ” .

The applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding . Cell no . CARDINAL had CARDINAL glazed windows which let daylight through . According to the Government , the toilet in the cell was partitioned from the rest of the living area , and there was a regular water supply and heating in the cell . The applicant was fed CARDINAL times a day and had the possibility of taking CARDINAL walk once a day .

In a letter dated DATE addressed to the ORG the head of ORG of ORG , submitted that , at the time of the applicant 's detention , facility IZCARDINAL/CARDINAL had been overcrowded , but argued that such overcrowding had been insignificant and offered to pay the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) in compensation for any damage suffered .

Rule CARDINAL provided that all suspects and accused persons in detention had to be given , among other things : a sleeping place , bedding , including CARDINAL mattress , a pillow and one blanket ; bed linen , including CARDINAL sheets and a pillow case ; a towel ; tableware and cutlery , including a bowl , a mug and a spoon ; and seasonal clothes ( if the inmate had no clothes of his own ) .

Rule CARDINAL stated that cells in pre - trial detention centres were to be equipped , among other things , with a table and benches with a number of seating places corresponding to the number of inmates , sanitation facilities , tap water and lamps to provide day - time and night - time illumination .

Rule CARDINAL provided that prisoners were to be given CARDINAL warm meals a day , in accordance with the norms laid down by the Government of GPE .

Under Rule CARDINAL inmates had the right to have a shower at least once DATE for TIME . They were to receive fresh linen after taking their shower .

ORG . Order no . CARDINAL of ORG for the Execution of Sentences of DATE deals with implementation of the “ ORG - trial detention centres DATE ” programme .

NORP The programme is aimed at improving the functioning of pre - trial detention centres so as to ensure their compliance with the requirements of NORP legislation . It expressly acknowledges the issue of overcrowding in pre - trial detention centres and seeks to reduce and stabilise the number of detainees in order to resolve the problem .

NORP The programme mentions pre - trial detention centre IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL among those affected . In particular , the programme states that , on DATE , the detention centre had a capacity of CARDINAL inmates and in reality housed CARDINAL detainees .

NORP Since DATE , criminal - law matters have been governed by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , the “ CCrP ” ) .

“ Preventive measures ” ( меры пресечения ) include an undertaking not to leave a town or region , personal surety , bail and detention ( Article CARDINAL ) . If necessary , the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear ( обязательство о явке ) ( Article CARDINAL ) .

When deciding on a preventive measure , the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “ sufficient grounds to believe ” that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial , re - offend or obstruct the establishment of the truth ( LAW ) . It must also take into account the gravity of the charge , information on the accused 's character , his or her profession , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances ( LAW ) .

Detention may be ordered by a court if the charge carries a sentence of DATE imprisonment , provided that a less restrictive preventive measure can not be applied ( LAW ) .

After arrest the suspect is placed in custody “ pending investigation ” . The maximum permitted period of detention “ pending investigation ” is DATE but it can be extended for DATE in “ exceptional circumstances ” ( Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL ) . The period of detention “ pending investigation ” is calculated up to the date on which the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court ( LAW ) .

From the time the prosecutor sends the case to the trial court , the defendant 's detention is “ before the court ” ( or “ pending trial ” ) . The period of detention “ pending trial ” is calculated up to the date on which the judgment is given . It may not normally exceed DATE , but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences , the trial court may approve CARDINAL or more extensions of no longer than DATE each ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

An appeal may be lodged with a higher court within DATE against a judicial decision ordering or extending detention . The appeal court must decide the appeal within DATE after its receipt ( LAW ) .

Under LAW , the trial judge can return the case to the prosecutor for defects impeding the trial to be remedied , for instance if the judge has identified serious deficiencies in the bill of indictment or a copy of it was not served on the accused . The judge must require the prosecutor to comply within DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) and must also decide on a preventive measure in respect of the accused ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . By a federal law no . CARDINAL of DATE , Article CARDINAL was amended to the effect that , if appropriate , the judge should extend the accused 's detention with due regard to the time - limits in LAW .

The relevant extracts from ORG of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) read as follows :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant filed an action for damages against the ORG , represented by ORG , with the GPE ORG ( okresní soud ) under LAW .

On DATE ORG ( krajský soud ) decided to transfer the case to GPE . On DATE the applicant supplemented his action .

It seems that the proceedings are still pending at first instance .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant , a NORP national born in DATE , is resident in GPE .

