Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Liberty of person;Security of person;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13+5-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Liberty of person;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in the village of PERSON , PERSON district , GPE . In DATE she left for GPE , where she sought asylum .

The facts surrounding the disappearance of the applicant 's son and husband were partially disputed . In view of this the ORG requested the ORG to produce copies of the entire investigation files opened in relation to the abduction of PERSON and PERSON - Magomed Imakayev . The submissions of the parties on the facts concerning the circumstances of the apprehension and disappearance of the applicant 's son and husband and the ensuing investigations are set out in Sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL below . A description of the materials submitted to the ORG is contained in Part B.

The applicant lived in the village of PERSON in the NORP district , GPE . Her husband , PERSON , was born in DATE , and they had CARDINAL children : PERSON , born in DATE , ORG and PERSON . The applicant is a school teacher by profession . The applicant 's son PERSON graduated from medical school in DATE as a dentist and continued his studies in ORG .

In TIME of DATE PERSON drove to the market in the village of GPE NORP in a white VAZ-CARDINAL ( “ GPE ” ) car , which he used with the written permission of the owner .

TIME on the same day neighbours informed the applicant that they had seen her son being detained by NORP servicemen at a roadblock between the villages of GPE NORP and PERSON . The applicant and her relatives immediately started looking for him and collected several statements from the witnesses who had seen her son 's detention . They initially agreed to testify on condition that their names were not disclosed , but later agreed to submit their names .

Witness PERSON is a resident of PERSON and knew PERSON from school . On DATE he was at the market in GPE . At QUANTITY he met PERSON , who said he had wanted to buy a jacket but had not found anything . He offered NORP a lift back to their village , but NORP was driving himself and declined . He later learnt that PERSON had been detained by NORP soldiers on the road near the bridge over the NORP river .

Witnesses PERSON and PERSON are residents of PERSON who were returning home in a bus from the market in GPE NORP . At TIME on DATE the CARDINAL women saw from the bus window a group of military personnel wearing masks and standing around a white GPE car . A young man got out of the GPE . The women alighted from the bus and wanted to help him , but the military started shooting in the air and at the ground , and shouted at them not to approach . They saw the young man being thrown into the military UAZ car ( “ tabletka ” ) , and one of the servicemen drove the white GPE . They left very quickly , and the witnesses did not note the ORG number plates . The cars went towards PERSON . DATE they learnt that the man detained was PERSON .

PERSON . testified that in the afternoon of DATE in FAC , PERSON , he saw a military UAZ and PERSON GPE , driven by an unknown man aged DATE . The car was driving at very high speed . He thought that PERSON had lent the car to someone , as he sometimes did . DATE he learnt that PERSON had been detained by the military and that his car had been taken as well . A witness identified as PERSON orally stated to the applicant 's representatives that at TIME on DATE he saw PERSON 's car in FAC , PERSON , followed by a ORG and an armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) .

The applicant has had no news of her son since .

Starting on DATE , the applicant and her husband applied on numerous occasions to prosecutors of different levels , to ORG , to the administrative authorities in GPE and to the NORP President 's Special Envoy to GPE . The applicant submitted several copies of standard letters stating that her son had been detained by unknown military servicemen and had then disappeared , and asking for assistance and details of the investigation , submitted by her to various authorities . On her request similar letters were signed by the village council of elders and the head of administration . On DATE , at her request , a letter was sent from the office of ORG to the prosecutor of the LOC , ORG and the President 's representative in the ORG circuit . She and her husband also personally visited detention centres and prisons in GPE and further afield in LOC .

The applicant received very little substantive information from the official bodies about the investigation into her son 's disappearance . On several occasions she received copies of letters by various authorities directing her complaints to the prosecutor of the LOC district and the prosecutor of GPE .

On DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that on DATE they had initiated criminal proceedings in respect of kidnapping , under LAW CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW . The file was assigned DATE .

On DATE the traffic police division of ORG department for GPE notified the applicant that the details of her son 's car had been entered in the search database and that servicemen had been instructed to look for it .

On DATE the LOC department of the interior ( ROVD ) informed the applicant that criminal investigation no . CARDINAL had been opened at her request . She would be informed of further developments .

According to the information submitted by the Government in DATE , in DATE - May CARDINAL ORG forwarded requests about PERSON to the Shali ROVD and ORG ( ORG for GPE . Both agencies denied that they had ever detained PERSON or that they had any information about his whereabouts . On DATE [ sic ] the investigation was adjourned and the Shali ROVD was instructed to continue search for the missing man .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that the investigation had been adjourned .

On DATE an investigator of ORG office issued a “ progress note ” ( справка ) . It stated that on DATE , on the road towards PERSON , PERSON Said - Magomedovich Imakayev , born in DATE , a resident of PERSON , travelling in his own car , had been detained and taken away by unknown persons wearing camouflage outfits and masks . His location remained unknown . On DATE the ORG opened criminal investigation no . CARDINAL under LAW CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW ( kidnapping ) . The investigation had been adjourned under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW because of the failure to identify the culprits . Investigative measures to locate PERSON were continuing .

According to the Government , on DATE the investigator of ORG forwarded requests for information about PERSON to ORG of the ORG , to the military prosecutor of military unit no . MONEY ( based in PERSON ) , to the NORP military commander 's office and to the information centres of ORG and of ORG of the Interior . It appears that none of these requests produced any result . On DATE the investigation was resumed by an order of the deputy ORG .

On DATE , in connection with the disappearance of the applicant 's husband ( see below ) , ORG informed the applicant that criminal investigation no . DATE had failed to establish her son 's whereabouts . The letter stated that following a review of the case - file , the district prosecutor 's order of DATE [ sic ] to adjourn the investigation had been quashed . The investigator had been instructed to conduct certain actions , including a thorough check of the possibility of his abduction by “ servicemen from the power structures ” ( « сотрудниками силовых структур ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in criminal case no . DATE into her son 's abduction .

On DATE the respondent Government submitted further information to the ORG about the investigation . They stated that CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON and T. , had testified that PERSON had been kidnapped by a group of persons armed with automatic fire - arms , dressed in camouflage uniforms and using a UAZ-CARDINAL vehicle . Neither the applicant 's son nor the vehicle he had been driving had been found . Criminal investigation no . DATE had been suspended on DATE [ sic ] due to a failure to identify the culprits , but on CARDINAL DATE the investigation had been resumed by an order of the first deputy prosecutor of GPE . The new investigation was to pursue “ a complete and thorough examination of all the circumstances of the committed crime , including checking the version that PERSON S .- Kh . had been kidnapped by persons who were members of illegal armed units for the purpose of discrediting the federal forces ” . On DATE the investigation was again adjourned .

On DATE the applicant was informed by a letter from ORG that the investigation had been reopened on DATE . On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that the case had been adjourned .

On DATE the SRJI , on the applicant 's behalf , wrote to ORG and asked him to inform them about the progress in the investigation and to grant the applicant victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG informed the PERSON that the investigation had been adjourned . A copy of the decision to grant the applicant victim status had been forwarded directly to her .

On DATE ORG informed the PERSON that the investigation had taken a number of steps to establish the whereabouts of PERSON , including questioning of witnesses and of eye - witnesses to the crime . However , the culprits were not established , and on DATE the investigation was again suspended . The applicant was informed accordingly .

On DATE and DATE ORG informed the applicant that , although the investigation into her son 's abduction had been suspended , the measures to establish his whereabouts continued . The applicant was also informed of the possibility to appeal .

On DATE the respondent Government informed the ORG that the acting ORG had reversed the decision to suspend the investigation , and had ordered a number of steps to be taken .

The applicant submits that certain investigative actions were taken in DATE in the course of investigating her husband 's disappearance ( see § § CARDINAL and DATE below ) .

On DATE the head of the criminal investigation department of the Shali district informed the applicant that he had ordered a search for the car driven by PERSON on DATE of his disappearance .

On DATE the PERSON asked ORG whether criminal investigation no . DATE was still pending with their office and if so , to provide an update on progress . The applicant submits that no reply was received to this letter , and she was thus unable to familiarise herself with the file and has had no information about the progress , if any , of the investigation .

The applicant refers to the ORG report of DATE “ The ' Dirty War ' in GPE : Forced Disappearances , Torture and Summary Executions ” which lists PERSON as CARDINAL of the victims of “ forced disappearances ” after detention by NORP servicemen .

In DATE the Government presented additional submissions about the progress of the investigation . According to them , the investigation into the kidnapping of the applicant 's son established that , at TIME on DATE , the CARDINAL driven by PERSON had been stopped by a group of armed persons near the village of PERSON . His subsequent whereabouts could not be established .

