Preliminary objection dismissed (abuse of the right of petition);No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 34

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

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in GPE , and held in FAC no . CARDINAL .

The applicant is a former practicing member of ORG . He represented Mr GPE and Mr GPE , as CARDINAL of their lawyers , in criminal proceedings which are now the subject of complaints before the ORG ( applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , DATE ) . He also provided legal services to the oil company ORG the company ” ) in matters related to that company ’s application before this ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) . Until DATE the applicant worked as the head of the legal department of GPE .

NORP In DATE ORG opened an investigation into the activities of several of the company ’s senior executives , including PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ORG , PERSON and others . Some of them were arrested in DATE on suspicion of having committed large - scale fraud and embezzlement of the shares of several NORP oil refineries , including ORG . In particular , PERSON , one of the company ’s lawyers , was arrested . According to the Government , in her statement of DATE , confirmed in DATE , she testified that the applicant , as her manager , had instructed her in relation to the illegal operations with ORG shares , qualified by the prosecution authorities as embezzlement .

At the same time the tax authorities sued the company , seeking to recover unpaid corporate taxes . In DATE the courts delivered several judgments ordering the company to pay considerable tax arrears and considerable penalties . Enforcement proceedings commenced ; as a result , a large - scale corporate conflict broke out , opposing the company ’s shareholders on CARDINAL side , and the ORG , the company ’s largest creditor , on the other .

On DATE the prosecution opened an investigation into the alleged misappropriation of the shares of several NORP oil companies by several former senior managers of GPE . Charges were brought against Mr ORG , who , by that time , had fled GPE , and , sometime afterwards , against several other people . The investigation was pursued in DATE and DATE .

According to the applicant , in DATE investigators from ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) started questioning staff members of ORG and affiliated companies . The questioning sessions were accompanied by threats of criminal prosecution if the staff members cooperated with the senior executives appointed by the then major shareholders of the company . Those threats were also made to the applicant .

On DATE the shareholders of ORG appointed the applicant as executive vicepresident of the company . That appointment was supposed to take effect on DATE . On DATE the applicant was summoned by a ORG investigator and questioned . According to the applicant , during the questioning the investigator warned the applicant to “ stay far away ” from the company ’s business . When he replied that he had no intention of leaving his post at the company , the investigator responded : “ This is the first time I have seen a person volunteer to go to prison ” .

In the meantime bankruptcy proceedings against the company commenced . On DATE ORG of GPE imposed a supervision order on the company and appointed an interim receiver . DATE the applicant , as a vice - president of the company , initiated a reorganisation of its management structure . It appears that the reorganisation was regarded by the receiver and the ORG authorities as an attempt to hinder the bankruptcy proceedings .

By a judgment of ORG of GPE dated DATE Yukos was declared bankrupt , and the court replaced the company ’s previous management with a bankruptcy trustee . The ORG was appointed with the consent of the ORG - owned “ Rosneft ” company – CARDINAL of the major creditors of GPE at that time . The judgment was upheld on appeal by decision of ORG of DATE and became final . On CARDINAL DATE the bankruptcy proceedings were terminated and the company ceased to exist .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General requested the ORG of GPE to authorise criminal prosecution of the applicant in connection with his alleged participation in the embezzlement of the property and shares of several oil companies and refineries in DATE ( GPE , GPE refinery , ORG , etc ) . The ORG claimed that in DATE , when the applicant had been the head of the legal department of GPE , he had advised the company ’s executives and thus participated in their criminal activities . The shares in these companies had subsequently been “ legalised ” through a chain of financial operations . In their request the ORG referred to the materials from the criminal case , without , however , identifying them .

On DATE the Simonovskiy District Court in an open hearing , examined the request by the ORG . The applicant was present at both hearings . On DATE the case was adjourned . According to the applicant , the court informed the parties that on DATE it would deliver its decision on the prosecution ’s request .

On DATE and DATE ORG , at the ORG ’s request , authorised searches in the applicant ’s home and country house . In its decision the court summarised the charges against the applicant as forwarded by the prosecution , noted that the applicant was a lawyer and a member of ORG , and indicated his de facto and de jure addresses . The court identified the items or information sought as “ documents in paper or electronic format , correspondence , drafts and handwritten notes , other documents and objects important for the investigation ” . The court gave no reasons for its decision .

On DATE the applicant ’s premises were searched by the ORG investigators and certain documents were seized . In particular , the ORG searched a flat situated at CARDINAL , Bakinskikh PERSON street , GPE , and a house situated at CARDINAL , GPE , in LOC .

On DATE the court declared that the applicant ’s involvement with the company ’s activities in DATE contained “ elements of a criminal offence ” . As follows from the court ’s decision , it reached this decision “ after having heard the participants of the proceedings , and having examined the material [ материал ] submitted by the ORG ” . Consequently , the court authorised criminal prosecution of the applicant . Unlike his lawyer , the applicant was not present at that hearing .

On DATE the applicant was at the flat of an acquaintance , Mr S. , a member of ORG . At TIME the police arrived at the flat and rang the doorbell . According to the applicant , he heard the doorbell ringing but did not open the door , since the owner of the flat was absent and he did not have the keys . Having received no reply , the police forced the door , broke into the apartment and arrested the applicant . TIME the ORG lodged a request with ORG of GPE seeking the applicant ’s further detention pending investigation . The prosecution submitted a police report on the applicant ’s arrest , attesting that the applicant was arrested not at his permanent place of residence but in another flat , that he had failed to appear before ORG and that , according to some unidentified “ operative information ” , he had intended to leave GPE in order to evade arrest .

On DATE ORG examined the detention request . The applicant and his lawyer were present at the detention hearing . They pleaded that the applicant should not be remanded in custody . The applicant ’s arguments may be summarised as follows . The prosecution case against the applicant was very weak and was based on inadmissible evidence . ORG had not done its job adequately and had not provided reasons for its conclusions . The applicant had always cooperated with the ORG in the course of the investigation ; the investigation had already lasted DATE and the applicant had always gone to the ORG offices when investigators needed to question him . The applicant had not made any attempt to flee from justice or otherwise obstruct the course of the investigation . The applicant was the single parent of a minor child and the only source of support for his elderly parents . Finally , the applicant maintained that his poor health was incompatible with detention .

The prosecution maintained their detention request . They produced to the court a number of procedural documents issued by the prosecution authorities in the course of the investigation , witness statements , copies of electronic documents , financial documents concerning the business activities of several oil companies , etc .

Having examined the parties’ arguments , the court held that the applicant should be remanded in custody . The court held that the request for the applicant ’s detention had been lodged by a duly authorised prosecution official and that all the necessary formalities had been complied with . The court also held that if the applicant was dissatisfied with the decision of ORG , it was still possible to appeal against it . The court further held as follows :

“ The court takes into account that [ the applicant ] is charged with having committed criminal offences which are qualified as serious or especially serious and which are punishable by imprisonment of DATE . The circumstances in which those crimes were committed , information about the applicant ’s personality and his occupation [ all ] give the court enough reasons to conclude that , if he remained at liberty , [ the applicant ] might abscond from the investigative or judicial bodies , adversely influence the victims , witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings , take measures to destroy evidence and objects and documents which are important for the investigation but which have not yet been found by the investigative bodies , might contact his accomplices who are hiding from justice and [ thus ] obstruct the course of the proceedings , which is confirmed by the results of the search ( case file no . CARDINAL , pages MONEY ) and by the report of the [ ORG ] to [ the ORG ] as to information concerning [ the applicant ’s ] plans to leave GPE . The court also takes into account the applicant ’s age , family situation and medical condition and the fact that he has a minor child and lives permanently in GPE . ”

As to the applicant ’s allegation that the case against him was very weak and based on inadmissible evidence , the court held as follows :

“ ... As to the argument of [ the applicant and his lawyer ] that materials produced [ by the prosecution to the court ] contain no evidence of [ the applicant ’s ] involvement in the crimes imputed to him , the court can not take [ this argument ] into account , since the questions of guilt or innocence , [ and ] proof ... of [ the applicant ’s ] participation in the crimes are to be decided at the trial on the merits , and [ therefore ] should not be examined at the present hearing ” .

On DATE the ORG searched in a house situated at CARDINAL , GPE village , in LOC .

The applicant lodged several appeals : against the decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ( authorising searches ) , DATE ( authorising criminal prosecution of the applicant ) and DATE ( ordering his detention ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE . ORG held that the decisions of ORG were sufficiently reasoned and lawful .

On DATE ORG dismissed the defence ’s second appeal and upheld the decision of DATE . ORG held , inter alia , that at that stage it was not its task to examine the specific acts with which the applicant was charged or the evidence produced by the parties . Otherwise its work would amount to an examination of the case on its merits . The defence could not therefore rely on alleged violations of domestic or international law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal against the decision of ORG of DATE .

On an unspecified date , in addition to the previous charges , the applicant was charged with personal income tax evasion allegedly committed in DATE .

On DATE ORG , at the request of the prosecution , extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

At the hearing the ORG claimed that they needed to perform a number of additional investigative actions , namely , to obtain expert reports , to obtain replies to the court ’s rogatory letters and to obtain decisions on the extradition of PERSON and PERSON PERSON to GPE . Further , the ORG had to “ question witnesses , seize documents in ... organisations , banks , tax inspectorates and , based on the evidence thus collected , bring new charges against [ the applicant ] and perform other investigative actions aimed at completing the preliminary investigation ” .

NORP The parties’ arguments before the court were broadly similar to their previous position . The prosecution emphasised that the applicant ’s accomplices had fled from justice . The applicant , in turn , provided the court with more detailed information on his state of health . Further , he claimed that while in detention he had never been questioned in connection with his case .

The court concluded that the applicant ’s situation had not changed , and that therefore there was no reason to apply a measure of restraint milder than detention . As to the applicant ’s state of health , the court noted that despite information about the applicant ’s diseases , there was no evidence that his medical condition was incompatible with detention . The court also held that it was not competent to examine evidence against the applicant and the legal qualification given by the prosecution to the facts of the case .

The applicant ’s lawyers appealed against that decision . They submitted to the court of appeal additional documents concerning the applicant ’s state of health . They also complained that ORG had not examined the possibility of applying a milder measure of restraint . On DATE ORG dismissed their arguments and upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE the ORG requested an extension of the applicant ’s detention on remand . The prosecution referred to a document seized in DATE in the office of Mr PERSON , CARDINAL of the former legal advisers of GPE , from which it followed that the GPE management planned to put pressure on the law - enforcement bodies through political channels . They also referred to information received as a result of the operational and search activities , which showed that the applicant had tried to contact other co - defendants who were hiding abroad .

At the hearing the applicant opposed that request , repeating his earlier arguments . Thus , the applicant claimed that the ORG ’s allegations that he would abscond or interfere with the course of justice were not based on any facts . Finally , the applicant alleged that he should not be detained because of his poor health .

The applicant ’s defence also claimed that his initial arrest had been unlawful . The decision of the Simonovskiy District Court of DATE , authorising criminal prosecution of the applicant , became final only on DATE . Before that date the ORG had no power to perform any investigative actions in his respect , let alone to arrest him .

The court noted that the case under investigation was quite complex and that the applicant ’s detention on remand should therefore be extended . The court also repeated the wording of the first CARDINAL detention orders justifying detention . To the previous reasoning the court added that there was a risk that the applicant might continue his criminal activities . It also referred to the information received by the prosecution as a result of the operational and search activities . As to the lawfulness of the initial detention order , the court noted that , since the decision of DATE had been confirmed by the court of appeal , the applicant ’s detention was lawful . The court held that the argument of the defence about the lack of evidence of crime should not be examined within the detention proceedings . As a result , the applicant ’s detention was extended anew , until DATE .

NORP The defence appealed , claiming , inter alia , that the continued detention of the applicant amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On DATE the court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court again examined the arguments of the parties , “ materials ” produced by the prosecution and the applicant ’s arguments in favour of his release . In addition to the previously stated reasons the court referred to the risk of collusion with PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , all of whom had left GPE . The court also referred to the fact that on DATE the applicant had not attended the hearing at which the court had read out its decision authorising criminal prosecution against him . The court also referred to the fact that the applicant had not been arrested in his usual place of residence and that he did not open the door when the police officers arrived to arrest him . In addition , the court referred to an electronic document seized in DATE in the office of Mr PERSON , entitled “ Summary analysis of the criminal - law aspects of the activities of senior managers and shareholders of the PERSON - Rosprom - Yukos group ” . That document , according to the court , described various measures which the shareholders and senior managers of Yukos were preparing to undertake in order to apply pressure , through their connections in the political milieu , on law - enforcement officials , by bribing them , through fictitious claims and complaints , by organising a denigration campaign in the mass - media , etc . The court finally referred to the “ operational information ” provided by the prosecution authorities which showed the applicant ’s intent to establish contact with other suspects who had fled GPE .

On DATE the investigation was completed . On DATE the applicant obtained a copy of the investigation file , which contained CARDINAL volumes .

On DATE the applicant ’s detention on remand was extended at the request of the prosecution . The prosecution noted that due to the applicant ’s poor eyesight the examination of the materials of the case was taking a long time . They claimed that the applicant had connections in GPE and abroad , that he could flee from justice , put pressure on witnesses and otherwise obstruct the investigation . The court decided to keep the applicant in remand , referring to the applicant ’s character , the danger of absconding , the risk of collusion with other former senior executives of GPE , and to the factual circumstances referred to in the prosecutor ’s request . As to the applicant ’s state of health , the court decided , on the basis of the applicant ’s medical file , that it was not incompatible with his participation in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the applicant ’s detention on remand was extended until DATE , DATE in aggregate . The reasons given for that extension repeated the reasons relied on in the previous detention orders . The defence asked the court to summon and question the applicant ’s doctors from ORG . However , that motion by the defence was refused by the court , which referred to the certificates from the prison hospital by which the applicant was declared fit to support criminal proceedings and to stand trial .

On DATE the applicant ’s detention was extended until DATE . The court analysed , inter alia , the applicant ’s medical situation . It established that the applicant had refused to take prescribed treatment in the conditions of the remand prison hospital . However , the applicant did not show that the ORG treatment could not be administered within the remand prison hospital .

On DATE ORG of GPE ruled that the defence should finish the reading of the case file by DATE . In the ruling the court noted that due to the applicant ’s poor eyesight he had been unable to read the documents himself , and that the investigator in charge of his case had been reading the case file aloud to the applicant .

Upon his arrest on DATE the applicant was examined by prison doctors at remand prison CARDINAL of GPE . They established , inter alia , that the applicant had serious sight problems ; he had floaters in the right eye ( which he himself describes as “ effective blindness ” ) and overall impairment of visual acuity .

According to the ORG , the applicant was given an opportunity to have a blood test in the laboratory but he refused for religious reasons .

The applicant claims that after DATE spent in the remand prison his eyesight had deteriorated to the extent that the investigator in charge of his case had to read to him the materials of the case file . The applicant also developed photophobia .

On DATE the applicant was found for the first time to be HIV - positive . The applicant ’s illness was qualified as being of the “ third degree ” of gravity . Later it was re - qualified to “ fourth degree ” . The doctors concluded that the applicant could be held in the remand prison without unfavourable development of the HIV infection provided he received regular check - ups in a specialist [ Aids ] institution , including medical monitoring of his health and timely application of specialised therapy .

NORP Over DATE medical examinations showed a further deterioration in his medical condition as a result of the HIV infection . From the applicant ’s medical record it follows that he received medicine from his relatives and had consulted with the prison doctor .

In DATE , at the investigator ’s request , the applicant ’s medical file was examined by a group of specialist doctors . In a report completed on DATE the doctors concluded that the applicant was fit to be detained and to participate in the investigative activities . At the same time the doctors noted that the applicant ’s condition was worsening , and recommended FAC ( Highly Active AntiRetroviral Therapy ) treatment and regular monitoring of his health in a specialised medical institution ( DATE , or more often if necessary ) . The doctors also concluded that the applicant ’s right eye was completely blind and that the eyesight of his left eye was seriously impaired ( high - level myopia and complex astigmatism ) . However , the doctors declared themselves incompetent to decide whether the applicant ’s illnesses could be treated in the conditions of the remand prison ( point CARDINAL of the report ) .

According to the ORG , the prison hospital had all the necessary medication . In addition , in CARDINAL the applicant received CARDINAL parcels with medicine from his relatives . As to the LAW medication , it could have been obtained by the applicant ’s relatives in a specialised pharmacy in GPE , on the presentation of a prescription issued by ORG . In support of their submissions , the Government referred to letters signed by PERSON GPE , the head of the remand prison , and sent to the Court in DATE .

The Government produced further written depositions by CARDINAL former cell - mates of the applicant . They were addressed to the remand prison administration . The first deposition , dated DATE , was signed by Mr GPE , the second , dated DATE , was signed by PERSON PERSON . Mr PERSON was detained with the applicant in DATE . He testified that the conditions of detention were satisfactory , and that “ the applicant had received medical assistance in full , both from the remand prison hospital and his relatives ” . Mr PERSON was detained with the applicant from DATE until DATE . He repeated the account given by Mr PERSON . He added that on several occasions the applicant was taken for examination to external medical institutions .

The Government produced a copy of the applicant ’s medical file . From that file it follows that the applicant received medicines from his relatives and from the prison pharmacy . The medicines mentioned in the medical file included aspirin , antibacterial and antiviral drugs ( “ ORG ” and “ Cyclovir ” ) , locally acting anti - inflammatory drugs ( “ FAC ) , anti - allergic drugs ( “ Suprastin ” ) , activated charcoal , immunostimulating drugs ( “ FAC ) , nootropic substances , etc . Most of them were received from the applicant ’s relatives .

As follows from the medical file , in DATE the applicant did not refuse treatment or examination by the prison doctors . On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for examination . NORP The entry of DATE attests that the applicant refused to accept an injection before having consulted his lawyer .

In DATE the applicant developed severe headaches and pharyngalgia . On CARDINAL DATE he asked the investigator for referral to ORG for examination and treatment . He also complained that medical checks had been carried out only sporadically and that he had not received the previously prescribed treatment . In his reply of DATE the investigator informed the applicant that medical aid to detainees was within the competence of the prison authorities , and that his request had been transmitted to them .

On DATE the applicant was placed in ORG for a new medical examination . The applicant was informed of the possible side effects of the FAC treatment ; he signed a paper in which he expressly accepted the treatment . That paper informed the applicant , inter alia , that the treatment was not capable of curing his disease completely and that it could have side - effects , of which the applicant had been informed . That written waiver also contained the names of the medicines prescribed to the applicant : the entry of DATE in the applicant ’s medical file attests that the applicant had agreed to undergo anti - retroviral therapy .

According to the ORG , after DATE , when the applicant signed an information notice and accepted ORG treatment in writing , he refused that treatment , insisting that it should be administered in the specialised hospital itself and not in the remand prison hospital . The Government referred to a report signed by the deputy head of the prison hospital , a doctor from that hospital and a paramedic , in which they certified that the applicant had refused ORG treatment .

The applicant ’s medical file , produced by the ORG , contains CARDINAL entries related to DATE and DATE , attesting that the applicant refused to undergo treatment or examination by prison medical staff ( the first entry was dated DATE ) .

The applicant maintained that the medication prescribed within the ORG treatment had not been made available to him , despite his requests . In support he referred to the letter from the investigator , dated DATE , in which the investigator had mentioned that the applicant had asked him to start the ORG treatment . The applicant maintained that on DATE a paramedic from the prison hospital , while conducting his TIME rounds , had offered him boxes which apparently contained some medicine . The paramedic did not tell the applicant what was in those boxes . The applicant , who was almost completely blind , refused to take them , because he did not know about any new treatment being prescribed .

In DATE the applicant complained to the investigator that he did not receive medical examination and treatment . On DATE the investigator forwarded his letter to the prison authorities , requesting that the applicant be transferred to ORG for medical examinations . In his letter the investigator asked the prison authorities “ to secure timely medical examination of the applicant and his treatment , including the FAC treatment recommended by the forensic report ” .

From DATE the applicant suffered from a swinging fever of DATE C , lost MONEY of his body weight and was anaemic . In addition , he developed a number of opportunistic diseases . Thus , he contracted shingles and developed stomatitis , with evidence of oral candidiasis and associated dysphagia . There was evidence of marked neurological problems , with encephalopathy , poly - neuropathy , optic atrophy and corneal dystrophy . His eyeballs were sunken and he had chronic blepharitis . Further investigation apparently indicated persistent liver lesions with evidence of chronic cholecystitis , and other diseases .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for consultation . On DATE the applicant underwent yet another medical examination , which revealed a dramatic deterioration in his condition as a result of the HIV infection . On DATE he was examined in the GPE AIDS Centre anew . A report by PERSON and Dr PERSON concluded that the applicant was suffering from Aids ( CARDINALrd ( CARDINALth ) stage “ B ” ) . The applicant ’s condition was described as “ moderately severe ( unsatisfactory ) ” . The report also recommended that the applicant undergo in - patient examination and treatment in ORG .

The defence contacted PERSON , a NORP expert on ORG at the PERSON and ORG , GPE . Having examined the applicant ’s medical record , PERSON concluded as follows :

“ It is my opinion that [ the applicant ’s ] medical condition is such that there is imminent threat to his life should he remain untreated both in respect of the opportunistic infections , and the HIV infection itself . There is also a major imminent risk of irreparable damage to his health should these treatments not be initiated straight away .

Were [ the applicant ] to be imprisoned in the GPE , he would undoubtedly be released on compassionate grounds or at least transferred to a specialist hospital until his condition ha[d ] been diagnosed , treated and stabilised . It is of great concern that his numerous serious and indeed life- ( and sight- ) threatening problems have not been urgently addressed . ”

On DATE the prison authorities informed the applicant ’s lawyers that they had obtained the necessary prescriptions from the doctors of ORG , and that the applicant ’s relatives could purchase the necessary medicines for him . According to the prison authorities , however , the applicant was able to take these drugs in the remand prison and did not require transfer to an outside hospital for in - patient treatment .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from remand prison CARDINAL to the hospital of remand prison CARDINAL .

DATE . Following the results of the medical examination the defence submitted an application for release to the ORG investigator .

On DATE the investigator decided that , due to the critical state of the applicant ’s health , he should be released on bail . However , the applicant was not released ; instead , on DATE the investigator brought a motion before ORG , seeking to obtain the authorisation of the applicant ’s release on bail . The amount of bail requested by the prosecution was MONEY . In the application for release the investigator stated , inter alia , that the applicant ’s diseases could not be treated in the conditions of the remand prison .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined the investigator ’s request . According to the applicant , at the hearing a ORG representative opposed the applicant ’s release .

The court decided that it was not competent to deal with the matter . The court also noted that , under LAW , it was the investigator in charge of the case who was competent to order a suspect ’s release on bail .

On DATE the investigator took a new decision , this time dismissing the application for release . The investigator noted that it was for the detention centre ’s administration to decide whether the applicant should be treated in a civil hospital . The investigator further stated that , according to information received from the detention centre ’s medical facility , the applicant had refused the treatment proposed by the doctors working there . The investigator also took into account the decision of ORG of DATE , dismissing the application for release . The investigator concluded that he was not competent to decide whether the applicant should be transferred to a specialised medical institution . The defence appealed , but to no avail .

On DATE the court extended the applicant ’s detention on remand . With regard to the applicant ’s state of health , it referred to the certificate delivered by the prison hospital , which attested that the applicant had been fit for detention and could participate in the criminal proceedings . It also attested that the applicant had refused to be examined by the doctors of the prison hospital and had refused to take the FAC treatment prescribed to him . The court also referred to the conclusions of the “ complex forensic medical examination of the applicant ” . It appears that the court was referring to the examination carried out in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The entries of DATE in the applicant ’s medical file attest that on several occasions the applicant refused to undergo medical examination in the prison hospital . However , there is no information about the treatment the applicant received , or was offered . As follows from the entry of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant refused to undergo examination and treatment “ in the conditions of the infectious diseases department of the prison hospital ” . The entry of DATE attests that the applicant insisted on treatment in ORG . The above entries were certified by the signatures of the medical personnel on duty .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested the ORG to apply interim measures under LAW . He complained that , although the applicant had been recognised as unfit for detention , the court and then the investigator had refused to examine his application for release and to grant bail .

DATE . On DATE the President of the Section to which the case has been allocated decided to indicate to the Government of GPE , under LAW , interim measures which consisted of the following . The Government was invited to secure immediately , by appropriate means , the in - patient treatment of the applicant in a hospital specialised in the treatment of Aids and concomitant diseases . The Government were further requested to submit a copy of the applicant ’s medical file by DATE .

According to the applicant , on DATE ( that is , on DATE ) the ORG investigator PERSON , in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyer , put pressure on him to make a false confession and give false testimony against other persons , in exchange for release for medical treatment .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that the interim measure had not been yet implemented since “ it required additional time ” .

On DATE the applicant underwent yet another examination in ORG , with participation of the doctors from the remand prison hospital . Their report stated that the applicant “ continued to refuse anti - retroviral medicine ” . CARDINAL of the recommendations made by the doctors was “ to commence ORG treatment on receipt of the results of the blood tests conducted on DATE ” .

On DATE the ORG indicated to the ORG an additional interim measure , confirming , at the same time , the validity of the previous one ( the transfer of the applicant to a specialised institution ) . The Government were invited to form a medical commission , to be composed on a bipartisan basis , to diagnose the applicant ’s health problems and suggest treatment . The commission was also to be charged with deciding whether the applicant ’s medical conditions could be adequately treated in the medical facility of the detention centre . The Government was invited to report on the implementation of this additional measure by DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative contacted ORG . He submitted a list of doctors who should be included in the medical commission on behalf of the applicant .

On DATE the Government replied that the applicant could receive adequate medical treatment in the medical facility of the detention centre , and that his examination by a mixed medical commission was against NORP law .

The letter of DATE , signed by PERSON , the deputy head of the medical service of the penitentiary system , attested that on DATE the applicant consulted with a number of doctors , gave saliva samples for TB - analysis , underwent a blood test and an X - ray test , and underwent a biopsy of the lymph nodes .

The Government produced several reports by prison doctors in which they attested that the applicant refused to be seen by a doctor and to undergo tests . These include CARDINAL reports dated CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , in which several prison officials attested that the applicant “ refused to take medicine that forms part of the treatment prescribed by ORG ” .

On DATE a group of doctors from the PERSON and ORG examined the applicant ’s medical records at the request of his lawyers . The doctors concluded as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] can only be properly managed within an Aids specialist hospital and , whatever the reasons for his incarceration , this should be made available to him on compassionate grounds . He remains desperately ill and at imminent risk of dying ” .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the most recent extension of his detention . During the hearing the applicant remained in the prison hospital ; however , he was able to communicate with the judges through a video - conference system . At that hearing he stated that on DATE he had been taken to the building of ORG , where he had met PERSON GPE , the investigator in charge of the cases of Mr GPE and Mr GPE . PERSON had offered him a deal : if he testified against Mr GPE and Mr PERSON he would be released . PERSON had allegedly told the applicant that ORG had been aware of his health situation , and that it would be advisable for the applicant to receive appropriate treatment , perhaps in a foreign hospital . In DATE Mr GPE , investigator in the applicant ’s case , told his defense attorney , PERSON , that if the applicant admitted his guilt and agreed to cooperate , then he would be released . The applicant maintained that he received the same offer on DATE from PERSON , another investigator working with PERSON .

On DATE preliminary hearings in the applicant ’s trial commenced .

On DATE doctors diagnosed the applicant with Aids - related lymphoma .

On DATE the applicant underwent yet another medical examination by a team of doctors consisting of PERSON , the head of the GPE City FAC , and CARDINAL doctors - Mr Markaryan and Ms PERSON . They concluded that , in addition to Aids , the applicant suffered from T - cell lymphoma . They recommended that the applicant should undergo in - patient treatment ( polychemotherapy combined with anti - retroviral therapy ) in a haematologic hospital .

On DATE the applicant was examined by Dr Yurin and Dr Frolova . They recommended that he undergo anti - TB treatment and that the applicant ’s tolerance to certain components of the anti - retroviral therapy be examined , in order to develop a plan of anti - retroviral treatment . Their report did not contain any recommendations on the applicant ’s further detention .

On DATE the Simonovskiy District Court suspended the trial in the applicant ’s case . The court concluded that the applicant ’s poor health prevented him from participating in the proceedings .

NORP The court also examined an application for release lodged by the defence . The prosecution maintained that , if released , the applicant might interfere with the normal course of the proceedings . The court accepted this argument by the prosecution . It ruled as follows :

“ At present [ the applicant ] is charged with serious crimes ; if released , he may thwart the establishment of truth in the case [ and ] influence other participants in the proceedings . Therefore , the grounds on which the measure of restraint was applied [ have ] not changed . ”

The court further held that the applicant had been receiving adequate medical treatment in the remand prison hospital . The court referred to the fact that the applicant had been examined by several leading specialist doctors , including PERSON , the head of the haematological clinic , PERSON GPE , deputy director of ORG prevention , and PERSON , director of ORG . The court concluded that :

“ The applicant will receive full treatment in accordance with the recommendations of the doctors , which does not require changing the measure of restraint ”

On DATE the applicant was placed in ORG no . CARDINAL , in pursuance of the recommendations of DATE . In the hospital the applicant was guarded round - the - clock by policemen ; the windows of his room were covered with an iron grill .

On DATE the applicant was again examined by the specialists of ORG . He received medicine to commence the FAC treatment . However , DATE after taking that medication his condition deteriorated , he was placed on an intravenous drip and the therapy was discontinued . On DATE the doctors amended their recommendations and a new ORG regimen was prescribed and administered .

On DATE the applicant was further diagnosed with an ulcer in his oesophagus .

According to the applicant , while in hospital , he was almost always handcuffed to his bed , and was released only to use the toilet or take a shower . The applicant was able to meet with his lawyer for the first time on DATE . According to Mr PERSON ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE , handcuffs were applied to the applicant DATE , on the ground that the applicant was likely to abscond . The handcuffs were removed TIME in order to restore normal blood circulation .

On DATE the term of the applicant ’s detention expired . He lodged an application for release .

The applicant produced a report by PERSON , Director of ORG in GPE , dated DATE . PERSON , after examining the applicant ’s medical file , concluded that the applicant ’s lymphoma belonged to the category of cancerous neoplasm of lymphatic tissues , and that the applicant needed to undergo DATE of polychemotherapy with subsequent adjustment of the regimen . He stressed that chemotherapy should be conducted in a sterile environment .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was suffering from severe allergic reactions to the LAW treatment and that his condition was not sufficiently stable to commence the necessary polychemotherapy for his Aids - related lymphoma .

At the moment the applicant remains in ORG no . CARDINAL , where he is undergoing medical treatment . His detention on remand has been extended until DATE .

Under LAW ( “ the LAW ” or “ CCrP ” ) , the police may arrest a person suspected of having committed an offence punishable by imprisonment if the person is caught in the act or immediately after committing the offence . No judicial authorisation of the arrest is required .

“ Preventive measures ” or “ measures of restraint ” ( меры пресечения ) include an undertaking not to leave a town or region , personal surety , bail and detention on remand ( Article CARDINAL ) . If necessary , the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear ( обязательство о явке ) ( Article CARDINAL ) . Pursuant to Article CARDINAL , within TIME of the time of arrest a suspect must be released if a measure of restraint in the form of custody has not been imposed on him or her , or if a final decision has not been deferred by a court under LAW ( paragraph CARDINAL , subparagraph CARDINAL ) of the LAW . When imposition of custody as a measure of restraint is deemed to be necessary , an application must be lodged to that effect with a district court by a prosecutor or by an investigator or inquiry officer with the consent of a prosecutor .

Pursuant to LAW , taking into custody as a measure of restraint is to be imposed by a court decision on a person accused or suspected of having committed an offence punishable under criminal law by imprisonment for a term exceeding DATE , if it is impossible to use a different , milder measure of restraint .

If a judge ’s ruling to take the suspect into custody as a measure of restraint or to extend the custody period does not arrive within TIME from the moment of the arrest , the suspect must be released immediately , and the head of the custody facility in which the suspect is held must notify the inquiry agency or the investigator in charge of the proceedings in the criminal case and the prosecutor about such release . If a court finding or ruling exists that denies an investigator ’s application to order a measure of restraint in the form of custody , a copy of that ruling must be provided to the suspect when he is released .

Under LAW , a court is empowered to impose a measure of restraint ( that is , custody ) on a suspect , provided that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the suspect ( CARDINAL ) might abscond during the inquiry , pre - trial investigation or trial ; ( CARDINAL ) might continue to engage in criminal activities ; or ( CARDINAL ) might threaten a witness or other participants in the criminal proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the preliminary investigation or trial of the criminal case .

Under LAW , the circumstances to be taken into account when imposing a measure of restraint include , apart from those specified in LAW , the seriousness of the charges brought and the defendant ’s personality , age , health , family status , occupation and other circumstances . The judge ’s ruling is to be forwarded to the person who has lodged the application , the prosecutor , and the defendant ( suspect ) , for immediate execution . Under LAW , a second application for a person to be taken into custody in the same criminal case after CARDINAL such application has been denied by a judge ’s ruling may be lodged with a court only if new circumstances emerge which justify the need to take the person into custody . A judge ’s ruling on whether to take a person into custody may be appealed against to a higher court within DATE from the date on which the ruling was given . A judge of the appellate court ( кассационная инстанция ) must give a decision on such complaint or representation within DATE from the date of its receipt .

Pursuant to LAW , a special procedure is to be applied in criminal cases with respect to MPs , judges , prosecutors , lawyers ( адвокат ) , etc . Under LAW , a prosecutor takes the decision to initiate criminal proceedings against a lawyer . Such a decision is subject to approval by a judge . LAW prohibits the arrest of MPs , judges , prosecutors and certain other categories of ORG officials , unless they have been caught at the scene of the crime . However , lawyers are not immune from “ arrest ” .

Under LAW , if there was no court decision authorising the criminal prosecution of a lawyer , the court should give its authorisation for investigative measures to be taken in respect of the lawyer .

On DATE ORG of GPE gave a constitutional interpretation of LAW ( Ruling no . CARDINAL-O ) of the CCrP insofar as it concerned MPs . It held , inter alia , that before authorising criminal prosecution of an MP the courts are supposed to “ check the sufficiency of information produced by the prosecution indicating that a crime has been committed ” ( point CARDINAL of the operative part of the Ruling ) .

On DATE ORG adopted Decree no . CARDINAL establishing a country - wide network of Aids control centres , and giving the doctors practical recommendations and information on the diagnosis and treatment of Aids . It also proposed a classification of different stages of Aids : ( CARDINAL ) incubation stage ; ( CARDINAL ) stage of primary manifestations ; ( CARDINAL ) stage of secondary manifestations ; and ( CARDINAL ) terminal stage . Each stage is divided into sub - groups ( A , B , etc . ) . CARDINAL of the Decree stipulates that in the event of deterioration in the state of health of an HIV - positive patient , in particular , where secondary and opportunistic diseases appear , he or she should be placed in a hospital . The Decree stipulates that HIV - positive patients should be treated in specialised hospitals or specialised departments of general hospitals ; however , “ when no specialised hospitals are available , it is advisable to use infectious diseases hospitals ” .

On DATE the Government of GPE adopted Decree no . DATE establishing a list of diseases incompatible with serving a prison sentence . That list included malignant tumours ( cancer ) of lymph- and hematopoietic tissues , myeloproliferative tumours ( point CARDINAL of the decree ) , a manifest decrease in eye acuity as a result of permanent pathological changes ( the eye acuity in the better eye should be inferior to CARDINAL and not amenable to correction with lenses ) , diseases caused by HIV at the deuteropathy stage ( secondary diseases ) , in the form of generalised infection , cancer or affliction of the central nervous system .

ORG stipulate that prisoners should be transferred to specialist hospitals where treatment is not available in prison ( Rule CARDINAL , ORG . ( CARDINAL of ORG to member states ) . Recommendation no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG to member GPE concerning prison and criminological aspects of the control of transmissible diseases , including Aids and related health problems in prison provides , inter alia , that prisoners with terminal HIV disease should be granted early release , in so far as possible , and given proper treatment outside the prison .

ORG on HIV / Aids and Human Rights , under the heading “ Freedom from Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ” state that denial to prisoners of access to HIV - related health care can constitute cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment , whereas prisoners suffering from Aids ( as opposed to “ mere ” infection with HIV ) should be considered for early release and given proper treatment outside prison .

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

A prison health care service should be able to provide medical treatment and nursing care , as well as appropriate diets , physiotherapy , rehabilitation or any other necessary special facility , in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community . Provision in terms of medical , nursing and technical staff , as well as LOC , installations and equipment , should be geared accordingly .

There should be appropriate supervision of the pharmacy and of the distribution of medicines . Further , the preparation of medicines should always be entrusted to qualified staff ( pharmacist / nurse , etc . ) .

DATE . A medical file should be compiled for each patient , containing diagnostic information as well as an ongoing record of the patient ’s evolution and of any special examinations he has undergone . In the event of a transfer , the file should be forwarded to the doctors in the receiving establishment .

Further , DATE registers should be kept by health care teams , in which particular incidents relating to the patients should be mentioned . Such registers are useful in that they provide an overall view of the health care situation in the prison , at the same time as highlighting specific problems which may arise .

The smooth operation of a health care service presupposes that doctors and nursing staff are able to meet regularly and to form a working team under the authority of a senior doctor in charge of the service . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

The respondent Government were represented by their successive Agents , respectively PERSON and Mr PERSON , and by their successive co - Agents , respectively Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON .

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

The applicant is the owner of a flat in GPE , which she had let to GPE

In a writ served on the tenant on DATE , she communicated her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on DATE and summoned him to appear before the Naples Magistrate .

At the hearing of DATE , PERSON opposed alleging that the lease expired on DATE . The Magistrate declared its incompetence because of the value of the object of the proceedings and referred the parties to ORG .

On DATE the action was resumed .

By a decision of DATE , ORG decided to extend the lease to DATE pursuant to LAW , and ordered that the premises be vacated by CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , a notice was served on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises .

On DATE , the tenant was informed that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , the bailiff made an attempt to recover possession , but it proved unsuccessful .

Pursuant to LAW , on DATE , ORG suspended the eviction proceedings until DATE .

On DATE , a second notice was served on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on DATE .

DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession , which proved unsuccessful , as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police enforcing the order for possession .

On DATE , the applicant recovered possession of the flat .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

Mr GPE is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is an established civil servant working for ORG and lives in GPE .

On DATE he made an application for extended sick - leave , but the medical board decided on DATE that he was fit for work . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was notified of ORG refusal to grant him extended sick - leave and was requested to resume his duties . He did not comply with that request , however , and produced several doctor ’s certificates DATE and DATE . After further medical examinations carried out at the instance of ORG , the applicant was pronounced fit to resume work . As Mr Benkessiouer nevertheless still refused to return to work , it was decided on CARDINAL DATE that he should be listed as being absent without excuse since CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he was informed that he would shortly be dismissed if he did not return to his job .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for judicial review of ORG decisions to refuse him extended sick - leave , to suspend payment of his salary with effect from CARDINAL DATE for failure to perform his duties and to put him on notice to return to work or face dismissal . Relying on the damage allegedly caused him by those CARDINAL decisions and on the administrative harassment he had experienced , he sought MONEY ( FRF ) in damages from ORG .

In all , Mr GPE filed CARDINAL supplementary pleadings between CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

In an application of CARDINAL DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a stay of execution of the decision to suspend payment of his salary .

On DATE ORG ordered an expert medical opinion .

On DATE the applicant lodged a further application with ORG , seeking judicial review of the decision whereby the ORG mutual insurance company had reduced the amounts reimbursed in respect of the costs of his medical examinations and medicines to PERCENT or PERCENT . He also sought ORG CARDINAL in supplementary damages for the damage sustained on account of unexpected further medical examinations and the non - payment of his salary from CARDINAL DATE onwards .

On DATE the applicant filed a pleading .

NORP The medical expert filed his report on DATE . He concluded that on CARDINAL DATE Mr GPE had not been fit to resume work . On DATE the report was communicated to the respondent . ORG challenged it and applied for a second expert opinion .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG joined the applicant ’s CARDINAL applications .

It quashed the decisions to refuse extended sick - leave and to suspend payment of his salary and , holding that those unlawful decisions rendered ORG liable to its employee , awarded the applicant FRF CARDINAL damages for the damage he had sustained .

The court dismissed the third application of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It held that the decision to put the applicant on notice to return to work or face dismissal was not amenable to judicial review ; it ruled that the claim for damages for the unexpected further medical examinations was ill - founded ; and , lastly , it declared inadmissible the claim for damages for failure to deliver a registered letter and the application for judicial review of the decision to reduce the amounts reimbursed in respect of the costs of medical examinations and medicines , on the ground that it had no jurisdiction .

On DATE Mr Benkessiouer lodged an application with ORG for an interim award of ORG CARDINAL .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the application , holding that it had not been established that ORG had a liability to the applicant for the purposes of LAW of ORG .

On DATE Mr GPE appealed against that order to the ORG d’Etat , which transferred it on DATE to ORG under LAW of ORG . On DATE the applicant produced supplementary observations , and on CARDINAL DATE ORG filed its defence .

In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld ORG order of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied to the ORG d’Etat , which ruled against him on DATE .

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on the organisation of the public post and telecommunications service , which established from DATE a public - law entity , ORG , described as a provider of a public service , lays down in LAW , “ Staff ” :

Section CARDINAL

“ The staff of ORG … shall be governed by special rules made pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE laying down the rights and duties of civil servants and to PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE making provisions governing the civil service … ”

The relevant sections of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE making provisions governing the civil service provide :

Section CARDINAL

“ A civil servant in post shall be entitled to :

( CARDINAL ) sick - leave of DATE in all during a period of DATE in the event of duly certified illness making it impossible for the person concerned to carry out his duties . The civil servant shall then remain on full salary for DATE and shall be paid CARDINAL his salary for DATE

However , if the illness arises from one of the exceptional causes referred to in LAW or from an accident that occurred in the performance of his duties or when performing them , the civil servant shall be paid his full salary until he is able to resume his duties or is retired . He shall further be entitled to reimbursement of medical fees and expenses directly entailed by the illness or accident .

( CARDINAL ) extended sick - leave of a maximum length of DATE in cases in which it is established that the illness makes it impossible for the person concerned to carry out his duties , requires prolonged treatment and care , is disabling and has been confirmed as serious . The civil servant shall remain on full salary for DATE and shall be paid CARDINAL his salary for the following DATE … ”

Section CARDINAL

“ Other than in the event of desertion of post … , civil servants may only be dismissed in accordance with the statutory provisions on reduction in numbers of managerial staff , whereby those concerned are either redeployed or compensated . ”

Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE on the appointment of civilian and military medical boards , physical - fitness requirements for admission to posts in the public service and rules on sick - leave for civil servants provides :

Section CARDINAL

“ In each département a medical board competent for the staff mentioned in section CARDINAL below shall be established and attached to the Commissioner of the Republic … ”

Section CARDINAL

“ The medical boards shall be responsible for giving the appropriate authority , as laid down in the present Decree , an opinion on medical disputes which may arise in connection … with the granting and renewal of sick - leave …

They shall mandatorily be consulted on :

( CARDINAL ) the granting of extended sick - leave and extended leave of absence ;

Section CARDINAL

“ The civilian and military medical boards of the départements shall be competent for civil servants carrying out their duties in the départements concerned , except for the heads of external departments referred to in section CARDINAL above and subject to the provisions of the last paragraph of that section . ”


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

A.

From DATE to DATE , the applicant was an officer ( funkcjonariusz ) of ORG ( PERSON ) and ORG ( Komitet Do Spraw Bezpieczeństwa Publicznego ) .

On DATE ORG of the Union of Fighters for Liberty and Democracy ( Zarząd Wojewódzki PERSON i GPE ) issued a decision granting the applicant the so - called “ veteran status ” ( uprawnienia kombatanckie ) on the basis of the fact :

“ ... that he [ had ] served from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in the [ so - called ] Restored PERCENT . ”

On DATE the ORG issued a decision stating that the applicant should be granted “ veteran status ” also in view of the fact that :

“ ... from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he [ had taken ] part in the armed struggle to consolidate the people ’s power ( brał udział w walkach o utrwalanie władzy ludowej ) . ”

On DATE ORG issued a declaration stating that , from DATE to DATE , the applicant had been an officer of the former ORG and the former ORG and that , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , “ he had taken part in armed fighting with the reactionary underground resistance forces ” ( brał udział w zbrojnej walce z reakcyjnym podziemiem ) .

On DATE the ORG issued a decision stating that the applicant should be granted “ veteran status ” since :

“ From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he [ had ] served in the Restored PERCENT ; from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL JuneCARDINAL he [ had ] served in the allied armies ; from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE he [ had taken ] part in the armed struggle to consolidate the people ’s power . ”

Later , on an unspecified date , the applicant retired and , from that date , received a retirement pension and a so - called “ veteran benefit ” ( dodatek kombatancki ) , i.e. a DATE allowance to which only retired veterans were entitled .

On DATE the Director of the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons ( PERSON Do PERSON i Osób Represjonowanych ) issued a decision divesting the applicant of the status of veteran under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of LAW DATE on NORP and Other Victims of War and Post - war Repression ( Ustawa o kombatantach oraz niektórych osobach będących ofiarami represji wojennych i okresu powojennego ) , read in conjunction with LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of that LAW . The reasons for this decision read :

“ [ The applicant ] was granted “ veteran status ” by virtue of the decisions issued by ORG on the basis of declarations [ of the relevant military authorities ] , stating that he had taken part in the armed struggle to consolidate the people ’s power and had served in the allied army . [ He was later granted such a status ] on the basis of a declaration issued by ORG on DATE , stating that , from DATE to DATE , he had been an officer of the former ORG and the former ORG and that , from DATE to DATE , he had taken part in armed fighting with [ the so - called ] reactionary underground resistance forces .

Under LAW § DATE ) ( a ) of the PERSON of DATE cited above anyone who has served in organs of the public security service shall not acquire “ veteran status ” [ in any circumstances and for whatever other reasons ] .

Under LAW read together with LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of the LAW , anyone who has served in organs of the public security service shall be divested of such [ previously acquired ] status .

That being so , the present decision is justified . ”

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) , submitting that the above - mentioned decision had been issued in breach of the rule of law and based on insufficient evidence . He maintained that he had been divested of his status of veteran on the basis of a single circumstance , namely , that he had served in the organs of the public security service , even though he had never committed any condemnable , illegal or immoral act . He stressed that he had never taken part in armed fighting with the underground resistance forces but had acquired “ veteran status ” for his fight for independence of GPE and against the NORP . Finally , the applicant contested the accuracy of the certificates issued by ORG , stating that they were inaccurate .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the applicant ’s case . On DATE the court gave judgment dismissing the appeal . It held that , under LAW and DATE of the Law of DATE on NORP and Other Victims of War and Post - war Repression , no one who had previously served , or been employed in , the organs of the public security service could receive or retain the status of veteran , whatever his merits . In the instant case , it was clear that the applicant had been an officer of the former ORG and the former ORG ; this fact was , in itself , sufficient under the terms of the Law of DATE to justify the decision to divest him of his previously acquired status . The impugned decision had therefore been taken in conformity with the relevant provisions of the substantive law .

PERSON Relevant domestic law

The Law of DATE on NORP and Other Victims of War and Post - War Repression repealed the PERSON of CARDINAL DATE on the Special Status of Veterans ( LOC o szczególnych uprawnieniach kombatantów ) .

It was enacted in order to regulate the system of granting special privileges attached to the so - called “ veteran status ” and , partly , intended to condemn the political role played by the former NORP machinery ( in particular , the so - called “ Public Security Service ” , “ aparat bezpieczeństwa publicznego ” ) in establishing the NORP regime , implementing a NORP policy and repressing political opposition to the system . Considering that persons having served in the former organs of public security , whose task it had been , inter alia , to combat and eliminate all forms of democratic opposition , did not deserve the special privileges attached to “ veteran status ” , the legislator decided that they should be unconditionally deprived of that status .

The “ Public Security Service ” consisted of ORG organs , comprising the political police and special armed forces . It was patterned after the LAW and the ORG and established ( under the supervision of the FAC ) on DATE with a view to securing NORP rule and combating , suppressing and eliminating groups of political opposition , including the post - war underground resistance against Communism and ORG . In DATE these organs were in charge of prisons and labour camps ; at that time , they were also competent to conduct criminal investigations under the rules of criminal procedure . Depending on the political circumstances , they were called by various names : “ ORG ” ( Resort Bezpieczeństwa Publicznego ) , subsequently renamed “ ORG ” ( PERSON ) ( DATE ) ; “ ORG ” ( PERSON do PERSON ) ( DATE ) ; and “ ORG ” ( PERSON ) , as a special department of ORG ( DATE ; dissolved after the collapse of Communism ) .

The Law of DATE also established a new public organ , the Office for Veterans and ORG , which is competent to grant “ veteran status ” and has the duty to verify whether persons who have previously acquired such status meet the new statutory criteria .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of the DATE PERSON , as applicable at the relevant time , provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . CARDINAL shall acquire “ veteran status ” , if :

( CARDINAL ) ( a ) he has served [ or has been employed ] in organs of the public security service . ... ”

In turn , LAW of that LAW , as applicable at the relevant time , provided the following :

“ Anyone who has acquired “ veteran status ” on the basis referred to in LAW ( CARDINAL ) shall be divested of such previously acquired status . ”

Under the provisions of both the repealed PERSON of CARDINAL DATE and the new LAW DATE ( ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , veterans were ( and still are ) entitled to privileged status in comparison to other employees or retired persons ; this status included , for example : a lower age of retirement ; a particularly favourable method for calculating periods of employment ; and various financial benefits paid in addition to the normal pension calculated in accordance with the rules of the general social insurance system .

At the time when the applicant was divested of his “ veteran status ” , a retired veteran was , inter alia , entitled to a so - called “ veteran benefit ” equal to PERCENT of the average DATE salary in the public sector ; a fare discount of PERCENT on travel by municipal transport , rail and public long - distance buses ; a special allowance covering PERCENT of such household expenses as electricity , gas and heating ; and a discount of PERCENT on motor - vehicle insurance .

The loss of “ veteran status ” did ( and does ) not , however , entail any legal or practical consequences in respect of the right to receive a normal pension since , under LAW of LAW of DATE , a person divested of that status is still entitled to his pension calculated under the rules applicable within the general social insurance scheme .


Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c;No violation of Art. 14+6;Pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

On DATE , early in the morning , the applicant was arrested at his home under LAW of the Prevention of Terrorism Act DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) in connection with an attempted bomb attack on military personnel . The applicant was taken to GPE police station . He claims that on arrival he immediately requested to see his solicitor . Access was delayed pursuant to section CARDINAL of LOC ( Emergency Provisions ) Act DATE ( “ the GPE ” ) . At TIME the applicant was examined by a doctor who advised him that if he had any complaints to make he should tell the doctor when he made his round TIME . The applicant was cautioned pursuant to LAW Order DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) . Unfamiliar with this new law , the applicant again requested a consultation with a lawyer and this request was refused .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed CARDINAL times by CARDINAL teams of CARDINAL detectives . These interviews took place TIME , TIME , TIME , TIME and TIME , and TIME .

At TIME on DATE , the applicant complained to the same doctor he had seen DATE before of ill - treatment during the second and third interviews on DATE . The doctor recorded in his notes that the applicant had alleged that he had been repeatedly slapped and occasionally punched in the back of the head during the second and third interviews and that he had been punched a few times in the stomach . The doctor gave the applicant CARDINAL tablets ( a mild analgesic ) and prescribed CARDINAL such tablets a day if required . Pursuant to this complaint , at TIME a police inspector visited the applicant 's cell and took note of the applicant 's complaints .

Subsequently , the applicant 's sixth , seventh and eighth interviews took place TIME , TIME , and TIME and TIME . During the sixth interview the applicant broke his silence and gave detailed answers to a number of questions admitting to his involvement in the assembly and planting of the bomb . During the seventh interview the applicant signed a lengthy statement which described in considerable detail his part in the conspiracy to plant and detonate the bomb .

At TIME on DATE , the applicant was visited by the same doctor who asked the applicant if he had any further allegations of ill - treatment and the applicant replied that he had not . The applicant was then interviewed about another matter between TIME At TIME the applicant was allowed to consult with his solicitor , who made notes on the applicant 's allegations of ill - treatment . The solicitor chose not to pass these complaints on to the police . The applicant was then interviewed for the last time TIME about an unrelated matter . The applicant was medically examined that TIME at TIME by another doctor whose notes indicated that the applicant had made “ no allegations of ill - treatment since he had been last seen by a doctor ” . That doctor also noted that there was no sign of injuries .

On DATE the applicant was taken to another police station where he was given a medical examination by another doctor . That doctor 's note records the applicant 's detailed allegations of assaults and ill - treatment which allegedly took place on DATE . No objective evidence of injury was noted .

On DATE the applicant , along with others , was charged at ORG with conspiracy to cause explosions , possession of explosives with intent , conspiracy to murder and membership of ORG .

On DATE the applicant , through his solicitor , made an official written statement to the Complaints and Discipline Branch of ORG complaining about his ill - treatment by one team of CARDINAL detectives while at GPE police station .

On DATE the trial of the applicant and his co - accused began at ORG before a single judge sitting without a jury . The applicant pleaded not guilty . The prosecution case was based on the admissions made by the applicant in interview and , in particular , the written statements signed by him .

On DATE , when the prosecution were about to lead evidence based on the applicant 's admissions and statement made during questioning , the applicant applied under section CARDINAL of GPE ( Emergency LAW DATE ( as amended ) to have the admissions and statement made during questioning excluded on the basis of his alleged ill - treatment . A voir dire ( submissions on a point of law in the absence of the jury ) began and the applicant gave evidence as to his treatment , particularly by CARDINAL team of CARDINAL detectives during interviews nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL while in GPE police station . ORG ( “ ORG ” ) evidence was also led which the applicant submitted demonstrated glaring defects in the authentication of the interview notes which recorded his responses to the detectives ' questions . All the relevant witnesses , including the applicant , the police officers alleged to have been involved in the ill - treatment and the doctors who had seen the applicant , gave evidence . The voir dire ended on DATE when the trial judge rejected the application , admitted the applicant 's admissions and statement into evidence and adjourned his detailed judgment in these respects .

The applicant did not subsequently give evidence at the trial . However , the trial judge cautioned the applicant , pursuant to LAW , as regards adverse inferences which could be drawn from this failure to give evidence .

On DATE the trial judge gave judgment .

He first outlined his detailed reasoning behind his decision further to the voir dire . He noted that the only evidence against the applicant was the admissions and statement made while in custody at GPE police station and that there was no forensic evidence against him . However , it was also noted that the applicant 's admissions and statement were entirely consistent with the evidence presented in relation to others charged ( and later convicted ) with offences arising out of the same incident . The trial judge summarised the applicant 's evidence of ill - treatment and this summary was later accepted on appeal by the applicant as constituting an accurate account of his evidence in this respect .

The trial judge then commented on that evidence . He noted , inter alia , that the applicant did not mention the names of or attempt to describe the CARDINAL detectives in respect of whom he complained to the doctor on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; that the applicant had not mentioned to the doctor on TIME the “ cigarette treatment ” , which the applicant had submitted during the voir dire was the treatment which frightened him most ; that there were inconsistencies in the accounts of ill - treatment given by the applicant to the doctor on TIME and his evidence at trial ; that not CARDINAL single objective sign of the ill - treatment which the applicant alleged was found by any of the doctors who examined the applicant ; and that on TIME of DATE , the applicant did not make any complaint about ill - treatment despite the fact that he claimed he had suffered the worst treatment of all during DATE .

Although there had been a period when the monitoring screens ( which relayed pictures from cameras in the interview rooms to a central control room ) had not been monitored by the duty inspector on that DATE TIME , the trial judge found that this did not coincide with the applicant 's evidence as to when he was ill - treated on DATE and the trial judge found it impossible to accept that ill - treatment of the nature alleged by the applicant could have gone on without it being picked up by the cameras in the room where the applicant was questioned . On the question of general credibility the judge found that the applicant had repeatedly lied to the court , whereas the detectives involved were not at all shaken by a rigorous cross - examination in their firm denials of the allegations made by the applicant . As to the ORG evidence , the trial judge found that it did not substantiate the applicant 's submission as to the lack of authenticity of the interview notes .

Accordingly , the trial judge rejected the applicant 's allegations of ill - treatment and found that there was no reason to exclude the applicant 's admissions or statement made during his detention in GPE police station . As to the probative value of the applicant 's statement , the trial judge found that it was sufficiently detailed to establish the several charges against the applicant and that he was fully entitled to convict the applicant on that basis . On DATE the applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant 's appeal against conviction , challenging the trial judge 's conclusions as to the allegations of ill - treatment and as to the ORG evidence , was heard by ORG of GPE . That court noted that in such cases the question to be answered is whether the court is satisfied that it is not a reasonable possibility that the accused was ill - treated . It noted , inter alia , that the trial judge had had the great advantage of seeing the applicant give evidence , that both an accused and the police officers involved can equally have an incentive to lie and that many facts are capable of being looked at in CARDINAL or more ways , but they must be considered sensibly and realistically . Having reviewed the applicant 's evidence and the trial judge 's conclusions in that respect , that court concluded that it was satisfied that the applicant had not been ill - treated and that his conviction was neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant 's appeal was rejected .

On DATE the applicant 's appeal against his sentence was rejected .

The relevant parts of LAW ) Order DATE provide :

“ Circumstances in which inferences may be drawn from the accused 's failure to mention particular facts when questioned , charged , etc .

( CARDINAL ) Where , in any proceedings against a person for an offence , evidence is given that the accused -

( a ) at any time before he was charged with the offence , on being questioned by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom the offence has been committed , failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings ; or

( b ) on being charged with the offence or officially informed that he might be prosecuted for it , failed to mention any such fact , being a fact which in the circumstances existing at the time the accused could reasonably have been expected to mention when so questioned , charged or informed , as the case may be , paragraph ( CARDINAL ) applies .

( CARDINAL ) Where this paragraph applies -

( c ) the court ... in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged ,

may -

( i ) draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper ;

( ii ) on the basis of such inferences treat the failure as , or as capable of amounting to , corroboration of any evidence given against the accused in relation to which the failure is material .

The relevant parts of LAW , relating to when an accused is called upon to give evidence at trial , provide :

“ ( CARDINAL ) At the trial of any person ( other than a child ) for an offence paragraphs ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) apply unless -

( a ) the accused 's guilt is not in issue , or

( b ) it appears to the court that the physical or mental condition of the accused makes it undesirable for him to be called upon to give evidence ;

but paragraph ( CARDINAL ) does not apply if , before any evidence is called for the defence , the accused or counsel or a solicitor representing him informs the court that the accused will give evidence .

( CARDINAL ) NORP Before any evidence is called for the defence , the court -

( a ) shall tell the accused that he will be called upon by the court to give evidence in his own defence ; and

( b ) shall tell him in ordinary language what the effect of this LAW will be if -

( i ) when so called upon , he refuses to be sworn ;

( ii ) having been sworn , without good cause he refuses to answer any question ;

and thereupon the court shall call upon the accused to give evidence .

( CARDINAL ) If the accused -

( a ) after being called upon by the court to give evidence in pursuance of this LAW , or after he or counsel or a solicitor representing him has informed the court that he will give evidence , refuses to be sworn ; or

( b ) having been sworn , without good cause refuses to answer any question , paragraph ( CARDINAL ) applies .

( CARDINAL ) The court or jury , in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged , may -

( a ) draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper ;

( b ) on the basis of such inferences , treat the refusal as , or as capable of amounting to , corroboration of any evidence given against the accused in relation to which the refusal is material . ”

The relevant provisions at the time of the applicant 's trial governing the right of access to legal advice were contained in section CARDINAL of GPE ( Emergency Provisions ) Act DATE , of which the relevant parts provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person who is detained under the terrorism provisions and is being held in police custody shall be entitled , if he so requests , to consult a solicitor privately .

( CARDINAL ) A person shall be informed of the right conferred on him by subsection ( CARDINAL ) as soon as practicable after he has become a person to whom the subsection applies .

( CARDINAL ) A request made by a person under subsection ( CARDINAL ) , and the time at which it is made , shall be recorded in writing unless it is made by him while at a court and being charged with an offence .

( CARDINAL ) If a person makes such a request , he must be permitted to consult a solicitor as soon as practicable except to the extent that any delay is permitted by the section .

( CARDINAL) An officer may only authorise a delay in complying with a request under subsection ( CARDINAL ) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that the exercise of the right conferred by that subsection at the time when the detained person desires to exercise it -

( d ) will lead to interference with the gathering of information about the commission , preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism ; or

( e ) by alerting any person , will make it more difficult -

( i ) to prevent any act of terrorism ; or

( ii ) to secure the apprehension , prosecution or conviction of any person in connection with the commission , preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism ... ”

The delay had to be authorised by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) ) and the detained person had to be told the reason for the delay ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) ) . The courts in GPE have taken the view that the DATE Order should not be read subject to section CARDINAL of GPE , since the CARDINAL Order had come into force after LAW , and ORG had not intended that an inference which was permitted by LAW could not be drawn because of the withholding of the right of access to legal advice given by LAW .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ CPT ” ) , following a visit to places of detention in GPE in DATE , made the following conclusions on ORG in its published report .

“ ORG was located in a motley collection of prefabricated buildings , within the perimeter of FAC . The Centre gave the general impression of being in need of some repair .

The ORG had CARDINAL cells , CARDINAL of which were located in a distinct section for women detainees . In addition , there were CARDINAL interview rooms , CARDINAL rooms for consultations with lawyers , a doctor 's surgery , and a scenes of crime unit ( the so - called ORG ) .

The cells measured CARDINAL and were equipped with a metal frame bed ( with mattress and blankets ) and a chair . Artificial light was adequate and there was an effective dimmer system , controlled from outside the cell . However , the cells did not benefit from natural light . Further , the ventilation system appeared to function only moderately well and created a rather intrusive level of noise in certain cells . The cells were not fitted with a call system ; however , uniformed officers were apparently always on duty in the cell block when persons were being detained . Toilet and shower facilities were located nearby and were in a satisfactory state of cleanliness at the time of the visit ; no complaints were heard from detainees about access to those facilities .

The interview rooms were divided CARDINAL set of CARDINAL , located adjacent to the cells , and another set of CARDINAL in a separate building . The interview rooms adjacent to the cells measured CARDINAL and were equipped with a table , CARDINAL chairs , and CARDINAL wall - mounted cameras ... Like the cells , they did not benefit from natural light . The second set of CARDINAL interview rooms were equipped in a similar manner ; however , they were considerably larger and did benefit from natural light .

On examining the main cell / interview room block from outside , it could be seen that the windows had been covered with plyboard , apart from CARDINAL section of each , which had been fitted with a cowl , allowing some fresh air , but no natural light , to enter the cells and rooms . Questioned about the design of these window coverings , the officer in charge stated that they had been installed for ' security reasons ' .

The ORG has already expressed the view that police cells should preferably enjoy natural light . This is even more desirable when , as at GPE , persons may be held in custody for an extended period . Further , the absence of natural light in the cells is all the more regrettable given that the majority of the interview rooms at GPE also lacked natural light . Taking into account , in addition , the absence of exercise facilities ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL ) , the net result was that a person detained at GPE could effectively be deprived of natural light for DATE or more ( the only exception being time spent in consultation with his lawyer ) .

In the ORG 's view such a situation is not acceptable . The ORG would add that it is confident that means could be found of providing access to natural light to detainees without compromising legitimate security needs .

The delegation was told by police officers that there were no facilities for DATE either outdoor or indoor DATE for persons detained at GPE . This is another serious shortcoming in an establishment in which persons can be held for DATE .

To sum up , the existing material conditions of detention at ORG render it inappropriate as a place in which to detain persons for extended periods . The deficiencies as regards access to natural light for detainees and the absence of exercise facilities were the principal failings , but the mediocre ventilation system and the cramped and rather dilapidated nature of the facilities should also be mentioned . All these factors contributed to create a distinctly claustrophobic atmosphere .

The ORG recommends that the conditions of detention at ORG be substantially improved without delay , taking into account the above remarks . If such an improvement were not to prove possible , ORG should be relocated elsewhere , in premises capable of offering better detention facilities .

... Even in the absence of overt acts of ill - treatment , there is no doubt that a stay in a holding centre may be DATE and is perhaps designed to be DATE a most disagreeable experience . The material conditions of detention are poor ( especially at GPE ) and important qualifications are , or at least can be , placed upon certain fundamental rights of persons detained by the police ( in particular , the possibilities for contact with the outside world are severely limited throughout the whole period of detention and various restrictions can be placed on the right of access to a lawyer ) . To this must be added the intensive and potentially prolonged character of the interrogation process . The cumulative effect of these factors is to place persons detained at the holding centres under a considerable degree of psychological pressure . The ORG must state , in this connection , that to impose upon a detainee such a degree of pressure as to break his will would amount , in its opinion , to inhuman treatment . ”

On DATE an official announcement was made that ORG at GPE was to close by DATE .


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

The applicant , Mr Svatopluk Pečenka , 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 .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( okresní soud ) , following the applicant ’s action of DATE , ordered an agricultural and commercial cooperative in liquidation to pay CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to the applicant . On DATE ORG ( krajský soud ) upheld the first instance judgment which became final on DATE .

On DATE and DATE respectively , the defendant paid CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) and CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) to the applicant who , on DATE , applied to ORG for enforcement of the above judgment by way of the compulsory satisfaction of the claim in the amount of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) from the defendant ’s bank ’s account . On DATE the court ordered the enforcement . The order became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that the bank had not yet paid him anything from the defendant ’s account . By a letter of DATE the bank informed him that on DATE it had transferred CZK MONEY ( EUR FAC ) to his account .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings terminated under LAW .

On DATE ORG ( krajský obchodní soud ) declared the defendant bankrupt .

On DATE the applicant submitted his unsettled claims of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL CZK ( EUR CARDINAL ) against the bankrupt ’s estate .

On DATE ORG adopted a resolution to distribute the bankrupt ’s estate , the applicant being granted ORG ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( vrchní soud ) . It appears that the proceedings are still pending .

Law no . DATE on ORG liability for damage caused in the exercise of public authority by an irregularity in a decision or the conduct of proceedings

Section PERSON ) as in force until DATE provided that the ORG was liable for damage caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings , including non - compliance with the obligation to perform an act or give a decision within the statutory time - limit . Under section CARDINAL ) a person who had suffered loss on account of such an irregularity was entitled to damages .

On DATE CARDINAL Act no . DATE entered into force amending , inter alia , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) which newly provides that the ORG is liable for damage caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings , including non - compliance with the obligation to perform an act or give a decision within the statutory time - limit . If the law does not fix a time - limit for these purposes , it is considered that a violation of the duty to perform the act or give the decision within a reasonable time - limit is also considered as an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings . When using the notion of “ reasonable time ” , the LAW refers to ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention .

Act no . DATE also introduced a new section CARDINALa which provides for a reasonable satisfaction for moral prejudice caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings including non - compliance with the obligation to perform an act or to adopt a decision within a reasonable time .

Under LAW the court shall notify the entitled party and the financial institution of the finality of the resolution whereby it has ordered the enforcement of a decision ; it shall serve the notification on the financial institution by personal delivery .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that if the receivable being recovered , and incidentals thereto , the debt has not been paid in full , the financial institution shall carry out the enforcement of the decision also on DATE following DATE on which such an amount of funds is credited to the account , which is required for the entitled party ’s full satisfaction . If the above does not take place within DATE of the service of the notification under LAW , the financial institution shall carry out the enforcement from additionally credited funds also on DATE that follows the expiry of the above period of time , or , as applicable shall notify the entitled person that no funds were in the liable party ’s account . The financial institution shall debit the receivable to the account , and pay it to the entitled person , also if such funds do not suffice to satisfy the entitled party in full .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She is represented before the Court by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

On DATE ORG ordered the PERSON local council to provide the applicant with accommodation . This judgment became final on DATE .

On DATE the final judgment in favour of the applicant was fully enforced .