On DATE , he drove his car into the parked and unlighted trailer of a lorry belonging to a firm . His mother , a passenger in the car , died from her injuries and Mr. PERSON himself was severely injured .

The driver of the lorry and CARDINAL other persons , namely a garage owner and a filling - station assistant , who had undertaken to repair the trailer and tow it off the road , were convicted by ORG ( Landgericht ) on DATE of negligently causing death and personal injuries .

Mr. GPE brought actions for damages against the driver and the owner of the lorry before ORG and against the garage owner and the filling - station assistant before ORG .

The first action concluded with CARDINAL judgments of ORG ( ORG ) in GPE , CARDINAL of DATE awarding the applicant about DM CARDINAL for loss of earnings and the other of CARDINAL DATE awarding him DM CARDINAL,CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage .

In the proceedings against the garage owner and the filling - station assistant , ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) awarded Mr. PERSON on DATE compensation of ORG CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage , subject to deduction of the DM CARDINAL awarded by ORG . Mr. PERSON appealed on points of law ( Revision ) , but ORG ( ORG ) dismissed the appeal on DATE .

As regards the claims for loss of earnings , ORG awarded the applicant on CARDINAL DATE a lump - sum of MONEY together with an annuity , subject to deduction of the compensation already granted in GPE . ORG was ruling on an appeal by the applicant against a judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG .

The hearings before these courts and the pronouncement of their decisions took place in public .

Mr. PERSON filed with ORG an appeal on points of law ( Revision ) against ORG judgment . The appeal related to the quantum of his loss of earnings .

In his memorial of CARDINAL DATE , setting out the grounds of appeal ( GPE ) , he complained of ORG failure to grant his request that an expert be heard on the subject of the reports made by other experts concerning his loss of earning capacity ; according to him , ORG should at least have called for a further expert opinion ( LAW ) . He also challenged the method used by ORG for assessing the respective share of responsibility of the persons involved in the accident . A last ground of appeal concerned the question whether ORG was entitled to take into account the social security benefits received by the applicant .

On DATE , ORG refused to grant Mr. GPE legal aid , on the ground that the appeal offered no prospects of success .

On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer asked ORG to hold a hearing in the case . On DATE , its President informed him that the ORG was going to deliberate on the possibility of examining the appeal without oral argument . The President directed that the lawyer should have until DATE to file any observations he might wish to make . The latter acknowledged receipt of this communication on DATE , but submitted no comments . However , on DATE his client sent to him a letter protesting against the proposed procedure . A copy was sent to ORG , but it could not be included with the papers in the case since it was not a document prepared by the applicant ’s lawyer , only the latter having the right of audience before that ORG .

On DATE , the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG , without holding a hearing , unanimously rejected the appeal . Its judgment ( PERSON ) was neither pronounced in open court nor published but was served on the applicant on DATE pursuant to LAW ) , which provides ( translation ) : " decisions adopted by courts after a hearing must be pronounced " and " decisions which are not pronounced shall be communicated to the parties in such manner as may be found appropriate " .

The judgment read as follows ( translation ) :

" Having informed the parties and sought their views ( gehört ) , the CARDINALth ORG , at its session of CARDINAL DATE ... , considered unanimously that it was not necessary to hold a hearing and decided ... :

the appeal ... is dismissed . The appellant is to bear the costs of the proceedings ... "

The decision not to hold a hearing was based on LAW of CARDINAL DATE ( Gesetz zur Entlastung des Bundesgerichtshofs in GPE ) . Originally this LAW was due to expire on DATE but its validity was extended until DATE by an Act of CARDINAL DATE . The LAW , as so extended , applied to proceedings in appeals on points of law concerning decisions delivered or notified DATE and DATE ; it therefore covered the examination of the applicant ’s appeal , which was directed against a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( sections CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act ; sections CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG of DATE Gesetz PERSON in GPE ) .

Section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Act of CARDINAL DATE provided as follows ( translation ) :

" A court determining an appeal on points of law ( Revisionsgericht ) may take its decision without holding a hearing if it unanimously considers that the appeal is ill - founded and that oral argument is not necessary . The parties shall be informed and asked for their views ( gehört ) beforehand . The judgment ( PERSON ) shall record that the conditions for adopting this procedure are satisfied ; no further reasons need be given . "

On DATE , the applicant appealed to ORG against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ORG judgment of DATE ; in a supplementary memorial of DATE he complained of the above - mentioned legislation itself , relying , inter alia , on LAW .

