Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

E.M. , the applicants’ father , was the owner of a flat in GPE , which he had let to PERSON

In a registered letter of DATE , the ORG father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on DATE and asked him to vacate the LOC by DATE .

The tenant told the owner that he would not leave the LOC .

In the meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE , the ORG father died and the applicants inherited the flat .

In a writ served on the tenant on DATE , they reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was made enforceable on DATE , ORG upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the LOC be vacated by DATE .

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

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

On DATE , the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for themselves .

Between DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession . Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession .

On DATE , the applicants recovered possession of the flat .

On DATE the first applicant sued the tenant before ORG seeking damages for the loss she had sustained as a result of the tenant ’s refusal to quit the flat and because of the flat ’s bad condition on restitution . On DATE the second applicant sold his share in the flat to the first applicant .

During the preparation of the case for trial expert evidence was filed and witnesses were heard .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG allowed the applicant MONEY ( ORG ) for the works to be carried out in the flat and LAW for the damage sustained on account of the flat ’s unavailability , plus interest and the reimbursement of the costs and expenses .

On DATE the applicant discovered that the former tenant ( PERSON ) had sold all his real property to members of his family in DATE . On DATE , the applicant served notice on PERSON to pay the amount owed . On DATE the bailiff made a seizure of PERSON ’s goods , but only up to an amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL because there was nothing more to be seized .

On DATE PERSON notified the applicant that he had lodged an appeal with ORG . On DATE ORG rejected ORG claim and ordered him to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings .

On DATE the company in charge of the auction by order of ORG ( “ PERSON s.r.l . ” ) informed the judge that it could not have access to the goods seized because the door of ORG flat was closed or he refused to give the goods and asked the judge to grant the assistance of the police on DATE . The judge granted the assistance on DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that because of PERSON ’s insolvency he had managed to recover only the sums PERSON owed him for the costs and expenses .

The relevant domestic law and practice is described in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG , ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ... ) .


Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Violation of P7-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Costs and expenses - award

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

The first applicant settled in GPE in DATE . On DATE he married the second applicant there . Shortly after the marriage he was granted a permanent residence permit . Their daughter , the third applicant , was born in GPE on DATE . Before DATE the first applicant worked as a driver for a limited liability company in GPE .

On DATE the Regional Director of ORG in GPE made an order for the first applicant ’s expulsion . He also deprived him of the right to reside in GPE and excluded him from NORP territory for a period of DATE , “ on the ground that [ he ] present[ed ] a serious threat to national security and in view of the reasons set out in proposal no . PERSON by the head of the security department of ORG ” . The Director ’s decision relied on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and section CARDINALa(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW , taken in conjunction with section DATE ) and ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . No factual grounds were given , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The order further provided that the first applicant was to be detained until it could be enforced . Finally , it stated that it was subject to appeal to the Minister of ORG , but not subject to judicial review , in line with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , and that it was immediately enforceable , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

At TIME on DATE the first applicant was summoned to a police station in GPE , where he was served with the order and detained with a view to his expulsion . He was deported to GPE DATE , without being allowed to get in touch with his wife and daughter or a lawyer .

Once in GPE , the first applicant hired a lawyer in GPE with the help of his wife – the second applicant DATE , and on DATE appealed to the Minister of ORG . He said that he had had an established family life in GPE for DATE and complained that while being held at the police station on DATE he had not been informed why he was considered a threat to national security . Nor had this become apparent from the decision to expel him , which had merely referred to the legal grounds on which it was made . The first applicant further complained that he had not been apprised of the proposal which served as the basis for the decision . All of this amounted to a failure to give reasons , in breach of the rules of administrative procedure .

In a letter of DATE sent to the first applicant ’s former address in GPE , the head of the complaints department of ORG informed him that the Minister had dismissed the appeal in a decision of DATE , because the impugned order had been made by a competent authority , in due form , in compliance with the applicable substantive and procedural rules and in conformity with the aim of the law .

On DATE the first applicant sought judicial review of the Minister ’s order by ORG . He argued that no reasons had been given for the order , depriving him of any protection against arbitrariness because he had been unable to discover which actions on his part had been deemed a threat to national security . He also argued that the measures against him had interfered with his family life . However , the authorities had disregarded this and had not examined whether a fair balance had been struck between his rights and the public interest , contrary to LAW , which formed part of domestic law . In that connection he relied on the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , which had previously led ORG to change its caselaw in this sphere ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that the case had been transferred to ORG .

A hearing listed for DATE failed to take place because ORG had not received a copy of the application for judicial review .

The hearing was held on DATE . The court admitted in evidence proposal no . SCARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , which had served as the basis for the decision against the first applicant . The first applicant was not allowed to familiarise himself with this document .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the application . To begin with , it held that the bar to judicial review set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was contrary to the LAW and was thus to be disregarded . It relied on LOC ( cited above ) and the relevant caselaw of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Examining the application on the merits , the court held :

“ The coercive measures are based ... on the ground that the [ first applicant ] represents a serious threat to national security , for the reasons set out in proposal no . SCARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ...

In upholding the impugned order , the Minister of ORG states that the evidence gathered clearly establishes that the [ first applicant ] is a member of a criminal gang dealing in illicit narcotic drugs ; this , on the CARDINAL hand , constitutes grounds under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the [ CARDINAL LAW ] , and , on the other , is a circumstance requiring the administrative authority to take coercive measures . Under section CARDINAL of the [ CARDINAL LAW ] , ‘ the expulsion of an alien must be carried out if his or her presence in the country creates a serious threat to national security or public ORG . On expulsion , the alien must also be deprived of the right to reside in GPE and be banned from entering it . The imposition of [ these measures ] is necessary in the cases set out in section CARDINAL of the [ LAW ] . The order refers to the grounds set forth in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , which [ provides for the mandatory expulsion of ] ‘ an alien who is known to be a member of a criminal gang or organisation or to be engaged in terrorist activities , smuggling or unlawful transactions with arms , explosives , ammunitions , strategic raw materials , goods and technologies with a possible dual use , or in the unlawful trafficking of intoxicating or psychotropic substances or precursors or raw materials for their production’ . The order states that there is information to the effect that the [ first applicant ] has participated in the unlawful trafficking of intoxicating and psychotropic substances and precursors and raw materials for their production . This has been established from the enclosed secret file ( classified in accordance with LAW and [ Schedule CARDINAL ] , Part CARDINAL , point CARDINAL of the [ Protection of Classified Information Act of DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ] ) containing the proposal to impose coercive measures to which the impugned order refers . According to this proposal , the data come from secret surveillance measures and information from operative sources gathered by ORG in DATE , showing that [ the first applicant ] has acted as an intermediary in the supply of narcotic drugs and maintains regular contacts with NORP citizens who distribute narcotic drugs and intoxicating substances in the territory of the towns of GPE and GPE .

The CARDINAL measures imposed on the [ first applicant ] are based on section ORG ) of the [ LAW ] . ... According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of [ that LAW ] taken in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ CARDINAL LAW ] , such an order must refer only to the legal and not the factual grounds for imposition of the coercive measures . As may be seen from the order , it fully complies with the requirements of [ these provisions ] .

There is no dispute as to the competence of the authority which made the order . [ The first applicant alleges ] breaches of the rules of procedure , but none has been found by the court . Section CARDINAL of the [ LAW ] does not lay down any special rules of procedure ... No procedural violations have been found in the fact that the proposal for coercive measures was made secret , as from its last page it may be seen that it was made on DATE and was classified on DATE ...

[ The court will now examine ORG [ first applicant ] ’s objections concerning the lack of factual grounds for imposition of the measures . The legal grounds cited in the order require the existence of information concerning the facts referred to in sections CARDINAL and ORG of the [ DATE LAW ] , taken in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) . Concerning the [ first applicant ’s ] objections in this regard , it must be stressed that the [ law refers to ] information relating to such facts rather than proof thereof . The availability of proof would produce different legal consequences for the [ first applicant ] .

The impugned order imposes coercive measures which , according to LAW DATE ] , are applied in order to preempt and put an end to administrative and other offences , as well as to preempt and redress their harmful consequences .

The information was gathered through the use of secret surveillance measures and through operative sources of ORG , as may be seen from the proposal cited in the order . According to the definition of the [ LAW ] , the measures concerned comprise technical means ( electronic and mechanical devices , as well as substances which are used for recording the activity of monitored persons and objects ) and operative methods ( surveillance , tapping , following , covert entry of LOC , marking and checking of correspondence and computerised information , which are employed during the use of technical devices ) used for the preparation of physical evidence in the form of videotapes , audiotapes , photographs and marked objects . Under LAW of this LAW , these may also be used for preventing offences ... They are used against persons who are suspected of preparing or perpetrating or of having perpetrated serious crimes . The evidence thus obtained is kept either by ORG until the institution of a preliminary investigation , or by the respective judicial authorities . Any item not used for the preparation of evidence has to be destroyed .

The nature of the source of information which led to the issuing of the impugned order makes it impossible to adduce further evidence relating to the facts . However , this by no means leads to a finding that the coercive measures were unlawful . Moreover , the [ first applicant ] does not dispute the facts ; he merely challenges the use of information concerning them as grounds for the coercive measures imposed . The [ court ] finds that the facts set out in the proposal can serve as the basis for application of sections CARDINAL and ORG of the [ DATE LAW taken in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ] . In view of the foregoing , the [ court ] concludes that the impugned order was in accordance with the requirements of the substantive law .

The [ first applicant ] ’s last objection concerns the noncompliance of the impugned order with the aim of the law . He relies on his longstanding family life in GPE , his marriage to a NORP citizen and the nineyearold child born from this marriage ( all facts which have been acknowledged by the parties and the court ) ...

However , all these circumstances have no bearing on the lawfulness of the order under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW ] , still less on its compliance with the aims of the law , as the law in question provides for the restriction of certain rights for the purpose of preventing the commission of offences .

In this context , the [ first applicant ] ’s reliance on [ PERSON , cited above ] is misplaced , as this case concerns the right to seek judicial review , which is available to the [ first applicant ] . ”

On DATE the first applicant appealed to ORG . He argued that the police had not adduced any evidence that he had done anything to put national security in jeopardy . They had merely presented a document which recounted information whose source was unknown . The socalled “ proposal ” contained only general conclusions which were based on facts not made known to the court . This was problematic , as the court ’s task was to guarantee that the executive ’s discretion had not been exercised in an arbitrary fashion . Moreover , there were no objective facts showing that the first applicant had committed any offence . This had to be proved , not merely alleged . The first applicant further submitted that the impugned order had seriously infringed his right to respect for his family life , contrary to LAW . He relied extensively on PERSON ( cited above ) and PERSON v. the GPE ( judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , and asserted that the existing legal framework did not provide sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness . Moreover , the lower court had not examined the proportionality of the interference , contrary to the approach of ORG in all cases under LAW . The impugned order had broken off the longstanding relationships with his wife and daughter . If there was reason to suspect that he had engaged in unlawful activities , it would have been more appropriate to prosecute and try him , which would have entailed the production of serious evidence of his alleged wrongdoing .

After holding a hearing on DATE , ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment on DATE . Its opinion , in its relevant parts , reads as follows :

“ ... [ This court ] finds that the conclusions of the firstinstance court as to the lawfulness of the impugned order were correct and wellfounded .

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW ] , an alien ’s expulsion is necessary if his or her presence in the country puts national security or public order in serious jeopardy . LAW of that section provides that whenever [ a person is expelled ] his or her right to reside in GPE is also revoked and he or she is prohibited from entering the country .

According to section ORG of the same LAW , the prohibition on entering the country is imposed under the circumstances set out in LAW [ of the LAW ] . The impugned order by the director of ORG states that the [ first applicant ’s case ] falls under points CARDINAL and CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of the [ LAW ] , in that through his actions he has jeopardised the security and the interests of ORG or is known to have acted against the security interests of the country , to have been a member of a criminal gang or organisation or to have engaged in terrorist activities , smuggling or unlawful transactions with arms , explosives , ammunitions , strategic raw materials , goods or technologies with a possible dual use , or in the illicit trafficking of intoxicating or psychotropic substances or precursors or raw materials for their production .

It has been established in the present case that [ the first applicant ] has acted as an intermediary for the supply of narcotics and maintains regular contacts with NORP citizens who distribute narcotics and intoxicating substances in the territory of the towns of GPE and GPE .

The impugned order was issued on the basis of proposal no . S–CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL by the head of ORG , which contains data revealing that the presence of the alien in the [ Republic of GPE ] puts national security in serious jeopardy .

The provisions of sections CARDINAL and ORG of the [ Aliens Act ] are mandatory . If the conditions referred to in these texts are in place , the administrative authority is required to use coercion and order the expulsion of the alien concerned , and at the same time to withdraw his or her residence permit and prohibit him or her from entering GPE . The administrative authority has no discretion as to whether or not to make the order . As the law does not provide for exceptions which might allow [ the authority not to make an order for expulsion ] , the expulsion is lawful provided the required conditions are in place .

The impugned order was made in accordance with the purpose of the law and in accordance with the [ applicable ] substantive and procedural rules . The administrative authority elucidated the relevant facts and specified the legal grounds for making the order . ... ”

After the first applicant ’s expulsion , the second and third applicants travelled a few times a year to GPE to meet him . On each occasion they remained there for DATE . Between visits they maintained contact by telephone .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ( ORG за чужденците в ORG ) provides that the expulsion of aliens must be carried out when their presence in the country creates a serious threat to national security or public order . Section ORG ) states that expulsion is mandatorily accompanied by withdrawal of the alien ’s residence permit and the imposition of a ban on entering the country .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that expulsion orders and orders withdrawing ORG residence permits are immediately enforceable .

NORP Under section CARDINALa(CARDINAL ) ( currently section CARDINALh(CARDINAL ) ) of the LAW , a ban on entering the country has to be ordered if the grounds set forth in section CARDINAL are in place . LAW ) and ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time , defined these grounds as information revealing that ( i ) “ through his or her actions the alien ha[d ] jeopardised the security or the interests of ORG or ha[d ] acted against the country ’s security ” , or ( ii ) he or she [ was ] a “ member of a criminal gang or organisation , or [ was ] engaged in terrorist activities , smuggling or unlawful transactions with arms , explosives , ammunitions , strategic raw materials , goods or technologies with a possible dual use , or in the illicit trafficking of intoxicating and psychotropic substances or precursors or raw materials for their production ” .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that orders imposing coercive measures may be appealed before the Minister of ORG or the competent regional court .

NORP However , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW as in force until DATE , orders withdrawing ORG residence permits and banning them from entering the country for the reasons set out in DATE ) , or orders expelling them , were not subject to judicial review .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , these orders do not indicate the factual grounds for imposing the relevant coercive measure .

NORP The relevant legal developments in the interpretation and application of GPE DATE are set out in DATE of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON , cited above .

Following this judgment , ORG changed its caselaw . In a number of judgments and decisions delivered DATE it held , by reference to PERSON , that the ban on judicial review in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW was to be disregarded as it contravened the LAW , and that expulsion orders relying on national security considerations were amenable to judicial review ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE по адм. д. № DATE г. ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL май DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. ; опр. № CARDINAL от DATE по адм. д. № DATE г. ; опр. № CARDINAL от DATE по адм. д. № DATE г. ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL май DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. ; опр. № DATE от DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. ) .

Subsequently , in DATE , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW was amended . It now provides that orders withdrawing ORG residence permits and banning them from entering the country for the reasons set out in DATE ) , or orders for their expulsion , may be challenged before ORG , which rules by means of a final judgment .

According to section CARDINAL of this Act , the information listed in Schedule No . CARDINAL thereto , unregulated access to which could jeopardise NORP national security , defence , foreign policy or constitutional interests , is a ORG secret .

Part CARDINAL , point CARDINAL of Schedule No . CARDINAL to the LAW provides that the information in question is that which is “ gathered , checked and analysed by the security services and the lawenforcement agencies concerning persons suspected of subversive , terrorist or other unlawful activities targeted against the public order , security , defence , independence , territorial integrity or international status of the ORG ” .

Article CARDINALa § CARDINAL of LAW of DATE makes it an offence to produce , process , acquire or possess narcotic drugs or similar with a view to distributing them , and also to distribute them . The offence is aggravated if committed by a member of a criminal gang ( Article CARDINALa § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW ) . Article LAW § CARDINAL of the Code makes it an offence to incite or abet another to use narcotic drugs or similar . It is also an offence to be a founder member , leader or member of a criminal gang with intent to commit offences under ORG CARDINALa § CARDINAL or CARDINALb § CARDINAL of the Code ( LAW ) .

The law regulating secret surveillance is described in detail in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The explanatory report to LAW No . CARDINAL ( ETS No . CARDINAL ) details the guarantees of LAW in the following manner :

“ ... CARDINAL . As a rule , an alien should be entitled to exercise his rights under subparagraphs a , b and c of paragraph CARDINAL before he is expelled . However , paragraph CARDINAL permits exceptions to be made by providing for cases where the expulsion before the exercise of these rights is considered necessary in the interest of public order or when reasons of national security are invoked . These exceptions are to be applied taking into account the principle of proportionality as defined in the caselaw of ORG .

The ORG relying on public order to expel an alien before the exercise of the aforementioned rights must be able to show that this exceptional measure was necessary in the particular case or category of cases . On the other hand , if expulsion is for reasons of national security , this in itself should be accepted as sufficient justification . In both cases , however , the person concerned should be entitled to exercise the rights specified in paragraph CARDINAL after his expulsion . ... ”


CASE OF KARHUVAARA AND ILTALEHTI v. FINLAND

Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The second applicant ( “ the applicant company ” ) is a limited liability company based in GPE .

The applicant company publishes a newspaper called ORG which has a circulation of CARDINAL . On DATE it published an article on a criminal trial concerning the drunken and disorderly behaviour , including an assault on a police officer , of PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG . The article bore the title “ His wife [ is ] the chairperson of the parliamentary ORG from ORG hits policeman in restaurant ” ( “ Vaimo eduskunnan sivistysvaliokunnan puheenjohtaja PERSON asianajaja iski poliisia ravintolassa ” ) .

Follow - up articles were published on DATE and DATE concerning the verdict whereby the defendant was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL months’ suspended imprisonment . It was reported that the defendant was the husband of PERSON , a member of the NORP parliament and the chairperson of its ORG Culture . The headline on DATE read “ ... Husband of member of parliament hits policeman in restaurant ” ( “ ... PERSON aviomies löi poliisia ravintolassa ” ) . The heading on DATE read “ ... Husband of member of parliament receives harsh sentence for violence in restaurant ” ( “ ... GPE miehelle kova tuomio ravintolassa riehumisesta ” ) .

The trial of PERSON had been widely publicised and discussed locally , and the role of PERSON who was in no way involved in the criminal proceedings – had become the subject of , inter alia , political satire in a programme ( “ GPE ) broadcast on the main national television channel .

In DATE , who did not dispute the facts as presented by ORG , instituted proceedings against the applicants and CARDINAL of the journalists involved on the grounds that the reporting by ORG had been libellous and had invaded her privacy . She requested that the respondents be punished for invasion of privacy and defamation , and claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by the articles . Moreover , she relied on LAW of LAW then in force ( valtiopäiväjärjestys , riksdagsordningen ) which stipulated that members of parliament as well as parliamentary officials were to enjoy special protection in the performance of their duties and for the duration of parliamentary sessions . Criminal offences , in the form of words or physical acts , that violated the rights of members of parliament or officials while ORG was in session , or subsequent physical violence , were to be regarded as being committed in particularly aggravating circumstances . According to PERSON , this provision was applicable both in relation to the criminal charges and in determining the amount of damages in her case . She argued that the articles had caused her particular suffering as she had been publicly associated with a criminal act that was in no way connected to her person or function as member of parliament .

As editor - in - chief of ORG the first applicant , PERSON , admitted to being superficially aware of the type of material published but denied any detailed prior knowledge of the specific material in question . According to section DATE of the Freedom of LAW then in force ( painovapauslaki , tryckfrihetslag ; DATE , replaced by Act no . CARDINAL in DATE ) , an editor - in - chief was ultimately responsible for any original material published in his newspaper or periodical , regardless of whether he had in fact been aware of its contents . The defendants also argued that they had only mentioned in their articles that PERSON was married to PERSON , a fact which was not denied by PERSON She had not been otherwise mentioned in the articles . Moreover , the case had already been reported locally and their article contained no new information as such . They also argued that a member of parliament , as a public political figure , must tolerate more from the media than an “ average citizen ” and that it was particularly disturbing that a member of parliament was trying to limit the GPE freedom of expression .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) convicted the first applicant and the CARDINAL other journalists on CARDINAL count of invasion of privacy under particularly aggravating circumstances within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW . The first applicant was ordered to pay CARDINAL day - fines , amounting to CARDINAL NORP markkas ( FIM ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The CARDINAL other journalists were both ordered to pay fines amounting to approximately ORG CARDINAL . In addition , all the defendants , including both applicants , were ordered to pay damages as requested by the plaintiff ( jointly and severally with a co - defendant , FIM CARDINAL,CARDINAL with interest from DATE , and jointly and severally with another co - defendant , FIM CARDINAL with interest on ORG CARDINAL from DATE and with interest on ORG CARDINAL from DATE ) , namely , . a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . All the defendants were ordered to reimburse PERSON jointly and severally in respect of her legal expenses of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) with interest from DATE . The defamation charges were dropped .

ORG found that , as a whole , the banner headlines , the front pages and the articles themselves were published with the purpose of drawing the ORG attention principally to PERSON marital relationship with PERSON and not with the purpose of depicting the events as such . It further found that the highlighted publication of PERSON name , picture and professional status was in no way necessary in order to report on the criminal trial of PERSON It acknowledged that the protection of the private life of PERSON , as a member of parliament , was narrower than that of other persons , but only in so far as the matters in question were connected to her public functions and there was a public interest justifying their publication . The fact that the conviction of the spouse of a politician could affect people ’s voting intentions did not in itself render the matter of public interest such as to justify the publication .

ORG held that the fact that the actions of the plaintiff ’s husband and the criminal proceedings against him had been well known in their home district and the fact that the local newspapers had been reporting the matter had no bearing on the GPE liability . According to the judgment , it was the nationwide publicity accorded by ORG and the resultant infringement of the plaintiff ’s protected private domain that had essentially constituted the criminal offence in question .

It further held that , although the reasons underlying section CARDINAL of LAW could be regarded as outdated , it was a mandatory provision , leading to conviction for an offence categorised as aggravated .

As to the determination of the amount of compensation for suffering , ORG noted that the plaintiff herself , especially as she was also a doctor and thus an expert , was best placed to assess her own situation and the damage she had sustained .

On DATE ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) dismissed the joint appeal of the defendants and upheld ORG judgment without any observations on the merits of the case , save for a minor correction of the lower court ’s statement as to the alleged unlawful benefit accruing to the publishers . ORG added that regardless of this correction the damages awarded to the plaintiff were not to be considered excessive .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) refused the defendants leave to appeal .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Suomen hallitusmuoto , regeringsformen för GPE ) , as in force at the relevant time , stipulated that the private life , honour and home of every person was to be protected . This provision corresponds to section CARDINAL of LAW ( perustuslaki , grundlagen ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which came into force on DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , afforded everyone the right to freedom of expression . Freedom of expression entailed the right to express , disseminate and receive information , opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone . This provision corresponds to LAW .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( valtiopäiväjärjestys , riksdagsordningen ) , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :

“ If a person , either in the course of a parliamentary session or while a member of parliament is travelling to or from ORG , abuses the said member of parliament by any word or deed , knowing that the person so abused is a member of parliament , or if a person assaults a member of parliament after a parliamentary session because of the manner in which he or she has carried out his or her duties , the fact that the victim of the offence was a member of parliament shall be deemed to be a seriously aggravating circumstance . ”

This provision was later repealed by LAW ( section CARDINAL ) .

Chapter DATE ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen ) , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :

“ A person who unlawfully , through the use of the mass media or in another similar manner , publicly spreads information , an insinuation or an image depicting the private life of another person , such as to cause him or her damage or suffering , shall be convicted of invasion of privacy and sentenced to a maximum term of imprisonment of DATE or to a fine . A publication that deals with a person ’s behaviour in a public office or function , in professional life , in a political activity or in another comparable activity , shall not be considered an invasion of privacy if the reporting was necessary for the purpose of dealing with a matter of importance to society . ”

According to the Government , persons in respect of whom the protection of private life is narrower in scope include public officials , politicians and persons with important positions in the business world ( government bill , HE CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .

Chapter DATE , section CARDINAL , of LAW was repealed in DATE by CARDINAL of LAW ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which reads as follows :

“ Dissemination of information violating private life : A person who unlawfully ( CARDINAL ) through the use of the mass media , or ( CARDINAL ) in another manner publicly spreads information , an insinuation or an image of the private life of another person , such that the act is likely to cause that person damage or suffering , or subject that person to contempt , shall be convicted of damaging personal reputation and sentenced to a fine or a maximum term of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

The spreading of information , an insinuation or an image of the private life of a person in politics , business , public office or a public position , or in a comparable position , shall not constitute damage to personal reputation , if it may affect the evaluation of that person ’s activities in the position in question and if it is necessary for the purposes of dealing with a matter of importance to society . ”

According to a report by the parliament ’s ORG ( lakivaliokunta , lagutskottet ) , functions in respect of which the protection of private life is , under paragraph CARDINAL , narrower in scope , include political functions , business functions , and public functions or duties . Information on the private life of persons having such functions may be disclosed where the information may affect the assessment of the performance of their duties . Furthermore , the person ’s consent to the disclosure of the information is relevant to the assessment of the lawfulness of the interference . Without explicit consent , there is usually no reason to believe that the person in question would have consented to the publication of information relating to their private life ( see the report of ORG , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

According to section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Freedom of the Press Act ( as in force at the relevant time ) , LAW was to be applied to the payment of compensation for damage resulting from the content of printed works .

NORP Under the terms of LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( vahingonkorvauslaki , skadeståndslagen ; CARDINAL ) , damages may also be awarded for the distress arising from an offence against someone ’s liberty , honour or domestic peace or from another comparable offence .

According to the government bill to amend LAW ( HE CARDINAL ) , the maximum amount of compensation for pain and suffering from , inter alia , bodily injuries had in the recent past been MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . In the subsequent government bill to amend LAW ( HE CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , it is stated that no changes to the prevailing level of compensation for suffering are proposed .

Chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , of the Code of Judicial Procedure ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) provides that if the issue relates to the quantum of damages and no evidence is available , or if evidence can only be presented with difficulty , the court shall have the power to assess the quantum having regard to what is reasonable .

On DATE ORG delivered CARDINAL judgments relating to articles which had given information on cases of arson . The first judgment ( ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) concerned a newspaper article ( summary from ORG Yearbook ) :

“ A newspaper published an article concerning cases of arson , in which it was said that the suspect was the wife of the head of a local fire department . As it was not even alleged that the head of the fire department had any role in the events , there was no justifiable reason for publishing the information on the marriage between him and the suspect . The publisher , the editor - in - chief and the journalist who wrote the article were ordered to pay compensation for the suffering caused by the violation of the right to respect for private life . ”

The other judgment ( ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) concerned an article published in a periodical , which was based on the aforementioned newspaper article ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on the records of the pre - trial investigation and the court proceedings , but did not indicate that the newspaper article had been used as a source ( summary from the ORG ) :

“ Compensation was ordered to be paid for the reason that the article violated the right to respect for private life . Another issue at stake in the precedent was the relevance to liability for damages and the amount of compensation of the fact that the information had been reported in another publication at an earlier stage . ”

The article published in the periodical had also mentioned the name and profession of the head of the fire department , although the offence was not related to the performance of his duties . Thus , it had not been necessary to refer to his position as head of the fire department or to his marriage to the suspect in order to give an account of the offence .

ORG considered that the fact that the information had previously been published in print did not relieve the defendants of their responsibility to ensure , before publishing the information again , that the article did not contain information insulting the persons mentioned in it . The mere fact that the interview with the head of the fire department had been published in the newspaper did not justify the conclusion that he had also consented to its publication in the periodical .

ORG further found that repeating a violation did not necessarily cause the same amount of damage and suffering as the initial violation . The readers of the newspaper and the periodical were partly different , and the circulation of the newspaper apparently did not entirely coincide with that of the periodical . Therefore , and considering the differences in the content and tone of the articles , ORG found it established that the article published in the periodical was conducive to causing the head of the fire department additional mental suffering .

The publisher and its partners were ordered jointly to pay ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) plus interest for the mental suffering caused to the head of the fire department .

According to ORG , the events reported in the article did not concern the plaintiff ’s conduct in the performance of his duties as head of the fire department and it had not been necessary to mention the complainant ’s name and profession for the purpose of discussing a matter involving significant public interest . It had not been necessary to refer to the complainant ’s profession in order to report on the offences . By associating the complainant ’s name and profession with the offences in question , the article had unlawfully spread information and insinuations concerning his private life likely to cause him damage and suffering . The disclosure of the complainant ’s name and the emphasis on his occupation had amounted to an insult . By again reporting on DATE after the events had occurred , the periodical was found to have caused the complainant additional suffering for which separate compensation was to be paid .

In another judgment ( ORG CARDINAL ) , ORG held as follows ( summary from the ORG ) :

“ The accused had picked up a photograph of the plaintiff from the archives of a newspaper and published it in the context of an electoral campaign without the plaintiff ’s consent . He was convicted of a violation of private life and ordered , jointly with the political organisations which had acted as publishers , to pay damages for mental suffering . ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - National law;Minor offences;Review of conviction;Criminal offence);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , and live in the town of PERSON , the village of PERSON and the village of PERSON respectively , ORG .

The applicants were members of the main opposition parties at the material time in GPE . The first applicant was the Chairman of ORG . The second applicant was a member of ORG . The third applicant was a member of the LOC of ORG .

NORP In DATE and DATE a presidential election was held in GPE which was won by the incumbent President . The international election observation mission concluded that the overall election process fell short of international standards . It appears that mass protests followed . The main opposition candidate challenged the election results in ORG , which on DATE recommended that a referendum of confidence in the re - elected President be held in GPE within DATE .

As the April CARDINAL DATE deadline approached , the united opposition stepped up its campaign to challenge the legitimacy of the reelected President . A series of protest rallies were organised in GPE in DATE and DATE , calling for the referendum of confidence . According to the applicants , several demonstrations were scheduled for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE which they intended to attend .

The first applicant alleged that on DATE at TIME he was visited at his home by a plain clothes police officer who informed him that the Chief of ORG wished to speak with him . He complied with the order and was taken to the police station . According to the first applicant , he did not question the police officer ’s demands since DATE he had already been invited by the Chief of ORG who wanted to become familiar with the leaders of the opposition parties .

According to the first applicant ’s arrest record and other police materials , the first applicant was taken to the police station by several police officers on DATE at TIME The arrest record stated that the first applicant had been brought to the police station for inspection purposes in order to confiscate illegal ammunition in his possession .

At the police station an administrative case was initiated against the first applicant under LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) for disobeying the lawful orders of police officers .

One of the arresting police officers reported to the Chief of ORG that :

“ ... on DATE ... [ the first applicant ] who , according to information obtained , kept at his house illegal ammunition , was brought to [ the police station ] . While being brought to [ the police station , the first applicant ] disobeyed our lawful order , flatly refused to come to the station and used foul language addressed both at us and the regime . The row lasted TIME , after which [ the first applicant ] was brought to [ the police station ] . [ The first applicant ] was brought to [ the police station ] for preventive purposes and for surrendering the ammunition in his possession . ”

The first applicant was subjected to a personal search but nothing of an illegal nature was found in his possession . He alleged that a written statement was then presented to him , in which it was stated that he had refused to obey the orders of the police officers when asked to accompany them to the police station , had become annoyed at them , had used offensive language and had prevented their work for TIME . He refused to sign that statement .

Shortly thereafter the first applicant was brought before Judge PERSON of ORG who , after a brief hearing , sentenced him under LAW of the CAO to DATE of administrative detention . The judge ’s entire finding amounted to the following :

“ On DATE at TIME [ the first applicant ] disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers when asked to go with them to ORG on suspicion of illegal possession of ammunition , for which on DATE at TIME he was taken to ORG . The commission of the offence by [ the first applicant ] is corroborated by the [ police ] report , [ the arrest record ] , the record of an administrative offence and other relevant information . ”

According to this decision , the first applicant ’s detention period was to be calculated from TIME on DATE .

According to the record of the court hearing , the judge informed the first applicant of his right to challenge the judge and the clerk and his right to have a lawyer . The first applicant did not wish to lodge any challenges or to have a lawyer . The judge then proceeded with examination of the materials of the case . The judge heard the police officer presenting the case and the first applicant who claimed that he had not committed any administrative offence and refused to make further submissions . The judge continued the examination of evidence and decided to impose an administrative penalty .

According to the first applicant , the hearing lasted TIME , without examination of witnesses and without him being able to make any submissions or being represented by counsel , his request to see a lawyer having been refused .

The first applicant was taken to the detention facility of ORG to serve his sentence . According to the register of administrative detention , the first applicant was admitted to the detention facility at TIME

The third applicant alleged that on DATE at TIME he was visited at his home by QUANTITY police officers who told him to accompany them to ORG . The third applicant asked for reasons , to which the police officers replied that they were not authorised to explain and that he would be informed of the reasons at the police station . The third applicant then accompanied the officers to the police station .

According to the third applicant ’s arrest record and other materials of the case , the third applicant was taken to the police station at TIME on DATE on suspicion of having been involved in a traffic accident . The arrest record added that , when being brought to the police station , the third applicant obstructed the lawful work of the police officers for TIME .

The third applicant alleged that at the police station he asked to see the Chief of ORG . TIME he met with the Chief who told him that he was to be detained and that nothing could be done about this as it had been ordered from above . He was then taken to the investigation department where an administrative case against him was initiated under LAW disobeying the lawful orders of police officers for TIME . Only then did he find out the reason for his arrest .

The Government contested the above allegations . They claimed that the third applicant had been informed orally of the reason for his arrest , namely his use of foul language and disobeying the lawful orders of the police officers , at the time of his arrest .

“ ... on DATE at TIME in the area of QUANTITY of the MargaraEjmiatsin highway the driver of a car , whose model and licence number are unknown , ran over [ a third person , PERSON ] , causing grave physical injuries .

For the purpose of a check , based on operative information obtained , we visited the village of ORG in order to take the resident of the same village , [ the third applicant ] , together with his [ car ] , to the police station .

It turned out that the car was not at home , while [ the third applicant ] showed a disrespectful attitude , started to argue and use foul language , calling the NORP state oppressive . We finally managed to calm [ him ] down and to bring him to the police station . ”

The third applicant noted in his arrest record and his written statement that he had “ not committed any offence ” . He refused to sign any of the other materials . None of the materials in the third applicant ’s administrative case indicated the time of his arrest .

Shortly thereafter the third applicant was brought before Judge PERSON of ORG who , after a brief hearing , sentenced him under LAW of the CAO to DATE of administrative detention . The judge ’s entire finding amounted to the following :

“ For the purposes of verifying the information obtained , according to which [ a person had been hit in a traffic accident ] sustaining serious physical injuries , [ the police officers ] visited the village of ORG ... in order to take [ the third applicant and his car ] to the police station ... [ NORP the visit [ the third applicant ] behaved disrespectfully and started to argue , use foul language and behave disrespectfully towards the NORP public authorities , hindering the work of the police for TIME . The police officers managed to calm [ the third applicant ] down and to bring him to ORG . [ The third applicant ] denied committing the offence . The commission of the offence by [ the third applicant ] is corroborated by the record of an administrative offence , the [ police ] report and [ the arrest record ] . ”

According to this decision , the third applicant ’s detention period was to be calculated from TIME on DATE .

According to the record of the court hearing , the judge informed the third applicant of his right to challenge the judge and to have a lawyer . The third applicant did not wish to lodge any challenges or to have a lawyer . The judge then proceeded with the examination of the materials of the case . The judge heard the third applicant who claimed that he had not committed any administrative offence and pleaded not guilty . He denied having used foul language or behaved disrespectfully towards the ORG . Thereafter , the judge examined the materials prepared by the police . No further evidence was produced or motions filed by the third applicant . The judge departed to the deliberation room , after which he returned and announced the decision .

According to the third applicant , the hearing lasted TIME and the judge refused to listen to any of his arguments .

The third applicant was taken to the detention facility of the ORG to serve his sentence , sharing a cell with the first and the second applicants . According to the register of administrative detention , the third applicant was admitted to the detention facility at TIME

The first and the third applicants alleged that on DATE , DATE of their detention , at TIME they were taken together to ORG . After waiting in the corridor of the courthouse for TIME , they were both taken back to the temporary detention facility at ORG . TIME they were again taken to ORG where they were brought before Judges PERSON and ORG respectively . At the conclusion of brief hearings conducted in the same manner as those on DATE and DATE , they were sentenced under LAW of administrative detention for disobeying the lawful orders of police officers .

The Government contested this allegation , relying on the following materials of the case .

According to the register of administrative detentions , the first and the third applicants were released from detention on DATE at TIME and TIME respectively upon expiry of their sentences .

According to their respective arrest records and other police materials , the first and the third applicants were re - arrested at TIME and TIME respectively in front of the police station for using foul language and disobeying the lawful orders of the police officers who tried to calm them down . At the police station administrative cases were initiated against them under LAW ORG .

A police officer ’s report made in the first applicant ’s case stated that :

“ ... on DATE at TIME I was approaching the building of the Armavir Police Department[. A person was standing in the yard of the ORG ] and using swearwords . I approached him in order to call him to order , however , [ he ] maliciously disobeyed my lawful orders[. I ] tried for TIME to call him to order . The mentioned [ person ] was brought to the police station where it was established that he was ... [ the first applicant ] who had just been released from administrative detention ... ”

A police officer ’s report made in the third applicant ’s case stated that :

“ ... on DATE at TIME I was approaching the building of the Armavir Police Department[. A person was standing in the yard of the GPE ] and using random swearwords . I approached him in order to call him to order , however , [ he ] maliciously disobeyed my lawful orders , using foul language for TIME . The mentioned [ person ] was brought to the police station where it was established that he was ... [ the third applicant ] who had just been released from administrative detention ... ”

According to the Government , at TIME the first applicant was taken to ORG where a new sentence was imposed on him . The third applicant was also taken to ORG shortly after his arrest and subjected to a new administrative penalty .

The judges’ findings in respect of both applicants were virtually the same and stated that on DATE the first and the third applicants , at TIME and TIME respectively , had randomly used swearwords in front of ORG . The police officers had tried to call them to order but the first and the third applicants had maliciously disobeyed their lawful orders and used foul language for TIME . The first and the third applicants denied their guilt which was , however , corroborated by the records of an administrative offence , the police reports and the arrest records .

According to the respective court decisions , the first applicant ’s detention period was to be calculated from TIME on DATE , while the third applicant ’s detention period was to be calculated from TIME on DATE .

According to the records of the court hearings , the trials were conducted in a manner similar to that reflected in the records of the hearings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .

The first and the third applicants were then taken to the detention facility of ORG where they fully served their sentences , sharing a cell with the second applicant . According to the register of administrative detention , the first applicant was admitted to the detention facility at TIME on DATE , while the third applicant at TIME on the same date . The time of their release was indicated as TIME and TIME respectively on DATE .

On DATE between CARDINAL and TIME the second applicant was visited at his home by several police officers . The police officers informed the second applicant that he was suspected of hiding a wanted person in his home . The officers proceeded to conduct a search of the house . The person for whom they were searching was not found .

The second applicant alleged that , following the search , the police captain invited him to accompany them to ORG . He replied that ORG opened at TIME and that he would go there on foot . The police officers then tried to force him into their car and take him to ORG .

At the police station an administrative case was initiated against the second applicant under LAW ORG . The police officers drew up a record of the second applicant ’s arrest , in which it was stated that he had been “ brought to the police station on DATE at TIME for disobeying the lawful orders of the police officers , using foul language and obstructing the work of the police for TIME ” .

CARDINAL of the arresting police officers reported to the Chief of ORG that :

“ ... on DATE ... I and [ CARDINAL other police officers ] visited the village of GPE ... where , according to information obtained , [ a wanted person ] was hiding in [ the second applicant ’s ] home . During our visit to [ the second applicant ’s ] home , [ the second applicant ] disobeyed our lawful orders , used foul language , answered our questions with a question and obstructed our work for TIME . ”

The second applicant made a written statement in which he submitted that :

“ ... during the search a disagreement arose in the discussion between me and a police officer : the police officers were inviting me to ORG to which I replied that I wanted to go there on foot , which they did not accept . Thereafter , I followed them to [ the police station ] . The disagreement between me and the police officers lasted DATE . ”

DATE at TIME the second applicant was brought before Judge PERSON of ORG who , after a brief hearing , sentenced the second applicant under LAW of administrative detention . The judge ’s entire finding amounted to the following :

“ On DATE [ the police officers ] visited [ the second applicant ’s ] flat where , according to information obtained , [ a wanted person ] was hiding . During the visit [ the second applicant ] obstructed the police officers for TIME , did not follow their lawful orders and used foul language , for which he was taken to ORG . [ The second applicant ] admitted and regretted having committed the offence . The commission of the offence by [ the second applicant ] is also corroborated by the record of an administrative offence , the [ police ] report , and [ the arrest record ] . ”

According to this decision , the second applicant ’s detention period was to be calculated from TIME on DATE .

According to the record of the court hearing , the trial was conducted in a manner similar to other hearings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . The second applicant admitted to having committed an administrative offence and pleaded guilty .

The second applicant contested the version of the trial presented in the above record and alleged that no witnesses were examined during the hearing and his request to be represented by a lawyer was refused . At no time did he admit to having committed an offence .

The second applicant was taken to the detention facility of ORG to serve his sentence , sharing a cell with the first and the third applicants . According to the register of administrative detention , the first applicant was admitted to the detention facility at TIME

The second applicant alleged that on DATE at TIME before the expiry of his sentence , he was taken to the investigator ’s office . There he was presented with a second charge . At TIME he was taken from the detention cell and brought before Judge PERSON of ORG . A brief hearing took place , conducted in the same manner as that on DATE .

The Government contested this allegation . They submitted that the second applicant was released from detention on DATE at TIME following the expiry of his sentence . At TIME he was re - arrested at the crossroads of GPE and FAC which was QUANTITY away from ORG where he had been serving his first sentence . At TIME he was brought before Judge PERSON

According to the register of administrative detention , the second applicant was released from detention at TIME on DATE upon expiry of his sentence . According to the record of the second applicant ’s arrest , he was “ brought to the police station on DATE at TIME for using foul language at the police officers and maliciously disobeying their lawful orders for TIME ” . The applicant refused to sign this record and to make a written statement .

A police officer ’s report stated that :

“ ... on DATE at TIME at the crossroads of GPE and FAC ... I noticed a citizen who was swearing loudly . I approached him to call him to order but he started to swear at me and the police . For TIME I tried to call him to order but he disobeyed my lawful orders , for which I brought him to the police station where it turned out that he was [ the second applicant ] who had just been released from administrative detention . ”

Judge PERSON sentenced the applicant under LAW of administrative detention . The judge ’s entire finding amounted to the following :

“ On DATE at around TIME on FAC ... [ the second applicant ] for TIME maliciously disobeyed the lawful order of [ the police officer ] ... [ The second applicant ] did not accept the charges brought against him . He stated that he had not used foul language and swearwords . The charges brought against [ the second applicant ] are corroborated by [ the police report , the arrest record and the record of an administrative offence ] . ”

The second applicant was taken to the detention facility of ORG where he served his sentence in full . According to the register of administrative detention , the second applicant was admitted to the detention facility at TIME on DATE and he was released upon expiry of his sentence in DATE ( exact date illegible ) at TIME

While serving their second administrative sentences the applicants complained to ORG that within the period from DATE to DATE they had been unlawfully taken to ORG in DATE , from where , after having been presented with trumped - up charges , they were transported to ORG . Judges PERSON and PERSON , without trying to clarify any circumstance or to examine any witnesses in connection with the “ charges ” against them , adopted pre - ordered decisions subjecting them to CARDINAL and seven days of administrative detention . Upon expiry of their respective administrative sentences , they had not been released from detention but instead new trumped - up “ charges ” were brought against them , following which Judges PERSON , NORP and PERSON subjected them to DATE of administrative detention . The applicants claimed that such actions by the authorities were directly linked with the demonstrations held in GPE and that they were being detained for their political views .

According to the applicants , following their release from detention , they continued to be visited frequently by police officers . DATE after their release they were each visited by the Head of the ORG who attempted to persuade them not to become involved actively in opposition politics . The applicants were invited to appear at the police office on this occasion and periodically thereafter whenever a political demonstration was due to take place . They did not take up these invitations due to the fear that they would be detained once again on allegedly falsified charges .

The applicants allege that , as a result of the frequent police visits , the first applicant had to move away from his home . The second applicant was subjected to DATE visits , causing great stress to his family . On TIME CARDINAL DATE his home was surrounded by police with dogs . He left his home unnoticed , following which the police entered his home and carried out a search . As a result of these visits , the second applicant was unable to undertake farming work on his land , attend to DATE chores or partake in social life , spending most of his time hiding from the police .

On DATE the first and the third applicants complained to the ORG about the continuing observation by the police . On DATE and CARDINAL May CARDINAL the second applicant also complained to the ORG about the same and about the events of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG decided to admit the applicants’ case for examination .

For a summary of the relevant provisions of the ORG see the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ) . The provisions of the ORG which were not cited in the above judgment , as in force at the material time , provide :

’s personality , the application of these measures would be deemed insufficient , of administrative detention not exceeding DATE . ”

The relevant extracts from the ORG provide :

“ CARDINAL . Since DATE , a series of protests have been organised by the opposition forces in GPE , calling for a ‘ referendum of confidence’ in President PERSON . The possibility of such a referendum was first mentioned by ORG following the presidential elections in DATE . ORG later clarified its proposal and the authorities are calling the opposition demands and protests an attempt to seize power by force .

NORP The demonstrations , although announced , were not authorised by the authorities , who have threatened the organisers with criminal prosecution . Following the demonstrations on DATE , ORG opened criminal investigations against several members of the opposition and arrested many more , in connection with the opposition parties’ rally . On the same occasion , several journalists and politicians were beaten up by unknown persons while the police stood by and took no action .

New demonstrations took place on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE in GPE . In TIME of DATE , the security forces violently dispersed CARDINAL protesters who were attempting to march towards the presidential palace , calling for President PERSON ’s resignation . The police reportedly used truncheons , water cannons and tear gas , causing CARDINAL of injuries . A number of protesters were arrested , including members of parliament , some of whom are members of the ORG , and some were allegedly mistreated by the police while in custody . The security forces also assaulted and arrested several journalists who were covering the opposition rally .

Tensions in GPE continue to run high ; new protests are planned for DATE of DATE . For the time - being there seems to be little room for dialogue between the authorities and the opposition , even if some offers have been made and some members of the ruling majority DATE for example , the Speaker of ORG – have begun criticising the heavy - handed crackdown on demonstrations .

With regard to the conduct of the authorities , ORG ... is particularly concerned with the fact that :

i. arrests , including those carried out on the basis of LAW , ignored the demand to immediately end the practice of administrative detention and to change LAW used as a legal basis for this practice ; ...

The ORG calls upon the NORP authorities to : ...

iii . NORP immediately release the persons detained for their participation in the demonstrations and immediately end the practice of administrative detention and amend LAW to this effect ... ”

The ORG contains an explanatory memorandum to the draft of the PACE Resolution CARDINAL . The relevant extracts from the explanatory memorandum provide :

“ Since DATE , opposition forces in GPE decided to jointly organise mass protests to force a ‘ referendum of confidence’ in President PERSON . The possibility of such a referendum was first mentioned by ORG following the presidential elections in DATE , which were strongly criticised by the international community . ...

The NORP authorities reacted to the opposition call for protests with a campaign of political intimidation and administrative and judicial harassment . Once the protests started , the reaction was even more ruthless . Demonstrations were violently dispersed , journalists were beaten up , a large number of opposition supporters were arrested and premises of the opposition parties were raided by the police .

In DATE the ORG adopted its second monitoring report since the accession of GPE to ORG in DATE . Resolution CARDINAL , adopted on this occasion , takes note of some encouraging developments that took place in DATE ...

However , the ORG ... sharply criticised the [ presidential and parliamentary ] elections carried out in DATE . Moreover , it listed a number of serious concerns with regard to the democratic and human rights conduct of the NORP authorities and expressed its expectations that these issues will be speedily dealt with in accordance with ORG standards and principles .

Regrettably , the reaction of the NORP authorities in the events of DATE and DATE ] demonstrate that the ORG ’s request for further progress was ignored and that , with regard to some of the ORG ’s key concerns , the situation has even worsened .

Administrative detention

With regard to the scandalous and continued use of administrative detention , Resolution CARDINAL urged the authorities to amend LAW to put an end to this practice which is incompatible with the organisation ’s standards . The ORG also asked the authorities to submit this new draft to ORG expertise by DATE .

Instead of immediately ending this practice and preparing the necessary legislative drafts to this effect , the NORP authorities resorted to a wide use of administrative detentions during the recent events . While it is difficult to verify the exact number of persons who were arrested and the legal basis used for their detention , most reports indicate that their number was CARDINAL .

The ORG repeats its demand for an immediate end to the practice of administrative detention . LAW must be revised without any further delay . ... ”

The relevant extracts of the Briefing Paper provide :

“ At DATE , GPE ’s political opposition united in mass peaceful protests to force a “ referendum of confidence ” in President PERSON and to call for his resignation . In response , the NORP government embarked on a campaign to break the popular support for the political opposition with mass arrests , violent dispersal of demonstrations , raids on political party headquarters , repression of journalists , and restrictions on travel to prevent people from participating in demonstrations . CARDINAL of people were detained , many for DATE ; some were tortured or ill - treated in custody ...

The origin of the opposition ’s demands was the government ’s failure to date to redress the deeply flawed DATE presidential election , which PERSON , the incumbent , won . Disturbingly , the government is now repeating , with increasing violence , a pattern of repression that surrounded DATE election . At that time , the international community warned the NORP government that its intimidation of the opposition through the use of arrests and administrative detentions must stop . However , in DATE and DATE , the NORP government not only began a fresh campaign of detentions , but added to the intimidation with security force violence . ...

At DATE , CARDINAL of the main opposition groups , the ORG ( Justice ) Alliance , which consists of CARDINAL parties – including ORG , ORG , and ORG – joined forces and announced its campaign of action . Following this move , the opposition intensified its efforts , making further announcements and mobilising in GPE ’s provinces . The authorities responded by restricting freedom of movement , carrying out detentions , and threatening criminal charges against opposition campaign organisers . ...

From [ DATE ] the number of rallies in GPE steadily increased , as did the number of opposition supporters detained or otherwise intimidated . ORG estimated that from DATE until [ DATE ] , police had detained , searched , or harassed CARDINAL of its supporters . ...

From DATE until DATE , police restricted the movement of opposition supporters trying to travel to GPE to attend rallies by setting up road blocks , stopping cars , questioning the passengers , and denying permission to travel further to those they believed were opposition supporters . ...

On TIME of [ DATE ] , between [ TIME and TIME ] , police stopped CARDINAL members of ORG in CARDINAL cars at a check point as they were leaving PERSON , GPE ’s third largest city , on the main road to GPE . They were intending to participate in a rally at [ TIME ] in GPE . Police held the CARDINAL men at the Vanadzor police station , reportedly telling them , ‘ we have saved you from being beaten in Yerevan’ . Police took CARDINAL of the men to the local courts , which sentenced them to DATE of administrative detention for not following police orders . ...

It is difficult to estimate the total number of opposition supporters detained since DATE . By DATE , ORG had documented the detentions of CARDINAL opposition supporters , and ORG estimated that CARDINAL of its members had been either detained , harassed , or searched ...

[ Some opposition supporters ] were detained and held for from TIME . Many were held and then released with no documentation or registration of the arrest ever having occurred . Others were taken to court , and given penalties of DATE in custody for petty offences under LAW .

The trials were cursory , flouting all international protections for a fair trial , and repeating a pattern of abuses with administrative detentions documented during the DATE presidential elections . Defendants in administrative cases were denied access to lawyers , not able to present evidence , and routinely convicted on the basis of TIME of police evidence . Practical barriers to appeal make it virtually impossible to take the cases to higher courts . ... ”

The ORG contains a chapter devoted to GPE whose relevant extracts provide :

“ Opposition demonstrations in DATE ] were part of a DATE campaign of mass public protests launched by opposition political parties demanding the resignation of President PERSON . ... During their campaign CARDINAL of opposition supporters , including prominent opposition party members , were reportedly arbitrarily detained throughout the country and CARDINAL were sentenced to CARDINAL days’ administrative detention after trials that were said to have fallen far short of international fair trial standards ... ”

DATE . The relevant extracts of the ORG provide :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL Right to Freedom of Movement

The early stages of the Defender ’s activities coincided with the demonstrations that were held in the country during DATE and DATE .

The opposition began to hold demonstrations and meetings with constituents in several regions starting in DATE . The authorities did not interfere with these meetings .

The first time the authorities interfered with the demonstrations was at DATE in PERSON , which involved the arrest of demonstration participants and the commencement of criminal cases against them . ...

The Defender found a number of human rights violations in police actions regarding demonstrations held in the capital city in DATE .

On DATE of the demonstrations , the police reportedly limited the movement of public transport into the capital city , which violated ORG right to freedom of movement within the country . ...

During this period , individuals were frequently apprehended for administrative infractions and taken to police stations where administrative detention was ordered against them by the court .

A review of these cases shows that the legislation on administrative infractions was abused : “ foul language ” was cited as a basis for sentencing a person to administrative detention . ...

CARDINAL Right to Conduct Meetings , Gatherings , Rallies and Protests

The Defender took from the courts a number of cases related to administrative infractions and conducted a thorough study . The findings were sent to ORG and , in light of the apparent abuses of power in such cases , it was recommended that the guilty parties be punished . Some of the NORP ’s findings were isolated and sent to ORG for corroboration and processing . The regional prosecutor later announced that no crime was identified . The police officers in question were given warnings for some of the less significant violations . ”

The local DATE , ORG , published an interview with the Chairman of ORG ( IAAA ) , PERSON T. TerYesayan , which included a list of opposition political activists , compiled jointly by the opposition forces and the ORG , who had been allegedly detained by the authorities in DATE and DATE . The list contained a total of CARDINAL names and featured the first , second and third applicants at spots CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively .