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

The NORP Government ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

According to the applicant , he entered GPE on DATE . However , the NORP authorities did not become aware of his existence until DATE , when the police happened to ask him for his personal documents . As he was residing illegally in the country , the police prepared for his immediate expulsion . The following day the applicant applied for asylum , a residence permit and a work permit .

ORG ( Migrationsverket ) held an initial short interview with the applicant on DATE , and a more extensive CARDINAL on DATE .

During the first interview the applicant stated that he grew up in the town of PERSON , but moved to GPE in DATE , after he had finished high school . His oldest brother lived in GPE and was not allowed to return to GPE . The applicant was arrested by the police and sometimes subjected to torture .

During the second interview the applicant , represented by counsel , explained , among other things , that his eldest brother moved to GPE in DATE to look for work and he married an NORP woman there . Since DATE the NORP authorities suspected that the brother belonged to a terrorist organisation and constituted a danger vis - à - vis GPE . The last time the brother visited GPE was in CARDINAL . Due to these suspicions , several times the applicant had been detained for DATE , during which time he was interrogated about his brother ’s whereabouts , beaten and tortured . The first time this happened was in DATE . He could not specify how many times he had been interrogated . He lived in PERSON until DATE . He lived in GPE from DATE until DATE and subsequently moved to GPE where he lived until DATE . Thereafter , he moved to PERSON , but returned to GPE CARDINAL and lived there until he left the country . Every time he was in PERSON to visit his mother he was taken to the police station for interrogation . This also happened in GPE , the last time being at DATE . He showed marks on his head and arm which allegedly were from the torture carried out in DATE . He stated that those were the only physical injuries he had suffered .

Neither he , nor anyone else in his family had been politically active . His brother was not politically active in GPE and the applicant did not believe that his brother was active in GPE either since “ he was not that kind of person , who was politically active ” . All the applicant ’s problems were caused by the fact that his brother moved to GPE and was suspected of NORP terrorist activities .

The applicant had not been granted a passport , but had managed to arrange for CARDINAL via contacts . Since he arrived in GPE he had stayed with his sister , helping out with her gravely handicapped daughter , born in DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , the applicant ’s counsel stated that TIME the second interview were correctly recorded , but added that the applicant had also had a difficult social situation in his home country , including been subjected to social repression . Furthermore , the applicant suffered from serious psychological problems , such as nightmares , anxiety , depression and insomnia .

On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant asylum . It found that the fact that the applicant had waited DATE before he applied for asylum indicated that he did not consider himself to be in strong need of protection . Moreover , it found the veracity of the applicant ’s story questionable , notably since he had not himself been politically active and had not been able to submit the name of the organisation to which the NORP authorities accused the applicant ’s brother of belonging . There was no reason to believe that the applicant was of any particular interest to the NORP authorities .

NORP The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( Utlänningsnämnden ) , before which he repeated that he had been persecuted because the NORP authorities considered that his brother was a terrorist and that consequently , the applicant had been arrested CARDINAL times , during which he was tortured . His injuries were still visible although DATE had passed since the last time he had been ill - treated . The applicant also invoked bad health and a strong family attachment between him and his niece . He explained that the reason why he had not submitted his asylum application upon entry into GPE was that he feared being returned to GPE immediately .

In a submission of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s counsel added that the applicant had been prohibited from leaving GPE and that according to new information from the applicant there was now a judgment against him for violating a travel ban . Thus , if he returned to GPE he would be arrested , tortured and risk being killed . Counsel thus requested an extension to submit the said judgment . Subsequently , at DATE , the applicant submitted fax copies of CARDINAL documents in LANGUAGE ( appendix nos . I , II , and III ) to ORG . CARDINAL of them was allegedly the said judgment .

On DATE , at a court hearing regarding reconsideration of a detention order against the applicant , a translator was present , whom counsel asked about the CARDINAL documents , notably whether CARDINAL of them was a judgment concerning a travel ban . The translator replied in the negative , but stated that CARDINAL document concerned a judgment imposing a DATE prison sentence on the applicant for membership of a forbidden organisation and another document was a summons to a court hearing .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , counsel invoked the judgment as proof of the ill - treatment to which the applicant had been subjected and the risks he would face upon return to GPE .

ORG informed the applicant and his counsel that the documents , including the alleged judgement , would not be formally translated or checked for authenticity since they had been transmitted only as fax copies as opposed to originals . It further noted that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why and how he had been sentenced as alleged or why he had not previously mentioned or submitted the judgment . In reply , on DATE counsel maintained that the applicant ’s relatives had tried in vain to obtain an original of the judgment , according to which the applicant had been accused of being politically active in an illegal organisation called CARDINAL . However , the court refused to release the judgment in the applicant ’s absence and the reason why the judgment had not been mentioned before was that it had been passed in the applicant ’s absence on DATE after the court had asserted that the applicant was abroad .

On DATE , finding that none of the circumstances invoked by the applicant were strong enough to give him asylum status or to grant him a residence permit , ORG upheld ORG decision . More specifically as to the alleged strong family attachment between the applicant and his niece , ORG pointed out that the applicant had never lived with his sister in GPE , before she was granted a permanent residence permit in GPE in DATE , nor had he applied for asylum or a residence permit with reference to his family link when he arrived in GPE .

On DATE the applicant submitted a so - called new application for a residence permit to ORG , adding that he had been active in the forbidden NORP organisation an - Nahdha and that ORG had not given sufficient weight to the judgment against him . He also referred to the human rights situation in GPE and emphasised that his attachment to his niece had become very strong , notably after his sister divorced her husband due to domestic violence .

On DATE , again ORG rejected the applicant ’s application . As to the alleged judgment , referring to its previous finding , the ORG gave it little weight as evidence .

On DATE , the applicant submitted a second so - called new application to ORG , enclosing a letter of DATE , repeated on DATE , by a NORP organisation called ORG ( PERSON ) , and a fax copy of a letter of DATE by ORG . The latter read as follows :

To whom it may concern ,

I , PERSON , Chairman of GPE ( ORG of GPE confirm that Mr. PERSON ( GPE ) is a sympathiser of our party . He came under threat because of his thoughts and political activities .

Given the present situation in GPE , we consider Mr. PERSON to be a grave risk of arrest , imprisonment and torture if returned to GPE .

Therefore , I would be very grateful if you positively consider his application for political asylum .

NORP By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused anew to grant the applicant a residence permit .

On DATE , immediately before the implementation of the deportation order , the applicant lodged the present application and requested that the ORG applied Rule CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE , following an indication given by the ORG , the applicant ’s deportation was stayed until further notice .

On DATE the applicant submitted further information to the ORG and enclosed a translation of the aforementioned appendix no . II , which stated as follows :

Ministry of Justice

ORG in GPE

Ref . no . CARDINAL

To LOC ORG

Referring to LAW , you are requested to communicate to

PERSON ,

That he has been convicted in absentia by ORG in GPE by judgment of CARDINAL pursuant to LAW , and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for membership of an illegal party .

The Registrar ( unreadable signature )

On DATE , ORG examining the applicant ’s case on its own initiative , in accordance with a temporary provision of LAW , found that the applicant could not be granted residence permits under the temporary wording of LAW , section CARDINAL b of LAW . Before it the applicant had submitted a summons for questioning of DATE , in LANGUAGE .

On DATE the applicant once again applied for a residence permit under the temporary provision of LAW . The application was rejected by ORG on DATE .

Before the ORG the applicant alleged , inter alia , that he was introduced to PERSON through his older brother at DATE , and that his brother had to flee to GPE by the time the applicant got involved in the party . He worked for the party by distributing messages , mail and leaflets . He was regularly arrested for periods DATE and ill - treated . At some point there was a nationwide warrant against him and in DATE he was detained for DATE . In DATE he moved to the country side around GPE and had agricultural jobs . Thereafter , he was no longer politically active but he remained in contact with some of the NORP party members . At DATE he contemplated leaving the country but did not do so until DATE . Before the ORG , the applicant also submitted the original of the letter of DATE by ORG . It had been difficult to obtain the NORP documents . They were not acquired by the applicant but by his sister and brother - in - law living in GPE , with the assistance of ORG , and with the help of a lawyer hired by the applicant ’s mother . Thus , the documents were transmitted by fax . It was not possible to send the original by mail until later .

Providing various examples , the Government pointed out that most of the applicant ’s statements before the ORG were new to them and not consistent with the information submitted previously before the NORP migration authorities .

NORP Moreover , in DATE , the ORG requested ORG in GPE to provide certain information regarding the documents submitted by the applicant and allegedly issued by NORP authorities . Via an attorney in GPE , who submitted a report on DATE , the following was submitted among other things . Under NORP procedural law it was prohibited for any person ( irrespective of his or her occupation or authority ) , who was not a party to the lawsuit or who had not intervened during the legal case ( as an expert or a lawyer of CARDINAL of the parties to the legal matter ) to have access to the legal file . Hence , it was not possible to verify or disprove by this means , whether the invoked documents existed de facto . However , there were several irregularities in the documents invoked by the applicant . More importantly , as regards the CARDINAL documents invoked by the applicant before ORG , it was established that none of them was a judgment . Instead appendix I , II , and III were respectively a summons to a court hearing , an order of service and a certificate of service of a judgment . The CARDINAL latter documents contained references to a judgment against the applicant regarding membership of a forbidden organisation .