The Government further submitted that the applicant had been questioned on several occasions , and that on DATE she had been granted victim status . She was not an eye - witness to the events and learnt of them from the statements of others . CARDINAL female witnesses , PERSON and T. , stated to the investigation that on DATE they had seen from a bus that a group of men armed with automatic rifles had detained the above - mentioned car and its driver , PERSON . The bodies of the interior ministry and the security service stated that ORG . PERSON had never been charged with a criminal offence . The investigation into criminal case no . DATE continued and its progress was being monitored by ORG .

At the same time the ORG submitted copies of several documents from criminal investigation file no . CARDINAL ( see § CARDINAL below ) . These documents are summarised in Part B below .

On DATE the applicant and her husband , PERSON , lodged a complaint with ORG concerning the disappearance of their son , PERSON . It was given the above application number on DATE . Both PERSON and PERSON issued forms of authority for the PERSON and were listed as applicants .

According to the applicant , on DATE she and her husband were in their house in GPE . At CARDINAL a.m. they were awakened by loud noise in their courtyard . They saw several APCs and a ORG car . The ORG ' neighbours later noted down the numbers of CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL APCs involved in the operation and the number plates of the UAZ .

CARDINAL servicemen in military camouflage uniforms came into the house , some of them wearing masks . The servicemen spoke NORP between themselves and to the applicant , with no trace of an accent . They searched the house without showing any warrants or providing explanations . During the search the applicant managed to talk to the senior officer in the group . He was wearing camouflage uniform and had no mask , and the applicant described him as being DATE , QUANTITY tall and bearded . The officer told her that his name was “ Boomerang PERSON ” . The applicant understood that “ NORP ” was his nickname . She also managed to talk to another officer who refused to introduce himself , but whose appearance the applicant describes as DATE , with fair hair and slightly shorter than “ NORP ” .

The military seized some papers and floppy disks . The applicant asked for some sort of receipt for these items , for which they left her the following hand - written note : “ DATE . I , Boomerang A.G. seized in the ORG ' house a bag of documents of GPE and a box of floppy disks . CARDINAL ” .

In return , “ NORP ” asked the applicant to sign a receipt that she had no claims to the servicemen in connection to the search . The applicant agreed to sign the slip acknowledging that no force was used , but added that she objected to her husband being detained without any grounds . She also added that the floppy disks and papers did not belong to her husband , since they were taken from a place where they stored items belonging to their relatives who had fled from PERSON in DATE . She gave this signed receipt to “ LOC ” .

The applicant 's husband , PERSON , was held against the wall during the search , and after it was over he was forced into the ORG vehicle . He was allowed to dress appropriately , since it was raining heavily , and to take MONEY “ for the road back ” . When the applicant asked where he was taken , “ NORP ” told her they would take him to PERSON , the district centre .

After the visit to the ORG ' house , the APCs went to other places in the village and detained CARDINAL other men . They then departed .

The applicant submitted CARDINAL witnesses ' statements collected by her and relating to the events of DATE , including those produced by the relatives of the CARDINAL other men detained on TIME . They noted the hull numbers of the CARDINAL APCs involved in the operation : no . DATE , which went to the applicant 's house , and nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . CARDINAL of the neighbours also noted the registration number of the ORG vehicle in which ORG was placed , namely CARDINAL .

Since DATE the applicant has continued to search for her husband . She has had no news of him . There has been no news of the other CARDINAL men detained on TIME in the village .

On DATE the applicant travelled to the NORP military commander 's office and talked to the military commander , who told her not to worry and reassured her that all would be fine with her husband . On DATE she also travelled to PERSON , where she complained in person and in writing to the GPE administration and the military commander 's office . On DATE an unnamed officer of the local ORG department in PERSON told her that her husband had probably been taken to ORG .

The applicant attempted to ascertain whether an officer by the name of “ NORP ” served in the military units in the vicinity , and she was led to understand by some unnamed military personnel in the military commander 's office in NORP that they knew him . The applicant has on many occasions attempted to meet him , but has always been told that he was absent on “ mopping up ” operations .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG , her representative in the case concerning her son , about her husband 's apprehension . On DATE the GPE offices of the PERSON and of ORG intervened on the applicant 's behalf by writing letters to the Envoy of the NORP President on Human Rights in the GPE and to ORG . They informed them about the known circumstances of the detention of ORG and CARDINAL other men in GPE and asked for urgent measures to be taken to find the detainees . On DATE they sent additional information to those offices submitting the numbers of the APCs noted by the neighbours , details of the officer in charge of the arrest , who had introduced himself as “ PERSON ” , and the applicant 's description of the second officer .

On DATE ORG , acting under LAW § CARDINAL of the Rules of Court , requested the Government to submit information concerning the applicant 's husband 's apprehension and whereabouts .

On DATE the applicant was visited at her home by a senior investigator from ORG , ORG for ORG . He questioned her about the circumstances of her husband 's detention and confirmed that the investigation was linked to her application to ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that pursuant to her applications , on DATE ORG had opened criminal proceedings no . DATE under LAW CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW . The investigation established that the applicant 's husband had not been detained by the law - enforcement agencies , and that there were no grounds for such detention .

On DATE ORG submitted to the ORG a response to the request for information . They cited a report by ORG for ORG , according to which on DATE the applicant had filed a report with ORG stating that “ a group of unidentified armed men ” had forcibly removed her husband on DATE . On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated by the district prosecutor under LAW CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW . At the same time , the Government denied that the applicant 's husband had been detained by the authorities . The Government submitted :

“ Before the initiation of this criminal case , in the course of examination and initial investigative actions no facts that Mr Said - Magomed Imakayev was detained by servicemen of ORG were obtained . Mr PERSON was not conveyed to law machinery bodies or institutions of LAW and he is not being kept there now . Moreover , law machinery bodies do not have grounds for his detention . ...

ORG district of GPE ( and the village of PERSON in particular ) is an area of active criminal activities of terrorist and extremist organisations that commit crimes with a view to discredit ORG in GPE using camouflage uniforms and motor vehicles that are similar to uniforms and vehicles used by servicemen and employees of law machinery bodies in GPE . Along with other crimes , illegal armed formations perpetrate abduction and kidnapping of persons who live or stay in GPE . In this connection the main version as regards this criminal case is kidnapping of Mr Said - Magomed Imakayev by members of CARDINAL of the terrorist organisations acting in GPE and using an outfit of servicemen of ORG with a view to disguise ” .

The Government further submitted that the services whose forces are present in GPE - the ORG and ORG - had not conducted any special operations in the village of PERSON on DATE , and that the applicant 's husband was not listed among the detainees held by those agencies .

It appears that on DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings concerning the kidnapping of her husband .

NORP On DATE the ORG made further submissions in relation to the application . They described certain procedural steps related to the opening , adjournment and re - opening of the criminal proceedings in relation to the disappearances of the applicant 's son and husband . They also referred to requests sent by the investigators to the law - enforcement authorities for information related to their whereabouts . Despite the measures taken , their whereabouts were not established and the investigations in both cases were pending .

The applicant submits that in DATE she , together with relatives of the other CARDINAL men who had been apprehended on DATE , visited the LOC military commander , General PERSON . In the courtyard of the commander 's office they spotted ORG no . CARDINAL , which had been used in the detention of their relatives . At their request , a crewmember of the ORG was brought to the ORG 's office , where he was asked if he had been in GPE on DATE . The serviceman accepted that he had been there , but could not recall the exact date . The General then asked him if he “ had driven people away ” , and he said that CARDINAL persons had been taken away in his ORG , but that they had been removed at the first military roadblock and that he did not know what had happened to them . The applicant submits that during the same conversation , in the presence of other relatives of the “ disappeared ” men , General PERSON informed them that CARDINAL people had been detained in DATE and CARDINAL of them had been “ eliminated ” ( see also § CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the applicant visited ORG , where she was told that the criminal proceedings in relation to her husband 's disappearance had been transferred to the military prosecutor 's office , which , under national law , is responsible for investigation of crimes committed by military servicemen .

In their letters and observations the Government submitted several different dates of procedural steps and case - file numbers assigned to the criminal case . It appears from these documents that in DATE the investigation was transferred to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE , where it was assigned number DATE . It also appears that on DATE the investigation was adjourned on account of failure to identify the culprits ( as follows from the ORG 's observations of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and the decision of CARDINAL July DATE by ORG to withdraw the applicant 's victim status ) .

On DATE the applicant submitted an unofficial composite sketch of “ NORP ” , along with other additional information collected by her , to ORG . No receipt of that letter has been acknowledged and the applicant believes that the actions requested by her were not carried out at that time , such as establishing the location of the APCs whose numbers were noted or questioning her neighbours .

On DATE the Government submitted that the criminal proceedings were pending with an investigator of the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE in LOC . No further information was available about the “ disappearance without trace ” of the applicant 's husband .

On DATE the SRJI , acting on the applicant 's behalf , requested the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE to grant the applicant victim status in the proceedings or , if that had already been done , to forward her a copy of such a decision .

On DATE and DATE the military prosecutor of ORG in LOC ( UGA ) informed the applicant that on DATE the criminal investigation into her husband 's abduction had been transferred to the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE in PERSON , where it had been assigned file number CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( see also § CARDINAL above ) .

DATE . On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE responded to the PERSON that they would be informed of the results of the preliminary investigation .

On DATE an investigator of ORG in GPE informed the applicant that on DATE the military prosecutor of the ORG had resumed the investigation into her husband 's abduction . On DATE the case was assigned to ORG , and the term of investigation was extended until DATE . The investigator further informed the applicant that he was on mission in PERSON , in military unit no . DATE , and invited the applicant to contact him with any further questions .

On DATE the PERSON wrote to the investigator and asked him to appoint a date for a meeting with the applicant . They also noted that the investigators from the military prosecutor 's office had not questioned her , despite the applicant 's visits to that office .

On DATE the applicant was summoned as a witness to the Shali ROVD .

On DATE the applicant met with the investigator at the military prosecutor 's office in PERSON and was questioned about her husband 's apprehension . On DATE the investigator collected from her the “ receipt ” issued to her by “ NORP ” on DATE .

Also on DATE the applicant applied to the investigator with a request to forward the photographs of her son and husband , supplied by her , to all regions of GPE , in order to check whether they had been detained under false identities . On DATE the investigator granted the applicant 's request and assured her that once she submitted the photographs , they would be forwarded to all the regional departments of ORG and of ORG .

The applicant submits that on several occasions in DATE she met with the investigator at the LOC of military unit no . FAC , in connection with the abduction of her son and husband . Her neighbours were also questioned there . In DATE a group of investigators arrived in PERSON and questioned the neighbours about the applicant 's son and husband . In DATE CARDINAL investigators inspected the applicant 's house and collected pictures made after the search of DATE from her .

The applicant submits that during one of the meetings the investigator told her that he had questioned serviceman PERSON NORP ” , who had admitted his participation in the search and the apprehension of the applicant 's husband , but had insisted that he had released him .

DATE . At DATE the applicant was summoned to the Oktyabrskiy ROVD in PERSON to participate in a photo - identification in conjunction with the disappearance of her son . She was shown a total of CARDINAL photographs of unidentified corpses , but did not identify her relatives among them .

The applicant further submits that in DATE she was summoned to ORG and asked to put in writing the information about the apprehension of her son and husband , and the ORG bodies to which she had applied in this connection . The applicant did as requested , indicating also that she had applied to ORG . She submits that she was asked to specify if she had ever filed an application to a domestic court in connection with these events .

On DATE the criminal investigation into the applicant 's husband 's abduction was closed under LAW part QUANTITY of LAW because no criminal offence had been committed . On DATE ORG office communicated this to the applicant and stated that her husband had been detained by military servicemen in accordance with LAW and on ORG . After a check he was handed over by the head of the LOC bureau of the ORG to the head of the PERSON administration , Mr PERSON . Since PERSON did not subsequently return home , the relevant documents were forwarded to ORG for purpose of organising a search for him as a missing person . The applicant was informed of the possibility of appealing against that decision .

Also on DATE the investigator of ORG withdrew the applicant 's victim status in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL . The order stated that the investigation had established that on DATE military servicemen , acting in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW , had carried out an operative - combat action ( оперативно-боевое мероприятие ) and detained PERSON on suspicion of involvement in CARDINAL of the bandit groups active in the district . Following an inquiry , his involvement with illegal armed groups was not established and he was simultaneously transferred to the head of the PERSON administration for return to his home . The order continued that it had thus been established that no abduction had been committed and that the actions of the servicemen who had detained PERSON did not constitute an offence . PERSON 's further absence from his place of residence was not connected to his detention by military servicemen on DATE . No pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage had thus been caused to the applicant , and the decision to grant her victim status was quashed . She was informed of the possibility to appeal .

On DATE the PERSON asked ORG to inform them what investigative measures had been taken prior to closure of the investigation and to send them a copy of the decision .

On DATE ORG refused to provide copies of documents to the PERSON on the ground that they were not the applicant 's lawyers .

On DATE the PERSON forwarded to ORG a copy of the applicant 's power of attorney and asked him to inform them where the case file was located and to allow them access to it .

On DATE ORG informed the PERSON that the criminal case remained in ORG , to which all further questions should be addressed .

On DATE a lawyer of ORG , representing the applicant , requested ORG to grant him access to the documents of the criminal case opened in relation to her husband 's abduction . In a telephone conversation on DATE an officer of ORG informed the lawyer that the applicant 's status as a victim in the criminal proceedings had been withdrawn , and therefore she no longer had the right to familiarise herself with the case file , either in person or through a representative .

In DATE and DATE the ORG submitted additional information about the investigation . They claimed that the investigation into Said - Magomed Imakayev 's abduction had established that he had been detained on DATE but had subsequently been released and transferred to the head of PERSON administration , Mr PERSON . Mr PERSON could not be questioned because he had died . The investigation also established that “ ideological literature of propaganda nature and of extremist orientation ” had been found at the ORG ' house . No further details about the literature could be provided , because it had been destroyed .

All this was established on the basis of statements from the special forces servicemen who had participated in the counter - terrorist operation in GPE in DATE . Among them was the military serviceman who had signed the receipt issued to the applicant on DATE . The ORG explained that , in accordance with LAW , no information about the special forces servicemen who had taken part in the counter - terrorist operations could be divulged .

The Government further stated that after the criminal investigation by the military prosecutor 's office had been closed , a new criminal case file , no . DATE , had been opened by ORG under Article CARDINAL ( murder ) on DATE . An investigative group had been put together because the case was a complex one . Within these proceedings CARDINAL persons had been questioned , including the head of administration of PERSON , a representative of the NORP district administration and the applicant 's neighbours . However , the witnesses had no information about the abduction or the subsequent whereabouts of the missing man . The whereabouts of Mr PERSON or of his corpse , or the fact that he had died , could not be established . In view of this , on DATE the investigation was adjourned due to failure to identify the culprits . Despite that , actions aimed at solving the crime continued .

The applicant was granted victim status in the new proceedings , but the order was not communicated to her because she had left GPE . She also could not be questioned about the case . The investigation forwarded relevant requests to the law - enforcement bodies of the GPE , but these were not carried out .

The applicant submits that she was twice questioned by the authorities in connection with her application to the ORG . On DATE the applicant was questioned by an investigator of ORG . The investigator asked the applicant how much money she had paid to get her case to the ORG . The applicant stated that she had not paid any legal fees , but the investigator expressed his disbelief .

NORP In DATE the applicant visited the NORP military commander General PERSON , seeking information about her husband ( see also § CARDINAL above ) . He questioned her about her application to ORG and suggested that “ a NORP citizen needs MONEY or more to get to ORG . ” He went on to ask her how much she had paid . When the applicant denied paying any fees , the commander apparently stated that her husband had been detained because of his involvement with financing the rebel activities . The applicant concluded from the conversation that the question of her husband 's detention was in some way linked with her application to the ORG , because both had financial implications .

In DATE the complaint was communicated to ORG , who were requested to submit copies of the investigation files opened in relation to the abduction of the applicant 's son and then husband . In DATE the Government responded that the provision of copies of the files was impossible because both cases were still under investigation . The ORG reiterated the requests in DATE and DATE , but the ORG insisted that a copy of the investigation file could be provided only when the proceedings had been completed . In their letter of DATE the ORG argued that submission of the documents prior to the end of the domestic investigation could interfere with the rights of the parties to the proceedings and of third persons , for instance , to familiarise themselves with the case file . They agreed that copies of certain documents from the file could eventually be submitted .

NORP In DATE the ORG reiterated its request for copies of the documents . It also invited the ORG to submit a detailed outline of the proceedings . In DATE the Government rejected this request . They informed the ORG that certain documents had been classified as “ secret ” in accordance with LAW , because they contained data received as a result of undercover operative measures ( оперативно-розыскная деятельность ) . With regard to the requested outline of the investigations , the Government submitted the following in respect of the investigation into the applicant 's husband 's abduction :

“ A wide range of investigative actions have been carried out in the mentioned criminal case , many possible eye - witnesses of the crime scene were identified . The major part of them are military servicemen and at present have moved out from the territory of GPE to other regions of GPE . The relevant investigative commissions were forwarded to places of their whereabouts . A part of the commissions have been executed and an additional [ time ] is required to complete the others ” .

On DATE the application was declared admissible , following which both parties submitted observations on the merits . At the same time the ORG asked the parties to submit their position as regards a possible violation of LAW in respect of the applicant 's husband . In DATE the ORG sought additional observations from the parties concerning the ORG 's compliance with LAW in view of their refusal to submit the requested documents . At the same time it again reiterated the request . In DATE the ORG submitted CARDINAL pages from case - file no . DATE , opened in relation to the abduction of the applicant 's son . It appears from the page numbers that the case - file consisted of CARDINAL pages . They also submitted CARDINAL pages of documents from criminal investigation file no . DATE , opened in DATE by ORG under Article CARDINAL part CARDINAL ( murder ) . These documents are summarised below in Part B.

The Government did not submit any documents from the initial criminal investigation file opened in relation to PERSON abduction , which had been closed in DATE . They stated that the submission of other documents was impossible because they contained state secrets . They also stated that their disclosure would be in violation of LAW and would compromise the investigation and prejudice the rights and interests of the participants of the proceedings .

The Government submitted CARDINAL pages of documents from the criminal case into the abduction of PERSON . These documents contain only formal decisions to open , adjourn and resume the investigation and the notifications to the applicant about these steps . No other documents have been submitted , such as witness statements ( including those collected from the applicant ) , requests for information forwarded to various bodies and their replies etc .

According to the submitted documents , the investigation was opened on DATE by an investigator of ORG under LAW part CARDINAL ( kidnapping ) . The decision referred to the information that PERSON had been detained by unknown persons wearing camouflage uniforms and masks at the entry to the village of PERSON and then taken to an unknown destination . The investigation was opened following the applicant 's application to the prosecutor 's office on DATE .

The investigation further established that these “ unknown persons ” had been armed with automatic weapons and had used a grey - white UAZ-CARDINAL vehicle , in which they had placed PERSON and driven him in the direction of the town of PERSON . The whereabouts of PERSON , the identity of the abductors and the location of his VAZ-CARDINAL had not been established .

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .

DATE and DATE the investigation was adjourned and reopened on CARDINAL occasions . The order of DATE by which the investigation was reopened stated that the decision to adjourn the investigation had been unfounded because the investigation had failed to identify and question eye - witnesses or to establish whether the crime had been committed by members of illegal armed groups for the purpose of discrediting the federal forces . On DATE ORG again issued an order to resume the investigation , to question the applicant in the GPE and to take other steps to identify the perpetrators of the crime .

In DATE the Government submitted copies of several documents from criminal case file no . DATE , opened in DATE by ORG . The file was opened on the basis of unspecified documents from ORG concerning the disappearance of PERSON . The prosecutor 's order stated that on DATE PERSON had been detained at his house by servicemen from the federal forces on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups . PERSON had been delivered to the district premises of the ORG in LOC , where he had been transferred to the head of PERSON administration , Mr PERSON . His further whereabouts were unknown . The order stated that there were grounds to believe that Mr PERSON had become a victim of a criminal assault and referred to LAW part QUANTITY of LAW ( murder ) .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was adjourned on account of failure to identify the culprits . On DATE the investigation was reopened . On DATE the applicant was granted victim status ; this decision could not be served on her because of her absence .

As stated above , in TIME CARDINAL other men were detained in GPE beside PERSON . They were PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , all of whom also disappeared subsequent to their arrest ( see § CARDINAL above ) . Their relatives applied to ORG with a complaint about enforced disappearance , which was registered under no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG v. GPE . They are also represented before ORG by the PERSON .

NORP The relatives of the CARDINAL men submitted in their application that they had conducted the search for their missing relatives together with the applicant in the present case , and with support from the head of the ORG administration , PERSON . At their request , ORG opened criminal investigations in respect of the kidnappings of their relatives : no . CARDINAL in respect of PERSON , no . DATE in respect of PERSON , no . DATE in respect of PERSON and no . DATE in respect of PERSON . From the letters received from different authorities the relatives of the CARDINAL detained men also understood that at some point the investigation was joined with the file initially opened in relation to the kidnapping of PERSON . The applicants also understood that in DATE the investigation was transferred from ORG to the military prosecutors . At some point the case file was then returned to the LOC office . The proceedings were adjourned and reopened on several occasions , but did not establish the perpetrators of the abductions .

When communicating the complaint to ORG in DATE ORG requested them to submit copies of the criminal investigation files opened in relation to the kidnappings of the CARDINAL men on DATE . In response , the ORG refused to do so , referring to LAW . They denied that the CARDINAL men had ever been detained by the federal authorities . They conceded that PERSON had been detained on TIME by state bodies , but insisted that his detention had been lawful and that he had later been released .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW the NORP Federalist Socialist Republic . From DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( CCP ) .

Article CARDINAL of the new ORG establishes the rule of impermissibility of disclosure of data from the preliminary investigation . Under part CARDINAL of the said LAW , information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants of the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . Divulging information about the private life of the participants in criminal proceedings without their permission is prohibited .

The Suppression of Terrorism Act ( Федеральный закон от CARDINAL июля DATE г. № CARDINAL « О борьбе с терроризмом DATE ) provides as follows :

“ For purposes of the present ORG the following basic concepts shall be applied :

... ' suppression of terrorism ' shall refer to activities aimed at the prevention , detection , suppression and minimisation of the consequences of terrorist activities ;

' counter - terrorist operation ' shall refer to special activities aimed at the prevention of terrorist acts , ensuring the security of individuals , neutralising terrorists and minimising the consequences of terrorist acts ;

' zone of a counter - terrorist operation ' shall refer to an individual terrain or water surface , means of transport , building , structure or LOC with adjacent territory where a counter - terrorist operation is conducted ; ... ”

“ CARDINAL . In the zone of an anti - terrorist operation , the persons conducting the operation shall be entitled :

... ( CARDINAL ) to check the identity documents of private persons and officials and , where they have no identity documents , to detain them for identification ;

( CARDINAL ) to detain persons who have committed or are committing offences or other acts in defiance of the lawful demands of persons engaged in an anti - terrorist operation , including acts of unauthorised entry or attempted entry to the zone of the anti - terrorist operation , and to convey such persons to the local bodies of ORG of GPE ;

( CARDINAL ) to enter private residential or other LOC ... and means of transport while suppressing a terrorist act or pursuing persons suspected of committing such an act , when a delay may jeopardise human life or health ;

( CARDINAL ) to search persons , their belongings and vehicles entering or exiting the zone of an anti - terrorist operation , including with the use of technical means ; ... ”

“ ... CARDINAL . Information that can not be released to the public includes :

( CARDINAL ) information disclosing the special methods , techniques and tactics of an antiterrorist operation ; ...

( CARDINAL ) information on members of special units , officers of the operational centre managing an antiterrorist operation and persons assisting in carrying out such operation .

In accordance with the legislation and within the limits established by it , damage may be caused to the life , health and property of terrorists , as well as to other legally - protected interests , in the course of conducting an anti - terrorist operation . However , servicemen , experts and other persons engaged in the suppression of terrorism shall be exempted from liability for such damage , in accordance with the legislation of GPE . ”

LAW of DATE , with subsequent amendments , lists in LAW part CARDINAL the types of information which constitute state secrets in the area of intelligence , counter - intelligence and undercover operative activities . They include , inter alia , data on the measures , sources , methods , plans and results of such activities ; data on persons who corroborate on a confidential basis with the agencies carrying out such activities ; data about the organisation and methods of maintaining security at state security LOC and of the systems of secured communications .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Anne E. Niemi;David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter PERSON , born in DATE , was first interviewed at a hospital child psychiatric clinic on a suspicion that she had been sexually abused by the applicant . That suspicion was initially based on PERSON ’s own account of what her father had done to her .

Dr S. examined PERSON at the clinic on CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The sessions were recorded on videotape . Following those sessions the hospital staff proposed that a meeting be arranged between the applicant and PERSON to enable the observation of their interaction . Such a meeting was never held , presumably due to the opposition of PERSON ’s mother , the applicant ’s former wife .

On DATE the applicant met a social worker and a nurse at the hospital . He denied any sexual abuse , suspecting that the mother had manipulated PERSON into saying negative things about him in order to prevent his visits with the child . The applicant and PERSON ’s mother had divorced in DATE and they had not been able to agree on the child ’s custody and visiting rights . They had subsequently been afforded joint custody of PERSON by a court . Against this background , the applicant urged that other possible reasons for PERSON ’s behaviour than sexual abuse be taken into consideration .

In a feedback discussion held on DATE Dr S. informed the applicant about the results of the examinations , which in his opinion supported the suspicion of abuse by the applicant . The applicant was told that a meeting between him and PERSON was to be arranged and that he would be informed about the date of the meeting later on . The applicant requested copies of PERSON ’s examination reports .

No meeting between the applicant and PERSON was arranged .

As copies of PERSON ’s examination reports had not been sent to the applicant , his counsel made fresh requests to that end on CARDINAL and DATE . She also insisted that the applicant be heard regarding the examinations .

On DATE E. was examined at the clinic by PERSON That session was also videotaped . No meeting with the applicant was arranged in respect of the results of that examination .

On DATE the hospital refused to submit copies of PERSON ’s examination reports to the applicant , finding that their disclosure might be detrimental to her health or treatment and that it might conflict with another very important private interest .

NORP In DATE the applicant filed a request with ORG ( tietosuojavaltuutettu , dataombudsmannen ) to obtain access to PERSON ’s medical file . No decision was given by that authority before the beginning of the subsequent trial against the applicant .

E. ’s therapy at the hospital started in DATE .

On DATE the police began a pre - trial investigation of the applicant during which his counsel was given the opportunity to view the video recordings of PERSON ’s examinations by ORG Apparently , counsel was also given copies of CARDINAL of the documents pertaining to the case . The investigation was closed on DATE . In his final statement to the pre - trial investigation , the applicant requested that the investigating authorities acquire the totality of PERSON ’s medical file from the hospital . His request was not complied with as the police and the public prosecutor did not regard PERSON ’s patient records as having any influence in the matter .

While the investigation was still pending , in DATE and DATE , the applicant ’s counsel had again asked the hospital authorities for access to those documents in PERSON ’s medical file which were not already in the possession of the defence . The requests were refused . The applicant appealed against the decisions to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) .

On DATE the prosecutor brought a charge against the applicant , alleging aggravated sexual abuse of PERSON DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted a written request to ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) to gain access to PERSON ’s medical file , claiming that it was necessary for his defence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the hospital authorities’ refusal to grant him access to E. ’s medical file ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It stated that the examination reports requested by the applicant were not included in the trial material , and his request thus lacked legal basis . Furthermore , the court held that the applicant was entitled to obtain any medical documents given to or acquired by ORG in the course of the criminal proceedings . Moreover , he had already been given copies of the video recordings and documents included in the pre - trial investigation material .

ORG held a preparatory hearing on DATE , in which the applicant repeated his request to obtain all of PERSON ’s examination reports . On DATE , having obtained the consent of PERSON ’s mother , the court ordered the hospital to submit to the court the requested documents . In another preparatory hearing , held in DATE , the applicant was finally afforded the opportunity to acquaint himself with the remainder of PERSON ’s medical file .

NORP The main proceedings against the applicant began on DATE . The court received testimony from the applicant and CARDINAL other persons , including PERSON , PERSON and other doctors . A number of documents , including medical reports drawn up by the doctors treating PERSON , were referred to in evidence . The videotaped examinations of PERSON were played back before the court .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of the charge , finding that there was at least reasonable doubt as to his guilt . The court noted that the examination reports obtained during the pre - trial investigation had been exceptionally important to the outcome thereof . According to the court the examinations seemed to have been based on the presumption that PERSON had been sexually abused by the applicant . Nevertheless , the applicant had not been afforded an opportunity to acquaint himself with PERSON ’s medical file while the examinations at the hospital were being conducted and had only gained access to the totality of her examination reports shortly before the trial . There had thus been crucial shortcomings in the pre - trial investigation , contrary to the rights of the defence as set out in FAC ( esitutkintalaki , förundersökningslag ; DATE ) and the Convention .

The prosecutor and PERSON , represented by her mother , appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) . In his reply to that court , the applicant contended , inter alia , that the investigation against him had de facto been carried out by the doctors and not by the police . He had not been given an opportunity to put questions to PERSON , even indirectly , when she had been examined at the hospital , or at any later stage of the proceedings . He had only seen the video recordings when the pre - trial investigation was already well underway . It transpired from those recordings that during the examinations PERSON had claimed sexual abuse not only by her father , but also by several other persons . Further , the applicant had only been given access to PERSON ’s medical file at the beginning of the trial , which meant that he had not had adequate time to prepare his defence .

ORG held an oral hearing DATE . The evidence presented to the court was in most part the same as had been before ORG . As to the applicant ’s involvement in the examinations , PERSON testified that during the feedback discussion of DATE he had asked the applicant whether he had any questions . The applicant had not indicated at that point that he wished to have any further examinations conducted .

On DATE the appellate court quashed the lower court ’s judgment and convicted the applicant of aggravated sexual abuse . He was sentenced to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment . The court found that PERSON ’s account , recorded on videotape , was essential evidence , but not the sole evidence , against the applicant . In its conclusions the court emphasised PERSON ’s behaviour , as it transpired from the video recordings , and the statements of ORG , who had examined her , and of another doctor who had treated her . This evidence was supported by CARDINAL other witness testimonies regarding PERSON ’s behaviour . The court further stated as follows :

“ Given that [ E. ’s ] account is essential evidence supporting the charge , [ the applicant ] or his counsel should have been given an explicit opportunity ( “ olisi ... selkeästi tullut varata tilaisuus ” ) to put questions to [ E. ] through the pre - trial authorities or to request further investigations . However , this opportunity has not been provided within a reasonable time nor at a stage when it would have been useful , namely before the beginning of [ E. ’s ] therapy . The procedure has therefore been deficient in part . [ Dr S. ] has , however , given [ the applicant ] an opportunity to request further examinations . Having regard to the fact that also other evidence in addition to [ E. ’s ] account has been presented , ORG finds that the above - mentioned procedural error can not lead to the dismissal of the charge . Taking into account the legal protection of the child and her state of health as well as the fact that she had already been undergoing treatment for a long time , it would not have been reasonable to follow the adversarial procedure at a later stage . Naturally , the child ’s account and her behaviour , as they transpire from the video recordings , must be taken with circumspection when assessing the evidence . However , ORG considers that the taking of evidence , assessed as a whole , meets the minimum requirements of a fair trial . ”

The applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) contending , inter alia , that the proceedings had been unfair in the light of LAW as he had been denied adversarial proceedings and the timely opportunity to acquaint himself with the totality of the case material . On DATE he was refused leave to appeal .

At the time of the proceedings in question , apart from the leave to appeal proceedings in ORG , there were no legal provisions concerning the use as evidence of a video recording of testimony given by a child prior to the trial .

The Code of Judicial Procedure ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) , as in force at the material time , provided that a statement included in a pre - trial investigation report or another document , or a statement recorded by other means , could not , as a rule , be admitted as evidence in court . The court might , exceptionally , admit such a statement as evidence , if the witness in question could not be questioned before the court ( LAW , articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ORG ) , Act No . CARDINAL ) . It was at the court ’s discretion to hear as a witness a person DATE ( LAW , LAW no . DATE ) .

The Code of Judicial Procedure was amended with effect from DATE . According to the current provisions , the testimony of a person under DATE , or a mentally disturbed person , recorded on audio or videotape during the pre - trial investigation , may be used as evidence if the accused has been provided with an opportunity to have questions put to the person giving the testimony ( LAW , article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . According to the explanatory report to the relevant Government PERSON ( No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , this new provision places emphasis on both the idea that giving testimony before the court may be detrimental to , inter alia , a child and on the importance of respecting the rights of the defence .

A more detailed description of the domestic law regarding pre - trial investigation and receipt of evidence in court may be found in the ORG ’s judgment of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

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

The applicants ' relative and another person were sued in ORG in PERSON . The plaintiffs in the case claimed that real property in respect of which the defendants were registered as owners belonged to the estate of the plaintiffs ' predecessors .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action .

On DATE ORG in PERSON quashed the firstinstance judgment .

On DATE the applicants joined the proceedings as defendants .

On DATE ORG allowed the plaintiffs ' action .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG .

The applicants filed an appeal with ORG on points of law . They alleged that ORG had not assessed the relevant facts correctly . In particular , the applicants challenged the conclusion that the predecessors of the plaintiffs had acquired the property in question pursuant to a document issued on DATE . In any event , they argued that the document was invalid as it contained incorrect information . Finally , the applicants alleged that the property in question had not been specified with sufficient certainty in the document .

On DATE ORG publicly delivered a judgment dismissing the applicants ' appeal on points of law . The judgment stated that ORG had examined the case without a hearing pursuant to Article CARDINALa § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure . It indicated that the plaintiffs had submitted observations on the applicants ' appeal on points of law . In their observations the plaintiffs had alleged that their predecessors had acquired the property in question by virtue of the document of CARDINAL DATE or , in any event , by prescription .

ORG upheld the conclusions reached by ORG . It held that , despite several inconsistencies in the text of the administrative document of DATE , it was evident that the land in question had been allocated to the plaintiffs ' predecessors . Similar administrative documents were to be presumed correct and binding to the extent that they had been delivered by a competent authority and had become final . The ordinary courts could not subsequently review the merits of such decisions . The fact that , according to the document , further action had been needed with a view to completing the allocation of the property to the persons concerned was irrelevant as regards the acquisition of the property by the plaintiffs ' predecessors by virtue of that document . Such situation was in conformity with the law in force at that time .

The applicants filed a complaint with ORG . They relied on LAW . They complained that ORG had had before it observations submitted by the plaintiffs which had not been communicated to the applicants . They further contended that ORG had not taken into account the fact that the document in issue did not clearly indicate the persons to whom the land had been allocated and that ORG had not remedied that shortcoming .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' complaint . It found that the parties had had ample opportunity to submit their arguments on the relevant issues before the ordinary courts at CARDINAL levels . With reference to the judgment of ORG , ORG held that the plaintiffs ' observations in those proceedings had contained no new arguments . The reasons for ORG judgment relied on facts and arguments which had been known to the applicants and on which they had been able to comment at an earlier stage of the proceedings . ORG had taken no evidence . It had addressed the relevant issues and had given sufficient reasons for the conclusions reached , which did not appear arbitrary . The fact that the applicants had not been able to comment on the plaintiffs ' submissions to ORG , and that the latter had dismissed their appeal on points of law , was not contrary to the applicants ' right to a fair hearing . ORG further held that , in view of its above conclusions , the applicants ' complaint regarding the alleged violation of their property rights as a result of ORG decision was manifestly ill - founded .

Article CARDINAL ) § CARDINAL permits the court of cassation to dispense with a hearing , inter alia , where an appeal on points of law is based on the argument that the lower court had incorrectly assessed the case . Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL ) provides that no evidence is taken in cassation proceedings .


Violation of Art. 3 on account of ill-treatment;Violation of Art. 3 on account of the lack of an effective investigation;Violation of Art. 5-1 on account of unlawful detention;Violation of Art. 5-1 on account of the fact that the applicant remains in custody after the order expired;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;Violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 6-3-c;No violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is a former public prosecutor who now works as a lawyer . He was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

During TIME CARDINAL the applicant was involved in an altercation with GPE , who was seriously wounded . According to the report of the medical examination carried out after the incident in question , GPE sustained several fractures on this occasion , requiring DATE of medical care . Without appropriate medical treatment , these injuries could have proved life - threatening .

By a resolution of DATE public prosecutor NORP from the prosecution service at ORG decided to open a criminal investigation with regard to the applicant .

On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE CARDINAL ORG ( the victim ) and CARDINAL witnesses were interviewed by the prosecution service in connection with the incident .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by public prosecutor NORP on the subject of his altercation with GPE During this interview the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE public prosecutor NORP instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and decided that he should be placed in pre - trial detention . He issued a committal warrant against the applicant for a period of DATE from the date of his arrest by the police . Relying on Article CARDINAL , sub - paragraphs ( c ) , ( e ) and ( h ) , of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , the prosecutor mentioned in his order that the applicant was wanted by the police , whom he was wilfully evading , and that his continued liberty represented a threat to public order .

On DATE , on an application by public prosecutor NORP , the applicant was committed for trial before ORG for attempted homicide , an offence prohibited under the second paragraph of LAW . The prosecutor stated in his application that he had ordered the applicant ’s arrest on the ground that the latter had evaded the criminal proceedings brought against him . The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant had failed to appear for the reconstruction of the events of TIME DATE and had also failed to appear before the prosecution service , which had summoned him to provide a further statement .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained in FAC .

In the medical record established at the time of his imprisonment , the doctor noted that the applicant weighed QUANTITY and was suffering from a duodenal ulcer , cholelithiasis and paranoid personality disorder .

On DATE , pursuant to LAW ORG , the applicant , assisted by a lawyer of his choice , was brought before Judge PERSON , Section President at ORG . At a private hearing the judge informed the applicant that the prosecution service had decided that he should be committed for trial , and read him the prosecution ’s submissions word for word . On this occasion , when questioned about a statement he had made to the prosecution service , the applicant complained that the prosecutor had not allowed him to write the statement himself , arguing that it was late and that he did not have time . The applicant also complained that he had been “ terrorised ” by the prosecutor , who had made him wait for DATE in the corridor of the prosecution service , threatening not to record his statement and to have him arrested . Finally , he stressed that he had responded to the prosecution service ’s summonses and had not evaded criminal proceedings . It does not appear from the verbatim record of the hearing that the issue of the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention was discussed or that Judge PERSON considered it on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appeared for the first time before ORG , sitting with CARDINAL judges . In the presence of public prosecutor PERSON and CARDINAL lawyers of his choice , the applicant asked that the charges brought against him be amended to assault causing grievous bodily harm and pleaded self - defence . It does not appear from the verbatim record of the hearing that the issue of the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention was discussed or that the bench considered it on DATE .

Other hearings were held before ORG on DATE and DATE , at which the court , sitting in the same composition and in the presence of the same public prosecutor PERSON , the applicant and his lawyers , heard evidence from CARDINAL or so witnesses . It does not appear from the verbatim records of the hearings of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE that the issue of the lawfulness of the applicant ’s detention was examined .

The court delivered its judgment on DATE . It stated that the investigation carried out by the prosecution service had been incomplete and sent the file to ORG for additional investigative measures . In addition , the court decided to prolong the applicant ’s pre - trial detention , considering that , given the gravity of the offence , there was a risk that he would commit other crimes .

On DATE the applicant appealed against this judgment . He alleged a lack of impartiality on the part of public prosecutor NORP , who , since the beginning of the investigation , had deprived him of his fundamental defence rights and had violated the presumption of innocence by describing him as a “ habitual offender ” although he had never previously been convicted . The applicant also expressed his fear that , were his pre - trial detention to continue , he was likely to be the target of further misuse of authority by public prosecutor NORP and be subjected to ill - treatment by prisoners . Further alleging the unlawfulness of his detention , he requested his release and an urgent examination of his appeal . With regard to substantive issues , he also requested that the charge against him be amended to assault causing grievous bodily harm and that he be acquitted .

On DATE , at a public hearing before ORG attended by an officially appointed lawyer representing the applicant , the prosecution service requested an adjournment in order to be able to summon the applicant . This request was allowed by ORG , which set the date of the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE , ORG raised of its own motion and submitted to the parties for comment the issue of the lawfulness of the steps taken in the criminal proceedings against the applicant , including the prosecutor ’s application , having regard to the fact that he had not been assisted by a lawyer while being interviewed by the prosecution service and that he had not been given notice of the official record of the end of the investigation . By a final judgment delivered on the same date ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal and quashed the part of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE concerning his continued pre - trial detention for the following reasons .

( i ) It ruled that the applicant ’s arrest on DATE had been unlawful . In this connection , it stressed that the applicant had not evaded criminal proceedings but had complied with every summons from the prosecution service , and that the prosecutor had in fact left him to wait in vain in the corridor .

( ii ) It further considered that the applicant ’s detention after DATE had been unlawful . In this regard , it noted that an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant on DATE , to run for a period of DATE from the date of his arrest , and that he had been apprehended on DATE . The court noted that this period had expired on DATE and that the measure to maintain the applicant in pre - trial detention had not subsequently been prolonged in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law .

( iii ) It also noted that the applicant ’s right to be assisted by a lawyer had been violated by the prosecutor responsible for the investigation and that the prosecution service had failed to draw up an official record of the end of the investigation , in violation of LAW ORG .

Accordingly ORG ordered the applicant ’s release and quashed all the procedural steps taken by the prosecution service , including its application , and returned the case file to the prosecution service for resumption of the investigation .

On DATE the applicant was released .

By an application of DATE the applicant was committed for trial before ORG on a charge of assault causing grievous bodily harm , an offence prohibited under the first paragraph of LAW . The prosecution service granted the applicant the extenuating circumstance provided for in LAW , sub - paragraph ( b ) , of LAW , namely that the offence had been committed under the influence of the strong emotion which he would have experienced when the victim threw a brick towards him .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s request and referred the case to ORG .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment for serious violence committed under the influence of emotion , an offence punishable under the first paragraph of LAW .

On DATE and DATE respectively the applicant and the victim appealed against this judgment .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment delivered by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal and quashed in its entirety the judgment of DATE of ORG , together with ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG found that , bearing in mind the prosecution ’s application and the evidence in the file , the lower courts had convicted the applicant without establishing a causal link between the applicant ’s actions in respect of the victim and the latter ’s injuries . Accordingly , it sent the case back to ORG for a fresh examination of the merits .

According to the information available to the ORG , the case is still pending before ORG . The ORG has no further information regarding any procedural steps taken since DATE .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the ORG , represented by ORG , in ORG . Relying on LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG , taken together and as interpreted by a decision of ORG dated DATE , and on LAW , he requested CARDINAL NORP lei as compensation for his pre - trial detention from DATE to DATE , which had been ruled improper and unlawful by the final decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In particular , he asserted that during the period in issue he had experienced assaults resulting in multiple cranial and costal fractures .

By a judgment of DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s action on the ground that it was premature , in that the proceedings brought against him were still pending before the national courts .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal and , quashing the judgment of DATE , sent the case back to the same court for a new judgment . ORG held that the damages claimed by the applicant were related to his detention , which had been ruled unlawful , and that consequently the fact that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending was irrelevant to the case in issue . ORG concluded that the first - instance court had been wrong to dismiss the applicant ’s action on the ground that it was premature .

On a date which has not been specified proceedings resumed before ORG . At the hearing on DATE the ORG asked the court to dismiss the applicant ’s action since the limitation period had expired . It noted that , under the second paragraph of LAW ORG , an action for damages could be brought within DATE of the date on which the final decision to acquit or discontinue proceedings was delivered . Further , it considered that in the present case this period had begun on DATE , the date on which ORG decision of DATE , finding that the applicant ’s pre - trial detention had been unlawful , had become final . It submitted that the applicant had brought his action on DATE , DATE after DATE of the decision in his favour .

The applicant raised an objection alleging the unconstitutionality of the second paragraphs of LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG and asked that the case be referred to ORG .

By an interlocutory decision of DATE the court referred the case to ORG for a decision on the objection raised by the applicant .

On DATE ORG allowed the limb of the objection concerning the second paragraph of LAW ORG , ruling that this provision was unconstitutional in so far as it limited the cases in which the ORG ’s liability for miscarriages of justice in criminal proceedings could be engaged .

However , ORG dismissed the plea of unconstitutionality with regard to the second paragraph of LAW ORG as follows :

“ Neither the constitutional rules in force nor the international treaties to which GPE is a party guarantee that there is to be no limitation on the right of persons who have been wronged by unlawful detention to bring an action for the damage they have sustained , nor do these rules or treaties guarantee a prescribed time - limit within which this right may be exercised . ... The time - limit of DATE provided for in the second paragraph of LAW is a reasonable period of limitation on the right to bring proceedings and guarantees the injured party the best possible conditions for bringing an action to obtain full reparation . ”

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action on the ground of limitation . It held that in the present case the limitation period of DATE provided for in the second paragraph of LAW ORG had begun on DATE , the date on which ORG decision finding that the applicant ’s pre - trial detention had been unlawful had become final . The applicant ’s action having been brought on DATE , the court held that it was out of time .

Although this judgment could have been appealed , the applicant did not use this remedy since he considered that , given the contradictory decisions of the national courts , he had no prospect of success . Accordingly , the judgment of DATE became final and could no longer be challenged by ordinary appeal .

The relevant Articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ the ORG ” ) provide :

“ In cases concerning offences which are punishable by a prison sentence , and in order to ensure the proper conduct of the criminal trial and prevent the suspect or accused from evading criminal proceedings ... , one of the following preventative measures may be taken against him or her :

( c ) pre - trial detention .

The measure provided for in ( c ) may be ordered by the prosecutor or by a court . ”

“ The legal instrument by which an interim measure is adopted must list the facts which gave rise to the charges , their legal basis , the sentence provided for in the legislation concerning the offence in question and the specific reasons which determined the adoption of the interim measure . ”

“ The authority responsible for criminal proceedings may detain a person in police custody if there is cogent direct or indirect evidence that he or she has committed an offence prohibited by the criminal law .

Cogent evidence exists where , in , the person who is subject to criminal proceedings may be suspected of having committed the alleged offences . ”

“ Where the requirements of LAW cases provided for in LAW , the prosecutor may , of his or her own motion or at the request of the prosecuting authority , order that the suspect be placed in pre - trial detention by a reasoned order indicating the legal grounds for such detention , for a period not exceeding DATE .

“ Pre - trial detention of the accused may be ordered [ by the prosecutor ] where the requirements set out in LAW following conditions is satisfied :

( h ) the accused has committed an offence for which the law prescribes a prison sentence of DATE and his or her continued liberty would constitute a threat to public order .

“ The length of pre - trial detention of the accused [ ordered by the prosecution service ] may not exceed DATE , except where it is prolonged in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law . ...

Where the accused ’s arrest was ordered in his or her absence , the committal warrant shall be transmitted ... to the police authority for enforcement .

The police authority shall apprehend the person whose name appears on the warrant ... and bring him or her before the authority which issued the warrant .

Where the committal warrant was issued by the prosecutor , the latter shall note on the warrant the date on which the accused was brought before him , shall interview him or her immediately and then rule by resolution on whether the accused should be placed in pre - trial detention . If the case has been referred to the court in the interim the prosecutor shall send the arrested person to the court .

The president of the court shall hear the accused and , if he or she raises objections which require a rapid solution , immediately set a date for a hearing . ”

“ Where necessary , pre - trial detention of the accused may be extended if reasons are given .

Extension of pre - trial detention may be ordered by the trial court ... ”

“ The trial court shall be presided over by the president of the court or a judge appointed by him or her ; the prosecutor ’s participation is compulsory .

The investigation file shall be lodged [ at the court ] by the prosecutor DATE prior to the hearing and may be consulted by the lawyer on request .

The accused shall be brought before the court , assisted by a lawyer .

If the court grants extension [ of the detention ] , such extension may not exceed DATE .

The prosecutor or the accused may appeal against the interlocutory decision by which the court decides on extension of the pre - trial detention . The time - limit for an appeal shall be DATE , starting from delivery of the judgment for those who are present and , for those who are not present , from the date of notification . An appeal against a decision to extend pre - trial detention has no suspensive effect ...

... The court may grant further extensions of pre - trial detention , but none of these may exceed DATE . ”

In cases where the accused is arrested , the court is obliged of its own motion and at the first hearing to confirm the lawfulness of the adoption and prolongation of the detention measure [ against the accused ] . ”

The relevant Articles of the ORG state :

“ Anyone who has been finally convicted is entitled to compensation from the ORG for any loss or damage sustained where after a retrial it is held in a judgment against which no appeal lies that he did not commit the offence in question or that the offence was not committed .

Anyone against whom a preventative measure has been taken , and in whose favour a decision to discontinue proceedings or of acquittal has been given for the reasons listed in the preceding paragraph , also enjoys a right to compensation for damage sustained .

The claim [ for compensation ] must be lodged within DATE of the date of the final acquittal or order discontinuing the proceedings . ”

“ For the awarding of compensation , the person concerned may apply to the court in his or her place of residence by instituting proceedings against the ORG ... ”

NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , to which an objection had been submitted alleging that the first paragraph of LAW ORG was unconstitutional , ruled as follows :

“ Under LAW , the ORG is liable for damage caused by miscarriages of justice committed in criminal proceedings . It follows that the principle of the ORG ’s liability with regard to persons who have been victims of a miscarriage of justice in a criminal trial must be applied to all victims of such a miscarriage . ... The ORG notes that the legislature has not brought the provisions of LAW into conformity with those of LAW . ... Consequently , bearing in mind that LAW provides for CARDINAL cases in which the ORG ’s responsibility for miscarriages of justice committed in criminal proceedings may be engaged , it follows that this restriction is unconstitutional , since LAW does not allow for any such limitation . ”

NORP The relevant parts of LAW read as follows :

Masters and principals [ shall be liable ] for damage caused by their servants and agents in the exercise of the duties entrusted to them .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

, may be summarised as follows .

The applicant is the father of CARDINAL children , born in DATE and DATE . Since the couple 's separation in DATE the children have been living with their mother .

On DATE the mother lodged a request to be granted sole parental authority over the children in order to return with them to her country of origin , GPE .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) rejected the request .

On DATE ORG ( Landgericht ) quashed ORG decision and granted the mother sole parental authority over both children .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint which was rejected by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant 's constitutional complaint for adjudication . This decision was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Xanthi . The Government are represented by PERSON and PERSON of ORG , Acting Agents .

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

The applicant , who considers himself a member of the NORP minority of Thrace , is a graduate of ORG . He used to work as a teacher in the minority schools of CARDINAL . His conditions of employment were not different from those of other civil servants .

On DATE ORG GPE called all the NORP teachers of the minority schools of GPE to attend an educational meeting on DATE . The aim of the meeting was to present new books for the teaching of the NORP language , which would be delivered to the directors of the schools between QUANTITY and DATE .

A similar order was issued on DATE by ORG .

On DATE the Co - ordination ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace issued a statement to the effect that the content of these books “ was in breach of the autonomy of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace ” and failed to respect certain international agreements . The NORP teachers were called upon not to collect these books and the NORP pupils not to attend school DATE , in order to voice the protest of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace .

On DATE ORG issued a statement to the effect that the NORP schools of LOC would be closed DATE , because the NORP teachers of LOC were against the NORP language books which ORG intended to distribute to the pupils of the minority schools . The statement also said that all the NORP teachers of LOC would participate in the strike . Reference was made to the members of ORG who were graduates of ORG . The statement specified that all those who felt they were NORP and who wanted to learn or teach the NORP language would take part in the boycott .

On an unspecified date , a NORP religious leader , the mufti of Xanthi , called on the NORP teachers who felt they were NORP not to go to the presentation of the books on DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL teachers of the minority schools of Xanthi , including the applicant , signed a statement to the effect that they would not attend the educational meeting in ORG in order to protest about certain unfair decisions against them concerning posting , transfer and secondment and their exclusion from training seminars in GPE and GPE . They specified that they would not carry out their duties DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace issued a statement congratulating the pupils and teachers who took part in the mobilisation which showed the length to which the minority was prepared to go in order to vindicate its rights .

On DATE ORG decided to institute disciplinary proceedings under LAW against CARDINAL minority school teachers , including the applicant , for having failed to attend the educational meeting of DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered an inquiry and decided provisionally to suspend the applicant from his duties for DATE pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against him .

On DATE ORG confirmed the decision of ORG regarding the provisional suspension of the applicant from his duties .

On DATE ORG issued a decision in which it considered the following :

– First , the applicant had been asked by his superiors to attend the educational meeting of DATE but had failed to do so , arguing that attending the meeting would have disrupted his relationship with his pupils and their parents and put his personal integrity in danger . However , ORG considered that this excuse was not valid , because the meeting would have taken place in the city of Xanthi far from the applicant ’s school area . Moreover , the applicant took part in the strike between CARDINAL and DATE complying with the order and appeal of the irregular Co - ordination ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace and the appeal of the illegally self - proclaimed mufti of Xanthi calling on the NORP teachers who felt they were NORP not to attend the meeting of QUANTITY DATE . He had accused ORG persecuting him . His illegal acts had contributed to creating tension and commotion in the minority community . The applicant had allied himself with certain subversive elements in the minority community who falsely contended that there was no equality before the law in LOC . Thus , he had become agent of foreign anti - NORP powers . These facts constituted the following disciplinary offences : not having faith in and dedication to his country ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL–CARDINAL of ORG ) , refusing to discharge his duties or employing obstructive tactics ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL–CARDINAL of the Code ) , taking part in a strike in breach of LAW and the relevant legislation ( LAW CARDINAL of the Code ) and intentionally engaging in an act or omission which could damage or endanger the interests of the ORG ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL–CARDINAL of the Code ) .

– Secondly , the applicant had publicly criticised ORG on the ground that the new books were distributed in breach of international agreements concluded by GPE . As a result , he had committed the disciplinary offence of criticising the actions of his superiors in public using phraseology which showed lack of respect or intentionally using unfounded arguments ( LAW of the above - mentioned Code ) .

– Thirdly , the applicant had become an organ of irregular committees acting against the interests of the nation . His actions had stirred up trouble in the minority community and had led to the involvement of NORP newspapers , to tension between the CARDINAL countries and to criminal proceedings being instituted against parents who had disrupted the functioning of the schools . As a result , the applicant had committed the disciplinary offence of failing to respect a duty imposed by criminal law ( LAW ) .

ORG was fully satisfied that the applicant , “ acting in full conscience and with intent and malice , behaving in a manner incompatible with [ his ] status as civil servant , acting against the nation and obeying the commands of anti - NORP power structures , aimed at destabilising the region where the situation was until then normal and creating social unrest ” . In the light of all the above , the ORG decided to dismiss the applicant .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s dismissal by virtue of LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Under that decree , pertaining to the appointment and career of NORP teachers in the minority schools of NORP , the ORG is the competent authority to pronounce the termination of service of NORP teachers .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of ORG and the ORG ’s decision before ORG . He claimed that he did not lack faith in and dedication to his country , that he had not acted against social order , that he had the right to engage in objective and reasonable criticism of the actions of his superiors or the Government , that he had not refused to discharge his duties but had instead participated in a lawful strike , that he had not engaged in any acts which could have caused damage to the ORG or in any criminal offences , that he had been forced not to collect the books in person because his life had been threatened by other NORP , that the ORG had attributed wrong motives to his actions which were not anti - NORP and that his punishment aimed at his destruction . He further submitted that the hearing before ORG had not been preceded by a proper inquiry , that he had been punished for offences which were not mentioned in the decision instituting proceedings against him and that ORG had not heard a number of witnesses he had proposed . Finally , the applicant argued that the decision of ORG was not duly reasoned in that it failed to specify how his actions amounted to the particular disciplinary offences which should be punished with the particular penalty .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of ORG of DATE . The ORG considered that the inquiry ordered on DATE satisfied the requirements of the law and that ORG had not failed to examine any witnesses proposed by the applicant . The ORG also considered that the applicant could not be punished for facts other than those which were mentioned in the decision of CARDINAL DATE by which the disciplinary proceedings had been instituted . The applicant could only be punished for having failed to attend the educational meeting of DATE . However , ORG and ORG remained free to examine these facts under different legal provisions from those mentioned in the decision instituting disciplinary proceedings . The ORG considered that the applicant ’s failure to attend the meeting of DATE in order to participate in a strike CARDINAL and DATE amounted to the disciplinary offence of serious disobedience under LAW of LAW . The ORG found that the punishment imposed was appropriate given the circumstances in which the offence had taken place . The ORG referred in this connection to the statement of DATE of the Co - ordination ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace , the statement of QUANTITY DATE of ORG and the statement of the mufti of Xanthi which called on all the NORP teachers who considered themselves NORP not to attend the educational meeting of DATE . The ORG considered that the applicant had obviously associated his failure to comply with the order to attend the educational meeting with the above - mentioned statements of organisations which purported to represent the self - proclaimed NORP minority of LOC . Seen in the light of the above , the applicant ’s actions had had as a result the disruption of the functioning of the minority schools in LOC in which the ORG was particularly interested . They had also resulted in social unrest among the NORP minority of this sensitive region . This in turn could have resulted in dangerous albeit unwarranted disruption of the friendly relations between GPE and neighbouring countries and in the disruption of the harmonious coexistence between the NORP citizens , NORP and NORP , who lived in LOC .

Finally , the ORG considered that the decision of the ORG was duly reasoned . All the elements of the disciplinary offence of serious disobedience were set out in the decision which specified that the applicant had not attended the meeting of DATE , although he had been asked to do so by his superiors . The decision also specified that the applicant had complied with the order and appeal of the irregular ORG of ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace and the appeal of the illegally self - proclaimed mufti of Xanthi calling on the NORP teachers who felt they were NORP not to attend the meeting of QUANTITY DATE ( decision no . DATE ) .

On DATE the Prefect of Xanthi revoked his decision of CARDINAL DATE and , in compliance with decision no . CARDINAL of ORG , ordered the applicant ’s dismissal as from the same date .

On DATE ORG struck out the proceedings instituted against the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE , on the ground that the decision complained of had already been revoked by the ORG ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG ordered for the third time the applicant ’s dismissal .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the ORG ’s decision of DATE to ORG of PERSON . He claimed that all other civil servants were dismissed by ministerial decision and complained that his dismissal by prefectural decision was contrary to religious freedom . He further complained that he was not previously heard by the Prefect . The applicant further invoked Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL . A hearing was set down for DATE . On DATE , on the applicant ’s request , the hearing was postponed for DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal ( decision no . CARDINAL ) . The court held that , by definition , the ORG has a better knowledge of the local situation than the Minister ; therefore , it could not be sustained that the delegation to the ORG to pronounce the termination of service of NORP teachers violated the religious freedom . Moreover , the court held that the ORG ’s decision aimed at complying with the relevant decisions of ORG ; therefore , the previous hearing of the applicant was not required . The applicant did not appeal against this decision to ORG .

The applicant claims that he has instituted civil and administrative proceedings in order to recover several sums ( arrears of salaries , compensation for his dismissal , etc . ) . The applicant alleges that a set of proceedings instituted on DATE before ORG of Rodopi is still pending . He further alleges that on DATE ORG notified to him a decision of ORG that his pecuniary claims had been statute - barred .

On DATE ORG of PERSON awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for pecuniary damage ( decision no . MONEY ) . The applicant did not appeal against this decision within DATE time - limit provided for by LAW .