In a ruling given on DATE by a panel of CARDINAL judges , ORG decided not to hear the appeal . It considered that , in so far as the appeal concerned the legislation , it was inadmissible as being out of time and that , as regards the judicial decisions complained of , it did not offer sufficient prospects of success since there had been no violation of a right specifically guaranteed by LAW and notably LAW thereof .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE .

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

In DATE ORG ) notified the applicant that he had to pay interest on his telephone bill on account of his delay in paying the bill . The bill related to use of a telephone line registered in his firm ’s name and installed in the firm ’s LOC .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG . CARDINAL for Civil Affairs . He claimed that , according to his firm ’s contract with ORG , interest could not be imposed for late payment of the telephone bill . Also on DATE , and at the applicant ’s request , ORG . CARDINAL for ORG requested ORG not to cut off the telephone line pending the outcome of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant .

On DATE , following an appeal by ORG , ORG No . CARDINAL of ORG quashed ORG . CARDINAL ’s decision on the ground inter alia that ORG could oblige the applicant to pay interest for late payment of the telephone bill pursuant to clause CARDINAL of the contract between ORG and the applicant ’s firm . When the case was referred back to it , ORG . CARDINAL for ORG , on DATE , insisted on upholding its initial decision in favour of the applicant .

ORG appealed . On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision with reference to its earlier decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG , on the applicant ’s request for rectification of its decision of DATE , quashed ORG decision of DATE on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter .

In the course of the civil proceedings , the applicant was again notified by ORG that he had to pay CARDINAL telephone bills together with interest on account of late payment . The bills and the interest thereon related to CARDINAL telephone lines installed in his firm ’s LOC , both of which were registered in the applicant ’s name .

On DATE ORG . CARDINAL for ORG , at the applicant ’s request , ordered ORG not to cut off the applicant ’s telephone lines pending the outcome of the proceedings which the applicant intended to take .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG . CARDINAL for ORG . He claimed that , according to his contract with ORG , interest could not be imposed for late payment of the telephone bills .

On DATE ORG . CARDINAL for ORG declined to hear the case on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter .

The applicant then instituted CARDINAL set of proceedings against ORG . The first set of proceedings was introduced on this occasion before ORG No . CARDINAL on behalf of his firm in whose name CARDINAL telephone line was registered . The date of re - introduction of the claim was taken to be DATE in order to prevent the applicant ’s action from being time - barred . The applicant claimed in these proceedings that his firm was not liable to pay interest on account of late payment of telephone charges in respect of this CARDINAL telephone line . The second set of proceedings was introduced on his own behalf on CARDINAL DATE before ORG No . CARDINAL in respect of his liability to pay interest on account of late payment of telephone charges in respect of CARDINAL lines registered in his name and installed in his firm .

On DATE ORG No . CARDINAL ruled that interest on late payment could not be demanded from the applicant ’s firm . In its decision ORG . CARDINAL pointed out that its judgment was final in view of the subject matter of the case under LAW . ORG sought to appeal the decision of DATE .

On DATE , in a separate decision , the First Instance Court No . CARDINAL rejected ORG ’s application for appeal .

ORG then appealed against ORG No . CARDINAL ’s decision of DATE . ORG No . CARDINAL of ORG transferred the file to ORG since it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the law governing the procedure before ORG ( Law No . CARDINAL ) . ORG No . CARDINAL in turn transferred the case file to ORG . DATE on the same ground .

On DATE ORG No . CARDINAL of ORG ruled in favour of ORG and quashed ORG . CARDINAL ’s decisions of DATE and DATE .

The applicant applied for rectification of the decision of DATE . On DATE , at the rectification stage , ORG . DATE reversed its decision of DATE and upheld ORG . CARDINAL ’s judgment of DATE in which it rejected ORG ’s application for appeal .

On DATE ORG No . CARDINAL also ruled that interest on late payment could not be demanded from the applicant .

On ORG ’s appeal ORG of ORG , on DATE , quashed ORG No . PERCENT judgment of DATE . The case was remitted to ORG No . CARDINAL .

In a judgment dated DATE the First Instance Court No . CARDINAL complied with the judgment of ORG and ruled in favour of ORG .

The applicant appealed against ORG No . CARDINAL ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the First Instance Court No . CARDINAL ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s request for rectification was further rejected .


Mr PERSON , a NORP national , lives at PERSON , near GPE , and practises as a lawyer ( abogado ) in GPE .