A new Aliens Act ( SFS CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , replacing the DATE LAW , entered into force on DATE . The Act established a new system for examining and determining applications for asylum and residence permits . While ORG continued to carry out the initial examination , an appeal against the ORG ’s decision was determined by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL new migration courts . ORG was the court of final instance . It examined appeals against the decisions of the migration courts , provided leave to appeal was granted . Upon the entry into force of LAW , ORG ceased to exist . ORG acted as the alien ’s opposing party in proceedings before the courts .

The provisions mainly applied in the present case were to be found in the DATE LAW , now repealed . In accordance with the LAW , an alien staying in GPE for DATE had to , as a rule , have a residence permit ( chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ) . A residence permit could be issued , inter alia , to an alien who , for humanitarian reasons , was to be allowed to settle in GPE ( chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ) . Serious physical or mental illness could , in exceptional cases , constitute humanitarian reasons for the granting of a residence permit .

An alien who was considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection was , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE ( chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ) . The term “ refugee ” referred to an alien who was outside the country of his nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , nationality , membership of a particular social group , or religious or political opinion , and who was unable or , owing to such fear , unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country . This applied irrespective of whether such persecution was at the hands of the authorities of the country or whether those authorities could not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals ( chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ) . An “ alien otherwise in need of protection ” denoted , inter alia , a person who had left the country of his nationality because he had a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ) . By making that a separate ground for granting a residence permit , the legislature had highlighted the importance of such considerations . The correspondence between national legislation and LAW had been emphasised as a result .

In enforcing a decision on refusal of entry or expulsion , the risk of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was taken into account . In accordance with a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien could not be sent to a country where there were reasonable grounds for believing that he would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ) . In addition , he could not , in principle , be sent to a country where he risked persecution ( chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ) .

Until DATE an alien who was to be refused entry or expelled in accordance with a decision that had gained legal force could be granted a residence permit if he filed a so - called “ new application ” with ORG based on circumstances which had not previously been examined in the case concerning refusal of entry or expulsion . A residence permit could then be granted if the alien was entitled to a residence permit under LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW or if it would be contrary to the requirements of humanity to enforce the refusal - of - entry or expulsion decision ( chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL b , in its wording before DATE ) .

Amendments to chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL b , of the DATE LAW entered into force on DATE , whereby a new legal remedy of a temporary nature was introduced . The new procedure for obtaining a residence permit replaced the rules relating to new applications for a residence permit laid down in chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL b , in its previous wording . Furthermore , the amendments to the DATE Act introduced additional legal grounds for granting a residence permit to aliens against whom a final expulsion order had been made . The object of these temporary amendments was to grant residence permits to aliens who , inter alia , had been in GPE for a very long time or where there existed “ urgent humanitarian interests ” ( humanitärt angeläget ) . Special consideration was given to the situation of children . The temporary provisions remained in force until the new LAW entered into force on DATE . ORG continued , however , to examine applications which it had received before that date but had not yet determined .

C. Relevant background material

ORG , GPE , Country Reports on ORG , DATE , stated , inter alia , of relevance to the present case :

“ ... The government continued to commit serious human rights abuses . There were significant limitations on ORG right to change their government . Members of the security forces tortured and physically abused prisoners and detainees . Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals . Authorities did not charge any police or security force official with abuse during DATE . Lengthy pre - trial and incommunicado detention remained a serious problem . The government infringed on ORG privacy rights , continued to impose severe restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press , and restricted freedom of assembly and association . The government remained intolerant of public criticism and used intimidation , criminal investigations , the court system , arbitrary arrests , residential restrictions , and travel controls ( including denial of passports ) , to discourage criticism by human rights and opposition activists . Corruption was a problem . ...

c. Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman , or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

The law prohibits such practices ; however , according to human rights organizations , security forces tortured detainees to elicit confessions and discourage resistance . The forms of torture and other abuse included : sleep deprivation ; electric shock ; submersion of the head in water ; beatings with hands , sticks , and police batons ; suspension , sometimes manacled , from cell doors and rods resulting in loss of consciousness ; and cigarette burns . According to ORG ( AI ) , police and prison officials used sexual assault and threats of sexual assault against the wives of NORP prisoners to extract information , intimidate , and punish .

Charges of torture in specific cases were difficult to prove . Authorities often allegedly denied victims of torture access to medical care until evidence of abuse disappeared . The government maintained that it investigated all complaints of torture and mistreatment filed with the prosecutor ’s office and noted that alleged victims sometimes accused police of torture without filing a complaint , which is a prerequisite for an investigation .

According to defense attorneys and local and international human rights groups , police routinely refused to register complaints of torture . In addition , judges dismissed complaints without investigation and accepted as evidence confessions allegedly extracted through torture . The government has the ability to open an administrative investigation of allegations of torture or mistreatment of prisoners without a formal complaint ; however , in those cases the results have not been made public or available to the lawyers of affected prisoners .

Consistent with an effort to extract information or coerce confessions , reports of torture were more frequently associated with the initial phases of interrogation / investigation and pre - trial detention centers more than prisons . Human rights activists , citing prisoner accounts , identified facilities at ORG as the most common location for torture . Political prisoners , NORP , and persons detained on terrorism - related charges allegedly received harsher treatment than other prisoners and detainees . ...

Prison and ORG

Prison conditions ranged from spartan to poor and generally did not meet international standards . Although overcrowding and limited medical care posed a significant threat to prisoners’ health , new prison facilities at ORG and greater access to healthcare improved the situation .

According to human rights organizations , prison conditions in the country continued to fall short of minimum adequate standards . Hygiene was extremely poor , and prisoners rarely had access to showers and washing facilities . Sources reported that CARDINAL prisoners were typically confined to QUANTITY cell , and CARDINAL prisoners shared a QUANTITY cell . Most prisoners were forced to share beds or sleep on the floor . Current and former prisoners reported that inmates were forced to share a single water and toilet facility with CARDINAL cellmates , creating serious sanitation problems . Contagious diseases , particularly scabies , were widespread , and prisoners did not have access to adequate medical care . Additional discriminatory and arbitrary measures such as restrictions on family visits worsened the conditions of detention , particularly when prisoners sought redress for grievances about treatment and conditions .

On DATE , the government closed the " QUANTITY Avril " prison in GPE and moved prisoners to a new facility at ORG , a suburb of GPE . The capacity of the new prison was reportedly CARDINAL prisoners and designed to remedy serious problems of overcrowding in the CARDINAL Avril prison . Prisoners had previously complained of very poor conditions in TIME , including overcrowding , sanitation problems , and limited access to medical care .

A DATE PERSON report on the country ’s prisons entitled " The Walls of Silence " estimated that there were CARDINAL prisoners in CARDINAL prisons and CARDINAL juvenile detention centers . The report described a number of abuses , alleging that torture and humiliating treatment of prisoners were widespread .

In an DATE report , ORG ( HRW ) described the government practice of holding political prisoners in prolonged solitary confinement . During a press conference held in GPE in DATE , ORG announced that the government promised not to place prisoners in solitary confinement for DATE , the maximum time allowed for punishment according to the law . Shortly thereafter , the government confirmed that it had eliminated long - term solitary confinement . However , ORG reported that the government continued to keep some political prisoners , most of whom were outlawed NORP party An - Nahdha leaders , in small - group isolation .

According to prisoner and detainee testimony , prison conditions for women were generally better than those for men . Conditions for detainees and convicts were reportedly the same .

International and local NGOs reported that political prisoners regularly were moved among jails throughout the country , thereby making it more difficult for their families to deliver food to them and to discourage their supporters or the press from inquiring about them ( see section CARDINAL.b . ) . The ORG reported that other inmates were instructed to stay away from political prisoners and were punished severely for making contact with them .

In DATE the government reportedly approved access for ORG to make prison visits . Following this verbal agreement , however , ORG submitted a formal request for prison access , but despite multiple communications from ORG , by DATE end the government had not responded to ORG ’s request . In DATE the ICRC began conducting prison and detention center visits , following DATE of negotiations with the government . ORG ( ICRC ) reported that prison authorities had respected their mission and allowed them to conduct visits without obstacle . According to ORG the government began to put measures in place to improve conditions , including improved hygienic conditions and access to medical care . In DATE the ICRC submitted its first intermediary report to the government . The government did not permit media to inspect or monitor prison conditions .

ORG

Judges and the government exercised their authority to release prisoners or suspend their sentences , often on conditional parole ( see section CARDINAL.e . ) .

On DATE , President PERSON released CARDINAL prisoners from prison and granted " conditional freedom " to CARDINAL others . Among those released were CARDINAL members of the banned NORP party NORP , including PERSON , the former editor of ORG now defunct newspaper ORG , as well as other NORP . Also among those released were CARDINAL detainees , known as the ORG group , who had been arrested in DATE for allegedly preparing to commit terrorist attacks . International and domestic human rights NGOs , who have long called for the release of political prisoners , had been particularly vocal about PERSON and the PERSON group . After release PERSON and members of the ORG group complained of subsequent government harassment and excessive restrictions on personal movement due to their administrative control status ( see section CARDINAL.d . ) .

On DATE , President PERSON released an unannounced number of prisoners in advance of the DATE national holiday commemorating the President ’s accession to power in DATE . DATE reported on its Web site that CARDINAL of its former members that had been imprisoned in DATE were among those released . Several of those released had been sentenced to life in prison . ...

Political Prisoners and Detainees

The government denied that it held any political prisoners , and there was no definitive information regarding the number , if any , of such prisoners . Human rights organizations alleged that the government had arrested and imprisoned CARDINAL persons since DATE on charges related to a DATE antiterrorism law , without sufficient evidence that they had committed or planned to commit terrorist acts . Human rights activists and lawyers alleged that many of these detainees were tortured in ORG facilities and were forced to sign confessions .

ORG ( AISPP ) claimed that CARDINAL political prisoners remained from the caseload of NORP arrested in DATE and DATE . Very few of the prisoners were convicted for acts of violence . Most of those who were identified by international human rights groups as political prisoners or prisoners of conscience were arrested for violating laws that prohibit membership in illegal organizations and spreading false information aimed at undermining public order . Many were arrested for disseminating information produced by organizations such as CARDINAL . Former political prisoners stated their identity papers were marked in a way that resulted in their receiving harsher treatment . ... ”

A report of DATE by ORG , on GPE , stated as to “ Background on Political Prisoners in GPE ” :

“ Government officials have stated repeatedly over DATE , and in response to the release of ORG report , GPE : ORG , that the country holds no political prisoners or “ prisoners of opinion , ” only criminals tried and convicted for violating NORP law . ORG disputes this characterization on CARDINAL basic grounds : first , that very few of the individuals in question were convicted of involvement in acts of violence ; and , second , that they were convicted in trials where their rights to a fair hearing were violated massively .

The vast majority of inmates who are commonly labeled as political prisoners were convicted for alleged connections to the opposition NORP party . CARDINAL was established in DATE as the successor to GPE ’s ORG ) , which was founded in DATE but never obtained legal recognition . CARDINAL also was denied legal recognition , although the government of President PERSON tolerated it until DATE , despite a law prohibiting political parties based on religion . In the DATE legislative elections , CARDINAL established itself as the leading opposition movement when its members , prevented by authorities from running on a party ticket , ran as independents and captured PERCENT of the vote .

DATE were marked by scattered violence linked to NORP , and the start of an arrest campaign against NORP members . ORG supporters were involved in numerous demonstrations on university campuses that turned violent . In DATE , party supporters were implicated in a fatal arson attack on a branch office of the ruling party in GPE , an incident that authorities presented as proof of the party ’s violent intentions . The NORP leadership denied authorizing the operation , although they termed it an understandable response to state repression . CARDINAL men were sentenced to death for their role in the attack and executed .

After DATE of arrests among the NORP ranks , the government announced in DATE the discovery of a plot by the party to assassinate the president by firing a Stinger missile at his plane and overthrow the government . They charged CARDINAL NORP leaders and backers , many of whom had already been in jail for DATE , of plotting the coup . CARDINAL suspected members of CARDINAL were arrested since the round - ups began in DATE , ORG reported in DATE . Torture of these suspects during interrogation was pervasive , according to both ORG and ORG .

In DATE , the CARDINAL alleged coup - plotters were judged in mass trials before CARDINAL military courts in GPE . The defendants retracted their confessions , saying they had been tortured . CARDINAL were convicted and CARDINAL acquitted in proceedings that human rights monitors denounced as unfair . CARDINAL of the defendants received life terms , although many of these were later commuted to DATE in prison . The verdicts were not subject to appeal and were all confirmed by ORG . These defendants comprise DATE of CARDINAL political prisoners being held DATE in GPE .

The government claimed then , and continues to claim , that an - Nahdha is an extremist group , willing to use violence to install a repressive theocracy . CARDINAL ’s leadership - in - exile says it routinely condemns violence and is committed to using only democratic and non - violent means to achieving a democratic and tolerant NORP state . It categorically denies the existence of the coup plot for which its leaders were convicted in DATE .

Since DATE , GPE has been largely free of political violence . The only fatal attack attributed to NORP was the DATE truck bomb that targeted a synagogue in ORG , killing CARDINAL . The suicide bomber was NORP . ORG claimed responsibility for the attack ; the NORP party , along with other NORP political parties , condemned it ; and no evidence has been disclosed linking the attack to CARDINAL .

NORP leaders say the absence of political violence in GPE reflects their movement ’s commitment to non - violence despite the harsh repression it has suffered . NORP authorities credit their own vigilance for DATE of quiet . In DATE since they imprisoned or drove into exile nearly the entire NORP leadership , authorities have jailed CARDINAL of suspected members of the party and of other lesser - known NORP groups . Their trials generally did not meet international norms for a fair trial . The charges often related not to specific acts of violence but rather to activities such as membership in an “ illegal ” organization , or collecting funds , attending meetings , or performing unspecified activities on behalf of an “ illegal ” organization . Others were convicted of graver charges , such as participation in a “ criminal gang ... established to prepare or carry out attacks on persons or property . ” Still others , notably those who had returned after living abroad , were tried in military courts , even though they were civilians , as permitted by the code of military justice , for the offense of serving " a terrorist organization that operates abroad " ( LAW Convictions by military courts are not subject to appeal . ”

In their report of DATE , published on DATE , ORG stated , inter alia , the following as to GPE :

“ The government uses the threat of terrorism and religious extremism as a pretext to crack down on peaceful dissent . There are continuous and credible reports of torture and ill - treatment being used to obtain statements from suspects in custody . Sentenced prisoners also face deliberate ill - treatment .

In DATE ] President PERSON pardoned or conditionally released CARDINAL prisoners , including CARDINAL members of the banned NORP party NORP . In DATE the president pardoned or conditionally released CARDINAL more political prisoners , most of them CARDINAL members . Some were party leaders who had been imprisoned since their mass trial in DATE on dubious charges of plotting to topple the state . However , the number of political prisoners remained CARDINAL , as authorities arrested scores of young men in sweeps around the country and charged them under the DATE anti - terror law . Authorities made life difficult for released political prisoners , monitoring them closely , denying them passports and most jobs , and threatening to re - arrest some who spoke out on human rights or politics . ”

The DATE report for DATE by ORG on GPE stated , inter alia :

“ Freedom of expression and association remained severely restricted . CARDINAL people were sentenced to lengthy prison terms following unfair trials on terrorism - related charges , while around CARDINAL others were still on trial at DATE . Torture and ill - treatment continued to be reported . CARDINAL of political prisoners sentenced after unfair trials in DATE , including prisoners of conscience , remained in prison . Many had been held for DATE and were reported to be in poor health . ...

CARDINAL political prisoners were released conditionally , CARDINAL of them in DATE ] and the rest in DATE , following presidential amnesties . Most had been imprisoned for over DATE because of their membership of the banned NORP organization , ORG ( ORG ) , after unfair trials before the ORG and PERSON military courts in DATE . CARDINAL other members of ORG remained imprisoned , some reportedly in poor health as a result of harsh prison conditions and torture in pre - trial detention DATE . Some were in urgent need of medical treatment . ... ”


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Batman .

On DATE the applicant was taken into custody in Batman by police officers from the Batman Anti - Terrorist Branch and he was held in custody until DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody .

On DATE and on DATE ORG at ORG filed CARDINAL different bills of indictment accusing the applicant of being a member of an illegal terrorist organization and undermining the integrity of the ORG .

On DATE ORG commenced the trial against the applicant and CARDINAL other suspects , and prolonged the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE , ORG convicted the applicant under LAW , and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The charges had been brought under LAW .

Thereafter , the ORG of cassation quashed the judgment CARDINAL times , remitting it to the first - instance court , which reached the same conclusions as before :

– Court of Cassation decisions quashing the judgments on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ;

– the repetitive ORG decisions on DATE ( after numerous hearings ) , DATE ( after numerous hearings in the applicant ’s absence ) and DATE ( also after numerous hearings ) .

On DATE , ORG convicted the applicant under LAW and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . He was released DATE .

The applicant did not appeal against this judgment . On DATE it became final .

A full description of the domestic law may be found in the PERSON v. GPE judgment ( no . ORG , § § DATE , DATE ) .


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 T. Demirel , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) did not appoint an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the ORG .

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time he was a non - commissioned officer with the rank of “ staff sergeant tanker ” ( tankçı üstçavuş ) and had been serving in the army since DATE .

On DATE he received an initial letter from the commanding officer of his regiment , GPE :

“ I have been watching your and your family ’s lifestyle and behaviour since DATE I joined the regiment . Although I have already given you a verbal warning on the subject , I have not noticed any change , either in your appearance or in your behaviour . I have observed that your family ( ailece ) do not comply with [ the rules governing ] clothing and behaviour .