After setting up his practice in DATE , he regularly placed notices advertising it in the " miscellaneous advertisements " pages of several GPE newspapers and the ORG ( " ORG " ) . He also wrote to various companies offering his services .

ORG ( ORG del Col.legi d’Advocats ) brought disciplinary proceedings against him CARDINAL times on this account , and in DATE and DATE these led to the imposition of penalties , namely CARDINAL reprimands and CARDINAL warnings . The applicant lodged internal appeals against these penalties but did not apply to the competent courts .

From DATE notices giving details of the applicant ’s legal practice were published in the newsletter of the PERSON and ORG . They took up CARDINAL of a page and gave the applicant ’s name , with the title " lawyer " ( letrado ) , and his office address and telephone number .

ORG brought further disciplinary proceedings against Mr PERSON on this account . On DATE he again received a written warning for disregarding the ban on professional advertising ( LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , laying down the Statute of the Bar - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , following an internal appeal by the applicant , ORG ( ORG general de la ORG ) upheld the penalty imposed . Referring to LAW as amplified in the relevant rules of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) , it held that , given their nature , the notices in question went beyond the defined limits . It also pointed out that the applicant had recently incurred other disciplinary penalties for the same reason , and these had to be taken into consideration when ruling on the appeal .

Mr PERSON then applied to ORG . He argued in particular that the purpose of his notice was to inform the public and that the warning infringed LAW , which guaranteed the right to freedom of expression . He also alleged that the principle that only a statute could define offences and lay down penalties had been contravened because the provisions which prohibited advertising by members of the Bar and attached disciplinary penalties were regulatory in nature .

The court dismissed his application on CARDINAL DATE , holding that the notice in question was a vehicle for advertising and not simply an announcement of information . It appeared beside similar announcements by a driving school and an old people ’s home and went beyond the limits laid down in the Bar ’s rules , which allowed notices only to announce the setting up of a practice or a change of address ; this was not the applicant ’s case .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by Mr PERSON and at the same time refused to refer the case to ORG on grounds of unconstitutionality .

It rejected the ground of appeal based on disregard of the principle that only a statute could define offences and lay down penalties . It did so by reference to the case - law of ORG , according to which LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) makes it permissible for statute law to provide that the rules governing professional associations and the practice of the professions may be laid down by means of regulations . It held that LAW did not protect advertising as a fundamental right , because advertising was not a matter of expressing thoughts , ideas or opinions but of announcing the existence of a profit - making business activity .

Moreover , the ban on professional advertising by members of the Bar had legitimate aims , namely to uphold free competition and to protect clients’ interests . In such a case the right in question could be subject to restrictions .

The applicant then lodged an appeal ( recurso de amparo ) with ORG . He again maintained that it was contrary to the principle of statutory definition of offences and prescription of penalties enshrined in the LAW to lay down administrative penalties by means of a decree , and that since the notice set out genuine information , i.e. his name , address and telephone number , the penalty imposed contravened LAW .

On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible .

It held that the penalty complained of did not infringe the fundamental right to communicate genuine information . The aim of the advertising was connected with the " carrying on of a commercial , industrial , craft or professional activity " ; it consisted in " directly or indirectly promoting the conclusion of contracts relating to movable or immovable property , services , rights or obligations " , whereas the purpose of the fundamental right defined in LAW para . CARDINAL ( d ) was to enable citizens to " form their beliefs by weighing different or even diametrically opposed opinions and thus taking part in the discussion of public affairs " . The ban on advertising professional services did not infringe the fundamental right in question .

LAW guarantees the right to freedom of expression :

" CARDINAL . The following rights shall be recognised and protected :

( a ) the right freely to express and disseminate thoughts , ideas and opinions by word of mouth , in writing or by any other means of reproduction ;

( d ) the right to receive and communicate true information by any means of dissemination . The right to invoke the conscience clause and that of professional confidentiality shall be governed by statute .

The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any prior censorship .

These freedoms shall be limited by respect for the rights secured in this Part , by the provisions of the implementing Acts and in particular by the right to honour and to a private life and the right to control use of one ’s likeness and to the protection of youth and children . "

LAW the principle that only a statute can define offences and lay down penalties :

" CARDINAL . No one may be convicted or punished for any act or omission which at the time it was committed did not constitute , under the legislation in force at that time , a criminal offence , whether serious or petty , or an administrative offence .

Article CARDINAL deals with professional associations :

" The special features of the legal status of professional associations and the practice of professions requiring a university degree shall be laid down by statute . The internal structure and functioning of associations must be democratic . "

According to the case - law of ORG , this LAW does not preclude a statutory provision that rules governing professional associations and the practice of the professions are to be laid down in administrative regulations ( judgments of DATE and DATE ) .

The LAW states that any previous provisions contrary to it are repealed .

PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which was published in the NORP ORG of DATE , governs the functioning and organisation of professional associations . Section CARDINAL provides :

" Professional associations are public - law corporations , protected by law and recognised by the ORG , enjoying legal personality and having full capacity to act in pursuit of their objectives . "

Section CARDINAL ( i ) makes the professional associations responsible for regulating their ORG professional activities , for ensuring that professional ethics and dignity are upheld and that the rights of private individuals are respected , and for exercising disciplinary powers in professional and internal matters . To these ends , the relevant national councils adopt statutes , which are approved by the ORG . These statutes lay down the rights and duties of the members of each profession and the disciplinary rules applicable to them .

Royal Decree CARDINAL/CARDINAL laying down the Statute of the Spanish Bar ( ORG general de la Abogacía Española ) was published in the NORP ORG on DATE .

" Members of the Bar are not allowed to

( a ) announce or circulate information about their services directly or through advertising media , ... or express opinions free of charge in professional journals or other publications or media without permission from ORG ;

Articles CARDINAL govern the disciplinary powers of Bar councils . An appeal against penalties lies to ORG ( Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) and subsequently to the competent courts ( LAW ) .

At sessions held on DATE , DATE May and DATE ORG the Spanish Bars adopted the draft of a new national LAW , which has been submitted to the Government for approval . LAW provides :

" CARDINAL . Members of the Bar may advertise their services and practices in accordance with the legislation in force , this Statute and other rules and decisions of the Bar .

Direct or indirect advertising of individual members of the ORG and their services and participation by the former in legal advice programmes in the media shall be subject to certain conditions . Members of the Bar must

( a ) comply with the special provisions applicable to practice at the Bar as well as with the current legislation on advertising ;

( b ) show regard for truth , rigour and exactness without detracting from other ORG advertisements by imitating them or inviting confusion with them , without lapsing into self - praise and comparisons with or denigration of their colleagues and without citing their own professional successes , their clientele or the financial terms on which they provide services ; and

( c ) request the relevant Bar council ’s prior authorisation for the proposed advertisement , specifying its content and the way in which it will be published .

The Bar council may grant authorisation , make it subject to certain amendments or refuse it . In all cases , it shall give a reasoned decision that can be challenged in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles CARDINAL et seq . of this Statute and shall be communicated to the member of the Bar making the request within not more than DATE of that request , failing which the council shall be deemed to have given its tacit consent .

Notwithstanding the above , members of the Bar may , without seeking prior authorisation ,

( a ) use a letterhead stating their name , profession and university degrees , or those of their partners , and the name , telephone number and other particulars of their chambers , in the form customarily used by members of the Bar ;

( b ) affix to the outside of the building in which they have their chambers or their private residence and to the door of their chambers or nearby , a sign or plate announcing their practice , of the size and kind usual in the area of the Bar ;

( c ) have their status as a member of the Bar included in telephone , fax , telex and other directories ;

( d ) announce by letter or in the press any changes of address , telephone number or other particulars of their chambers , likewise in the form customarily used by members of the Bar to which they belong ; and

( e ) take part in conferences and symposia , mentioning their membership of the Bar , publish articles in the specialist and non - specialist press and make statements on radio or television .

Members of the Bar who continuously or occasionally provide services to individuals or companies must require them to refrain from any advertising that does not comply with the provisions of this Statute .

The Bar council shall rule on allegedly doubtful or unforeseen cases and violations of provisions governing advertising or any misuse of rights derived from the rules in this Statute . It may expressly prohibit practices it deems contrary to the spirit of this Statute and punish any breaches of such prohibitions . "

At the time when the penalty was imposed on the applicant , LAW of the Barcelona Bar ( Estatutos del Colegio de Abogados de Barcelona ) was still in force . Article CARDINAL quite simply prohibited members of the Bar from advertising , in the following terms :

" Members of the Bar are forbidden to publish notices relating to the practice of their profession as a means of advertising or propaganda . "

Being of the view that the ban on advertising was an important rule of professional conduct , ORG adopted a decision on DATE on " Members of the Bar and advertising " ( LOC sobre " PERSON advocats i la publicitat " ) , which provided , inter alia :

" CARDINAL . General principle

It is forbidden for members of the Bar to undertake any direct or indirect personal advertising intended to attract clients .

Authorised notices

Members of the Bar may publish small notices in local DATE newspapers in order to announce the setting up of their practices or changes in membership or of address , telephone number or telex number .

The size and content of notices must be approved in advance by ORG . They may not appear CARDINAL times during a maximum period of DATE .

Professional directories

Members of the Bar may publish their names , addresses , telephone numbers and telex numbers , with a brief indication of the type of professional services offered , in professional directories , provided that all members of the Bar have the same access to these .

A new Statute of the Barcelona Bar ( Estatuts del Il.lustre PERSON d’Advocats de Barcelona ) was published in LOC of DATE .

Article CARDINAL provides :

" CARDINAL . It is forbidden for members of the Bar to undertake any personal advertising intended to secure clients , whether directly or indirectly .

It is also forbidden for members of the Bar to consent either expressly or tacitly to any form of advertising offered to them .

The foregoing prohibition shall cover both advertising by word of mouth and written or graphic advertising in any form and of any kind . It shall also apply to advertising by means of radio or television broadcasts .

ORG may adopt rules to deal in greater detail with the matters covered in LAW . "

Failure to comply with the provisions of the Statute constitutes serious or minor misconduct , depending on the circumstances , and may lead to penalties being imposed ( Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the Statute ) .

On DATE ORG amended the rules laid down in its DATE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by forbidding members of the Bar to send press releases involving personal advertising to the media .

On DATE ORG ( ORG dels Col.legis d’Advocats de Catalunya ) adopted new rules on advertising . These superseded the earlier rules included in the statutes and decisions of ORG CARDINAL ) .

The preamble states :

" Advertising by members of the Bar is traditionally considered to be more or less incompatible with professional ethics . However , it is obvious that advertising , provided it does not go beyond certain limits , does not offend the vital principles of the profession ’s code of ethics , namely probity and independence . DATE information is one of the foundations of democratic countries and a right for users of a service .

Rules CARDINAL and CARDINAL make a distinction in this field :

" Rule CARDINAL

Authorised advertising

Members of the Bar may

( b ) publish documents , circulars or articles on legal subjects , even in publications not specialising in law , bearing their signature and indicating the author ’s status as a member of the Bar ;

( c ) express their personal opinions in the media on subjects of public interest or on cases in which they are involved professionally , taking care at all times to maintain professional secrecy ;

( d ) publish brochures giving details of their practices , the members of the Bar who work there and the types of case handled . This publicity material must be approved in advance by ORG . They may also publish information circulars on legal topics . The brochures and circulars referred to in this paragraph may be distributed only to clients and not to third parties ;

" Rule CARDINAL

Unauthorised advertising

Members of the Bar may not advertise otherwise than as allowed under the terms of the preceding Rule . In particular , they may not

( a ) advertise their services by making known their professional successes , giving the names of their clients or comparing themselves with other members of the Bar or by allowing others so to act without objecting ;

( b ) send brochures , circulars or other documents or offer their services to persons other than clients ;

( e ) advertise in the press or on radio or television except as allowed under LAW . "


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . The application is lodged on her behalf by her father , PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON PERSON , former Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant was born to PERSON and PERSON , a NORP citizen of NORP ethnic origin . The applicant ’s mother was HIV - positive ; she also suffered from tuberculosis , hepatitis and a number of other diseases .

On DATE the applicant was born in ORG no . CARDINAL . The birth was premature and the applicant suffered from serious health problems , in particular , respiratory troubles , a non - expanding lung , third - degree prenatal malnutrition , central nervous system affliction caused by oxygen deprivation in utero , foetal infection , conjugated jaundice and rickets . The mother chose not to put the father ’s name on the birth certificate because the applicant was born out of wedlock and the father was serving a prison sentence at the time .

On DATE the mother , being unable to perform parental duties , waived her parental authority in favour of ORG .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the pathology ward for babies of ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with cerebral oedema .

On DATE ORG ordered the transfer of the applicant into ORG care and her placement in ORG ( Дом ребенка ) . However , the applicant remained in ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE she was transferred to ORG . She was kept in an isolation ward in the infectious diseases section of the hospital as a child born to an ORG mother .

According to the applicant ’s father , the ward was overcrowded , the babies were underfed , they were not taken out for walks and did not have outdoor clothing , and sanitary requirements were not respected . He also alleged that the applicant ’s health had deteriorated in the hospital and that her development was retarded . The applicant ’s father submitted no documents to corroborate his allegations and it appears that he did not visit the applicant in the hospital .

According to the Government , in ORG the applicant was placed in a ward that measured QUANTITY with CARDINAL other babies with similar diagnosis : prenatal contact with an HIV - positive mother . The ward corresponded to the requirements of ORG . It contained a bed for each baby , a cupboard , a nappy changing table , toys and baby care products . Babies were provided with both indoor and outdoor clothes . Crockery was provided individually for each baby . It was cleansed in compliance with sanitary requirements . The ward was washed CARDINAL or CARDINAL times every day with special products authorised for use in children ’s hospitals . Thorough cleansing of the wards was conducted once in DATE . During this time the babies were placed in a different ward which had already been cleansed .

Nurses washed , dressed and bathed the babies and changed their linen on a DATE basis . They took them out for walks in accordance with sanitary requirements and medical indications . Nurses also attended to the babies so they could develop various skills corresponding to their age , such as sitting up , walking or holding a spoon .

On being admitted to ORG the applicant was examined by an immunologist and a neuropathologist . She was diagnosed with prenatal damage to the nervous system of hypoxic genesis , pyramidal insufficiency , psychomotor and speech retardation , rickets and anaemia . She underwent HIV tests on DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE , all of which were negative . She underwent blood tests on DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE and a biochemical blood test on DATE . In ORG the applicant also underwent electrocardiogram and ultrasonic scanning of internal organs . She was also examined a number of times by otolaryngologists , ophthalmologists , surgeons , neuropathologists and dermatologists .

The applicant was examined DATE by a doctor and permanently cared for by the ward ’s nurse and a hospital attendant . The nurse fed the applicant CARDINAL or CARDINAL times a day and carried out medical interventions prescribed by the doctor . All parenteral interventions were carried out using disposable instruments . The babies’ temperatures were taken DATE .

The Government enclosed extracts from the applicant ’s medical file and ORG internal documents to corroborate their submissions .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from ORG to ORG .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was examined by a paediatrician who stated , in particular , that her state of health was satisfactory , she was receiving sufficient nutrition , could walk independently , spoke in syllables and played with toys .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother died of tuberculosis . Some time later the applicant ’s father was released from prison and returned to the town . He brought proceedings seeking the acknowledgement of his paternity vis - à - vis the applicant .

On DATE the ORG established paternity on the part of the applicant ’s father . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s transfer to her father ’s custody and DATE he took the applicant from the orphanage .

On DATE the father brought proceedings before ORG on the applicant ’s behalf against the social security office and the finance office of ORG , claiming non - pecuniary damages for the applicant ’s allegedly unlawful placement in LOC . He maintained that , instead of having been transferred to a specialised institution , ORG , his daughter had been kept for DATE in the isolation ward of the hospital , as a result of which she had allegedly contracted conjugated jaundice , damage to the central nervous system , dystrophy , chicken pox and anaemia and her development was retarded . He claimed , on behalf of the applicant , MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .

On an unspecified date ORG granted the applicant ’s father ’s request to order a medical expert examination of the applicant with the purpose of establishing a cause and effect relationship between the applicant ’s placement in the hospital and her state of health . It was ordered at the father ’s expense . However , he refused to pay for it , and the court proceeded with the case without conducting the examination .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim in full as unsubstantiated . The court established that the placement of the applicant in the hospital was lawful and served the interests of the child . The father appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The courts at both instances examined the applicant ’s father ’s allegations that her placement at ORG was unlawful . They did not examine the allegations of inadequate conditions and treatment in the hospital since those had not been properly raised . ORG specifically noted in its decision of DATE that the applicant ’s father did not make a claim for damages against ORG , which remained open to him .

On an unspecified date in DATE the father wrote a letter to the regional office of ORG seeking institution of criminal proceedings against various officials of ORG alleging that , while the applicant ’s mother was pregnant with her , certain doctors or social workers had tried to persuade her to have an abortion .

On DATE the Deputy ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation in that respect . The applicant complained to a higher prosecutor about the refusal .

On DATE ORG of LOC informed the applicant ’s father that his complaint was dismissed and the refusal to open criminal investigation was upheld . The applicant ’s father did not appeal to a court .

The applicant ’s father maintained that their family was constantly discriminated against on the ground of their NORP origin . In particular , the applicant had allegedly been denied free hospitalisation in the town hospital when she had bronchitis . Furthermore , a municipal official had allegedly shouted at them , suggesting that they should “ pack themselves off to GPE ” .

On DATE the father applied to ORG seeking institution of a criminal investigation . He alleged that on DATE a group of people , according to him , social security workers accompanied by a policeman , had come to his flat , had tried to abduct the applicant and had stolen MONEY .

On DATE the complaint was transferred to the Biysk town police department .

On DATE the police opened a criminal investigation into the alleged theft .

On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the culprits .

The applicant ’s father then complained to ORG that ORG had taken no action in connection with his allegations of trespassing and “ attempted hostage taking ” .

On DATE ORG allowed the complaint . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings into the allegation of trespassing and “ attempted hostage taking ” . The applicant ’s father complained about the refusal to ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint and found the refusal to be lawful . ORG upheld the decision on DATE .

The decision to suspend the investigation into the alleged theft of DATE was quashed on an unspecified date . However , the investigation was again suspended on DATE . The applicant ’s father also tried unsuccessfully to institute several sets of criminal proceedings against police and prosecution officials involved in the investigation .

LAW provides that a court or a justice of peace may exempt a party to the proceedings from payment of , inter alia , costs related to expert fees or reduce such costs , taking into account the party ’s financial state .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13+6-1

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of PERSON .

NORP In DATE the applicant was acting as a liquidator of an agricultural cooperative .

On an unspecified date in DATE a preliminary inquiry was opened against him by the police in GPE . It concerned his alleged mismanagement of property of the co - operative DATE . On DATE the police confiscated the applicant 's passport . In DATE and in DATE he was questioned .

On DATE the GPE regional public prosecutor 's office instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for mismanaging the assets of the co - operative thus causing it substantial pecuniary damage .

On an unspecified date in DATE the investigator to whom the case had been assigned imposed a prohibition on the applicant 's leaving the country .

No investigative steps were taken after the opening of the criminal proceedings and the applicant was never formally charged or indicted .

On CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE , pursuant to oral requests by the applicant to terminate the proceedings and lift the travel ban , the GPE regional public prosecutor 's office sent letters to ORG with instructions to close , and forward to it , the applicant 's case file . Apparently , those instructions were not complied with .

On DATE the GPE regional public prosecutor 's office terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant , finding that the limitation period for the prosecution of the respective offence had expired in DATE .

On DATE the police lifted the travel ban imposed on the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

A legislative amendment that entered into force in DATE introduced the possibility for an accused person to request that his case be brought for trial or terminated if the investigation had not been completed within a time - limit of DATE , depending on the charges ( LAW Code of Criminal Procedure , as in force until DATE ) . That possibility applied with immediate effect in respect of investigations opened before DATE .

Under the ORG and ORG of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) individuals can in certain circumstances seek damages for unlawful acts of the authorities . The LAW does not mention excessive length of proceedings as a ground for an action for damages . Nor is there any practice in the domestic courts of awarding damages for excessive length of proceedings .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic and Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil action in damages with ORG ( PERSON ) against the DATE magazine PERSON ( “ the defendant ” ) , claiming that it had published a libellous article about him .

The court scheduled the first hearing for DATE . That hearing , as well as the CARDINAL scheduled for DATE , were adjourned at the applicant ’s request .

At the hearing on CARDINAL DATE the defendant submitted its reply to the applicant ’s claim . On DATE the court heard the applicant .

The hearings scheduled for DATE and CARDINAL DATE were adjourned because the witnesses summoned did not appear .

On DATE the court heard one witness and concluded the main hearing . On DATE , it gave judgment dismissing the applicant ’s claim . The judgment was served on the applicant DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the case - file was transferred to ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) as the second - instance court . On DATE that court returned the case - file to ORG because it lacked the power of attorney . Having obtained the missing document , the case - file was returned to ORG on DATE . Subsequently , on DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , on CARDINAL DATE ORG held a hearing and decided to obtain additional witness statements . The hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were adjourned because of improper summoning of the witnesses . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE . The proceedings are still pending before the first - instance court .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , complaining about the length of the proceedings . On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s complaint inadmissible since ORG had already decided on the case .

The relevant part of section CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , of CARDINAL DATE ; “ the LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been exhausted if the court with jurisdiction fails to decide a claim concerning the applicant ’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him or her within a reasonable time ...

( CARDINAL ) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this section is upheld , the Constitutional Court shall set a time - limit within which the court with jurisdiction must decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision issued under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE from the date a request for payment is lodged . ”