I shall give you DATE . If , on the expiry of this period , I can not see any change in the areas I have mentioned , I shall bring legal proceedings ( kanunî işlem ) against you . ”

In a second letter dated DATE the battalion commander , GPE , gave the applicant a warning :

“ CARDINAL . According to information obtained , my own observations and those of the regiment commander , your wife dresses in an anti - modern ( çağdaşlığa aykırı ) , NORP fashion ( tesettür kıyafeti ) , with the head covered .

I am giving you a warning to ensure that , without delay , you change this negative conduct , which does not correspond to [ that expected of ] members of the NORP armed forces ( TSK ) and their families .

In his observations of DATE , the applicant argued :

“ I have been serving my country for DATE in all circumstances . I consider it an honour ... I have never had any particular links with an ideology or political opinion , whether at work or in my private life . ... I have already had several discussions with my wife about her choice of attire . She has always told me that she saw it as the traditional way to dress and that it had no political connotations . She also said that her private life concerned her alone and that even I could not interfere with her style of dress or her choice to wear the headscarf . Even so , I informed her of all the warnings from my superiors . She replied that she could not understand what was meant by ‘ inappropriate conduct for TSK personnel and their NORP , adding that she had not displayed any conduct that could harm her country , nation or family , or any immoral attitude . I have done all I can . I have various problems to deal with as we have a DATE child . ”

In CARDINAL other warning letters , dated DATE , DATE and DATE , the applicant ’s superiors reiterated their demands . The applicant defended himself in similar terms .

According to the information and documents submitted by the Government , the head of the personnel office inspected the applicant ’s confidential service record ( gizli sicil dosyası ) , the records of his salary and allowances ( özlük dosyaları ) and “ other personal files ” . Taking into consideration various documents in these files and the applicant ’s conduct , the office established that the applicant held political and ideological views of an unlawful , subversive , separatist and fundamentalist nature . The office forwarded the file on the applicant to a committee consisting of CARDINAL high - ranking officers . The following information could be gathered from the file , which was classified as strictly confidential :

“ A. As regards PERSON conduct and attitudes :

A.a . Mr GPE holds revolutionary NORP views ;

ORG . He has supported the view that the nation ’s law and administration should be based on sharia ;

A.c . He is opposed to PERSON ’s principles and revolutions and to the main achievements of the Republic , and it is impossible for him to alter these opinions ;

ORG . He has played an active part in movements seeking to destroy the unity and integrity of the NORP armed forces .

B. Information regarding PERSON personality

B.a . Mr GPE has refused to take part in the armed forces’ social activities on the ground that they were immoral ; he has not formed any relations with his colleagues ;

B.b . He forbids his wife even to look out of the window of their house or to go outside ; he hits her when she attempts to breach this rule ;

B.c . He is in a close relationship with people who have ideological views and with people who are members of illegal organisations ;

B.d . He spreads propaganda on religious and reactionary topics .

C. Other remarks : PERSON CARDINAL immediate superiors have noted the following observations in his confidential record as regards his professional attitude :

C.a . He holds negative professional and ideological views ;

C.b . He holds reactionary opinions ;

C.c . He does not take part in social activities and meetings ;

C.d . In their opinion , his continuing service in the armed forces is inappropriate , on the ground that he holds fundamentalist and ideological views . ”

The committee gave a unanimous opinion in favour of the applicant ’s compulsory early retirement . After examining the file , the applicant ’s highest - ranking superior endorsed the committee ’s opinion and sent the file to the head of the personnel office . As the latter considered that an examination of the applicant ’s status was necessary , the file was referred to ORG ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s compulsory early retirement on disciplinary grounds was ordered in a decision of ORG , pursuant to sections CARDINAL ( c ) and CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .

In accordance with the LAW , the decision was not subject to judicial review ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) .

“ All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review .

Decisions of the President of the Republic concerning matters within his sole jurisdiction and decisions of ORG shall not be subject to judicial review . ”

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW provides that civil servants other than members of the armed forces can not be subjected to disciplinary penalties unless they are granted the right to defend themselves . It further provides that disciplinary penalties other than warnings and reprimands are subject to judicial review . Provisions concerning members of the armed forces are reserved .

“ Discharge for breaches of discipline and immoral behaviour

Irrespective of length of service , non - commissioned officers whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline and immoral behaviour shall be subject to the provisions of LAW .

The Regulations on assessment of non - commissioned officers shall lay down which authorities have jurisdiction to commence proceedings , to examine , monitor and draw conclusions from personnel assessment files and to carry out any other act or formality in such proceedings . A decision of ORG is required to discharge an officer whose case has been submitted to it by the Chief of Staff . ”

Regulation CARDINAL ( e ) of the Regulations on assessment of non - commissioned officers states that the compulsory early - retirement procedure is to be applied to any non - commissioned officers whose conduct and attitude show that they have held unlawful , subversive , separatist , fundamentalist and ideological political opinions or taken an active part in the propagation of such opinions .


Preliminary objection rejected (victim);Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim rejected;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants are NORP citizens , born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They all reside in GPE , GPE .

The first applicant is the father of PERSON , a NORP who died on DATE . The remaining applicants are the first applicant ’s children and PERSON siblings . PERSON was not married and did not have any children .

The parties disagree as to the facts of the case .

On DATE PERSON attended the funeral of a man who had been killed during a demonstration against the NORP occupation of part of GPE . With other persons , he entered the ORG buffer zone near the spot of the killing . A road passed the buffer zone at that point , leading to checkpoints guarded by ORG on the southern side and by officials of the “ GPE ” ( “ GPE ” ) on the northern side . At the NORP checkpoint there were QUANTITY military sentry boxes , CARDINAL on either side of the road leading into the occupied territory . There was also a NORP flag on a pole situated just behind the NORP sentry box . Near the sentry box there was a NORP observation post on a QUANTITY - storey house .

Notwithstanding the efforts of ORG in GPE ( ORG ) and ORG ( ORG ) , some demonstrators , including PERSON , entered the buffer zone . PERSON and a handful of other demonstrators ran to the NORP side of the buffer zone , pursued by ORG personnel . PERSON crossed the barbed wire at the NORP ceasefire line and entered the occupied territory . He was pursued by a NORP soldier from ORG , who attempted to pull him back .

Solomos Solomou broke free from the NORP soldier and attempted to climb the pole where the NORP flag was flying . He was unarmed , was not acting in a manner which could have been considered threatening and was smoking a cigarette . While he was QUANTITY up the pole he was hit by CARDINAL shots fired by CARDINAL persons from the NORP side and was fatally injured . He died almost instantly . The NORP forces then opened fire in an indiscriminate manner , wounding QUANTITY members of ORG , a civilian in the buffer zone and a civilian who was standing behind ORG ceasefire line .

In order to support their version of facts , the applicants produced the following evidence :

( a ) CARDINAL statements from eyewitnesses ( PERSON , PERSON O’Reilly , PERSON , ORG and PERSON – see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) ;

( b ) a collection of photographs prepared by the GPE police ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ;

( c ) a video film of the shooting ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ;

( d ) a pathologist ’s report ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

As to the identity of the perpetrators , the evidence pointed , in particular , to QUANTITY persons : a man in civilian clothes who fired from the balcony of the NORP observation post ; a man in uniform standing near the NORP check point ; and a third man in NORP uniform who fired from a distance of QUANTITY .

NORP Before the Court , the applicants produced a number of statements from eyewitnesses . The relevant parts of these statements read as follows .

Statement of PERSON from ORG :

“ ... CARDINAL NORP - Cypriot demonstrators were in the buffer zone and approached our formation . These people were in an agitated state , abusive , were singing patriotic songs and several were carrying NORP flags . I also saw several television cameras amongst the crowd . ...

The demonstrators were becoming more agitated and were throwing missiles towards ORG personnel and NORP forces . ...

A short time later ... I saw a male person previously unknown to me , this person was between myself and the road and was jogging towards the NORP - Cypriot fire line [ TCFL ] . This person was wearing black jeans and a black T shirt ... I also saw that this person was smoking .

This person appeared to be extremely agitated and was verbally abusing ORG and NORP troops . I saw PERSON run after this person and heard Booth yell out to the person to ‘ ORG and also to ‘ get back’ . The male person ran to a NORP sentry box on the western side of PERSON road where he got in between the coiled barbed wire and the sentry box . Booth caught the male person at this stage and held him by the shirt with one hand . The male person then broke free of this hold and run around the eastern side of the sentry box where I briefly lost sight of him . I next saw this person attempting to climb on the top of the sentry box which was unsuccessful . I then turned my back and attempted to prevent another person from going towards the ORG . I heard a shot fired and turned around and saw the same male person attempting to climb a flagpole on the NORP side of the TCFL .

I saw a NORP Police officer with a drawn handgun aimed at the male person standing on FAC , I saw this officer walk towards the male person and saw several muzzle flashes from the gun and heard several shots , I saw a wound on the male person ’s neck and a large amount of blood from that wound . The male person then slid down the flagpole where I lost sight of him . The same police officer was firing at this time .

A volley of shots then rang out from the NORP side of the TCFL . I ran towards the cover of QUANTITY ORG barrels , QUANTITY south of my location . I lay prone next to the barrels with my head turned and facing the ORG . At this time I saw numerous muzzle flashes emanating from CARDINAL or CARDINAL positions within a grove of trees on the western side of the Derenyia road behind the ORG . ...

Several rounds hit the barrels and the ground close to us whilst the volley of shots continued . .. I ... saw that LOC had sustained a wound to his buttock . At this time shots were still being fired from the NORP side of the TCFL . I administered first aid .

The volley of shots ceased . I estimate that the volley of shots lasted TIME ...

I approached the TCFL where I saw the male person who had attempted to climb the flagpole being carried under the ORG coiled wire by members from ORG . I saw that the person had sustained wounds on either side of the neck and chest .

The NORP - Cypriot crowd that were still in the buffer zone became very aggressive towards ORG personnel claiming that they could not get the required medical assistance for the person who had been shot . The situation did not settle until an ambulance had arrived and conveyed the person from the scene . ”

Statement of PERSON O’Reilly , from ORG :

“ ... A large crowd of people had gathered at this stage and the crowd was hostile . ... At this stage the crowd of people were making efforts to break through the barrier . The crowd were also throwing stones and other missiles at the ORG personnel . They were advised on several occasions not to enter the buffer zone . A number of people then broke through the barrier and stated they wanted to lay a wreath where PERSON had died . They were advised they could not .

At this time more people came through the barrier and started to head towards the ceasefire line . Efforts were been made to try and stop them but they continued onwards and would not listen to anybody . Some of the crowd carried iron bars , stones , sticks and flags . When the crowd got close to the NORP position they started to throw stones at the NORP position .

I would say there were CARDINAL people in the buffer zone . A group of these people got to the murder scene and planted a NORP and GPE flag where he had been killed . They also removed the iron stakes which had marked the murder scene . The crowd [ was ] still hostile and angry .

They started to sing and shout insults towards the NORP forces . After planting the wreath and flags they moved over towards the road which leads to the NORP checkpoint . They were still throwing stones and chanting insults . One of the group broke through and run up to the barbed wire and planted a NORP flag on it . When the flag was planted , NORP forces appeared from a group of trees . I removed this flag ... The NORP forces members returned to the trees when the flag was removed . I was continually telling people not to enter the buffer zone as it was dangerous and to return behind the ORG barrier .

I noticed a man break through the ORG lines and run towards the NORP forces checkpoint . A member of PERSON was in pursuit and caught the man at the barrier , the soldier appeared to lose his grip and let this man go and he crossed into [ the ] NORP occupied area . He started to climb the flagpole with the NORP [ flag ] on it . I then saw a NORP soldier with a pistol fire shots , maybe QUANTITY towards this man .

I saw blood spurt from this man ’s neck and he slumped on the pole and fell to the ground . There was a burst of firing as this man fell to the ground and I saw CARDINAL other NORP soldiers firing rifles . I was TIME approximately from the shooting . I then took cover and remained on the ground till the shooting stopped . When I got up after the shooting I noticed members of ORG attending CARDINAL of the men who had been shot . ...

We removed the body from its position under the flagpole and passed it under the barrier to members of the ORG and people in the crowd of demonstrators . The crowd took the body out of my view and placed it in a jeep ... When the body was passed under the barrier there was a GPE doctor there [ who ] started to render aid to this man who had been shot . ... There were no further incidents after the shooting ... ”

Statement of Acting Station Sergeant Bruce Ihian Hayward , from ORG :

“ ... I noticed that a group of NORP - Cypriot demonstrators , in my estimation to be in excess of CARDINAL , were at the ORG line attempting to break through . After a token effort by ORG , the demonstrators broke through the line with ease and approached the NORP barrier of the buffer zone . This barrier was manned by members of ORG and ORG . After numerous attempts to breach this line , the demonstrators were eventually successful and at the same time a large group of these demonstrators had run around the NORP flank of the ORG members and ran into the buffer zone . I saw that the majority of these demonstrators were carrying pieces of wood , metal and other objects .

... On numerous occasions , I was spat upon , verbally abused and pushed out of the way by the NORP - Cypriot demonstrators . In CARDINAL instance I was threatened by a male demonstrator carrying a QUANTITY bladed knife , whom I have no doubt would have used it if I had not relinquished my position . At this stage , I saw a red flare overhead that had been fired from a southerly direction towards the NORP side . When the demonstrators reached an area QUANTITY from the NORP lines , they commenced to throw a barrage of rocks at the NORP soldiers and police and at a building situated on the eastern side of the entrance barrier . All attempts to negotiate with the demonstrators by the ORG personnel within the buffer zone failed both verbally and physically .

I was positioned at an area approximately CARDINAL metres’ distance from the northern entrance barrier and QUANTITY from the barbed wire barrier on the northern extremity of the buffer zone , when I saw a male demonstrator wearing black trousers and a black T - shirt with white writing on the front , run towards the entrance barrier of the NORP - NORP side , closely pursued by a member of BRITCON .

As the male person attempted to get between the barbed wire and a guard box on the western side of the entrance , a member of ORG grabbed hold of his shirt and attempted to pull him back . However , the ORG member was struck on his helmet by a rock thrown by CARDINAL of the demonstrators and as a result , released his hold of the male demonstrator .

The male demonstrator then attempted to climb onto the guard box but was unable to , so then started to climb a flagpole flying the NORP flag which was situated on the western side of the entrance , several metres inside NORP - Cypriot territory . I saw the male climb QUANTITY up the flagpole when I noticed a ORG officer remove his pistol and commence shooting towards the male person on the flagpole . This NORP officer was standing in the middle of the road facing in a southerly direction QUANTITY distance from the buffer zone barrier . I then saw CARDINAL other NORP army soldiers step out of some bushes on the western side of the barrier , QUANTITY away , and started firing their rifles in the direction of the male person on the flagpole . At this stage I saw an amount of blood appear on the male person ’s neck just below the jaw line on the left hand side . The male then appeared to slide back down the flagpole onto the ground . I remember seeing the NORP army officer who had fired his pistol running off into some bushes on the eastern side .

At this stage , myself and other ORG personnel immediately lay down on the ground . I believe I heard continual gunfire for a period of TIME and on several occasions , heard bullets passing over my head . At no time did I hear bullets being fired from the direction of the NORP - Cypriot demonstrators , nor did I see any of the demonstrators with firearms . The majority of the demonstrators then ran back towards the southern barrier of the buffer zone . When the gunfire had ceased , I saw that the NORP army officers and police had left their original locations and could not be sighted .

Shortly after , I saw ORG members ... enter through the NORP barrier and remove the body of the male person whom I had seen climbing the flagpole and had been subsequently shot . ...

... I was made aware that CARDINAL ORG members had sustained gunshot wounds . ”

Statement of PERSON , from ORG :

“ ... After numerous attempts to breach this line [ the ORG barriers ] , the demonstrators were eventually successful and at the same time a large group of these demonstrators , numbering CARDINAL persons ran around the western flank of the ORG members and into the buffer zone . I saw that many of these demonstrators were carrying pieces of wood , metal stakes , rocks and other objects . There were no visible firearms amongst the demonstrators .

All ORG members including all ORG continually formed lines in an attempt to prevent the demonstrators from reaching the northern side of the buffer zone ... The NORP - Cypriot demonstrators were extremely agitated and violent towards ORG members . I saw several ORG soldiers get hit by rocks thrown from south to our position . The demonstrators then forced their way to a position QUANTITY south of the NORP barbed wire barriers . There QUANTITY flags were planted using a small rock cairn , apparently as a memorial . The demonstrators paused briefly at this point singing and shouting before moving generally back towards the roadway and continuing their yelling and rock throwing at the NORP positions . There were many rocks thrown at NORP positions which hit the buildings just north of the NORP forces barriers .

... The ORG soldiers and ORG made many attempts to push the demonstrators back ... , all to no avail . I saw a red flare come from the demonstration group , fired into the sky over NORP positions .

I was standing QUANTITY to the south of the NORP barbed wire demarcation , QUANTITY to the west of the roadway . The roadway passes to the north CARDINAL guard posts located on either side of the roadway . There was a barbed wire barrier between the CARDINAL guard posts . Beyond this position there were no further barriers to the NORP positions .

I saw a demonstrator who was wearing a black shirt run towards the guard house located at the NORP checkpoint . A ORG member chased this person . The demonstrator made his way through a gap between the guard house and [ the ] barbed wire gate . The ORG soldier grabbed hold of the demonstrator ; however [ he ] lost his grip . The demonstrator ran past the barbed wire gate and was briefly lost from my sight . I then had a partial view of the demonstrator as he stood beside a flagpole located to the north of the guardhouse on the western side of the roadway . I saw a NORP forces soldier approach from bushes further to the north and walk to a position QUANTITY from the flagpole . I saw he was carrying a firearm , which appeared to be some form of assault rifle . I saw him drop to CARDINAL knee and raise his rifle to his right shoulder . I heard CARDINAL spaced shots as this was happening .

At this point the demonstrator had begun to climb up the flagpole and I had a clear view of him as he climbed higher . He did not appear to react to the first CARDINAL shots as he continued to climb . I then heard a third shot and saw the demonstrator fall from the flagpole to the ground . I turned away at this point to look for some cover to move to . As I did this I heard a volley of rapid fire shots and I moved a few steps away from the firing line to a depression in the ground where I sought cover . After the firing ceased I stood up and moved back to the roadway area , I saw a ORG soldier lying on the ground and being attended by several other ORG soldiers . Myself and other ORG soldiers began forcing media persons away to clear the area of the casualty . A short time later ORG ambulances arrived .

... I saw the body of the wounded demonstrator taken by demonstrators who gradually moved off to the south . ”

Statement of ORG PERSON , from UNFICYP :

“ ... I saw CARDINAL uniformed NORP police and QUANTITY NORP riot police in the area around the NORP checkpoint . I also saw that these troops were well armed .

[ At ] about CARDINALhCARDINAL I saw CARDINAL demonstrators moving towards the NORP National Guard checkpoint on FAC . ... I saw no GPE police in that area .

... This group was joined by other demonstrators . As the number of demonstrators grew they eventually got past ORG personnel at that location .

... [ At ] about CARDINALhCARDINAL I saw the NORP - Cypriot demonstrators throw rocks towards the NORP forces . The demonstrators at this stage were on the southern side of ORG personnel deployed in crowd control formation . The demonstrators were throwing stones that were landing in the building TKCARDINAL . ORG soldiers and ORG members were making every effort to prevent demonstrators getting past their position .

At this time I was advised by Major PERSON from the NORP forces that if demonstrators went past the NORP ceasefire line they would be shot . I attempted to relay this information but could not do so as I could not use my portable radio . I believe the reason for this was interference from GPE police channels .

I saw a man I would describe as fit and well built run towards a sentry box at the NORP checkpoint on the right hand side of FAC . This man attempted to climb the roof of the sentry box and then got down . I then saw this same man run towards the flagpole , I took cover and heard a shot fired . A short time later I heard a volley of shots fired . I made a note that I heard shots fired at CARDINAL . After the shots had ceased I looked down to the flagpole area , I saw the same man lying on the ground with his head pointing towards the NORP national guard checkpoint , he was facing towards ORG OP CARDINAL .

After CARDINALhCARDINAL I saw ORG members ... remove the body of the man . ”

According to the Government , the chain of events which led to the death of PERSON might be described as follows .

( a ) On CARDINAL and DATE serious disturbances occurred in the buffer zone .

( b ) The NORP - Cypriot Motorcycle Federation , with the support of the NORP - Cypriot authorities , had organised a rally which was meant to cross the ceasefire line and perform an illegal entry into the territory of the “ TRNC ” . The organisers had used abusive and degrading language and expressed violent intentions against the NORP people in general .

( c ) These acts , accompanied by media coverage , led to tensions on both sides of the border .

( d ) The NORP - NORP side repeatedly invited the NORP - Cypriot leadership to persuade the organisers of the rally to abandon the idea of illegally trespassing across the border and to enter the “ TRNC ” through the official entry point . These appeals were ignored .

( e ) The “ TRNC ” announced that it would stop such a provocative and aggressive action in order to protect its citizens .

( f ) The ORG Deputy ORG in GPE and the ORG Secretary - General called for respect for the integrity of the buffer zone . However , ORG did not have sufficient personnel or means to effectively control and prevent large - scale demonstrations .

( g ) On DATE CARDINAL of NORP - Cypriot demonstrators , escorted by the NORP - Cypriot police , arrived at the NORP - Cypriot ceasefire line in GPE . The NORP - Cypriot police deliberately left the checkpoint unguarded in order to allow the demonstrators to enter the ORG buffer zone . The situation developed into a violent riot when the demonstrators entered NORP - Cypriot territory . They became involved in clashes with PERSON counter - demonstrators . CARDINAL of people were injured and a NORP died .

( h ) The funeral of that person took place on DATE , in a climate of anti - NORP feeling . The same day , at TIME , CARDINAL of NORP - Cypriot demonstrators once again entered the buffer zone and approached the ceasefire line .

( i ) In order to avoid further clashes , the “ NORP ” authorities prevented counter - demonstrators from approaching the area . They also took all necessary measures to prevent forcible entry into their territory .

( j ) The NORP - Cypriot demonstrators carried the NORP flag and started throwing missiles into the NORP - Cypriot area . As a precautionary measure , a NORP - NORP police team was positioned , out of sight , in the vicinity of the ceasefire line .

( k ) The NORP - Cypriot demonstration developed into a riot and the demonstrators started rushing towards the NORP - Cypriot ceasefire line . CARDINAL of them unsuccessfully tried to run towards a sentry post , then started to climb the flagpole marking the NORP - Cypriot ceasefire line . The other demonstrators threw stones , bottles , iron rods and other missiles . According to eyewitnesses , shots were also fired from the NORP - Cypriot side and CARDINAL demonstrator posing as a cameraman was seen with an automatic pistol firing shots . At this stage , the NORP - NORP police team came out from their position and fired in the air in order to stop the advance of the demonstrators and to prevent the situation getting out of control . There was then a crossfire as shots were fired from the NORP - Cypriot side .

( l ) Solomos PERSON was injured during the crossfire and was immediately picked up by ORG personnel . NORP - Cypriot demonstrators prevented the ORG from bringing an ambulance to the scene , thus hindering any chance of his survival . After having waited in the buffer zone , Mr PERSON was eventually picked up by a jeep and taken across to the NORP - Cypriot side . He later died from his injuries .

The Government of GPE observed that the NORP police had conducted an in - depth investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of PERSON , in cooperation with ORG . Having regard to the results of these investigations , the facts of the case can be described as follows .

On DATE demonstrations occurred in the LOC area of GPE . Many of the demonstrators were NORP - Cypriot motorcyclists . At CARDINAL of those demonstrations , which took place inside the ORG buffer zone , a certain PERSON was bludgeoned to death by persons who had entered the buffer zone in circumstances making GPE responsible for that death .

NORP The funeral of PERSON took place on DATE at CARDINAL a.m. A crowd of CARDINAL people attended the funeral , including CARDINAL motorcyclists . At TIME around CARDINAL demonstrators came into the southern side of the buffer zone area , following the funeral service . A group of demonstrators sought to enter the buffer zone in order to lay a wreath at the site of the killing , but was refused permission by the ORG forces . The group forced its way past the ORG barrier and went into the buffer zone near the site of PERSON death . CARDINAL demonstrators entered the buffer zone , but almost all were contained by the security forces . Some demonstrators had sticks or iron bars ; CARDINAL was seen to have a knife . No demonstrator had a firearm . Stones were thrown at the NORP forces .

Solomos Solomou , who was unarmed and not carrying a stick , bar or other implement , broke through a line of ORG personnel and ran towards the NORP ceasefire line . He was chased by a member of ORG , Mr Booth , who tried to prevent him from going further . Mr PERSON escaped Mr Booth ’s grip . He then ran around the sentry box inside the NORP ceasefire line . He started to climb a pole holding the NORP flag which was positioned QUANTITY metres behind the sentry box . When he was QUANTITY up the pole ( less than CARDINAL of the way to the top ) he was shot and fell to the ground . He was hit by CARDINAL bullets and died almost instantaneously .

The NORP forces then opened fire indiscriminately . QUANTITY other persons ( CARDINAL ORG personnel and CARDINAL civilians ) were wounded . From the balcony of the NORP observation post ( a QUANTITY - storey house ) , Lieutenant General PERSON ( the Commander of the NORP occupation forces ) , Major General PERSON ( Commander of the CARDINALth Turkish Division ) and PERSON ( the Chief of Police ) were surveying the operations . Next to them was PERSON , a minister in the “ GPE ” administration .

According to ORG , CARDINAL persons from the NORP side ( QUANTITY of whom were wearing NORP military uniforms ) fired directly at FAC . Even if it was not possible to say who inflicted the fatal wound , each of them intended to kill him .

In support of their version of facts , the Government of GPE produced the following evidence : a pathological report , a ballistic report , photographs , a videotape and ORG statements . Their content may be summarised as follows .

A forensic investigation established that : ( a ) PERSON had been struck by CARDINAL bullets ; ( b ) CARDINAL bullet had entered his head behind the right ear , and exited to the left of the nose . The position of the firearm must have been above ground level at a point higher that the victim ’s head and behind the victim . This was not the fatal bullet ; ( c ) CARDINAL bullet had entered the deceased ’s body behind the left nipple and had come to rest by the right scapula . This wound was the direct cause of death ; ( d ) another bullet had been recovered from below the skin of the middle of the back ; it had entered by the upper left buttock ; and ( e ) bullet fragments had been recovered from the right thigh . The forensic doctors came to the conclusion that the bullets had been fired with an intention to kill , that the first wound had been inflicted while the victim was climbing the flagpole and that the other bullet had hit him while he was falling or while he was lying on the ground .

The bullets and fragments recovered from Mr PERSON ’s body were of CARDINAL mm P calibre . This type of bullet is used by the NORP - Cypriot forces and by the NORP military forces .

One photograph showed Mr PERSON starting to climb the pole and with QUANTITY still on the ground . A man in NORP uniform ( Mr Erdal Emanet , who was the Commander of the Special Forces of the NORP - NORP police ) was aiming his pistol at him . Other photographs and extracts from the videotape showed PERSON levelling his pistol , cocking it and aiming it at PERSON . Another man in civilian clothes ( Mr PERSON ) was on the balcony of the NORP observation post and had not yet drawn a weapon . In another picture , PERSON had climbed QUANTITY up the flagpole and PERSON was aiming a pistol directly at him . The videotape showed a uniformed soldier , whose identity was not established , shooting directly at Mr PERSON with an automatic weapon ( a rifle ) .

Numerous eyewitnesses ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) declared that they had seen Mr Akin shooting at Mr PERSON from the balcony of the observation post . Other witnesses ( PERSON , PERSON O’Reilly , PERSON , Acting PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) identified Mr Emanet as CARDINAL of the shooters . The soldier with an automatic rifle was seen or heard firing at Mr Solomou by PERSON , Acting PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

The Government of GPE underlined that no witness had reported any warning being issued to the demonstrators by the NORP forces either verbally or by warning shots . Nor was any warning apparent from the filmed footage .

On DATE , ORG sought the assistance of the NORP forces in providing information about the incident involving the killing of PERSON . A list of detailed questions was forwarded to the “ NORP ” authorities . ORG were not aware of any answer given to these questions or of any investigation carried out by the “ TNRC ” authorities . The latter had denied access to the crime scene .

The Government of GPE furthermore drew the ORG ’s attention to the following statements and press articles .

At DATE , Lieutenant - General PERSON ( the Commander in Chief of ORG in GPE ) declared to a local newspaper :

“ No one can cross our borders by motorcycle . Those who try pay the price . What is necessary shall be done .

Without permission it is not possible to cross the GPE borders , either by motorcycles or by any other means , and if they come , of course we will not welcome them with flowers . If they want to try let them do so . Those who try pay the price . ”

On DATE the NORP - Cypriot newspaper PERSON reported that NORP military sources had said :

“ Our basic aim is to deter the NORP Cypriots from resorting to such provocations . However , if the NORP Cypriots insist on the action , then we will teach them a lesson so that they will never ever attempt such a thing again . ”

On DATE the NORP - Cypriot newspaper PERSON published the following declaration by PERSON , the NORP Foreign Minister and Acting Prime Minister :

“ If an attempt is made not to recognise the GPE borders , we will do whatever is necessary . Those who attempt to cross over the border will be immediately pushed back and the legitimacy of our borders shall be re - established again . ”

On DATE the NORP - Cypriot newspaper PERSON wrote :

“ Lieutenant - General PERSON has said that the NORP side did not issue any invitation to anybody , and that it had no eyes on others’ territory . Against this , stressed Lieutenant - General PERSON , ‘ we do not let anybody with bad intentions enter our territory . Those who force their way in get their punishment . Everybody should know this . ”

On DATE , a recording by PERSON was played on NORP television . It contained , inter alia , the following passage :

“ The world should know that we will not allow anyone to raise his hand against the flag . We will break the hands that are raised against the flag . For us , this is a matter of honour . ”

The Government of GPE also underlined the following passages of ORG ’s report on the events surrounding the demonstration of DATE :

“ As a result of the indiscriminate shooting by NORP or NORP - Cypriot soldiers , QUANTITY NORP UNFICYP soldiers were shot from behind and CARDINAL NORP - Cypriot civilians were also hit by gunfire . CARDINAL were inside the buffer zone and CARDINAL of the civilians , who sustained a serious gun shot wound to the abdomen , was standing outside the ORG buffer zone close to the ORG checkpoint .

The ORG Commander of ORG accompanied by the Chief of Staff met with the Commander of ORG in GPE late in TIME of CARDINAL DATE to strongly protest the totally unwarranted use of force by NORP or NORP - Cypriot military personnel which resulted in the killing of PERSON and in injuries to CARDINAL peace keepers and CARDINAL civilians . ”


No violation of Art. 6-1 (length);Remainder inadmissible

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

NORP In DATE the applicant 's wife filed with ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) a petition for divorce , asking to be granted custody rights over her daughter and child maintenance from the applicant . On DATE a mediation hearing was held , but the parties did not reach an agreement .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE hearings were held . The court heard witnesses and ordered the applicant to file a declaration of means . In addition , it requested an opinion of an expert psychologist and a social inquiry report to be prepared .

On DATE the court secured the claim and ordered the applicant to pay CARDINAL old zlotys ( PLZ ) in DATE maintenance for his daughter . On DATE the court dismissed the applicant 's motion for exemption from court fees . On DATE the applicant appealed against the decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . His appeal was dismissed . On DATE the applicant challenged the impartiality of the judge . His motion was dismissed .

On DATE the court ordered another social inquiry report . On DATE a psychologist 's opinion concerning relations between the parents and the daughter was issued . On DATE the court held a hearing . It heard an expert in psychology and CARDINAL witness . The court regulated the frequency of the applicant 's contacts with his daughter pending the divorce proceedings .

On DATE the court imposed a fine on the applicant for offending the court .

On DATE the plaintiff asked the court to increase the amount of child maintenance .

On DATE the plaintiff submitted her pleadings .

On DATE and DATE the court yet again summoned the applicant to submit , within DATE , information regarding his financial situation . He complied with the summons on CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE by which his previous appeal against the fine imposed on him had been rejected . On DATE his appeal was rejected as having been lodged outside the prescribed time - limit .

On DATE the court amended its decision concerning maintenance , increasing it to PLZ CARDINAL . It considered that as a construction engineer the applicant was able to earn approximately PLZ CARDINAL per month . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision imposing a fine on him . On DATE his appeal was rejected as having been lodged after the prescribed time - limit . The applicant appealed against this decision and his appeal was rejected on DATE .

On DATE the court ordered him to comply with the formal requirements in respect of his appeal against the decision of DATE . On DATE the case file was sent to ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) . On DATE that court dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained that the plaintiff had impeded his contacts with the child . On DATE the plaintiff asked the court not to schedule hearings in DATE .

On DATE the applicant was charged with having forced a witness in his divorce proceedings to withdraw her testimony . On DATE ORG ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) submitted to ORG a bill of indictment concerning that charge .

On DATE the prosecutor submitted to ORG another bill of indictment against the applicant . The applicant was charged with domestic violence against his wife . On DATE ORG joined those CARDINAL cases .

On DATE ORG submitted to the court another bill of indictment in which he charged the applicant with evading the payment of maintenance for his daughter . Apparently the case was joined to the earlier proceedings .

On DATE ORG convicted him of the first CARDINAL charges and acquitted him of the third charge and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . Upon his appeal , on CARDINAL May CARDINAL ORG stayed the execution of the sentence for a probationary period of DATE .

On DATE the court ordered the parties to submit their pleadings within DATE . On DATE it urged them to comply with its summons . They submitted their pleadings on DATE .

On DATE the case - file of the divorce proceedings was sent to ORG upon his request . It was returned on DATE .

On DATE the court scheduled a hearing for DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL hearings were held . The applicant did not appear and in consequence they were adjourned . On DATE a hearing was heard . The applicant did not agree to a divorce .

On DATE the applicant submitted pleadings in which he inter alia asked the court to order the plaintiff to pay him alimony .

On DATE a hearing was held at which the court heard both parties . ORG dismissed the applicant 's claim for alimony from his wife and refused his request to reduce the amount of the maintenance payable to his daughter . He appealed , but on DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .

On DATE ORG amended its decision of DATE in that it increased the frequency of the applicant 's meetings with his daughter . He and his wife appealed and on DATE ORG quashed that decision . It considered that the contested decision was not supported by an opinion of psychologists .

The hearing scheduled for DATE had to be adjourned until the appeals were examined . The hearing held on DATE was adjourned . The court ordered a supplementary expert opinion of psychologists .

On DATE the institution which was to prepare an expert opinion informed the court that it had started mediation between the parties and that the opinion would be submitted after DATE . The opinion was submitted on DATE . On DATE a hearing was held at which the court heard the expert and the plaintiff . It decided to summon another witness – a Mr J.M.

On DATE ORG issued an order concerning the applicant 's contacts with his daughter pending the divorce proceedings . It decided that the meetings should take place on the first , second and DATE between TIME and TIME without the mother 's presence . The court also ordered a guardian ( kurator sądowy ) to supervise those meetings . Having regard to the opinion of the psychologists , it considered that in the ongoing conflict between the parents , the daughter , who was emotionally attached to her mother , had become more and more unfriendly towards her father , which called for more frequent contacts with the father .

On DATE the applicant requested the written grounds for the decision . They were sent to him on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he appealed against the decision . On DATE he was summoned to pay a court fee . On DATE a hearing was held but it was adjourned pending the examination of the applicant 's appeal . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to increase the frequency of his contacts with the child .

On DATE the court held a hearing and dismissed the motion to call the witness PERSON The court heard the parties . The applicant asked the court to hear another witness as well as all the witnesses who had already been heard . He also requested a stay of the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings . The court dismissed those motions .

On DATE ORG gave judgment , granting a divorce based on the applicant 's fault , and deciding on the daughter 's custody and child maintenance . On DATE the court served the written grounds of the judgment on the applicant . He appealed and requested an exemption from the appeal fee on DATE .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicant 's motion for an exemption from court fees . The applicant appealed on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE his appeal was dismissed . The court based its decision on the fact that the applicant had not submitted the necessary documents to confirm his financial situation .

On DATE the applicant was summoned to pay the appeal fee . On DATE he asked the court to exempt him from that fee . On DATE the court dismissed his motion . The applicant appealed on DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to exempt him from the court fee . On DATE his motion was dismissed . The applicant appealed on DATE . On DATE his appeal was dismissed by ORG . The courts emphasised that the applicant had persistently repeated his request without providing any new circumstances to justify a new motion and without submitting relevant documents .

On DATE the applicant again requested to be exempted from the court fee .

On DATE the court again ordered the applicant to pay the court fee for his appeal , amounting to CARDINAL ORG .

On DATE the applicant asked for exemption from the court fee . This motion was dismissed on DATE for the same reasons as given previously . On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision . It was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was rejected on formal grounds for non payment of the appeal fee . ORG noted that the applicant 's repeated and unsubstantiated motions for exemption had been dismissed several times and he had failed to pay the fee despite CARDINAL summonses . The court emphasised that the applicant 's only intention was to delay the proceedings , to the detriment of the plaintiff . The applicant appealed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked to be exempted from all court fees , in particular from the appeal fee . On DATE his motion was sent to ORG .

On DATE the court called on the applicant to pay the court fee of CARDINAL ORG for his appeal against the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the court refused to exempt the applicant from the court fees . It underlined that the applicant had requested to be exempted from the court fees on several occasions but had once again not indicated any new circumstances justifying his request . On DATE the applicant appealed . On DATE his appeal was dismissed .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay the court fee due for his appeal against the decision rejecting his appeal against the judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the defendant informed the court that he had paid the court fee for the appeal against the judgment ( amounting to MONEY ) and requested the court to reinstate the time - limit for paying the fee .

On DATE ORG issued CARDINAL decisions , in which it rejected the applicant 's appeal against the decision of DATE and rejected the applicant 's motion to be granted retrospective leave to pay the appeal fee .

The judgment of DATE became final on DATE .

Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ( ORG cywilny ) provide for the ORG 's liability in tort .

In the version applicable until DATE , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , which lays down a general rule , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The State Treasury shall be liable for damage caused by a ORG official in the course of carrying out the duties entrusted to him . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW , as applicable until DATE , provided for the following exception in cases where damage resulted from the issue of a decision or order :

“ CARDINAL . If , in consequence of the issue of a decision or order , a ORG official has caused damage , the ORG shall be liable only if a breach of the law has been involved in the issue of the decision or order and if that breach is the subject of prosecution under the criminal law or of a disciplinary investigation , and the guilt of the person who caused the damage in question has been established by a final conviction or has been admitted by the superior of that person .

NORP The inability to establish guilt by way of a criminal conviction or in a decision given in disciplinary proceedings shall not exclude ORG liability for damage if such proceedings can not be instituted in view of a [ statutory ] exception to prosecution or disciplinary action . ”

On DATE the Law of DATE on amendments to LAW and other statutes ( LOC o zmianie ustawy – ORG cywilny oraz niektórych innych ustaw ) ( “ the DATE Amendment ” ) entered into force . While the relevant amendments have in essence been aimed at enlarging the scope of ORG liability for tort under LAW of LAW including the addition of a new LAW and the imposition on the ORG of tortious liability for its omission to enact legislation ( the so - called “ legislative omission ” ; “ zaniedbanie legislacyjne ” ) – they are also to be seen in the context of the operation of a new statute introducing remedies for the unreasonable length of judicial proceedings .

Following LAW , Article DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If damage has been caused by failure to give a ruling ( orzeczenie ) or decision ( decyzja ) where there is a statutory duty to give them , reparation for [ the damage ] may be sought after it has been established in the relevant proceedings that the failure to give a ruling or decision was contrary to the law , unless otherwise provided for by other specific provisions . ”

However , under the transitional provisions of LAW , LAW as applicable before DATE shall apply to all events and legal situations that subsisted before that date .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dealt with CARDINAL constitutional complaints in which the applicants challenged the constitutionality of Article CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . They alleged , in particular , that those provisions were incompatible with LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW .

On DATE the Constitutional Court gave judgment ( no . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and held that LAW was compatible with LAW in so far as it provided that ORG was liable for damage caused by the unlawful action of a ORG official carried out in the course of performing his duties . It further held that even though LAW was compatible with LAW , it was contrary to LAW since it linked the award of compensation for such damage with the personal culpability of the ORG official concerned , established in criminal or disciplinary proceedings .

On DATE , the date on which ORG judgment took effect , Article CARDINAL was repealed . ORG opinion on the consequences of the repeal read , in so far as relevant :

“ The elimination of LAW from the legal system ... means that ORG liability for the actions of a public authority consisting in the issue of unlawful decisions or orders will flow from the general principles of the ORG liability laid down in LAW . This , however , does not rule out the application in the present legal system of other principles of ORG liability laid down in specific statutes and not necessarily only those listed in LAW . ”

On DATE the Law of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) entered into force . It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings .

A party to pending proceedings may ask for the acceleration of those proceedings and/or just satisfaction for their unreasonable length under LAW read in conjunction with LAW .

Article CARDINAL , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

Article CARDINAL provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . A complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings shall be lodged while the proceedings are pending . ... ”

Article CARDINAL refers to proceedings that have been terminated and that do not fall under the transitional provision of Article CARDINAL in the following terms :

“ A party which has not lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under LAW ) may claim – under LAW ... DATE compensation for the damage which resulted from the unreasonable length of the proceedings after the proceedings concerning the merits of the case have ended . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code sets out limitation periods in respect of various claims based on tort . That provision applies to situations covered by Article CARDINAL of LAW . Article CARDINAL , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ CARDINAL . A claim for compensation for damage caused by a tort shall lapse DATE following the date on which the claimant learned of the damage and the persons liable for it . However , the claim shall in any case lapse DATE following the date on which the event causing the damage occurred . ”

DATE Act lays down the following transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the Court :

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE after the date of entry into force of this law persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by LAW ... , may lodge a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings on the basis of the provisions of this law if their complaint to ORG had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case .

A complaint lodged under subsection CARDINAL shall indicate the date on which the application was lodged with the ORG .

The relevant court shall immediately inform the Minister of ORG of any complaints lodged under subsection CARDINAL . ”


Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicants , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicants are co - owners of property in GPE , which they inherited from their late father and grandfather PERSON , who died in DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) adopted a general local development plan which stipulated , among other things , that an electricity supply line was to be constructed over the applicants’ property . For that reason there was a “ reserve ” of QUANTITY created on several properties , including part of the applicants’ property .

In DATE ORG announced that it was intending to adopt amendments to the existing land development plan .

On DATE the applicants lodged an objection ( zarzut ) to the proposed amendments .

On DATE , by a resolution , ORG rejected the applicants’ objection .

On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint against that resolution with ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG quashed the challenged resolution and declared it null and void .

In the meantime , on DATE , although the ORG complaint to ORG was still pending , ORG passed further amendments to the local development plan adopted in DATE and excluded from the plan the plots of land owned by the applicants .

The applicants lodged a complaint against that resolution with ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the resolution null and void in the part challenged by the applicants . The court found that adopting a local development plan with an exclusion of some properties situated on the line of the planned investment amounted to a violation of certain provisions of the DATE LAW ( ustawa o zagospodarowaniu przestrzennym ) .

Having obtained CARDINAL ORG judgments in their favour , on DATE the applicants requested the President of GPE to present them with a schedule of measures to end the reserve .

On DATE they received a letter from the Chief PERSON of GPE ( PERSON ) who informed them that , in spite of the judgments given by ORG , the reserve remained in force and that a procedure for withdrawal of the reserve might be instituted after the adoption of a new resolution outlining a study of the local development plan ( studium uwarunkowan i kierunków zagospodarowania przestrzennego ) . The architect did not , however , specify any date or time - limit within which the planned study would be prepared .

On DATE the local development plan of DATE expired .

DATE the applicants sent numerous letters and complaints to various authorities , but these were ineffective .

On DATE the applicants informed the ORG that the GPE authorities had announced a draft of the study which did not contain a “ reserve ” for the electricity line .

On DATE the applicants lodged a request with ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) for dissolution of the co - ownership of their property .

The proceedings were stayed on several occasions and the applicants lodged several requests for the exclusion of judges sitting in their case . Their requests were dismissed as ill - founded .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG request , finding that other proceedings for dissolution of coownership and division of property inherited from the late FAC , concerning the same property and instituted by the applicants had been pending since DATE . The applicants did not appeal against that decision .

On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings referred to in its decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG gave a preliminary decision in which it established the shares of particular heirs in the estate of the late F.P.

On DATE ORG confirmed the distribution of the estate as set out in the preliminary decision of DATE .

The applicants did not appeal .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning local development plans are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL - CARDINAL and § CARDINAL , DATE , and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE .